A discussion of ‘smokers’ black lungs’ started in the comments today. It’s the widespread belief that smokers’ lungs turn black. Rose pointed out that it all started with James I about four centuries ago. She also dug up some refutations:
“Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.” (link)
Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from examining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.” (link)
Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.” (link)
And Brigitte even found a Youtube video:
There is even this (in German) in which a forensic medic states that these “tar” lungs do not exist.
Rich White’s Smoke Screens reports the same:
This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951 – 1984. In a television interview in the 1980’s he stated that, translated from Dutch, “I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers”.
Nevertheless, the black lungs are all over cigarette packets these days.
And black lung disease (or pneumoconiosis) is a real disease. Coal miners get it.
So where does the smokers’ black lung idea come from?
Part of the answer can be found in a photo-essay on Medicinenet:
This photo essay will focus on smoker’s lung. The term “smoker’s lung” refers to the structural and functional abnormalities (diseases) in the lung caused by cigarette smoking. First, the normal structure and function of the lung will be described and illustrated. Then, the structural and functional abnormalities caused by smoking will be described and illustrated.
A bit further on the effect of emphysema on lungs is described.
As a result, emphysema also disrupts the normal blood supply. Figure 4 contrasts the nasty appearance of a smoker’s emphysematous lung with a normal lung.
Figure 4: SMOKER’S AND NON-SMOKER’S LUNGS
So it’s emphysema that causes the nasty appearance of a smoker’s emphysematous lung.
As you can imagine, cigarette smoke contains many impurities that are inhaled in great numbers directly into the lung. For this reason, the alveolar spaces of the smoker contain numerous scavenger cells (macrophages) that are filled with engulfed (phagocytized) particles of impurities and debris, as illustrated in Figure 5.
Under the microscope, with this high magnification, you can actually see the black and brown engulfed particles in the alveolar scavenger cells. Indeed, smoker’s lung may have so much of this particulate material that the lung looks gray-black to the naked eye. So, most of the time, you don’t need a microscope to tell if someone is or was a heavy smoker. A naked eye examination of a smoker’s lung usually will reveal an enlarged gray-black lung with enlarged air spaces (the emphysema, as you saw in Figure 4 and will see again in Figure 8).
I’m not sure why people are asked to ‘imagine’ what’s in tobacco smoke. But since the emphysematous lung has simply been renamed the ‘smoker’s lung’, maybe it’s necessary to explain why it’s turned grey-black. And it’s that imaginary stuff in tobacco smoke that is conjured up to explain it.
The lie hinges on first asserting that smoking causes emphysema (it may do, or it may not), and secondly asserting that emphysema turns lungs grey-black (it probably does), and then finally dropping the connecting middle term of ’emphysema’, and asserting that smoking turns lungs grey-black. Or it’s just calling emphysematous lungs ‘smokers’ lungs’.
A parallel false ascription might be found elsewhere. People who visit Delhi may get food poisoning from ingesting bacteria. The food poisoning may cause vomiting and so on. But if the ‘bacteria’ link is missed out, and the malady is just called ‘Delhi belly’ (as it often is), it may mislead people into believing that it’s visiting Delhi (or Indian restaurants) which is the root of the trouble – although in fact most visitors to Delhi (and Indian restaurants) don’t suffer such ill-effects, and there are lots of other places in the world other than Delhi where you can contract ‘Delhi belly’.
It’s a thoroughly dishonest and disreputable mis-attribution of a disease. It pins the disease on a particular social group: smokers. And it makes it their disease, and nobody else’s – even though not everyone who gets emphysema is a smoker, and not all smokers get emphysema. But at least we may now see why pathologists aren’t finding grey-black smokers’ lungs: they didn’t have emphysema.
But this doesn’t seem to be the only way the black lung lie is propagated. There are also the pigs’ lungs used in demonstrations. I even found an ad for one:
The accompanying text helpfully explains:
The inflatable swine lungs have been stained realistically and then specially preserved by the BioFlex odorless, nontoxic process that retains the texture and elasticity of fresh lungs. The lungs dramatically and unforgettably demonstrate the effects of prolonged smoking. A palpable simulated internal tumor and a physical simulated external tumor encourage students to feel the texture of the lungs, and to remember that smoking is a known cause of lung cancer.
So firstly they’re pig lungs. And secondly they’ve been preserved and stained realistically. And simulated internal and external tumours have been added. And all to demonstrate the effects of prolonged smoking! It beggars belief.
No doubt the students aren’t told any of this, and are led to believe that they’re looking at real human ‘smokers’ lungs’.
There are even discussions of the effectiveness of such imagery.
Marketing researchers at the University of Arkansas, Villanova University and Marquette University surveyed more than 500 U.S. and Canadian smokers and found that the highly graphic images of the negative consequences of smoking have the greatest impact on smokers’ intentions to quit. The most graphic images, such as those showing severe mouth diseases, including disfigured, blackened and cancerous tissue, evoked fear about the consequences of smoking and thus influenced consumer intentions to quit.
“These results suggest that there appears to be little downside on intentions to quit from using extremely graphic pictorial depictions of the negative health outcomes due to smoking,” said Scot Burton, co-author of the study and marketing professor in the Sam M. Walton College of Business.
In fact, there may be a downside from using such graphic images, if they have been fraudulently obtained (a consideration which doesn’t appear to have crossed the minds of the marketing researchers). And we’ve just established two methods by which they are fraudulently obtained.
And the downside is that, when it is shown that they’re fraudulent, the people who publish them will be accused of fraud, of twisting logic and manufacturing evidence. And when that happens, people will cease to believe not just the fraudulent evidence they have produced, but everything else that they assert too. They will lose all their credibility. Nobody will believe a word they say.
That’s quite a big downside, I think. And it’s a downside that doesn’t even seem to have occurred to them.
It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the mass media that help propagate these lies that people will cease to believe a word they say either.
Nor does it seem to have occurred to the medical profession which allows these lies to be propagated unchallenged that people will cease to believe them too.
There’s an awful lot of downside waiting to go down.
Update: The lying is deliberate. From the Delaware News Journal:
Pankiw described the centerpiece of his anti-smoking display as the diseased lung of a 150-pound man who smoked for 15 years. Actually, it was a pig’s lung shot full of various carcinogens on purpose, but, Pankiw said later, his lesson was made stronger by not passing along that tidbit of truth.
And furthermore smokers’ lungs are routinely used in lung transplants:
Half of donor lungs come from smokers: Fifth are from people with 20-a-day habits.
Smokers’ Lungs OK’d for Transplant
Donor lungs from smokers led to transplant outcomes similar to those involving lungs of nonsmokers, British transplant specialists reported.
Frank Davis 
The Black Pig Lung Hoax
It was an outright bald-faced lie.
“Pankiw described the centerpiece of his anti-smoking display as the diseased lung of a 150-pound man who smoked for 15 years. Actually, it was a pig’s lung shot full of various carcinogens on purpose, but, Pankiw said later, his lesson was made stronger by not passing along that tidbit of truth.”
The Black Pig Lung Hoax
Here is an “oldie but goodie”. This is the article everyone always talks about, but is so difficult to find: April 5, 2001. It was an outright bald-faced lie.
“Pankiw described the centerpiece of his anti-smoking display as the diseased lung of a 150-pound man who smoked for 15 years. Actually, it was a pig’s lung shot full of various carcinogens on purpose, but, Pankiw said later, his lesson was made stronger by not passing along that tidbit of truth.”
SMOKERS LUNGS USED IN TRANSPLANTS
Chris Watson, vice president of the British Transplantation Society, told CNN that 49 percent of last year’s lung donors in the UK were smokers.
“We’re not in the luxurious position in transplantation to turn down organs because they’re not absolutely perfect — there are very few perfect organs,” he said.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-15/he…
…
Amazing ehh!
Only $152.00 American
Smokefree and Smoker’s Lung
Product size: 61 x 48.5 cm Order code: M159
Simple but effective way of showing how smoking damages the lungs. Comparing the air sacs of the lungs to bubble wrap, this 3D model of 2 lungs shows the bronchial air passages into two bubble wrap lungs. The smokefree lung is pink and healthy with all the air sacs intact. The smoker lung is black from tar, has holes burned into the air sacs to represent emphysema and has cancerous growths and a pool of phlegm. The background chart explains the differences between the smokefree and smoker lungs and this is explored further with a handout called Love your lungs. The box is covered with an acrylic cover and ready to hang.
http://www.gasp.org.uk/p-smokefree-and-smoker-s-lung.htm
Yep! Harley’s got it perfect! I talked about it in Brains too:
===
To be sure, positive emotions are not the only ones that can be appealed to. Fear and disgust work just as well in the hands of a skilled manipulator. One Crusader, a feeder at the public trough of Delaware National Guard’s Counterdrug Task Force, likes to scare impressionable children by holding up a blackened, bloody, and diseased looking lung in classrooms while explaining that the cancerous thing came from a man who had smoked for just 15 years.
In reality, it is simply a pig’s lung shot full of carcinogens and prepared carefully to look disgusting, gruesome, and scary… not a human lung at all. The National Guard Captain explained to the reporter covering the story that his lesson was made stronger “by not passing along that tidbit of truth” (James Merriweather. Delaware News Journal. 04/05/01).
=====
btw, those pics on the emphysema lungs? The only reason the “smoker’s lung” looks any grosser than the nonsmoker’s lung that I could see what that they’d colored it red so it looked like blood.
– MJM
These “experts” have their own version of reality, created by deluded minds, missionary zeal, and Adobe Photoshop. The link below is about diabetes, but the tobacco ads are equally bogus (e.g., the corpse on a table in the morgue is a live actor playing a part, just like a TV show). Screwballs exaggerate everything; they simply can’t stick to the facts.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22Blame+Photoshop%22/
Hope the link works; non-subscribers only get limited access to the website.
This is a subject that greatly interests me, but information is very hard to find / unearth. There are references to where images have been posed or photoshopped for the warning labels on cigarette packets, but I can only seem to scratch the surface. There was this article in The Washington Times for instance:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/21/hurt-no-ifs-ands-or-butts-fda-warning-photos-faked/?page=all#pagebreak
I wrote to the author, Charles Hunt, asking if he had any more info, or if he could point me to the agency contracted to supply the images, but received no reply. To be honest, given the attitude to smokers and smoking in the US, I wasn’t altogether surprised at the lack of response to my email. For all I know he might well be a rabid anti who thinks that the photoshopped images are a great idea, and would rather poke himself in the eye with a sharp stick than point me to any damning evidence of chicanery.
The black lung thing seems to be the only one that can be completely verified as a fake image. So far.
I keep digging, in the hope I’ll strike gold one day!
I doubt if it’s ever possible to find out whether a particular photo is of the real thing or of something that looks like the real thing. Probably Hunt doesn’t know either. But judging by the attitude of the market research people, they’re just looking for impact rather than honesty.
Like the honesty we’ve received all these years from the tobacco industry? I’m an ex smoker and the tobacco used to make cigs is tampered with and full of harmful poisonous chemicals that are prob responsible for lung disease. Tobacco is a master plant(look it up if you don’t know) and has many healing properties.
Sergio balasco:
wonder, what could possibly expect a researcher who would announce that really occasional smoking hasn`t any measurable health effect? Probably it would mean the end of his career as scientist.
The tobacco industry’s ‘honesty’ is about as good as all advertisements about anything says.
Tobacco control’s “honesty” is far more sinister.
There’s always the picture of ‘Brian’, who the cig. packets claimed to have died of lung cancer but was actually suffering AIDS.
I had an idea a while ago. It goes something like this.
You print “If this Lie is acceptable…
Then you have the picture of the lungs and caption from the anti-smoking warning above.
Then you print …is this truth acceptable?”
Show a picture of your favourite anti-smoker with the caption “Dissembling, deceitful, amoral waste of public money space and oxygen.”
have you ever the heard the term “fight fire with fire” bc when you deal with such corrupt entities as the cig companies that’s pretty much in my opinion the only way to deal with them .
Sergoi balasco, so you do admit that the tobacco control industry is a LIAR?
The tobacco industry just advertised it’s product like any other company would. What does the tobacco control industry do? What product are they trying to sell?
Pharmaceuticals!
The “black lung” myth is just one of the inflammatory myths by the “society-fixer” fanatics/zealots/extremists. Another that was highlighted a few threads ago is the “Chapman Trick”, aggressively attempting to convince particularly nonsmokers that they are being “poisoned” by smokers, exposed to vaporized ant poison, toilet cleaner, rocket fuel, car battery fluid, anti-freeze, etc. through SHS.
See comments sections:
What other than dangerously disturbed minds would want to fraudulently convince a larger group that a minority group is recklessly “poisoning” them?
If we consider the Godber Blueprint, through the 80s, the fanatics dispensed with claims remotely tied to facts. They promoted using highly inflammatory terms such as “poison”, “toxic”, “kill”, “death” that went far beyond the implications of statistical information. The fanatics played very much to the media; they advocated slogans, not for their truthfulness but for their attention-grabbing potential, i.e., propaganda It’s a constant play on fear and hatred in fostering aversion/revulsion to the “undesirable” behavior (e.g., smoking). There it is plainly in the Chapman Trick – “Look for usages that will connote revulsion or concern”. The goal of inflammatory propaganda is to coerce/terrify/terrorize targeted groups into [social engineered] conformity.
And we also know that the adoption of the fanatics’ perverse fantasy world is financially lucrative for government through extortionate taxes. The fanatics themselves also demand a cut of those taxes to further “educate” the public and keep these disturbed minds in comfortable emplyment; and Gigantic Pharma fuels the derangement in “cultivating a market” for its useless “cessation wares”. There are quite a number of groups financially profiting from this fraud. In other industries it would be referred to as racketeering.
The fanatics indeed need to be outed for their major, much repeated, inflammatory lies. The questions also need to be asked as to what sort of mentality would justify seriously messing with people’s minds in order to impose their baseless preferences, and what sort of mentality would accept this derangement as ‘wise counsel”? There is more than ample evidence from the last few hundred years that the rabid antismoking mentality is a serious mental disorder. It’s a masquerade for deep-seated conflict. It represents a cluster of dysfunction not limited to acute fixation (monomania), Narcissism (self-absorbed), obsession with control (megalomania), histrionics, rage, and a “god complex” – delusions of grandeur, infallibility, and benevolence. These dysfunctions avoid correction – are held together – through pathological lying. It should be obvious that propagandists have absolutely no regard for mental health; the manipulation of belief (promoting mental dysfunction) is simply a means to a questionable end.
Frank…… dear Frank, my comment has ended up in “the can” again. Could you please check.
I’ve provided some excerpts below from the “sweet” work by Adolf on the art of propaganda. Adolf didn’t invent propaganda, but he was an excellent student of the art of mass manipulation. See if you can recognize in these excerpts the activity of contemporary antismoking. Godber and his cronies declared war on the tobacco industry and tobacco users, i.e., defined as “the enemy”, back in the 1970s, continuing a eugenics tradition. In war, all those not supporting you or that are defending the enemy are also “the enemy”. Only the position of antismoking, which seeks the eradication of tobacco-use from the world, is heroic, righteous, and moral. Look at the Godber Blueprint. You will see such words used in antismoker documents. There is the recommendation of using highly inflammatory terms and slogans (not implied by data). This is not science but the propaganda of political activism. “Creative epidemiology” is the same thing; the Chapman Trick, the same thing; “black lung”, the same thing; “what do they need to hear to persuade/cause/force them to make it happen?”, the same thing – salesmen of derangement for ideological and financial profit. The propaganda goal is to play on the emotions, particularly of nonsmokers – typically irrational fear, revulsion, and hatred – and to give the gullible a sense of promoting a “better world” by enthusiastically boarding the bandwagon and parroting the rhetoric.
I have been saying the same for ages. Maybe not as articulately as you though. Brilliant.
Excerpts from Mein Kampf (Adolf Hitler) Chapter 6: War Propaganda
The situation is the same in regard to what we understand by the word, propaganda. The purpose of propaganda is not the personal instruction of the individual, but rather to attract public attention to certain things, the importance of which can be brought home to the masses only by this means.
Here the art of propaganda consists in putting a matter so clearly and forcibly before the minds of the people as to create a general conviction regarding the reality of a certain fact, the necessity of certain things and the just character of something that is essential. But as this art is not an end in itself and because its purpose must be exactly that of the advertisement poster, to attract the attention of the masses and not by any means to dispense individual instructions to those who already have an educated
opinion on things or who wish to form such an opinion on grounds of objective study–because that is not the purpose of propaganda, it must appeal to the feelings of the public rather than to their reasoning powers. (p.155-156)
The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. That this is not understood by those among us whose wits are supposed to have been sharpened to the highest pitch is only another proof of their vanity or mental inertia.
Once we have understood how necessary it is to concentrate the persuasive forces of propaganda on the broad masses of the people, the following lessons result therefrom:
That it is a mistake to organize the direct propaganda as if it were a manifold system of scientific instruction. (p.156)
The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. If this principle be forgotten and if an attempt be made to be abstract and general, the propaganda will turn out ineffective; for the public will not be able to digest or retain what is offered to them in this way. Therefore, the greater the scope of the message that has to be presented, the more necessary it is for the propaganda to discover that plan of action which is psychologically the most efficient. (p.156)
The worst of all was that our people did not understand the very first condition which has to be fulfilled in every kind of propaganda; namely, a systematically one-sided attitude towards every problem that has to be dealt with.(p.157)
The aim of propaganda is not to try to pass judgment on conflicting rights, giving each its due, but exclusively to emphasize the right which we are asserting. Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (p.158)
The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. As soon as our own propaganda made the slightest suggestion that the enemy had a certain amount of justice on his side, then we laid down the basis on which the justice of our own cause could be questioned. The masses are not in a position to discern where the enemy’s fault ends and where our own begins. In such a case they become hesitant and distrustful, especially when the enemy does not make the same mistake but heaps all the blame on his adversary.(p.158)
No matter what an amount of talent employed in the organization of propaganda, it will have no result if due account is not taken of these fundamental principles. Propaganda must be limited to a few simple themes and these must be represented again and again. Here, as in innumerable other cases, perseverance is the first and most important condition of success. (p.159)
It is not the purpose of propaganda to create a series of alterations in sentiment with a view to pleasing these blase gentry. Its chief function is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time in order that they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on the memory of the crowd.
Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. In this way alone can propaganda be consistent and dynamic in its effects.
Only by following these general lines and sticking to them steadfastly, with uniform and concise emphasis, can final success be reached. Then one will be rewarded by the surprising and almost incredible results that such a persistent policy secures. (p.160-161)
No matter what an amount of talent employed in the organization of propaganda, it will have no result if due account is not taken of these fundamental principles. Propaganda must be limited to a few simple themes and these must be represented again and again. Here, as in innumerable other cases, perseverance is the first and most important condition of success. (p.159)
Jun 27, 2006 – … There is No Safe Level of Second-Hand Smoke : The U.S. Surgeon General, … RICHARD CARMONA: The first report on this subject was issued by one of …. a smoking section, and you’re sitting in the non-smoking section.
Hitler would be proud!
“No safe level” of tobacco smoke is another much-repeated inflammatory myth, and it didn’t originate with the Office of the Surgeon-General. An early reference to “no safe level” is in 1992 – see Godber Blueprint. It’s often the case that claims that eventually make it through to the public were originally floated at the World Conferences on Smoking or Health.
Working Papers in Support of the 8th World Conference on Tobacco or Health: Building a Tobacco-Free World. March 30 – April 3, 1992
Buenos Aires, Argentina
The scientific evidence linking ETS to death and disease is clear and overwhelming : There is no safe level of exposure for the carcinogens found in tobacco smoke. Victims of ETS are called involuntary smokers or passive smokers . The only way to protect people from the dangers of ETS is to keep tobacco smoke out of our indoor air . The prevention of involuntary exposure to ETS should be a priority for tobacco control advocates worldwide. (p.79)
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hoc28a99
Just in these few lines is much revealed. The fanatics are referring to “clear and overwhelming” evidence a year before even the [fraudulent] EPA Report on ETS. They’re already referring to “victims” of ETS. They’re using another inflammatory myth of “passive smokers”. And, they’re making the fraudulent claim of “no safe level of exposure for the carcinogens found in tobacco smoke”.
And there’s another important point. Although attempting to manufacture ETS “danger”, the title of the conference betrays the actual social-engineering intent – BUILDING A TOBACCO-FREE WORLD.
Only a low income with a matching low IQ would cite Hitler…any other role models? Stalin? Xerxes? Vlad the Impaler?
You are so concerned about “propaganda” yet are such a tool for the tobacco conglomerates…hypocrisy in full force.
O/T but wow
Bailout funds for the EU in 2013
Mark Urbo
So let’s see here in rough round numbers: € Billions [b]
€175 b Immediate for Greece (Gov.)
€100 b Immediate for Spain (Banks)
€010 b Immediate for Cyprus (Gov.) [Maybe Russia?]
€010 b Before end of ‘12 for Ireland (Gov. & Banks & Debt)
€010 b Before end of ‘12 for Portugal (Gov. & Banks & Debt)
€075 b Before end of ‘12 for Greece (Gov. & Banks)
€500 b Before end of ‘12 for Spain (Gov. & Regions)
€300 b Before end of ‘12 for Italy (Gov. & Banks)
€100 b Before end of ‘12 for Other (Gov., Banks, Debt Mgmt)
€050 b 2013 for Ireland (Gov. & Banks)
€050 b 2013 for Portugal (Gov. & Banks)
€200 b 2013 for Greece (Gov. & Banks)
€300 b 2013 for Spain (Gov. & Banks)
€500 b 2013 for Italy (Gov. & Banks)
€150 b 2013 for Other (Gov., Banks, Debt Mgmt)
——————————————————————————-
€2.53 trillion Total (Est. thru 2013)
Is this about right ? Missing something ?? Where is this going to come from ???
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-05/monti-warns-germany-that-euro-crisis-threatens-europe-s-future.html#
Frank theyve already stolen all the private pension fund money pretty much. The Euro and American dollar swaps have been going on for quite some time now to shore up the EURO value. The IMF World bank have been begging for more bailout funds from Owebummer and this last January Owebama had promised up to 4 trillion in EU bailout funds but now I cant find any of that story anywhere on the net! Something is up…………
The Eurozone Crisis and the Future of Monetary Unions
Michael Jeffers
6 August 2012
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/the-eurozone-crisis-and-the-future-of-monetary-unions?nocache=1#comment-7564
What this means for NAFTA, MERCOSUR, ASEAN, and other organisations is that they may never evolve into highly integrated entities like the EU. This will surely turn out to be a blessing given that these areas function perfectly well without a single currency anyway. Rather than form monetary unions, they will learn lessons from the eurozone and keep their own currencies as safeguards against the poor fiscal policies of their neighbours so that when a crisis does occur, they will not be exposed to the same level of contagion and will not find themselves bailing out weaker member states. The free trade areas will remain but governments will be likely to be wary of integrating further.
You finally tipped your hand. The black helicopters will be coming for you any time…. but maybe you’ll die from lung cancer first.
Interesting Bloomberg link. But where do all those numbers come from?
Do I detect a trace of visible compassion at last?
Hospital’s smoking ban up for review
“We discourage smoking because it is very harmful to health, but at the same time we recognise that many smokers are addicted and will feel they need a cigarette while at the hospital, especially if someone they care about is extremely unwell.
“We also don’t like to see patients from the wards leaving the site to stand on street corners in the cold and rain.
“It’s a subject that many people have strong views on and we want to hear both sides – in particular, whether or not people think the current policy is working and, if not, what we should do about it.”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/hospital-s-smoking-ban-up-for-review-1-4806473
It’s not your fault.
Patients face discharge from hospital in total smoking ban – 2005
“Patients caught smoking inside or outside hospitals face being discharged under new government legislation, which will abolish hospital smoking rooms and encourage a total ban in all grounds.
The controversial “zero tolerance” plans are part of a new Bill, which will make all hospitals smoke-free by the end of 2006.
In London, the deadline will be a year earlier, health officials announced last week.
Patients too frail to endure low temperatures outside will be offered “nicotine replacement therapy” in the form of gum and patches. Other measures will include putting up “older person” signs around hospitals for patients crossing busy roads to smoke.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/patients-face-discharge-from-hospital-in-total-smoking-ban-491654.html
“There will be no trouble at all.
The smokers, meek as lambs, will either stand obediently outside or refrain from smoking”
“..you will find you have become part of a sad, excluded, sheepish army of no-hopers, the huddled masses who loiter, sucking deeply on their drug of choice.”
But the only place they really do that, having no other option, is outside your hospital and such treatment of the elderly and the sick reflects so badly on the NHS.
They didn’t carry the public with them,did they? Forgot that smokers love and are loved by non-smoking family and friends who don’t appreciate you making Grandad stand outside the hospital grounds at the side of the road in his pyjamas.
I know you didn’t want to do it, but they made you.
They’ve gone now, they were thrown out of government two years ago.
The ban on patients and visitors smoking in hospital grounds is a disguised request and cannot be enforced. In practice, it applies only to hospital employees, who face disciplnary action for ignoring it. Not that these facts make the hospitals sentiments and actions any less despicable.
Do I detect a trace of visible compassion at last?
Hospital’s smoking ban up for review
I wish we could think of compassion, although compassion would not be out of place. In 2007 I managed to tear a ligament in my thumb which required surgery and one overnight stay in a local hospital. Coming round from the anesthetics, naturally I made my way to get some coffee (from a nurse I know on another ward there) and tried to venture outside for a smoke. I ended up asking one of the porters for a halfways decent smoking place – lucky for me he was a smoker and helped me out.
Back on the ward the old lady in the bed next to me all of a sudden spoke: “Have you been for a smoke?” I wish I could do that but I can’t walk….”
For a moment I was baffled – then I just said: “right, we can sort this!!!” I nicked one of the hospital wheel chairs from the next ward, with the help of another patient we managed to seat the old lady comfortably and, using my left hand and the plaster cast up to my elbow on my right hand, pushing her past the nurses station. One of the nurses there asked what I was doing, so I told them, that the lady would like nothing more than to just have a cigarette and that she can have one now with me!!!
I expected an argument – instead I received help, pushing the old lady to where I told the nurse to and we both stayed out there for quite a few smokes and a really good chat.
I have often since thought about her and I hope there were others who did show some compassion for this old smoker.
The smoking ban in hospital grounds has never worked; the porter who helped me find a halfways decent smoking place also told me that they (the porters) were told to police it, which they refused point blank, saying: “I most certainly will not approach ANYONE smoking; for all I know they might have been with a dying relative to the end – who would be so insensitive?” I answered at that point in time: “well, ask our Labour friends, they obviously do not have a problem with that”.
Pingback: What’s Tobacco Control’s Biggest Lie? | Frank Davis
Pingback: The truth behind the smoker’s lung pictures — they’re fake « Churchmouse Campanologist
Pingback: Perception Management | Frank Davis
Pingback: The Black Lung Mystery | Frank Davis
Pingback: Going Viral | Frank Davis
Reblogged this on The Boar & Bones Inn and commented:
Cercando di sfatare uno dei tanti miti che girano per la rete ho trovato questo articolo molto interessante sui famosi “polmoni da fumatore”.
And furthermore smokers’ lungs are routinely used in lung transplants:
In the UK donors with a positive smoking history provide nearly 40% of the lungs available for transplantation, according to the study’s lead author Professor Robert Bonser, of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham and University of Birmingham. He said in a press statement: “Our data show that patients awaiting lung transplantation in the UK are likely to survive longer if they are willing to accept lungs from any suitable donor, irrespective of smoking history…
I don’t really see the point you’re trying to make here. If it came down to flat out dying or getting a damaged (whether or not smoking damages lungs or not) body part and surviving longer, I’m pretty sure almost everyone would chose to take the damaged body part. Of course they’d survive longer if they’re willing to accept lungs from a larger pool of donors. I’d rather have an old junker for a car than to have no car.
I don’t really see the point you’re trying to make here. If it came down to flat out dying or getting a damaged (whether or not smoking damages lungs or not) body part and surviving longer, I’m pretty sure almost everyone would chose to take the damaged body part.
What “damaged” body part would you choose? Are you sure you would undergo the same again once you heard you could have an “undamaged” part, even though the implanted “damaged” part works perfectly well?
Are we looking at recipients having the option of wasting well meant donations, thus depriving others the option of survival?
– Double-lung transplants can be successful with donor lungs from heavy smokers.
– Short-term and long-term survival rates are not necessarily impacted by donor smoking status.
http://respiratory-care-sleep-medicine.advanceweb.com/News/Daily-News-Watch/Lungs-from-Heavy-Smokers-Can-Be-Safe-for-Double-Transplant.aspx
However, we smokers can simply be asked to stop donating organs.
Just someone explain this (same article!!!!)
Death from malignancy is no greater in recipients who received lungs from carefully selected heavy smokers.
and
He added that communication is also very important. “We need to discuss with potential recipients the possible higher risk of developing lung cancer and obtain an informed consent specific for heavy smoking history,” he said.
Clearly here we have contradicting information.
Can you lot make up your mind? In my family we hold no donor cards anymore as we do not wish to disrespectfully treated by anti-smoker’s media hate campaigns in times of grief.
What we give is not to be wasted and less even to be classified as second best. I will not allow you to treat me as “second best” in life; less even after my death.
I don’t really see the point you’re trying to make here. ,/i>
This is something I would like to ask you.
I don’t really see the point you’re trying to make here.
This is something I would like to ask you.
Pingback: THE CLUB’S AIMS AND OBJECTIVES | Bolton Smokers Club
Pingback: Blog Books | Frank Davis
Pingback: Crna pušačka pluća – dobro smišljena laž za strašenje pušača i dezinformiranje javnosti | Matrix World
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite
Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.
By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.
Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.
What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.
“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………
Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!
The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:
Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.
146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.
A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.
Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
Human lungs ‘brush’ themselves clean of contaminants
Friday, September 07, 2012 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
Human lungs contain a tiny network of constantly moving “brushes” that flush contaminants out of the respiratory system, according to research conducted by scientists from the University of North Carolina and published in the journal Science.
Scientists have known for a long time that the respiratory system protects itself by means of a coating of mucus, which is sticky enough to trap pollutants and keep them from reaching the body’s cells. When needed, the body can expel this mucus through a runny nose or a cough.
“The air we breathe isn’t exactly clean, and we take in many dangerous elements with every breath,” said lead researcher Michael Rubinstein.
“We need a mechanism to remove all the junk we breathe in, and the way it’s done is with a very sticky gel, called mucus, that catches these particles and removes them with the help of tiny cilia. The cilia are constantly beating, even while we sleep.
“In a coordinated fashion, they push mucus, containing foreign objects, out of the lungs, and we either swallow it or spit it out. These cilia even beat for a few hours after we die. If they stopped, we’d be flooded with mucus that provides a fertile breeding ground for bacteria.”
But until now, researchers have never understood why the mucus does not stick to or even infiltrate the respiratory cells themselves. The foremost theory, known as the “gel-on-liquid model,” posited that an as-yet-undiscovered watery “periciliary” layer kept mucus and cilia separate. The problem with this theory was always that to the best of scientific knowledge, mucus should eventually dissolve into such a watery layer, not remain separate.
“We can’t have a watery layer separating sticky mucus from our cells because there is an osmotic pressure in the mucus that causes it to expand in water,” Rubinstein says. “So what is really keeping the mucus from sticking to our cells?”
“Gel-on-brush”
To get to the bottom of the mystery, the researchers used modern imaging techniques to examine the interior of the lungs. They found a dense network of brush-like structures that sit atop the cilia. These brushes are composed of protective molecules that keep both mucus and contaminants from getting to the respiratory cells beneath. These molecules also function as a second line of defense against viruses or bacteria that manage to penetrate the mucus.
Stephen Spiro of the British Lung Foundation said the findings could help significantly improve scientific understanding of lung function.
“Mucus has a complex biological make-up and forms a vital part of the lungs’ defense mechanism,” he said.
“Research such as this helps our understanding [of] how this system works, and of the complex mechanisms deep within our lungs which protect us from the atmosphere we breathe in.”
Rubinstein and his fellow researchers noted that their findings may also explain previously mysterious lung disorders from asthma to cystic fibrosis (CF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These diseases may stem from a collapse of the protective brushes.
“We found that there is a specific condition, below which the brush is healthy and cells are happy,” Rubinstein said. “But above this ideal condition, in diseases like CF or COPD, the brush becomes compressed and actually prevents the normal cilia beating and healthy flow of mucus.”
In such conditions, the mucus would then stick directly to the lung’s cells.
“The collapse of this brush is what can lead to immobile mucus and result in infection, inflammation and eventually the destruction of lung tissue and the loss of lung function,” Rubinstein said. “But our new model should guide researchers to develop novel therapies to treat lung diseases and provide them with biomarkers to track the effectiveness of those therapies.”
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037099_lungs_contaminants_respiratory_system.html#ixzz25oTsdUCA
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037099_lungs_contaminants_respiratory_system.html#ixzz25oTcQn3Y
I am surprised at all of this. Has anyone here been a smoker? My mom smoked a pack a day for twenty years and she constantly coughed up grey/black matter. She eventually quit and her withdrawals were horrendous. After that, she felt better than she had in that 20 years. Her lung functions improved dramatically. The images may or may not be zdoctored”, but smoking is incredibly dangerous, jt as breathing in any combustable material would be. The same goes for smoking pot. I smoked pot for a long time and coughed up nasty stuff every morning. So, I totally get the over hype, but, smoking isn’t safe, again, just as smoking a newspaper isn’t good, or smoking an actual tree branch. Carcinogens come mainly from burning carbon, which is in everything organic. This link is simply about barbecue carcinogens. If one is smoking more than their lungs can eliminate by coughing, it will build up. http://chemistry.about.com/b/2013/05/05/barbeque-carcinogens.htm
Rotz,
he eventually quit and her withdrawals were horrendous.
Ah, REALLY???? How come I could not be arsed looking for a smoking area after 15 hours not smoking? It’s supposed to be an addiction and cold sweat is supposed to kick in….
In actual fact I had another flight for 1 1/2 hours at the end and after that I picked up my car, not arsed about a smoke all the way home. But then, I made a pot of REAL coffee and finally lit up.
If one is smoking more than their lungs can eliminate by coughing, it will build up.
You, I and the rest of the world know that this is bullsh*t.
“Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests.
A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes.
Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer.
The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3106039.stm
Don’t fret over list of cancer ‘risks’
http://www.dispatch.com/…/…r-list-ofcancer-risks.html
“We are being bombarded” with messages about the dangers posed by common things in our lives, yet most exposures “are not at a level that are going to cause cancer,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer.
Linda Birnbaum agrees. She is a toxicologist who heads the government agency that just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk.
“Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam,” she said. Levels of styrene that leach from food containers “are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting,” where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.
Carcinogens are things that can cause cancer, but that label doesn’t mean that they will or that they pose a risk to anyone exposed to them in any amount at any time.
Now,Im glad to see the ACS admitting to the dose response relationship finally!
So now we understand why the following is factual:
are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting,” where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.
ETS between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers
http://www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthia/article/7458828
OSHA the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded
JUST AMAZING ISNT IT
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..
They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.
They concluded that:
All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes
“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes
“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
Pingback: Hard Core Addicts and Contrarians | Frank Davis
Pingback: Does Tobacco Cause Cancer? | solar9wave
As a vaper myself I don’t want to start a flame war here but I use to work in pathology and yes that means I’ve seen a few autopsies in my time. All the old chronic smokers that ended up on the slab I’m afraid to say had blackened lungs. Not pitch black but certainly a dark greyish colour. In fact if they were fresh you could even squeeze the tar out of them.
Just saying.
Well they wouldn’t have been a nice healthy pink colour if they were dead, would they? When I saw my non-smoking dead mother, she was a rather greyish colour too.
Frank, when I saw my 17 year old little brother (non-smoker), he, too, was of a a greyish colour.
All dead people look like that. Even when a car runs them over.
…but I use to work in pathology and yes that means I’ve seen a few autopsies in my time. All the old chronic smokers that ended up on the slab I’m afraid to say had blackened lungs.
“OLD chronic smokers”? I thought smoking kills? Old age certainly kills, we are designed that way!
In fact if they were fresh you could even squeeze the tar out of them.
REALLY?
Nice try to cause a rift between tobacco smokers and vapers. Doesn’t work, though.
We’re fools to make war
On our brothers in arms
That’s unbelievable – never realized they done this. That’s pretty interesting about the pigs lungs being dyed to ‘simulate’ the supposed real thing. I wonder how long this will be kept quit for. Thanks for sharing this.
Pingback: The Tobacco Control Lie Machine | Frank Davis
OMG really? You people need to find another conspiracy to lap up. I searched for a few of the names above and they were all lap dogs for big tobacco like 40 or 50 years ago. Those are the guys who had reason to lie. They were bought and paid for by tobacco money. The fact that one or a few guys made displays with dyed pig lungs shouldn’t be a surprise. Few people would be able to get a set of diseased human lungs for display. It certainly doesn’t indicate conspiracy. Further, emphysema is not a “disease”. It is a description of conditions which can arise in the lungs. – Anybody want to guess what the leading cause of emphysema is?
I appreciate that y’all like to smoke but finding an “anti-smoking conspiracy” is like saying the holocaust didn’t happen, we never landed on the moon, or that the earth is actually flat.
I’ve searched the text on this page for the word “conspiracy”, and your comment is the only one in which the word appears (three times, to be exact). So who’s the conspiracy theorist around here?
“I appreciate that y’all like to smoke but finding an “anti-smoking conspiracy” is like saying the holocaust didn’t happen, we never landed on the moon, or that the earth is actually flat.”
Fletcher, you need to read a bit more in the field. I spent the first fifty pages of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” explaining that main thrust of the antismoking movement was clearly NOT a simple conspiracy, but instead was a sort of “perfect storm” formed by individual and separate people and groups of people with very different motivations who simply happen to be “moving in the same direction” for their own individual reasons.
Yes, they have SOME degree of coordination from the big boys at the top: those multimillion dollar international “Smoke Free” conferences with their thousands of paid participants planning out future strategies have an impact, but it’s certainly not a “conspiracy” in the classic meaning of the word.
Heh, actually, your “lap dogs for Big Tobacco” thing is more of a conspiracy theory than what you’re criticizing. Basically the Antismokers like to take ANYONE who writes or acts in favor of Free Choice and try to write them off as BigT shills/lackeys/lap-dogs/dupes, whatever. When Dave Kuneman and I carried out research in 2005 showing the falsehood behind the “smoking bans reduce heart attacks” studies, the SmokeScam people had no valid critcism of our actual research, but they DID mark Dave down as a “tobacco industry researcher” because he worked as a soda-flavoring chemist at a soda company twenty years in the past (and the company was bought and sold by PM or RJR at some point when he was there.)
If you want to point at conspiracy theories… look to the Antis rather than the Free Choicers Fletch.
– MJM
Pingback: Opinion Formation | Frank Davis
Pingback: Various Headlines | Frank Davis
Pingback: Об антитабачном терроре | Зеленоград интернет журнал ZeGrand.ru
Pingback: Global Resistance | Frank Davis
Pingback: Do you smoke? - Page 2
Pingback: The Gift Of Beauty | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG
Pingback: Half of donor lungs come from smokers:
Pingback: An Open Letter to MPs About Smoking in Cars | The Freedom2Choose Official Blog
Pingback: Inevitable Resistance | Frank Davis
It’s sickening that people would lie to get attention to their cause like this, however having come from a family of smokers and seen one family member die from Lung Cancer, 2 others from smoking related cancers, and one from Emphysema with Bronchitis, along with 2 family members currently living with Emphysema (both heavy smokers) I’ve got enough evidence to suggest that smoking kills. So thanks for revealing the false advertising, but you can’t detract from the fact that smoking does kill you.
2 others from smoking related cancers
Do elaborate on this!
Aren’t “smoking related cancers” related to age?
Incidentally, I lost my father due to work related injury and my brother due to a car hitting him.
Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one.
Here’s my all-time favorite “scientific” study of the the anti-smoking campaign: “Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths,” Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.
You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute’s wesbite, Cato.org. This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.
Sarah its nice of you to share your emotional rant and act like you’ve been shown the lite of fraud from anti-smoking terrorists/Nazis. You do a terrible job though of running with to many victims in your emotional rant…………next time in a comments section to make it more believable lessen the number of victims! Yep I see your kind everyday and especially the victims victim rants when losing a debate………..Its a key flaw with you guys and obviously in your deception part of the tobacco control training manual.
So my understanding is people actually seem to believe smoking isn’t bad for them? Honestly, how far your head would have to be buried in the sand to believe such a thing, I can’t even imagine…
Matt, can you understand the difference between educating people with something that is true, at least as far as physical evidence and scientific research indicate, and lying to people in the way that they’ve done with this black lung thing or the distortions of secondary smoke research?
Sarah, if you came from a family of obese people who were dropping dead from heart attacks and diabetes etc, would you conclude that “food does kill you”? Or would you more properly conclude that, for some people, their dietary habits probably resulted in their deaths? There’s a very big difference between those two statements, and it’s a difference that Antismokers ALWAYS willfully ignore in their propaganda.
– MJM
Michael J. McFadden,
Smoking won’t always cause a disease or condition, but it certainly increases the likelihood of developing one. The laws of physics, chemistry and biology state that very clearly.
Your analogy between both food and smoking being able to kill you breaks down in that; One, our bodies have evolved over billions of years to digest food, and extract and slightly alter its usable constituents. Two, a vastly wider range of molecules and nutrients are available to our bodies via digestion and metabolization than are available from inhaling the products of a red/ox reaction. And most crucially, you assert that certain dietary habits can result in death, but make no distinction between which smoking habits might or might not result in death. Maybe you can elaborate more on that?
I’m aware that much of the anti smoking media is propaganda, and some of it certainly downright false, but are you nonetheless aware that smoking is still bad for your body?
Jason, there is “no safe level” for exposure to human carcinogens, correct? Ethyl alcohol is a human carcinogen. It is also highly volatile. Put those together and you arrive at the inescapable conclusion that being in a restaurant where a patron somewhere is sipping a wine cooler may ultimately result in your death.
It could also be argued that any individual ingestion of a sweet with a few sugar molecules or a burger with a few fat molecules could form the crucial tipping point that results in an individual case of diabetes or an individual instance of a heart attack. And it could be argued that an individual puff from a cigarette at some point formed the tipping point that caused a fatal cancer, or that the individual flap of a butterfly’s wings in Outer Mongolia caused Hurricane Katrina.
I believe smoking is quite likely bad for one’s health. I’d even go farther and say that I think it’s been pretty well proven that people will sometimes (or occasionally, or often, depending on lots of variables) get cancer because they have smoked. Lots of people who have smoked will also NOT get cancer.
I do NOT believe that ordinary levels of exposure to secondhand smoke represent any level of risk that any well-balanced, well-informed, sane person should be concerned about in their day to day life. If you read my books you will find that I support that believe with a wide range of reading, references, analyses, and facts.
Have I answered your question well enough?
– MJM
Safety in this context is relative. Obviously none of the possibilities you put forward are in any way likely, I’m not paranoid or an alarmist. That said, I consider Second hand smoke relatively safe, I believe safe enough that I feel that laws against public smoking are in most cases unnecessary.
And yes that was a sufficient answer. Thanks.
Jay
I believe safe enough that I feel that laws against public smoking are in most cases unnecessary.
These laws are completely unecessary. Your generation relies on pensioners (baby boomers grown up with little restriction on smoking!!!) working far beyond what used to be retirement age. The reasoning given by our government was: “People live longer THESE days”. That obviously includes all of us who grew up with no smoking ban anywhere.
Smoking won’t always cause a disease or condition, but it certainly increases the likelihood of developing one. The laws of physics, chemistry and biology state that very clearly.
May I politely challenge you to explain these laws of physics, chemistry and biology that state all tese claims so clearly IN YOUR OWN WORDS? (No link copying, please, and no plagarism!!!)
increases the likelihood of developing one
ROFLMAO…………..RISK studies are the best of junk science. Especially LIFESTYLES RISK STUDIES.
The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby
Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13287#.U6ibAzYo59A
Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?
”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”
Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created
http://www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealth.html
Why don’t you state your own biases at the outset, since you allege bias in antismokers? I suppose there is an upside to smoking in that smokers die more suddenly and thus cost the health care system less than non-smokers. Pension plans can probably do better, too, because retired smokers draw out less money. Smoke on, but please do it outdoors!
David, my own bias can be clearly seen in my Author’s Prefaces and “About The Author” sections at:
http://bit.ly/TobakkoNacht
and
http://bit.ly/Antibrains
I don’t think I could *possibly* have made my background “biases” any clearer. Do you? I’m open to suggestions for my next book…
– MJM
Pension plans can probably do better, too, because retired smokers draw out less money.
Oh, REALLY? Is it because nowadays the age of 60 no longer automatically signifies pension age? Flexible pensioners?
BIASES naw they don’t exist anywhere not even in the British Isles:
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 “The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act”. The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.
HATE IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE
I have no idea what you are smoking but it’s not just cigarettes. There is a lot of proof that smoking is horrendous for the smokers and for the person breathing in 2nd hand smoke. Wherever you are finding your very strange “facts” they must have been sponsored by the tabacco industry.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/smoking-and-cancer/smoking-facts-and-evidence
Beach, most of the people you disagree with here have probably read far more basic scientific studies and analyses from medical journals themselves than you have — and would be unlikely to offer as their final word a “fact sheet” from a clearly biased source… which is what you offered.
Plus most of them know that tobacco is not spelled tabacco.
Disagree with me Beach? OK, show us what you’ve got. Here’s something straight from me and from the medical journals: http://bit.ly/SmokingBanLies
Read it and come back and give us your specific, substantive criticisms of any of the studies, analyses, or arguments there. Heh, and don’t even TRY waving the “Oh, those are tobacco industry studies!” flag or you’ll just make yourself look REALLY foolish: every one of the studies are studies designed, carried out, and promoted by ANTIsmoking researchers and organizations. All I’ve done is show how deliberately defective they or their interpretations were.
So yes, please, do have at it and fry me to a crisp here in public. I promise I won’t mind, and I’ll try to stop back to respond.
Alternatively, just run away faster than a little girl from a pack of tarantulas.
My money is on the arachnids.
– MJM
This is a most hilarious thread …
This is an even more hilarious reply.
Pingback: World Hellth Organization | Frank Davis
Anyone in the 21st century who questions whether smoking causes emphysema is in serious denial.
Denial of the truth = lying.
19TH CENTURY LAWS in the 21ST Century Reggie is not Progressive is it unless your marching orders come from circa 1900 America!
Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.
1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).
1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.
1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.
1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”
1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.
1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.
Its really sad reggie given 100 years and longer they still cant prove one damn claim against tobacco use! Just amazing ehh!
So, since we’re here on the playground and I’ve shown you mine, why don’t you show me yours, Sarah, David, Jason, Matt, Nadine, and Reggie … who all simultaneously “discovered” this thread after it had been silent for eight months — and who all, oddly enough, seem to have absolutely NO form of ID attached to their names/gravatars.
Fair is fair, level playing field and all that….
– MJM
I plead the 5th Mike, I think they found their way via myself to here after I busted their asses all around the globe! They really hate us you know.
Well, you guys justa keep on smoking then. As I visit the graves of the few friends I’ve lost to various cancers, I’ll be sure to tell them you guys said it wasn’t due to their smoking,
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt…
So, according to FusterCluck all the various cancers are caused by smoking?
Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt…
Denial is 100 plus years of trying to prove something and always failing…………
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409
“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
I have to agree with you. THe stupid on this thread is mind boggling.
ok so i can understand that the black lung pictures were touched up or blatantly faked, which does detract from the anti smoking lobby, but do you think the intention to deliberately put people of smoking is a worthwhile endeavor?
While as adultsw, you’re perfectly entitled to your smoking pleasure, the question I’m asking is for those of you with kids, are you happy for them to begin smoking if they don’t already, or are you willing to fudge the truth if it would put them off taking up the habit?
We didn’t have to get permission to smoke,we just went down to the Tobacco Barn and pulled off a few leaves of cured baccy and rolled up one………..You must have been raised in a very uncivilized country not to know the joy of smoking at an early age!
Stuart, “fudging the truth” for five to ten-year-old children who are unable to appreciate the complexities of the truths that might truly have a strong impact on their well-being is one thing; “fudging the truth” for fifteen to twenty-year-old “children” is a different story and more likely to simply result in them refusing the accept the validity of the far more important REAL truths (e.g. “don’t drink and drive”, “don’t text and drive”, “don’t have unprotected sex”, “don’t smoke meth or shoot heroin”, “don’t shoot people”, “respect legitimate authority but not illegitimate authority”) that you should be teaching them. And “fudging the truth” in ways that abuse our children by frightening them with the idea that they’re going to be killed or orphaned by their parents because those parents smoke is little short of criminal … if short at all. I think even Anna Raccoon would agree that that sort of “teaching” is *real* child abuse.
Stuart, no background on you either I see. Just joining the party with Sarah, David, Jason, Matt, Nadine, and Reggie? Where did you all wander in from pray tell?
– MJM
I saw this on a face book link. When I was 11 my bio teacher showed us a ‘black lung’ in class (now I know it was a pigs one) and it put me off smoking for life. As a lie it was an effective one, though I didn’t become convinced it would kill my dad (then a heavy smoker). I’m about to enter a nursing university programme do I guess I view this lie as a minor one against the (possible) harmful effects of smoking. I’m also against drink drivers and phone drivers, but I don’t see this as an either/or debate. The uk also has a long running campaign of adverts that show drunks running people over or crashing their cars but this is also only a (possible) risk being pushed at kids. Sometimes using strong images can be the best way to instill learning.
Stuart, agreed. Interesting thing on the texting/driving bit though. Professor Fernando Wilson did a fairly large study a couple of years back where he came up with a risk figure for texting while driving and wanted to communicate it effectively to teens. I took his figures, compared them to the EPA Report figures on lung cancer and ETS, and found that being in a car while a driver texted a single message was roughly equivalent in terms of risk to being in a car with someone smoking for 13,000 one-hour trips. Given the paranoia being pumped into our kids about being around smoke you’d have thought he’d be quite pleased to be able to present kids with such a strong warning about the dangers of texting.
Nope. Once he saw that the message might be interpreted in favor of smoking he never responded to me. I guess the kids getting their bodies mangled in car accidents just plays second fiddle to possibly getting lung cancer forty years later.
:/
MJM
Your right, that was an intersting point, I also got some amusing visuals but I guess it doesn’t make for ‘sexy’ when they’re running the smoking warning campaigns.
My 18 yr old niece recently started smoking, and I must admit to bring prejudiced, that I’d rather she stops (she keeps saying she wants to, but typical teen, it’s always tomorrow) but since she’s also waiting for her driving test I’ll also use your figures about the texting thing. That phones normally glued to her hand. Thanks for the replying to my query.
You’re welcome, and yes, DO communicate that to her and maybe it’ll save her life. If she might be a typical texting teen driver who might send/receive a thousand texts a year while driving (and that’s probably a low figure) that would be equal to THIRTEEN MILLION drives with smokers. (Actually the real figure might be more like thirteen billion: I use the EPA estimate for smoke risk… an estimate that was likely far higher than reality. Remember: they couldn’t use normal statistics to arrive at their conclusion… they had to use a 90% confidence interval to make their claim valid.)
– MJM
Stuart just tell your children or classes that second hand smoke is a killer and after you get them to believe that horse hockey.
You can then try the truth and tell them that to text and drive safely to just hit the AUTO-PILOT button next to the cruise control and they will be fine. You see technology can fix many problems just like air handling systems can handle smoke indoors! But dang that Physics bit strikes again. Since the air is made up of all the same things in tobacco smoke they really cant be filtered out, but then again Submarine Scrubbers have safely removed all of it for near 70 plus years! But why do we need that we breathe the same air with the same stuff in it from birth to death………..
Remember Google just built a auto-piloted car……………
Google Unveils Self-Driving Car Prototype – Mashable
mashable.com/2014/05/27/google-self-driving-car
May 28, 2014 · RANCHO PALOS VERDES, Calif. — Google has been building self-driving cars for years, but what we’ve seen so far has always been retrofits of existing cars …
But then theres a few bugs yet to work out…………
This is Google’s first self-driving car crash
jalopnik.com/5828101
Published Aug 05, 2011
Aug 05, 2011 · There’s a driver in all of Google’s tests who can take control, … The biggest battle in auto … the first accident caused by Google’s self-driving car.
they had to use a 90% confidence interval to make their claim valid.)
And even with that they refused to use other studies that would have brought the RR down even lower than the 19% they ended up with………….
Peto Odds junk ratio science anyone!
I think Mike these Nazis are figuring out the gigs up and the B.S. has been flushed!
Its going to really suck after self driving cars become the Norm. No more drunk drivers and citations or rants about alcohol death victims to be able to be used to sell more Prohibitional Propaganda to the kids. No more texting while driving Propaganda or talking on the phone or like in the early days of driving that RADIOS would cause traffic deaths to no end. Yes stuart the nanny Nazis back then even ran that TRASH………….
You just cant make this stuff up……………….ROFLMAO
FRANKENSTEIN ARRIVES…………..
http://www.timesofisrael.com/zapping-brain-may-cure-heavy-smokers-study-finds/
Zapping brain may cure heavy smokers, study finds
44% of pack-a-day-plus smokers studied were able to kick the habit with ‘shock’ treatment, despite past failures
timesofisrael.com
Next it will be Frontal Lobotomies for a quit smoking cure…………they’ve lost it!
Half of donor lungs come from smokers: Fifth are from people with 20-a-day habits
•Patients given smokers’ lungs are just as likely to survive, says new study
•237 lung transplants carried out at Harefield Hospital over six-year period
•Out of these, 47 per cent of patients received organs from heavy smokers
•Meanwhile, 53 per cent were given lungs from non-smoking donors
•However, survival rates were similar over one-year and three-year periods
But for one in five patients, their donors had smoked a packet a day or more for at least 20 years.
Despite this, the researchers said patients’ survival rate was not harmed by receiving a smoker’s lung and the research should ease patients’ fears about donors who had smoked.
The study showed that patients who received lungs from non-smokers actually had a slightly lower one-year survival rate. The research was carried out at Harefield Hospital in north-west London.
analysed the difference in short and medium-term survival rates between patients given lungs from both smokers and non-smokers.
Since 2007, 237 lung transplants have been carried out and 90 per cent of them were double-lung transplants.
In total, 53 per cent were given lungs from non-smokers, while 29 per cent got lungs from donors who smoked for less than 20 years and 18 per cent were given the lungs of people who smoked 20 or more a day for at least 20 years.
Concern: The use of smokers’ lungs in transplants has sparked controversy – largely because of its perceived risk to patients (file picture) Discovery:
Concern: The use of smokers’ lungs in transplants has sparked controversy – largely because of its perceived risk to patients (file picture) Discovery:
One-year and three-year survival rates were about the same for all three groups.
Non-smokers performed relatively poorly in the short term with 77.7 per cent of transplant patients surviving one year compared to 90.8 per cent with smokers’ lungs. There was no significant difference in the overall effectiveness of the lungs, time spent in intensive care and in hospital.
André Simon, director of heart and lung transplantation and consultant cardiac surgeon at Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, said: ‘Donor lungs from even heavy smokers may provide a valuable avenue for increasing donor organ availability.’
He said the results showed that even donors with a heavy smoking history ‘may provide a much-needed lease on life to the critically ill patient whose chances of survival diminish with every day or week that passes by on the waiting list’.
He added: ‘I believe that candidates significantly decrease their chances of survival if they choose to decline organs from smokers.’
Mr Simon said that although it may ‘seem strange’ that smokers’ lungs perform just as well, he stressed that all organs are assessed before operations go ahead to ensure ‘maximum quality and safety’.
UK Transplant Registry data shows that only 20 per cent of patients get transplants within six months.
The figure rises to 51 per cent after three years, but by that time nearly one in three patients has died waiting for a transplant.
Lung transplants are carried out for patients with a range of serious ailments including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis.
The results of the study were reported in the Annals of Thoracic Surgery.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550424/Smokers-lungs-just-likely-transplant-patients-alive-non-smokers-organs.html
Man that’s a lot of people being given BLACK LUNGS………………ROFLMAO!
Like a squishy balloon: Pig lungs make a big anti-smoking impression
By FRED HANSON
The Patriot Ledger
RANDOLPH – The first lung was pink, healthy, easily expanded and deflated, and disgusting enough for a group of middle school students.
Then Dr. James Mitterando put the second lung on display. Like the first, it had been taken from a pig, but this one was black, and it took longer to inflate and deflate.
The lesson Mitterando was teaching yesterday at Randolph Community Middle School, ‘‘Smoking: Don’t Go There,” was developed by the Massachusetts Medical Society. It is intended to discourage young people from developing the cigarette habit.
Mitterando’s presentation coincided with the American Cancer Society’s 27th Great American Smokeout, a campaign with roots in Randolph.
Mitterando, who is affiliated with Cohasset Family Practice Associates of Healthcare South and South Shore Hospital in Weymouth, talked about how tobacco companies try to sell young people on the image of smokers as cool and stylish.
‘‘They’re trying to market to you because you’re the future buyers of cigarettes,” he said.
He pointed to statistics showing that nearly three-quarters of teens have tried smoking, and he talked about the addictive qualities of cigarettes.
‘‘Once you’re hooked, it’s really hard to give it up,” he said.
To give the class an idea of smoking’s effects on lungs, he had the students pinch their noses and try to breathe through a drinking straw. He also displayed a jar containing a thick black fluid that represented one year of the tar that builds up in the lungs of a regular smoker.
It’s not just the lungs that are damaged by smoking, Mitterando said. He said smoking doubles the risk of heart attacks and strokes, and can cause complications for pregnant women.
‘‘It affects every part of your body,” he said.
Second-hand smoke harms those who live with or come into contact with smokers, he said.
The Randolph Community Middle School has been offering the program for four years, said Lisa Carney, an EMT in the school nurse’s office. Although not many of the school’s seventh- and eighth-graders would admit to smoking, she sees smoking’s effect on students with asthma every day, she said.
Carney hopes yesterday’s presentation ‘‘will turn some heads.”
‘‘I know for a fact that a few (students) have stopped (smoking) because of it in past years,” she said.
What Jason Toussaint got out of the program was a simple message.
‘‘If I smoke, I could easily die,” he said.
The first smokeout took place on Feb. 18, 1970, when a group of Randolph High School students, along with the town’s Rotary Club and the American Cancer Society, urged smokers to give up the habit for a day and donate the money they saved for scholarships.
The event raised $4,500 for scholarships and generated national publicity. Former Randolph High School Guidance Director Arthur Mullaney said he got the idea for the fund-raiser thinking about all the cigarette butts he would see on the beach in Kingston and how rich he would be if he had a nickel for each one.
‘‘I doubt those first smokeouts cured anyone, but it was the first shot in the battle to cure smoking in the world,” Mullaney said.
Fred Hanson may be reached at fhanson@ledger.com.
Copyright 2003 The Patriot Ledger
Transmitted Friday, November 21, 2003
http://www.healthcaresouth.com/pages/lungarticle.htm
sir I commend you on this
I as a health professional know that this black lung propaganda is a lie.
We see smokers’ lungs in autopsies and they have no mark whatsoever on them and actually most of them develop lung cancer whenever they stop smoking cold turkey.
The goverment makes it hard for people to smoke but the reality is smoking would not kill you, its the chemicals on the food that they make us eatthat will (and has killed millions in form of cancer). look at the approved foodstuffs today and the ones with HFCS and canola oils, and othermanmade unnatural stuff that we consume, and look at how they are liberally advertised in TVs and everywhere – good heavens
Pingback: The Gift Of Beauty | The Libertarian Alliance
Pingback: The Black Lung Lie | sellinj | Scoop.it
For entertainment sake:
I found this:
http://de.sott.net/article/12530-Die-Luge-der-schwarzen-Raucherlunge
That explains the overeager anti-smokers practising English without knowledge of local phrases.
The anti-cannabis lobbies have used lies, scare tactics and evil propaganda to justify the socially destructive laws against the drug since the end of the Alcohol Prohibition in the USA. Even now in the UK, the government still criminalises people for smoking their preferred recreational substance, when many American States and most European countries have at last begun relaxing the anti cannabis laws. It seems that our leaders’ need to control us poor misguided citizens knows no boundaries (apart from alcohol which we can all buy in every corner shop, as long as we “drink responsibly…”) and is busily spreading its web to tobacco!
Hmmm, well either your sources are way off base, or this experiment is yet another fraud, despite being entirely video taped….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2637327/Horrific-video-shows-smoking-REALLY-does-lungs-just-60-cigarettes-help-kick-habit-good.html
Is this why smokers hearts and lungs are not used for transplants?
Considerate smokers will stop/have stopped donating blood as well.
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1225711/government-unveils-disgusting-dirty-blood-anti-smoking-ad
Oh right and there is this explanation of the black smokers lung:
http://www.medicinenet.com/smokers_lung_pathology_photo_essay/page4.htm
My sister, a heavy smoker since the age of 16, always protested that smoking wasn’t bad, that the government promoted that idea so that they could justify the high taxes they put on cigarettes. Eventually her protests were weakened by her coughing and difficulty with breathing. The brain tumors (from the lung cancer that metastasized) made it difficult for her to continue her argument because she lost her speech. She was quite shocked when the doctor told her she had a tumor in her lung the size of a football. Where had that come from? She was even more shocked when he told her she only had about 6 months to live. Smoking is wonderfully relaxing because it takes the edge off your problems. It calms you and gives you a more relaxed perspective on things. Unfortunately, while in this blissful state, people cease to be concerned by things that they should be concerned about. By the time they realize their mistake it is usually too late. Being right in this particular argument holds no joy for me. I would much rather be wrong and have my sister back.
The truth at last…sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, your story most likely won’t change any of these “geniuses” minds. They have RJ Reynolds rhetoric as their indisputable “proof”.
BTW, “geniuses”, keep posting your ridiculous tobacco company lobbyist dogma to “prove” your points. It takes a high IQ to get it. Unfortunately, the majority of the populace doesn’t possess one which is why we are rare. It’s a bully syndrome from the lesser talent trying to undermine the few true brains in this world. My kids know better while your kids get to enjoy that fresh nicotine stench at a young age. Survival of the fittest…
You are probably the same low income people who keep voting for the elitist (Republicans) because you don’t realize what tools you are being made of by these wealthy jerks. Keep being dumb, keep being selfish, and this country will never get better. Prepare for the RFI chips, sheeple…there may be one in your ill gotten lung transplant.
BTW, “geniuses”, keep posting their ridiculous tobacco control lobbyist dogma to “prove” their points
Unlike tobacco control lobbyists people who enjoy tobacco do not get paid – unfotunately – by tobacco companies.
because you don’t realize what tools you are being made of by these wealthy jerks.
Such as Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg?
Smokers’ Lungs OK’d for Transplant
Donor lungs from smokers led to transplant outcomes similar to those involving lungs of nonsmokers, British transplant specialists reported.
So happy to find some friends equally passionate about smoking and squashing all this anti-smoking zealot crap. Here’s another article to add in our arsenal http://ow.ly/IeRKT
matt; Please provide some search text so I can find your article (via Google) without having to click on your link – that may lead to malware. Many Anti-smokers nutters are devious scum and often pretend to be on the side of smokers. They have been known to use malicious links that lead to the reader’s computer becoming infected with a virus etc.
This one looks suspicious!
I’m taking a guess that you are a smoker.
It’s all a bunch of lies to steal money from a minority group of consumers via unfair taxation. The only reason there isn’t a fat tax is because too many people are fat and/or consume an unhealthy amount of junk foods, so there would be less political support for it. They’re trying to ban sugar-sweetened drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces in NY at most places that sell them. The U.S. has become a nanny state where the top 1% pretty much control everything and grow even stronger by manipulating people and governments to do what they want. The truth seems to get lost as most politicians only think about their careers and ways to keep the party going.
I’d like to see more research into the effects of being exposed to a barbecue grill. I have a funny feeling that this could be the real culprit of some of these diseases supposedly linked(not scientifically proven) to smoking.
There also needs to be research done on the long-term effects of eating processed foods.
For me, it`s pretty amazing fact that lungs of regular smokers are (almost) just good – like any others – as far as transplants are concerned (when healthy), but “normally” they are being described as seriously damaged, and full of tar.
I`m sorry for my language mistakes. I live in Poland.
I`ve recently written an article related to some of the propaganda techniques used in the anti-smoking campaign. Of course, it would be hard to write something essentially new on this issue. I`ve just tried to be honest, and to avoid any manipulation. Perhaps you would like to check it out:
It would have been so ironic if any of you deniers got emphysema or lung cancer.
Kong, ever hear of Lucy Page Gaston? She was Carrie Nation’s partner back in the very early 1900s and loved busting up taverns and suchlike while preaching, but her big thing was cigarettes: she hated them with a passion and ranted against the US President of the time for having what she called “a cigarette face” (Heh, as you can see, the concept of “smoking will make you look ugly” has been a folk tale with a long history.)
In any event, our little Lucy died in the midst of her campaigning, stricken down by THROAT CANCER … a disease almost unique to the drinkers and smokers she hated so much.
Notw **THAT** would be a far better example of “irony” if you’re interested in spreading linguistic knowledge.
Of course you might just want to take a healthy jog with Jim Fixx, eh?
– MJM
I find nothing ironic in these diseases.
Wow……gotta say I was an transplant coordinator for many years, working for two transplant organizations on both coasts in the United States. I worked procuring organs from the brain dead. I went to the OR very often and pulled out many lungs. In all those years, I saw TWO smokers lungs that were not black in color. We evaluated all organs by doing arterial blood gases which tell how well the donors are oxygenating. You can certainly tell which donors are going to have black lungs before opening them up. Many lungs have black areas from pollution and inhaling other toxins during one’s life. Lungs are EXTREMELY difficult to get for transplant; bad news for those on recipient lists. Many, many are waiting for lungs…I am pretty sure that the credentials of the “professionals” who have never seen black lungs are not what they claim to be.
Linda, do you know, if lungs of “average” longtime smoker (I mean, for example, with a 20 pack years history of smoking) are heavier than lungs of a nonsmoker?
I will ask one more question: is enybody here, who personally knows or known a very light smoker (consuming up to 3 cigatettes per day) who suffered from lung cancer?
I do not mean here lifelong nonsmokers developing this kind of carcinoma.
If yes than describe the case, please.
As far as I know, the first detailed study on the issue of very light smoking was published only in 2005 by K. Bjartveit and A. Tverdal (Tob Control 2005;14:315-320). Kjell Bjartveit acted as a key person in Norwegian anti-smoking movement:
Click to access PIIS0140-6736(11)60664-8.pdf
Therefore, I don`t know how reliable was the results presented by him in the mentioned paper.
Many people actually smoke more than they declare to pollsters, so I ask about particular cases.
Marcin, anecdotal results on an individual level are even MORE worthless than results based on pollster data gathered in a highly sensitive area prone to lying.
Looking at your reference though, I share your skeptical evaluation of it. Note this:
“In both sexes, smoking one to four cigarettes per day was
associated with a significantly higher risk of dying from
ischaemic heart disease and from all causes, and from lung
cancer in women”, the researchers wrote in Tobacco Control.
“The study transformed the notion that it was the excessive
use of tobacco products rather than their very use” that was
harmful, says Matthew Myers, President of the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington DC. ”
Note the three categories of “significantly higher risk.” If the study included three such specific categories, how many OTHER categories did it examine for an association? You should be aware of the statistical trickery known as “data dredging.” I.E. if I run a thousand different possible associations through a computer I’m almost definitely going to come up with a grab bag of dozens showing “significant associations” when such associations are clearly nonsense. There’s an entire book out there on this game:
http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Note that there’s a 99.79% association between US spending on science and the rate of suicide by strangulation; and note the 99.26% association between the consumption of margarine and the divorce rate in Maine.
The study you cited likely examined, and found NO significant link between light smoking and non-ischeamic heart disease, NO sig link between it and lung cancer in MEN, and NO significant link between it and general cancer, emphysema, Buerger’s Disease, and all sorts of other conditions that heavy smoking has supposedly been linked to… and yet the results are interpreted to mean that very light smoking is substantially equivalent to very heavy smoking.
That’s a lie, a lie by their own data, a deliberate misinterpretation of results for a political end, a lie driven either by greed for grant money or by a twisted God-Complex idealism where the researchers/activists feel that they “know better” than other people how those people should live their lives and thus feel perfectly comfortable creating lies and social conditions to force those people’s lives into the “correct” channels of behavior.
– MJM
*were the results, sorry for this error.
Michael, thank you for the explanations.
Once I saw the results of research indicating that smoking women are approximately twice more likely to get pregnant unexpectedly than non-smoking ones. Authors of the paper explained that smokers are more likely to engage in risky behaviours. This is an excellent example for that how correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
I wonder, what could possibly expect a researcher who would announce that really occasional smoking hasn`t any measurable health effect? Probably it would mean the end of his career as scientist.
The anti-smoking camp are nothing but bigots, this is not a health issue for anyone but the smoker and is frankly the business of no one else. The facts do not support their stance. In the US Surgeon Generals own report on second hand smoke he stated that 1 in one million people have an adverse reaction to second hand smoke and that result is totally insignificant. To put it in perspective he added that 1 in 20 have an adverse reaction to perfume… meaning perfume is 40,000 times more toxic than second hand smoke. No ask yourself what kind of butt wipe would make you stand more than 5 feet from the door if your wearing perfume, or refuse to let you in a restaurant, workplace, bar or hospital or rudely demand that you take it off as your hurting their children, or rudely tell you that you stink. This is not a health issue it is a control issue, I don’t like what your doing so I am going to make you change and their are just enough stupid self serving politicians to make it law. It is shameful behavior and IMHO far more ignorant and harmful than any smoker I have ever met.
Pingback: William Whitby: Smoking Is Good For You | Frank Davis
Pingback: How to repair my lungs, once I Quit Smoking - Quora
Yep, and Big Foot lives in my underwear. You guys are pure brain dead if you don’t believe smoking kills your lungs.
Oh come on, Big Foot cannot possibly live in your underwear. Your tidy whities can barely accommodate your big mouth, as you fellate your engorged, dribbling head.
Could you please close your bedroom door next time *waves hand in front of face* Blimey, it’s whiffy in there. Open some windows and pick all that shit up off your floor… Why you insist on living like a troll is beyond me *turns and leaves*
Now Roo, be nice to the troll. He’s entertaining for visitors to look at, and he doesn’t smell THAT bad (Well, ok, he DOES, but no worse than a moldering dead possum or three.)
I would love to see you here after some 30 years, if your lungs survive my smoking.
Pingback: Soupy Shoe Smiley Shamble – Library of Libraries
Thank you for this information. While I do not smoke, I know many who do, and it’s nice to see someone being honest for a change. You have encouraged me to research the subject, because we’ve been raised with the belief that smoker’s lung applies to every smoker.
Pingback: Health Benefits of Tobacco | Frank Davis
Pingback: The Fine Art Gallery | Head Rambles
Pingback: The Tyranny of Experts: By Gove, I think he’s got it! – Library of Libraries
I smoked for 23 years, in June 2014 i was diagnosed of Emphysema, i constantly go out of breath and lost my Job in 2015 due to this condition, this continued till a friend of mine told me about Ejiro Herbal Home, according to her she bought Glaucoma herbal medicine from Ejiro Herbal Home that totally cured her mother, so i decided to give it a try too. I was given Dr Ejiro’s mobile number and i called him and explained my condition, he recommended a COPD herbal remedy which he said its 100% guaranteed to cure me. I bought this herbal remedy and received it in less than 2 weeks, It was 3 weeks program, i used it as prescribed and was surprised how i gradually gained back my health like the herbal medicine was some sort of magical medicine. All thanks to Ejiro herbal home, contact Ejiro Herbal Home via their website or email ejiroherbalcure(at)gmail(dot)com or call +27617403481 (Write email in right format)
I was diagonose of Emphysema in 2010 and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) 3 years ago, our family doctor told me there was no cure but it can only be controled. Ever since then i have been running heather scepter looking for a solution to my problem because i was going to lose my Job if i dont get better, until i ran into this online testimony of Dr Lusanda who have been curing people of COPD with his herbal remedy i immediately contacted him via their email, to God be thy glory i bought this COPD herbal remedy and was cured within 3 weeks of usage, at last this is a break through for all COPD/emphysema patients contact this herbal clinic via their email drlusandaherbal(at)gmail(dot)com or website on www(dot)drlusandaherbal(dot)weebly(dot)com
Pingback: Smoke me a Kipper… – Library of Libraries
Pingback: How many cigarettes does it take to make your lungs start to turn black? - Quora
Pingback: A comprehensive review of the health benefits of smoking Tobacco | ÆONUTRITION
Pingback: Tobacco Control Must Be Destroyed | Frank Davis
Pingback: SOTT FOCUS: A comprehensive review of the many health benefits of smoking Tobacco | |
Pingback: Smirking Causes Lung Cancer | Frank Davis
Pingback: Una revisión exhaustiva de los muchos beneficios para la salud del tabaco - MAESTROVIEJO
Pingback: Y sin embargo, se mueve | Contra la ley "antitabaco"
http://www.medpagetoday.com/surgery/transplantation/44628
Smokers’ Lungs OK’d for Transplant
Donor lungs from smokers led to transplant outcomes similar to those involving lungs of nonsmokers, British transplant specialists reported.
Pingback: Hải Ngoại Phiếm Đàm
Pingback: The Genocidal Programme of Tobacco Control | Frank Davis
Pingback: Quora
Pingback: Lợi ích của thói quen “hút thuốc lá ??!! | ĐỒNG HƯƠNG KONTUM
For the past few years I have had difficulty working out in yard, then in 2015 it got harder and harder to breathe. After many tests, it was a CT scan that showed COPD, emphysema and scarring in my lungs. I quit smoking 8 years ago but the damage has been done. I got to a point I couldn’t catch my breath and was coughing so hard I thought the top of my head would blow off, nothing was really working to help my condition. Finally i started on COPD herbal formula i purchased from NewLife Herbal Clinic, i read alot of positive reviews from other patients who used the COPD herbal treatment. I used the herbal remedy for 7 weeks, its effects on COPD is amazing, all my symptoms gradually faded away, i breath very more freely now! (Visit www. newlifeherbalclinic. com ) I recommend this COPD herbal formula for all COPD/Emphysema sufferers
Megan Flores
New Jersey, USA.
I’ve had emphysema for four years. I was taking Spiriva and Advair. I started with oxygen at night, and later all day long. Nothing seems to help. The minute I start to walk around the breathing gets bad. Even the oxygen doesn’t seem to help.I smoked for approximately four years, from age 18 to age 22. I am now age 66 plus. I had for some time now noticed having difficulty catching a deep breath. Never in my wildest dreams did it cross my mind that I may develop a serious lung disease, but here I was with a serious case of COPD. I am only writing this to inform others that nothing was really working to help my condition.I went off the Spiriva (with the doctor’s knowledge) and started on Emphysema herbal formula i ordered from Health Herbal Clinic, my symptoms totally declined over a 5 weeks use of the Emphysema disease natural herbal formula. i am now almost 68 and doing very well, my lungs are totally repaired!! Visit there website www. healthherbalclinic. net or email Info@ healthherbalclinic. net
Pingback: Informe impactante: fumar podría proteger los pulmones del cáncer | Contra la ley "antitabaco"
Pingback: A Reply To Seppi | Frank Davis
I am way past believing the lies of anti smokers. Several years ago, one of my daughters took a pregnancy class at our local “health” dept., where they passed around supposed smoker’s “black” lungs. My daughter was horrified that they were someone’s lungs. The instructor reassured them, telling her they were pig’s lungs. My daughter then asked, was the pig a smoker?
LOL! Kudos to your daughter!
Pingback: Một đánh giá toàn diện về những lợi ích sức khỏe của việc hút thuốc lá – Khù và Khờ
Pingback: Man Dial A Defect – Library of Libraries
Pingback: 暴れるタバコ健康被害のウソ│吸わずにいられるか！！
Pingback: Maximum Contention | Frank Davis
Pingback: SCHOCKIERENDER BERICHT: Rauchen kann die Lunge vor Krebs schützen - news-for-friends.de
Pingback: Tobacco is good for you! | JColeHaley
I always wondered if smoking tobacco or weed would blackens the lungs. Cheers for this info, I might go tell some friends.
You should. Spread the word :D