Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 16th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Smoking's hidden death toll revealed



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 June 2008
SMOKING causes hundreds of thousands more deaths each year than previously thought, dramatic scientific research has revealed.
A study, led by experts in Glasgow, showed heightened chances of dying from cancers of the colon, rectum and prostate, as well as from lymphatic leukaemia.

These illnesses cause 930,000 deaths worldwide each year, in addition to more than five million smoking-related deaths estimated by the World Health Organisation as being caused by diseases such as lung cancer, which have long been linked to smoking.

Scotland's health minister and anti-smoking campaigners have welcomed the study as further proof of the need to clamp down on the habit.

About 13,000 Scots a year die of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases, such heart illnesses. Another 1,600 people die in Scotland each year from the cancers newly linked to the habit.

The Scottish Government last month unveiled controversial new plans to curb smoking, by proposing a ban on cigarettes being displayed in shops. And ministers south of the border have suggested scrapping packs of 10 cigarettes because of their popularity among young smokers.

The new study, which has been published in the journal Annals of Oncology, was carried out by a team led by experts at Glasgow University and was based on data from 17,363 male civil servants based in London.

Information about their health and habits has been collated since the 1960s in an effort to gain information about health trends and find links between lifestyle and illness. The original link between smoking and lung cancer was found through similar analysis of medical data.

The study found:

• A 43% increase in the chances of dying from cancer of the colon if the person smokes.

• A 40% higher likelihood of dying from rectal cancer.

• An increase of 23% in the chances of losing one's life to prostate cancer.

• A 53% rise in mortality from lymphatic leukaemia among smokers.

The study concluded: "Cigarette smoking appears to be a risk factor for several malignancies of previously unclear association with tobacco use."

Dr David Batty, of the Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, based at the University of Glasgow, said: "What this study shows is that smoking is linked to more kinds of cancer than previously thought. It's important to remember that cancer is not a single disease and that the various kinds of cancers are different illnesses so you couldn't necessarily assume that smoking was linked to them in the same way. What's unclear is how exactly smoking causes these cancers."

Health Minister Shona Robison said: "This study appears to demonstrate that smoking is even more carcinogenic than was realised.

It also underlines the importance of Scotland's smoking ban in public places, which is helping to safeguard the health of thousands of people working in previously smoky environments."

Sheila Duffy, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health Scotland, said: "This large-scale study adds to the weight of existing research confirming the harmfulness of smoking. It's vital that smokers receive support and encouragement to quit and as a nation we take steps to ensure future generations avoid getting hooked on this lethal and highly addictive substance."

Ed Yong, health information manager at Cancer Research UK, said: "The dangers of cigarette smoke go far beyond its well-known link to lung cancer. It's interesting to see that even after 50 years of research, studies are still revealing new dangers."

However, one leading medical experts questioned the conclusions.

Fouad Habib, professor of experimental urology at Edinburgh University, and an expert in prostate cancer, said: "This study is bit of a surprise and very much the first of its kind. Until now it's not been thought that there was any link between smoking and prostate cancer and I would have thought that there are factors which play a much greater role, such as genetics."

Meanwhile, smokers' groups insisted the research should not be used to push through tougher anti-smoking rules.

Neil Rafferty, spokesman for the smokers' lobby group the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, said: "We are not suggesting the smoking is anything other than bad for you. People enjoy it, but they know that it's not good for them and they take the choice. No doubt the anti-smoking lobby will want to use this to erode our freedoms still further. At the end of the day, we are adults. Let us get on with our lives."

The full article contains 749 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 June 2008 11:09 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 00:19:06
Its about clean lungs so you can take in the flu bug.
Ask yourself why most people smoked 40 years ago and cancer was much much lower.....yet now most people don't and its now one in two people :)
2

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 00:19:28
Your wake up call :)


http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6030443037963555139&hl=en
3

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 00:22:12
Oh and by the way.....i found at least two cures for cancer......cures the elites have always known about.
Turn the tele off and go learn things :)
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 00:23:51


Connotations of hidden agenda!

Some you wont fool!

Who is paying Who,?
5

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 00:26:12
Comment@5 Morning Charles :)
6

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 00:39:01

Well it ain't that a 'Good Morning' Scott Webb ~5,

No Wonder you left out the word 'Good' after reading all the nonsense that is going on, in the paper today!
7

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 00:43:45
Comment@6 Charles, you like many are starting to wake up to the the real function of the media :)
8

walter,

22/06/2008 00:43:49
Dr David Batty, of the Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, based at the University of Glasgow, said: "What this study shows is that smoking is linked to more kinds of cancer than previously thought. It's important to remember that cancer is not a single disease and that the various kinds of cancers are different illnesses so you couldn't necessarily assume that smoking was linked to them in the same way. What's unclear is how exactly smoking causes these cancers."

Let me get this right, The dear Dr does not know how smoking is linked to any of these cancers, He does not know how smoking causes these cancers, Yet he is insinuating that smoking is responsible for these cancers.
It sounds like this research was done on the back of a cigarette packet



9

truthsleuth,

22/06/2008 00:57:37
What part does road traffic fumes play in cancer rates.
Smoking was the 'smoke screen' behind which diesel/petrol fumes hide.
10

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 01:05:00
Comment@9 truthsleuth, hi mate. It's a lot heavier than that. Think of your frequencies of your mobile phones and wifi.
The fluoridation of the water supplies. The artificial sweeteners that people take to lose weight.....yet gain weight and go on to become diabetic.
I could go on and on about examples.
None of them have happened by accident
11

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 01:13:00
Scott Webb ~10,

Absolute Agree!

Unfortunately the 'Brainwashed',,'Brainless', now becoming mass population, don't accept any of it!
12

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 01:15:02
Comment@11 Charles, I've been trying to wake people up in here for three years....i see now....its been worth it mate :)
13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 01:19:27

Scott Webb ~12,

I have always been a 'Rebel' to the dictatorship, I like you have a free Brain, that will NOT accept absolute 'Rubbish' that others freely believe!
14

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 01:22:01
I know that Charles ;)
15

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 01:27:20
this couple of minute clip shows you what happens when you put a couple of mobiles next to some popcorn and .....well you can work out the rest :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V94shlqPlSI
16

Symmachus,

Constantinople 22/06/2008 01:55:02
Ave Carlito and fellow travellers
This study is good news - more idiots and low attainers and are departing early, rather than being an endless drain on society. Folk like Walter who are unable to distinguish a study which shows a statistical correlation between two occurences (smoking and higher death rates from various cancers)from research which establishes the causal mechansim behind the correlation.
17

Mr A Roy,

22/06/2008 02:04:37
A science based on one study ?
What utter nonesense.
Yet another party political broadcast by the antismoking lobby
18

Swordsman,

Dublin 22/06/2008 02:27:58
Passive smoking debate aside..You sit next to me and indulge in your disgusting habit and try to "exercise" your right to freedom whilst negating my basic human right to have fresh air, I'd be happy to chat to you about it..I I had the breath...
19

Symmachus,

The Colleseum 22/06/2008 02:48:44
Swordsman,

Rejoice! Another smoker! Good! One less dolt to support for too long! One more provider of revenue! You should always carry a packet of Capstain full strength and offer them one - or two for luck.
20

Swordsman,

Dublin 22/06/2008 02:58:11
#19 I admit,I am a bit of a "Nicotine Nazi" but I wouldn't go as far as to wish for the early demise of a smoker...Hate the habit,as I do,A wee bit of consideration is all I ask for, and would like the same in return..OK?
21

Son of Loki,

The Dark Side 22/06/2008 04:35:01
I stopped smoking 8 months ago. In your face Death!

Stay alive people, it's the only way to live!

Loki Jnr
22

Mcsnagpile,

22/06/2008 08:00:13
Cancer of the rectum and prostate?? looks like the smoking acrobats are back in town.
23

Ninian Reid,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 08:18:01
Until Westminster jettisons the obscenity of living off the immoral earnings derived from tobacco products, we will have to live (or die) with this problem. Left to me, I'd make cigarettes £20 for 20 at today's prices. But, in so doing , I accept you would create family poverty on an unprecedented scale. So , what's the answer ? I'm blowed if I know. But, meanwhile, the SNP Scottish Government is to be applauded for its strident anti-tobacco stance - even if it's the zeal of the convert that's at work.
24

DeniseX,

22/06/2008 08:23:22
'What's unclear is how exactly smoking causes these cancers'. Says a Batty doctor. Sounds like a Nutty professor. This should read 'it's not clear if smoking causes such cancers.
25

thinking,

22/06/2008 08:48:48
#15
Your you tube is false try this link. Snopes investigates stories to see if they are true or not. This one refers to trying to cook eggs or popcorn with mobiles - false
http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp
26

Fredspage,

Sicily 22/06/2008 08:54:34
Smoking is an addiction to nicotine. Any addict will find reasons, valid or otherwise, to continue smoking, and will often become abusive to ohers who try to stop them from smoking.

The need for the substance is caused by our "unconscious" brsin and our "conscious" brain, which thinks it is the controller, will concoct reasons why we should indulge.

c/f Michael S. Gazzaniga.

I smoked 2 packs a day till I was 45. Now I am 80 and very allergic to second-hand tobacco smoke, and also very healthy.

Fred Lovett
fredspage.org

Fred Lovett
27

DeniseX,

22/06/2008 09:08:15
Fredspage. Have you no addictions? Most things in life are addictive. Drinking, eating, gambling, playing sports and even sex. Most can cause health problems, either directly or indirectly.
Congratulations on being so healthy, despite all that heavy smoking.
28

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 09:22:30
"These illnesses cause 930,000 deaths worldwide each year, in addition to more than five million smoking-related deaths estimated by the World Health Organisation"

Now correct me if I am wrong - This is the organisation who published the report on which the Goverment based its stance on passive smoking.

This is the report, I have read, where the researchers refused to put their names because the research had actually found no link, so the data had to be changed. To increase the prcieved threat, the World Health Organisation moved a critical decimal point! They lied.
29

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 09:55:16
I see that the New Puritans are hard at work. Their Bible, the modern Media, is warning against: smokers; the obese; people who drop litter; people who drive too fast; the unemployed; teachers; tanker drivers; bad parents; teenagers; Frenchmen; Americans; Serbians; Africans; Arabs; Red Indians, in case they sneak up and scalp you; wearing perfume, and using up too much air by breathing heavily.

I am not against religion per say, I am not saying bad driving is a good thing, but I cannot thole fundamentalism, and the New Puritans are about as fundamental as you can get.

Terrifying!

30

Lillig,

22/06/2008 10:01:27
Scientists still rant on about cause and effect when any philosopher of science would tell you that this is not so simple. For something to cause an effect, there may be a number of criteria involved.

Now I hate cigarette smoke because I am asthmatic and it affects me badly. And I am finding it difficult to walk in some streets because of the smokers outside pubs and other buildings who I have to pass,

However, there is another point here - the British climate. And I wonder if thread 26 (Fred) lives in Sicily - where the air is drier than the UK. Many people don't think of our UK climate as very humid. We tend to think of south east Asia as humid. But the UK is humid - or more humid - compared to some other countries in Europe.

I lived in Romania for 8 years. Despite there being more smokers - often smoking untipped cigarettes - and more uncontrolled nasty exhaust fumes in the street - my asthma improved dramatically, to the point of taking only one fifth medication than in the UK. My first day back here, I ended up in hospital due to the sudden change in humidity.

This is another factor in the causal chain. And some factors are very personal. So I cannot see how scientists can say that it is only smoking that is the most important factor.

Why then do some people smoke and drink all the days of their adult lives and die in old age without having had a day's illness in their lives? Like my grandfather.
31

Nick1975,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 10:01:40
No wonder scientists struggle with communication with the public. Science isn't simple, especially in the area of health and there will always be uncertainties. In this case, one study has found a link between a number of cancers and smoking, presumably by a statistical study of a large enough population. In this area, to find the mechanism behind it will require more research of a different nature (biochemical), which would be a very involved lengthy study. So, because they rightly point out that 1) the study needs confirmation and 2) they are unsure about the mechanism doesn't invalidate the story. It just means that, surprise, surprise, science is complex.
The best comment @26 which reflects the drive behind some of the comments on the board: "Smoking is an addiction to nicotine. Any addict will find reasons, valid or otherwise, to continue smoking, and will * often become abusive *to ohers who try to stop them from smoking."[sic]
The point being, whether smoking does or does not cause these additional cancers, its link to other cancers is proven. So you might have been able to ignore this article but you have to do some major mental gymnastics to get over the other dangers. But, people do this every day. And it's because they are ADDICTS.
To me, smoking is a "choice" that is so dangerous to life that it should be banned completely. Sometimes people need saving from themselves. You might assume that people could think for themselves. But, when you've a product that has widely-known serious health implications for starting using it, that will lead to a lifetime of addiction for the user, and will cost them severely in financial and health terms, I think it's time that we said that this product can no longer be sold. Period. There's something so tragic to me about seeing a young kid smoking, apparently because it's still "cool" (some fashions don't change eh?). We must decide which generation will finally be saved from this insidious product that k
32

Jacqui,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 10:03:11
http://www.smettere.com/eng/index.htm

Why doesn't the NHS give these away yet?
33

Boy Wonder,

22/06/2008 10:06:38
#13 94 year-old Chuckles Linskaill has found a friend at last. Health nut, Scott Webb. You should all know they occupy rooms across from each other at the Care facility, where smoking is, of course, banned!
34

Nick1975,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 10:08:16
... from #31
... that kills in its millions but for reasons of history and "British culture" is accepted. It is not and should not be acceptable anymore. If it were discovered today it would be banned and I'm sure that people would be up in arms if it was suggested that it became legal and the government profited from its sale. First the smoking ban, then a ban in shop display, I hope that you smokers can see where this ends up. A ban. Total. Period.
35

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 10:13:07
Wake up people!

The P53 gene – wherein lies a possible SINGLE cause for ALL cancers.

There is no such thing as a carcogen - it is a misnomer.

Chemicals can cause initial cell damage - that is not cancer.

Governments have known the real cause of cancer since the late 1950's. This was when they started looking for and presenting a red herring.

Ask yourself, find out, what causes the P53 gene to stop working?
36

DeniseX,

22/06/2008 10:20:27
Another Horizon goodie to discuss. The programme last night was about the 20 most dangerous drugs in commonish use, no.20, Khat, I'd never heard of.
No.1 was, perhaps unsurprisingly, heroin.
Alcohol and tobacco came in at numbers 5 and 9 respectively
Note alcohol number 5 and tobacco number 9. Those calling for a total ban on tobacco, would they call for a total ban on alcohol?
37

ddmc,

22/06/2008 10:39:17
#15 the mobile phone & popcorn / egg is very likely to be a hoax, partly because the method used is flawed.

They show either a bag of popcorn or egg between some handsets. In mobile phone communications there is no direct handset to handset link, all rf is directed to a base station & the handset, so placing the egg between 2 handsets is not how it should be done. Place a 'bank' of handsets on one side of the egg & directed towards a base station. Then more rf is passed thru the egg. I would suggest using GSM as it cannot modulate the rf power unlike UMTS & transmits with it's max rf power at all times.
So although these may be fake, the underlying priciple is sound, if a microwave agitates water molecules @ 2.4Ghz anyone care to guess at which frequency blood boils ?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4503307.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725095.600
38

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 22/06/2008 10:42:32
Charles Linskaill

Good morning to you, sir, and those near and dear to you.

You seem to be ignoring my morning greetings to you of late. Have I offended you in some way?

Boy Wonder's continued harrassment of you requires that he attend at a psychiatric clinic because this unnatural obsessession with you is not healthy.
39

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 10:44:19
if a microwave agitates water molecules @ 2.4Ghz anyone care to guess at which frequency blood boils ?

Now link the idea of radiation to P53 gene.

Also look at 'dirty electricity.'

Think, when did the cancer epidemic begin? What else 'took off' at this time?
40

Boy Wonder,

22/06/2008 10:47:37
#38. Timbo ... I am not harassing Chuckles. I am only wearning everyone that he is suffering from senile dementia and should therefore be treated with care and respect.

And how are you today? :D
41

roughrider,

Glesga 22/06/2008 11:02:00
Dr David certainly is Batty.
This is just another feed of sh*te from the health freaks.
42

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 22/06/2008 11:17:05
40 Boy Wonder

In answer to your question:

Sane - for the moment.
43

BeeGee,

22/06/2008 11:35:22
Anyone who thinks they are breathing 'Clean Air' read on http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.2069153.0.Pollution_fears_are_misplaced_while_toxins_thrive_indoors.php
44

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 22/06/2008 11:36:00
Reading the utter nonsense posted above by the pro-smoking and conspiracy idiots here makes me despair of our education system! Are so many people really unable to understand basic statistics, relative risk, and probability?

I suppose that you fools also buy lottery tickets? As with tobacco, that is another tax on the ignorance of probability theory! So, please keep on smoking (and buying lottery tickets!) - your money is funding services for the rest of us.

45

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 11:46:29

Tim W ~38&+

Tim NO I have not been ignoring you of recent, I always read your posts, its just been very hectic round this end with my DYW being very ill for the last 3weeks, and worrying as you can imagine!

I have replied to some of your topical answers, maybe you missed them!

As ever you are the 'Polite One' unlike some, so thankyou for your kind regards and have a good day,

BTW Tim, did you ever smoke,?

BW was smoking in the 'River Forth' the other day! :)
46

Antony Henstock,

Blackpool 22/06/2008 11:46:58
I would like to see a report on a study into reasons why many smokers can get through 8,000 cigarettes a year for 40, 50, 60 or more years without any ill effects. We keep hearing that smoking kills as if it is inevitable, the fact is that it is NOT inevitable but merely possible, and even then it is likely that tobacco might not be the actual cause. Something to think about when all we here are staggering and shocking statistics.
Also, where are the studies into the rise of asthma cases and the link to the rise in petrol exhaust emissions? Or the rise in lung cancer rates and petrol exhaust fumes? Or the rise in colon cancer and the rise in poor diets and obesity? I could go on and on....
47

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 11:49:30
Dr Finlay ~45,

Are you the 'least surprised',?

Peopole DONT Mind being told something is bad for them,..

BUT ARE,..

'SICK TO THE TEETH' OF GETTING IT SHOVED DOWN THEIR THROATS'!
48

cataibh,

Over the Struie 22/06/2008 11:50:16
Well you know that a cigarette is a component with a fool on one end and a fire at the other
49

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 12:07:14
Good afternoon doc
the relative risk for heart disease of smokers compared to non-smokers is about 1.7 (12) Most studies on passive smoking provide a relative risk of the order of 1.2 ...

pcvc.sminter.com.ar/cvirtual/cvirteng/cienteng/s

This is an example of relative risk stats.

How many people realise that this should be interpreted as no risk whatsoever.

There is a multi-billion dollar industry driving the anti-smoking campaign - it is big business.

Our doctors, because they have been so easily duped are culpable for the deaths of countless numbers of patients who trusted them.

Reading the utter nonsense posted above by the anti-smoking New Puritans here makes me despair of our education system! Are so many people really unable to understand basic statistics, relative risk, and probability?

50

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 22/06/2008 12:13:18
#50 brainyfurball

Are you arguing that smoking does not increase the risk of developing a range of diseases compared to non-smoking?
51

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 12:19:13
My mistake - not smoking but passive exposure
52

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 22/06/2008 12:20:50
Charles Linskaill

I am a semblance of the form divine - mentally and physically (I wish!)

I have never smoked - not even 'wacky tabaccy" - and perhaps that is why I am almost semi-healthy at my advanced age of 59 and can bicycle two hours a day, swim, do "power walking", and lift reasonable weights.

My condolences to your wife and I hope she has recovered her health. Please apprise her of my wishes for a complete recovery.

It is always a pleasure to communicate with you.

Boy Wonder, on the other hand, is a "special case" and needs specialised care in some rest home somewhere. :D
53

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 12:29:19
Here is a typical example of how the media dramatise and warp stastistics.

The risks of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been deliberately overstated. The study on ETS was by the International Agency on Research on Cancer compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a non-smoker of contracting lung cancer is set at one. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16 and to smoke in the workplace to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide--0.93 to 1.44--that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit.
54

Michael J. McFadden,

Philadelphia 22/06/2008 12:29:48
Like almost every other article you read about smoking and smoking bans this one is distorted in order to frighten people. Take a moment to look at the numbers cited vs. the headlines. The headline under the photo claims "a million more" deaths per year. When you read the story you find out that the 930,000 deaths are the TOTAL deaths for those diseases: the total of smokers AND nonsmokers.

If you do a little research you'll find that almost all the theoretical excess deaths come from colo-rectal and prostate cancer. If you take the average increase at being 35% for these three and do the figuring you'll find that the total of deaths is less than a quarter of what the headline claims, i.e. the numbers were exaggerated by about 400%

That's still a lot of deaths (about 240,000) but given that such things as poor diet, lack of exercise, and heavy drinking are connected with these cancers and are also highly correlated with smoking, that 240,000 figure might really be 24,000... or even zero. You can't really tell how "good" the study is without reading it, and as is usual for smoking-related-death-stories the study itself doesn't seem to be available for popular consumption.

Remember the story last week about the 40% drop in English heart attacks after their ban? Once THAT story was analyzed it turned out that the 40% drop was really only a THREE PERCENT drop... just about the same size drop that happened BEFORE their smoking ban at times. The ban had nothing to do with it: nothing, nada, zero... but the antismoking lobby succeeded in getting huge headlines around the world with the false 40% claim.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/130.html
55

Gunn,

England 22/06/2008 12:34:26
#8 Seems to me the professor has merely shown a correlation between these other cancers and smokers, not a causal relationship. That said ... if there IS a correlation, and assuming he's eliminated "pure chance" from causing this, there must be a cause that makes the correlation.

So, might there be something that can cause cancer AND smoke? Hmmm ... no proof to offer but it does seem unlikely, don't y'think?
56

GMCD,

dundy 22/06/2008 12:35:31
More evidence for the nicotine-addled addicts to ignore...but who wants to give up their addiction...

And #54 "The jury is out regarding passive smoking."
Thankfully, due to the smoking ban they'll be outside smoking.....
57

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 12:44:20
EVERYONE: Read #56 CAREFULLY
58

Jim P,

22/06/2008 12:48:53
#56 M McFadden

What is the best age to start smoking? How many young people have you advised to smoke?

.j.
59

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 12:51:32

TimW ~53,

Thankyou Tim, I will pass on your regards to my DYW.

It was hyperstimulation, a dangerous condition that required 24/7 care, she was only one step away from being hospitalised,

But me being the clever Nurse that takes interest, prevented her from being admitted, that's what the Doc's said also!

Think If we have Babies, smoking will be 'outlawed' by the time they get old enough to smoke,

After saying this my two daughters from my previous never did and don't smoke, at the time they were brought up both my ex and I smoked, it was their education that made them wise to this fact,.

NOT Legislation!
60

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 12:56:58
#61: I note that you fail to comment on the staststics.
61

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 13:01:07
and I will stick to 'stats.'lol
62

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 13:14:28
#63 + #67 + the fact that damaged cell will only reproduce in a damaged state when the P53 gene is not working.

What prevents the gene from doing its job?

Those substances damage cells, therefore exposure to them will increase the danger of cancer, but they are not in themselves the primary cause.

This accounts for the lack of clinical evidence to say what causes cancer. We are looking in the wrong place.
63

Khalid.A,

Edinburgh 22/06/2008 13:34:33
I doubt that this study proves smoking is more dangerous than previously expected. I also doubt that it is a conspracy by some 'anti-smoking loby' much referred to in the comments above.

It's more likely that the correlation does exist but the increased illness not due directly to smoking. People who smoke nowadays KNOW that it's bad for them (they could hardly hide from the fact). These same people are likely to indulge in other activities which they know are bad for them and less likely to make efforts at staying healthy. So people who are smoking are less likely to be healthy in other ways so are more likely to suffer unrelated illnesses.

I don't know if the study accounted for this; but I don't see how it could be done systematically.
64

Neil,

Glasgow 22/06/2008 13:58:31
There is tremendous pressure on researchers to find new & PC causes of death & it is always possible to find blips in statistics since they necessarily have random variations particularly where the numbers are small.

In general good scientists don't declare a result even worth publishing if it doesn't show a chang in risk of 100% (known as a relative risk of 1) where the sample is small.

Lets look at the figures.

The study was on "data from 17,363 male civil servants based in London"

& found

" A 43% increase in the chances of dying from cancer of the colon if the person smokes"

How many of those would be smokers - say 7,000

What proportion of people die of cancer of the colon - I'm guessing but say 1 in 2,000.

So that would mean 3.5 dying.

A 43% increase would be under 5 people.

Since it is rare for only .5 of a person to die we are talking about 1 death more than average which is obviosly well within statistical variability.

The other figures are similarly nonsense.

It is mathematically certain that there will be similar statistically pointless connection to a less than normal death rate from other diseases.

This would not have even been published in a medical journal let alone got its authors newspaper publicity if they had found a similar "connection" between voting Green & dying from falling off fridges (another small but measurable cause of death).
65

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 14:09:40
#71. Spot on Neil
66

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 22/06/2008 14:18:44
I survived a fridge fall and did not vote Green. I would hate to think that I am just a meaningless statistic! :-)
67

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 14:37:15
Van (not white) Diesel,don't worry. You will be headline news in tomorrow's Scotsman. You are evidence that smoking causes death from falling of fridges.
68

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 14:49:33
oops you did NOT die. Does this mean that if you ARE a smoker then this means that smoking prevents death from falling off fridges, or if you are a non-smoker, death was prevented due to this fact?
69

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 22/06/2008 15:17:38
62 Charles Linskaill

Now that your DYW is "out of the woods", as it were, I wish some person or persons would "hyperstimulate" me once and a while.

Just kidding, of course. :))

Happy to hear she is better or getting better.
70

Laurette,

Carlsbad, California 22/06/2008 15:30:06
if I hadn't started smoking at 14, and smoked a pack a day or more until I was 61 - would I still be attached to an oxygen tank at 70, suffering from Emphysema? I doubt it! I look at young people dragging on their cigs and I truly feel sorry for them, because they simply - even with all the information that wasn't available then, but is now - don't know what they're letting themselves in for.
71

elizabeth the first ,

22/06/2008 15:33:45
77. I totally agree,the young people of today should know better.
72

brainyfurball,

22/06/2008 15:53:26
#77 You probably would. Sorry, but emphysema is not a condition caused by smoking.
73

Waspy100,

22/06/2008 16:20:25
#80
and we all know what you talk through dont we
74

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 16:48:36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVo2maA7h1E
75

Marc G,

Stirling, Scotland 22/06/2008 17:27:22
The numbers may correlate but that's likely just by chance. Otherwise they surely would have known this before. If it is spread by the bloodstream, they would have realised that and then made the connection. It seems obvious to someone like me.

The way they make this out as if it's some ground breaking stroke of genius is preposterous. I'm sick of hearing about new ways in which I could die. I knew fine well about the dangers of smoking when I started and I started anyway.

Anyone who suggests that education about smoking in schools isn't good enough is kidding themselves. I had the anti-smoking nonsense thrown in to my head from the age of 10. Like any other decision we make at any stage in our life, we can see both sides. That doesn't mean we'll make what seems like the most sensible choice.

Non-smokers and ex-smokers tend to be incredibly annoying. Especially non-smokers who say smokers don't deserve NHS treatment. That's just silly. Of course we don't. But nobody does. We can't afford it as a country. Scrap it, I say. If people want to smoke, let them smoke, it no longer affects non-smokers in any way at all. Now that you've done away with our right to enjoy a cigarette or a smoke of our pipe down the pub, can't you just leave us alone and let us die in peace?
76

Scott Webb.......,

22/06/2008 17:31:04
And i will raise you this on cell phones :)

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2804
77

Marc G,

Motherwell 22/06/2008 17:41:03
PS. This winter we'll be hearing about how smokers are more susceptible to the common cold. This will be attributed to the cigarettes themselves rather than the fact that we're forced out in to the cold in the middle of winter to have one.
78

Laurette,

Carlsbad, California 22/06/2008 17:44:14
#83 Combine that with artificial hips, artificial knees and a Defibrillator and it's probably wiser for me just to stay home. I would like to go to Australia though to see my sister, so who knows?
With small portables and a walker, I do alright, so no complaints here. Doubt though if my grandchildren will smoke, seeing me, so in some ways it's not a bad thing.
79

Marc G,

Stirling, Scotland 22/06/2008 17:58:24
90 Methalions, what do you give a person without a soul? How can you laugh at that? It's not funny by anyone's standards. Tragic.
80

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 22/06/2008 17:59:48
Life is the biggest killer of them all. Apart from that, governments have found climate change/global warming as an alternate means of taxing us now that there are not enough smokers to fill the kitty. The present attitude towards smokers is some thanks for faithful service to the exchequer.

I wonder if scientists can come up with a cure for emigration? More people are lost to Scotland from that than die of smoking.

The other thing about that is that, by not curing emigration, healthy young people (taxpayers) are allowed to slip away while unhealthy old people are being encouraged to stay and live longer by not smoking and only eating according to some state plan.

Priorities? Wad some power no the giftie gie them?

81

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 22/06/2008 18:02:21
#75 brainyfurball
I have returned. Let me explain. I was not smoking whilst on top of fridge, and was not smoking for the split second it took to fall to the ground. I soon lit up thereafter. Perhaps it all happened because I felt guilty about not voting Green. Nothing more complicated than that. On the other hand ...........
82

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 22/06/2008 18:10:14
Is a 'Laurette' a miniature 'Laura'? If so, all the kit (plus the highly adjacent Laurette) should just about pass through an airport security gate. Agreed the gate will ring, buzz, and jump about like never before, but that is not the point.
83

AberdeenAngus,

22/06/2008 18:10:27
I have terminal piles. I also have crinkly hair and this causes me great distress. Aff tae attend tae the coos.
84

Jam Tarts 1874,

On the Rebound 22/06/2008 18:12:05
#92. Yes, Scotland is struggling.

Don't agree with the state plan comment on diet, many people know how to take care of themselves. Unfortunately we can all see that some people need guidance, if the Government doesn't attempt to give guidance, who will?

Maybe it should be Ant & Dec or Jeremy Kyle giving the guidance, they are after all about the only people the couch potatoes of Scotland pay any attention to anyway.
85

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 22/06/2008 18:18:25
I once had a smoking related accident from the top of a wardrobe. It was related to kinky sex.

I had to sit on the wardrobe wearing rubber boots a rubber hat and a rubber coat. She was on the bed, naked.

On her command, I had to light the cigarette and keep blowing the smoke down onto her at the same time as kicking me feet against the wardrobe doors, peeeeeing on her and switching the light on and off.

I fell off the wardrobe after asking her if she wanted sex and she said, not in this thunderstorm.

86

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 22/06/2008 18:23:32
#100 Jock Tamson
Why didn't you loan her the rubber boots?
87

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 22/06/2008 18:26:00
98, Jam Tarts. The diet bit was only to highlight the priorities. Why keep people alive when we cannot afford to? By that, I mean it makes no sense to create that very scenario. There should be enough young people to enable us to afford it.

Let the old die happy - they deserve it.
88

Marc G,

Stirling, Scotland 22/06/2008 18:27:04
95 Methalions, just because you deem it to be trolling, that doesn't make it so. Although I grant that it is highly likely having read the posts, you can't dismiss it as necessarily untrue. Although now I concede that your comments don't show the lack of a soul, but rather presumptuousness.

And I assure you, it's Stirling. My computer still remembers me posting from Motherwell. I haven't lived there for 2 years now. I lived in Glasgow before that and now I'm in Stirling to go to university here. So Stirling. It's not a whimsical changing of where I live, rather a lack of can-be-bothered to type "Stirling, Scotland" every time I reply.

I'm disappointed that nobody has replied to my actual comments, though. Still, it seems that's always the case with these comment boards. The nutters who leave comments about government conspiracies get more attention than those with a genuine and reasonable opinion.
89

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 22/06/2008 18:32:52
101. Jeez, Meths, if I'd known that was your gran.....

102, Van, I wouldn't have been able to resist aiming into them. Oh, btw, what's happening with the smoking ban in July? We go to Amsterdam at Christmas and reckon the streets are too narrow to accommodate a blanket ban.

90

Van (not white) Diesel,

Amsterdam & Augsburg 22/06/2008 18:39:10
#105 Jock Tamson
Banning blankets now, are they? The nerve.
Visitations to Amsterdam go some way to explaining the matter referred to above.
91

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 22/06/2008 18:56:23
106, Van. Swear I am too old for that nowadays - not that my wife ever let me do it. You see, it was a friend but if I'd said that everyone would have said it was me.

Now, about the Netherlands and their (Amster)dam(n) smoking ban?
92

Dekester,

Canada's westcoast 22/06/2008 18:57:42
Thanks to all the posters.

Especially brainyfurbal and his pals.

I have never smoked and feel genuinely saddened that the PC brigade continually kick the poor smoker. Get a life folks, and just enjoy today. Not tomorrow. Just enjoy today. Of course planes, hospitals, and numerous other public places should not allow smoking. For the obvious reasons.

Smoking is a foolish,dirty,and expensive habit. So what..Are not numerous other social activities.(recreational driving.)

Most everything is genetic. Accept and enjoy.You may not live longer. However you are guaranteed to be happier. As will those who live with or around you.

All the best.
93

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 22/06/2008 19:11:38
109, Meths. Thanks for pointing out that MarcG had made posts.

I thought I had read all the postings before commenting. Must have missed them - can't think why.

Btw. Do you have any idea what's happening about the smoking ban in the Netherlands as Van(not white)Diesel, Amsterdam & Augsburg seems reluctant to come up with an answer?
94

Greg L-Www.UrologyCancerResource.com,

Chepstow 22/06/2008 19:34:52
A great danger of the lies & propaganda of politicians such as benefits of the EU, Global warming, wind power, climate change & so much more is that all end up being used to tax & control us and in the main we know they are telling lies for their own benefit
BUT
sometimes some people have a need to overlook that and one such is when you HAVE cancer and then it doesn't really matter whether it is because you smoked or your neighbour four doors down smoked or you had a carrot stuck up your backside - YOU'VE GOT CANCER & it is quite a Challenge to face.

I have cancer and for the curious I KNOW it was not as a result of carrots!!

I first presented in Nov-1998 & had Kidney Cancer I also have Bladder Cancer so with another KC patient & because we couldn't get straight answers (nothing to do with straight carrots!) we decided to try to provide the help and hand holding that those who are Challenged with cancers that present through Urology NEED to make the decisions they must take whether as patient, carer, family or friend.

Perhaps we can help YOU or someone you know & in fact perhaps YOU can help someone you don't know at www.KidneyCancerResource.com where there are over 2,500 primary pages of information on those Urology cancers no one wants to talk about because they are 'below the belt' from Kidney Cancer through