Peer Reviewed Tobacco Smoking Correlations

[SBC]

Cerebral, Neurological, and Psychological Correlations

Positive Correlation to Cerebral Blood-Flow:
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1099800413512175

Negative Correlation to Parkinson's and Alzheimer's:
Smoking and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease: review of the epidemiological studies - PubMed - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10942038

Positive Correlation to Anti-Depressant Effects:
Smoking may mimic effect of antidepressants - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172948/


Negative Correlations to Maternal Smoking:

Preeclampsia:
DEFINE_ME - https://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(99)70341-8/abstract

Giving Birth to Children with Down Syndrome:
Maternal smoking and Down syndrome. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1715483/


Negative Cancer Correlations:

Thyroid Cancer:
Cigarette smoking, alcohol intake, and thyroid cancer risk: a pooled analysis of five prospective studies in the United States - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3511822/

Uterine Cancer:
Cigarette smoking and endometrial carcinoma risk: the role of effect modification and tumor heterogeneity - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4151521/


Other Correlations:

Positive Correlation to Anti-Inflammatory Effects:
Transdermal nicotine suppresses cutaneous inflammation - PubMed - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9236519

(Second Hand Smoke for Children) Negative Correlation to Allergic Rhinitis, Allergic Asthma, Atopic Eczema, and Food Allergies:
Does tobacco smoke prevent atopic disorders? A study of two generations of Swedish residents - PubMed - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11422156

Negative Correlation to Osteoarthritis:
Smoking and osteoarthritis: a review of the evidence and its implications - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5473429/

Negative Correlation to High Cholesterol:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.CIR.96.5.1403

Negative Correlation to Obesity:
Cigarette Smoking, Nicotine, and Body Weight - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3195407/

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Did you want us to read these? Will this be on the test?

 

[elpfeife]

Ditto to Cosmic's reply.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Quite a curated collection!

 

[SBC]

Haha. Consider it a hand that nobody else at the table knows you have to play. I pulled this together a couple of years ago and recently had reason to dig it up again. Feel free to file it away for the next time your relatives get on your case about pipe smoking following Thanksgiving Dinner (which, incidentally, just happened to me...)

 

[Talon]

Thanks for these! This research is cool but I'm not entirely convinced they would be tied to pipe smoking. Having been a former cigarette smoker and many years later now smoking a pipe the difference between the two of them is tremendous. Although I do think the ones containing the study of Nicotine specifically would definitely tie together quite nicely with pipe smoking.

 

[frozenchurchwarden]

It's always nice to have information neatly presented, great thread.

 

[workman]

I only smoke because of the negative correlation between smoking and osteoarthritis.
Now could you be so kind as to find something nice to say about the hearty cocktail of smoke, drink and too little sleep while avoiding exercise. Asking for a friend.

 

[dctune]

I only smoke because of the negative correlation between smoking and osteoarthritis.
Now could you be so kind as to find something nice to say about the hearty cocktail of smoke, drink and too little sleep while avoiding exercise. Asking for a friend.

I feel seen.

 

[SBC]

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.

 

[tobefrank]

Apparently there is a positive correlation between tobacco smoking and confirmation bias as well.

 

[Briar Lee]

When it started becoming apparent that inhaling tobacco smoke in your lungs was bad for you (who’d have thunk that?) the defenders of tobacco used to make this argument.

Moderate use of tobacco, has given solace and comfort to mankind for centuries. It’s the same effect as a drink of booze after a hard day’s work.

If we are lucky and dodge all the fatal arrows eventually we live to be old, feeble, miserable, and die of old age.

I’m reading about Yankee cavalry because a lot of my hillbilly friends are descendants of 8th Missouri State Militia Cavalry and 12th Missouri USA Volunteer Cavalry troopers. Every diary and later accounts I can find mentions the comfort tobacco gave those men. They smoked sage grass when the tobacco ran out. Yet many lived another fifty or more years after their service to Missouri and their nation.

Nicotine is a friend to men who need comfort.

I suppose THC in marijuana is too, but I’m too old to pick up a new vice.

Besides I like my nicotine.

 

[SBC]

In light of the physiologically beneficial correlations delineated in the OP, corroborated by accessible, peer reviewed studies, it seems fair to say this:

Just as tobacco smoking (in certain kinds and degrees) correlates with statistical significance to certain health detriments, so does tobacco smoking correlate with statistical significance to certain other health benefits.

The beneficial correlations born out in the above studies are just as worth knowing as the detrimental correlations more popularly promulgated.

Tobacco is an herb with some salutary properties.

But many things which are beneficial in a certain form or amount, can become detrimental in another form or amount. Take for example --

• Dark, leafy greens like spinach and swiss chard are nutritionally dense and highly recommended. However, if you eat too much of them, their oxalic acid content can lead to kidney stones, convulsions, low blood pressure and weak pulse, and abdominal pain and vomiting.
  
  
• Brazil nuts contain an important mineral called selenium. Selenium is essential to our production of selenoproteins, which are important in human reproduction, DNA production, and thyroid function. However, more than five Brazil nuts a day may result in an overdose of selenium called selenosis, which when mild may cause diarrhea, hair loss, and nervous system troubles (and which when serious may cause kidney failure and heart attack).
  
  
• Nutmeg is dense in antioxidants and rich in many vitamins and minerals; furthermore, it has both antibacterial and antidepressant properties. However, it contains myristicin -- a compound which is poisonous in large enough quantities, leading to nausea and hallucinations.
  
  
• Red Kidney Beans are rich not only in protein, but also in an impressive list of vitamins and minerals. They also contain phytohaemagglutinin, a toxin which produces nausea and vomiting. (Interestingly, although this toxin is removed by boiling, it is multiplied by mere simmering!)
  
  
• Water makes up 60% of the human body, and the average person will live only about three days without taking more in. But, believe it or not, drinking too much water can dilute blood sodium too much, resulting in impaired brain function.

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

 

[burleybreath]

Sticky.

 

[bassbug]

I suppose we have to go through this every once in a while where someone who, for some reason, cannot just simply say "It's beyond doubt that smoking has an overall negative effect on health, but I'm willing to take the risk" but rather, tries to (foolishly and falsely) somehow argue that smoking is good for you.

It really isn't some global conspiracy.

Sigh....

 

[goldenmole]

Just to point out: the "Negative Correlation to High Cholesterol" is that smokers have lower levels of HDL Cholesterol. This is the "good cholesterol" that you want to have high levels of.

 

[mortonbriar]

What about the negative correlations of reading peer reviewed research?

 

[SBC]

I suppose we have to go through this every once in a while where someone who, for some reason, cannot just simply say "It's beyond doubt that smoking has an overall negative effect on health, but I'm willing to take the risk" but rather, tries to (foolishly and falsely) somehow argue that smoking is good for you.

It really isn't some global conspiracy.

Sigh....

Hey, bassbug,

What I've said amounts to something a bit more complex than that.

I drew attention to some desirable correlations. I'm not asserting those correlations from anecdotal evidence or wishful thinking -- I'm drawing attention to peer reviewed studies.

In doing that, I'm not denying the negative correlations. Notice that I never denied those.

But I went on (in subsequent posts in this thread) to make two further points:

1. That many things entail both positive and negative effects.
   
   
2. 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.

But, yes, like you, I'm content to acknowledge some degree of risk and simply state that I accept that.
I also accept -- alongside the medical detriments of tobacco -- its apparent medical benefits.

 

[SBC]

Just to point out: the "Negative Correlation to High Cholesterol" is that smokers have lower levels of HDL Cholesterol. This is the "good cholesterol" that you want to have high levels of.

Good catch, goldenmole! Thanks for making me aware!

 

[kcghost]

You can read those reports until Doomsday and the haters are still going to hate.