/sci/ - Science & Math

No. Sadly, all we have is data.

Ha. I told those fuckers there was no proof but no one believed me. Typical children believing any propaganda they see on TV or whatever.

>>3135254
>>3135260
Pfffhahaha. I like this thread already.

>>3135260
moron!

>>3135260

I think we're arguing about different points here.

The starter of the argument was implying a single cigarette was harmless, while the rest of /co/ took it as him saying cigarettes can't kill you (which he admitted they can if you do it a lot)

Basically, he hates how cigarette smokers are persecuted.

Also, as I said in the other thread, the typical anti-tobacco assholes tend to assume that everyone is out there smoking a ridiculous amount of cigarettes a day. ANYTHING will cause harm to you if done in excess. Even water will kill you if you drink too much of it.

You're more likely to do from a car accident, so there....

Scientifically speaking, smoking makes you cool.
Now we know from Newton's Laws that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So the cooler you are (the more you smoke), there must be an anti-cool reaction (cancer).

>>3135269

I think the logical counter to this fact, is that people assume that cigarettes are HIGHLY addicting, therefore if you smoke a couple here and there you WILL start doing it in excess.

The point where you just become a troll is about carcinogens, link me somewhere and I'll read and become informed, but all I have is your hearsay sorry.

>>3135274
>do

*ahem* die

>>3135266
No one ever Spurted the "one cigarette can kill you" argument, except the starter of the topic to belittle it by its silliness.

Putting bad argument in the month of the opponent is not something I approve.

>>3135269
Addictive product is addictive. on average, Smokers are on more than a pack a day.

Yes, old people that smoke die. SHOCK! OLD PEOPLE DYING, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!

It's pretty much the same with alcohol and other drugs, if they are so dangerous, why do they not kill people sooner. The truth is that the government wants to be able to use this for a reason for taxing them.

>>3135278
That's like saying nobody should eat food, because some people won't control themselves and eat themselves into an early heart attack. It's not that difficult to set reasonable limits for ourselves. Too many people see someone smoking a single cigarette and think they'll be dead within the year for it.

>>3135280

I'm not sure what point you're making but you're correct.

The argument started on a strawman and continued into a misunderstanding with some troll mixed in (??)

I smoke a pack a day for 70 years it never killed me - old man with cancer

You know how arguing with conspiracy theorists doesn't work? Same applies here.

>>3135288
Food is a biological necessity. That's what your body call for more.
Cigarette isn't a biological necessity (quite on the contrary, you will be better at sport if you quit smoking), yet your body call for more despite the substance being useless for your body.

That's why it's called an addictive substance.

>>3135292
What!? There are no old people on 4chan....

>>3135288
The thing is is that smoking is actually physiologically addictive. As in, you'll go through physical withdrawal if you try and quit. That's more than just someone liking food so much they eat a lot of it.

>>3135288

It's not about control. Addiction is a state of mind/disease/whatever you wanna call it. Food doesn't have nicotine.

Basically, cigarettes make you crave more cigarettes which makes you more crave more cigarettes etc.

Is nicotine not addictive now? If that's your new point then links please and I swear I'll read them, I'm bored in the middle of bumblefuck nowhere.

>>3135299

It's actually hard to get physically addicted to nicotine, although most people think psychological addiction is as bad as physical..

Pff, like there even is any reason to smoke.

i smoked 2 packets of Kent blue or -9- in some countries, but to save money i stated malboro red and now i do 3 packets per 2 days
i have been smoking for 12 years started when i was 13, i am the fastest in running between my friends when we play football, it takes me a while to get tired more than some non-smokers, maybe its cause i do alot of fitness, but till now smoking hasn't affected me

>>3135304
>your body call for more despite the substance being useless for your body.
>call for more despite the substance being useless for your body.
> despite the substance being useless for your body.
>substance being useless for your body.
>being useless for your body.
>useless for your body.

<----pic

Unnecessary =/= Useless

>>3135310
But it makes you a totally gnarly dude, man.

>>3135308
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4753

They say you're wrong, and I'll assume they're right because they're the only people I've seen argue the point either way.

You didn't just make this stuff up in your head yourself, I know you're smart and read something somewhere, I just wanna read it too.

>>3135308
You get faster addicted to Nicotine than Alcohol. People who quit smoking are more easily stressed out and more subjected to angry reaction.

The obsession of getting a cigarette very fast to obsess you.

>>3135321

Implying the only addictive substance in cigarettes is nicotine..

>>3135315
This is a pure arguing on semantic there. You perfectly understood what I mean and the point remain.

The physical addiction of nicotine only lasts a few days before it's gone.

Does someone know the substance(s) that cause the cancerous reaction in lungs, please? Just like it was proved for asbestos.

The cancer that is caused by smoking is due somewhat due to the tar and other poisioness substances like Arsenic that are present in the smoke

But mostly its due to the Polonium210, which is absorbed by the tobacco plant during growth

Polonium210 is a strong Alpha emitter with a half life of 120 days, because it is inside your body the alpha particle does far more damage the cells DNA then would normally happen with Gamma or Beta radiation, the substance was used to kill Alexander Litvinenko was Polonium210, but it was delivered in much larger amounts

>>3135332

Well, It is a pretty important issue of semantics. And with all due respect, I don't perfectly understand what you mean, and the point...?

>>3135335
I beg to differ. I know many former smoker who react immediately a soon as a cigarette is lit. unlike me, who have never smoked, they have much more difficulty to bear with it. The nicotine in your body leave its mark and can be easily reawakened.

>>3135339
How the fuck is a radioactive heavy metal getting into tobacco?

>>3135339
You never hear anyone whining about this radioactive metal in cigarettes.Like it doesn't exist.
Also aren't most people who survived the 100years barrier smokers?

>>3135339
Source, please? I sort of feel you are bulshitting, there.

Nicotine does have positive effects, but nobody seems to speak about them.. The dangers of tobacco..

every time you smoke a cigarette, this happens millions of times.

>>3135345
I smoked when I was 15...(not because of friends or whatever,I smoked alone)
I never had any problem with stopping.I just stopped one day and never returned.

>>3135349
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium
The presence of polonium in tobacco smoke has been known since the early 1960s.[60][61] Some of the world's biggest tobacco firms researched ways to remove the substance—to no avail—over a 40-year period but never published the results.[25]

Radioactive polonium-210 contained in phosphate fertilizers is absorbed by the roots of plants (such as tobacco) and stored in its tissues.[62][63][64] Tobacco plants fertilized by rock phosphates contain polonium-210, which emits alpha radiation estimated to cause about 11,700 lung cancer deaths annually worldwide.[25][65][66]

Already know this a few years.

>>3135346
Trace radioactive elements are everywhere

>>3135344
Its been known about since the early 60's, the tobacco companies even tried researching ways to reduce it but failed

>>3135343
The point was:
Food is a biological necessity. That's what your body call for more.
Cigarette isn't a biological necessity (quite on the contrary, you will be better at sport if you quit smoking), yet your body call for more despite the substance being unnecessary for your body.

That's why it's called an addictive substance.

>>3135355
Well, I think that does it.

Smoking can cause Cancer.

>>3135252
>beyond the statistic?
of course not, it's just a random coincidence that smokers have a 50000x chance of developing lung cancer

The argument that there are some people that smoked for several decades and have had no problems at all is totally invalid. Smoking does not give you cancer, it raises the chance for certain types of cancer.

Saying that smoking doesn't give you cancer, because there are old people smoking, is like saying: Jumping of a building won't kill you, because there was this person who survived it.

>>3135355
Did they never think to use alternative fertilizers?

Also does this suggest that any non-organic food produce is radioactive? After all, they've been treated with fertilizers.

>>3135383
But most plants don't absorb Polonium like tobacco does

Its just one of those things, like how Nettle like to take up large amounts of Titanium, the tobacco plant just likes to take up Polonium

>>3135431
Oh okay. But still it would require a considerable amount of radioactive polonium in fertilizers to even make this a big deal. Are the organicfags onto something?

I'm tempted to grow some organic tobacco now.

>>3135431
Also, the polonium that you DO take up from eating foods (because plants still do take up polonium in small amounts, its just the tobacco plant likes to take up HEAPS of it) passes through your body fairly easily and isn't really absorbed much, while the polonium that you breath when you smoke in stays in your lungs

>>3135442
The concentration of Polonium in the fertilizers doesn't have to be big, the plant absorbs it and stores it in the leaves, which is the part that you smoke

OP: the tar you smoke in with the cigarette forms little grains, which absorb the carcinogens (benzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) in the smoke on their surface. These little grains sit in the bronchioles or whatever the shit it's called in english, thus they carry the PAH chemicals there, which cause cancer (they oxidate into endiols which fuck with your DNA)
Sorry for bad english

All kinds of awesome chemicals like >>3135348 mentioned, that we know for a fact like to do things with our DNA they are not supposed to do.
We have two, independent and complementary reasons to believe smoking causes cancer, and that is all the data that smokers have way more cases of cancer and that we know of a plausible and known chemical reaction that cigarettes can cause cancer in humans.
Any denying that is just wishful thinking.

>>3135452
They adsorb PAH, not absorb, sorry

>>3135449
>mfw drying my tobacco and storing it for three years before smoking

problem, polonium half life?

ANY type of smoke inhaled is bad for you.
and can eventually cause some type of cancer.
I dont understand why you need full proof of it.

>>3135491
>ANY type of smoke inhaled is bad for you.
>he doesn't know about cannabis

>>3135452
You're right except the part it's oxidating. PAH doesn't get to go to the liver from there, I think you're confusing it for benzene, but that doesn't just cause lug cancer but every kind.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19030_quitting-smoking-6-things-you-notice-about-stupid-world.html

Addiction creates a physical dependency so you actually feel sick if you stop smoking. The fact that nicotine addiction is so hard to shake should rank the drug with heroin.

>>3135494
Doesn't matter if you just smoked the paper, it's not a healthy way to ingest things.

>>3135494
0/10
cannabis smoke causes cancer too if you smoke it as a joint, only difference is that you don't smoke as much pot as cigarette (well, I'm implying that)

by the time our generation (early to mid 20s) gets cancer from smokin` science will have found a cure.

problem cancer?

captcha : ferste sativa

So it's very easy to find lots of data which correlates. Icecream eating and drowning correlate. Does ice-cream cause drowning? No, people swimming in the sea in hot weather does.

SO how do we know what causes rather than correlates?

We use the Bradford-Hill criteria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford-Hill_criteria

This was the first study to link smoking as a causative factor in lung cancer.

Oh, what was that? Smoking causes lung cancer?

</thread>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Mechanism

>>3135512
>if you smoke it as a joint

Bongs filter out the bad stuff right? Fucking morons.
Also:
>cannabis smoke causes cancer
Find me some evidence of this. The smoke obviously is bad for your health, but find me a case where someone got cancer from Cannabis smoke.

>>3135554
I have already explained it. The tar forms grains which adsorb thee carcinogens and "transport" it deep in your lung. Those carcinogens are in cannabis too, because it's a plant too when you burn it there will be a lot of similar chemicals apparent. Also yes, the water in the bong filters the tar, so do the math.
Chemical engineering major reported in

>>3135554
>>3135554
I have already explained it. The tar forms grains which adsorb thee carcinogens and "transport" it deep in your lung. Those carcinogens are in cannabis too, because it's a plant too when you burn it there will be a lot of similar chemicals apparent. Also yes, the water in the bong filters the tar, so do the math.
Chemical engineering major reported in

>>3135515

I'm a Biochemist and a significant part of of my work is in supporting the development of new anti-cancer drugs, specifically prodrugs activated by the CYP450 family of proteins.

I feel well qualified to say that while there has been excellent progress in the development of targetted therapies for cancer patients, a complete cure for all lung cancers is a long way off yet.

While researchers have been able to identify many thousands of mutations which exist in cancerous cells within the lung, those responsible for the proliferation aren't exceptionally well known.

And to anyone who says that smoking doesn't cause cancer, should read this as a primer.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/howdoweknow/

I've smoked about one carton (~20 cigarettes) per week for few years now.
What kind of health effect this amout of smoking might have? Should I be conserned?

>>3135578
>I feel well qualified to say that while there has been excellent progress in the development of targetted therapies for cancer patients, a complete cure for all lung cancers is a long way off yet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1219948/A-ray-light-kill-cancer-cells-leaving-terrible-sca
rs--offered-it.html

Hey, any non-inert foreign substance that sits in your body will cause cancer. Food will cause cancer if your don't poop. If you smoke, coughing and spitting is the body's way of eliminating garbage.

For you non-believerfags:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=smoking%20lung%20cancer

Now get the fuck out of my /sci/.

>>3135623

You need to define non inert... and food. There is a big distinction between carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic compounds. I bet you that eating a bowl of cadmium toast crunch with benzene for milk is alot worse for you then refusing to poo out a dozen twinkies.

> but is there actually scientific proof that smoking cause lung cancer, beyong the statistic?
What? WHAT?

What the hell kind of proof do you want? We've got a mechanism, if that's what you mean. It's not just a strong unexplained correlation.

>>3135252

Research that was carried out in the US discovered that benzpyrene, which is a carcinogen found in the tar of cigarette smoke, damages and slowly destroys a certain gene in the body that is responsible for controlling the growth of cancerous cells and preventing the subsequent development of a cancerous tumour. In 60% of lung cancer cases this gene has been seen to be damaged.


Statistics show that 54% of mouth cancers, 50% of cancers of the oesophagus and 70% of cancers of the larynx are attributed to smoking. Around 40% of stomach cancers are caused from smoking, as are 30% of cancers of the penis.

For females, there is a greater risk of developing cervical cancer if she is a smoker. 19% of cervical cancer cases can be attributed to smoking, although heavy smokers may have an increased risk of developing this type of cancer of up to 80%.

It is true however, that lung cancer is the most common form of cancer developed by smokers. Around 90% of all lung cancers are caused directly by smoking and statistics show that one in four smokers will eventually die of lung cancer.

Look at it this way, in about 50% of all lung cancer cases, they cannot attribute the cause to smoking. There is no "known" cause for this 50% of lung cancer.

Since the standard of smoking as a "cause" are have you ever smoked or been around someone who smoked, you have to seriously question if smoking is the actual cause. Also, you need to consider the people who are heavy smokers for their entire lives and live to be 80 and die of something of something that isn't attributed to smoking.

While smoking may cause lung cancer, the data isn't there to prove it one way or another.