/sci/ - Science & Math

Smoking

bump

>>10795509
Breathing asbestos.
Smoking tobacco.

>>10795520
What is asbestos and where can i find it?

>>10795512
>>10795520
To this day, tobacco smoke inhalation has never been shown to cause cancer.

>>10795601
>smokepill
>bluepill
Retardation

>>10795601
And how get lung cancer now?

>>10795618
if you want to die just fucking hang yourself you don't need cancer

>>10795601
Yeah, there is literally no evidence in the literature to suggest that it does.

>>10795627
Yes there is,

>>10795626
Any recomendations?

>>10795509
Inject live cancer cells into your body

>>10795627
>>10795635
There is not.
Find me a single experimental study using tobacco smoke with healthy animal subjects where the tobacco smoke group showed cancer at rates higher than control. Pro-tip, you can't.

>>10795601
Cigarettes' smoke has 7000 chemicals most of which are carcinogenic

>>10795601
>To this day, tobacco smoke inhalation has never been shown to cause cancer.
Citation ever so desperately needed.

>>10795724
>most are carcinogenic
That's patently false. People point to individual constituents carcinogenicity because tobacco itself has never demonstrated it in any experimental test. This is dishonest. It ignores the dose. It ignores the (often greater) presence of these in everyday foodstuffs. It is a convenient straw man.

>>10795738
I didn't claim Tabaco is. I said the additives are

>>10795734
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608635

Find me a single experimental study using healthy animal subjects that shows the tobacco smoke group getting cancer. The only one that exists is the infamous smoking dogs study in the 60s which the researchers admitted to fabricating.

>>10795740
You, in fact, did not specify the additives, and regardless they would not result in that many combustion byproducts in and of themselves.

>>10795743
200 chemicals in total
7000 by products

>>10795749

Ok, where cancerogens contains?

>>10795755

>>10795509
Are you gonna try and cure your own cancer? There are safer ways to experiment anon.

>>10795827
Probably wants to get in on settlement money with his employer. Would you give yourself lung cancer for 1 million dollars?

>>10795841
YOU CAN GET WHAT?!
HOW DO I GET LUNG CANCER TOO!?
Wait. That's irrelevant. I can just sit next to a 5G tower for a few hours.

>>10795851
Make sure you get in on the glyphosate money too. One guy got 78 million dollars.

>>10795897
>glyphosate
CURRENTLY SNORTING IT IN CRYSTAL FOOOOOOORM
MONEY HERE I COOOOOOOOOME

>>10795907
Thank you anon for eliminating yourself from the genepool.

>>10795907
but it doesn't cause cancer. a jury of 12 layman "found" it did. the guy just worked around it his entire life and got cancer and blamed it like a brainlet despite it happening to nobody else.

Crush yourself into a powder and inhale yourself.

>>10795509
targeted radiation

>>10795954
Ionizing radiation does not cause cancer.

>>10795637
>Any recomendations
hand yourself retard don't bother anyone to clean up your msss

>>10795509
Inhaling radioactive particles.

>>10795698
This doesn't work in animal models, there is little reason to believe that it will in humans.

>>10795973
Pics source?

>>10796141
Chernobyl, the anime series.

>>10796150
I would give 3.6, not great bot terrible

>>10796159
*not

I smoke and I know it isnt gud for me. Cancer or no cancer, this already quite a bother. Im trying to substitute for juul.

Also
> try to remove that weird mole by a swiss knife
> get lung cancer
> get bone cancer
> get everything cancer
Easy as

>>10795618
You can't really get cancer now, it takes time to form.

>>10795907
You have to be employed for this to work, you know

How can I get my father to quit smoking? I want to see him around. It's so utterly ridiculous to waste what little you have of life smoking this crap.

>>10796737
If u start smoking he might get scared and you guys can quit together.
T. Not a cowboy

>>10795601
>>10795742

Yes, so since it doesn't cause cancer in 100% of people who do it, it doesn't cause cancer.

Fine, it raises the likelihood of developing cancer. You cannot argue with that, the meta data and relative/absolute risks are out there.

>>10796750
>Fine, it raises the likelihood of developing cancer
Only because it raises metabolic rate and thus requirements of water solubles, same effect could be achieved by taking for example T3.

Daily reminder that nicotine increases testosterone and lowers rates of depression, dementia and alzheimers by magnitudes less than any conventional treatments

>>10796773
Not only that:

>>10796773
>by magnitudes less than any conventional treatments
correct

>>10796852

>>10795601

You realise that woman assumed her mother's identity so as not to pay the French inheritance tax that was owed at the time of her mother's passing. She's not actually the real record holder.

>>10795509

Today, just graft the cancer on

>>10796136
Clonally transmissable cancer in Tasmanian Devils

>>10795509
Asbestos

>>10796750
>Fine, it raises the likelihood of developing cancer
No, you can still say tobacco is a cause of cancer.

Reddit

>>10795601
Jeanne was actually a fraud.

>>10795509
>smoke cigarettes
>get cool tinted lungs
>BIGGER heart

Smoking = good for you

>>10796773
>>10796782
>>10796756
>>10795912
>>10795743
>>10795738
>>10795742
>>10795601
>>10795714
Niggers, LOOK AT THE LUNG >>10795509
>hehe I'm contrarian, smokings actually good for you
LOOK AT THE FUCKING LUNG you absolute TROGLODYTES. Does the lung on the right look healthy to you? Does it, dipshit?

>>10795601
>>>/x/

>>10795509
As with most awful things you can do to yourself the answer is still "Think/Act like a Boomer"