You left out one of the factors to be seriously considered. family health history. Luckily I can't consider that as I am adopted. Such makes filling our new patient forms very easy. "Unk" is my answer for the, usually, large part of the application.
Pipe Smoking and Cancer
- Thread starter woodsroad
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Is there a surprise here? BTW, whats the death rate for pipe smokers who only smoke outdoors? Did they include that? If not, sloppy work!
Cancer, either you get it or you don't, it's a genetic / DNA thing. My father smoked multiple packs of cigarettes a day for many decades, he actually smoked cigars and pipes with the cigarettes, died at 91 no cancer. I smoked 2 or 3 packs a day for 30 yrs, no cancer so far, quit cigs though still smoke cigars, so im holding out hope!
I see the unique opportunity to market “special pipe mud” here at the site . . .
I hope she's planning to wait until you're dead.
To a certain point that's true. But, overload your immune system, too much sun, smoking, booze, etc. may cause the cancers to get the upper hand. Good DNA simply means your system can, maybe, take more threats on without turning the bad cells loose.
They can turn them into diamonds, ceramics, and vinyl albums so why not?
Now I’m imagining a “What Album Would You Be Pressed Into?” thread.
Press your ashes into vinyl | And Vinyly | England
And Vinyly will press your ashes or those of a loved one into a vinyl record and create an audio visual memorial your family will cherish for generations.
www.andvinyly.com
He was always tan as ... tan, working in the sun and spend a good couple decades as an alcoholic. My mom used to say he would outlive us all out of spite, that and God wouldn't take him and the devil didn't want the competition. He had his issues, i was 1 when they divorced but my older siblings hated him and lived through the drunken abuse, they had no uses for him. He was one of the first UDT team members, have lots of pictures of him from when Life magazine did an article on the Navy's "new team". Many many years later i asked him why he volunteered for UDT expecting some grand story, turns out he used to get deathly sea sick and this was his way to get off the boat! What a let down that was LOL
Lots of pics him in the SEAL museum in FL as well, some day i'll drive over and check it out, ive never gotten around to it, my brother reached out to them and they were kind enough to copy many pictures with him in them and send them to my brother, now i have copies of those.
That's easy.Now I’m imagining a “What Album Would You Be Pressed Into?” thread.
Press your ashes into vinyl | And Vinyly | England
And Vinyly will press your ashes or those of a loved one into a vinyl record and create an audio visual memorial your family will cherish for generations.
The study is based on a questionnaire filled out by study subjects in 1982 who were then followed up until 2022. Note that the article was published in 2004, midway through) . This study isn't ongoing but at least one other is. ACS - Cancer Prevention Studies (CPS) Department - https://www.cancer.org/research/population-science/cancer-prevention-and-survivorship-research-team/acs-cancer-prevention-studies.html
The study also references other studies of pipe smokers, so they're out there.
The bottom line is that pipe smoking is bad for you. Your chances of getting cancer or heart disease of some kind is higher than someone who doesn't smoke. It doesn't mean you're certain to get them. It doesn't mean that non-smokers will never get cancer or heart disease. They too are exposed to causal agents other than pipe smoking (stress, pesticides, booze, etc.) just as you are. It just means that you are more likely to get cancer or heart disease because you smoke, compared to someone who doesn't. And the more you smoke and inhale, the higher your chances. But you already knew this. It's not a matter of belief but of probability.
I'm not giving up the pipe. And I'm not giving up driving or fried foods either. But I smoke no more than 3 to 4 bowls a week and sometimes not for months. And I sure am not going bungee jumping.
The study also references other studies of pipe smokers, so they're out there.
The bottom line is that pipe smoking is bad for you. Your chances of getting cancer or heart disease of some kind is higher than someone who doesn't smoke. It doesn't mean you're certain to get them. It doesn't mean that non-smokers will never get cancer or heart disease. They too are exposed to causal agents other than pipe smoking (stress, pesticides, booze, etc.) just as you are. It just means that you are more likely to get cancer or heart disease because you smoke, compared to someone who doesn't. And the more you smoke and inhale, the higher your chances. But you already knew this. It's not a matter of belief but of probability.
I'm not giving up the pipe. And I'm not giving up driving or fried foods either. But I smoke no more than 3 to 4 bowls a week and sometimes not for months. And I sure am not going bungee jumping.
Last edited:
I hope someone who knows how to interpret statistics better than I will correct me if I am wrong (I very well may be) but the way I attempt to comprehend studies like this is to look at the rate numbers--i.e. cases per 100,000.
For example, according to this study:
for people who never used tobacco products, the rate of lung cancer is about 23 per 100,000.
For current pipe smokers, the rate of lung cancer is about 115 per 100,000.
For former pipe smokers, the rate of lung cancer is about 37 per 100,000.
You can put this information the way anti-tobacco people would, and say pipe smokers are over four times as likely to get lung cancer as never-smokers. Or you could put it the way I would: current pipe smokers have roughly a .12 percent chance of getting lung cancer, according to this study. Math people correct me if I am wrong.
You can look at the rates in this way with all the cancers and other illnesses listed.
I also think it's important to keep in mind that those rates for current and former pipe smokers include all-day smokers and smokers who inhale partially or deeply. In other words, for pipe smokers who don't inhale, or who smoke less, the rates will be lower than those listed above. Unfortunately they don't include rates, as far as I can see, with most of the charts, but you could figure out the rates for non-inhalers and moderate smokers if you looked at the numbers.
I also like to keep in mind that this data was collected from the early 1980s to 2000. Cancer rates change. For example, lung cancer rates for never-smokers have increased since then.
It's an interesting study. Thanks for posting it.
For example, according to this study:
for people who never used tobacco products, the rate of lung cancer is about 23 per 100,000.
For current pipe smokers, the rate of lung cancer is about 115 per 100,000.
For former pipe smokers, the rate of lung cancer is about 37 per 100,000.
You can put this information the way anti-tobacco people would, and say pipe smokers are over four times as likely to get lung cancer as never-smokers. Or you could put it the way I would: current pipe smokers have roughly a .12 percent chance of getting lung cancer, according to this study. Math people correct me if I am wrong.
You can look at the rates in this way with all the cancers and other illnesses listed.
I also think it's important to keep in mind that those rates for current and former pipe smokers include all-day smokers and smokers who inhale partially or deeply. In other words, for pipe smokers who don't inhale, or who smoke less, the rates will be lower than those listed above. Unfortunately they don't include rates, as far as I can see, with most of the charts, but you could figure out the rates for non-inhalers and moderate smokers if you looked at the numbers.
I also like to keep in mind that this data was collected from the early 1980s to 2000. Cancer rates change. For example, lung cancer rates for never-smokers have increased since then.
It's an interesting study. Thanks for posting it.
Already went through cancer (Lymphoma) twice. First time at 43. 2nd time at 47. Docs say they don't know why this cancer is occurring and that it will inevitably return. I did chemo the first time and T-Cell therapy last time. I am now carnivore, exercise and am in - otherwise - excellent health for my age. I've meditated on the inevitable end of this human experience and am without concern. Tobacco is my only real health risk that remains and i love it to the point that i feel it adds enough enjoyment to life to maintain that risk. They can do their studies and many questions will remain. I will do my pipes and have only one question remaining: what's going to be the next pipe/baccy combo to suit my bliss. 
Luck of the draw. Some people just doesn't get cancer. Bastards!!!
In the words of the Infamous Jim Morrison of the Doors:
"...the future's uncertain and the end is always near...so, let it roll, baby, roll"
Pretty much sums it up for me at this point.
"...the future's uncertain and the end is always near...so, let it roll, baby, roll"
Pretty much sums it up for me at this point.
1.) Your experiment with the 8-12 RYO tobaccos may disqualify you from this study
;2.) I am working on quitting; its a constant struggle (daily) ;
3.) I think the study is slanted, to wit : "Men who had formerly smoked pipes were more highly educated than men who currently smoked pipes or who had never used tobacco." ... seriously ??? prove that with objective facts.
I believe the numbers in the study support the statement. Did you read and digest the study?
That actually makes sense to me. "More highly educated" means a greater degree of university brainwashing in that population...thus more likely to quit.
It'd be interesting to see the rates of any and all types of cancer in the "more highly educated".
Of course not. Why waste the time ? I don't doubt the results entirely just partially. I skimmed it thoroughly. Its a very small study given the numbers of Smokers vs Former Smokers. The majority were never smokers.
But these are the only parts I found regarding educational levels and I don't believe they justify the quote regarding former smokers being smarter; (There appear to be more educated currents than formers) maybe I'm wrong. :
"This cohort is more likely to be college-educated, married, middle-class, and white than the general U.S. population (26)"
"Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were adjusted for current alcohol consumption (none, <1 drink daily, 1 drink daily, 2–3 drinks daily, 4 or more drinks daily, and unquantifiable use), educational level (less than high school graduate, high school graduate, some college or vocational school, college graduate, and graduate school), race (white and nonwhite), and body mass index (normal or below [<25 kg/m2], overweight [25–29 kg/m2], and obese [≥30 kg/m2]). Men who left all alcohol questions blank (“missing” alcohol use) were combined with men who reported no current alcohol consumption based on a previous analysis of CPS-II (33)"
| Educational level | Never | Current | Former |
| Less than high school | 14 028 (11.4) | 851 (9.6) | 397 (6.2) |
| High school graduate | 22 524 (18.3) | 1477 (16.6) | 717 (11.2) |
| Some college | 28 841 (23.4) | 2147 (24.2) | 1434 (22.5) |
| College graduate | 24 023 (19.5) | 1852 (20.9) | 1482 (23.2) |
| Graduate school | 32 050 (26.0) | 2462 (27.7) | 2308 (36.2) |
| Missing | 1578 (1.3) | 91 (1.0) | 45 (0.7) |
Finally, if you quit smoking your lungs begin to repair themselves somewhat and after 7 years your chances of getting cancer begin to equal the non-smoking populace.