Anti-Smoking Bill To Be Signed Today

[KittenKoder]

Here is how they got the stats for smoking and lung cancer:

Someone gets lung cancer ....

... they smoked then smoking caused it.

... if they didn't and were around a smoker then second hand caused it.

... if they were no where near smoke then they are ignored.

... tally up the smoker and second hand smoker, find the percentage of each compared only to each other, since lung cancer can only be caused by smoking right. Then all those who were ignored must be part of that same category. Add in a very small chance for error, don't want people knowing we really didn't use math for this in the first place ... and there you have it.

That's how they got the stats they use against smoking. The reality is that most people with lung cancer have never been near smoking. Answer this, if smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer then how is it that areas with higher automobile concentration but a lower percentage of smokers also has a higher percentage of lung cancer?

 

[Dr Grump]

Being an ex-smoker, I used to try and find all kind of excuses how it wasn't bad for me. Trust me KK, it is real bad. My sister in law is a quack and she specialises in internal organs and medicine. She's seen more autopsies than you've had hot dinners (and she's not even a pathologist!). There are a tonne of stats and proof that show that smoking causes lung cancer, hardened arteries, heart disease and bad circulation is overwhelming. I concur with you about the tax man being over zealous. However, when it comes to medicine I'll go with somebody who has over 10 years study and experience on the subject.
Interestingly, she said there were about 10 percent of the population of smokers who will never get lung cancer. They think it is genetic, but they are not sure why.
Do you know why smokers get hardened arteries? Every time you have a cigarette you blood flow slows. Not markedly, but enough to leave little deposits from crap in your blood in your arteries that builds up over time. Your blood goes back to normal after about an hour of your last ciggie. So, if you smoke a lot during the times you are awake, your body only gets normal blood flow during sleep.

Sad, but true. If you can show me studies by qualified researchers - whether they be medical doctors, or folk getting doctorates at universities, then I'm all ears. Until then, I'll stick with the experts...

 

[Jon]

As long as they continue to make it illegal to smoke in public places, I don't give a shit what they do as far as cigarettes are concerned.

Smokers can inhale all the shit they want, as long as I don't have to breathe it too.

 

[DamnYankee]

I trust the science of statistics.

What I often find I too often don't trust are the statisticians who compile them.

As I said.... Feel free to submit opposing statistics.

Ask and ye shall receive. There is always an opposing statistic to support each side.

Most smokers are not low-income. Recent data from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention show that 60
percent of adult smokers have incomes
above 200 percent of the poverty line.2
Since a minority of smokers have low
incomes, those with low incomes will
contribute a relatively modest share of
the revenue collected by the proposed
tobacco tax increase. The main share of
the costs of strengthening children’s
coverage will come from smokers with
incomes above 200 percent of the poverty
line.

EXPANDING CHILDRENâS HEALTH INSURANCE AND RAISING FEDERAL TOBACCO TAXES HELPS LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

Recent data?

“Response to Increases in Cigarette Prices by Race/Ethnicity, Income and Age Groups — United States, 1976-1993,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(29):605-609, Jul. 31, 1998. M. Farrelly et al., “Responses
to Cigarette Prices by Socioeconomic Characteristics,” Southern Economic Journal, 68(1): 156-65, 2001. Campaign
for Tobacco-Free Kids, “Federal Tobacco Tax Increases Will Benefit Lower-Income Households,” revised Sept. 24,
2007,

Nice try. Oh, and did you know that the CDC has been suppressing the H1N1 statistics with their recommendations to States to discontinue testing unless hospitalization is required? (Inside scoop) With that in mind, AND the age of the statistics you've provided, I believe I have much more faith in the stats I provided by the American Heart Assoc. Be happy to entertain another submission though.

 

[KittenKoder]

As I said.... Feel free to submit opposing statistics.

Ask and ye shall receive. There is always an opposing statistic to support each side.

Most smokers are not low-income. Recent data from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention show that 60
percent of adult smokers have incomes
above 200 percent of the poverty line.2
Since a minority of smokers have low
incomes, those with low incomes will
contribute a relatively modest share of
the revenue collected by the proposed
tobacco tax increase. The main share of
the costs of strengthening children’s
coverage will come from smokers with
incomes above 200 percent of the poverty
line.

EXPANDING CHILDRENâS HEALTH INSURANCE AND RAISING FEDERAL TOBACCO TAXES HELPS LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

Recent data?

“Response to Increases in Cigarette Prices by Race/Ethnicity, Income and Age Groups — United States, 1976-1993,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(29):605-609, Jul. 31, 1998. M. Farrelly et al., “Responses
to Cigarette Prices by Socioeconomic Characteristics,” Southern Economic Journal, 68(1): 156-65, 2001. Campaign
for Tobacco-Free Kids, “Federal Tobacco Tax Increases Will Benefit Lower-Income Households,” revised Sept. 24,
2007,

Nice try. Oh, and did you know that the CDC has been suppressing the H1N1 statistics with their recommendations to States to discontinue testing unless hospitalization is required? (Inside scoop) With that in mind, AND the age of the statistics you've provided, I believe I have much more faith in the stats I provided by the American Heart Assoc. Be happy to entertain another submission though.

The CDC and AHA are both bullshit. If you don't think they have things to gain by making people think they are sicker than they really are, you are fooling yourself.

 

[KittenKoder]

I posted how the statistics work, and why every group that releases any statistic is capable of coming up with stats that demonstrate what they want you to see ...

Other than those lies there is no evidence to support the blind attacks on smokers.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, they are sounding like me, I have never trusted statistics, period. They are subjective and easily manipulated.

Statistics are based on data. You, of all people, should understand data. It's what your world exists on. Now, you're more than welcome to attempt to counter the statistics provided with "subjective" statistics of your own, but what I don't accept in a debate with me is out-of-hand dismissal of data (facts) to support an argument. Surely, since one can find anything to support their own opinion out there in your world, that shouldn't be too difficult. We can then discuss the objectivity, or lack thereof, of the two if you like.

Statistics are facts. However, the interpretation of statistics is subjective. Any statistician will tell you that extreme care should be exercised when extrapolating data sets into a conclusion and that certain guidelines should be followed with regard to confidence and significance or it is very easy indeed to turn an ambiguous finding into a damning one.

One can also skew the sample, which I believe was the implication. Now, since an "alternate" set of statistics was provided, what I've with those is show that the data is outdated and that some of the data is irrelevant.

 

[KittenKoder]

Statistics are based on data. You, of all people, should understand data. It's what your world exists on. Now, you're more than welcome to attempt to counter the statistics provided with "subjective" statistics of your own, but what I don't accept in a debate with me is out-of-hand dismissal of data (facts) to support an argument. Surely, since one can find anything to support their own opinion out there in your world, that shouldn't be too difficult. We can then discuss the objectivity, or lack thereof, of the two if you like.

Statistics are facts. However, the interpretation of statistics is subjective. Any statistician will tell you that extreme care should be exercised when extrapolating data sets into a conclusion and that certain guidelines should be followed with regard to confidence and significance or it is very easy indeed to turn an ambiguous finding into a damning one.

One can also skew the sample, which I believe was the implication. Now, since an "alternate" set of statistics was provided, what I've with those is show that the data is outdated and that some of the data is irrelevant.

No, statistics are all interpreted, just because Joe Bob smokes and dies of lung cancer doesn't mean it was the smoking that caused the lung cancer, but that's what they tell you. Car exhaust causes lung cancer, and there's tons of that.

 

[DamnYankee]

Here is how they got the stats for smoking and lung cancer:

Someone gets lung cancer ....

... they smoked then smoking caused it.

... if they didn't and were around a smoker then second hand caused it.

... if they were no where near smoke then they are ignored.

... tally up the smoker and second hand smoker, find the percentage of each compared only to each other, since lung cancer can only be caused by smoking right. Then all those who were ignored must be part of that same category. Add in a very small chance for error, don't want people knowing we really didn't use math for this in the first place ... and there you have it.

That's how they got the stats they use against smoking. The reality is that most people with lung cancer have never been near smoking. Answer this, if smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer then how is it that areas with higher automobile concentration but a lower percentage of smokers also has a higher percentage of lung cancer?

The lung is also a very common site for metastasis from tumors in other parts of the body. Tumor metastases are made up of the same type of cells as the original, or primary, tumor. For example, if prostate cancer spreads via the bloodstream to the lungs, it is metastatic prostate cancer in the lung and is not lung cancer.

What causes lung cancer?

Smoking

The incidence of lung cancer is strongly correlated with cigarette smoking, with about 90% of lung cancers arising as a result of tobacco use. The risk of lung cancer increases with the number of cigarettes smoked over time; doctors refer to this risk in terms of pack-years of smoking history (the number of packs of cigarettes smoked per day multiplied by the number of years smoked). For example, a person who has smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for 10 years has a 20 pack-year smoking history. While the risk of lung cancer is increased with even a 10-pack-year smoking history, those with 30-pack-year histories or more are considered to have the greatest risk for the development of lung cancer. Among those who smoke two or more packs of cigarettes per day, one in seven will die of lung cancer.

Pipe and cigar smoking can also cause lung cancer, although the risk is not as high as with cigarette smoking. While someone who smokes one pack of cigarettes per day has a risk for the development of lung cancer that is 25 times higher than a nonsmoker, pipe and cigar smokers have a risk of lung cancer that is about five times that of a nonsmoker.

Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds, many of which have been shown to be cancer-causing, or carcinogenic. The two primary carcinogens in tobacco smoke are chemicals known as nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The risk of developing lung cancer decreases each year following smoking cessation as normal cells grow and replace damaged cells in the lung. In former smokers, the risk of developing lung cancer begins to approach that of a nonsmoker about 15 years after cessation of smoking.

Passive smoking

Passive smoking, or the inhalation of tobacco smoke from other smokers sharing living or working quarters, is also an established risk factor for the development of lung cancer. Research has shown that nonsmokers who reside with a smoker have a 24% increase in risk for developing lung cancer when compared with other nonsmokers. An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year in the U.S. that are attributable to passive smoking.

Asbestos fibers

Asbestos fibers are silicate fibers that can persist for a lifetime in lung tissue following exposure to asbestos. The workplace is a common source of exposure to asbestos fibers, as asbestos was widely used in the past as both thermal and acoustic insulation. Today, asbestos use is limited or banned in many countries, including the U.S. Both lung cancer and mesothelioma (cancer of the pleura of the lung as well as of the lining of the abdominal cavity called the peritoneum) are associated with exposure to asbestos. Cigarette smoking drastically increases the chance of developing an asbestos-related lung cancer in exposed workers. Asbestos workers who do not smoke have a fivefold greater risk of developing lung cancer than nonsmokers, and those asbestos workers who smoke have a risk that is 50 to 90 times greater than nonsmokers.

Radon gas

Radon gas is a natural, chemically inert gas that is a natural decay product of uranium. Uranium decays to form products, including radon, that emit a type of ionizing radiation. Radon gas is a known cause of lung cancer, with an estimated 12% of lung-cancer deaths attributable to radon gas, or 15,000-22,000 lung-cancer-related deaths annually in the U.S., making radon the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. As with asbestos exposure, concomitant smoking greatly increases the risk of lung cancer with radon exposure. Radon gas can travel up through soil and enter homes through gaps in the foundation, pipes, drains, or other openings. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that one out of every 15 homes in the U.S. contains dangerous levels of radon gas. Radon gas is invisible and odorless, but it can be detected with simple test kits.

Familial predisposition

While the majority of lung cancers are associated with tobacco smoking, the fact that not all smokers eventually develop lung cancer suggests that other factors, such as individual genetic susceptibility, may play a role in the causation of lung cancer. Numerous studies have shown that lung cancer is more likely to occur in both smoking and nonsmoking relatives of those who have had lung cancer than in the general population. Recent research has localized a region on the long (q) arm of human chromosome number 6 that is likely to contain a gene that confers an increased susceptibility to the development of lung cancer in smokers.

Lung diseases

The presence of certain diseases of the lung, notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), is associated with an increased risk (four to six times the risk of a nonsmoker) for the development of lung cancer even after the effects of concomitant cigarette smoking are excluded.

Prior history of lung cancer

Survivors of lung cancer have a greater risk than the general population of developing a second lung cancer. Survivors of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs, see below) have an additive risk of 1%-2% per year for developing a second lung cancer. In survivors of small cell lung cancers (SCLCs, see below), the risk for development of second cancers approaches 6% per year.

Air pollution

Air pollution from vehicles, industry, and power plants can raise the likelihood of developing lung cancer in exposed individuals. Up to 1% of lung cancer deaths are attributable to breathing polluted air, and experts believe that prolonged exposure to highly polluted air can carry a risk for the development of lung cancer similar to that of passive smoking.

What are the types of lung cancer?

Lung cancers, also known as bronchogenic carcinomas (carcinoma is another term for cancer), are broadly classified into two types: small cell lung cancers (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). This classification is based upon the microscopic appearance of the tumor cells themselves. These two types of cancers grow and spread in different ways and may have different treatment options, so a distinction between these two types is important.

SCLC comprise about 20% of lung cancers and are the most aggressive and rapidly growing of all lung cancers. SCLC are strongly related to cigarette smoking, with only 1% of these tumors occurring in nonsmokers. SCLC metastasize rapidly to many sites within the body and are most often discovered after they have spread extensively. Referring to a specific cell appearance often seen when examining samples of SCLC under the microscope, these cancers are sometimes called oat cell carcinomas.

NSCLC are the most common lung cancers, accounting for about 80% of all lung cancers. NSCLC can be divided into three main types that are named based upon the type of cells found in the tumor:

Adenocarcinomas are the most commonly seen type of NSCLC in the U.S. and comprise up to 50% of NSCLC . While adenocarcinomas are associated with smoking like other lung cancers, this type is observed as well in nonsmokers who develop lung cancer. Most adenocarcinomas arise in the outer, or peripheral, areas of the lungs. Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is a subtype of adenocarcinoma that frequently develops at multiple sites in the lungs and spreads along the preexisting alveolar walls.


Squamous cell carcinomas were formerly more common than adenocarcinomas; at present, they account for about 30% of NSCLC. Also known as epidermoid carcinomas, squamous cell cancers arise most frequently in the central chest area in the bronchi.


Large cell carcinomas, sometimes referred to as undifferentiated carcinomas, are the least common type of NSCLC.


Mixtures of different types of NSCLC are also seen.
Other types of cancers can arise in the lung; these types are much less common than NSCLC and SCLC and together comprise only 5%-10% of lung cancers:

Bronchial carcinoids account for up to 5% of lung cancers. These tumors are generally small (3-4 cm or less) when diagnosed and occur most commonly in people under 40 years of age. Unrelated to cigarette smoking, carcinoid tumors can metastasize, and a small proportion of these tumors secrete hormone-like substances that may cause specific symptoms related to the hormone being produced. Carcinoids generally grow and spread more slowly than bronchogenic cancers, and many are detected early enough to be amenable to surgical resection.


Cancers of supporting lung tissue such as smooth muscle, blood vessels, or cells involved in the immune response can rarely occur in the lung.

As discussed previously, metastatic cancers from other primary tumors in the body are often found in the lung. Tumors from anywhere in the body may spread to the lungs either through the bloodstream, through the lymphatic system, or directly from nearby organs. Metastatic tumors are most often multiple, scattered throughout the lung, and concentrated in the peripheral rather than central areas of the lung.

Lung Cancer Causes, Symptoms, Signs, Stages, Treatment and Diagnosis on MedicineNet.com

Hope that helps a little.

 

[DamnYankee]

Ask and ye shall receive. There is always an opposing statistic to support each side.

Most smokers are not low-income. Recent data from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention show that 60
percent of adult smokers have incomes
above 200 percent of the poverty line.2
Since a minority of smokers have low
incomes, those with low incomes will
contribute a relatively modest share of
the revenue collected by the proposed
tobacco tax increase. The main share of
the costs of strengthening children’s
coverage will come from smokers with
incomes above 200 percent of the poverty
line.

EXPANDING CHILDRENâS HEALTH INSURANCE AND RAISING FEDERAL TOBACCO TAXES HELPS LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

Recent data?

“Response to Increases in Cigarette Prices by Race/Ethnicity, Income and Age Groups — United States, 1976-1993,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 47(29):605-609, Jul. 31, 1998. M. Farrelly et al., “Responses
to Cigarette Prices by Socioeconomic Characteristics,” Southern Economic Journal, 68(1): 156-65, 2001. Campaign
for Tobacco-Free Kids, “Federal Tobacco Tax Increases Will Benefit Lower-Income Households,” revised Sept. 24,
2007,

Nice try. Oh, and did you know that the CDC has been suppressing the H1N1 statistics with their recommendations to States to discontinue testing unless hospitalization is required? (Inside scoop) With that in mind, AND the age of the statistics you've provided, I believe I have much more faith in the stats I provided by the American Heart Assoc. Be happy to entertain another submission though.

The CDC and AHA are both bullshit. If you don't think they have things to gain by making people think they are sicker than they really are, you are fooling yourself.

Great.... So they're both bullshit, with one being more recent bullshit that the other. That would mean that the "recent data", which isn't recent, did not debunk the data previously presented.

 

[DamnYankee]

Statistics are facts. However, the interpretation of statistics is subjective. Any statistician will tell you that extreme care should be exercised when extrapolating data sets into a conclusion and that certain guidelines should be followed with regard to confidence and significance or it is very easy indeed to turn an ambiguous finding into a damning one.

One can also skew the sample, which I believe was the implication. Now, since an "alternate" set of statistics was provided, what I've with those is show that the data is outdated and that some of the data is irrelevant.

No, statistics are all interpreted, just because Joe Bob smokes and dies of lung cancer doesn't mean it was the smoking that caused the lung cancer, but that's what they tell you. Car exhaust causes lung cancer, and there's tons of that.

Geez.... THAT isn't what I said. All I said was that the people who are supposed to benefit from the tax are the ones paying for the benefit!

 

[KittenKoder]

One can also skew the sample, which I believe was the implication. Now, since an "alternate" set of statistics was provided, what I've with those is show that the data is outdated and that some of the data is irrelevant.

No, statistics are all interpreted, just because Joe Bob smokes and dies of lung cancer doesn't mean it was the smoking that caused the lung cancer, but that's what they tell you. Car exhaust causes lung cancer, and there's tons of that.

Geez.... THAT isn't what I said. All I said was that the people who are supposed to benefit from the tax are the ones paying for the benefit!

That I agree with ... sorry for not comprehending what you had said.

 

[DamnYankee]

No, statistics are all interpreted, just because Joe Bob smokes and dies of lung cancer doesn't mean it was the smoking that caused the lung cancer, but that's what they tell you. Car exhaust causes lung cancer, and there's tons of that.

Geez.... THAT isn't what I said. All I said was that the people who are supposed to benefit from the tax are the ones paying for the benefit!

That I agree with ... sorry for not comprehending what you had said.

Dayum, Kitten.... You made me do an awful lot of work for nuthin....

 

[KittenKoder]

Geez.... THAT isn't what I said. All I said was that the people who are supposed to benefit from the tax are the ones paying for the benefit!

That I agree with ... sorry for not comprehending what you had said.

Dayum, Kitten.... You made me do an awful lot of work for nuthin....

Meh ... I make mistakes, not perfect. Sometimes though when all the people on one side of an issue fail so much, it helps when someone makes a mistake like that to spice it up ...

 

[tigerbob]

Here is how they got the stats for smoking and lung cancer:

Someone gets lung cancer ....

... they smoked then smoking caused it.

... if they didn't and were around a smoker then second hand caused it.

... if they were no where near smoke then they are ignored.

... tally up the smoker and second hand smoker, find the percentage of each compared only to each other, since lung cancer can only be caused by smoking right. Then all those who were ignored must be part of that same category. Add in a very small chance for error, don't want people knowing we really didn't use math for this in the first place ... and there you have it.

That's how they got the stats they use against smoking. The reality is that most people with lung cancer have never been near smoking. Answer this, if smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer then how is it that areas with higher automobile concentration but a lower percentage of smokers also has a higher percentage of lung cancer?

The lung is also a very common site for metastasis from tumors in other parts of the body. Tumor metastases are made up of the same type of cells as the original, or primary, tumor. For example, if prostate cancer spreads via the bloodstream to the lungs, it is metastatic prostate cancer in the lung and is not lung cancer.

What causes lung cancer?

Smoking

The incidence of lung cancer is strongly correlated with cigarette smoking, with about 90% of lung cancers arising as a result of tobacco use. The risk of lung cancer increases with the number of cigarettes smoked over time; doctors refer to this risk in terms of pack-years of smoking history (the number of packs of cigarettes smoked per day multiplied by the number of years smoked). For example, a person who has smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for 10 years has a 20 pack-year smoking history. While the risk of lung cancer is increased with even a 10-pack-year smoking history, those with 30-pack-year histories or more are considered to have the greatest risk for the development of lung cancer. Among those who smoke two or more packs of cigarettes per day, one in seven will die of lung cancer.

Pipe and cigar smoking can also cause lung cancer, although the risk is not as high as with cigarette smoking. While someone who smokes one pack of cigarettes per day has a risk for the development of lung cancer that is 25 times higher than a nonsmoker, pipe and cigar smokers have a risk of lung cancer that is about five times that of a nonsmoker.

Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds, many of which have been shown to be cancer-causing, or carcinogenic. The two primary carcinogens in tobacco smoke are chemicals known as nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The risk of developing lung cancer decreases each year following smoking cessation as normal cells grow and replace damaged cells in the lung. In former smokers, the risk of developing lung cancer begins to approach that of a nonsmoker about 15 years after cessation of smoking.

Passive smoking

Passive smoking, or the inhalation of tobacco smoke from other smokers sharing living or working quarters, is also an established risk factor for the development of lung cancer. Research has shown that nonsmokers who reside with a smoker have a 24% increase in risk for developing lung cancer when compared with other nonsmokers. An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year in the U.S. that are attributable to passive smoking.

Asbestos fibers

Asbestos fibers are silicate fibers that can persist for a lifetime in lung tissue following exposure to asbestos. The workplace is a common source of exposure to asbestos fibers, as asbestos was widely used in the past as both thermal and acoustic insulation. Today, asbestos use is limited or banned in many countries, including the U.S. Both lung cancer and mesothelioma (cancer of the pleura of the lung as well as of the lining of the abdominal cavity called the peritoneum) are associated with exposure to asbestos. Cigarette smoking drastically increases the chance of developing an asbestos-related lung cancer in exposed workers. Asbestos workers who do not smoke have a fivefold greater risk of developing lung cancer than nonsmokers, and those asbestos workers who smoke have a risk that is 50 to 90 times greater than nonsmokers.

Radon gas

Radon gas is a natural, chemically inert gas that is a natural decay product of uranium. Uranium decays to form products, including radon, that emit a type of ionizing radiation. Radon gas is a known cause of lung cancer, with an estimated 12% of lung-cancer deaths attributable to radon gas, or 15,000-22,000 lung-cancer-related deaths annually in the U.S., making radon the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. As with asbestos exposure, concomitant smoking greatly increases the risk of lung cancer with radon exposure. Radon gas can travel up through soil and enter homes through gaps in the foundation, pipes, drains, or other openings. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that one out of every 15 homes in the U.S. contains dangerous levels of radon gas. Radon gas is invisible and odorless, but it can be detected with simple test kits.

Familial predisposition

While the majority of lung cancers are associated with tobacco smoking, the fact that not all smokers eventually develop lung cancer suggests that other factors, such as individual genetic susceptibility, may play a role in the causation of lung cancer. Numerous studies have shown that lung cancer is more likely to occur in both smoking and nonsmoking relatives of those who have had lung cancer than in the general population. Recent research has localized a region on the long (q) arm of human chromosome number 6 that is likely to contain a gene that confers an increased susceptibility to the development of lung cancer in smokers.

Lung diseases

The presence of certain diseases of the lung, notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), is associated with an increased risk (four to six times the risk of a nonsmoker) for the development of lung cancer even after the effects of concomitant cigarette smoking are excluded.

Prior history of lung cancer

Survivors of lung cancer have a greater risk than the general population of developing a second lung cancer. Survivors of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs, see below) have an additive risk of 1%-2% per year for developing a second lung cancer. In survivors of small cell lung cancers (SCLCs, see below), the risk for development of second cancers approaches 6% per year.

Air pollution

Air pollution from vehicles, industry, and power plants can raise the likelihood of developing lung cancer in exposed individuals. Up to 1% of lung cancer deaths are attributable to breathing polluted air, and experts believe that prolonged exposure to highly polluted air can carry a risk for the development of lung cancer similar to that of passive smoking.

What are the types of lung cancer?

Lung cancers, also known as bronchogenic carcinomas (carcinoma is another term for cancer), are broadly classified into two types: small cell lung cancers (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). This classification is based upon the microscopic appearance of the tumor cells themselves. These two types of cancers grow and spread in different ways and may have different treatment options, so a distinction between these two types is important.

SCLC comprise about 20% of lung cancers and are the most aggressive and rapidly growing of all lung cancers. SCLC are strongly related to cigarette smoking, with only 1% of these tumors occurring in nonsmokers. SCLC metastasize rapidly to many sites within the body and are most often discovered after they have spread extensively. Referring to a specific cell appearance often seen when examining samples of SCLC under the microscope, these cancers are sometimes called oat cell carcinomas.

NSCLC are the most common lung cancers, accounting for about 80% of all lung cancers. NSCLC can be divided into three main types that are named based upon the type of cells found in the tumor:

Adenocarcinomas are the most commonly seen type of NSCLC in the U.S. and comprise up to 50% of NSCLC . While adenocarcinomas are associated with smoking like other lung cancers, this type is observed as well in nonsmokers who develop lung cancer. Most adenocarcinomas arise in the outer, or peripheral, areas of the lungs. Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is a subtype of adenocarcinoma that frequently develops at multiple sites in the lungs and spreads along the preexisting alveolar walls.


Squamous cell carcinomas were formerly more common than adenocarcinomas; at present, they account for about 30% of NSCLC. Also known as epidermoid carcinomas, squamous cell cancers arise most frequently in the central chest area in the bronchi.


Large cell carcinomas, sometimes referred to as undifferentiated carcinomas, are the least common type of NSCLC.


Mixtures of different types of NSCLC are also seen.
Other types of cancers can arise in the lung; these types are much less common than NSCLC and SCLC and together comprise only 5%-10% of lung cancers:

Bronchial carcinoids account for up to 5% of lung cancers. These tumors are generally small (3-4 cm or less) when diagnosed and occur most commonly in people under 40 years of age. Unrelated to cigarette smoking, carcinoid tumors can metastasize, and a small proportion of these tumors secrete hormone-like substances that may cause specific symptoms related to the hormone being produced. Carcinoids generally grow and spread more slowly than bronchogenic cancers, and many are detected early enough to be amenable to surgical resection.


Cancers of supporting lung tissue such as smooth muscle, blood vessels, or cells involved in the immune response can rarely occur in the lung.

As discussed previously, metastatic cancers from other primary tumors in the body are often found in the lung. Tumors from anywhere in the body may spread to the lungs either through the bloodstream, through the lymphatic system, or directly from nearby organs. Metastatic tumors are most often multiple, scattered throughout the lung, and concentrated in the peripheral rather than central areas of the lung.

Lung Cancer Causes, Symptoms, Signs, Stages, Treatment and Diagnosis on MedicineNet.com

Hope that helps a little.

Gee don't you just hate that? Some website throws out a load of statistics and fails to say where they got some of them from, but because the site has an authoritative name (such as medicinenet.com) they are presumed to know what they're talking about?

I'm not going to take issue with stats on primary smoking. Kitten appears to be doing this but I personally accept that smoking causes a number of chronic conditions, one of which is lung cancer.

Passive smoking however (the para I've bolded in your post above) is a different matter. If smokers are only hurting themselves then there is little or no constitutional basis for banning smoking in public places (Anguille would disagree but the fact that she doesn't like working in a smoky bar is hardly a constitutional basis). But if it can be shown that second hand smoke causes serious long term medical harm to non-smokers then a ban can be more easily justified.

In your link to medicinenet, as per usual on this subject, no source is given for the statistics quoted. However, we have a clue. "An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year in the U.S. that are attributable to passive smoking" says the piece.

Look around the internet for half an hour and you will find that figure bandied about in pretty much every article, report and piece of legislation about passive smoking. It comes from the EPA's 1993 report titled 'Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other disorders'. It's over 500 pages but worth the read if you want to know what's behind what are always referred to as "facts".

Since its release in December 1992, the EPA report has become the cornerstone for pretty much all of smoking restrictions in the US today. As your link quotes the EPA figure this clearly remains the case. Since it is from a "respected" organization and has been circulated and quoted so frequently over so many years, most people (not just the public, but also lawyers, doctors and legislators) accept it as fact.

It's not a fact. Pardon the pun, but it's at best a smokescreen, at worst a deliberate fabrication. I won't bother explaining why in this post since it requires some detail, but let me know if you'd like to hear some reasons.

I've offered to do this in a couple of threads before but nobody has taken me up on it. Everyone seems happy to totter off and google a load of articles that quote the figures, but nobody seems to have the inclination to discuss the source of those figures. I'm guessing this is because it's easier to be told what to think (in easily digested bite size articles) than it is to look into a lengthy report and decide for oneself whether or not one agrees with the conclusions. I'm not saying that this is your position, merely my prior experience.

Anyway, the offer's there if you're interested.

 

[DamnYankee]

Here is how they got the stats for smoking and lung cancer:

Someone gets lung cancer ....

... they smoked then smoking caused it.

... if they didn't and were around a smoker then second hand caused it.

... if they were no where near smoke then they are ignored.

... tally up the smoker and second hand smoker, find the percentage of each compared only to each other, since lung cancer can only be caused by smoking right. Then all those who were ignored must be part of that same category. Add in a very small chance for error, don't want people knowing we really didn't use math for this in the first place ... and there you have it.

That's how they got the stats they use against smoking. The reality is that most people with lung cancer have never been near smoking. Answer this, if smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer then how is it that areas with higher automobile concentration but a lower percentage of smokers also has a higher percentage of lung cancer?

The lung is also a very common site for metastasis from tumors in other parts of the body. Tumor metastases are made up of the same type of cells as the original, or primary, tumor. For example, if prostate cancer spreads via the bloodstream to the lungs, it is metastatic prostate cancer in the lung and is not lung cancer.

What causes lung cancer?

Smoking

The incidence of lung cancer is strongly correlated with cigarette smoking, with about 90% of lung cancers arising as a result of tobacco use. The risk of lung cancer increases with the number of cigarettes smoked over time; doctors refer to this risk in terms of pack-years of smoking history (the number of packs of cigarettes smoked per day multiplied by the number of years smoked). For example, a person who has smoked two packs of cigarettes per day for 10 years has a 20 pack-year smoking history. While the risk of lung cancer is increased with even a 10-pack-year smoking history, those with 30-pack-year histories or more are considered to have the greatest risk for the development of lung cancer. Among those who smoke two or more packs of cigarettes per day, one in seven will die of lung cancer.

Pipe and cigar smoking can also cause lung cancer, although the risk is not as high as with cigarette smoking. While someone who smokes one pack of cigarettes per day has a risk for the development of lung cancer that is 25 times higher than a nonsmoker, pipe and cigar smokers have a risk of lung cancer that is about five times that of a nonsmoker.

Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds, many of which have been shown to be cancer-causing, or carcinogenic. The two primary carcinogens in tobacco smoke are chemicals known as nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The risk of developing lung cancer decreases each year following smoking cessation as normal cells grow and replace damaged cells in the lung. In former smokers, the risk of developing lung cancer begins to approach that of a nonsmoker about 15 years after cessation of smoking.

Passive smoking

Passive smoking, or the inhalation of tobacco smoke from other smokers sharing living or working quarters, is also an established risk factor for the development of lung cancer. Research has shown that nonsmokers who reside with a smoker have a 24% increase in risk for developing lung cancer when compared with other nonsmokers. An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year in the U.S. that are attributable to passive smoking.

Asbestos fibers

Asbestos fibers are silicate fibers that can persist for a lifetime in lung tissue following exposure to asbestos. The workplace is a common source of exposure to asbestos fibers, as asbestos was widely used in the past as both thermal and acoustic insulation. Today, asbestos use is limited or banned in many countries, including the U.S. Both lung cancer and mesothelioma (cancer of the pleura of the lung as well as of the lining of the abdominal cavity called the peritoneum) are associated with exposure to asbestos. Cigarette smoking drastically increases the chance of developing an asbestos-related lung cancer in exposed workers. Asbestos workers who do not smoke have a fivefold greater risk of developing lung cancer than nonsmokers, and those asbestos workers who smoke have a risk that is 50 to 90 times greater than nonsmokers.

Radon gas

Radon gas is a natural, chemically inert gas that is a natural decay product of uranium. Uranium decays to form products, including radon, that emit a type of ionizing radiation. Radon gas is a known cause of lung cancer, with an estimated 12% of lung-cancer deaths attributable to radon gas, or 15,000-22,000 lung-cancer-related deaths annually in the U.S., making radon the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. As with asbestos exposure, concomitant smoking greatly increases the risk of lung cancer with radon exposure. Radon gas can travel up through soil and enter homes through gaps in the foundation, pipes, drains, or other openings. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that one out of every 15 homes in the U.S. contains dangerous levels of radon gas. Radon gas is invisible and odorless, but it can be detected with simple test kits.

Familial predisposition

While the majority of lung cancers are associated with tobacco smoking, the fact that not all smokers eventually develop lung cancer suggests that other factors, such as individual genetic susceptibility, may play a role in the causation of lung cancer. Numerous studies have shown that lung cancer is more likely to occur in both smoking and nonsmoking relatives of those who have had lung cancer than in the general population. Recent research has localized a region on the long (q) arm of human chromosome number 6 that is likely to contain a gene that confers an increased susceptibility to the development of lung cancer in smokers.

Lung diseases

The presence of certain diseases of the lung, notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), is associated with an increased risk (four to six times the risk of a nonsmoker) for the development of lung cancer even after the effects of concomitant cigarette smoking are excluded.

Prior history of lung cancer

Survivors of lung cancer have a greater risk than the general population of developing a second lung cancer. Survivors of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs, see below) have an additive risk of 1%-2% per year for developing a second lung cancer. In survivors of small cell lung cancers (SCLCs, see below), the risk for development of second cancers approaches 6% per year.

Air pollution

Air pollution from vehicles, industry, and power plants can raise the likelihood of developing lung cancer in exposed individuals. Up to 1% of lung cancer deaths are attributable to breathing polluted air, and experts believe that prolonged exposure to highly polluted air can carry a risk for the development of lung cancer similar to that of passive smoking.

What are the types of lung cancer?

Lung cancers, also known as bronchogenic carcinomas (carcinoma is another term for cancer), are broadly classified into two types: small cell lung cancers (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). This classification is based upon the microscopic appearance of the tumor cells themselves. These two types of cancers grow and spread in different ways and may have different treatment options, so a distinction between these two types is important.

SCLC comprise about 20% of lung cancers and are the most aggressive and rapidly growing of all lung cancers. SCLC are strongly related to cigarette smoking, with only 1% of these tumors occurring in nonsmokers. SCLC metastasize rapidly to many sites within the body and are most often discovered after they have spread extensively. Referring to a specific cell appearance often seen when examining samples of SCLC under the microscope, these cancers are sometimes called oat cell carcinomas.

NSCLC are the most common lung cancers, accounting for about 80% of all lung cancers. NSCLC can be divided into three main types that are named based upon the type of cells found in the tumor:

Adenocarcinomas are the most commonly seen type of NSCLC in the U.S. and comprise up to 50% of NSCLC . While adenocarcinomas are associated with smoking like other lung cancers, this type is observed as well in nonsmokers who develop lung cancer. Most adenocarcinomas arise in the outer, or peripheral, areas of the lungs. Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma is a subtype of adenocarcinoma that frequently develops at multiple sites in the lungs and spreads along the preexisting alveolar walls.


Squamous cell carcinomas were formerly more common than adenocarcinomas; at present, they account for about 30% of NSCLC. Also known as epidermoid carcinomas, squamous cell cancers arise most frequently in the central chest area in the bronchi.


Large cell carcinomas, sometimes referred to as undifferentiated carcinomas, are the least common type of NSCLC.


Mixtures of different types of NSCLC are also seen.
Other types of cancers can arise in the lung; these types are much less common than NSCLC and SCLC and together comprise only 5%-10% of lung cancers:

Bronchial carcinoids account for up to 5% of lung cancers. These tumors are generally small (3-4 cm or less) when diagnosed and occur most commonly in people under 40 years of age. Unrelated to cigarette smoking, carcinoid tumors can metastasize, and a small proportion of these tumors secrete hormone-like substances that may cause specific symptoms related to the hormone being produced. Carcinoids generally grow and spread more slowly than bronchogenic cancers, and many are detected early enough to be amenable to surgical resection.


Cancers of supporting lung tissue such as smooth muscle, blood vessels, or cells involved in the immune response can rarely occur in the lung.

As discussed previously, metastatic cancers from other primary tumors in the body are often found in the lung. Tumors from anywhere in the body may spread to the lungs either through the bloodstream, through the lymphatic system, or directly from nearby organs. Metastatic tumors are most often multiple, scattered throughout the lung, and concentrated in the peripheral rather than central areas of the lung.

Lung Cancer Causes, Symptoms, Signs, Stages, Treatment and Diagnosis on MedicineNet.com

Hope that helps a little.

Gee don't you just hate that? Some website throws out a load of statistics and fails to say where they got some of them from, but because the site has an authoritative name (such as medicinenet.com) they are presumed to know what they're talking about?

I'm not going to take issue with stats on primary smoking. Kitten appears to be doing this but I personally accept that smoking causes a number of chronic conditions, one of which is lung cancer.

Passive smoking however (the para I've bolded in your post above) is a different matter. If smokers are only hurting themselves then there is little or no constitutional basis for banning smoking in public places (Anguille would disagree but the fact that she doesn't like working in a smoky bar is hardly a constitutional basis). But if it can be shown that second hand smoke causes serious long term medical harm to non-smokers then a ban can be more easily justified.

In your link to medicinenet, as per usual on this subject, no source is given for the statistics quoted. However, we have a clue. "An estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year in the U.S. that are attributable to passive smoking" says the piece.

Look around the internet for half an hour and you will find that figure bandied about in pretty much every article, report and piece of legislation about passive smoking. It comes from the EPA's 1993 report titled 'Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other disorders'. It's over 500 pages but worth the read if you want to know what's behind what are always referred to as "facts".

Since its release in December 1992, the EPA report has become the cornerstone for pretty much all of smoking restrictions in the US today. As your link quotes the EPA figure this clearly remains the case. Since it is from a "respected" organization and has been circulated and quoted so frequently over so many years, most people (not just the public, but also lawyers, doctors and legislators) accept it as fact.

It's not a fact. Pardon the pun, but it's at best a smokescreen, at worst a deliberate fabrication. I won't bother explaining why in this post since it requires some detail, but let me know if you'd like to hear some reasons.

I've offered to do this in a couple of threads before but nobody has taken me up on it. Everyone seems happy to totter off and google a load of articles that quote the figures, but nobody seems to have the inclination to discuss the source of those figures. I'm guessing this is because it's easier to be told what to think (in easily digested bite size articles) than it is to look into a lengthy report and decide for oneself whether or not one agrees with the conclusions. I'm not saying that this is your position, merely my prior experience.

Anyway, the offer's there if you're interested.

You're more than welcome to KEEP READING, if you're interested. 15 pages or so was a bit much to reproduce, not to mention, it's a copyright violation.

Now, I also have a problem with data that's, well.... dated. Just had that discussion....
http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...ng-bill-to-be-signed-today-5.html#post1294685

Of course, I didn't see anything that said smoking wasn't a cause (bad for you) or that second-hand smoke wasn't a contributing factor (bad for you), but hey.... I've met a lot of strawmen before.

I DO draw the line at "third hand smoke" though, so don't go there....

 

[tigerbob]

I did keep reading. Read the entire section. Most of it I either have no opinion on or am not sufficiently expert to pass comment.

Your comment about dated data seems to indicate that you think the EPA report has less merit than something more recent. I'd agree that it has little merit, but not because of its age. However, if you're not interested in the detail I won't bother you with it. That said you won't see anything that says second hand smoke isn't bad for you. Any studies that head in that direction are instantly pelted with eggs by the Heart, Cancer, Health, and Pharmaceutical lobbies.

Third Hand Smoke? No such thing. Just a term coined by academics to get themselves noticed in a field that is already saturated with shock headlines.

 

[Kent.Neidhold]

The Tobacco Industry has an interesting role to play in the ability to generate revenue for individual states. Is smoking bad? Yes, it's horibble for your health and if you choose to smoke within your home and you have kids they are at risk also. But, when are we going to put onwership on the smoker? At some point this activity was a choice that turned, in most cases, into a dibilitating habbit.
Granted the tobacco industry hasn't done a very good job of marketing itself and has allowed itself to have a turnished image because of the number of youths who use tobacco products.
My point is this, the revenue is undoubtedly there and the industry as a whole employes thousands of peolpe. Why can't marijuana be used in the same way? Tax the shit out of it...poeple will pay.

 

[neurosport]

Ain't that the truth. It's for the good of our health and it's for the children are the 2 most popular phrases they like to use to get you to drink the kook aid and go along with what they propose.

100%

the used the same propaganda in Soviet Union ...