/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>14460767
>>14460772
Wrong.

>>14258223
>pure poison like cigarettes
Citation needed.

>>14243672
Your post is speculative bullshit. To date there is not one successful experimental study where tobacco was able to induce carcinogensis in any healthy animal at rates statistically and practically significant relative to control. See for yourself.

>>14170062
Smoking is harmless and leads to olfactory neurogenesis which means an improved sense of taste. This is why most of the best chefs were smokers. There is no evidence that smoking causes cancer, only weak biased statistical evidence using a sample of scum who were already predisposed to disease. Non US studies such as those that came out of Japan in the 90s showed 1/10th the statistical relationship of cancer and smoking as those in the US did. Anti smoking science is sham science and your premise relies on a meme, one you fell for relying on anecdotal reporting that is presumably psychosomatic. Quitting smoking did more to harm your taste than taking it up ever did.

>>14078399
>since smoking is pretty unhealthy in the long term
Prove it.

>>13620035
Tobacco does not cause cancer and all claims that it does are based on faulty non-randomized epidemiological studies that try to prove causation from correlation.

To this very day, scientists are unable to induce cancer in animals using tobacco smoke. If it caused cancer, surely experimental studies (hard science) would show the same results as the human epidemiological ones.
See for yourself.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608635

Not only is it harmless, it confers a number of health benefits. It has nootropic, life-extending, anti-inflammatory and anti-carcinogenic effects. The overwhelming majority of supercentarians (ie, those living in excess of 100 years) were smokers.
Smokers have longer telemers and smoking itself is known to upregulate KLOTHO expression which is associated with longevity.


Reminder the majority of supercentarians were smokers which directly contradicts your >>>/death/ claim.

>>12140393
>addictive
Only as addictive as drinking coffee. Smokers who say they can't quit are low IQ people with a behavioral addiction. We don't call dirt addictive even though there's low IQ people who claim they're addicted to it.
>causes cancer
It actually doesn't.
Only weak non-randomized epidemiological studies show this, which are inherently flawed given selection bias and the tendency for each cohort to select the healthfulness or harm inherent to their life. It should further be noted that these seldom correct for lifestyle factors like diet, exercise, and most importantly workplace hazard risk. The final nail in the anti-smoking science's coffin is that all of soft studies are contradicted by hard evidence; there is not one study to date where the smoking group went on to get cancer at any statistically significant rate above the control group in healthy animals. Anyone who believes smoking causes cancer has not examined the evidence for themselves.

>>12121908
Tobacco unironically does protect against cancer in many instances.

>>11571362
The risks of smoking tobacco are incredibly overhyped and stand in direct contradiction to harder evidence.

>>11572136
Tobacco does not cause lung cancer.
Tobacco smoking is harmless.
Examine the evidence for yourself.