Smoking without cancer

Discussion in 'Science' started by kazenatsu, Aug 17, 2018.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    1,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    People often think that it's the smoke in cigarettes that causes cancer, but that is not necessarily the case. Chewing tobacco is also associated with cancer, so the issue is not just smoke. What is the cause?

    During the curing process, when tobacco is dried, there is oxidation in the air. This oxidation helps contribute to the pleasant aroma of tobacco through the breakdown of pigment compounds called carotenoids, but it also causes some of the nicotine, the major pharmacologically active component in tobacco, to be transformed into a cancer-causing chemical called N-nitrosonornicotine (abbreviated NNN).

    There could be two potential solutions to deal with this. One is to use strains of tobacco that are very low in nicotine to begin with. Japanese scientists have recently even used genetic engineering to develop tobacco free of nicotine. Then either nicotine itself, or a little bit of a very high nicotine fresh uncured tobacco could be mixed in. Alternatively, tobacco extract could be treated and filtered to remove nicotine (similar process to removing caffeine from coffee) and then artificially "cured" to develop aroma, then this concentrated extract could be added back in to fresh tobacco. The tobacco could be stored in air-tight packaging without exposure to oxygen and humidity, to avoid breakdown of the nicotine.

    This type of smoking tobacco wouldn't be completely risk-free, because of the smoke, but it might have a much lower risk. Perhaps used as a vapor, it might even be completely risk-free altogether.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2018
  2. Wildjoker5

    Wildjoker5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    11,934
    Likes Received:
    2,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't want any GMOs in my Tobacco, its unnatural.
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    1,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Better GMO than NNN.
     
  4. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes Received:
    1,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The tars deposited on the lung tissue by the smoke are carcinogenic.
     
    yabberefugee likes this.
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    1,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Vaping can still cause cancer, even though there's no smoke.
    Although the risk is substantially lower than smoking.
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2018
  6. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,885
    Likes Received:
    611
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From what I've heard, vaping is just as, if not worse bad as refular smoking.
     
  7. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    24,716
    Likes Received:
    6,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Breathing can cause cancer.
     
  8. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,827
    Likes Received:
    4,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2018
  9. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    586
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you may have heard incorrectly. As far as I know all studies into vaping have shown that, although not risk free, it is significantly less dangerous than smoking. Better legislation and control of vaping products may help to reduce the risks of vaping even further.

    This advice from the British Heart Foundation is typical:

    https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/e-cigarettes

    Part of the uncertainty about vaping is that vaping and vaping products have been popular for a little over a decade - not enough time for some of the definitive long-term studies over decades to fully measure the effects on longevity on large populations of users. It's very likely that the advice will be revised and more information is available.
     
  10. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,827
    Likes Received:
    4,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Dry herb vaping is heating your tobacco or weed to 180c-220c then inhaling the vapors without combustion it's very different to ecigs which have a carrier liquid.

    https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pathfind...hash=item4b266df687:m:mxKWQPpJqIf5jLAqLgcMocw

    I have this one battery life is crap but works fine plugged into the USB. If you spend more you can get ones with a decent battery.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2018
  11. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    586
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting, but I was responding to Maccabee's assertion that vaping is more dangerous than regular smoking - AFAIK studies have shown it to be much less dangerous.

    As regards dry herb vaping, I'd want to see some large-scale studies before declaring one way or another.
     
    Liberty Monkey likes this.
  12. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,827
    Likes Received:
    4,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Dry herb vaping has been around for 4 decades + and you vape what you would have smoked when you finish you are left with brown substance that looks like tobacco but powders when you touch it.

    If you smoke weed I highly recommend one tobacco they're ok but weed they come into they're own. You'll find you use 1/2 what you used to and it leaves little to no smell.

    I set mine to 180c inhale, then up it in 10c increments to 220c then throw away what's left.
     
  13. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    24,009
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The OP is correct, smoking does not cause cancer and there are studies to prove this.

    Cancer is genetic however smoking can make those predisposed to cancer to develop it easier.

    But if its not in your genes you can smoke all day every day and never get cancer although there are other health risks.

    For instance, there are zero cases of cancer in my family history so it doesn't matter what I do, I will never develop it. Well I suppose if I put a couple pounds of uranium under my pillow at night it might be possible.

    lol
     
  14. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    586
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then please be so kind as to provide the studies that prove this
     
  15. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    24,009
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Certainly.

    Journal of Theoretics Vol.1-4

    Oct/Nov 1999 Editorial

    http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm
     
  16. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    586
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's an editorial from a 19 year-old publication, not the result from a scientific study. I'm afraid you're going to have to do rather better than that.
     
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    1,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I remember reading an old study done in the 40s that showed that smoking just 1 or 2 cigarettes a day did not seem to substantially elevate the risk of cancer, but an elevation in risk factor started becoming apparent with 3 or 4 cigarettes. The study was done just before health researchers started becoming very concerned about the connection between cigarettes and cancer.

    It's very possible cigarettes in those days didn't have all the additives they did later. And another possible reason the study may not have found much difference between 1-2 cigarettes versus none was because smoking was so popular then, many non-smokers in the population were exposed to a lot of second-hand smoke.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  18. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    24,009
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very well.

    Judy Peres
    JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 105, Issue 24, 18 December 2013, Pages 1844–1846, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt365
    Published:
    06 December 2013

    This research is mainly focused on second hand smoke, of which they found no statistical link from over 70,000 case studies but they also found this.

    https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/24/1844/2517805
     
  19. The Don

    The Don Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,111
    Likes Received:
    586
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's about the effects, or lack thereof, of passive smoking.

    If you were only talking about passive smoking not causing lung cancer then you should have been clear about that from the start. If you think that this is constitutes proof about smoking not causing cancer, I think you need to continue your education.

    Have another go at finding a study to support your position.......


    edited to add......

    What that study does however highlight is the link between smoking and lung cancer:

    ....so thank you for a link that supports my position, saved me having to find it myself ;)
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  20. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    24,009
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I've proven my point. If the inhalation of smoke caused rises in cancer we would see it in all areas, even passive smoking.

    We don't.

    But its good you acknowledge that second hand smoke actually has no effect on people outside of normal health issues.

    In fact, if you read the study, they found that unless you live with a heavy smoker for at least 30 years there is no correlation between inhaling smoke and cancer.

    As my previous link also showed, there are many, many other factors that all can play a part, there is not a single one ever shown to cause cancer.

    This is also evidenced by the fact of many lifelong heavy smokers never developing cancer.
     

Share This Page