Reducing Risks of Pipe and Cigar Smoking

Link: Maybe this one will work.

Great article! I especially liked number 7. Thanks for sharing this.

Not to rain on anyone's parade but this is quite the bullshit article. It's articles like this that continue to propagate false information about smoking. The author does not state what Confidence Level he used nor does he show the hi/low range for Risk. Without this information no one can state whether any of this data is valid or statistically significant. This data was put together either by someone who knows absolutely nothing about statistical analysis or it was put together by someone who understands statistics and has deceitfully published the results . For pipe and cigar smokers the data does not show how many people inhaled. This is important because cigar/pipe smokers that inhale have a different set of data that those that do not inhale. If you believe in the 1964 Surgeon Generals Report that states cigarette smoking is bad for your health than you also have to believe the same report that states moderate cigar smokers do not have an increased risk for disease compared to non cigar smokers. You also have to then believe the same report when it says American pipe smokers have no elevated risks compared to smokers and that English pipe smokers live longer than non pipe smokers. The report also shows that Canadians do have a very slight elevated risk factor. Personally I think the 1964 SG's Report is just about the poorest attempt at using statistics to try to prove smoking is bad for you but like I said if you believe the cigarette conclusions you also have to believe the pipe/cigar conclusions.
Hopefully in the next few days I'll post some meaningful data with citations that should clear some of the BS up about the "dangers" of smoking.

No booze whilst smoking.... :crying:

jitterbug- Don't rain on my parade! Smoking a pipe has added 4.327 inches to my penis length! :mrgreen:

No booze whilst smoking....

Click to expand...

What the heck does he know? He's only a doctor. Probably never smoked a pipe in his life!

There are a lot undefined variables worth considering. Some of the studies I've looked at involved pipe smokers using cigarette tobacco in their pipes which should be eliminated from the aggregation of statistics of pipe smokers. Obviously the risk is not zero. The way I look at it is that I have about 20 years of life left to me. I'm going to enjoy it in the ways I see fit.

Not to rain on anyone's parade but this is quite the bullshit article. It's articles like this that continue to propagate false information about smoking. The author does not state what Confidence Level he used nor does he show the hi/low range for Risk.

Click to expand...

This link has been posted here before but I actually liked this article and post. I certainly wouldn't call the entire thing "bullshit". This isn't a presentation to the AMA or the CDC or a doctoral thesis, it's merely a lecture presented by an M.D. to a Pipe Smokers club.
It also has interesting tips to reduce one's risk - what to drink, vitamins to take - all interesting info.
In regards to statistics - I agree they can be skewed and cherry-picked to present any POV, but at least in this case, it's using (in part) the 1964 Surgeon General's report which seems to me to be a relatively objective look at the risks associated with smoking: i.e. cigarettes and inhalation = bad, pipe and cigar smoking = not so much.
Sadly, nowadays there is such a strong anti-smoking element in politics and the media that any attempt at objectivity has been tossed out the window.

Smoking a pipe has added 4.327 inches to my penis length

Click to expand...

8O
If I am to expect similar results from taking up this hobby... oh, my poor wife. :wink:

Just so long as it isn't your poor goat...

Anybody aware of journal articles with some actual solid data on health risks of pipe smoking v.s. cigarette smoking or non-smoking? Everything I have read from the CDC, etc. basically says don't do it, it is bad for you- but is completely lacking in data. With all the money that is poured into anti-smoking efforts you would think someone could do some real scientific research on the health risks of pipe smoking.

I just found this article- I need to go back to my college statistics class, but I gleaned that it says that pipe smokers are 5 times more likely to die of lung or mouth/throat cancer as are people who never smoked. Interesting read. I guess they collected data on frequency of pipe use, but I don't see that presented in the results.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/11/853.full

All you really need to know is that with life comes with risk. Nothing good is going to happen to your body when you suck a bunch of poisons into your mouth and then blow it out again (you don't need data to figure that out). The soft moist tissues are going to take some of those poisons into your system. Enough to cause permanent damage or lead to sickness? That depends on your immune system and genes.
I choose to joust with death a bit and smoke. I also drive a vehicle, take pictures of bears in the wild, fly, and do other things which come with a bit of risk. No agency, scientist, or study can give to you an absolute.
So you can either suck it up (pun intended) while accepting the risks, or not add to the stresses of everyday living your body is already coping with by not smoking. If you come down with a disease which takes time to kill you will have plenty of time to rue some of the decisions you made. If it's a heart attack or gunshot to the head, well . . . no regrets. Well, possibly a quick nod to that burrito you just wolfed down. Or, a fleeting thought that you should have believed her when she told you she thought her husband was home.

"Luck favours the prepared."
I forget where that quote is from, but it's a good one.
It's easy to separate the things about pipes that are hazardous and the ones that aren't.
I'm still going with two bowls a week (no inhaling) as effectively being no different from someone who doesn't smoke. Apparently eating food cooked over a fire is just as dangerous.

The smoke from the fire is probably more dangerous. "All things in moderation," said my blessed mother.

Its actually pointless to make personal choices based on statistics. Statistics are only useful when you're working with big enough samples, so they are useful to the government, hospitals, corporations... entities which deal with thousands of smokers at a time and thus, whose personal factors and circumstances average out into useful data...
Thus if pipe smokers live as long as non-smokers, that means some might live 10 years less and the exact same number (or proportion of age and number) will live 10 years more. You have absolutely no way to know which camp YOU are in and how smoking affects YOU.
But who gives a crap? I'm gonna pack another bowl...

All you really need to know is that with life comes with risk.

Click to expand...

For sure, but there are different degrees of risk. Camping in Chernobyl isn't the same thing as crossing the street...well, not unless it's a radioactive street...in Chernobyl. The purpose of science and statistics is to make us aware of what kind of risks we are taking, so that we in turn can make informed choices.
The great misunderstanding that gets perpetuated wherever we smokers gather on the web is that's an all or nothing proposition. "I've smoked for 30 years and I'm not dead! And I knew someone that smoked until they were a hundred! What do you say to that science, eh?"
Genetics, particles from the roads, pollution, etc, it all adds up, and knowing whether you increase the risk for cancer by ten or so times by smoking is valuable information that I'd like to have.

whether you increase the risk for cancer by ten or so times by smoking is valuable information that I'd like to have.

Click to expand...

More than that, though - I'd like to know what the actual risk is that I'm increasing by 10x... If my chance of contracting something nasty is 1 in 10 and I increase it to 10 in 10, that's significant. If my chance is 1 in 10,000 and I increase it to 1 in 1000, well, that's less significant.