Peer Reviewed Tobacco Smoking Correlations

[warren]

But the powers-that-be have too much vested in their substitute-moralities to consider these realities reasonably.

I have no idea what the above means. But, the observations above it are simply my mother's advice in lofty language, "All things in moderation." First heard those words probably 70 years ago. I'm certain I'm not the only one who was given that advice.

 

[bassbug]

That many things which are statistically riskier than smoking do not get such mass criticism, such negative and political attention. According the study I referenced, flying in a helicopter is 12.5x riskier than smoking, and rock climbing is 100x riskier. But I have never seen popular nor political campaigns against these, nor heard anybody tut-tut over them morally.

I'd like to see verifiable numbers of what percentage of helicopter passengers crash and rock climbers plunge to their death compared to the percentage of smokers that get cancer. I'll go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that the study referenced has, at the very least, played some not so ethical games with the statistics.

 

[TheIronMonkey]

Some follow-up thoughts --

Most anti-smokers accept carcinogens from other sources.

Consider candles. Most modern candles are made of paraffin wax -- a petroleum product -- and they release chemicals such as toluene into your home. Candles deposit so much soot that homes which burn them heavily have attempted (unsuccessfully) to file insurance claims over the damage. So, it's interesting to consider that soot is significantly carcinogenic and linked to the risk of cancer.

Woodsmoke (as from campfires or woodstoves) contains, according to one study, "much higher" levels of PAHs than vehicle exhaust does, and a "higher mutagenic and carcinogenic potential" than traffic exhaust. Besides PAHs, woodsmoke contains high levels of dioxins, benzene, and aldehydes. In any case, one Swedish study found that homes which heat by woodstove have approximately 4x the PAH cancer potency of homes which heat otherwise.

Nitrate cured meats form N-nitroso compounds (a carcinogen), and smoked meats form polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (a carcinogen). Processed meats as a category have a statistically significant correlation to colorectal, stomach, and breast cancers. Cooking any meat at high heat (as in grilling or pan-frying) produces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines (carcinogens) linked to cancer. Starchy foods cooked at high temperature (french fries, potato chips, etc.) form acrylamide (a carcinogen) which damages DNA, induces cell death, and leads to oxidative stress which increases the risk of cancer.

But very few people consider others to be morally suspect for accepting some carcinogenic risk in burning candles, heating with a woodstove, or eating grilled meats.

In general, people seem to have strongly yet inconsistently held opinions about the ethics of risk.

A 1992 Royal Society report, "Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management," charted number of deaths per hundred million hours spent on various activities. Smoking clocked in at 40, while travel by helicopter clocked in at 500, and rock climbing at 4,000. Society should therefore be 12x more upset at helicopter passengers and 100x more upset at rock climbers than at smokers, for their inadmissible irresponsibility.

I couldn't help but think of this song:

 

[rajangan]

Impact of Tobacco Smoking on the Risk of COVID-19: A Large Scale Retrospective Cohort Study - PubMed -

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33420786/


Smoking and risk of COVID-19 hospitalization - PubMed -

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33915414/


The association of smoking status with SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID-19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta-analyses (version 7) - PubMed - [URL unfurl="true"]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33007104/[/URL]

Smoking prevalence among hospitalized COVID-19 patients and its association with disease severity and mortality: an expanded re-analysis of a recent publication - PubMed

An unusually low prevalence of smoking, approximately 1/4th the expected prevalence, was observed among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Any association between smoking and COVID-19 severity cannot be generalized but should refer to the seemingly low proportion of smokers who develop severe...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No comment. View at own risk.

 

[georged]

I've found that small risk / large reward activities like pipe smoking are a wonderful way to filter humanity into its two main groups: those who independently observe the world objectively and make logical decisions about what they see; and bipedal sheep.

The first type are interesting in all kinds of ways.

The second type are a complete waste of time. Boring as hell. Pointless to get to know because once you've met one, you've met them all. You know what they're going to say before they say it, and what they're going to do before they do it.

 

[bassbug]

@georged

Just curious as to which category you would place the OP and me.

 

[georged]

Both the OP and you fall outside the fat part of the bell curve.

He belongs to the Symbiotic Betelgeusean Corporeal entity group, and you catch a lot of fish.

Like, duh

 

[mortonbriar]

@georged has the right to make sweeping generalizations about humanity, because he is a cat.

 

[weezell]

Who gives a !! Gonna do what I wanna do, if you don't like it...Don't come around... (weezell don't give a shit)...?

 

[Simmerdown☕️]

Who gives a !! Gonna do what I wanna do, if you don't like it...Don't come around... (weezell don't give a shit)...?

Here! here! ?️

 

[fireground_piper]

The anti-wood stove comment sounds like it came from someone who wants to save the trees. I’m sure there’s plenty of supported reports of that 40 year old stove that emits terrible pollutants too while burning wet, unseasoned wood to make a case.

That is all.

 

[rajangan]

I've found that small risk / large reward activities like pipe smoking are a wonderful way to filter humanity into its two main groups: those who independently observe the world objectively and make logical decisions about what they see; and bipedal sheep.

The first type are interesting in all kinds of ways.

The second type are a complete waste of time. Boring as hell. Pointless to get to know because once you've met one, you've met them all. You know what they're going to say before they say it, and what they're going to do before they do it.

You sound like R. W. Emerson.

 

[SBC]

Impact of Tobacco Smoking on the Risk of COVID-19: A Large Scale Retrospective Cohort Study - PubMed -
Impact of Tobacco Smoking on the Risk of COVID-19: A Large Scale Retrospective Cohort Study - PubMed - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33420786/


Smoking and risk of COVID-19 hospitalization - PubMed -
Smoking and risk of COVID-19 hospitalization - PubMed - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33915414/


The association of smoking status with SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization and mortality from COVID-19: a living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta-analyses (version 7) - PubMed - [URL unfurl="true"]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33007104/[/URL]

Smoking prevalence among hospitalized COVID-19 patients and its association with disease severity and mortality: an expanded re-analysis of a recent publication - PubMed

An unusually low prevalence of smoking, approximately 1/4th the expected prevalence, was observed among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Any association between smoking and COVID-19 severity cannot be generalized but should refer to the seemingly low proportion of smokers who develop severe...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No comment. View at own risk.

Now this is fascinating.
Those who quit are at increased risk.
Those who don't quit are at decreased risk, relative to those who never started.
Lesson: Don't quit ;-)

 

[SBC]

The anti-wood stove comment sounds like it came from someone who wants to save the trees. I’m sure there’s plenty of supported reports of that 40 year old stove that emits terrible pollutants too while burning wet, unseasoned wood to make a case.

That is all.

Fireground, I hope that it goes without saying that I'm all for woodstove heat. I've been considering taking walls out so that woodstove heating would make more sense in my house. I'd like to switch to it.
I included that statistic (with no clue as to its credibility) for polemical reasons. If anti-smokers are comfortable with their woodstove carcinogens, they could just let us be comfortable with our tobacco carcinogens. That was the attempted point.
Just FWIW.

 

[tzinc]

Some follow-up thoughts --

Most anti-smokers accept carcinogens from other sources.

Consider candles. Most modern candles are made of paraffin wax -- a petroleum product -- and they release chemicals such as toluene into your home. Candles deposit so much soot that homes which burn them heavily have attempted (unsuccessfully) to file insurance claims over the damage. So, it's interesting to consider that soot is significantly carcinogenic and linked to the risk of cancer.

Woodsmoke (as from campfires or woodstoves) contains, according to one study, "much higher" levels of PAHs than vehicle exhaust does, and a "higher mutagenic and carcinogenic potential" than traffic exhaust. Besides PAHs, woodsmoke contains high levels of dioxins, benzene, and aldehydes. In any case, one Swedish study found that homes which heat by woodstove have approximately 4x the PAH cancer potency of homes which heat otherwise.

Nitrate cured meats form N-nitroso compounds (a carcinogen), and smoked meats form polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (a carcinogen). Processed meats as a category have a statistically significant correlation to colorectal, stomach, and breast cancers. Cooking any meat at high heat (as in grilling or pan-frying) produces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines (carcinogens) linked to cancer. Starchy foods cooked at high temperature (french fries, potato chips, etc.) form acrylamide (a carcinogen) which damages DNA, induces cell death, and leads to oxidative stress which increases the risk of cancer.

But very few people consider others to be morally suspect for accepting some carcinogenic risk in burning candles, heating with a woodstove, or eating grilled meats.

In general, people seem to have strongly yet inconsistently held opinions about the ethics of risk.

A 1992 Royal Society report, "Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management," charted number of deaths per hundred million hours spent on various activities. Smoking clocked in at 40, while travel by helicopter clocked in at 500, and rock climbing at 4,000. Society should therefore be 12x more upset at helicopter passengers and 100x more upset at rock climbers than at smokers, for their inadmissible irresponsibility.

Nice. Once you bring in morality then hypocrisy becomes a factor. For example, it's bad for society if you smoke but it's okay and even celebrated to become obese from overeating?

 

[Eye-level]

Well maybe all that smoke from pipes or nails or hickory hasty-baked steaks has a silver lining. Perhaps the body is primed to face things like covid.

 

[Eye-level]

I'm pretty sure one could call tobacco medicene. Sorry for the double post.