Smokers Unite
- This topic has 53 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
So I was sent a very interesting article today, which to most will be an eye-opener.
Have a look at THIS
& see what you think.
It all adds up correctly to me
And to me. I googled Professor Schrauzer and among other links found this one, which reprints some of the same article as your link but provides others as well.
I particularly like this quote from the article:
Nor did Professor Schrauzer stop there. He further testified on oath to [a US congressional] committee that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, adding that “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.”
But why do we smokers cough? Although I agree that with flu or bronchitis, smoking can limit bad coughing fits.
Very interesting CB, I personally feel much more fear of the nuclear bomb testing that North Korea is doing, for several reasons, 1. The metal capability of the Great Leader, 2. The fall out on all of us, 3. Any studies to ascertain if such testing the contributes to earth tremors quakes, weather disturbance. But as an ex smoker, I do feel better than when I did smoke, went cold turkey 12 years ago, after a lot of years!
There is that, BV, many ex-smokers say the same and I don’t doubt it. But could it be reverse psychology? Ex-smokers have given up something that they have been persuaded is harmful, therefore they mentally feel better, which transforms into more physical well-being? Which is not a bad thing.
Sounds like total bollocks to me,
How many people do I know who’ve died of lung cancer? …….several
How many of them were smokers?………. all of them!
I’m an ex-smoker who has occasional lapses, who generally prefers pubs where you’re allowed to smoke and so long as you’re not actually blowing smoke in my face I have no issue with smokers or smoking.
BB
Thought you’d say that @BB
@Vegemitekid , very valid points indeed
@Bluevelvet, well done to you! & well done with regard the point you made about the Nuclear tests conducted, which seem to have slipped others’ minds!
That in and of itself is something everyone should be questioning!
There’s the more conventional history of the link here suggesting that it was first observed in the late 19th century rather than 1945.
You pays your money and takes your choice.
Thanks CB it just got ridiculous so decided to stop!Too much money, the cough plus the anti social part, as Barty said you can no longer sit in a pub or restaurant and smoke. I won’t deny it was hard but I stuck it out and did it!
But in all seriousness, I do feel very concerned about all the muck that’s in the atmosphere , from folks lobbing these bombs about, crop spraying , black smoke pouring out of various chimney, factories etc, not only here but China and Russia and probably a lot of other countries, plus much & chemicals getting into the water supplies. Also you can chuck in land fill as well , as well as plastic everything !
Expensive choices abound!
Another cut’n’paste:
16 Mar 1982
Professor Schrauzer
extractsConcerning the ‘Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act of 82“
G.N. Schrauzer, Ph:D. La Jolla, California
“I am Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, San Diego. I hold a Ph.D. degree in chemistry from the University of Munich and am the president and founder of the International Association of Bioinorganic Scientists.
I am a member of several scientific societies, including the American Chemical Society, the Association of Clinical Scientists, and the American Public Health Association. I am the author of approximately 200 research publications and have edited 2 books.
My main research interests are in cancer-prevention, cancer epidemiology, trace minerals in human and animal nutrition, and various fields of experimental chemistry. I have done pioneering work on the prevention of cancer by the essential trace mineral selenium and in 1978 received a special award from the Santa Clara Section of the American Cancer Society. As a chemist, cancer researcher and American Citizen I wish to comment upon the “Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act”
“In this Act, it is stated, among other things, that “smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer in the United States”. In my opinion, what role, if any, smoking plays in the causation of cancer, including lung cancer, has still to be determined.
Those who claim smoking causes cancer rely upon the reported statistical association and ignore the inconsistencies of the smoking causation theory in the scientific literature.’ For example, to date, no one has ever been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals through exposure to fresh, whole cigarette smoke.
Moreover, the vast majority of smokers never develop lung cancer and there are serious inconsistencies in the epidemiological evidence and dose-response relationships. For example, a Japanese male smoking 50 cigarettes per day has a lower risk of dying from lung cancer than a British smoking doctor smoking only 1-14 cigarettes per day. In addition, no ingredient or combination of ingredients, as found in tobacco smoke, has been shown to cause human lung cancer.”
“Since it is probable that the many hundreds of compounds present in smoke interact with each other, it is highly artificial to focus upon the effects of any one ingredient or combination of ingredients in isolation from the others. It has long been known that certain smoke constituents act as anti-carcinogens in test animals.
For example, tobacco belongs to the selenium accumulating group of plants and selenium has been shown to possess anti-carcinogenic properties.
Also, constituents of cigarette smoke previously thought to be lacking altogether in carcinogenic activity have recently been found to be anti-carcinogenic when applied with true carcinogens in test animals.”
“The “findings” in the “Comprehensive Smoking Prevention Act” have not been proven. Moreover, passage of the Act will divert attention from other etiologic leads to the disadvantage of the American Public and the progress of the health sciences.”
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/03608191-8195.htmlAFFIDAVIT OF GERHARD N. SCHRAUZER 1996
http: //legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=fau45c00Unfortunately though , no matter how good the science if there is even a trace of tobacco money somewhere in your funding, anti-tobacco points it’s gnarled finger.
Thinking about it, it seems that under such circumstances nobody could ever defend themselves as nobody else is likely to pay for studies out of the goodness of their heart and if they did, they’d be tainted too.
Very much like in the 16th century, if someone accuses you of being a witch, anyone who says that you are not a witch is accused of being a witch themselves.
No wonder people keep quiet until after they retire.
STATEMENT OF GERHARD N. SCHRAUZER, PH.D..
Speech
SMOKING AND CANCER; SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER; SMOKING BY-PRODUCTS; TOBACCO SMOKE CONSTITUENTS
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rph99d00;jsessionid=0A4A6FE7FC2BF67B3A604700E13056BE
I have watched two of my close relatives die of lung cancer – both caused by smoking and not a nice way to go at all.
I met a surgeon once who told me he had never had to amputate a limb from a non-smoker (other than accidental causes). He was near retirement so he had had a long career.
I had very major heart surgery two years ago, during the three weeks I was in “re-education” it was very clear that of the people who smoked their recovery was significantly worse than non-smokers. I had a huge operation, a person (a heavy smoker who was 10 years younger than me) who shared a room with me at the hospital had a small op,and after 3 weeks was able to walk 200 metres.I was doing 10km in the same time.
Today I was at the hospital and I saw a notice – If you smoke, stop 8 weeks before an operation. The statistics given were that smokers have 3 times more problems after an operation than non smokers.
Smoke if you want – but don’t try to justify it with phoney science.
Not my phoney science @lunbugel .
My grandmother died of lung cancer, and she NEVER smoked a day of her life.
She was late 60’s. It was in the very early eighties.
How much history of anyone/everyone’s personal case files you could never know.
Jobs they’d had for example.
Where they went on holiday.
What they did while they were there.
What they found and brought back as souvenirs.
Exactly how many they smoked per day.
Other carcinogens they were exposed to in their life, (which even they would be unaware of).
etc.
By the way, the reference to so called ‘Phoney’ science.
IF ( @lunbugel ) what you are referring to is the article I presented in the O.P.
Then may I ask what your thoughts are about the ‘Scientific’ discoveries you read about, and their authenticity?
Not every one who develops lung cancer got it from smoking – as is the case with your grandmother.
But, smoking is a major cause of cancer – here is an extract from the Cancer Research website…
“Experts agree that tobacco is the single biggest avoidable cause of cancer in the world. Smoking causes over a quarter (28 per cent) of cancer deaths in the UK and nearly one in five cancer cases.
And smoking doesn’t only cause cancer. It also causes tens of thousands of deaths each year in the UK from other conditions, including heart and lung problems. Tobacco was responsible for more than 100 million deaths worldwide in the 20th Century. The World Health Organisation has estimated that, if current trends continue, tobacco could cause a billion deaths in the 21st Century.
Up to two thirds of all long-term smokers will be killed by their habit. On average smokers lose around a decade of life compared with non-smokers.
More than 4 in 5 UK lung cancers are caused by smoking. Lung cancer is by far the most common cause of cancer death in the UK.
People who smoke were first shown to be more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers in 1950. This study found that people who smoked around 20 cigarettes a day had 26 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers. And people who smoked around 3 cigarettes a day still had 6 times the lung cancer risk of non-smokers.
After these first results came out, UK scientists began a large long-running study of smoking in British doctors, which Cancer Research UK has helped to fund, that has told us a lot about the dangers of smoking. This study has found similarly huge risks associated with smoking. Men who smoked 25 or more cigarettes a day had over 24 times the risk of dying from lung cancer as men who had never smoked.
There are long time lags between changes in the number of people who smoke and the number of people who develop lung cancer due to smoking. So rates of lung cancer in the UK reflect smoking rates decades earlier.
We cannot exactly calculate a person’s lung cancer risk based on how many cigarettes they smoke or the number of years they have been a smoker. But research has shown that lung cancer risk is greatest among those who smoke the most cigarettes, over the longest period of time, having started at the youngest age.
Although both have an effect on risk, the number of years someone has spent smoking is more important than the number of cigarettes they smoke a day. This means that overall, smoking 20 cigarettes a day for 20 years is even worse for you than smoking 40 a day for 10 years.”
@bartyb , I shall quote not only from your link, but also you:
“The cigarette is the deadliest artefact in the history of human civilisation.”
(umm, no it’s not)
& the respective quote:
“Sounds like total bollocks to me,”
Cool Breizh – To me a valid scientific study is one that can be repeated by others to verify it’s authenticity.
Statistical studies throughout the world confirm the general findings that I repeated from the cancer research website.
Namely – your risk of death by cancer increases if you smoke and your life expectancy is reduced.
As I said, smoke if you wish to. We all have to die of something. Personally I am hoping to be killed by a jealous husband when I am 99.
p.s. Nice to have a lively discussion.
BB, how do you get round the claim that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, and “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.”?
I don’t have to as I don’t give a stuff
VK
It is irrelevant that “no ingredient of cigarette smoke has been shown to cause human lung cancer”, and “no-one has been able to produce lung cancer in laboratory animals from smoking.”
Statistics say it all –
Male smokers – lifetime risk of lung cancer 1 in 6
Female smokers – risk of lung cancer is 1 in 9
Risk of lung cancer in non-smokers is 1 in 77
BB
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
