Monday, 29 November 2010

Lumpy lung.

I have always accepted the idea of smoking causing lung cancer, even as a smoker, because, well, it's logical. Take something unnatural into yourself and there is a risk of harm. It cannot be said that deliberately inhaling smoke is natural, therefore there must be some risk. On the other hand, I have long been certain that the biggest cause of all forms of cancer, heart attacks and many other illnesses is stress. That's also logical. As the 24/7 culture grows, so does the rate of cancer. In my last job, leaving work at the time when they stopped paying me was widely seen as 'lazy' and not working unpaid weekends was seen as 'not a team player'. I smoke and drink far more now than I did then, but the chest pains are all but gone. The work is as hard, or harder, but the pressure is reduced.

Frank Davis
has caused me to question the assumption of the link between smoking and cancer. While I had already ridiculed the smoking beagles as just as likely to be stress-induced cancers as smoking-induced, Frank went into far more detail in his research.

I am further persuaded to Frank's side by this article and its blatant lies.

While preventing smoking is key to reducing lung cancer, most of the work to encourage people to give up cigarettes has been focused on men, the report published by the South West Public Health Observatory indicates.

I recall those ads where women who smoke were likened to 'kissing an ashtray'. Who remembers the beautiful woman spurned by a dweeb because she had a cigarette? I remember thinking 'she can do so much better than that wiry twerp'. The focus has never been on men. It has always been on smokers. To the fundamentalists, we don't have a gender. We are not even human.

So it is a lie and the antismokers will, nonetheless, grasp it in their bony little prematurely aged fingers and cry 'Truth' because it is what they want to believe.

Smoking prevalence has been reducing for many years. Asthma, lung cancer and a host of respiratory illnesses are increasing. There is a clear inverse relationship but none dare point it out. It does not mean that smoking protects. It most certainly does suggest that something else is causing the problem. Something nobody is looking for.

On this issue, at least, the science is far from 'settled'.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

The most interested thing is how they describe the rate as having "soared" from 32.3 cases per 100,000 to 35.4 per 100,000 during the 19-year period.

That's a tiny rate of increase - surely well within the error bands of any expected natural variation.

Given that, over the same period the rate of smoking in the UK by women has plummeted...well, let's just say I'm having some troubles with the entire premise behind this article.

The Jones said...

Look.......


http://www.theospark.net/2009/07/old-toolreintroduced-by-congress.html


Is this where the expression 'blow it out yer ass' came from?.

The Jones said...

Ah, yeah, it says so in the picture...

Doh....

Slamlander said...

An article in reponse to a BBC global warming article.

http://slamlander.caselle-vpn.net/?p=1519

Enjoy.

David Davis said...

In 1955, the Reader's Digest published this. It is in my Library. Here is the link:-

http://tobaccodocuments.org/ctr/50072322-2327.html

Anonymous said...

Lumps 1960

"The susceptibility of mice to lung adenomas, induced by urethran feeding, depends upon the dietary supply of niacin.

Furthermore, Strain A mice, on a niacin deficient diet, showed a greatly increased incidence of spontaneous lung adenomas; whereas, a supplement of niacin seemed to be protective."
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=pnx69d00&page=1

A lesson to us all, to be sure that we give our mice a well balanced diet.

Rose

Anonymous said...

I would say that old age is probably the biggest "cause" of cancer.

People are living longer = older people are more prone to A, B, C though to Z and back again.

More old people = more cancer.

Unless you can show that cancer is on the increase in the younger generation (-50?) and smoking has decreased in this generation.

I'm a part time smoker of certain substances, i can physically notice the difference smoking causes to my lungs capacity, which is why i have cut it back to a few at the weekend.

Bill Sticker said...

Hmm. Long term stress and constant over-stimulation of the parasympathetic nervous system screws with the body chemistry and causes ill health. Never actually been linked with Carcinomas, but who knows?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTGsd4UjqFc

Loki said...

http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/smoking.asp

Not a bad blog either.

Frank Davis said...

Always glad to be of assistance, Leggy.

Anonymous said...

Who really cares what you die from or indeed that you die? Your nearest and dearest, I suppose but nobody else. I for example don't care because I will just add a different blog to my list of favourites.

So, if I don't care, why the fuck should the government?

Simply because they decided at some point in history that they could run a National Health Scheme better than the private market.

Clearly they were wrong and 70 billion per annum or so later, in a huge pickle and not knowing what to do about it they have decided that if they reduce the number of sick people then they might prove up to the job.

Of course, being the government it all seemed that simple; stop people smoking and drinking and they will stop dying and, if not then they will die a bit later under a Labour administration.

This then is the clarity of thought we can expect from our politicians and this is the reason we are so deeply in the shit

adamcollyer said...

"Asthma, lung cancer and a host of respiratory diseases are increasing"

Not so for lung cancer, actually. You can see the figures here.

Leg-iron said...

David D - I have long been convinced that stress causes considerable harm, including cancer.

That paper supports the theory.

opinions powered by SendLove.to