• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * - - 14 votes

Smoking is good for you!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
492 replies to this topic

#481 full_circle

  • Registered User
  • 144 posts
  • -5
  • Location:Seoul, Korea

Posted 24 March 2010 - 10:31 PM

i think there is something to this. and i also have this hunch that nicotine patch does not share the same beneficial effect. i think there is something to the "smoke". electric light bulbs have been around only a fraction of human evolution path so it may not be too much of a stretch to argue that human physiology has evolved to take advantage of whatever beneficial effect of "smoke". is this maybe one of the reasons why we feel so good around fire place..?

Edited by full_circle, 24 March 2010 - 10:31 PM.


#482 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,880 posts
  • 1,560
  • Location:New York

Posted 24 March 2010 - 10:56 PM

i think there is something to this. and i also have this hunch that nicotine patch does not share the same beneficial effect. i think there is something to the "smoke". electric light bulbs have been around only a fraction of human evolution path so it may not be too much of a stretch to argue that human physiology has evolved to take advantage of whatever beneficial effect of "smoke". is this maybe one of the reasons why we feel so good around fire place..?


I notice when the wind shifts around a campfire everyone moves out of the path of the smoke.
  • WellResearched x 1

#483 full_circle

  • Registered User
  • 144 posts
  • -5
  • Location:Seoul, Korea

Posted 24 March 2010 - 11:01 PM

well, that's not a very tangential point, you know what i mean.. (cigarette smoke is not that imposing)

#484 Skötkonung

  • Registered User
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 25 March 2010 - 12:39 AM

well, that's not a very tangential point, you know what i mean.. (cigarette smoke is not that imposing)

Actually it is more imposing since you are breathing it in from a focused source.
  • like x 1

#485 full_circle

  • Registered User
  • 144 posts
  • -5
  • Location:Seoul, Korea

Posted 25 March 2010 - 12:44 AM

nah
  • dislike x 1

#486 Skötkonung

  • Registered User
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 25 March 2010 - 12:51 AM

This explains it all: Another smoking trying to justify an addiction. Let me know how that goes when you get lung cancer.


Good luck with your faith. This is too much like trying to explain to an evangelical Christian that the problem of evil does not logically square with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. Utterly wrapped up in a given world view, the Christian will not really listen to logical reasoning or to any argument that runs counter to what they want to believe. Nor will you, so goodnight and best of luck


1. Talking to you is like convincing an addict to enter rehab. This is not surprising, however, given the fact that you are indeed an addict. Substance abuse recovery has to start with an honest assessment of the facts. Because addicts are generally incapable of objective self-awareness, they often need to hear the truth from someone who cares about them. Maybe you need an intervention from your family?

2. I'm an atheist, so I found your Christian reference hilarious. :)

3. Even if tobacco smoke cannot be proven to cause lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, etc, the overwhelming amount of data showing probable harm is enough to demonstrate sufficient doubt. On an anti-aging site, I find it interesting that there are individuals trying to justify the usage of a compound that always worsens markers of aging (glycation, telomeres, endogenous antioxidant depletion, etc). I also find it interesting how said people are willing to dismiss human data for limited selection of antiquated (frequently un-peer reviewed) animal studies. This must be the addiction at work.

Edited by Skotkonung, 25 March 2010 - 12:57 AM.


#487 Skötkonung

  • Registered User
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 25 March 2010 - 12:53 AM

nah

With that kind of rebuttal, I must be wrong..

#488 full_circle

  • Registered User
  • 144 posts
  • -5
  • Location:Seoul, Korea

Posted 25 March 2010 - 01:11 AM

yeah :)

Edited by full_circle, 25 March 2010 - 01:11 AM.


#489 Application

  • Registered User
  • 153 posts
  • 98
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 25 March 2010 - 08:22 AM

I still think the human and animal studies being so different (for the most part) is meaningful. Not so much for the question of whether smoking is associated it higher rates of disease in humans which it pretty clearly appears to be. Instead it adds to what the anomalous human data points to- some confounding/contributing factor is present in the vast majority of either human or animal studies. Nightlight's 'smokers are intuitively self-medicating' theory, while impossible to 100% rule out, seems pretty unlikely.

I ran across this article on T Colin Campbell's site. He is an anti-smoking as the average public health researcher but elaborates on a plausible confounder. I wish he referenced his article better, but to me (steeped in Vegan bias admittedly) its a possible missing piece. From: A Disastrous Marriage: Tobacco and Poor Diet"

...One of the first issues of concern is the proportion of cancers that can be prevented by eating the right kind of diet versus the proportion of cancers that can be prevented by avoiding tobacco. Most agencies, government and otherwise, willingly publicize the idea that 30 35% of all cancers could be prevented by diet while 25 30% could be prevented by avoiding tobacco use. Simply put, this makes diet the most significant means of cancer prevention, and avoidance of tobacco the second. While I think the numbers used for diet are under-estimates–perhaps 80 90% of cancers could actually be prevented by diet–the really important point is that the same cancer may occur due to different causes. In other words, tobacco and diet may work together, suggesting an important relationship.

Considerable evidence supports this idea. For example, if we examine lung cancer rates among heavy smokers who consume varying amounts of vegetables, we find that the higher the intake of vegetables, the lower the lung cancer rates. At least 10 human studies have shown this. Indeed, in one of the largest studies, done on male employees at Westinghouse, the effect of diet was quite remarkable. Lung cancer rates for those who ate the most vegetables were almost as low as they were for those who did not smoke at all....

...Some of this may seem to suggest something that I really do not like at all, that is, that using cigarettes may not be so bad if we just eat our vegetables. Even though cigarette companies might like this idea, I say, "Balderdash!" This idea–preventing smoking-related lung cancer by consuming more vegetables–seems on the surface to be quite promising. Here we must cast our net more widely to consider other issues, again looking for relationships. We must look at those studies showing that smoking kills more people through heart disease than through lung cancer; that smoking can cause extremely debilitating respiratory problems (including emphysema); and that smoking is responsible for many cancers other than simply lung cancer. In addition, evidence shows that the nutritional factors preventing lung cancer in these high-risk men also are virtually the same as those that prevent other types of cancers, as well as other chronic degenerative diseases. This is an observation of great importance. It means that doing one sort of thing, in this case consuming foods of plant origin, casts a wide net to prevent many possible diseases. But remember, diet is not a cure-all; if you smoke, you are going to have to face the consequences.....


Edited by Application, 25 March 2010 - 08:49 AM.


#490 Hoppipolla

  • Registered User
  • 5 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Kent, UK

Posted 29 March 2010 - 10:25 PM

I don't think the occasional good quality, additive-free cigarette is going to do you too much harm.

I'm gonna get me some American Spirits!

#491 hazelnice

  • Registered User
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 03 April 2010 - 12:34 AM

As what the government says, Smoking is dangerous to your health! So, smoking can kill humans. that's all. :D

#492 Ben

  • Registered User
  • 2,003 posts
  • -5
  • Location:South East

Posted 03 April 2010 - 02:41 AM

WARNING: This thread was created and is being maintained by a tobacco industry shill. Excess reading may be damaging to your health and may lead to cancer. Quit now.
  • Ill informed x 2
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • dislike x 1

#493 Skötkonung

  • Registered User
  • 1,556 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Västergötland, SE

Posted 03 April 2010 - 08:38 AM

WARNING: This thread was created and is being maintained by a tobacco industry shill. Excess reading may be damaging to your health and may lead to cancer. Quit now.


You noticed that as well? All of these new users. Hmm.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1
  • Needs references x 1




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users