HealthTalx Forum Forum Index » Cancer News » One puff of smoke damages DNA, what about air pollution?

The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:52 am :: All times are GMT
Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Author	Message

iRuleThisForum Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:54 am	Post subject: One puff of smoke damages DNA, what about air pollution? Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh said that just one puff of a cigarette could damage a smoker's DNA, the first step to cancer and heart disease; that may be true, but if one puff of a cigarette could damage a smoker's DNA, what about air pollution? What about those SUVs? Am I the only one who feel that a lot of researches prove how much damage smoking can cause, yet we don't hear a whole lot about air pollution?


cloningOk Joined: 25 Jul 2004 Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:22 am	Post subject: It seems that hazard of smoking has been emphasized a little too much. It almost looks like it's published to take our attention away from other health concerns. Am I reading too much into this?

Thais Joined: 07 Aug 2004 Location: UK Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:56 am	Post subject: Yes, it's odd how air pollution from cars is never underlined. When I lived on the Isle of Wight (one of the 'cleanest air' places in the UK), I can remember standing at traffic lights with my dog, waiting to cross the road, and the dog - who is at exhaust pipe level - coughing her guts out at the fumes she was inhaling! No wonder dogs have so many weird illnesses these days. And of course, mothers with babies in pushchairs are also standing at same lights..... And then they try to tell us that it's passive smoking that gives non-smokers lung cancer!!

iRuleThisForum Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:23 am	Post subject: I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but I don't feel like medias/journalists are doing their job. Speaking of the air pollution and other environmental issues, you may want to check this forum. Theme is generally more left sided, but it's a pretty good forum; also, there aren't that many forums focusing on environmental issues.

Thais Joined: 07 Aug 2004 Location: UK Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:55 am	Post subject: That looks an interesting forum, iRule! How do I join so that they know you have referred me?

iRuleThisForum Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:06 am	Post subject: Thais wrote: That looks an interesting forum, iRule! How do I join so that they know you have referred me? http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/profile.php?mode=register&ruid=20 Please following the following link; the rest will be taken care of automatically(that's what I think).

Thais Joined: 07 Aug 2004 Location: UK Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:15 am	Post subject: Thanks! I'm trying to figure out who runs it - it's not you, is it?

iRuleThisForum Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:25 am	Post subject: Thais wrote: Thanks! I'm trying to figure out who runs it - it's not you, is it? No, I think this young man runs this environmental forum.

Thais Joined: 07 Aug 2004 Location: UK Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:57 am	Post subject: Aha - that's what I thought! I used to live on the Isle of Wight & my son went to school there, in Ryde!

Scolls Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:44 am	Post subject: Thais wrote: ... And then they try to tell us that it's passive smoking that gives non-smokers lung cancer!! ...and we all fall for it too! (leaving our brains behind) The biggest laugh is this 2ndary smoke "smokescreen"! I mean, so if sitting next to somebody who's sucking on a cigarette is almost as bad as sucking on that cigarette yourself, then wouldn't standing near an exhaust pipe be almost as bad as sucking on the exhaust pipe itself? How many minutes would a human last if sucking on an exhaust pipe? Another thing... what's the statistics? 80% of people with lung cancer are smokers? And this somehow proves beyond a shadow of doubt (to those who refuse to think) that smoking causes lung cancer? Well, 99% of people with lung cancer have come into contact with exhaust smoke! But I don't suppose they'll try telling us that the petrochemical and motor industry is poisoning us off! Mind you, I suppose 99% of people with lung cancer have patted a dog, therefor patting dogs gives you lung cancer! lmao!

iRuleThisForum Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:51 am	Post subject: Scolls wrote: Another thing... what's the statistics? 80% of people with lung cancer are smokers? And this somehow proves beyond a shadow of doubt (to those who refuse to think) that smoking causes lung cancer? Lung cancer cases increasing among non-smoking females The death of Christopher Reeve's wife Dana Reeve, who was a non-smoker, due to lung cancer has brought sharp focus on the rising instances of the killer disease among those who have never lit up. And women seem especially vulnerable to the disease, with 20 per cent of all female lung cancer victims being non-smokers. Among the general population, 10 per cent of all lung cancer patients have never used tobacco. “Now, there is a subset of a patient population that are non-smokers and that is typically a female population, 40 to 45 years of age and above, that are non-smokers, have no other risk factors and do develop lung cancer,” said Dr Susan Huntsinger, a cancer specialist from the University of Tennessee. This small group of patients continues to baffle doctors and researchers the world over, with many blaming secondhand smoke for the phenomenon. However, the question as to why non-smoking women are more susceptible to the disease remains largely unanswered. “We need to understand why younger women are more likely to get the disease, why there are molecular differences in lung cancer between men and women, and why there are treatment differences between men and women,” said Regina Vidaver, of Women Against Lung Cancer, a research group. Click here to read the rest of the story. What do you make of this?

Scolls Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:17 am	Post subject: Seems to me that the real causes of lung cancer are either being squashed or simply aren't known, and cigarette smoke is the convenient scape-goat. Certainly the mere fact that the majority of a group has shared in an activity does not mean that the existence group is caused by that activity.

iRuleThisForum Joined: 23 Jul 2004 Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:26 am	Post subject: Scolls wrote: Seems to me that the real causes of lung cancer are either being squashed or simply aren't known, and cigarette smoke is the convenient scape-goat. Hmmm ... I don't draw any conclusion yet, but what do you think about the following pictures: Source

Scolls Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:27 pm	Post subject: Well, I'm not quite convinced that nicotine is in any sense seriously to be considered a bacteria nor a virus. So I can't imagine how it could cause a disease in an infectious sense. I do think that sugar should really be highlighted in those pictures of teeth, rather than nicotine which really does stain... but not erode like sugar does. Perhaps too a block of margerine could be put next to the brain, and show the difference between HDL and LDL cholesterol! But alas it will always be the cigarettes that are highlighted, when they might just not be the leading causes of these problems after all!

Scolls Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:33 pm	Post subject: Perhaps there's more to be said about genetics here? I mean how relevant isn't it in other cancer forms? Perhaps it could be the case with lung cancer too?

Author

Message

iRuleThisForum

Joined: 23 Jul 2004

Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:54 am

Post subject: One puff of smoke damages DNA, what about air pollution?

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh said that just one puff of a cigarette could damage a smoker's DNA, the first step to cancer and heart disease; that may be true, but if one puff of a cigarette could damage a smoker's DNA, what about air pollution? What about those SUVs? Am I the only one who feel that a lot of researches prove how much damage smoking can cause, yet we don't hear a whole lot about air pollution?

cloningOk

Joined: 25 Jul 2004

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:22 am

Post subject:

It seems that hazard of smoking has been emphasized a little too much. It almost looks like it's published to take our attention away from other health concerns. Am I reading too much into this?

Thais

Joined: 07 Aug 2004

Location: UK

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:56 am

Post subject:

Yes, it's odd how air pollution from cars is never underlined.

When I lived on the Isle of Wight (one of the 'cleanest air' places in the UK), I can remember standing at traffic lights with my dog, waiting to cross the road, and the dog - who is at exhaust pipe level - coughing her guts out at the fumes she was inhaling! No wonder dogs have so many weird illnesses these days. And of course, mothers with babies in pushchairs are also standing at same lights..... Confused

Evil or Very Mad

And then they try to tell us that it's passive smoking that gives non-smokers lung cancer!!

iRuleThisForum

Joined: 23 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:23 am

Post subject:

I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but I don't feel like medias/journalists are doing their job.

Speaking of the air pollution and other environmental issues, you may want to check this forum. Theme is generally more left sided, but it's a pretty good forum; also, there aren't that many forums focusing on environmental issues.

Thais

Joined: 07 Aug 2004

Location: UK

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:55 am

Post subject:

That looks an interesting forum, iRule! Smile

How do I join so that they know you have referred me?

iRuleThisForum

Joined: 23 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:06 am

Post subject:

Thais wrote:

That looks an interesting forum, iRule! Smile

How do I join so that they know you have referred me?

http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/profile.php?mode=register&ruid=20

Please following the following link; the rest will be taken care of automatically(that's what I think).

Thais

Joined: 07 Aug 2004

Location: UK

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:15 am

Post subject:

Thanks! I'm trying to figure out who runs it - it's not you, is it?

iRuleThisForum

Joined: 23 Jul 2004

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:25 am

Post subject:

Thais wrote:

Thanks! I'm trying to figure out who runs it - it's not you, is it?

No, I think this young man runs this environmental forum.

Thais

Joined: 07 Aug 2004

Location: UK

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:57 am

Post subject:

Aha - that's what I thought!

I used to live on the Isle of Wight & my son went to school there, in Ryde! Very Happy

Scolls

Joined: 05 Aug 2005

Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:44 am

Post subject:

Thais wrote:

...

And then they try to tell us that it's passive smoking that gives non-smokers lung cancer!!

...and we all fall for it too! (leaving our brains behind)

The biggest laugh is this 2ndary smoke "smokescreen"! I mean, so if sitting next to somebody who's sucking on a cigarette is almost as bad as sucking on that cigarette yourself, then wouldn't standing near an exhaust pipe be almost as bad as sucking on the exhaust pipe itself?
How many minutes would a human last if sucking on an exhaust pipe?

Another thing... what's the statistics? 80% of people with lung cancer are smokers? And this somehow proves beyond a shadow of doubt (to those who refuse to think) that smoking causes lung cancer?

Well, 99% of people with lung cancer have come into contact with exhaust smoke! But I don't suppose they'll try telling us that the petrochemical and motor industry is poisoning us off!

Mind you, I suppose 99% of people with lung cancer have patted a dog, therefor patting dogs gives you lung cancer! lmao! Rolling Eyes

iRuleThisForum

Joined: 23 Jul 2004

Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:51 am

Post subject:

Scolls wrote:

Another thing... what's the statistics? 80% of people with lung cancer are smokers? And this somehow proves beyond a shadow of doubt (to those who refuse to think) that smoking causes lung cancer?

Lung cancer cases increasing among non-smoking females

The death of Christopher Reeve's wife Dana Reeve, who was a non-smoker, due to lung cancer has brought sharp focus on the rising instances of the killer disease among those who have never lit up. And women seem especially vulnerable to the disease, with 20 per cent of all female lung cancer victims being non-smokers. Among the general population, 10 per cent of all lung cancer patients have never used tobacco.

“Now, there is a subset of a patient population that are non-smokers and that is typically a female population, 40 to 45 years of age and above, that are non-smokers, have no other risk factors and do develop lung cancer,” said Dr Susan Huntsinger, a cancer specialist from the University of Tennessee.

This small group of patients continues to baffle doctors and researchers the world over, with many blaming secondhand smoke for the phenomenon. However, the question as to why non-smoking women are more susceptible to the disease remains largely unanswered. “We need to understand why younger women are more likely to get the disease, why there are molecular differences in lung cancer between men and women, and why there are treatment differences between men and women,” said Regina Vidaver, of Women Against Lung Cancer, a research group.

Click here to read the rest of the story.

What do you make of this?

Scolls

Joined: 05 Aug 2005

Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:17 am

Post subject:

Seems to me that the real causes of lung cancer are either being squashed or simply aren't known, and cigarette smoke is the convenient scape-goat.

Certainly the mere fact that the majority of a group has shared in an activity does not mean that the existence group is caused by that activity.

iRuleThisForum

Joined: 23 Jul 2004

Posted: Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:26 am

Post subject:

Scolls wrote:

Seems to me that the real causes of lung cancer are either being squashed or simply aren't known, and cigarette smoke is the convenient scape-goat.

Hmmm ...

I don't draw any conclusion yet, but what do you think about the following pictures:

User posted image

Source

Scolls

Joined: 05 Aug 2005

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:27 pm

Post subject:

Well, I'm not quite convinced that nicotine is in any sense seriously to be considered a bacteria nor a virus. So I can't imagine how it could cause a disease in an infectious sense.

I do think that sugar should really be highlighted in those pictures of teeth, rather than nicotine which really does stain... but not erode like sugar does.

Perhaps too a block of margerine could be put next to the brain, and show the difference between HDL and LDL cholesterol!

But alas it will always be the cigarettes that are highlighted, when they might just not be the leading causes of these problems after all!

Scolls

Joined: 05 Aug 2005

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:33 pm

Post subject:

Perhaps there's more to be said about genetics here? I mean how relevant isn't it in other cancer forms? Perhaps it could be the case with lung cancer too?

Topics		Replies	Author	Views	Last Post
Related topics
	Help is defined by one who receives it	6	iRuleThisForum	2536	Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:41 am iRuleThisForum
	Two conditions rolled into one very bad one	3	altyfc	1723	Thu Nov 25, 2004 12:25 pm altyfc
	Extended contributor page, would you like to see one or not?	6	iRuleThisForum	2903	Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:57 am iRuleThisForum
	One for iRule!	2	Thais	1785	Fri Sep 10, 2004 10:35 pm iRuleThisForum
	One of possible applications of cloning	0	iRuleThisForum	1857	Tue Aug 03, 2004 5:59 am iRuleThisForum