Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why Smoke when Lung Cancer is a leading cause of death?


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#1 Star30

Star30

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 01:48 PM

I totally know why young kids smoke because I did. I know why Adults smoke because I did. It's a crutch as if the cigarette will take away our anxiety and frustrations. Guess what, they are still there.
Learning what smoking does to the body has turned me away. I quit a year ago. If you knew more about what smoking does to your body would you quit? Like, clogged arteries, black lung, chronic respiratory illnesses that could lead to respiratory failure i.e. not being able to BREATH? :shrug:

If you smoke, you can quit. You have to put your mind to it.

Yeah, some doctors smoke and that's odd too. :doh:

#2 REASON

REASON

    Reasonably Reasonable

  • Members
  • 1687 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 03:13 PM

Nice post Star.

My moniker is REASON, and I don't display much by continuing to smoke. :doh: It's such a strange dichotomy for me. I love it and hate it at the same time, but I am hating it more-and-more. I have quit on occasion before. Once for almost two years. I felt very healthy and good about myself during that time. I don't know exactly why I started up again. I guess I rationalized that it was because my girlfriend at the time smoked.

Anyway, I'm currently in the mental build-up to putting them out of my life forever. I know it's just about making a decision, and then sticking with it.

Wish me luck. Or should I say, strength. :shrug:

#3 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • 8432 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 03:31 PM

Good luck Reason! :shrug:
I'm in a similar boat myself. I quit last year from new years day until September, and then I started again. :doh:
I'm quitting again very soon though. My fiancee can't stand it and I need to get healthier in general. Something that really helped me the last time I quit was the nicotine lozenges. It makes it SO much easier.

Here's another good reason not to smoke...

Penn State Live - Cigarette smoke may enhance HPV and increase risk of cervical cancer

#4 Star30

Star30

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 03:54 PM

Good Luck to All! I know you can do it. Remember or Know that many have quit and don't miss it. Know that you can do it and you can. Just quit, don't rationalize smoking or say I'll quit tomorrow. Just Quit! Every time you quit and start again it makes it harder to quit the next time.

You will have desires to smoke when you see someone smoke out and about or in a movie. You will want to smoke when you are stressed. Smoking is not a coping mechanism for dealing with your anxiety. It is an unhealthy excuse/crutch.

I want you to be healthy, happy and live a fullfilling life smoke free because Life is Better Smoke Free.

#5 DFINITLYDISTRUBD

DFINITLYDISTRUBD

    tsilcycrotom live

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 06:48 PM

I smoke.... have for 20+ years now.
I also work in a welding facility...What does it have to do with smoking?
If you ever get the opportunity check out the helath hazards related to the metal fabrication field....between the paint fumes (know to be carcinogenic according to the label) the cutting fumes (multiple carcinogens, compounds and elements known to be lethal in relatively small quantities Ie. cadmium) and the weld fumes (known carcinogens and other nasties which cause black lung, emphazima, and other resperatory ailments). In short I see no reason to quit a habit I ENJOY when my occupation is just as deadly.

While there are laws that are supposed to protect workers from these hazards they are rarely enforced hence people like me drasticly reduce our life expectency just to earn a living. When OSHA starts actually giving a $#i+ about workers and starts enforcing safety restrictions I'll start worrying about the aspects of my health that I have control of.

BTW-A quick perusal of the list of toxic vapors found in nearly every home and every auto you'll find countless other sources of inhaled carcinogens. Why worry about one?

#6 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2804 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 07:27 PM

In my experience, smoking helps to reduce anxiety. But on the other hand, the habit of needing to smoke partially creates the anxiety that the smoking will help to reduce. In other words, when it is time to smoke, the body will start to get anxious for a cigarette. The cigarettes cures it own anxiety induction. That is why when people quit they feel better, with less anxiety that the urge to smoke often created.

What we need to do is take a more expansive look at the data. Most of the medical problems due to smoking takes decades to develop. An interesting data plot would be adverse smoking related health inductions as a function of years smoking. The first year has much less risk than year thirty. Someone who smokes for one year may not show any significant change. Or their change could be similar to someone living where there is urban smog for a decade or less.

Another useful plot would be the affect of quitting smoking as a function of years one smokes. If quitting helps to reverse the affect, than a dual graph could show the maximum number of years one can smoke, quit and have minimal long term risk. This data could be useful for those who insist on smoking. It gives them a window for having some fun before they create higher risk for themselves. Then they are on their own. This is better science since it increases the number of possible parameters and allows some individuality and choice during low risk years.

Right now the science is more sophomoric. It does not even address the parameters of minimum risk smoking, which could advance the science to junior level. Senior level would be assessing individuals to determine the variable window. There are those who smoked for 30-50 years quit and live to life expectancy. This type of data is not fully addressed by the current approach. It would take an advancement into objectivity to be able to make individual instead of herd type assessments. The herd assessment is easier, but science needs to reach beyond easy and convenient.

#7 DFINITLYDISTRUBD

DFINITLYDISTRUBD

    tsilcycrotom live

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 07:45 PM

It wouldn't hurt for research into "smoking induced ailments" to take a good long look at the risks for the same ailments caused by exposures to things..such as my work related hazards or house hold chemicals or smog as H.B. mentioned and how these effect non-smokers as well as smokers.

It's funny you can always spot a non-smoker at my work...they're the ones that are always complaining about stuffed sinuses, sore throats and coughing. Whilst those of us that smoke don't tend to suffer these effects.
That thick brown fog is just too much for them (the non-smokers)...on a good day you can see the far end of the shop, on a typical day you can kinda-sorta see your feet!!!!!

#8 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • 8432 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 07:56 PM

BTW-A quick perusal of the list of toxic vapors found in nearly every home and every auto you'll find countless other sources of inhaled carcinogens. Why worry about one?


Because one is more than none! ;)

Tobacco smoke contains 19 known carcinogens, and it is radioactive! :)
Tobacco and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition to chemical, nonradioactive carcinogens, tobacco and tobacco smoke contain small amounts of lead-210 (210Pb) and polonium-210 (210Po) both of which are radioactive carcinogens. Lead 210 is a product of the decay of radium-226 and, in turn, its decay product, radon-222; lead 210 then decays to bismuth-210 and then to polonium 210, emitting beta particles in both steps. Tarry particles containing these elements lodge in the smokers' lungs where airflow is disturbed; the concentration found where bronchioles bifurcate is 100 times higher than that in the lungs overall. This gives smokers much more intense exposure than would otherwise be encountered. Polonium 210, for instance, emits high energy alpha particles which, because of their large mass, are considered to be incapable of penetrating the skin more than 40 micrometres deep, but do considerable damage (estimated at 100 times as much chromosome damage as a corresponding amount of other radiation) when a process such as smoking causes them to be emitted within the body, where all their energy is absorbed by surrounding tissue. (Lead 210 also emits gamma rays).



#9 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • 8432 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:06 PM

Right now the science is more sophomoric. It does not even address the parameters of minimum risk smoking, which could advance the science to junior level. Senior level would be assessing individuals to determine the variable window. There are those who smoked for 30-50 years quit and live to life expectancy. This type of data is not fully addressed by the current approach. It would take an advancement into objectivity to be able to make individual instead of herd type assessments. The herd assessment is easier, but science needs to reach beyond easy and convenient.


I agree that it would be "neat" to have this "variable window" that you propose, but that would require technology of the future. Every individual is different. Defining a window for any one person would require a full-blown genetic analysis to determine certain risks. Even then, you have variables such as amount smoked per day, other chemicals ingested, atmospheric pollution in the locality, etc...

For the reasons stated above, I highly doubt that it is possible to create "variable windows". Perhaps in the future, but probably not in my lifetime.

As such is the case, I agree with the general medical community that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health and the best option is to quit.

#10 DFINITLYDISTRUBD

DFINITLYDISTRUBD

    tsilcycrotom live

  • Members
  • 2272 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 08:21 PM

Tobacco smoke contains 19 known carcinogens, and it is radioactive!

Does this mean I'll eventually have a healthy green glow!:)

I do have to admit I like the idea of being radioactive!

But seriously there is a long list of known carcinogens that the average bloke is exposed to everyday diesel emitions, exhaust fumes from most burning processes, various chemicals such as chlorine which are found in every municipal water source. Just got a water report from North East as usual they were fined again for high levels of several harmful substances, the wells around here have measurable amounts of DDT and assorted other herbesides and pesticides, in spring they aren't just in the water but heavy in the air.

This is only a fraction of the substances out there trying to get you.
Heck not to far back there was a study that concluded that the grill marks on you're steak could give you stomache cancer!!! kinda high price for good taste... But I'll continue to grill... Nobody lives forever and I intend to enjoy the time I have...Besides the funs pretty much over after 70.

#11 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 9148 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 10:11 PM

To the thread title:

Because it's addicting.



Everyone quits each time they extinguish a cigarette. It's just that some of us decide to stay quit.

#12 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • 8432 posts

Posted 30 January 2008 - 10:32 PM

Because it's addicting.


Si.

Nicotine withdrawal can be severe, but it doesn't have to be.

Knowing is half the battle :)

#13 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • 7797 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 01:48 AM

Has anyone said because it is more addictive than heroin?

#14 Star30

Star30

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 07:53 AM

Ok, consider that you are able to limit what you are exposed to. My Micro Professor preached that it is "All About the Numbers" i.e. how much you are exposed. Well, take a man/woman that smokes for 1 year and quits smoking vs a man/woman that smokes for many more years. Who is at a higher risk for Cancer? The man/woman who smokes for many years is and the longer that person smokes the higher the risk. Sure it's not an guarantee you will have cancer from smoking, but you don't know if you might win the Lucky Life Lottery. :headache:

!!!!!!! :naughty:The main thing to know/understand is that smoking and drinking alcoholic beverages at the same time about doubles your risk. The alcohol acts as an adhesive. So, the same applies to Occupational exposures right? If you smoke and are exposed to noxious fumes, dust, metals etc. you are at increased risk. I do not know all of OSHA guidelines however I do know there are mandates for companies/workers to wear PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) such as masks, eye protection/goggles, special suits and/or a respirator where occupational hazzards apply.

I am not in your shoes, I know, but when I go to work in the Hospital I am going to wear gloves when coming in contact with blood, medications and bodily fluids. I have an obligation to myself first, my family, the patient and the public. So, if they aren't providing PPE, go buy some. You might be setting an example and you may save someone elses life while saving yours. It's a small investment.
Be True to Yourself By Being True To Your Mind and Body.

#15 Cedars

Cedars

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1810 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 08:51 AM

From the movie Diabolique:

[Nicole lights her cigarette]
Leo: Second-hand smoke kills, you know.
Nicole: [blowing smoke in Leo's face] Not reliably.

#16 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 3631 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 10:14 AM

Has anyone said because it is more addictive than heroin?


Is it really? In the sense if most of the ex heroin-addicts smoke (and I know many and it is the case) this doesn't imply the nicotin is more addictive. The reasoning I do is that since they suffered already heaps for quitting heroin so that they they want at least to keep the last thing. And I think in their case it is better because you have to fight all your life against heroin anyway (even if it is years you are clean) so if in addition you have to fight smoking it will be easier to fall back....

#17 Star30

Star30

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 11:09 AM

ex heroin-addicts smoke ... And I think in their case it is better because you have to fight all your life against heroin anyway (even if it is years you are clean) so if in addition you have to fight smoking it will be easier to fall back....


The lesser of two evils right? Sure, I agree it is 'better' that ex heroin addicts smoke cigarettes verses smoking or shooting heroin. No arguement there. I hate it that people are driven to heroin and addicted.

Other than substance abusers/addicts... What do you think?