Pipe Smoking and Cancer

[pappymac]

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.

I'm going to jump in here so excuse me if I cover points made after Mingc.
So, the provided study information was from a report started in 2004 and was not a finished report. Other than the obvious fact that smoking is dangerous, there is nothing I read that can be called conclusive.

Why? Because the report wasn't finished. I also question this report based on the simple fact that the data collected may be skewed because we don't know which data/questionares were used and which were discarded because the information was incomplete or didn't meet the intended goal of the study. In other words, was the data used cherry picked to provide the outcome wanted by those conducting the study?

Having studied and used surveys in the past, I believe a survey can be tailored to provide the results that the person or group who is paying for the survey wants.

 

[Richmond B. Funkenhouser]

There's an article on NYP that cites a study claiming 56% of all cancer in men is caused from smoking...

If you believe that, you have to reconsider some choices.

Good thing I've learned these people are always lying.

I'm willing to bet that there arent even enough smokers for that to be possible.

With the huge drop in smoking over the last 50 years, why havent we seen a drop in the cases of cancer?

 

[fireground_piper]

There's an article on NYP that cites a study claiming 56% of all cancer in men is caused from smoking...

If you believe that, you have to reconsider some choices.

Good thing I've learned these people are always lying.

I'm willing to bet that there arent even enough smokers for that to be possible.

With the huge drop in smoking over the last 50 years, why havent we seen a drop in the cases of cancer?

There's no chance that statistic as presented passes the vaguest sniff test. To get that type of number, the data points must have been something very specific. Like men born between 1950-1975 with average income between $0-$75,000 and at least 3 alcoholic beverages per day with a gambling habit.

 

[anotherbob]

My thought as well.

and you actually have qualifications that gives it some weight

 

[telescopes]

and you actually have qualifications that gives it some weight

Some of the confidence intervals suggested to me correlation rather than causation. The inhaling versus non inhaling is a serious variable- and while I understand the limitations of the study based on it structure- it is a serious question that is somewhat unanswered. Regardless, yes smoking is not without its risks. But we aren’t at the same risk level as cigarettes- something I wish they had better compared the specific risk data rather than allude to the conclusion.

 

[ParkitoATL]

 

[anotherbob]

View attachment 323434

the wider medical community is slowly getting wise to the benefits of nicotine. It's kind of like doing a u-turn in a large cargo ship, but it's still happening.

 

[warren]

benefits of nicotine.

What are they finding? I'd think reducing the amount of oxygen in the blood would be considered bad at any level. Just as some studies suggest a bit of red wine may be beneficial but, any amount of alcohol consumption is bad. Just pick a study which supports what your choices. But, keep in mind a few of our members are averse to critical thinking as it stresses their brain. And, many tend to believe anything appearing anywhere on the internet or in the media particularly if it validates what they want to believe.

 

[PaulTheScandinavian]

If you smoke indoors you inhale smoke all the time compared that you smoke pipe outdoors.

I love smoking indoors, since I feel the smoke being denser yet more satisfying

 

[lukifer]

I love smoking indoors, since I feel the smoke being denser yet more satisfying

There's something therapeutic about watching the smoke gently swirl and blowing smoke rings.

 

[lukifer]

What are they finding? I'd think reducing the amount of oxygen in the blood would be considered bad at any level. Just as some studies suggest a bit of red wine may be beneficial but, any amount of alcohol consumption is bad. Just pick a study which supports what your choices. But, keep in mind a few of our members are averse to critical thinking as it stresses their brain. And, many tend to believe anything appearing anywhere on the internet or in the media particularly if it validates what they want to believe.

Nicotine is a low grade nootropic. Nothing to write home about but macrodosing with it will get you disqualified from chess tournaments as they have found it has the potential to give people a small edge.

 

[Singularis]

Contaminated water, food industry clogged with carcinogenic components, fruits and vegetables with pesticides, milk with pesticides, meat industry, sports food loaded with chemical sweeteners. Environmental pollution. Home furnishings. The cases of cancer in young people, who neither smoke nor drink, is overwhelming. And so many other diseases. Stress, anxiety, depression. It's a whole bunch of factors that are appropriate for it. This is simply a personal reflection. Unfortunately, this is life. As a believer. The only thing I can do is pray the rosary. To commend myself to God.

Amen.

 

[FLDRD]

https://www.smokingpipes.com/smokingpipesblog/single.cfm/post/the-benefits-nicotine

 

[InWithBothFeet]

The problem I saw with that study lies in the last paragraph of the discussion section. That study was done to prove that pipe smoking was a risk to offset tobacco industry marketing. It was done with the intent to find a specific end result. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean that it's entirely possible that it was purposefully skewed and the results intentionally presented in a manner to put pipe smoking in as bad a light as possible.

 

[anotherbob]

What are they finding? I'd think reducing the amount of oxygen in the blood would be considered bad at any level. Just as some studies suggest a bit of red wine may be beneficial but, any amount of alcohol consumption is bad. Just pick a study which supports what your choices. But, keep in mind a few of our members are averse to critical thinking as it stresses their brain. And, many tend to believe anything appearing anywhere on the internet or in the media particularly if it validates what they want to believe.

That nicotine has very strong therapeutic uses mainly for mental and psychological issues. One of the really big ones is that in patients with Alzheimer's it actually doesn't slow the degradation but somehow allows the brain to compensate and function normally for a longer amount of time. That's a pretty big thing.
The studies that suggest red wine are beneficial are rife with issues. One major thing they don't account for are people who don't drink because of health issues caused by alcohol. Which is something you have to consider in a study like that. You know not just current but past behavior, and that's just one example of the slap dash way those studies have been handled.
Also nicotine doesn't really effect oxygen levels in blood that dramatically where as carbon monoxide does which you will get from burning the plant. And yeah that's not a good thing at all.
I've noticed that last point. I try and ignore it as much as possible mainly to keep my blood pressure on the healthy side of things. Though considering we're on the internet a few is well bellow the average found on any website.

 

[warren]

So, we're speaking to a "medical grade" dose of nicotine administered my medical professionals? And, not what comes from the stuff we smoke?

 

[InWithBothFeet]

If nicotine is the goal, a patch is really the answer. No smoke and nothing laying against your gums like the non-tobacco nic pouches. You can control the dosage also with the different strength patches.

 

[MattRVA]

If nicotine is the goal, a patch is really the answer. No smoke and nothing laying against your gums like the non-tobacco nic pouches. You can control the dosage also with the different strength patches.

I use a nicotine patch to taper off of nicotine. Life without nicotine is completely foreign to me having smoked for over 30 years. I’ve been slowly weaning off and so far so good, I’ve really been impressed with the patches and I’ve noticed many benefits from my nicotine reduction.

 

[BingBong]

I'm a firm believer in moderation. I don't drink excessively, I don't smoke excessively, I don't eat junk food excessively, etc. Everything in moderation, minus illegal drugs of course, is the way to go.

Bang on, brother. When it comes to illegal drugs, EXCESS ALL THE WAY, BABY!! Totally agree.


;-)

 

[Danimal92sport]

So many statisticians and experts on the scientific method here, wow.

Sorry for the over the top sarcasm. And I’m not making any statements about the study, just about y’all’s willingness to express knowledge or your conclusions without reading the study or understanding how statistics and studies like this work. Be careful - you’ll see what you want to see in the world if you’re this over-confident and unable or unwilling to understand these things to then make a sound judgement.

Done preaching - please don’t ban me . I’m a career-long engineer and have dedicated much of my life to doing the careful, methodical work before drawing my conclusions and choosing a path forward. I’m also sitting here smoking a pipe while not knowing what this study really tells me about cancer risks because I’m not willing to read and decipher it. So I also won’t make any claims one way or the other to lots of strangers on the internet.