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
) 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