Pipe Smoking and Cancer

[buroak]

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!

No surprises at all. I do, like you, expect there are substantial differences in risk for those who smoke outdoors. I am either smoking outside or in a cavernous and drafty shop open from floor to 12’ peak. Both of those environments mean less smoke is getting into my lungs compared to someone smoking in a house or office. That said, I know I am taking a risk.

And yet, people in my family seem to get cancers of various sorts at the same rates regardless of whether they live clean or chain smoke. I am walking a middle road, for what good that may (or may not) do.

 

[dog_park_piper]

“Rye whiskey” -old folk song sung by many musicians.

“I eat when I’m hungry. I drink when I’m dry. And if a tree don’t fall on me I’ll live ‘till I die.”

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

That was a fascinating read. Thanks for the link. I didn't realize that there were any studies that covered pipe smoking exclusively.

It looks like the highest RR (risk-ratio) among pipe smokers is for larynx cancer. It's actually slightly higher even than cigarettes which is interesting. Table 3 pretty clearly shows that 1-3 bowl a day pipe smokers don't have nearly the same risks as those that smoke 11 or more bowls a day. I wish that they had a table or chart that combined the bowls per day and duration smoked variables. For example, the risk of a 3 bowl a day smoker for 50 years as opposed to a 10 bowl a day smoker for 10 years.

I would guess the data base is too small to have enough data to determine anything meaningful. However, common sense should prevail. I believe it is safe to say the 10 bowl per day smoker is at a significantly greater risk than the 1-3 bowl per day. How significant? Without tons of data, who knows? And it still boils down to so many other variables, I don't believe it would be possible for you to draw any conclusions for your personal risk.

 

[Sobrbiker]

Everyone that dies was recently alive, so living would be the #1 cause of death.
Personally, I think all that studies such as this do is give ammunition to those that would take away or increase regulation.

 

[lukifer]

Another important fact that is rarely ever mentioned in these types of studies is that while genes and carcinogens do load the "cancer gun" it's diet, lifestyle and lack of excersize that pull the trigger.

When you consider all the chemicals and carcinogens we are bombarded with in modern life, bitching at smokers for smoking does little else but annoy.

If anything, as smokers, we should strive to stay active, get enough sleep, manage stress, eat quality meat, plenty of veg, limit processed foods and keep our insulin levels from getting out of control. Not only is that just generally good advice, it's my "cancer risk mitigation technique". Take 2 of that, keep em lit and call me in the morning.

I would argue that a non smoker who doesn't do the above has a significantly higher chance of developing cancer than a smoker who does all of the above. That's my stupid opinion on the subject anyway, collect 49 more and you can redeem it for a whole dollar at your local gas station.

 

[kcghost]

They can study any group of people they want ant it will be beyond a miracle if they don't end up like all the others. "it's bad for you" is what they will say. I'll stay with the one that said pipe and cigar smokers live just as live just as long as non-smokers.

 

[JOHN72]

A Cuban's breakfast starts with a good Havana cigar. It is part of the daily diet. And lots of sex. That's what a Cuban cab driver told me, in the city of Vigo. And what a population over 90 years old, smoking cigars like Siberian trains, strong as mules. Although I think that the austerity of food, there, is also a positive factor in the risk of slowing cancer. Super industrial exploitation is, in my opinion, the biggest (black Peste) to health. It would be interesting to know the cancer rates, for example in countries like Africa, Asia, Middle East.

 

[Jacob74]

This image says it all

 

[warren]

The terms "smart" and "educated" are not synonyms. In fact, I've found over the years that they can be mutually exclusive. The very idea that education makes one smart is hilarious. A [person can hold a doctorate in some subject and not have lick of "common sense" which defines "smart for me.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

my take

 

[MartyA]

OK, I was the third poster is this thread and hung back because it was difficult for me to actually decipher the statistical analysis. I think Makhorkasmoker in post 32 gave a pretty good analysis. The danger of pipe smoking is real, as we all know, but not catastrophic.
That being said, tobacco is the most widely known, 100% proven carcinogen there is. We make our choices and take whatever chances there may be. I'd have to say that if most of us have a smoking pipe hanging out of our mouth all day long, that small risk would go up. For moderate pipe smokers that would cough if they accidentally inhale, not so much.
As for myself, I may have some proclivity towards getting cancer... I've had colon cancer and prostate cancer. I'm doing good now. My personal life is far from serene, (won't go into all that,) but my daily session outside with a churchwarden pipe and a dusty old book help keep me from blowing my brains out. And that's important.

​

 

[MattRVA]

I’ve never mentioned this here but my grandfather was a huge inspiration and influence for me and one of the reasons I picked up a pipe. He contracted mouth cancer in the 80’s that pretty much took him out eventually… well it reduced the quality of his life so much he may as well have died. I remember him talking to me about an ulcer on his lip or gum that he couldn’t get rid of when I was a kid. I lost him at age 13 and in the end he was feeding himself through a tube and he drooled and couldn’t speak clearly. Cancer took an amazing man and turned him into a mess really. They ended up cutting out a large portion of his tongue because the cancer spread down his throat. He put off going to the doctor. I started having oral issues recently so I had to quit for the foreseeable future. Moderation is the best practice and I’d warn against mixing alcohol with your smokes like my grandfather did for many years. It’s our own choice but don’t fool yourself that it’s not harmful.

 

[mingc]

I would guess the data base is too small to have enough data to determine anything meaningful.

The database is huge: the study cohort size was 1.2 million people with 123,044 non-smokers, 8,880 exclusive pipe smokers, and 6,383 former exclusive pipe smokers.

 

[Hillcrest]

The database is huge: the study cohort size was 1.2 million people with 123,044 non-smokers, 8,880 exclusive pipe smokers, and 6,383 former exclusive pipe smokers.

I don't understand how that adds up but then I never learned the "New" math ...

 

[mingc]

I don't understand how that adds up but then I never learned the "New" math ...

Cigarettes, cigars.

 

[Hillcrest]

Cigarettes, cigars

I think Never Smoked was a large percentage too.

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

The database is huge: the study cohort size was 1.2 million people with 123,044 non-smokers, 8,880 exclusive pipe smokers, and 6,383 former exclusive pipe smokers.

I think the relevant number is 8,880. If they had the numbers from that 8,880 for bowls smoked per day and some type of health report over time, I suppose they could come up with something meaningful. I'll bet the majority of that 8,880 surveyed though smoked 1 bowl or less per day. Unless there is a breakdown of what comprised the 8,880, we can't know for sure if there is enough data in all categories to be significant. Also, can you imagine someone from the Government calling Warren asking him to answer questions about his smoking habits? He'd likely respond "Smoke my ass" or something similar.

 

[mingc]

I think the relevant number is 8,880. If they had the numbers from that 8,880 for bowls smoked per day and some type of health report over time, I suppose they could come up with something meaningful. I'll bet the majority of that 8,880 surveyed though smoked 1 bowl or less per day. Unless there is a breakdown of what comprised the 8,880, we can't know for sure if there is enough data in all categories to be significant. Also, can you imagine someone from the Government calling Warren asking him to answer questions about his smoking habits? He'd likely respond "Smoke my ass" or something similar.

You remind me of a joke that I was fond of in school about how it's much easier to talk about a book or article if you haven't read it.

 

[lukifer]

I think the relevant number is 8,880. If they had the numbers from that 8,880 for bowls smoked per day and some type of health report over time, I suppose they could come up with something meaningful. I'll bet the majority of that 8,880 surveyed though smoked 1 bowl or less per day. Unless there is a breakdown of what comprised the 8,880, we can't know for sure if there is enough data in all categories to be significant. Also, can you imagine someone from the Government calling Warren asking him to answer questions about his smoking habits? He'd likely respond "Smoke my ass" or something similar.

And furthermore I'd bet the study didn't take into account other exposures to toxins, genetics predisposition, diet, lifestyle or occupation.

And as mentioned by an earlier post, smokers tend to be more risk tolerant. So without knowing what else these people do or don't do we have no way of knowing whether the "factor x" number of bowls they consume "factor y" times per week is the cause of the increased risk.

Studies like this, not just ones about tobacco, tend to have small and incomplete data sets that are very much akin to determining what type of hair color renders you most likely to get divorced based on the married population of 3 counties in Vermont between 2010 and 2022.

 

[LeafErikson]

I would guess the data base is too small to have enough data to determine anything meaningful. However, common sense should prevail. I believe it is safe to say the 10 bowl per day smoker is at a significantly greater risk than the 1-3 bowl per day. How significant? Without tons of data, who knows? And it still boils down to so many other variables, I don't believe it would be possible for you to draw any conclusions for your personal risk.

I wasn't really interested in drawing conclusions about my personal risk, I just hadn't ever really seen a study that exclusively examined pipe smokers. If I had any trepidation about my health in regards to smoking I simply wouldn't do it. Living with fear hanging over your head is a very dangerous way to live.