If cigarettes are the biggest cause of lung cancer, why are the correlations between cigarettes smoked per capita and lung cancer deaths so inconsistent.
Croatia has 37 lung cancer deaths per 100 000, with an average adult smoking about 1700 cigarettes a year, close to Japan which has 21.44 lung cancer deaths.
The average Hungarian smokes only 70 cigarettes a year more than the average Croat, yet their lung cancer death rate is the highest in the world - 54.26 out of 100 000.
What is the true cause of lung cancer then, Sup Forums? Are we being poisoned? How is the developed world more cancer-prone than the 3rd world shitholes all the heavy, polluting industry went to?
those guys can explain you better. Don't forget most of Sup Forums believes the earth is flat.
Ryan Ward
Naming some might not be a bad start.
Xavier Robinson
Good goy, keep taking the toxic drug that doesn't even get you high but causes impotence . Jewish interest above all!
Hunter Rivera
Smoking definitely rises probability of getting lung cancer, I mean you do inhale tons of shit, most of it, although in small quantities it would seem, all together have the means to cause cancer
Cancer really is the cunt of diseases, you can get it living healthy and active all your life, or only in your teens, I know people that have smoked all their life packs a day and died of age or heart illness ; even more absurd, they have got cancer in other parts of their body
Brayden Thompson
the same cause of all cancer, a dysfunction of cellular apoptosis
Julian Peterson
You know, if there were Jews in our midst, they would certainly know that the best way to convince an average Sup Forums user to do as they please without any argument would be to call the alternative Jewish.
Samuel Rodriguez
And what causes that?
Christian Mitchell
/sci/ is the one saying cigarettes cause lung cancer
Noah Walker
Look at vietnam before and after the war. They introduced smoking there and lungcancer skyrocketed as a disease.
Oliver Gonzalez
Your moms poopshot
Cooper Bennett
Why do all the Jews I know drink coca cola non stop?
Jaxon Cox
I know you're confused, but we're discussing white people problems here.
William Jackson
Any sources on that? And wasn't a lot of that due to the deployment of toxic chemicals?
Jose Walker
No study or experiment has ever been able to induce cancer with tobacco smoke. What causes cancer is the 3rd world pesticides and glues used in cheap asian tobacco paper cigarettes(most box brands). Smoke nothing but American Spirits, or something organic and American grown, and you'll probably never get cancer.
Eli Hill
This, it only raises it by like 12% tho, non smokers have like 3% chance of lung cancer, smokers have a 15% chance. And that's only a half pack or more smokers, smoking 1-2 a day does basically nothing to your chances of lung cancer.
David Peterson
Also most filters are made up of a horrible kind of plastic. It's healthier to just smoke unfiltered.
Jonathan Ross
Even if you don't get lung cancer from smoking, your chance of heart related problems increases astronomically. Not to mention stroke risk.
Anthony Adams
Any sources on this, or are these just assumptions?
Cooper Rivera
You don't understand how statistics works. It's fine.
Ryder Phillips
Nice arguments there goyim.
Alexander Martinez
People that smoke cause damage to their lung so if they do have any small number of cancer cells its going to make an environment that favors cancer cells since cancer cells proliferate & divide faster than healthy cells. This is why smoking significantly increases your risk for lung cancer. Directly stating that the cause of lung cancer is smoking is stupid.
Xavier Davis
smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer. Many pollutants enter our bodies through our lungs that can affect cell growth. However, smoking is nearly the sole cause of small cell lung cancer, a particularly aggressive and highly malignant, distinct form of lung cancer that is differentiated from other forms of lung cancer. When smokers get lung cancer, its nearly always small cell.
David Kelly
they make different ciggarettes for different countries, you can look it up on wikipedia...
asia countries have much less tar and chemicals than north american from what i remember
Caleb Collins
I read into it a year and a half ago. It's impossible to induce cancer cells with just tobacco smoke, and it's been tried. American organic tobacco is grown to a much higher standard than chinashit. Many plant products from Asia are contaminated with pesticides that aren't legal anywhere else.
Looks like american non-organic is really shitty to smoke.
Easton Stewart
"The beagles were strapped side-by-side to a long bench, in a rather unnatural upright position. They were fitted with face masks, which forced them to inhale and exhale smoke from lighted cigarettes. A mechanical device lit a new cigarette and dropped it into the air line, as soon as an old one was used up. Although the Surgeon General later claimed that the smoking machines did not force animals to inhale and exhale deeply, the newsreel footage sure made it look as if the dogs were inhaling and exhaling very deeply.
It was, perhaps, the smoking Beagles that were referred to in the 1964 SG's Report, when the Committee made the observation that with the "possible exception of dogs", the animal experiments had all failed to induce lung cancers. Whatever the case, in the 1971 Report, the Surgeon General conceded that the experiments with dogs, using smoking machines, had failed. However, also in the 1971 Report, the SG described a new experiment, conducted by a government physician, Oscar Auerbach, and others, in which the Beagles were forced to smoke in what the SG described as a "more natural" manner.
Specifically, Auerbach claimed to have slit the throats of 78 Beagles and inserted tracheotomies. He claimed that he had been able to train the dogs to smoke cigarettes through those tracheotomies. A table was presented, showing the number of dogs that managed to survive for 875 days, smoking either regular cigarettes or filter tips or no cigarettes at all. Amongst the 8 controls who did not smoke, there were no deaths. Among the smokers, however, there were 24 deaths from various causes, variously listed as "aspiration of food", lung fibrosis, etc. Although Auerbach did not claim that any of the dogs died from lung cancer, he did in fact claim that 2 of the animals, who smoked non-filter cigarettes, had developed early invasive squamous cell carcinoma in the bronchi. "
Parker Gutierrez
The more i look into it
the more you find out that nicotine raises test and cigs were scapegoated
i bet its all the other chemicals americans breath in
Andrew Walker
bump for doggo
Ryan Butler
But the results were replicated to a point with the rats, even if it did take an insane amount of smoke.
But then again it's commonly accepted that genetics plays a large part in it. Like how Japanese smokers are less likely to develop cancer than American smokers who smoke the same amounts.
If there are considerable differences in how human subspecies react to tobacco smoke, why would it necessarily have the same effect on other animals?
Nathaniel Adams
For example emissions from industries, cars etc..
Carson Hill
It's honestly genetics when it comes to cancer. If people really wanted to get people to stop smoking then they would stop focusing on the cancer aspects. You should be more worried about heart attacks than anything.
Brody Baker
Plenty more of that in China than Hungary. More tobacco consumption as well. Yet Hungary is the champion when it comes to lung cancer deaths.
Adam Peterson
>Not taking population genetics into account WEW LAD
Brayden Young
Not all cigarettes are the same. Some are intentionally pumped with shit to it burns faster/stay lit/more nicotine. Smoking was popular from the 17th century and it wasn't until the 1950s that cancer was "linked" to the shit.
Sebastian Morgan
Also, at pages 185 and 186 of the 1982 Report, there is a description of some failed experiments with Golden hamsters, explaining why tobacco smoke had failed to induce lung tumors. Never-the-less, interleaved into all of these discussions of failures, there is a description of an experiment which, allegedly, succeeded. At page 185, we are told that in 1980 experimenters at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, using a newly developed "advanced inhalation device" were able to induce tumors of the "respiratory tract" in rats. The Report states that "...seven of the 80 smoke exposed rats had tumors.." and that one of 30 "sham exposed rats" had tumors.
Apparently, the "advanced inhalation device" referred to by the SG is the "Maddox-ornl smoking machine". It is referred to in an article by A.P. Wehner, et al., which appeared in 1981 in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology at pages 1-17. There, the authors describe an experiment in which 80 female rat were forced to consume 8 cigarettes per day, seven days per week, for 2 years. One of the rats developed a carcinoma of the lung.
Before getting too excited about these experiments, however, we need to consider this: the largest known rats weigh no more than an average of one pound. Forcing a one pound rat to smoke 8 cigarettes per day is the equivalent of forcing a 160 pound human to smoke 1280 cigarettes per day (64 packs). Such experiments are not realistic and in no way replicate exposure to ordinary tobacco smoke. Given the enormous concentrations of smoke used by the experimenters, it is wonder that any of the animals even survived the ordeal; yet, they did, and only a small percentage developed tumors.
^That quantity of exposure causes it's own issues.
Michael Martin
This too. Lung cancer in nonsmokers has roughly quadrupled since the 70s.
Justin White
Well, here place with asbestos mines are disproportionately more likely to get cancer. Might be something else than smoke alone.
Gavin Russell
Why do you presume this?
It doesn't make sense that even in genetically close populations like Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia, and Hungary there is little correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
Adrian Stewart
I don't even know where to begin. Maybe this: Have you considered that a neat way to tell if it does or not is to gather individual smoking habits of 70,000 people, and then track cancer rates in that population? Because you see, whenever someone does anything like this, the 'smoker' group gets many more lung cancers. You control for age, gender, nationality, activity levels, social class, everything and it still comes out that smokers get lung cancer a lot more.
Aiden Perry
I question the claim that smoke is really bad for you. Most humans evolved to inhale fire smoke in their hut to keep the cold away.
Joshua Brown
Stop thinking like this. Cancer is diagnoses. If someone dies, they have to check if it was cancer or not. Statistics like 'cancer rates' only show you how much a country gives a shit about diagnosing cancer, not how much cancer they actually get.
Samuel Myers
Hello Mr. Source man.
Josiah Anderson
No goy, agent orange is what plants crave!
Gavin Cruz
Not much of a presumption. It only takes one genetic mutation in an ancestor to double your cancer risk. That's why two next-door neighbors can have one family predisposed to diabetes, and the other is just fine.
Parker Evans
>Most humans evolved to inhale fire smoke
Ok buddy. Enjoy being a firefighter without a breathing apparatus. Carbon Monoxide is totally good for your lungs Your body totally evolved to exhale it the same as Co2 Not gonna permanently bond to your hemoglobin at all
Samuel Lee
All the countries from my other comparisons were European, and even in less developed countries like Croatia you don't leave a cause of death a mystery. Whether or not it was cancer is pretty easily established.
William Robinson
Actually he's right man. Humans can tolerate a far higher concentration of CO and CO2 than other animals.
Matthew Sullivan
inhaling crude combustibles is never a good idea, but besides extreme cases cancer is caused by bad luck t. cancer survivor
Ryder Barnes
Tobacco is really good at absorbing the radiation in conventional fertilizers. That's why it's important to seek out organic. Smoking radiated tobacco doses your lungs with radiation.
Jacob Davis
>Smoking in 2016
It's like you're intentionally trying to shorten your lifespan.
Jack Taylor
>Humans can tolerate a far higher concentration of CO and CO2 than other animals. Humans can tolerate pretty much anything more than other animals.
