4 ms·

Smoking is not as simple as many assume. Smoking actually changes the disease risk profile a lot, lowering risk for many diseases. It's probably an open questio

Smoking is not as simple as many assume. Smoking actually changes the disease risk profile a lot, lowering risk for many diseases. It's probably an open question if light smoking is even bad for you. Super centenarians have disproportionately been light smokers.

cafard 13y ago
Super centenarians have way disproportionately been born when everybody smoked. Check back in 50 years.
aestra 13y ago
I hate when people claim things as fact in comments which are entirely unsourced. EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity Study of the regions of the world known as blue zones,[11] where people commonly live active lives past 100 years of age, have speculated that longevity is related to a healthy social and family life, not smoking, eating a plant-based diet, frequent consumption of legumes and nuts, and engaging in regular physical activity. In another well-designed cohort study, the combination of a plant based diet, frequent consumption of nuts, regular physical activity, normal BMI, and not smoking accounted for differences up to 10 years in life expectancy.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians Many centenarians manage to avoid chronic diseases even after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. For example, many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. It is possible that these people may have had genes that protected them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.[15] http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of-the-supercentenarians-scientists-seek-to-unlock-key-to-longer-lives-a-719208.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of... The results are sobering: "There is no pattern," says Barzilai, 54. "The usual recommendations for a healthy life -- not smoking, not drinking, plenty of exercise, a well-balanced diet, keeping your weight down -- they apply to us average people," says the researcher, "but not to them. Centenarians are in a class of their own." He pulls spreadsheets out of a drawer, adjusts his glasses and reads out loud: "At the age of 70, a total of 37 percent of our subjects were, according to their own statements, overweight, and 8 percent were obese; 37 percent were smokers, on average for 31 years; 44 percent said that they only moderately exercised; 20 percent never exercised." But Barzilai is quick to point out that people shouldn't start questioning the importance of a healthy lifestyle: "Today's changes in lifestyle do in fact contribute to whether someone dies at the age of 85 or already at age 75." But in order to reach the age of 100, says the researcher, you need a special genetic make-up. "These people age differently. Slower. They end up dying of the same diseases that we do -- but 30 years later and usually quicker, without languishing for long periods." 37 percent isn't disproportionate. It is about average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumpti...
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  Citation needed.
  - aestra 13y ago
    Yes, citation needed, for you. When you make claims you need to back them up. How hard of a concept is that? You can't just go around spouting "facts" without any basis. EDIT: Congratulations, you have just been hellbanned for your comments to me. But since you asked for a citation, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence
    - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
      Citation needed.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      How is making an (possibly incorrect) assertion without providing evidence an argument from ignorance? I can't for the life of me figure out what was so offensive or trolly about a8da6b0c91d's comments. >You can't just go around spouting "facts" without any basis. Really?
keithflower 13y ago
No. In no way is it an "open question' if "light smoking" is even bad for you: "light and intermittent smoking pose substantial risks; the adverse health outcomes parallel dangers observed among daily smoking, particularly for cardiovascular disease." http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.full http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.full
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00847.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-4362.2000.00963.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-4362.2000.... http://www.data-yard.net/10v2/parkinson.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10v2/parkinson.htm http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10c/nicotine.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10c/nicotine.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10b/cm.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10b/cm.htm http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/brea.htm http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/brea.htm http://www.data-yard.net/13/tlj.htm http://www.data-yard.net/13/tlj.htm http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/5/366.abstract http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/5/366.abst... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3613836?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3613836?dopt=Abstract http://jap.physiology.org/content/63/1/152.abstract?ijkey=3ea8cff64c6d72a42e1d4ef7cf9f6fd2485e5921&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha http://jap.physiology.org/content/63/1/152.abstract?ijkey=3e... http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/80/16/1329.abstract http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/80/16/1329.abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1447-0594.2006.00314.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1447-0594.2006.... http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/13/9/1444.full http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/13/9/1444.full http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17855390&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailV...
  - keithflower 13y ago
    Please. Thalidomide is a good anti-nausea drug. Women who take thalidomide during pregnancy are at lower risk for nausea. Now, do you want to argue whether or not "light thalidomide" exposure during pregnancy is bad is an "open question"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_crisi... Because that's what you're arguing with nicotine, along with cherry picking questionable studies, moving the goal posts, and even linking to organizations associated with tobacco manufacturing. Opioids have beneficial uses. So do you want us to think that it's an "open question" about whether "light intravenous use of heroin" as practiced is a good thing? Did you actually READ any of the articles you linked? In almost every case you cite, mention is made of the overall risks of smoking ANY amount. In some cases, the articles aren't even talking about smoking - they are merely talking about nicotine in a variety of forms. “Any smoking, even social smoking, is dangerous,” says David Wetter, Ph.D., chair of the Department of Health Disparities Research at M. D. Anderson. “Cigarettes and cigars are the only legal products whose advertised and intended use -- smoking -- will cause cancer and kill the consumer.” http://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/issues/2009-november/nights-on-the-town-and-celebratory-cigars-increase-cancer-risks.html http://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/iss... But let's play citation. Is second-hand smoke "light" enough exposure for you? Here are the health risks, which are not "open questions": https://www.google.com/search?q=google+scholar+second+hand+somke&oq=google+scholar+second+hand+somke&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i64.5973j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=google+scholar+second+hand+smoke&spell=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=google+scholar+second+hand+s... And c'mon, really? Really? You cite a damned mouse study on carbon monoxide as that you think might be evidence that smoking might somehow, some way, be helpful...for...wait for it....heart attack and stroke? You cite a cell study that shows elevated levels of glutathione in smokers lungs and you want us to therefore magically jump to the laughable belief that smoking is therefore somehow good for your lungs? You cite a study that claims that rare thyroid cancer is reduced among smokers, when the likeliest explanation is that thyroid cancer is so rare that smokers die of other more common cancers and little things like strokes and heart attacks long before they can ever develop thyroid cancer. Many of the other bullshit claims you cite above have been thoroughly debunked: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3637838/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3637838/ http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/long-term-smoking-increases-colorectal-cancer-risk-study-shows http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/long-term-smoking-increase... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/58649.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/58649.php

cafard 13y ago

Super centenarians have way disproportionately been born when everybody smoked. Check back in 50 years.

aestra 13y ago

I hate when people claim things as fact in comments which are entirely unsourced. EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity Study of the regions of the world known as blue zones,[11] where people commonly live active lives past 100 years of age, have speculated that longevity is related to a healthy social and family life, not smoking, eating a plant-based diet, frequent consumption of legumes and nuts, and engaging in regular physical activity. In another well-designed cohort study, the combination of a plant based diet, frequent consumption of nuts, regular physical activity, normal BMI, and not smoking accounted for differences up to 10 years in life expectancy.[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_into_centenarians Many centenarians manage to avoid chronic diseases even after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. For example, many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. It is possible that these people may have had genes that protected them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.[15] http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of-the-supercentenarians-scientists-seek-to-unlock-key-to-longer-lives-a-719208.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-secrets-of... The results are sobering: "There is no pattern," says Barzilai, 54. "The usual recommendations for a healthy life -- not smoking, not drinking, plenty of exercise, a well-balanced diet, keeping your weight down -- they apply to us average people," says the researcher, "but not to them. Centenarians are in a class of their own." He pulls spreadsheets out of a drawer, adjusts his glasses and reads out loud: "At the age of 70, a total of 37 percent of our subjects were, according to their own statements, overweight, and 8 percent were obese; 37 percent were smokers, on average for 31 years; 44 percent said that they only moderately exercised; 20 percent never exercised." But Barzilai is quick to point out that people shouldn't start questioning the importance of a healthy lifestyle: "Today's changes in lifestyle do in fact contribute to whether someone dies at the age of 85 or already at age 75." But in order to reach the age of 100, says the researcher, you need a special genetic make-up. "These people age differently. Slower. They end up dying of the same diseases that we do -- but 30 years later and usually quicker, without languishing for long periods." 37 percent isn't disproportionate. It is about average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_tobacco_consumpti...

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
Citation needed.
- aestra 13y ago
  Yes, citation needed, for you. When you make claims you need to back them up. How hard of a concept is that? You can't just go around spouting "facts" without any basis. EDIT: Congratulations, you have just been hellbanned for your comments to me. But since you asked for a citation, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence
  - a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
    Citation needed.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    How is making an (possibly incorrect) assertion without providing evidence an argument from ignorance? I can't for the life of me figure out what was so offensive or trolly about a8da6b0c91d's comments. >You can't just go around spouting "facts" without any basis. Really?

keithflower 13y ago

No. In no way is it an "open question' if "light smoking" is even bad for you: "light and intermittent smoking pose substantial risks; the adverse health outcomes parallel dangers observed among daily smoking, particularly for cardiovascular disease." http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.full http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.full

a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.00847.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-4362.2000.00963.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-4362.2000.... http://www.data-yard.net/10v2/parkinson.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10v2/parkinson.htm http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10c/nicotine.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10c/nicotine.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10b/cm.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10b/cm.htm http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/brea.htm http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/brea.htm http://www.data-yard.net/13/tlj.htm http://www.data-yard.net/13/tlj.htm http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/5/366.abstract http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/5/366.abst... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3613836?dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3613836?dopt=Abstract http://jap.physiology.org/content/63/1/152.abstract?ijkey=3ea8cff64c6d72a42e1d4ef7cf9f6fd2485e5921&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha http://jap.physiology.org/content/63/1/152.abstract?ijkey=3e... http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/80/16/1329.abstract http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/80/16/1329.abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1447-0594.2006.00314.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1447-0594.2006.... http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/13/9/1444.full http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/13/9/1444.full http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17855390&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailV...
- keithflower 13y ago
  Please. Thalidomide is a good anti-nausea drug. Women who take thalidomide during pregnancy are at lower risk for nausea. Now, do you want to argue whether or not "light thalidomide" exposure during pregnancy is bad is an "open question"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_crisi... Because that's what you're arguing with nicotine, along with cherry picking questionable studies, moving the goal posts, and even linking to organizations associated with tobacco manufacturing. Opioids have beneficial uses. So do you want us to think that it's an "open question" about whether "light intravenous use of heroin" as practiced is a good thing? Did you actually READ any of the articles you linked? In almost every case you cite, mention is made of the overall risks of smoking ANY amount. In some cases, the articles aren't even talking about smoking - they are merely talking about nicotine in a variety of forms. “Any smoking, even social smoking, is dangerous,” says David Wetter, Ph.D., chair of the Department of Health Disparities Research at M. D. Anderson. “Cigarettes and cigars are the only legal products whose advertised and intended use -- smoking -- will cause cancer and kill the consumer.” http://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/issues/2009-november/nights-on-the-town-and-celebratory-cigars-increase-cancer-risks.html http://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/iss... But let's play citation. Is second-hand smoke "light" enough exposure for you? Here are the health risks, which are not "open questions": https://www.google.com/search?q=google+scholar+second+hand+somke&oq=google+scholar+second+hand+somke&aqs=chrome..69i57j0j69i64.5973j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=google+scholar+second+hand+smoke&spell=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=google+scholar+second+hand+s... And c'mon, really? Really? You cite a damned mouse study on carbon monoxide as that you think might be evidence that smoking might somehow, some way, be helpful...for...wait for it....heart attack and stroke? You cite a cell study that shows elevated levels of glutathione in smokers lungs and you want us to therefore magically jump to the laughable belief that smoking is therefore somehow good for your lungs? You cite a study that claims that rare thyroid cancer is reduced among smokers, when the likeliest explanation is that thyroid cancer is so rare that smokers die of other more common cancers and little things like strokes and heart attacks long before they can ever develop thyroid cancer. Many of the other bullshit claims you cite above have been thoroughly debunked: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3637838/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3637838/ http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/long-term-smoking-increases-colorectal-cancer-risk-study-shows http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/long-term-smoking-increase... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/58649.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/58649.php