Pipes Magazine » General Pipe Smoking Discussion

Search Forums  
   
Tags:   

Is Nicotine A Red Herring?

(36 posts)
  • Started 3 months ago by tufftony
  • Latest reply from thefishguy
  1. tufftony

    tufftony

    Member
    Joined: Mar 2019
    Posts: 528

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    It is abundantly evident that there are growing epidemics
    of every conceivable illness in the world today, one of the
    most frightening of which is lung cancer, a disease which
    we are told afflicts and kills large numbers of its victims.

    Given this, it became incumbent upon the authorities to find
    an explanation for the dramatic increase of this disease since
    WW2 as it was not common at all earlier in the 20th century.
    It was reasoned that something must be getting into the lungs
    of lung cancer victims and, since many were smokers, tobacco
    smoke must be the culprit.

    Overlooked was the fact that something else was also getting
    into the lungs, not only of smokers but of everyone on the
    planet, and that this was the circumambient air itself that we
    all have to breathe.

    Could it be that it was not so much tobacco smoke that was
    responsible for the dramatic increase in lung cancer but a
    dramatic increase since WW2 in something far more deadly and
    dangerous into the global atmosphere? I think the following
    video may offer a possible explanation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

    Posted 3 months ago #
  2. elbert

    elbert

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2015
    Posts: 570

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I'll probably regret this.

    No. The link between smoking and cancer (to say nothing of other ailments like emphysema and OCPD) is clear. "So why the increase?" Because it's still around. If a smoker can't die young from Polio, Tuberculosis, Smallpox, Tetanus, or war, they'll die old from smoking.

    If the problem was atmospheric, it would kill indiscriminately. It doesn't. It kills people who consume excessive amounts of tobacco.

    You can accept the risk and roll the dice, or deny the risk and...

    ...roll the dice.

    "An thou hast them, smoketh them!" -An Old Philosopher
    Posted 3 months ago #
  3. prairiedruid

    prairiedruid

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2015
    Posts: 1,684

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Elbert said far better than I could write it.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  4. canucklehead

    canucklehead

    Junior Member
    Joined: Aug 2018
    Posts: 98

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    It should also be noted that nicotine is not carcinogenic in isolation. Tobacco is carcinogenic, especially when smoked. There is ample evidence of that. No evidence has been found (yet) of nicotine being a carcinogen.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  5. warren

    warren

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 7,527

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    You are just bored aren't you tufftony?

    A man without a shillelagh is a man without an expedient.
    Posted 3 months ago #
  6. acidpox

    acidpox

    Member
    Joined: Nov 2018
    Posts: 235

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Just because lung cancer was not diagnosed in the 1st half of the century does not mean it was uncommon. The lungs are designed for one thing and one thing only, that's good clean air. Anything thing else that is introduced in an abundance and over a long period of time is going to cause problems. Be it smoke or fumes from organic and synthetic materials or fine particles like coal dust etc. Let's not forget the amount of fossil fuels the world has burned since the beginning of the industrial revolution. There have been studies done in 3rd world countries that mainly use wood stoves as a primary source of heating and cooking and they too also have an increased risk of getting lung cancer in there old age even if they dont smoke. Also let's not forget that when talking about lung cancer from smoking it is more often they are talking about cigarettes, and as we all know it's crazy all the extra chemicals added to them by big tobacco. I highly doubt that nuclear explosions have much to do with lung cancer globally. I'm no doctor or scientist, that's just my 2 cents. At the current exchange rate it's only worth about 1.23 cents lol.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  7. eggrollpiper

    eggrollpiper

    Senior Member
    Joined: Jul 2018
    Posts: 372

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I just wanted to add, and like elbert I'll proby regret it. Waren - funny btw.
    So I wrote about this a while back but I think it's worth mentioning. Way back in the merry 80's Reagan had a surgeon general named Everet C Coop; he alone is the creator of the surgeon generals warning that has evolved to that delightful sticker that adorns our tins and pouches. He somehow came to the conclusion that the majority of cancer caused by smoking is not caused by the somewhat carcinogenic leaf itself but by the radioactive phosphorus used as fertilizer which is a byproduct of nuclear power. It's radioactive phosphorus and is found in most fruits and veggies however those are not set on fire and the smoke ingested. Burning radioactive matter exponentially increases it's cancerous risk. From what I understand organic farming is even not able to avoid this. So before WW2 there was none of this and there you have another possible explanaton. Your welcome. haha

    Posted 3 months ago #
  8. mso489

    mso489

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2013
    Posts: 25,911

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Heavy smoking is a cancer hazard and is compounded by environmental exposures including ambient air and various occupational exposures such as asbestos, or so epidemiological data has predominantly shown. Moderation in all things.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  9. rfernand

    r

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2015
    Posts: 700

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Dunhill will return.
    Posted 3 months ago #
  10. tufftony

    tufftony

    Member
    Joined: Mar 2019
    Posts: 528

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    You are just bored aren't you tufftony?

    No - I'm taking the trouble to post information, asking questions,
    and stimulating discussion, all of which I take to be the purpose
    of an active forum member. Or would you prefer that I sleep? Huh?

    Posted 3 months ago #
  11. didimauw

    didimauw

    Mod
    Joined: Jul 2013
    Posts: 2,967

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Haha

    "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
    Posted 3 months ago #
  12. didimauw

    didimauw

    Mod
    Joined: Jul 2013
    Posts: 2,967

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    The longer you are a member here, the more you can tell who's posting just by the title. Tufftony, I'm at 100 % so far! But you aren't the only one btw.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  13. warren

    warren

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 7,527

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I bet you can guess my preference. You'd be wrong though.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  14. jaytex969

    jaytex969

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2017
    Posts: 3,487

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    D. All of the above

    Gunner, Black Frigate. Say "Hello" to my little friend!
    Posted 3 months ago #
  15. hoosierpipeguy

    hoosierpipeguy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2018
    Posts: 1,834

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I like the OP'S version. If there were some way to prove it, it makes sense there are other factors contributing to lung cancer as well as other cancers. I also think common sense dictates tobacco smoking, especially cigarettes, clearly increases the risk of lung cancer.

    After giving all this considerable thought, I've concluded none of us are getting out of this alive. So enjoy a good bowl of tobacco.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  16. weezell

    weezell

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 9,280

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    After giving all this considerable thought, I've concluded none of us are getting out of this alive. So enjoy a good bowl of tobacco.
    Sums it up just right for me!...

    "the weez"...
    Posted 3 months ago #
  17. dethmutt

    dethmutt

    Senior Member
    Joined: Sep 2018
    Posts: 373

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Heavy smoking is a cancer hazard and is compounded by environmental exposures including ambient air and various occupational exposures such as asbestos, or so epidemiological data has predominantly shown. Moderation in all things.

    How do you moderate Environmental Exposures?

    Posted 3 months ago #
  18. jaytex969

    jaytex969

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2017
    Posts: 3,487

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    How do you moderate Environmental Exposures?

    Front Fell Off

    Posted 3 months ago #
  19. User has not uploaded an avatar

    bullet08

    Member
    Joined: Nov 2018
    Posts: 158

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    i have known enough people who doesn't smoke died of lung cancer. i also have known people who smoked 3 packs a day and lived well past 80. genetics and luck of the draw. i'm sure smoking doesn't help, but i'm positive it's not the only factor causing lung cancer.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  20. warren

    warren

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 7,527

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    i'm (sic) positive it's not the only factor causing lung cancer.

    You should be positive. No one has ever suggested such. Carcinogens are everywhere. Smoking simply gives one a really solid, condensed dose of them. But, you could do the same standing in the smoke of a tire fire, barbecue smoker, etc. and inhaling. Same basic carcinogens. People usually move away from smoke. We smokers tend to enjoy, even savor smoke. We spend good money doing so.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  21. tufftony

    tufftony

    Member
    Joined: Mar 2019
    Posts: 528

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    i have known enough people who doesn't smoke died of lung cancer. i also have known people who smoked 3 packs a day and lived well past 80. genetics and luck of the draw. i'm sure smoking doesn't help, but i'm positive it's not the only factor causing lung cancer.

    Me too.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  22. pappymac

    pappymac

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2015
    Posts: 1,817

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Nuclear fallout and volcanic particles.

    I am glad we have a good admin and responsible moderators.

    Heave to you dark colored ship under sail! Prepare to be boarded!
    Posted 3 months ago #
  23. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,610

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Ban automobiles. Now.

    It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

    It is pointless to argue with a fanatic since a dim bulb can't be converted into a searchlight. - Jesse Silver
    Posted 3 months ago #
  24. tufftony

    tufftony

    Member
    Joined: Mar 2019
    Posts: 528

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Nuclear fallout and volcanic particles.

    Congratulations!

    Finally a poster who is actually aware of radioactivity!

    Posted 3 months ago #
  25. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,610

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    And cow farts.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  26. bassbug

    bassbug

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 899

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Could it be that it was not so much tobacco smoke that was
    responsible for the dramatic increase in lung cancer but a
    dramatic increase since WW2 in something far more deadly and
    dangerous into the global atmosphere?

    No

    I don't care who you are, you're not walking on the water while I'm fishing
    Posted 3 months ago #
  27. anthonyrosenthal74

    anthonyrosenthal74

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 7,488

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    And cow farts.
    There are approximately 998 million cattle in the world today. But there are 7.5 billion humans. Maybe cows should ban us

    Arrrrr, shiver me timbers! International Talk Like a Pirate Day is September the 19th!!!
    Brothers Of The Black Frigate
    Posted 3 months ago #
  28. verporchting

    verporchting

    Member
    Joined: Dec 2018
    Posts: 244

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Yes, but if a red herring farts in the sea, does anyone hear it?

    If a tree farts in the forest, do any cows hear it?

    Does nicotine make trees fart? Do fish care?

    In space, no-one hears you scream. Or fart.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  29. eggrollpiper

    eggrollpiper

    Senior Member
    Joined: Jul 2018
    Posts: 372

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Tufftony and everybody else: I'm kinda disappointed no one commented on my radioactive phosphorus, you all act like it's not there. I'm curious why and doesn't bother me if you disagree. As far as I know it's true. And Of course I'm not disputing that it takes a combination of factors to produce a cancer diagnosis.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  30. tufftony

    tufftony

    Member
    Joined: Mar 2019
    Posts: 528

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Well I have heard of it but I'm much more disappointed that no-one
    seems to have bothered watching the Youtube video I posted about the
    staggering number of nuclear explosions that have been set off that
    have poisoned the entire global atmosphere. Not everyone is smoking
    radioactive cigarettes but we are all inhaling radioactive particles
    from these explosions of which there were two thousand and fifty-three
    between 1945 and 1998. What's tobacco smoke compared to that?

    Posted 3 months ago #
  31. davek

    davek

    Senior Member
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 329

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    You are just bored aren't you tufftony?

    I think Tufftony's posts are like nicotine itself. Great in moderation.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  32. mikethompson

    mikethompson

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 3,749

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    There are plenty of people who get lung and other cancers who have never touched tobacco. I agree it is environmental but inhaling copious amounts of tobacco smoke doesn't help.

    Everything in moderation, as Tom suggests.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  33. npod

    npod

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2017
    Posts: 2,706

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Marij..na doesn’t cause cancer. Ask any educated person from California or Colorado. They will be happy to tell you so. And then they will tell you how evil you you are for smoking a pipe, maybe even quote some high level evidence based medicine in the process.

    Neal
    Posted 3 months ago #
  34. eggrollpiper

    eggrollpiper

    Senior Member
    Joined: Jul 2018
    Posts: 372

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Well TT you make a good point so I watched it. My primary conclusion: 'murica! No. 1 again!!! Woot! Although it's definitely got to contribute I'm still sticking with my radioactive baccy. It would be interesting to see a map of diagnosed cancers. laid over the nukes one. Never been happier to be on the East Cost tho. I mean sure it gets into the atmosphere but the concentration diminishes by distance to the source. Vegas baby!

    Posted 3 months ago #
  35. jpmcwjr

    jpmcwjr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 13,297

    online

    Login to Send PM

    You get more radiation walking through Grand Central Station in NYC than you do outside a US nuclear generating plant. Just thought you should know.

    I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
    Posted 3 months ago #
  36. User has not uploaded an avatar

    thefishguy

    Senior Member
    Joined: Jan 2017
    Posts: 348

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Radiation is associated more with cancers of the thyroid than lungs. I process lung biopsies every day. Of the ones that are positive for adeno carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or small cell carcinoma, 99.99% of those come from people that have "smoker" or "former smoker" listed on their history and physical. I won't deny that there's a genetic component involved too. Lots more people smoke than get lung cancer. Like Dirty Harry said, do you feel lucky? Meh, I still enjoy my pipe.

    Posted 3 months ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.

 

 

    Back To Top  | Back to Forum Home Page

   Members Online Now
   tfdickson, danimalia, aldecaker, jravenwood, jpmcwjr, hoppes, vangoghpipe