• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Smoking

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
HerefordSire":5k44q7zy said:
Is smoking tobacco good for humans?


:shock: :shock: :shock:

Japan and Greece have the highest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the lowest incidence of lung cancer. In direct contrast to this, America, Australia, Russia, and some South Pacific island groups have the lowest numbers of adult cigarette smokers in the world, but the highest incidence of lung cancer.
 

angie1

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
4,179
Reaction score
0
Location
minnesota
Sometimes I think it is the lesser of 2 evils.
That being said, wish I'd never have started and wish it was easier to quit. Someday I and mine are going to give it a try. That should be a fun filled week on the home front..... :help:
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
angie":e0y09av9 said:
Sometimes I think it is the lesser of 2 evils.
That being said, wish I'd never have started and wish it was easier to quit. Someday I and mine are going to give it a try. That should be a fun filled week on the home front..... :help:

I think you may have missed my point Angie, therefore something for you to think about....Does smoking cigarettes increase life expectency?

The first European contact with tobacco was in 1492, when Columbus and fellow explorer Rodriguo de Jerez saw natives smoking in Cuba. That very same day, de Jerez took his first puff and found it very relaxing, just as the locals had assured him it would be. This was an important occasion, because Rodriguo de Jerez discovered what the Cubans and native Americans had known for many centuries: that cigar and cigarette smoking is not only relaxing, it also cures coughs and other minor ailments. When he returned home, Rodriguo de Jerez proudly lit a cigar in the street, and was promptly arrested and imprisoned for three years by the horrified Spanish Inquisition. De Jerez thus became the first victim of the anti-smoking lobbies.

In less than a century, smoking became a much enjoyed and accepted social habit throughout Europe, with thousands of tons of tobacco being imported from the colonies to meet the increasing demand. A growing number of writers praised tobacco as a universal remedy for mankind’s ills. By the early 20th Century almost one in every two people smoked, but the incidence of lung cancer remained so low that it was almost immeasurable. Then something extraordinary happened on July 16, 1945: a terrifying cataclysmic event that would eventually cause western governments to distort the perception of smoking forever. As K. Greisen recalls:
“When the intensity of the light had diminished, I put away the glass and looked toward the tower directly. At about this time I noticed a blue color surrounding the smoke cloud. Then someone shouted that we should observe the shock wave travelling along the ground. The appearance of this was a brightly lighted circular area, near the ground, slowly spreading out towards us. The color was yellow.

“The permanence of the smoke cloud was one thing that surprised me. After the first rapid explosion, the lower part of the cloud seemed to assume a fixed shape and to remain hanging motionless in the air. The upper part meanwhile continued to rise, so that after a few minutes it was at least five miles high. It slowly assumed a zigzag shape because of the changing wind velocity at different altitudes. The smoke had pierced a cloud early in its ascent, and seemed to be completely unaffected by the cloud.”

This was the notorious “Trinity Test”, the first dirty nuclear weapon to be detonated in the atmosphere. A six-kilogram sphere of plutonium, compressed to supercriticality by explosive lenses, Trinity exploded over New Mexico with a force equal to approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. Within seconds, billions of deadly radioactive particles were sucked into the atmosphere to an altitude of six miles, where high-speed jet streams could circulate them far and wide.
The American Government knew about the radiation in advance, was well aware of its lethal effects on humans, but bluntly ordered the test with a complete disregard for health and welfare. In law, this was culpable gross negligence, but the American Government did not care. Sooner or later, one way or the other, they would find another culprit for any long-term effects suffered by Americans and other citizens in local and more remote areas.

If a single microscopic radioactive fallout particle lands on your skin at the beach, you get skin cancer. Inhale a single particle of the same lethal muck, and death from lung cancer becomes inevitable, unless you happen to be an exceptionally lucky cigarette smoker. The solid microscopic radioactive particle buries itself deep in the lung tissue, completely overwhelms the body’s limited reserves of vitamin B17, and causes rampant uncontrollable cell multiplication.
How can we be absolutely sure that radioactive fallout particles really cause lung cancer every time a subject is internally exposed? For real scientists, as opposed to medical quacks and government propagandists, this is not a problem. For any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect radioactive agent must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals.

Scientists have ruthlessly sacrificed tens of thousands of mice and rats in this way over the years, deliberately subjecting their lungs to radioactive matter. The documented scientific results of these various experiments are identical. Every mouse or rat obediently contracts lung cancer, and every mouse or rat then dies. Theory has thus been converted to hard scientific fact under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The suspect agent [radioactive matter] caused the claimed result [lung cancer] when inhaled by mammals.
 

grannysoo

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
4,813
Reaction score
0
Location
The Briar Patch
HerefordSire":7zsgq11e said:
Is smoking tobacco good for humans?

Everything on earth is here for a reason, including tobacco. The problem as I see it is not the smoking of tobacco, it's the smoking of cigarettes including all of the garbage that is put into them.

I would like to be a "recreational" smoker, but I'm scared I would get hooked again, so therefore, I don't do tobacco anymore.
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
grannysoo":3vidqn1d said:
HerefordSire":3vidqn1d said:
Is smoking tobacco good for humans?

Everything on earth is here for a reason, including tobacco. The problem as I see it is not the smoking of tobacco, it's the smoking of cigarettes including all of the garbage that is put into them.

I would like to be a "recreational" smoker, but I'm scared I would get hooked again, so therefore, I don't do tobacco anymore.


Read this....

Twelve years after the cataclysmic Trinity test, it became obvious to western governments that things were getting completely out of control, with a 1957 British Medical Research Council report stating that global “deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”, though no explanation was offered. During the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold. By the end of official atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945.
 

BeefmasterB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
614
Reaction score
0
Location
SE TX
grannysoo":b80s5z5t said:
Everything on earth is here for a reason, including tobacco. The problem as I see it is not the smoking of tobacco, it's the smoking of cigarettes including all of the garbage that is put into them.

I would like to be a "recreational" smoker, but I'm scared I would get hooked again, so therefore, I don't do tobacco anymore.

Most likely you would. And now they have added yet more chemicals so they won't keep burning without airflow.
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
BeefmasterB":u4cnsyw0 said:
grannysoo":u4cnsyw0 said:
Everything on earth is here for a reason, including tobacco. The problem as I see it is not the smoking of tobacco, it's the smoking of cigarettes including all of the garbage that is put into them.

I would like to be a "recreational" smoker, but I'm scared I would get hooked again, so therefore, I don't do tobacco anymore.

Most likely you would. And now they have added yet more chemicals so they won't keep burning without airflow.


Could it be true?

Remember, for any theory to be accepted scientifically, it must first be proven in accordance with rigorous requirements universally agreed by scientists. First the suspect agent [tobacco smoke] must be isolated, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result, i.e. lung cancer in mammals. Despite exposing literally tens of thousands of especially vulnerable mice and rats to the equivalent of 200 cigarettes per day for years on end, “medical science” has never once managed to induce lung cancer in any mouse or rat. Yes, you did read that correctly.
 

Running Arrow Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
3,439
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas Panhandle On US 83
Well...lol...in "defense" of smoking...

  • Grandmother smoked pipe...lived to near 90
    Grandfather smoked cigars...lived to 80 something
    Father smoked cigars and unfiltered Lucky Strikes until his 70's...lived to 84
    I've smoked for 50+ years...have COPD and still smoke about 1-1/2 packs a day
    I started smoking "natural tobacco" with no additives, produced by Native Americans about 2 years ago

Grandmother and grandfather both died of natural causes.
Father died of high blood pressure, and old age, exacerbated by kidney failure due to old age.

Possible Prognosis: I may live to my 80's...no accidents happening. (Don't want to live FOREVER anyway!)

Benefits of Smoking: No lung worms present. Keeps anti-smoking radicals at bay. Gets me seated in a restaurant away from the crowds and obnoxious, uncontrolled kids. Calm, even-tempered, non-excitable personality. Gives me a good reason to stay off of airplanes (since they don't have smoking sections anymore). Goes well with beer and occasional rum & coke.

Disadvantages of Smoking: Possible shorter life, however years are lost at the END...not out of the middle! Can't work as hard as used to...short of breath...however, I'm "retired" and doing my own thing... ;-)

Living in the country, smelling fresh air and cattle manure: Priceless!!
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
Running Arrow Bill":x85xtu37 said:
Well...lol...in "defense" of smoking...

  • Grandmother smoked pipe...lived to near 90
    Grandfather smoked cigars...lived to 80 something
    Father smoked cigars and unfiltered Lucky Strikes until his 70's...lived to 84
    I've smoked for 50+ years...have COPD and still smoke about 1-1/2 packs a day
    I started smoking "natural tobacco" with no additives, produced by Native Americans about 2 years ago

Grandmother and grandfather both died of natural causes.
Father died of high blood pressure, and old age, exacerbated by kidney failure due to old age.

Possible Prognosis: I may live to my 80's...no accidents happening. (Don't want to live FOREVER anyway!)

Benefits of Smoking: No lung worms present. Keeps anti-smoking radicals at bay. Gets me seated in a restaurant away from the crowds and obnoxious, uncontrolled kids. Calm, even-tempered, non-excitable personality. Gives me a good reason to stay off of airplanes (since they don't have smoking sections anymore). Goes well with beer and occasional rum & coke.

Disadvantages of Smoking: Possible shorter life, however years are lost at the END...not out of the middle! Can't work as hard as used to...short of breath...however, I'm "retired" and doing my own thing... ;-)

Living in the country, smelling fresh air and cattle manure: Priceless!!


TY for sharing RAB...


:shock: :shock: :shock:

The overall magnitude of lung cancer risk to humans from atmospheric radioactive fallout cannot be overstated. Before Russia, Britain and America outlawed atmospheric testing on August 5, 1963, more than 4,200 kilograms of plutonium had been discharged into the atmosphere. Because we know that less than one microgram [millionth of a single gram] of inhaled plutonium causes terminal lung cancer in a human, we therefore know that your friendly government has lofted 4,200,000,000 [4.2 Billion] lethal doses into the atmosphere, with particle radioactive half-life a minimum of 50,000 years. Frightening? Unfortunately it gets worse.

The plutonium mentioned above exists in the actual nuclear weapon before detonation, but by far the greatest number of deadly radioactive particles are those derived from common dirt or sand sucked up from the ground, and irradiated while travelling vertically through the weapon’s fireball. These particles form by far the largest part of the “smoke” in any photo of an atmospheric nuclear detonation. In most cases several tons of material are sucked up and permanently irradiated in transit, but let us be incredibly conservative and claim that only 1,000 kilograms of surface material is sucked up by each individual atmospheric nuclear test.

Before being banned by Russia, Britain and America, a total of 711 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted, thereby creating 711,000 kilograms of deadly microscopic radioactive particles, to which must be added the original 4,200 kilograms from the weapons themselves, for a gross though very conservative total of 715,200 kilograms. There are more than a million lethal doses per kilogram, meaning that your governments have contaminated your atmosphere with more than 715,000,000,000 [715 Billion] such doses, enough to cause lung or skin cancer 117 times in every man, woman and child on earth.

Before you ask, no, the radioactive particles do not just “fade away”, at least not in your lifetime or that of your children and grandchildren. With a half-life of 50,000 years or longer, these countless trillions of deadly government-manufactured radioactive particles are essentially with you forever. Circulated around the world by powerful jet streams, these particles are deposited at random, though in higher concentrations within a couple of thousand miles of the original test sites. A simple wind or other surface disturbance is all that is needed to stir them up again and create enhanced dangers for those in the vicinity.

The once-innocent activity of playfully kicking sand around on the beach in summer could nowadays easily translate to suicide, if you happen to stir up a few radioactive particles that could stick to your skin or be inhaled into your lungs. Stop poking fun at Michael Jackson when he appears at your local airport wearing a surgical mask over his nose and mouth. He may look eccentric, but Michael will almost certainly outlive most of us.
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
Say it ain't so! Does this mean cigarettes are going up in price because they protect smokers from radiation and help us to live longer?

:shock: :shock: :shock:


Professor Sterling of the Simon Fraser University in Canada is perhaps closest to the truth, where he uses research papers to reason that smoking promotes the formation of a thin mucous layer in the lungs, “which forms a protective layer stopping any cancer-carrying particles from entering the lung tissue.”

This is probably as close as we can get to the truth at present, and it does make perfect scientific sense. Deadly radioactive particles inhaled by a smoker would initially be trapped by the mucous layer, and then be ejected from the body before they could enter the tissue.

All of this may be a bit depressing for non-smokers, but there are probably one or two things you can do to minimize the risks as far as possible. Rather than shy away from smokers in your local pub or club, get as close as you can and breathe in their expensive second-hand smoke.
 

john250

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
8,301
Reaction score
0
Location
Holton, IN elevation 768 ft
Against my better judgement, I'll throw in this tidbit of research.
Back in the late '60's or early 70's, Kentucky used a .01 tax on cigs to open a research center. I visited there in the 70's on a tour.
Being Ky, the mission of this research was to discover good things about tobacco. When I visited, they had one very interesting fact. Smokers who also drink alcohol have a significantly lower incidence of cancer.
Being a practical fellow, I took that to heart. So far, I'm :banana: :welcome:
 

angie1

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
4,179
Reaction score
0
Location
minnesota
HerefordSire":2j473vld said:
I think you may have missed my point Angie
No surprise there! :lol2:

Actually, I was typing my response while you were posting your 2nd, so I never saw it. I have had neither the time nor the inclination to read the rest of it, so I do not know what it says, and cannot comment on it specifically. Regardless, I do not think smoking increases the duration of life. I think some people are genetically resistant as well as genetically vulnerable to certain diseases. I think there are variables unmentioned as well as undiscovered. I think its time to go have a cigarette.
 

MO_cows

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
1
Location
outside Kansas City MO
Wow, you sure gave us something to think about there, HS. Interesting!

Many of the city governments have enacted smoking bans around here. The only businesses with exemptions are the casinos, but hey, they can afford the right lawyers and lobbyists. You can't even smoke in bars, which is putting neighborhood and "mom and pop" places out of business. If their building or their budget doesn't allow them to create an outside smoking patio, they lose business.
 

john250

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
8,301
Reaction score
0
Location
Holton, IN elevation 768 ft
MO_cows":1z8amvp4 said:
Wow, you sure gave us something to think about there, HS. Interesting!

Many of the city governments have enacted smoking bans around here. The only businesses with exemptions are the casinos, but hey, they can afford the right lawyers and lobbyists. You can't even smoke in bars, which is putting neighborhood and "mom and pop" places out of business. If their building or their budget doesn't allow them to create an outside smoking patio, they lose business.

Smoking bans originated in NYC, under Mayor Michael Bloomberg. (Bloomberg funds "animal rights and anti-industrial ag" groups in his spare time.) I saw a report about some bars which had two "tip jars" on the counter. One for the employees and one for legal fees while they continued to permit smokers.
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
MO_cows":39ruqd2s said:
Wow, you sure gave us something to think about there, HS. Interesting!

Many of the city governments have enacted smoking bans around here. The only businesses with exemptions are the casinos, but hey, they can afford the right lawyers and lobbyists. You can't even smoke in bars, which is putting neighborhood and "mom and pop" places out of business. If their building or their budget doesn't allow them to create an outside smoking patio, they lose business.

I was in Washington a few years ago and stayed in Maryland. In the town where the hotel was located it was illegal to smoke in public. While there, my children observed two men embraced in a tongue tying good bye kiss. Unfortunately, this was not considered offensive to the community but a cigarett was. I ain't lost nothing up there.

BTW - try explaining something like this to your children.
 

Lammie

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
7,287
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
God help me, I've started smoking again and so has my spouse. We will quit again. Quitting is easy. I do it all the time.

I went without smoking for about a year and a half and them when all the nonsense with Mother started, my sister gave me a disgusting menthol cigarette and I smoked it an almost liked it. I started smoking agin the next day. Non menthol, of course. Menthol is disgusting!

No, it can't be good for you. I hear my husband wheeze in his sleep and I see his dad's beard stained by smoke... Does that mean I'll stop sometime soon? Probably not. But when I do it will be because of price and not because of my overall health concerns.
 

Running Arrow Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
3,439
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas Panhandle On US 83
john250":3iuikcye said:
Jogeephus":3iuikcye said:
BTW - try explaining something like this to your children.

That guy is a dentist, and the other guy has a loose filling.

Better than the truth. :lol:

ROFLOL!!!

How about being honest with the kids (they've heard it anyway)...

"Those are queers! Homosexuals! It's against the natural order of life and reproduction"

ROFLOL again!

No...I'm not homophobic...their money is as good as anyone's... I just don't dig all this bulls*** about "gay rights", "gay marriages", "equal status for gays", etc.

Maybe there should be some sort of activist picketing movement to obtain legal status and benefits for other varieties of bedroom behavior...

I'd better stop here before I get hate mail (from Monitors and others)...lol

:banana:
 

MO_cows

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
2,501
Reaction score
1
Location
outside Kansas City MO
I did not know that, John250. I assumed they started that in Kalifornia.

There is stupidity on both sides of the issue. The "healthier-than-thou" do-gooder crusaders really think they are saving lives and are very devoted to their cause and good vocal little activists. Never mind they are probably inhaling more carcinogens crossing the street and breathing in exhaust fumes that sitting in a room where someone smokes. On the other side, rude and inconsiderate smokers shoot themselves in the foot and screw it up for the rest. A business graciously provides an ashtray, but the ground around it is littered with butts. Driving down the highway, watch for the idiot that just holds their cigarette up to the window and lets 'er fly. Never mind there's a convertible behind them, or a motorcycle. Or a fire risk.

IMHO, It doesn't matter whether smoking is bad for your health or not. It's an issue of personal freedom to me.
 

Latest posts

Top