Smoking 'causes damage in minutes

[hutch]

this is becoming a very popular topic. well, it's either that or my magnetic personality.

to hutch, the dude and thunder. point taken and i humbly apologize. i offer the peace pipe to all.

please do me a favor. go back and read all the comments with an open mind. we all got a little carried away on that one. in my opinion, it was all in good fun.

if anyone wishes not to accept my apology, then i am more than happy to continue.

 

Good on ya mate.....deep breaths..

[nabraxas]

when you get cancer from smoking it is from the chemicals they add to it

proof?

casual use of organic tobacco is beneficial as i have proven

where have you proven this?

smoking anything will damage your lungs.

i use tobacco snuff daily & i have researched it & found that tobacco used in this way poses very little if any health risks, so i'm not anti-tobacco.

A person who uses safely or injects with clean needles and doesn't use too much at a time, can get very old on heroin. The most notorious drug of all in reality is far less harmful than the most commonly accepted drug: Alcohol. Pure heroin does not damage tissue or organs. It does not cause cirrhosis of the liver, nor Korsakow's syndrome (a serious brain disorder resulting from long and excessive alcohol use). Heroin's reputation as a 'killer' therefore has other reasons. The danger lies in its heavily sedating effect, the manner it is used and the real risk of an overdose - especially with combined use.

heroin is far less harmful to the health than its image leads us to believe.

http://www.drugtext.org/library/books/raterisks/4.1.htm

Good on ya mate.....deep breaths..

but not ov that "fresh air" 'cause it will kill you faster than casual use of organic tobacco

.

Edited January 26, 2011 by nabraxas

[Guest svarg26]

The chemicals in cigarettes and tobacco smoke make smoking harmful. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 different chemicals.

At least 50 are known carcinogens (cause cancer in humans) and many are poisonous.

Benzene

(petrol additive)

* A colourless cyclic hydrocarbon obtained from coal and petroleum, used as a solvent in fuel and in chemical manufacture - and contained in cigarette smoke.

* A It known carcinogen associated with leukaemia.

Formaldehyde

(embalming fluid)

* A colourless liquid, highly poisonous, used to preserve dead bodies - also found in cigarette smoke.

* Known to cause cancer, respiratory, skin and gastrointestinal problems.

Ammonia

(toilet cleaner)

* Used as a flavouring, frees nicotine from tobacco turning it into a gas

* Often found in dry cleaning fluids.

Acetone

(nail polish remover)

* Fragrant volatile liquid ketone, used as a solvent, for example, nail polish remover

* Found in cigarette smoke.

Others

* Arsenic (rat poison)

* Hydrogen Cyanide (gas chamber poison)

Source: Health Education Authority

1000 BC: The Mayan civilization of Central America begin using the leaves of the Tobacco plant for smoking and chewing. Gradually, the habit is adopted throughout America.

a very interesting article.

A Short History of Lung Cancer

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/1/4.full

Effects of heroin substance abuse on the body.

Heroin depresses, or slows down, the central nervous system. This can cause the heart rate to slow, and blood pressure to drop. Respiratory functions can also be impaired. Prolonged use of heroin can lead to heart and/or lung failure. Heroin creates conditions of bad health over all, making the body susceptible to illness. Liver disease and pneumonia are just a couple of the problems that can result from the body's lowered immune system abilities.

a few of the health issues associated with heroin use.

Hepatitis

AIDS

Leukoencephalopathy

Endocarditis

Pulmonary Edema

Blood Clots

High Blood Pressure

Liver Damage

Tetanus

"casual use of organic tobacco is beneficial as i have proven"

"A byproduct of cigarette smoke is carbon- dioxide, which in high doses is lethal. However, scientists have discovered that in low dosages, carbon-dioxide in a person's bloodstream prevents blood from "clotting". Blood clots in the bloodstream are the leading cause of heart attacks and strokes. "

Edited January 27, 2011 by svarg26

[nabraxas]

Benzene maybe added but is generally produced by burning tobacco

"Benzene along with bezopyrene and butane are all hydrocarbons present because of pyrolasis [burning of tobacco]. These compounds are undoubtedly carcinogenic and - along with nitrosamines - are the most unpleasant toxicants.

They are without any doubt carcinogenic. It's difficult to take them out of tobacco smoke because they are not in tobacco, they are actually produced during the burning process. Other nasty substances are the oxides of nitrogen and sulphur and hydrochloric acid that can also be present. They are gases which can irreversibly damage the lungs to produce things like emphysema.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/features/health/tobaccotrial/inacigarette.htm

formaldehyde agree w/you, but.

in recent years much effort has been devoted to assessing the influence of tobacco ingredients on the chemistry and toxicity of cigarette mainstream smoke. All of the studies have indicated that commonly used tobacco ingredients do not change the toxicity of smoke as measured in specified assays. Also, the ingredients have little effect on the levels of most smoke constituents that may be relevant to smoking-related diseases. One exception to this generalisation is formaldehyde, which is generated from saccharides used as tobacco ingredients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16859820

ammonia

The tobacco companies admit to putting in ammonium phosphate but this is just to supplement the ammonia that is already there as during distillation and burning, ammonia is formed. This gives tobacco smoke some of the characteristics which the customer likes. The level of ammonia is not at a level to be toxic"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/features/health/tobaccotrial/inacigarette.htm

acetone

One of our ongoing problems in tobacco control is conveying the distinction between what is added to tobacco by cigarette companies and what happens when you cure and then burn tobacco. The reality is that the nasty chemicals that can be isolated from cigarette smoke overwhelmingly come from the combustion of tobacco, rather than from any non-tobacco ingredients. To give an example that will be familiar to readers: one of the toxic substances smokers inhale is acetone, a major ingredient of nail polish remover and paint stripper. Putting significant amounts of acetone into your lungs is certainly something to avoid. However, it's there in all tobacco smoke from the combustion of sugars. The tobacco industry do not add nail polish remover or paint stripper to factory made cigarettes.

The public health messages that draw attention to chemicals such as acetone being found in tobacco smoke have been crafted precisely to get smokers to think "yuk!" and push them further along the track towards quitting. However, as an unintended consequence of drawing attention to "chemicals" in cigarette smoke, some smokers have gone in search of cigarettes that don't contain "chemicals". It's not too hard to see how some smokers arrive at the decision that roll-your-own cigarettes are "better for you". The associations we habitually make between "hand-made" and "natural" with "goodness" are readily put to work in favour of concluding that smoking roll-your-owns is preferable to smoking factory-made cigarettes. You just have to avoid thinking too much about the possibility that your reasoning was entirely wrong.

http://www.quit.org.au/news/article.aspx?ContentID=roll-your-own

"casual use of organic tobacco is beneficial as i have proven"

"A byproduct of cigarette smoke is carbon- dioxide, which in high doses is lethal. However, scientists have discovered that in low dosages, carbon-dioxide in a person's bloodstream prevents blood from "clotting". Blood clots in the bloodstream are the leading cause of heart attacks and strokes. "

is that what you call proven?

even if the carbon dioxide in cigarette smoke was low dose, the amount ov carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke certainly undoes any benefit.

When the level of CO in your blood increases, the ability of your blood to carry oxygen is decreased. It is harmful to your body at any level and it can kill you. Long-term exposure at lower levels can lead to heart disease.

 

http://www.carbonmonoxidekills.com/15/carbon_monoxide_cigarettes

Hepatitis & AIDS are not caused by heroin.

Leukoencephalopathy if this was actually caused by heroin there'd be alot more reported cases

Thorough investigation of the original cohort of 47 patients from Amsterdam, including autopsy for 10 of them, toxicologic analysis of heroin samples, investigation of unaffected heroin addicts and testing of the effects of heroin vapour in animal models, failed to find a toxicologic cause of the leukoencephalopathy.2 The autopsies revealed severe changes in the white matter, termed vaculoating myelinopathy; this lesion was characterized by formation of vacuoles in the oligodendroglia, resulting in spongiform degeneration. Although several additive substances were discovered in the heroin samples, none were known or shown to produce the histopathological changes in the rat or the rabbit model. The authors speculated that an as-yet-unidentified toxic substance is released when heroin is heated.2

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/162/2/236

Pulmonary Edema is an infrequent complication of a heroin overdose.

blood clots result from insoluble additives & poor filtering.

liver damage

 

Heroin is very quickly and effectively metabolized and doesn't affect liver function in a big way. Heroin itself is also non-toxic to liver or any other internal organs (again compare to alcohol). However variety of additives and dilutants that street heroin is "cut"with can cause after prolonged use of IV heroin (decades at least) some damage to the liver.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_heroin_effect_the_liver#ixzz1CH0oMGIg

tetanus

Tetanus is a toxic infectious state whose overall incidence is declining. In drug users who inject the

drug, the incidence of tetanus may be on the rise. Contaminated heroin is the primary cause.

http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/Old/215_216/01-042.pdf

nicotine maybe as addictive as heroin.

Edited January 27, 2011 by nabraxas

[hutch]

nicotine maybe as addictive as heroin

Never had an addiction to heroin but I remember well my addiction to nicotine....Took me a long time to wean myself off...I still miss it and could take it up in a heart beat if I'm not to careful.

[nabraxas]

could take it up in a heart beat if I'm not to careful.

well why not?

as svarg26 has "proven" casual use of organic tobacco is beneficial & as "harmless" as the air you breath

but seriously, have you tried tobacco snuff? it gives you a very nice nicotine buzz & as far as i can find has no health risks.

[Guest svarg26]

"Clearly, lung cancer is an important and widespread disease that constitutes a major public health problem. THIS WAS NOT ALWAYS SO. Some 150 years ago, it was an extremely RARE disease. In 1878, malignant lung tumors represented only 1% of all cancers seen at autopsy in the Institute of Pathology of the University of Dresden in Germany. By 1918, the percentage had risen to almost 10% and by 1927 to more than 14%. In the 1930 edition of the authoritative Springer Handbook of Special Pathology it was duly noted that malignant lung tumors had begun to increase at the turn of the century and perhaps even more so after World War I."

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/1/4.full

Primary petrochemicals are divided into three groups depending on their chemical structure:

* Olefins includes ethylene, propylene, and butadiene. Ethylene and propylene are important sources of industrial chemicals and plastics products. Butadiene is used in making synthetic rubber.

* Aromatics includes benzene, toluene, and xylenes. Benzene is a raw material for dyes and synthetic detergents, and benzene and toluene for isocyanates MDI and TDI used in making polyurethanes. Manufacturers use xylenes to produce plastics and synthetic fibers.

* Synthesis gas is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen used to make ammonia and methanol. Ammonia is used to make the fertilizer urea and methanol is used as a solvent and chemical intermediate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemical

"In the 1530's a number of Europeans saw the potential money making in tobacco and they decided to cash in and make their wealth from the cultivation of this popular plant. They began to colonize areas of the Caribbean and established large tobacco growing areas, from which they exported all the tobacco back to Europe."

"At the beginning of the 17th Century, tobacco was just starting to be regularly imported into the UK, with amounts of 25,000 pounds being shipped from the Americas. By the turn of the century this amount had increased to a figure nearing 38 million pounds and the competitive marketing and tobacco production on a large scale began to get underway."

http://www.helpwithsmoking.com/history-of-smoking.php

for around 500 years tobacco has been smoked globally on a massive scale. but it wasn't until the introduction of petrochemicals into every aspect of our lives that we began to see a rise in lung cancer. before this lung cancer was virtually unheard of. you breathe, eat, drink, bathe and dress yourself in petrochemicals. unless lung cancer had a 3000 year incubation period, the sole cause for lung cancer is petrochemicals.

once you realize this fact, you will see that it has been a major goal of the petrochemical industry to use smoking as a scapegoat. they use mass mind control through the media and pedal anti-smoking information that demonizes tobacco and through repetition the misinformed public believe it. how would people react if they really knew the truth about lung cancer?

so when the media tells us that organic tobacco has these chemicals already in it. we know this is simply not the case. the brief history of lung cancer tells a different story and exposes this giant fraud.

i hope this has cleared things up for everyone.

please spread this information far and wide. the truth will set us free. cancer can be stopped, but we need to be teaching the right information to achieve this.

thanks and take care.

[ThunderIdeal]

much better posting form.

i dunno though, i tend to think if you had somebody smoking natural tobacco and somebody not smoking, and they had very similar lifestyles, as the smoker increased their intake it would reach a point where they couldn't run as far as the non-smoker. i'm not sure what level of smoking this would be. i can certainly agree that we shouldn't be frightened out of having a cigarette each day when things are trying to kill and poison us from every angle and you could get run over by an ambulance or beaten retarded by a cop on any given day.

the more you read, the more there is to be worried about, including worry itself. what the hell? maybe something you like hurts you a little bit, big deal, most of us have more unhealthy habits than we could possibly avoid even if we knew exactly what was and wasn't healthy, WHICH WE DON'T.

[nabraxas]

you should read in full the links you post.

all the following is from the first link you posted

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/1/4.full

It refutes your whole argument.

Extensive prospective epidemiologic data clearly establish cigarette smoking as the major cause of lung cancer. It is estimated that about 90% of male lung cancer deaths and 75–80% of lung cancer deaths in the US are caused by smoking each year” (Hecht, 1999). Clearly, lung cancer is an important and widespread disease that constitutes a major public health problem. This was not always so. Some 150 years ago, it was an extremely rare disease. In 1878, malignant lung tumors represented only 1% of all cancers seen at autopsy in the Institute of Pathology of the University of Dresden in Germany. By 1918, the percentage had risen to almost 10% and by 1927 to more than 14%.

What caused such a dramatic increase in an obscure disease? The handbook discusses at some length possible etiologic factors: increased air pollution by gases and dusts, caused by industry; the asphalting of roads; the increase in automobile traffic; exposure to gas in World War I; the influenza pandemic of 1918; and working with benzene or gasoline. However, lung cancer rose at the same rate in countries with fewer automobiles, less industry, fewer paved roads, and in workers not exposed to benzene or gasoline—and had not risen in the 19th century after earlier flu pandemics.

The link between the smoking of cigarettes and lung cancer began to be suspected by clinicians in the 1930s when they noted the increase of this “unusual” disease. Publications began to appear and about 2 decades later the role of smoking as causative agent had been firmly established. A case control study was published in 1940 in Germany and its author flatly stated that “the extraordinary rise in tobacco use was the single most important cause of the rising incidence of lung cancer” (Müller, 1940). At this time, lung cancer had become the second most frequent cause of cancer death, stomach cancer being the first. In 1943, the German Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research disclosed a study which found that among 109 lung cancer cases only 3 were nonsmokers, a proportion much lower than in the control group. In the 1950s Doll and Hill in England and Cuyler Hammond and Ernest Wynder in the U.S. provided further evidence for a causal association between smoking and lung cancer. Yet, it took a long time until the truth was fully accepted. Smokers, including many physicians, who enjoyed cigarettes could or would not want to imagine or refused to believe that the habit (addiction would be more appropriate) was detrimental to their health.

The smoking of cigarettes had become popular shortly before the turn of the century. Originally, cigarettes were hand rolled and this made them expensive. In 1876, the cigarette manufacturer Allen & Ginter offered a prize for the development of a machine that would speed up the process. When James Albert Bonsack developed a machine that could make 70,000 cigarettes in a 10 h day, Allen & Ginter did not want to use it—partially out of fear that the machine would produce more cigarettes than the market demand justified. James Buchanan Duke had no such qualms; he acquired 2 of the machines and went on to commercial success. In 1889, “Buck” Duke became president of the new American Tobacco Company.

World War I helped to popularize the smoking of cigarettes. Soldiers in the trenches smoked to relieve stress, and so did many civilians, including an increasing number of women at home. General John J. (“Black Jack”) Pershing reportedly stated: “You ask me what it is we need to win this war. I answer tobacco as much as bullets.” In the following decades, smoking continued to be “enjoyed” by hundreds of thousands until, after the first report of the Surgeon General in 1964, public awareness woke up and smoking became recognized as the hazard it is. The trend in lung cancer incidence slowly decreased and, at least in men, appeared to flatten out.

During the last few decades, there has been a shift in forms of lung cancer. In the early studies, the predominant lung cancer form in smokers was squamous cell carcinoma, mostly originating from the epithelium lining the airways. First noticed in 1961, but confirmed mostly during the last two decades there occurred a shift to more peripherally located adenocarcinomas. This is most likely a consequence of changes made in cigarettes. Tar was considered to be the main carcinogenic agent in cigarette smoke, mostly because cigarette smoke condensates (“tar fraction”) were the first ingredients isolated from tobacco smoke that could be shown in skin painting studies to produce cancer in animals. It was hoped that production of low tar, low nicotine cigarettes and the addition of filters might decrease cancer risk. It did not, most likely because of changes in smoking pattern. To fulfill the craving for nicotine, smokers of filter cigarettes may inhale smoke more deeply into the lung and retain it longer. With the removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the filter, the preponderant carcinogens in smoke might be tobacco specific nitrosamines and volatile carcinogens in the gas phase. Animal experiments lend plausibility to this; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons do cause squamous cell carcinomas in the lungs of animals, whereas nitrosamines are more likely to produce adenocarcinomas.

All evidence linking lung cancer and smoking comes from human experience. Similarly, radon was recognized as a human carcinogen long before some animal data suggested that it was a carcinogen. It is likely that neither agent responsible for lung cancer, the smoking of cigarettes or radon, would have been recognized as a cancer causing agent had it not been for the fact that a previously very rare disease increased in parallel with increased consumption of a widely distributed and highly addictive agent or was associated with a specific occupation.

[dworx]

This is a fools argument, really smoking is not a healthy past time we all know that. You will never get through to someone who thinks along these lines 'i can't figure out how a junkie can expect anyone to take anything they say seriously. maybe someone can enlighten me" a rude and derogatory peice of writing .

I might think he were onto something if he said shamanic use wont hurt but he is only saying smoking organic, It is the western way of smoking that is more damaging and maybe the tobacco being commercial a little. He is too great to be wrong in any manner. how may times must a person see this. My last post here..

[bℓσωηG]

Argument, shcmargument.... i just think we all deserve to choose what we burn and inhale, just being a passive smoker in a room full of people smoking ''horizons'' or ''winfields'' makes me physically ill, but tokin on known pure naturally grown baccy leaf just gives me a boost, and it just smells right , anyone notice how ''ciggies'' just smell wrong when burning?

(edited for beer.)

Edited January 29, 2011 by blowng

[herbal_hindsight]

This post reeks of arrogance, cynicism and complete and utter absurdity... good collection of facts though and some truths of opinion have been expressed.

The idea of a forum; atleast in my eyes is to spread knowledge and share the information and love that you rarely see anywhere else!

It's about awareness and healthy debate

An expression of one's opinions.... but without being a dick about it!

Where is the respect?

Not that I'm pointing any fingers?

Good to see some co-operation showed itself towards the end but what was the purpose of having to be right all the time!!!

Another interesting fact I have read before about the tobacco plant is that it contains trace amounts of beta-carbolines...

Tobacco smoke contains the monoamine oxidase inhibitors harman, norharman,[20] anabasine, anatabine, and nornicotine. These compounds significantly decrease MAO activity in smokers.[20][21] MAO enzymes break down monoaminergic neurotransmitters such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin.

Wikipedia - Nicotine

Is this a concern to anyone else and what does trace amounts mean? Is this a factor creating further risk of illness when combined with alcohol and other foods/drugs which are generally dangerous to consume alongside beta-carbolines?

The title of this thread is "Smoking 'causes damage in minutes"

The general vibe is telling me "arrogance creates seperation and lack of constructive thought in seconds..."

Grow up svarg26.. thanks for making your contribution but please do it with less sarcasm and disrespect in the future.

You may not be trying to make friends [and if you are think twice about your methods] but there is a common respect on the forums which should be more strictly enforced.

No-one is ever 100% right [hell i'm probably wrong right now] and that is the beauty of discussion forums... we share and express ideas and facts we have learnt and combine them together to form a greater whole which can make more sense to all of us!

Shamanic use of tobacco could be considered safe as it's not entirely inhaled and isn't consumed all day, day in day out; but the habitual use is a filthy habit to say the least and shouldn't be encouraged but despite not being a tobacco smoker I do beleive that we all have the right to freedom of choice!

I do believe there are much bigger issues of concern out there though that pose much more of a threat to lung damage than tobacco.

Edited January 28, 2011 by herbal_hindsight

[nabraxas]

I do believe there are much bigger issues of concern out there though that pose much more of a threat to lung damage than tobacco.

i totally agree.

i also agree that everybody has the right to choose exactly what they put into their body (as long as they are not suffering from some psychological problem; like, for example, someone w/depression choosing to kill themselves w/poison)

my original reason in posting this topic was because i thought it was amazing that research has shown that the smoke from cigarettes doesn't take years ov habitual use to damage your DNA as per conventional wisdom, but that the smoke from a single cigarette has the potential to cause damage within 30 minutes.

in other words a single cigarette has the potential to cause cancer.

[Guest svarg26]

the brief history of lung cancer paints a picture that no amount of bogus science can change. nothing in the article i posted refutes this. 3000 years of smoking and no lung cancer is information that everyone should know. i am glad that i had the opportunity to clear my name. my apology was sincere and i appreciate some people giving me a second chance.

the missing link is petrochemicals. the evidence has been presented in a clear and concise way, free from condescension. you are free to disagree with what i have posted. my hope is that at least one person has taken what i have said and started researching it on their own. when you start digging it is amazing what you find out.

i am not trying to be right all of the time. i simply post information that no one else is posting. this is something that adds great value to a forum like this. a plethora of varied opinions allows people to make informed decisions. an informed population can not be fooled.

both nabraxas and i have stated our cases. how about we let everyone make up their own minds. i think it's time to Let bygones be bygones.

what do you say? mate.

[herbal_hindsight]

my original reason in posting this topic was because i thought it was amazing that research has shown that the smoke from cigarettes doesn't take years ov habitual use to damage your DNA as per conventional wisdom, but that the smoke from a single cigarette has the potential to cause damage within 30 minutes.

in other words a single cigarette has the potential to cause cancer.

I totally agree and thanks for posting this.. it is very interesting to say the least!

i am not trying to be right all of the time. i simply post information that no one else is posting. this is something that adds great value to a forum like this. a plethora of varied opinions allows people to make informed decisions. an informed population can not be fooled.

No worries mate, I think it was just the way you read to people... good on you for posting information not being posted... it's always important to spread new knowledge... i think it was probably the sarcasm that created the mis-conception.

No hard feelings!

[nabraxas]

it's time to Let bygones be bygones.

no worries mate.

[bℓσωηG]

Oral sex is ‘bigger cause of throat cancer than tobacco’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1358845/Oral-sex-bigger-cause-throat-cancer-tobacco.html#ixzz1EdZfcTv7

[nabraxas]

 

[Roopey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

[faustus]

the brief history of lung cancer paints a picture that no amount of bogus science can change. nothing in the article i posted refutes this. 3000 years of smoking and no lung cancer is information that everyone should know.

smoking doesn't "cause" lung cancer in the usual sense of the word. it's a risk factor whose exposure has been epidemiologically linked with an increased incidence of lung cancer in a dose-dependent fashion.

why has the prevalence of lung cancer only occured in recent history, and not throughout the entirely of human consumption of tobacco for the past 3000 years? a few reasons might spring to mind:

- increased life expectancy. the median age of lung cancer diagnosis is ~70 years. life expectancy in 1900 was ~50 years. for much of human history, infectious diseases were the leading cause of mortality, but have subsequently been superceded by the lifestyle diseases. i.e. people weren't given a chance to die of lung cancer because other diseases were killing them off before that.

- smoking and lung cancer incidence occurs in a dose-dependent fashion. think of every cigarette that a person smokes as one lottery ticket in the "lung cancer sweepstakes" ... having a ticket doesn't guarantee that you'll "win" but with every ticket you possess you increase your chances ever so slightly. 3,000 years ago, were indian tribespeople really smoking the equivalent of 25 cigarettes a day for 10-20 years? probably not. brief exposure to smoke = smaller risk of lung cancer = lower incidence of cancer. only since the cigarette machine in the late 1800s has tobacco been consumed like a mother-fuck.

- there's a latency between smoking exposure and subsequent development of lung cancer. as the study in the original post shows, the cellular changes associated with lung cancer occur rapidly. regardless, it usually takes several decades before these cellular changes manifest themselves as "cancerous".

look at this figure which nicely demonstrates the concept of dose-dependency and latency:

for your whole "chemical additive hypothesis" to hold true, additives must have been added right from the very beginning of mass tobacco consumption. but they weren't, they were added circa 1970. as you can see, there's a nice correlation between tobacco consumption and cancer incidence even well before this period.

your conspiracy theory is inconsistent with the epidemiological data.

[Distracted]

wow faustus, has that reply been a year in the making?

btw you're argueing with a banned troll

[faustus]

christ, right you are! i'm such a dopey bogan cunt.