Hydrogen peroxide in cigarette smoke causes lung cancer.

Scientists discover how cigarette smoke causes cancer

Everyone has known for decades that that smoking can kill, but until now no one really understood how cigarette smoke causes healthy lung cells to become cancerous. In a new research report published in the March 2008 print issue of The FASEB Journal, researchers from the University of California, Davis, show that hydrogen peroxide (or similar oxidants) in cigarette smoke is the culprit.

This finding may help the tobacco industry develop “safer” cigarettes by eliminating such substances in the smoke, while giving medical researchers a new avenue to developing lung cancer treatments.

“With the five-year survival rate for people with lung cancer at a dismally low 15.5 percent, we hope this study will provide better insight into the identification of new therapeutic targets,” said Tzipora Goldkorn, senior author of the report.

In the research study, Goldkorn and colleagues describe how they exposed different sets of human lung airway cells (in the laboratory) to cigarette smoke and hydrogen peroxide. After exposure, these cells were then incubated for one to two days. Then they, along with unexposed airway cells, were assessed for signs of cancer development. The cells exposed to cigarettes smoke and the cells exposed to hydrogen peroxide showed the same molecular signatures of cancer development, while the unexposed cells did not.

“Guns kill, bombs kill and cigarettes kill,” said Gerald Weissmann, MD, Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. “While biologists can’t do much about the first two, studies like this will help in the fight against tobacco-related death and disease. These experiments not only pin-point new molecular targets for cancer treatment, but also identify culprits in cigarette smoke that eventually will do the smoker in.”

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States, resulting in more than 400,000 deaths per year or about 1 in 5 U.S. deaths overall. Smoking accounts for the vast majority of lung cancer deaths, causing 90 percent of all lung cancer deaths in men and about 80 percent in women.

In 2000, a Surgeon General report revealed that tobacco smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, with 43 being known carcinogens. Some of the 4,000 compounds result from chemicals added in processing to improve taste, increase burning times, and prolong shelf life.

Source: Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

http://www.physorg.com/news123408747.html

"YUP", everyone and their brothers n' sisters really didn't know or understandd how cigarette smoke causes lung cancer ....... but now they all were damn sure that the cigarette smoke wasa doing it.

So there now, ya'll feel happy n' giddy n' elated that the expert scientists have finally figgured out what it is in that bad ole cigarette smoke that is so cancer causing dangerous?

Well, ..... that's good, ....... but I betcha this Doctor won't be so easily convinced, to wit:

The intense bubbling you see when hydrogen peroxide comes in contact with a bacteria-laden cut or wound is the oxygen being released and bacteria being destroyed. The ability of our cells to produce hydrogen peroxide is essential for life. H202 is not some undesirable by-product or toxin, but instead a basic requirement for good health.

Newer research indicates we need hydrogen peroxide for a multitude of other chemical reactions that take place throughout the body. For example, we now know that vitamin C helps fight infections by producing hydrogen peroxide, which in turn stimulates the production of prostaglandins. Also lactobacillus found in the colon and vagina produce hydrogen peroxide. This destroys harmful bacteria and viruses, preventing colon disease, vaginitis, bladder infections and a host of other common ailments. (Infect Dis News Aug.8,91:5). When lactobacillus in the colon or vaginal tract have been overrun with harmful viruses, yeast, or bacteria, an effective douche or enema solution can be made using 3 tablespoons of 3% H202 in 1 quart of distilled water. Keep in mind, however, that a good bacterial flora must always be re-established in theses areas to achieve lasting results.

Aerobic versus Anerobic
While we are discussing enemas and douches, there is another misconception about H202 I need to address. The friendly bacteria in the colon and vagina are aerobic. In other words, they flourish in high oxygen environments and thrive in the presence of oxygen rich H202. On the other hand, most strains of harmful bacteria (and cancer cells) are anaerobic and cannot survive in the presence of oxygen or H202. We can agree that hydrogen peroxide produced within individual body cells is essential for life. And no one doubts its effectiveness when it comes to treating infections topically. The controversy deals with ingesting the substance orally or introducing it into the body intravenously. The dispute has been going on for decades, and considering the attitude of our medical community, it will continue for many more decades to come.

I'll admit I was skeptical when I first learned about using H202 orally or intravenously. This healthy dose of skepticism, however, lead to a great deal of investigation, clinical work and experimentation. And while I realize a large majority of readers will probably never be convinced that H202 is a safe and effective compound, I am.

Hydrogen peroxide is safe, readily available and dirt cheap. And best of all, it works! No one yet fully understands the complete workings of hydrogen peroxide. We do know ..............................

exerted from: The Many Benefits of Hydrogen Peroxide

By Dr. David G. Williams
http://educate-yourself.org/cancer/benefitsofhydrogenperozide17jul03.shtml
Posted July 17, 2003

(Original title: Hydrogen Peroxide - Curse or Cure?)

http://educate-yourself.org/cancer/benefitsofhydrogenperozide17jul03.shtml

.

Sam I don't understand half of what you post. This science gobblety gook mostly flies right by me. I think it's the way my brain is wired, you'd surely say it's the way I was nurtured.

In any event, I take this to mean you don't believe exposure to hydrogen peroxide can cause cancer because, in part, it is essential for cell life. I hope I'm understanding you correctly.

My thoughts on this are, too much of a lot of "good" things can be fatal. People have died from ingesting too much water! Stephanie's $.02.

Stephanie wrote: I take this to mean you don't believe exposure to hydrogen peroxide can cause cancer because, in part, it is essential for cell life. I hope I'm understanding you correctly.

My thoughts on this are, too much of a lot of "good" things can be fatal. People have died from ingesting too much water! Stephanie's $.02.

Steph, chlorinated water ...... maybe?

Research over the past 30 years has shown that when chlorine interacts with natural organic matter in drinking water, the process can generate byproducts that are linked to an increased risk of certain cancers and birth and developmental defects.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=27290&newsdate=23-Sep-2004

GEEEZE, that was an "autistic" sounding statement, right?

Steph, here, take a minute to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide

Then, considering all the hundreds, ...... if not thousands, ...... of potential sources one can be subjected to minute quantities of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), ........ how can anyone specifically state that it is the minute quantity of H2O2 in cigarette smoke that causes lung cancer?

Stephanie, you will get as much or more exposure to H2O2 because of the "whitening agent" your washing detergent (Tide, Oxydol, etc) than you will from cigarette smoke. To wit:

Fluorescent whitening agents (FWAs) are important additives which improve the appearance of various commercial products, particularly in the paper, plastics, detergent and textile industries. These latter products usually absorb visible radiation in the blue spectral range of natural sunlight, causing them to appear off-white or yellow. FWAs absorb UVA radiation in the range 360-380 nm and reemit it as visible blue or violet light. Small quantities of FWAs dispersed into these products compensate for the unwanted yellow appearance and also reflect more visible light than was originally incident, making them appear whiter and brighter.

Earlier work on FWA-treated wool fabrics exposed to simulated sunlight in the presence of water has shown that hydrogen peroxide is formed and rapid yellowing of the wool occurs [2]. When wool is doped with before irradiation it yellows even more rapidly. However in the presence of reducing agents such as sodium bisulphite or thiourea dioxide far less yellowing is observed [2]. It was suggested that the generation of H2O2 during exposure to sunlight could be responsible for the increased rate of yellowing of FWA-treated wool, especially when wet, which is a serious commercial shortcoming of the fibre [2].

It was not clear from the earlier work whether the wool protein, the FWA or both were involved in the photochemical mechanism resulting in H2O2 generation, although only wet FWA-treated wool produced measurable amounts of H2O2 after irradiation with simulated sunlight [2]. Certain proteins and their photoproducts, particularly those found in eye lenses such as b-crystallin, have been shown to generate H2O2 and superoxide when exposed to UVA radiation [3,4]. Previous work has shown that irradiation of cadmium sulphide, zinc oxide and metal-free phthalocyanine pigment dispersions can also generate superoxide and H2O2 [5-7].

http://www.photobiology.com/v1/Millington/

cheers

Jeepers crow, Sam. Can't you at least post stuff that's in English? I'm telling you my mind can't work that way. Kate's does, though. When we get back from Quiz Bowl (or whatever it's called) I'll ask her to read it and translate it for me. Which leads me to an interesting question or two.

Here I go altering the subject of yet another thread, but I feel compelled to. I love literature. Actually, I love all books. Right now I'm reading Jane Eyre, but nothing is beneath me. Many years ago after my first child was born and money was tight I was reading trashy romance novels because my friend Greg worked next door to a bookstore that tore the covers off and tossed a slew of them. Greg snagged them and so I read them.

I also write fairly well. It isn't something I do much of, but still I am pretty good at it. In the process of divorcing my ex my attorney told me I had to write some sort of narrative indicating why I wanted a divorce. I'm sure he called it something, but a decade later I just can't recall what. I'll never forget his reaction to reading it. He actually asked me if I had written it myself. He told me it was the best he'd ever read. His secretary told me it was brilliant.

On the other hand, when it comes to science and math I'm a dolt. Although I despised her, I am thankful for Mildred Arnold who tortured my 4th grade class with the multiplication tables for the first half of the year and then tortured us with the division tables for the second half. Every night for homework we had to write one of the tables 10x. Every night. We'd do the 1's table on Monday, the 2's on Tuesday and so on through the 12's table and then begin all over again. After a semester of that she had us do the division tables. It was dreadful but to this day I know them and if not for her I'd be really screwed. Now granted, I never got beyond Alg II and that was all forgotten years ago, but I can multiply & divide. Somehow I've managed to live without algebra and geometry skills all these years.

Now my daughter, she is a math and science whiz. I'm serious. She currently has the highest grade in her Alg II class and has straight A's in all of her science classes. The one she took last semester she had the highest grade overall and will receive some sort of award for it. It is very likely she has the top grades in her Bio & Chem classes right now.

On the other hand her reading and writing skills leave something to be desired. I can't tell you how frustrating this is for me. She thinks Dickens is torture. It actually pains me, Sammy. I homeschooled her for a couple of years and made her read, read, read, read and now at least she can read Dickens & Hawthorne but it is a struggle for her and she hates it. OMG how did this happen? When she was small I read to her just as I did her brothers. I've always made sure she had a variety of reading material. Reading has always been a big part of our daily lives.

Doesn't this shoot the "you are what you are nurtured to be" theory out of the water? She's a science geek. I did not nurture that. She just is.....

Water intoxication (also known as hyperhydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain function that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits by water.^[1] Normal, healthy (both physically and nutritionally) individuals have little to worry about accidentally consuming too much water. Nearly all deaths related to water intoxication in normal individuals have resulted either from water drinking contests, in which individuals attempt to consume more than ten litres over the course of just a few minutes, or long bouts of intensive exercise during which electrolytes are not properly replenished, yet massive amounts of fluid are still consumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

Stephanie wrote:

On the other hand, when it comes to science and math I'm a dolt.

Now my daughter, she is a math and science whiz. I'm serious. She currently has the highest grade in her Alg II class and has straight A's in all of her science classes. The one she took last semester she had the highest grade overall and will receive some sort of award for it. It is very likely she has the top grades in her Bio & Chem classes right now.

On the other hand her reading and writing skills leave something to be desired. I can't tell you how frustrating this is for me. She thinks Dickens is torture. It actually pains me, Sammy. I homeschooled her for a couple of years and made her read, read, read, read and now at least she can read Dickens & Hawthorne but it is a struggle for her and she hates it. OMG how did this happen? When she was small I read to her just as I did her brothers. I've always made sure she had a variety of reading material. Reading has always been a big part of our daily lives.

Doesn't this shoot the "you are what you are nurtured to be" theory out of the water? She's a science geek. I did not nurture that. She just is.....

Steph, "no" it doesn't shoot it out of the water, ..... if anything it "confirms it".

Steph, you can't force someone to "read, read, read, read" ...... and like what you force them to read. Such would more than likely be counterproductive to what you were trying to accomplish.

Every person has "a mind of their own" and one can not "force" another person's mind to develop the way they want it to. But they can "nudge n' prod n' push it" in the direction they want it to develop ..... if said is started at a very young age and they do it correctly then they will surely have a measure of success.

Stephanie, one can not read to a child with expectations that said "reading" will make them "want to read" and become good readers themselves. No more than their listening to a TV or a radio will make them want to become a TV or a radio.

Steph, "learning" is like "eating". Some things one know they have to learn to survive just like they have to eat something to survive. Some things they really want to learn because they "have a reason or desire" to learn them ...... just like some things they prefer and want to eat because they taste good to them.

Steph, sometime during your daughter's "growing up" she developed a "reason and desire" to learn more about math and science and really didn't give a hoot about reading those books you were wanting her to read.

Tell ya what, go to the library and see if you can find a copy of The Clan of the Cave Bear, check it out and then ask your daughter to read the first chapter or 2 ...... just to see if she likes it better than reading Dickens.

A big swig of Capt Morgan says she will.

.

OMG Sam I have to tell you this.....

About a week ago we went to the library. They had the usual rack of books for sale. She purchased The Clan of the Cave Bear. I swear she did. She isn't reading it at the moment, she's got reading some book called Tenderness and she has so much going on with that AP Lit class.

She said to tell you you're "one weird dude, cause that's just freaky".

But Sam, my point wasn't that she doesn't care to read Dickens, typically she doesn't care to read for pleasure. She's more like her stepfather. They read for informational purposes. I read for enjoyment.

I have always encouraged her simply to read. My desire to have her read Dickens and Wilde etc is a very recent development. Also, if a read is easy enough, we do enjoy some of the same authors. For example, we both really like Donna Jo Napoli. You have granddaughters, as I recall. Suggest Napoli to them. She does primarily reworking of fairy tales and historical fiction for young adults. She has written some things for younger children though. In any event, she is without a doubt the best author for that age group to come along in many, many years imho. Kate's reading over my shoulder and she's specifically recommending "Daughter of Venice". My personal favorite by her is "Stones In Water". Of course, that was the book that introduced me to Napoli. Of her fairy tales I think I enjoyed Beast & Serena the most. It's hard to choose, because now I'm thinking about how good Breathe was. lol She's agreeing with me on all of these books.

In any event, perhaps my aversion to math and science has more to do with my nurturing than hers. My parents are both very old fashioned in many ways. My father is a decent man and generally a good father but there were always certain things I was either discouraged from doing, or flat out not allowed to do, because I was a girl. I could list examples but it would be pointless. Math & science were not considered to be very important for women to either of my parents. Of course my own mother despises reading. Perhaps I'm just the family freak. I dunno.