Does smoking shorten lifespan? Mmm no it doesn't.

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Dec 12, 2013
25,744
3,043
280
Earth
Smoke, drink, eat the wrong food and live to 100... if you've inherited the right genes

"Smoking, drinking and eating fast food will not stop you living to a ripe old age – if you have the right genes.

A study of hundreds of centenarians revealed they were just as likely to have vices as other people – and in some cases they indulged in them more.

Some of them had smoked for 85 years, others got through more than two packets of cigarettes a day. They also exercised less than their shorter-lived counterparts but were less likely to become obese.
...
Almost 500 men and women aged between 95 and 109 were asked about how they had lived their lives for the study.

If lifestyle was more important than genetics, the results would have shown the centenarians to be less likely to smoke than the others and have led healthier lives.

But this was far from the case, the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society reported.
Pugh

The long-lived men and women were no more likely to have dieted than the others and were more likely to have smoked and drunk."

rest at link

Our genes determine our health and longevity, not lifestyle factors like diet and smoking. If you really want people to be healthier quit lying to them.
 
Some of the nonsense I grew up hearing about smoking is directly responsible for my doubting the claims and beginning to investigate it for myself. As with every cig takes 7 minutes off your lifespan :) Ask yourself how they would be able to determine that short of having 2 perfect clones of each other locked away in a lab somewhere to spend their entire lives being lab rats. One smokes, the other doesn't then recording when each died and comparing the results.

Not achieving anything with ludicrous hyperbolistic claims like that. Nor is the mentioning of '7000 toxic chemicals come for you when you smoke.' Ya well since no one's ever fallen over dead guess those 7000 chemicals are either not very toxic, or in such infintesimal amounts you're more likely to suffer ill-effec from car exhaust.

Lying, exaggerating, and trying to create panic and fear just to get people not to do something is reminiscent of the Nazis. Who, oh by the way, were the ones that started the anti-smoking campiagn.

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
All true I'm afraid and unfortunately the good genes that your parents or grandparents enjoy may not be the genes you've been gifted with. Smoking damages the heart muscle and while your great grand whatever may have gotten away with it that doesn't mean you will be as lucky.

It would be great if there were a test that showed that you could smoke or drink as much as you like. I suppose a DNA test could reveal some things, but knowing you are likely to survive versus you will survive is a big difference. In the end, why would you want to live capriciously anyway? There really isn't anything special in the ability to smoke, drink, or overeat except you will stink, stagger, and be fat.
 
Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.
The anti campaign was just a tax scam. Shame of it is the bankers are drawing the money off the deal as many the states took their money in advance; problem is many took more than they should have so they have to make it up in other areas. Eggs in the basket doesn't apply to modern day politics.
 
Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.
The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

Uh no. Think about it. Inhaling a partial lungfull of smoke, or smoking directly and getting every bit of it. Which is gonna result in more exposure?

That's the kind of ridiculous claims made easily dispelled.
 
Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.
The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

Uh no. Think about it. Inhaling a partial lungfull of smoke, or smoking directly and getting every bit of it. Which is gonna result in more exposure?

That's the kind of ridiculous claims made easily dispelled.

A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift
 
Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.
The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

Uh no. Think about it. Inhaling a partial lungfull of smoke, or smoking directly and getting every bit of it. Which is gonna result in more exposure?

That's the kind of ridiculous claims made easily dispelled.

A smoker is pulling filth into his lungs only while the cigarette is lit
Someone who works in a second hand smoke environment is breathing in that filth for an entire eight hour shift

True, but that's different than banning smoking in an outdoor park because somoene may catch some on the breeze.
 
Well hell, we may as well go back to doing coke every night too. Only a small percentage of users ever have any real problem with it. Also, chances are you will survive a game of Russian Roulette, so why not let's do that too? Yep, let's all get coked up out of our minds and play Russian Roulette! It's not really "bad" for us, is it, Delta?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007
Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.
The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

It is interesting how we forget how many other things are also responsible for lung cancer.

If I remember right, radon gas is responsible for the second greatest amount of lung cancers, yet this is rarely mentioned in nightly PSA's.
 
Well hell, we may as well go back to doing coke every night too. Only a small percentage of users ever have any real problem with it. Also, chances are you will survive a game of Russian Roulette, so why not let's do that too? Yep, let's all get coked up out of our minds and play Russian Roulette! It's not really "bad" for us, is it, Delta?

So you would advocate a ban on peanuts?
 
Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.
The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

It is interesting how we forget how many other things are also responsible for lung cancer.

If I remember right, radon gas is responsible for the second greatest amount of lung cancers, yet this is rarely mentioned in nightly PSA's.

Smoking accounts for 87% of lung cancers....what percent is due to radon exposure?
 
Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.
The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

It is interesting how we forget how many other things are also responsible for lung cancer.

If I remember right, radon gas is responsible for the second greatest amount of lung cancers, yet this is rarely mentioned in nightly PSA's.
Lung cancer is not the only cause of early death linked to smoking.
 
Well hell, we may as well go back to doing coke every night too. Only a small percentage of users ever have any real problem with it. Also, chances are you will survive a game of Russian Roulette, so why not let's do that too? Yep, let's all get coked up out of our minds and play Russian Roulette! It's not really "bad" for us, is it, Delta?

So you would advocate a ban on peanuts?
I am not advocating a ban on anything.
 
Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.
The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

It is interesting how we forget how many other things are also responsible for lung cancer.

If I remember right, radon gas is responsible for the second greatest amount of lung cancers, yet this is rarely mentioned in nightly PSA's.

Smoking accounts for 87% of lung cancers....what percent is due to radon exposure?

How many of those 87% had every home they lived in tested for radon? Of course that number is close to zero.

Without that critical information, mine would be only a guess, but also, without that information, so is the 87% number
 
Lung cancer and emphysema shorten life spans.

Sure, unfortunately for the hysterical anti-smoking clique though only about 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.
The rest of them had to put up with second hand smoke. Same as smoking.

It is interesting how we forget how many other things are also responsible for lung cancer.

If I remember right, radon gas is responsible for the second greatest amount of lung cancers, yet this is rarely mentioned in nightly PSA's.
Lung cancer is not the only cause of early death linked to smoking.

So is smoking while driving. Ban all distracted driving?

The longevity brought up by the OP includes all types of death. Explain how these people lived so long.
 

Forum List

Back
Top