492 replies to this topic

[nightlight]

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 07:46 PM, said:

The hamster study again? Already shown another, bigger hamster study with the opposite effect.

You have shown a bigger study with aignificantly reduced lifespan in smoking group? Where was that?

If you are talking about 1970 Dontenwill expriments (briefly reviewed by Coggins), the main problem there was the nose-only smoking machine which was focusing huge concentrations of smoke particles to the nose and larynx, 300 times greater smoke particle concentrations (see Hecht's review p. 1488) than to lungs, leading to gross damage of those tissues (and consequent small reduction in lifespans of males; they also had lots of infections among hamsters from the machines and removals from the samples, skewing the results further). The more natural air exposure with free imhalations in the later Wehrner's experiments, at much more human-like levels of smoke concentrations, clearly demonstrate the longevity benefits.

Quote

Regarding your hamster study, the effect, as previously stated, could be due to very beneficial CR caused by smoking (reduced weight a well-known effect of smoking and weight was reduced substantially among the smoking hamsters) negating the harmful effect of the smoke or as the authors discussed due smoking affecting amyloidosis, a common cause of death in this animal model but not in humans. Or simply humans having a particular genetic weakness for smoking which this animal model does not have.

It's not so uncommon -- Alzheimer's is a beta-amyloidosis in human brain. Tobacco smoke is consequently, highly protective aginst Alzheimer's. This strong protective effect of t.s. against amyloidosis (in humans and lab animals) has been heavily researched.

[Blue]

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 08:32 PM, said:

billions of people. no anecdote. facts.

and - world record holders can not make many mistakes.

thus it is  a substantial  difference if i speak of mme calment or of my grandma.

you cannot prove that the world record holder had lived longer without smoking.
in fact, because of billions of non smoking competitors, your claim seems absurd to me.

Regarding nations, do a proper statistical correlation of all.

You cannot prove that she would not have lived longer without smoking which is likely. Yes, some long lived people smoke, by most do not as shown in earlier studies.

[atp]

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 08:32 PM, said:

billions of people. no anecdote. facts.

and - world record holders can not make many mistakes.

thus it is  a substantial  difference if i speak of mme calment or of my grandma.

you cannot prove that the world record holder had lived longer without smoking.
in fact, because of billions of non smoking competitors, your claim seems absurd to me.

Regarding nations, do a proper statistical correlation of all.

You cannot prove that she would not have lived longer without smoking which is likely. Yes, some long lived people smoke, by most do not as shown in earlier studies.

the point is the dosage.
mme calment used the very seldom dosage of one or two cigarettes a day. this could be the right dosage for the right balance between damage because of free radicals and pushing the production of antioxidants.

it is rational to assume that every detail in mme calment's life had no substantiel negative consequences against her lifespan.
thus assuming that her smoking has reduced her lifespan is absurd.

[nightlight]

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 08:09 PM, said:

Upregulation of detox & antioxidants enzymes is just what you expect of toxic substances as an attempt by the body to compensate for the harm.

Some upregulation, yes, but in this case the excess far exceeds (near doubling of glutathione, catalase & SOD, in human observations and in animal experiments) the need to detox ~100 mg/pack of smoke particles absorbed. In one of those papers cited they evaluated this differential and smoke detox consumed only a few percent of the full gain.

Quote

That all the thousands of epidemologic studies of centenarians and other groups should be swamped by other factors, more than negating the superhealthy effects of tobacco smoke, is very, very, very unlikely.

Let's check our theories when we both reach 120. Recalling also that the only two humans who ever made it to that age were smokers, I'll stick with mine.

[Blue]

nightlight, on Feb 28 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 07:46 PM, said:

The hamster study again? Already shown another, bigger hamster study with the opposite effect.

You have shown a bigger study with aignificantly reduced lifespan in smoking group? Where was that?

If you are talking about 1970 Dontenwill expriments (briefly reviewed by Coggins), the main problem there was the nose-only smoking machine which was focusing huge concentrations of smoke particles to the nose and larynx, 300 times greater smoke particle concentrations (see Hecht's review p. 1488) than to lungs, leading to gross damage of those tissues (and consequent small reduction in lifespans of males; they also had lots of infections among hamsters from the machines and removals from the samples, skewing the results further). The more natural air exposure with free imhalations in the later Wehrner's experiments, at much more human-like levels of smoke concentrations, clearly demonstrate the longevity benefits.

Quote

Regarding your hamster study, the effect, as previously stated, could be due to very beneficial CR caused by smoking (reduced weight a well-known effect of smoking and weight was reduced substantially among the smoking hamsters) negating the harmful effect of the smoke or as the authors discussed due smoking affecting amyloidosis, a common cause of death in this animal model but not in humans. Or simply humans having a particular genetic weakness for smoking which this animal model does not have.

It's not so uncommon -- Alzheimer's is a beta-amyloidosis in human brain. Tobacco smoke is consequently, highly protective aginst Alzheimer's. This strong protective effect of t.s. against amyloidosis (in humans and lab animals) has been heavily researched.

So yes, I showed such a study. You claim that it does not represent the human situation. Neither does your hamster study of animals prone to amyloidosis with CR like weight reductions.

Even if smoking is in fact protective against some human diseases, this does not mean it is not harmful against most.

"Nicotine" is not the same as tobacco smoke which contains innumerable different substances. Nicotine by itself may possible have good effects in some circumstances, does not prove that tobacco smoke does.

[Blue]

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 08:51 PM, said:

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 08:32 PM, said:

billions of people. no anecdote. facts.

and - world record holders can not make many mistakes.

thus it is  a substantial  difference if i speak of mme calment or of my grandma.

you cannot prove that the world record holder had lived longer without smoking.
in fact, because of billions of non smoking competitors, your claim seems absurd to me.

Regarding nations, do a proper statistical correlation of all.

You cannot prove that she would not have lived longer without smoking which is likely. Yes, some long lived people smoke, by most do not as shown in earlier studies.

the point is the dosage.
mme calment used the very seldom dosage of one or two cigarettes a day. this could be the right dosage for the right balance between damage because of free radicals and pushing the production of antioxidants.

it is rational to assume that every detail in mme calment's life had no substantiel negative consequences against her lifespan.
thus assuming that her smoking has reduced her lifespan is absurd.

No human studies show that low or high dose is generally good for humans.

Mme calment has already proven that she was superexceptional. Maybe smoking was in fact healthful for her. Does not mean that it is for the rest of humanity. Again, you need to look at a large group, not individuals.

[atp]

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 03:01 AM, said:

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 08:51 PM, said:

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 08:32 PM, said:

billions of people. no anecdote. facts.

and - world record holders can not make many mistakes.

thus it is  a substantial  difference if i speak of mme calment or of my grandma.

you cannot prove that the world record holder had lived longer without smoking.
in fact, because of billions of non smoking competitors, your claim seems absurd to me.

Regarding nations, do a proper statistical correlation of all.

You cannot prove that she would not have lived longer without smoking which is likely. Yes, some long lived people smoke, by most do not as shown in earlier studies.

the point is the dosage.
mme calment used the very seldom dosage of one or two cigarettes a day. this could be the right dosage for the right balance between damage because of free radicals and pushing the production of antioxidants.

it is rational to assume that every detail in mme calment's life had no substantiel negative consequences against her lifespan.
thus assuming that her smoking has reduced her lifespan is absurd.

No human studies show that low or high dose is generally good for humans.

Mme calment has already proven that she was superexceptional. Maybe smoking was in fact healthful for her. Does not mean that it is for the rest of humanity. Again, you need to look at a large group, not individuals.

does not mean that it is for the rest of humanity - yes, but this is exactly the most rational consequence.

if you make statistics this does not mean as well that the result holds for you.

Edited by atp, 01 March 2010 - 02:07 AM.

[k10]

Nightlife, would in your opinion nicotine alone from something like an electronic cigarette have any benefits whatsoever? I am mainly looking for the cognitive benefits from tobacco which I believe could be gotten from nicotine alone.

Also I am curious what you have to say on this argument posted earlier in the topic:

Quote

I don't have time for a lengthy reply but if you are correct in that quitting smoking abruptly causes even more lung cancers, - and presumably other cancers, - then that's even more reason to never smoke!

That is very concerning to me as well if true. Even if tobacco was infact healthy, the fact that you end up being dependent on them for the rest of your life (otherwise you get cancer) is very concerning. If there is any chance you'll end up stop smoking sometime in your life -- would it not be better not to start at all since quitting causes such devastating consequences on the body?

Edited by k10, 01 March 2010 - 02:10 AM.

[atp]

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 03:01 AM, said:

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 08:51 PM, said:

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 08:32 PM, said:

billions of people. no anecdote. facts.

and - world record holders can not make many mistakes.

thus it is  a substantial  difference if i speak of mme calment or of my grandma.

you cannot prove that the world record holder had lived longer without smoking.
in fact, because of billions of non smoking competitors, your claim seems absurd to me.

Regarding nations, do a proper statistical correlation of all.

You cannot prove that she would not have lived longer without smoking which is likely. Yes, some long lived people smoke, by most do not as shown in earlier studies.

the point is the dosage.
mme calment used the very seldom dosage of one or two cigarettes a day. this could be the right dosage for the right balance between damage because of free radicals and pushing the production of antioxidants.

it is rational to assume that every detail in mme calment's life had no substantiel negative consequences against her lifespan.
thus assuming that her smoking has reduced her lifespan is absurd.

No human studies show that low or high dose is generally good for humans.

Mme calment has already proven that she was superexceptional. Maybe smoking was in fact healthful for her. Does not mean that it is for the rest of humanity. Again, you need to look at a large group, not individuals.

the example of mme calment is a human study with billions of people.

billions of non-smokers have not succeded to reach her lifespan.

since all non-smokers failed this is of high statistical evidence.

Edited by atp, 01 March 2010 - 02:12 AM.

[Blue]

nightlight, on Feb 28 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 08:09 PM, said:

Upregulation of detox & antioxidants enzymes is just what you expect of toxic substances as an attempt by the body to compensate for the harm.

Some upregulation, yes, but in this case the excess far exceeds (near doubling of glutathione, catalase & SOD, in human observations and in animal experiments) the need to detox ~100 mg/pack of smoke particles absorbed. In one of those papers cited they evaluated this differential and smoke detox consumed only a few percent of the full gain.

Quote

That all the thousands of epidemologic studies of centenarians and other groups should be swamped by other factors, more than negating the superhealthy effects of tobacco smoke, is very, very, very unlikely.

Let's check our theories when we both reach 120. Recalling also that the only two humans who ever made it to that age were smokers, I'll stick with mine.

Certainly no excess of upregulatiion since great harm is still done. If you do not think 100 mg of substances is enough to harm and kill you are greatly mistaken.

You are betting on what 2 people out of billions did. Maybe you right if you have the same genes as these two. I prefer to bet on what has been shown to be healthful for the overwhelming majority of humanity including for very old people in general. I think my odds are better.

Edited by Blue, 01 March 2010 - 02:15 AM.

[atp]

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

nightlight, on Feb 28 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 08:09 PM, said:

Upregulation of detox & antioxidants enzymes is just what you expect of toxic substances as an attempt by the body to compensate for the harm.

Some upregulation, yes, but in this case the excess far exceeds (near doubling of glutathione, catalase & SOD, in human observations and in animal experiments) the need to detox ~100 mg/pack of smoke particles absorbed. In one of those papers cited they evaluated this differential and smoke detox consumed only a few percent of the full gain.

Quote

That all the thousands of epidemologic studies of centenarians and other groups should be swamped by other factors, more than negating the superhealthy effects of tobacco smoke, is very, very, very unlikely.

Let's check our theories when we both reach 120. Recalling also that the only two humans who ever made it to that age were smokers, I'll stick with mine.

Certainly no excess of upregulatiion since great harm is still done. If you do not think 100 mg of substances is enough to harm and kill you are greatly mistaken.

You are betting on what 2 people out of billions did. Maybe you right if you have the same genes as these two. I prefer to bet on what has been shown to be healthful for the overwhelming majority of humanity including for very old people in general. I think my odds are better.

you have not proven that one cigarette a day is bad for the overwhelming majority of humanity.

you make wrong  generalizations from the behavior of a typical smoker to the consequences of the very unfamilar smoking behavior of mme calment.

[Blue]

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

nightlight, on Feb 28 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 08:09 PM, said:

Upregulation of detox & antioxidants enzymes is just what you expect of toxic substances as an attempt by the body to compensate for the harm.

Some upregulation, yes, but in this case the excess far exceeds (near doubling of glutathione, catalase & SOD, in human observations and in animal experiments) the need to detox ~100 mg/pack of smoke particles absorbed. In one of those papers cited they evaluated this differential and smoke detox consumed only a few percent of the full gain.

Quote

That all the thousands of epidemologic studies of centenarians and other groups should be swamped by other factors, more than negating the superhealthy effects of tobacco smoke, is very, very, very unlikely.

Let's check our theories when we both reach 120. Recalling also that the only two humans who ever made it to that age were smokers, I'll stick with mine.

Certainly no excess of upregulatiion since great harm is still done. If you do not think 100 mg of substances is enough to harm and kill you are greatly mistaken.

You are betting on what 2 people out of billions did. Maybe you right if you have the same genes as these two. I prefer to bet on what has been shown to be healthful for the overwhelming majority of humanity including for very old people in general. I think my odds are better.

you have not proven that one cigarette a day is bad for the overwhelming majority of humanity.

you make wrong  generalizations from the behavior of a typical smoker to the consequences of the very unfamilar smoking behavior of mme calment.

Mme calment was a genetic freak. I bet on being average, not on being a freak.

LIkely not proven  that one cigarette a day is bad, just very likely. If wanting a small stressor in order to upregulate defence systems, use something know to be safe like moderate exercise or ALA.

[bacopa]

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 03:31 AM, said:

atp, on Feb 28 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

nightlight, on Feb 28 2010, 08:55 PM, said:

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 08:09 PM, said:

Upregulation of detox & antioxidants enzymes is just what you expect of toxic substances as an attempt by the body to compensate for the harm.

Some upregulation, yes, but in this case the excess far exceeds (near doubling of glutathione, catalase & SOD, in human observations and in animal experiments) the need to detox ~100 mg/pack of smoke particles absorbed. In one of those papers cited they evaluated this differential and smoke detox consumed only a few percent of the full gain.

Quote

That all the thousands of epidemologic studies of centenarians and other groups should be swamped by other factors, more than negating the superhealthy effects of tobacco smoke, is very, very, very unlikely.

Let's check our theories when we both reach 120. Recalling also that the only two humans who ever made it to that age were smokers, I'll stick with mine.

Certainly no excess of upregulatiion since great harm is still done. If you do not think 100 mg of substances is enough to harm and kill you are greatly mistaken.

You are betting on what 2 people out of billions did. Maybe you right if you have the same genes as these two. I prefer to bet on what has been shown to be healthful for the overwhelming majority of humanity including for very old people in general. I think my odds are better.

you have not proven that one cigarette a day is bad for the overwhelming majority of humanity.

you make wrong  generalizations from the behavior of a typical smoker to the consequences of the very unfamilar smoking behavior of mme calment.

Mme calment was a genetic freak. I bet on being average, not on being a freak.

LIkely not proven  that one cigarette a day is bad, just very likely. If wanting a small stressor in order to upregulate defence systems, use something know to be safe like moderate exercise or ALA.

I've spoken with some doctors who even claim one cigarette a day probably does very little to nothing.  But I certainly wouldn't take any chances.

Clement was a genetic anomaly for sure.  Period.

[maxwatt]

I do not see what can possibly be beneficial about lighting a raging trash fire inches from your nose and breathing the fumes, even if you are burning organic leaves.  Nicotine is addictive.  Why burden yourself with another drive like hunger or thirst that you will need to satisfy, at no little expense?

This thread is sophistic nonsense, but amusing.   The argument runs: all human retrospective studies are not proof because the selection criteria were not random!  Epidemiological studies prove nothing because they include "commercial" cigarettes with unnatural additives!  (Except of course where some beneficial effect such as protection from Parkinson's is found.)  What other rhetorical tropes can we find here?  These tactics are awfully familiar.

It all reminds me of a famous country singer's denial to his wife when she caught him cheating with another woman: "Who are you going to believe?  Me or your lying eyes?"

[bacopa]

maxwatt, on Mar 1 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

I do not see what can possibly be beneficial about lighting a raging trash fire inches from your nose and breathing the fumes, even if you are burning organic leaves.  Nicotine is addictive.  Why burden yourself with another drive like hunger or thirst that you will need to satisfy, at no little expense?

This thread is sophistic nonsense, but amusing.   The argument runs: all human retrospective studies are not proof because the selection criteria were not random!  Epidemiological studies prove nothing because they include "commercial" cigarettes with unnatural additives!  (Except of course where some beneficial effect such as protection from Parkinson's is found.)  What other rhetorical tropes can we find here?  These tactics are awfully familiar.

It all reminds me of a famous country singer's denial to his wife when she caught him cheating with another woman: "Who are you going to believe?  Me or your lying eyes?"

hehe nicely put...some of the info is interesting though, for sure!

[nushu]

Nightlight, you raise some interesting questions I've never allowed myself to consider before. I'm seriously considering taking up smoking a moderate amount and seeing how my body responds to it. I don'y really know how to get started- I'd only want quality organic tobacco, I don't think I'd want to smoke paper either, so some sort of pipe is in order. What about smoking through a water pipe? Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm 36 years old and have never smoked. After six months I'll get full blood work done, testing for lipid profile (esp VLDL), CRP, vit D, hormones, etc. I have plenty of data on all my labs over the past 10 years I can compare these results to.

I don't know for certain that smoking is all you say it's cracked up to be, but this would be a damn good way to begin to get some answers. I don't think smoking a moderate amount for 6 months can wreck my health. If we're going to get to the bottom of this  someone is going to have to experiment a little. I'm going into this with an open mind. Who's with me?

[Matt]

Smoking does wreck your health, and makes you stink.  Get a full panel of blood tests done, including inflammation markers...You also need to consider that it's an addiction and you will have to try and quit...  This is the most ridiculous thread for a while...

Edited by Matt, 01 March 2010 - 03:42 AM.

[bacopa]

nushu, on Mar 1 2010, 04:32 AM, said:

Nightlight, you raise some interesting questions I've never allowed myself to consider before. I'm seriously considering taking up smoking a moderate amount and seeing how my body responds to it. I don'y really know how to get started- I'd only want quality organic tobacco, I don't think I'd want to smoke paper either, so some sort of pipe is in order. What about smoking through a water pipe? Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm 36 years old and have never smoked. After six months I'll get full blood work done, testing for lipid profile (esp VLDL), CRP, vit D, hormones, etc. I have plenty of data on all my labs over the past 10 years I can compare these results to.

I don't know for certain that smoking is all you say it's cracked up to be, but this would be a damn good way to begin to get some answers. I don't think smoking a moderate amount for 6 months can wreck my health. If we're going to get to the bottom of this  someone is going to have to experiment a little. I'm going into this with an open mind. Who's with me?

sir, simply do not do it!  Don't believe his claims that smoking a moderate amount, -over 1 a day, - can not hurt you.  First of all eventually you probably will get addicted even smoking 3 a day.  Secondly just do some basic research on what smoking does to the body.  It blackens the lungs and literally turns healthy cells into potentially cancerous ones through genetic mutation, and that stays with you for life, even though the lungs do clean themselves eventually.

Smoking causes bronchitis, pneumonia, emphysema, COPD, all cancers but 2, heart disease and inflammation of tissues.  Why would you intentionally do this to yourself?  Consider yourself extremely lucky to not be one of the 20 or so percent present day smokers in the U.S., or the other God knows how many former smokers in the U.S., or any country.

if there are 1.4 billion smokers in the world in any given year, I imagine there are at least a few billion former smokers still alive, that number is shocking, it's almost a rare thing to never have been a regular smoker it seems.

Or else more than a billion have died already within a very short time frame, and that would seem absurdly high.

Edited by dfowler, 01 March 2010 - 03:56 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

This thread reminds me of that joke that the way to improve the IQ of the world would be to take off all the warning labels off dangerous equipment and let natural selection take its course. Except this way is slow and protracted.

[JLL]

Matt, on Feb 28 2010, 11:41 PM, said:

Get a full panel of blood tests done, including inflammation markers...

Yes, this would be a very interesting experiment.

Matt, on Feb 28 2010, 11:41 PM, said:

This is the most ridiculous thread for a while...

No, this is the most interesting thread in a while.

[JLL]

mustardseed41, on Feb 28 2010, 06:35 PM, said:

JLL, on Feb 28 2010, 02:37 PM, said:

mustardseed41, on Feb 28 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

Nightlight you remind me of Charlie Manson. Sounds like he's really smart but in the end has said nothing that makes sense.

And you, you should be ashamed of yourself for posting comments like this without anything constructive. If you disagree with nightlight's points, great: then express why they are wrong instead of comparing him to Charlie Manson.

I got really pissed off reading the old smoking thread when it was still going on, and now I remember why. I always thought this forum is supposed to be for people who want to find out the truth, whether or not it conflicts with what they've always thought was true. Name-calling is not going to achieve that goal.

I am so ashamed ...I am so ashamed......I bet you smoke also......don't you?....don't you??????

No, I don't.

[JLL]

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 08:22 PM, said:

"Now the centenarians in general, they don't smoke, they never had a history of smoking, it's very rare that you'll find a centenarian with a history of obesity, and so there are some things that even centenarians, despite their wonderful genes, have to do I think, to get to their age. Now Mme Calment is an interesting example. This is the woman who lived to 122. She actually smoked some cigarettes up until the age of 116. Now to me that just says that she really had amazing genes to even to be able to counter the bad effects of smoking, and Lord knows if she didn't smoke she might still be alive today."

That's just the author's speculation, unwarranted by the data. You could say about a similar thing about someone who lived to be a 100 and drank two glasses of wine per day. "Lord knows if she didn't drink alcohol she might still be alive today " -- but for all we know, it could've been the alcohol that helped her live that long.

Note that I don't think it's proof in favour of smoking, just that it's in no way proof against smoking.

[platypus]

I just listened to a podcast by a top cardiologist and he stated that these days practically all of his patients who had a myocardial infarction in their 40's and 50's are smokers.

[Blue]

JLL, on Mar 1 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 08:22 PM, said:

"Now the centenarians in general, they don't smoke, they never had a history of smoking, it's very rare that you'll find a centenarian with a history of obesity, and so there are some things that even centenarians, despite their wonderful genes, have to do I think, to get to their age. Now Mme Calment is an interesting example. This is the woman who lived to 122. She actually smoked some cigarettes up until the age of 116. Now to me that just says that she really had amazing genes to even to be able to counter the bad effects of smoking, and Lord knows if she didn't smoke she might still be alive today."

That's just the author's speculation, unwarranted by the data. You could say about a similar thing about someone who lived to be a 100 and drank two glasses of wine per day. "Lord knows if she didn't drink alcohol she might still be alive today " -- but for all we know, it could've been the alcohol that helped her live that long.

Note that I don't think it's proof in favour of smoking, just that it's in no way proof against smoking.

That is incorrect, all the statistical data in this and all other epidemiological studies warrants that statement as likely. The wine statement would have been unwarranted by the statistical data. But you are right that looking at anecdotal examples of one person is pointless. You need statistics from a larger group.

[maxwatt]

dfowler, on Feb 28 2010, 09:57 PM, said:

maxwatt, on Mar 1 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

I do not see what can possibly be beneficial about lighting a raging trash fire inches from your nose and breathing the fumes, even if you are burning organic leaves.  Nicotine is addictive.  Why burden yourself with another drive like hunger or thirst that you will need to satisfy, at no little expense?

This thread is sophistic nonsense, but amusing.   The argument runs: all human retrospective studies are not proof because the selection criteria were not random!  Epidemiological studies prove nothing because they include "commercial" cigarettes with unnatural additives!  (Except of course where some beneficial effect such as protection from Parkinson's is found.)  What other rhetorical tropes can we find here?  These tactics are awfully familiar.

It all reminds me of a famous country singer's denial to his wife when she caught him cheating with another woman: "Who are you going to believe?  Me or your lying eyes?"

hehe nicely put...some of the info is interesting though, for sure!

One more rhetorical trope:  The statistical outliers who do comparatively well in spite of smoking, are proof that it is actually good for you.

[maxwatt]

nushu, on Feb 28 2010, 10:32 PM, said:

Nightlight, you raise some interesting questions I've never allowed myself to consider before. I'm seriously considering taking up smoking a moderate amount and seeing how my body responds to it. I don'y really know how to get started- I'd only want quality organic tobacco, I don't think I'd want to smoke paper either, so some sort of pipe is in order. What about smoking through a water pipe? Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm 36 years old and have never smoked. After six months I'll get full blood work done, testing for lipid profile (esp VLDL), CRP, vit D, hormones, etc. I have plenty of data on all my labs over the past 10 years I can compare these results to.

I don't know for certain that smoking is all you say it's cracked up to be, but this would be a damn good way to begin to get some answers. I don't think smoking a moderate amount for 6 months can wreck my health. If we're going to get to the bottom of this  someone is going to have to experiment a little. I'm going into this with an open mind. Who's with me?

Nicotine is the most addictive drug you can try.  Perhaps 50 percent of those who try heroin eventually become addicted.  The statistic I've seen for cigarettes: over 90% who try even one cigarette become addicted.   Why burden yourself with another drive like hunger or thirst that you will need to satisfy, at no little expense?  The bright side of things: if you, nushu, do go ahead with your ill-advised self-experimentation, data show it is much easier to quit tobacco if use was begun after age 19 when the frontal lobes of the brain have begun to function.

There is little to be learned from such self-experimentation, the results are already well known.  If you must smoke, take up cigars or a pipe.  There is a lower risk of lung cancer and reduced incidence and severity of emphysema,  but the risk of cancer of the mouth, lips and jaw is greatly increased.  So is risk of bladder cancer, indicating a systemic irritant beyond direct action from the smoke.  The correlation between cigar and pipe smoking was well remarked upon by 19th century physicians, when all tobacco was "natural" and "organic".

The beneficial effects of smoking can mostly be attributed to stimulation of dopamine production by nicotine especially wrt. Parkinson's, which is also what is the cause of its addictive nature.  Other dopamine producing substances have similar benefits, and are similarly addictive.  I could start a thread on the beneficial effects of morphine, heroin and cocaine with similar justifications.  Nicotine (and cell phone use) has been shown to protect against Alzheimer's, and to improve working memory in rats.  I suppose you could call it a cognitive enhancer. But you can get these effects with a nicotine patch at far less risk than through smoking.  It's a risk-rewards calculation.  A Nicotine patch could reduce risk for Alzheimer, but increase risk of bladder and pancreatic cancer.  But smoking will mess up your lungs for sure.

Quote

J Alzheimers Dis. 2010 Feb 17. [Epub ahead of print]
Radiofrequency Fields, Transthyretin, and Alzheimer's Disease.
Söderqvist F, Hardell L, Carlberg M, Mild KH.

Department of Oncology, University Hospital and School of Health and Medical Sciences, Orebro University, Orebro, Sweden.
Radiofrequency field (RF) exposure provided cognitive benefits in an animal study. In Alzheimer's disease (AD) mice, exposure reduced brain amyloid-beta (Abeta) deposition through decreased aggregation of Abeta and increase in soluble Abeta levels. Based on our studies on humans on RF from wireless phones, we propose that transthyretin (TTR) might explain the findings. In a cross-sectional study on 313 subjects, we used serum TTR as a marker of cerebrospinal fluid TTR. We found a statistically significantly positive beta coefficient for TTR for time since first use of mobile phones and desktop cordless phones combined (P=0.03). The electromagnetic field parameters were similar for the phone types. In a provocation study on 41 persons exposed during 30 min to an 890-MHz GSM signal with specific absorption rate of 1.0 Watt/kg to the temporal area of the brain, we found statistically significantly increased serum TTR 60 min after ending of exposure. In our cross-sectional study, use of oral snuff yielded statistically significantly increased serum TTR concentrations and nicotine has been associated with decreased risk for AD and to upregulate the TTR gene in choroid plexus but not in the liver, another source of serum TTR. TTR sequesters Abeta, thereby preventing the formation of Abeta plaques in the brain. Studies have shown that patients with AD have lowered TTR concentrations in the cerebrospinal fluid and have attributed the onset of AD to insufficient sequestering of Abeta by TTR. We propose that TTR might be involved in the findings of RF exposure benefit in AD mice.

PMID: 20164553

Quote

Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2010 Jan 13. [Epub ahead of print]
Gender differences and the role of estrogen in cognitive enhancements with nicotine in rats.
Taylor GT, Maloney S.

Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63121, USA.
Research has reported that nicotine can increase accuracy, response times and rates of learning with evidence of different effects on males and females. The goal of our research was to study further sex differences by examining the role played by estrogen in the effects of nicotine on learning and memory in female rats. In experiment 1, 48 male and female rats were administered 0.3mg or 0.7mg/kg bwt of nicotine (nic) or vehicle only (veh) and tested in a visual spatial orientation (VSO) paradigm designed to maximize the benefits of nicotine on spatial working memory. Females exposed to 0.3mg nic performed superior to all other groups of both genders. In experiment 2, ovariectomized females (N=40) were exposed to 30microg estradiol/kg bwt (E2), 3mg nicotine/kg bwt, a combination of both E2 and nic, or veh, and tested as in experiment 1. The rankings of scores in the VSO task by group were E2+nic>nic alone>E2 alone>veh. The E2+nic combination group also demonstrated the highest rate of acquisition. Collectively, the findings suggest that estrogen can synergize the ability of chronic nicotine to enhance acetylcholine-hippocampal interactions underlying performance in the VSO paradigm. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PMID: 20074585

[nightlight]

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 08:56 PM, said:

nightlight, on Feb 28 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

Blue, on Feb 28 2010, 07:46 PM, said:

The hamster study again? Already shown another, bigger hamster study with the opposite effect.

You have shown a bigger study with aignificantly reduced lifespan in smoking group? Where was that?

If you are talking about 1970 Dontenwill expriments (briefly reviewed by Coggins), the main problem there was the nose-only smoking machine which was focusing huge concentrations of smoke particles to the nose and larynx, 300 times greater smoke particle concentrations (see Hecht's review p. 1488) than to lungs, leading to gross damage of those tissues (and consequent small reduction in lifespans of males; they also had lots of infections among hamsters from the machines and removals from the samples, skewing the results further). The more natural air exposure with free imhalations in the later Wehrner's experiments, at much more human-like levels of smoke concentrations, clearly demonstrate the longevity benefits.

So yes, I showed such a study. You claim that it does not represent the human situation. Neither does your hamster study of animals prone to amyloidosis with CR like weight reductions.

Check the real Dontenwill et al 1973 (pdf) paper for yourself. They acknowledge (p. 1802) that their 300x smoke concentration (on nose & larynx than on bronchi or lungs) was the essential aspect required to show the damaging effects (on nose & larynx) observed as well as (p. 1802):

"However the effective dose acting on the larynx of the experimental animal is many times greater than the effective dose per surface area in the respiratory tract of man."

If you look further the related papers of this group (at the same site, use search form, look for early 1970s), you will see that they were the folks who made the Syrian Golden Hamster the next 'great hope' of antismoking research, after their skin experiments showing that applying high contentration of liquid smoke condensate (in solvents) to hamster skin caused lesions (many thousands times greater concentrations than in human smoking). The series of their reports preceding this paper shows iterations of their machine and concentrations (e.g. see this paper), a test run for the main show (they call it "pilot study"), as they sought to replicate those liquid condensate concentrations within the nose & larynx  (they couldn't deliver it to lungs without outright asphyxiating  or drowning the animal in the condensate). If you read the main paper, it is clear that the their "smoking" machine is not even remotely close in any way to human smoking (in many other ways than just astronomical concentrations, or solvants) -- they were in effect scorching the nasal cavity & larynx of the hamsters with their "many times greater" smoke concentrations, replicating their skin experiments inside the nose & larynx.  

So, no, this experiment doesn't help your postion at all. In fact, if it demonstrates anything of interest to science, it is how extremely difficult it is to coerce this ancient medicinal plant to cause any harm at all to smoker. Regular inhalation just won't do.  They had to go into these kinds of extreme exposure methods and concentrations, amounting to pure animal torture,  to barely induce some harm. This 'great hope' of antismoking "research" vanished into the memory hole shortly thereafter, when National Cancer Institute sought to scientifically show damage from smoking in work place (in preparation for smoking bans intended for 1970s) and contracted a large study on Syrian Golden Hamsters. Since it was clear they couldn't sell in USA the Dontenwill's machine method as anything remotely resembling smoking, they used regular air inhalation. Unfortunately for them, the 'great hope' backfired horribly, showing exactly the opposite from what they wished to show -- tobacco smoke was protective against variety of industrial toxins and carcinogens, and smoking animals in all groups outlived (by about 20%) the non-smoking animals (pdf, p. 40):

With the exception of the two asbestos-exposed groups (Groups 5 and 6), the groups exposed to cigarette smoke lived significantly (p<0.05) longer than their sham-smoke-exposed cohorts. The hamsters exposed to asbestos plus cigarette smoke also outlived their sham-smoke-exposed cohorts; however the difference was not statistically significant. Asbestos decreased the lifespan of the asbestos-exposed groups and thereby masked, to a degree, the difference in the survival between the smoke-exposed animals and their sham-smoke-exposed cohorts which is so readily apparent in other groups (Figure 23).



So much for the 'great hope'. The NCI disaster had set back their smoking bans agenda by 10-15 years, until some genius at EPA came up with a  great idea -- why bother with science and experiments at all, when the plain lying with numbers will do. As the mice & rat experiments from 2004, 2005 (discussed earlier) show, nothing has changed much on the scientific front since then -- the smoking mice and rats still outlive the non-smoking ones, despite all the efforts of the researchers to get the opposite result. This ancient 'gift of gods'  just would not do harm. That's how good it is.

Lesson for smokers: don't chain smoke 90 cigarettes in a row every day for the rest of your life using 'Dontenwill-73' "smoking" machines. They will burn holes through your nose and throat and this will hurt quite a bit and it may slightly reduce your lifespan. Use cigarette holders or pipes instead -- they are an enjoyable way to smoke and as a bonus, it will extend your lifespan by about 20% compared to non-smokers, while keeping you thin and sharp into the old age. A pack a day keeps doctors away.

[Blue]

I have shown a study showing lifespan reduction from smoking. You claim that it does not represent the human situation. Neither does your hamster study of animals prone to amyloidosis (a very rare cause of death in humans) with CR like weight reductions. Furthermore, you lie when you say the situation has not changed recently, we now have  an animal model where smoking clearly causes lung cancer.

Also you ignore all the overwhelming data showing increases in most forms of disease in the population in general and also very old people. That some studies like Parkinson may be helped by smoking does not change the overall picture. Studies off only nicotine itself is not worth much, tobacco smoke is much more than nicotine so the effect of tobacco smoke cannot be predicted from only looking at nicotine.

Edited by Blue, 01 March 2010 - 01:17 PM.

[maxwatt]

nightlight, on Mar 1 2010, 07:37 AM, said:

....
Lesson for smokers: don't chain smoke 90 cigarettes in a row every day for the rest of your life using 'Dontenwill-73' "smoking" machines...

I worked as a hospital orderly one summer in college.  I would have loved to reassure one patient in particular that as long as he wasn't using one of those smoking machines he'd be fine.  They'd removed one lung, and much else in his mouth.  He was holding a cigarette to the tracheotomy hole in his throat that he now breathed through.  The doctors were trying to explain that he had only one lung left, and if he didn't stop smoking he'd lose the other one and die.  Silly doctors.  He turned away to face the wall and continued smoking.  When the doctors gave up and left I got him in a wheelchair and took him for an x-ray.  I wish I'd known to warn him about that smoking machine.  That was the last I saw of him.

I would have loved to have been able to tell this to the cowboy.  Everyone was impressed he was a real cowboy.  He'd been a sheriff in Oklahoma in 1901.  He was shrunken and thin, but still well over six feet tall and over two hundred pounds.  It took two of us to move him.  He couldn't get out of bed or walk, but he could still light up.  When his film came out of the developer, I could see the cancer was widespread in both lungs before I sent it to the doctors.  The next time I saw him we put him on a cart and covered him with a sheet and took him to the hospital morgue.  If only he hadn't used that damn smoking machine!  He'd have been fine if he'd just used natural tobacco!  Right.
-----------------

There is a linear dose response curve to chemical exposure to irritants and carcinogenesis; low doses cause the same problems, but it takes longer or a bigger sample size to show the effect.  When studies used high doses to elicit adverse effects the tobacco companies jumped all over them, claming low doses did not cause any problem.  Large sample size?  "It's only a statistic correlation, not a cause!"   History repeats itself.  The first time it's tragedy, the second time's a farce.

Edited by maxwatt, 01 March 2010 - 01:14 PM.

[nightlight]

Blue, on Mar 1 2010, 07:47 AM, said:

I have shown a study showing lifespan reduction from smoking.

It shows that burning holes in your nose and larynx by smoking through tubes which concentrate smoke to levels"many times greater" than normal human smoking, will do some harm. Duh. You can as well stick the burning end of a cigarette into their nose or asphyxiate them outright (in fact, those concentrations did so when delivered to lungs). With that "logic" you can demonstrate the toxicity of plain water, by overdosing (drink a gallon or so straight in, people have died from that kind of drinking). Dose makes poison. Regular human smoking doesn't deliver anything close to Dontenwill's machine levels. If that's the best you got, it proves my case. Thanks.

Quote

You claim that it does not represent the human situation. Neither does your hamster study of animals prone to amyloidosis (a very rare cause of death in humans)

As explained, beta-amyloidosis, also known as Alzheimer's disease, is not rare in humans at all. Indeed, smoking is highly protective against Alzheimer's (tenfold reduction for early onset, 2 to 3-fold for late onset).

Quote

with CR like weight reductions.

Except that smoking is much more enjoyable than starving yourself. Plus the myriad of other benefits absent in CR (e.g. dopaminergic & cholinergic effects, doubling of detox rates).

Quote

Furthermore, you lie when you say the situation has not changed recently, we know have  an animal model where smoking clearly causes lung cancer.

You seem to be pretty sloppy reader. You offered stuff already discussed and thoroughly debunked and I gave you links (F344 rats and B6C3F1 mice) to read the objections and explain away the problems listed there with the alleged "model". It is also pretty obvious that their claims of "harm" (lung cancer) were completely bogus, when you realize that the "harmed" smoking animals outlived significantly the "non-harmed" ones. If one can play with definition of "harm" like that, one can make anything appear "harmful".

Quote

Also you ignore all the overwhelming data showing increases in most forms of disease in the population in general and also very old people. That some studies like Parkinson may be helped by smoking does not change the overall picture. Studies off only nicotine itself is not worth much, tobacco smoke is much more than nicotine so the effect of tobacco smoke cannot be predicted from only looking at Nicotine.

My position is that tobacco smoking (at the levels of common human smoking) is good for health and longevity and I offer scientific experiments clearly demonstrating the validity of the claim. I don't know of any such experiment or make similar claims about pure nicotine (although, I think it is harmful when taken alone in the long run, without the full synergistic complex of tobacco smoke).

Edited by nightlight, 01 March 2010 - 01:49 PM.