Pipe Smoking Study, It Doesn't Look Good.

[lawdawg]

Reading through this... I have way more respect for someone who believes the science but makes the personal decision to smoke anyways out of love or passion for tobacco... than someone who denies the science and smokes thinking there something good, wholesome, or safe about it... which is utterly absurd.

It doesn't make much sense to uncritically accept overbroad conclusions from biased sources either, especially when the conclusions are nonsensical on their face, like the general picture that is painted in so many tobacco studies that smoking a few pipes or cigars without inhaling is literally exactly the same as inhaling a bunch of cigarette smoke. I'm not trying to say there is anything safe about smoking, but at the same time, there needs to be some pushback against the anti-tobacco hysterics because we should be entitled to accurate, non-biased scientific information.

 

[brian64]

Reading through this... I have way more respect for someone who believes the science but makes the personal decision to smoke anyways out of love or passion for tobacco... than someone who denies the science and smokes thinking there something good, wholesome, or safe about it... which is utterly absurd.

I'm not masochistic enough to re-read the entire thread, but as I recall no one had an issue with any actual science involved...the problem was the distortion of the actual science in how it was summarized, as member aguineapig elaborated on...which is a common tactic in social/political activism hiding behind science.

Did I personally read the entire study and figure this out for myself? No of course not...there's not enough caffeine in the world to keep me awake long enough to read through it...because common sense already told me what aguineapig explained.

I've heard and read enough of this bullshit in the past to already know the pattern.

 

[brian64]

It doesn't make much sense to uncritically accept overbroad conclusions from biased sources either, especially when the conclusions are nonsensical on their face, like the general picture that is painted in so many tobacco studies that smoking a few pipes or cigars without inhaling is literally exactly the same as inhaling a bunch of cigarette smoke. I'm not trying to say there is anything safe about smoking, but at the same time, there needs to be some pushback against the anti-tobacco hysterics because we should be entitled to accurate, non-biased scientific information.

Exactly.

 

[seldom]

This is usually the first word people use to describe me when they see me. That or Fat F***.

Ha! I hear ya. Debonair is not how I am generally described. Feral is a word that has been used to describe me. When someone is feeling nice, rugged has occasionally been used. Rough around the edges I guess you could say.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

In science, it always takes more than just one study to get anything done. I've heard that it is akin to using spitballs to change the direction of an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, there are a lot (not tons) of studies on the effects of tobacco and pipes and cigars. But, most aren't shared outside of the scientific community.

The problem is always when it is reported or used by the media.

The idea that wine is healthy and can help you live longer is an example. The scientific community doesn't accept this, as the study that was reported did not say this either... but the media used one portion of a study and ran with it.

The amount of water we should drink is another example. A few studies showed that the human body requires such and such amount of water per day to stay alive... and the media ran with it saying everyone should drink tons of water. But, the report said that we get the majority of our water from foods.

Science isn't the thing that is flipping and flopping. It's the way the media reports the information. Science is neutral. Studies differ. This is the nature of science. It's the way these are reported by hacks and people with agendas. The science is not always changing. It is merely the talking heads that flip and flop.

Sure, I didn't read the entirety of the study, nor do I want to track down who paid for it, which doesn't matter. If other studies show differently then if false, it is tossed aside. But, the real issue should be who is reporting it. But, in everything I have ever read, tobacco is bad for us. Sure, I accept that. Having watched and watching members of my family die of cancer, I don't doubt for a minute that tobacco is dangerous. But, so is driving, and breathing in today's environment.

It just strikes a nerve when folks throw up that old 60's Surgeon General's report that pipes and cigars are healthy and good for us. It just sounds like stuff that people said back in the 80's in response to all of that science about cigarettes.

Sodas are dangerous, driving, hang gliding, breathing around internal combustion engines, sugar, alcohol, fast food, etc... I can readily agree that smoking pipes is dangerous... but, I have a problem when someone wants to remove my choices, because they think I cannot make informed decisions. That, is what I will fight tooth and nail.

 

[npod]

Here are some pipe smoking studies that do look good

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Ha ha ha, Neal, the first few times I clicked on this thread, I was thinking that someone must have screwed up a remodeling job.

 

[olkofri]

... but, I have a problem when someone wants to remove my choices, because they think I cannot make informed decisions. That, is what I will fight tooth and nail.

Which is precisely what this is all about—glad to see we are on the same page—all hiding behind 'science'. As a scientist myself, I find studies like these as scientifical as shaman chants and positive thinking mantras. As someone who's been in academia long enough, I know that to-day the public focus should be not on what is reported, but on how those conclusions were reached in the first place. Hence my initial comment: follow the money.

It's all political. I know at least one professor at the local varsity who was given money by a well known, currently incumbent liberal politician to produce studies on 'global warming' which would further the current government's carbon tax and other 'pro-environment' social engineering and wealth redistributing agendas. The guy isn't even a climatologist; but with such funding anyone's an expert, right? They know that all they have to do is mass produce towers of paper 'supporting' their imagined problems because the public isn't gonna bother reading them, much less finding all the flaws contained therein. Yeah, 'science'.

 

[lawdawg]

Science isn't the thing that is flipping and flopping. It's the way the media reports the information. Science is neutral. Studies differ. This is the nature of science. It's the way these are reported by hacks and people with agendas. The science is not always changing. It is merely the talking heads that flip and flop.

Sure, I didn't read the entirety of the study, nor do I want to track down who paid for it, which doesn't matter. If other studies show differently then if false, it is tossed aside. But, the real issue should be who is reporting it. But, in everything I have ever read, tobacco is bad for us. Sure, I accept that. Having watched and watching members of my family die of cancer, I don't doubt for a minute that tobacco is dangerous. But, so is driving, and breathing in today's environment.

It just strikes a nerve when folks throw up that old 60's Surgeon General's report that pipes and cigars are healthy and good for us. It just sounds like stuff that people said back in the 80's in response to all of that science about cigarettes.

I don't think any of us disagree with your points there. I certainly don't. However, the media is not the only party responsible for hacking up the results of various tobacco studies... the scientists conducting the study often do the same in their abstracts and conclusions, and will make statements that aren't even in line with the findings of the study. There are some highly credentialed experts who will say exactly what I'm saying, including Professor Bradley Rodu who I mentioned earlier in this thread, who holds an endowed chair on tobacco and cancer research at University of Louisville.

The bottom line is that "smoking in its various forms probably isn't as bad as you've been lead to believe" isn't something that many experts are willing to say for various social pressure reasons that have nothing to do with science itself, and that's more or less what I'm complaining about.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

It's all political. I know at least one professor at the local varsity who was given money by a well known, currently incumbent liberal politician to produce studies on 'global warming'

Blah blah blah, come to Alabama, and you'll find the conservative Republican party heading up the anti-tobacco laws. We don't even have a state democratic party. It is NOT a right or left thing. Show me one single Republican that is a supporter of smoking. Marco Rubio is the only person I have ever heard say something pro smoking, but that was ONLY in regards to cigars. He has supported all sorts of other anti-smoking legislation.
It doesn't even makes sense to say that this is a one or other party thing.

 

[lawdawg]

Blah blah blah, come to Alabama, and you'll find the conservative Republican party heading up the anti-tobacco laws. We don't even have a state democratic party. It is NOT a right or left thing. Show me one single Republican that is a supporter of smoking. Marco Rubio is the only person I have ever heard say something pro smoking, but that was ONLY in regards to cigars. He has supported all sorts of other anti-smoking legislation.
It doesn't even makes sense to say that this is a one or other party thing.

I don't mean to speak for the man, but I think what he meant is basically the same as the point I was making... that tobacco studies inevitably reach certain conclusions based more on social pressure, pressure regarding funding, and other similar issues aside from actual scientific rigor.

 

[alaskanpiper]

Science is dead in politics. The fact is you can say whatever you want to appease your base, and whether or not it is based in science is irrelevant. In fact, in recent years it seems it may even be better if it is directly refuted by science. That gets more press and gets the opposition to whine and scream like children, which the base loves. People will say what they need to say and do what they need to do to keep a very high paying job (calling it service is absolutely ridiculous) with the best benefit package known to mankind. Right, wrong, or factual is no longer a factor.

Issues that "protect the children" are a winner everytime, regardless of what science or reality says. Tobacco legislation falls into that category in the minds of most, so it gets widespread support in politics. It's a vote getter, aka a job keeper, aka a money maker.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Science and politics aside, what this is, is non-smokers verses smokers. Most smokers want to quit, and non-smokers hate smokers. Despite politics, religion, race, or creed, you'd be hard pressed to find any non-smoker that has any sympathy for smokers. My non-smoking family tolerates me, but only to the point that I am no longer in their sites... then off to support getting rid of smoking in Alabama. "It's for my own good." "They know better than me." Politics has nothing to do with it. And, the worst ones are ex-smokers. Seriously, no one but smokers care anything about other smokers.
And, if you want to test one of your non-smoking buddies for their loyalty, light up you pipe in their car... ha ha!!

 

[Casual]

I take the same approach to tobacco as I do to motorcycle riding.

Many studies average out, to show that you are 47 times more likely to be in a fatal accident in a motorcycle compared to a car. Don’t drink at all on your motorcycle, and that brings down the mortality rate more than half. Don’t ride in a big city, wear high vis colours, practice your skills, and you bring the risk down by more than another half of that.

Being risk averse in riding means to take precautions, not to stop riding. The studies helped point to the things which reduce risk.

The same thing with tobacco. I read this (propagandistic) study before I picked up a pipe. I smoke infrequently, don’t inhale, don’t always have a mouthful of single malt with a pipe. This brings down the relative risk to a level I’m comfortable with.

Too bad the public health lobby won’t have a nuanced view of these things.

 

[celticbrewer]

I think its important to conceptualize relative vs absolute risk in this study. For example 1 to 3 pipes a day in the study shows a doubling of the risk of lung cancer relative to a non smoker. But you have to take into account absolute rates which showed an increase to 0.4% from around 0.2%. People will sensationalize the "doubling of risk" without thinking about what the actual increase is. That being saying, burning anything and putting it into your body isnt without risk. Just have to have a good command of what that risk is and being at peace with it. Also quantity and duration play an important role in this.
Source: I do big data healthcare studies (also love to pipe smoke and am ok with the risk).

 

[philairfoil]

Question the settled science...heathens!

 

[warren]

Tobacco use crosses all political lines. For many here, all personal grievances must stem from politics. It's much easier to blame libs or conservatives, republicans or dems, the "theys" and "thems" than it is to delve into a problem and discover the roots. Life is just much easier having a "them" to blame for all of one's disappointments in life. People are resistant to blaming themselves for their own shortcomings. Health Lobby? Studies? The general societal distaste for smoking has progressed way farther than studies ... people simply have a low regard for smoking and smokers. Which means smokers, a tiny minority, has no chance against the pressure society as a whole brings to the table.

I've said before, rather than rail and rant against circumstances, embrace your notoriety ... revel in the rebellion as you enjoy a bowl or stick.

 

[wulfheard]

Reading through the study in question, I found no surprises. It's a rehash of the same anti smoking public service announcement we have been steadily and increasingly subjected to since the 1960s. The only difference is the medium in which the tobacco is consumed opposed the plethora of past studies where cigarettes were the main focus.

Now I'm sure none of my observations are new to anyone, but as I read through to the end of the study, I was struck by the closing statement and I say "struck" but in reality it was the confirmation of my suspicions and suspicions of most of you here.

"We are grateful to the 1.2 million American men and women who have participated in the Cancer Prevention Study II and to the American Cancer Society volunteers for their assistance in developing this cohort"

Now what does that mean? It means the study was funded by those who are supposedly trying to prevent cancer. Although the funding for this study is not directly disclosed, it was in part undertaken with the assistance of The American Cancer Society. The same organization that has been responsible for the demonization of the use of tobacco products for almost half a century. You can connect the dots from there. Most of you already have.

We all know that the use of tobacco, in all its forms, is not exactly safe. It poses unnecessary health risks just as so many human vices do. But do I or we really need another study full of manipulated data to tell me what I have known since childhood? IMHO,...NO, of course I or we don't. But someone invested money and time (probably a considerable amount) in this, in an effort to further an agenda that in some way will benifit them or those associated with them, socially or monetarily. It's just another example of a faceless entity unrelated to you and your life, attempting to engineer your behavior in order to suit their particular purpose. Sorry to make it sound rather sinister but like death...you can't escape the truth

 

[unadoptedlamp]

Cosmic - You know, for a Southern hillbilly, you sure do have your screws down tight! I thought you were all a bunch of inbred nutters that are best to give a very wide berth to.

Hell, I might even sit down next to you in a bar and say hello. Maybe. Probably not. But good to know people like you exist down there.

I'm going to have to revisit my thinking on Southerners. And perhaps Americans in general... but one step at a time.

I've really enjoyed following this thread. I'm not commenting on the substance any more (it didn't go over well the first time), but I did want to chime in and say I like the cut of yer jib. And Warren too, who is not a curmudgeon, but shoots from the hip.

It's nice to see the balance.

 

[cshubhra]

I like all, but specially #2 and #1

Here are some pipe smoking studies that do look good