/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8232036
>Richard Doll

Is not a credible source of information regarding smoking, his study has been ripped apart at least more than once and for good reason. He also was an industry funded scientist.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

>mice painted with tobacco/using animals in general to prove anything regarding human exposure

Studies performed on mice can't be replicated on humans. While the longecity article I posted uses mice and hamster examples, it also uses examples with humans and discusses the chemistry of tobacco smoke and how it specifically interacts with the human body, showing, among other things, that tobacco can protect against diabetes. Additionally the thread seems to distinguish between organic and commercial tobacco, and while I find that odd since most smokers in these studies probably smoke commercial cigarettes (there's no way to tell), organic tobacco is completely harmless.

>become trapped in the lungs, causing cancer.

That is fucking bullshit. Tobacco is a bronchial dilator that opens up the lungs and clears mucus from the airways. A study shiwedcoal miners who smoked had healthier lungs than nonsmoking coal miners, because they coughed up matter that was in their lungs.

"Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers." - 0429. Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy (Poland). Lange, A. "Effect of Smoking on Immunological Abnormalities in Asbestos Workers
"Relative risk of lung cancer for asbestos workers was "highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and deaths from mesothelioma." - 0565. University of London, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "Cancer of the Lung Among Asbestos Factory Workers."

>benzo a pyrene

Organic tobacco doesn't have that. If it was a problem people could just switch to American Spirit.