6 ms·

My grandma never smoked and still got cancer. Not smoking is so overhyped

User23 4y ago
I believe smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer by about 20%[1]. It's definitely significant, but plenty of regular smokers manage to die from something else. I'm pretty happy about the repression of public smoking though, because I find the odor of cigarette tobacco revolting and also prefer to not have my risk of lung cancer even moderately increased by second-hand smoke. Annoyingly, it's hard to find good figures on relative risk for smokers and non-smokers, probably because of the current public health fad of dissembling to attempt to encourage desired behaviors. All I can find is that for the total population lifetime chance is 1/15 for men and 1/17 for women[2], with some weasel words about smoking increasing risk, but no actual quantification. Edit: I appreciate the replies, but note that none of the sources cited actually list any meaningful quantifiable data. So I dug a bit more and found this[3]. It indicates that the effect is largely dose dependent and only really shows up in smokers of ten years or more. While p=.05 might fly for psychology studies, it's not a convincing bar for serious science. On the other hand the decade and longer smokers show a very respectable p=.001. For the heaviest smokers it looks like a bit over a 5x increase. Assuming continuity, there also exists some level of moderate smoking where my proposed 20% increased risk is accurate and even more limited levels of smoking where the risk is not appreciably higher than not smoking. In fact the data indicate that former smokers who quit for more than ten years actually have lower risk of lung cancer than never smokers! Surely that's some kind of noise, but it still goes to show. [1] It's true that most people with lung cancer are or were smokers. But it's also true that most people with lung cancer are over 65, and they're from a period where most everyone was a smoker or exposed to smoke regularly. That's a pretty major confound. Over the next few decades we should get better data due to the relative decline in smoking making the effects of choosing to smoke clearer. [2] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statisti... [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/484996 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
- goda90 4y ago
  I think you misinterpreted 20x as 20%. CDC say smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer by 15-30 times[0] vs someone who doesn't. [0]https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
- tayistay 4y ago
  Dunno where you got the 20% stat, but it’s totally wrong. From cancer.org: > The risk of lung cancer for people who smoke is many times higher than for people who don't smoke. The longer you smoke and the more packs a day you smoke, the greater your risk. MANY TIMES
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
it actually is in some way. first of all, Worldwide, 15–20 percent of men with lung cancer are non-smokers while over 50 percent of women with lung cancer are non-smokers [1], so if you are a woman, chances are similar. Secondly, former smokers and current smokers have similar risks of getting lung cancer. Last, but not least, once you get it, survival rates are similar for non smokers, former smokers and current smokers (in similar groups of course). [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431055/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431055/ EDIT: it is overhyped because not smoking is in the public discourse treated as a cure, but it's not, especially if you are a woman. In USA, for example, black men have higher chances of getting lung cancer than white men, but black women risk much less than white women. So it's like saying that being a black woman saves you from lung cancer. Risks are expressed as probabilities, people too often don't get it.
- wlesieutre 4y ago
  > Worldwide, 15–20 percent of men with lung cancer are non-smokers while over 50 percent of women with lung cancer are non-smokers 50% seems like a big number but it's a pretty meaningless statistic if women overall smoke less than men. It just means that when you have few smoking-related cancer cases, the other cases make up a larger percentage. Using that ratio to justify "you might as well smoke, 50% of women with lung cancer were non-smokers" is... not a good use of the statistics. As a thought exercise with made up numbers, suppose that you have 10 people, 1 will naturally get lung cancer, and everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. If 4 men smoke and get cancer, that's 5 with cancer and 1 of them was a non-smoker. 20% are non-smokers. If 1 woman smokes and gets cancer, that's 2 with cancer and 1 of them was a non-smoker. 50% are non-smokers. In this scenario you can say the exact same statistic about "50% of women with lung cancer are non-smokers" and brush it off as not a big deal even though 100% of smokers are getting cancer. That's not a useful number to be looking at to judge the risk of smoking vs not smoking.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > 50% seems like a big number I don't know why I thought that linking a scientific paper reporting accurately all the data would be helpful to the discussion. Not my opinions my friend. > but it's a pretty meaningless statistic women overall smoke less than men That's not how epidemiology works. The fact that black men in USA have ~20% higher risk of getting lung cancer, despite being less than white men, says anything to you? No, they don't smoke more. No, risk of getting cancer is not linked to how many cigarettes you smoke in a lifetime, once a smoker, the risk gets higher and stays higher for as long as you live, even if you quit. > even though 100% of smokers are getting cancer they are absolutely not! See why I say non smocking is over hyped? Because it leads to ideology, which is not the same thing of being informed.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pieter_mj 4y ago
Radon victim?

I believe smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer by about 20%[1]. It's definitely significant, but plenty of regular smokers manage to die from something else. I'm pretty happy about the repression of public smoking though, because I find the odor of cigarette tobacco revolting and also prefer to not have my risk of lung cancer even moderately increased by second-hand smoke. Annoyingly, it's hard to find good figures on relative risk for smokers and non-smokers, probably because of the current public health fad of dissembling to attempt to encourage desired behaviors. All I can find is that for the total population lifetime chance is 1/15 for men and 1/17 for women[2], with some weasel words about smoking increasing risk, but no actual quantification. Edit: I appreciate the replies, but note that none of the sources cited actually list any meaningful quantifiable data. So I dug a bit more and found this[3]. It indicates that the effect is largely dose dependent and only really shows up in smokers of ten years or more. While p=.05 might fly for psychology studies, it's not a convincing bar for serious science. On the other hand the decade and longer smokers show a very respectable p=.001. For the heaviest smokers it looks like a bit over a 5x increase. Assuming continuity, there also exists some level of moderate smoking where my proposed 20% increased risk is accurate and even more limited levels of smoking where the risk is not appreciably higher than not smoking. In fact the data indicate that former smokers who quit for more than ten years actually have lower risk of lung cancer than never smokers! Surely that's some kind of noise, but it still goes to show. [1] It's true that most people with lung cancer are or were smokers. But it's also true that most people with lung cancer are over 65, and they're from a period where most everyone was a smoker or exposed to smoke regularly. That's a pretty major confound. Over the next few decades we should get better data due to the relative decline in smoking making the effects of choosing to smoke clearer. [2] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statisti... [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/484996 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

goda90 4y ago
I think you misinterpreted 20x as 20%. CDC say smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer by 15-30 times[0] vs someone who doesn't. [0]https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
tayistay 4y ago
Dunno where you got the 20% stat, but it’s totally wrong. From cancer.org: > The risk of lung cancer for people who smoke is many times higher than for people who don't smoke. The longer you smoke and the more packs a day you smoke, the greater your risk. MANY TIMES

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

it actually is in some way. first of all, Worldwide, 15–20 percent of men with lung cancer are non-smokers while over 50 percent of women with lung cancer are non-smokers [1], so if you are a woman, chances are similar. Secondly, former smokers and current smokers have similar risks of getting lung cancer. Last, but not least, once you get it, survival rates are similar for non smokers, former smokers and current smokers (in similar groups of course). [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431055/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431055/ EDIT: it is overhyped because not smoking is in the public discourse treated as a cure, but it's not, especially if you are a woman. In USA, for example, black men have higher chances of getting lung cancer than white men, but black women risk much less than white women. So it's like saying that being a black woman saves you from lung cancer. Risks are expressed as probabilities, people too often don't get it.

wlesieutre 4y ago
> Worldwide, 15–20 percent of men with lung cancer are non-smokers while over 50 percent of women with lung cancer are non-smokers 50% seems like a big number but it's a pretty meaningless statistic if women overall smoke less than men. It just means that when you have few smoking-related cancer cases, the other cases make up a larger percentage. Using that ratio to justify "you might as well smoke, 50% of women with lung cancer were non-smokers" is... not a good use of the statistics. As a thought exercise with made up numbers, suppose that you have 10 people, 1 will naturally get lung cancer, and everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. If 4 men smoke and get cancer, that's 5 with cancer and 1 of them was a non-smoker. 20% are non-smokers. If 1 woman smokes and gets cancer, that's 2 with cancer and 1 of them was a non-smoker. 50% are non-smokers. In this scenario you can say the exact same statistic about "50% of women with lung cancer are non-smokers" and brush it off as not a big deal even though 100% of smokers are getting cancer. That's not a useful number to be looking at to judge the risk of smoking vs not smoking.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > 50% seems like a big number I don't know why I thought that linking a scientific paper reporting accurately all the data would be helpful to the discussion. Not my opinions my friend. > but it's a pretty meaningless statistic women overall smoke less than men That's not how epidemiology works. The fact that black men in USA have ~20% higher risk of getting lung cancer, despite being less than white men, says anything to you? No, they don't smoke more. No, risk of getting cancer is not linked to how many cigarettes you smoke in a lifetime, once a smoker, the risk gets higher and stays higher for as long as you live, even if you quit. > even though 100% of smokers are getting cancer they are absolutely not! See why I say non smocking is over hyped? Because it leads to ideology, which is not the same thing of being informed.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pieter_mj 4y ago

Radon victim?