145-Year-Old Chainsmoker

And the next oldest, Jeanne Calment, was also a smoker.

Says it all, really.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to 145-Year-Old Chainsmoker

  1. Bahahahahahaha! They blurred out him smoking?!? That’s hilarious! Especially because they couldn’t hide the smoke… Imagine how long he might have lived had he never started…

    • Tom says:

      I notice at YouTube there is no comment regarding him being a smoker nor anything saying Calumet was also a life long smoker, who was also mentioned in the video.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    First his age cant be verified. I have a very hard time believing it. A 120 ya I could buy that but not 145 whether he smoked or not.

  3. Walter Scheel died prematurely aged 97 , killed by his love of cigars.

  4. Igrowmyown says:

    Think I had better quit smoking,I don’t want to live to be 100 plus

  5. Rose says:

    I’ll just leave this here.

    Environmental tobacco smoke.
    Rodgman A. 1992

    “Finally, EPA overlooked the more than 100 tobacco smoke components known to inhibit the tumorigenic action of many of the listed “tumorigens.”


    “For more than five decades, it has been known that some of the PAHs, when co-administered in pairs of a potent tumorigen plus a nontumorigen or weak tumorigen, show inhibitory effects on the tumorigenicity of the most potent, e.g., B[ a ]A plus DB[ a,h ]A; B[ a ]A plus B[ a ]P; anthracene plus DB[ a,h ]A.
    Over the period studied, some regulatory agencies considered these tobacco smoke PAHs to be serious health concerns, others did not. With respect to cigarette MSS, certainly the “danger is in the dose” for any MSS component tested singularly to be tumorigenic. But is the level of any of these MSS PAHs high enough to be of concern to smokers?

    The information herein presented indicates that over the last five decades the following has occurred: 1) The per cigarette yields of these four PAHs have decreased substantially, 2) compared to CSC or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) “tar”, their per cigarette yields have also decreased to a point that they may be below any significance biologically, and 3) the specific tumorigenicity in mouse skin-painting studies of the CSC has decreased. These are the three criteria originally proposed to define the “less hazardous” cigarette.

    Actually, criterion 1) was first directed only at B[ a ]P. Previous studies highlighted the concern that some regulatory bodies had in attempting to understand why long cancer and other forms of cancer seemed more prevalent in smokers. But cigarette smoking alone could not reconcile the evidence. Social, ethnic, environmental, and economic factors are also very important in understanding the entire biological effect.

    In fact, the level of B[ a ]P in CSC could only explain about 2% of its specific tumorigenicity observed in skinpainted mice and the combination of the levels of all the known tumorigenic PAHs in CSC could only explain about 3% of its tumorigenicity.

    Despite an 18-month study in the late 1950s, the search for a “supercarcinogen” in MSS and CSC to explain the observed biological effects was unsuccessful. In addition, the exceptional study on MSS PAHs by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) personnel in the 1970s indicated no “supercarcinogen” was present. Only recently has the concept of complex mixtures in relation to the understanding of the complexity of carcinogenesis taken hold.

    Perhaps the reason why MSS is less tumorigenic than expected in humans is because of the presence of other MSS components that inhibit or prevent tumorigenesis. For example, it is well known that MSS contains numerous anticarcinogens present in quantifies significantly greater than those of the PAHs of concern.
    When one reviews the history of these four PAHs in MSS or CSC it is clear that many unanswered questions remain.”

    They do indeed.

    Rodgman, A. and Perfetti, T.A. (2009) The Chemical Components of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke.

  6. Clicky says:

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    According to a U.S Department of Transportation representative, the participating states will receive additional federally-funded incentives throughout 2017 for their participation and implementation of the ordinance.

    Obama blackmailing states yet again to pass vaping bans in cars!


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Colleges being forced to go smokefree by Obama Administration

      The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010.

      Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.


      Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses

      Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/obama … z29zJ2V2TV

      President Barack Obama has already promised not to smoke cigarettes in the White House. If his administration has its way, American college students will soon be required to follow suit while they’re on campus.

      • Tom says:

        Colleges in CA have been smoke free, some of them for up to 10 years now, at least. They do it in CA and call it a “great success”, then do it on the federal level, so this, with the college, nationwide, I can see happening. The public housing anti-smoking issue too, I can see them doing that, anything subsidized or that gets federal funds involved, including the interstate highway system – it will be no smoking in cars while on the interstate or else states caught allowing smokers to drive on them will no longer receive federal highway money. They can do that with everything eventually, I am sure. If Hillary gets in, they will, too.

        • Tom says:

          And another thing my old memory cells recall, but back before NJ banned smoking in Atlantic City, including the casinos, I am pretty sure there were articles of Trump coming out against those bans – because he knew upfront, they would kill off a lot of the casino trade and thus hurt the economy of NJ and AC both. Well they pushed the bans and the casinos got hurt and visitor count went down and turned it into another smokeless, dull, nobody-want-to-be-there hell/sh*t-hole. So bear in mind, come the elections, Trump was against the bans in NJ back at that time. Hillary on the other hand is all for them, so voting for her is like voting for smoking bans.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      the above website is just like the onion…….forget it it was all a lie I called to verify the links the nutcase posted in it all were lies even the DOT man named.

  8. Scot says:

    I went to the Trump casino in AC some 20 years ago, the only place I could smoke was in the bars, so the slots got short change!

  9. Pingback: Extreme denial | Head Rambles

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.