| |
|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by jcleitz
on Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:17 am |
|
"Study detects substances in tobacco smoke that cause cancer"
Man, if you just saw that title (exactly like that on yahoo) you would think that SHS was deadly. A lot of people don;t bother to read the article, and will jump to that conclusion, which was probably the reason for the title. Within the article it does not even mention SHS, but man does that title elude to it or what.
The study is interesting at best, but I have a hard time believing data collected from Chinese studies considering when there election comes around, the incumbent wins with 100 percent of the vote with 99% voting... (haha)
Here is a link to the article for those interested in the actual view of the "study"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090419/us_nm/us_cancer_lung_test
enjoy |
|
|
jcleitz
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Apr 17, 2006
Posts: 463
Location: Jersey
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by rlf
on Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:55 am |
|
jcleitz wrote: "Study detects substances in tobacco smoke that cause cancer"
Man, if you just saw that title (exactly like that on yahoo) you would think that SHS was deadly. A lot of people don;t bother to read the article, and will jump to that conclusion, which was probably the reason for the title. Within the article it does not even mention SHS, but man does that title elude to it or what.
The study is interesting at best, but I have a hard time believing data collected from Chinese studies considering when there election comes around, the incumbent wins with 100 percent of the vote with 99% voting... (haha)
Here is a link to the article for those interested in the actual view of the "study"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090419/us_nm/us_cancer_lung_test
enjoy
From reading this article, it seems like nicotine is the carcinogen, since the two markers they're talking about are nicotine byproducts. If that's true, then what they've been telling us about nicotine replacement therapy being harmless isn't true, and the eCigs would also be deadly.
They weren't clear about how the levels of these two carcinogens were related to the number of cigarettes people were smoking. Were the high levels found only in the people who smoked more? Or were the people with high levels smoking the same amount but processing the nicotine differently?
Also, what about all the ex-smokers who get lung cancer? That's a statistic that isn't publicized very much because they don't want to admit that quitting turns out to be useless for a large number of people. It doesn't look like ex-smokers would still have high levels of smoking-related chemicals in their bodies.
Sometimes you can see straight through these tests, as far as two conditions existing simultaneously without necessarily having a cause/effect relationship. I haven't trusted any information coming out of China since the fiasco about their Olympic gymnasts being underage.
Rational or not, the fact that they seem to be negligent in their manufacturing processes makes all their scientific data about chemicals suspect. One important question they should have asked the study subjects was, "Where have you worked, and what chemicals have you been exposed to in your work environment?"
Anyway, what good does it do for them to really understand the mechanisms that cause lung cancer? They're not going to spend any money on finding a cure, due to the stigma involved. And if they do find a cure, people will oppose making it available to smokers because they actually want us to die a horrible death instead of being cured. |
|
|
rlf
Puffer
Joined: Mar 24, 2009
Posts: 47
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Pete Gatti
on Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:48 pm |
|
I'm no statistician but a lot of this study doesn't add up.
Quote from article:
Quote:
1. Only about one in 10 smokers gets lung cancer.
Without giving the percentage of non-smokers who get lung cancer the above figure doesn't mean much.
Quote: 2. Studies have found that laboratory animals with high concentrations of NNAL had higher rates of lung cancer, but its effect in humans has not been clear.
Not clear in humans? Is this a disclaimer?
Quote: 3. The researchers collected data from two large Chinese studies of 50,000 men and women aged 45 to 74. In addition to asking them how much they smoked, what they ate and other lifestyle factors, the researchers collected blood and urine samples.
50,000 is a lot but.....
Quote: 4. Yuan and colleagues identified 246 smokers who later developed lung cancer and 245 smokers who did not during the 10-year period following their initial interview and exam.
... they only talk about a total of 246 + 245 = 491 smokers. What happened to the other 49,509 smokers in this study?
Also keep in mind quote #1 above, "Only about one in 10 smokers gets lung cancer." That 10%.
246 of 50,000 is 1 in every 203 smokers get lung cancer, that's roughly 1/2 % not 10%. That doesn't jive.
Or if we go with what is stated, 246 out of 491, that 50% not 10%, That also doesn't jive.
Quote: 5. The team... divided NNAL urine levels into low, medium and high categories.
After accounting for number of cigarettes smoked per day, they found people who had medium levels of NNAL had a 43 percent higher risk of lung cancer than those in the lowest levels. And those with the highest levels had double the risk.
People with the highest levels of both cotinine and NNAL had an 8.5-fold higher risk compared with smokers who had the lowest levels of both.
This sounds like a lot until you consider the risk rates can only apply to the actual number of smokers who got lung cancer which I showed to be 1/2 % of 50,000. IOW, those with the highest levels of NNL and cotinine out of the 50,000 where at higher risk of becoming the 1/2% that got lung cancer. Not very alarming is it?
Like I said, I'm no statistician, so I welcome anyone to correct me. |
|
|
Pete Gatti
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Mar 26, 2009
Posts: 243
Location: Dade City, Florida
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
