can a christian smoke...??

[dgolvach]

Cancer Facts NCI Home

CIS Home

Dictionary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date reviewed: 12/23/2003

Cigarette Smoking and Cancer: Questions and Answers

Key Points

Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths and is responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity, esophagus, and bladder (see Question 1).

Secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers each year (see Question 2).

Tobacco smoke contains thousands of chemical agents, including over 60 substances that are known to cause cancer (see Question 3).

The risk of developing smoking-related cancers, as well as noncancerous diseases, increases with total lifetime exposure to cigarette smoke (see Question 4).

Smokers can decrease their risk of developing cancer by quitting smoking (see Question 5).

Tobacco use, particularly cigarette smoking, is the single most preventable cause of death in the United States. Cigarette smoking alone is directly responsible for approximately 30 percent of all cancer deaths annually in the United States (1). Cigarette smoking also contributes to lung disease, heart disease, stroke, and the development of low birth weight babies (2). Quitting smoking can significantly reduce a person

[Guest LadyC]

dgol, as i suggested, instead of quoting newsy articles that summarize studies with a great deal of spin, please look up the actual studies themselves and study the numbers.

why is this important? because i could look at the same studies that article looked at and spin it just as much in favor of my position as they spun it in theirs.

read the numbers, not the hype.

[Guest LadyC]

p.s., it's nearly midnight here, i'm bowing out and heading to bed. goodnight all.

[dgolvach]

Bottom Line. Why risk your health?

[Guest LadyC]

nobody's asking you to risk your health.

[jcm]

LadyC,

My response to the articles you linked to:

http://193.78.190.200/43/1057.pdf

Ok, it says here that the results don't show a cause-and-effect relationship between second-hand smoke and tobacco-related mortality. I'll concede that point that it isn't proven in this study that second-hand smoke killed those people.

But it also says here that 'they do not rule out a small effect' and the association between second-hand smoke and coronary disease and lung cancer may be weaker than generally believed. It doesn't look good for my argument but they at least acknowledge that there is a connection. You have to concede that a health-risk (though maybe not fatal) does exist.

http://193.78.190.200/14/1666.htm

This study is limited only to exploring second-hand smoke's relation to breast cancer, not any other health risk.

http://193.78.190.200/10h/ets.htm

This study is only concerned with measuring the levels of smoke in a building, not their effects, therefore this does not help your case nor mine.

http://193.78.190.200/2/15/ala-ats2.htm

This one could go either way, I believe.

Leitch et al assessed this issue in a questionnaire to more then 7,400 college students[3]. Students newly exposed to passive cigarette smoke had an increased relative risk of wheezing symptoms and awakening with cough than those not exposed. Discontinuation of passive smoke exposure in the previous year was still associated with chest tightness and awakening short of breath, according to the survey. This offers additional evidence of a link between passive cigarette smoke exposure and asthma, although the association does not appear to be as strong as many believe.

http://193.78.190.200/2/11/jnci.htm

Again this could go either way. No evidence linking childhood exposure and lung cancer, some evidence linking spousal and workplace exposure to same.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm

This is a matter of due process, not fact. It stems from procedural error and such. In any case, the judge can (and did) only rule on matters of law, not science.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/montreal.htm

The sampling size was too small to be of any significance, and 16.1% of that didn't even participate! In all only just over a 1000 participated. That isn't statistically significant to cite (even if it made my case!) and besides the focus of the study was on socioeconomic status.

In your earlier post you mentioned the CDC supported your case yet when I posted a CDC link saying otherwise you directed me to more 'authoritative' studies. Now this not an attack on you it just shows that people (myself included) tend to lend more credence to reports that support our views.

edited to get names right - sorry!

Edited September 13, 2004 by jcm

[jcm]

who is laura?

phillip morris succombed to political correctness as part of the lawsuit settlement. LOL, don't you listen to the news much?

I'm so sorry!!! I'll edit my posts. As for Philip Morris succumbing and thus "posting a lie" on their website, that's one way to read it.

[Guest LadyC]

jcm, i'll find the cdc and the who studies tomorrow. again, read the numbers, not the hype. i can't stress that enough.

i concede (and never denied) that there may very well be a minor increase of risk for certain diseases/disorders/defects. such has not been conclusively proven, however, and if you read the numbers of nearly every scientific study regarding any given condition, the percieved risk is much smaller than commonly believed. note the word percieved... the studies are still inconclusive, because they can't eliminate other contributing factors.

and yes, i know one of the studies i posted was small, but it supports the others. i also know one only covered breast cancer.. just as one covered asthma, and one covered something else. smoking is labeled as THE big scary monster in so many different diseases, so obviously some studies are going to focus on individual disorders.

please continue searching for the published studies. don't be afraid to go to the smoker's rights sites to find the links to them. (you're more likely to find links to the actual studies there than on any anti-smoking site, or even on any search engine, unless you start on about page 200 of the results!) you'll probably stumble across the CDC and WHO ones before i do, because i REALLY have to get to bed now!

ok, i've stayed too long, goodnight again... this time i mean it, i think!

[Guest LadyC]

who is laura?

phillip morris succombed to political correctness as part of the lawsuit settlement. LOL, don't you listen to the news much?

I'm so sorry!!! I'll edit my posts. As for Philip Morris succumbing and thus "posting a lie" on their website, that's one way to read it.

i didn't say they posted a "lie". they posted what was politically correct. the numbers that have been spun by leaving out important factors. their posting of such was part of their settlement.

[jcm]

Well, ok. But whether in the end it proves true or not, if they post what they feel is 'spin' it is untruthful on their part. I think people (hopefully not us) on both sides of this are guilty to some extent of 'spin'.