Smoking Causes Cancer. Carbon Pollution Causes Extreme Weather.

Smoking DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER!- smoking causes an INCREASED RISK for cancer!- Nothing more - Get it straight!!!

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

Smoking DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER!- smoking causes an INCREASED RISK for cancer!- Nothing more - Get it straight!!!

they must be smokers who judged your comment hugh.to put it precisely straight tobaco leaves are very sticky glue like,smokers will get that glue ,into their lungs,imagine heart have to pump harder to get that glue mixed with blood to circulate.not to mention cancerous and addictive chemicals added to tobaco to make it wanting more.over night when smokers sleep everything slows down,just omagine that glue like from tobaco in blood wessels start to stick on internal walls.chemicals added to tobaco they are all highly cancerous especialy when they burn.if you ask me, no offence ,i would rather be dead then somebody making profit on my misery.i had my boss at work ,smoking addict,he spend more time smoking,then working,intiligent men.one day i told him,dont take it personaly,but in my wiew anybody who smokes regardles how he or she is educated,is ******g idiot.i was ready to look for another job.he looked at me smiled and said you know i agree with you.it have taken him 10 years to fight his stupidity,and finaly gave up.he was transfered overseas,every time he come to see us i was the first one to see,and shook my hand firmly.i have put many smokers off it by just telling them you have to be stupid to pay big money to get sick. come on all you addict start attacking me,for been wrong.you only need 2 smoking addict to ,ower rule my comment.judge me please.

dr fungus says wrote:

<quoted text>to put it precisely straight tobaco leaves are very sticky glue like,smokers will get that glue ,into their lungs,

Where did you get THIS info??- The ONLY place that states this is the anti-smoking demonstrations they "RECOMMEND" for gradse school kids.

This is NOT TRUE - the sticky substance is known as "tobacco gum" and is often used as in indicater of the quality of the leaves - this substance is sometimes cleaned off and somtimes left on - nevertheless - this substance is COMPLETELY DRIED - by the time the tobacco is smoked - it DOES NOT CREAT A GLUE and smokers DO NOT have GLUE in their lungs - if so - ALL smokers WOULD BE DEAD by the time they smoked 5 or 10 packs!!- use some common sense!

Are you refering to Tar??- if so - "tobacco gum" has NOTHING to do with Tar - "so called TAR" is produced when ANYTHING is burned and the resulting smoke particles mix with moisture - I know this is NOT what you were taught - but it's true.

And contrary to popular belief - this "Tar" does NOT Build up in smokers lungs and turn them BLACK - I'll bet you they showed THAT ONE in school to - HUH?

The ONLY TIMES a persons lungs turn black is if they have breathed a LOT of Carbon dust - like coal miners - or when the lungs have turned cancerous (From smoking or NOT)

If a person smokes - a doctor CAN NOT see it on an X-ray. EVEN in an Autopsy - a doctor CAN NOT tell if a person smokes by looking at their lungs - if they do not have cancer - they look JUST LIKE a Nonsmokers lungs

dr fungus says wrote:

addictive chemicals added to tobaco to make it wanting more.

The ADDICTIVE chemical is called Nicotine - and it is produced in the growing tobacco plant - not added to it.
Nicotine is produced in MANY plants to keep insects from attacking the plant - it is found in tomatoes, potatoes, peppers (especially the HOT variety), eggplants, papaya (leaves), most teas, and even in celery.

Studies have shown that the "General Population" receives approx 1200 mg of Nicotine daily - just from the foods they consume.- a smoker get approx 25mg daily from smoking.

Yes nicotine CAN BE addictive - but has been shown in MANY studies - that it causes NO MAJOR MEDICAL PROBLEMS.

BTW - those people who agree with me are NOT ALL smokers - but ALL of them know enough about the TRUTH - to know that I am telling it!

hi hugh i wish that i can agree with you.my friend younger then me ,had part of his lung removed and in each leg plastic tube ,as his blood wessels got blocked.most smokers i know had bypasses.eggplant or aubergine have nicotine,i never heard somebody is addicted to it,just because 17 century frenchman jon nicot declared that tobacco have addictive substance,if that is true,why is it so then,i used to grow tobacco,and when i gave seeds to smokers to grow their own,they did not like it.tell me please why they did not get addicted to home grown tobacco.but when i give them home grown wegetables they all love them.as for studies these people live from taxpayer so they have to come out and publish their work,to prove their worth.did you notice how they come regulary into media about their discoveries about cure for diseases and always same old story 5 or 10 or 15 years away before available to public.but the biggest irony from these academics is they all die in meantime from same diseases they curing us from.and the whole circle of complicating simple things to extract money from gulible people continues.go on <yeast containing foods/allergy> and read my essay WHY IT IS NO GOOD TO HAVE BRAIN.i would love your comment on that.thanks and please do not take it personaly.

National Cancer Institute: "Cigarette smoking causes many types of cancer, including cancers of the lung, esophagus, larynx (voice box), mouth, throat, kidney, bladder, pancreas, stomach, and cervix, as well as acute myeloid leukemia."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/...

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: "Smoking causes lung cancer."
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fa...

Dim Witted Oaf wrote:

Smoking DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER!

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
If a person smokes - a doctor CAN NOT see it on an X-ray. EVEN in an Autopsy - a doctor CAN NOT tell if a person smokes by looking at their lungs - if they do not have cancer - they look JUST LIKE a Nonsmokers lungs

Bullshit. Smoking and/or air pollution leave black deposits that are very obvious during an autopsy.

"Post-mortem examinations, also known as autopsies, are carried out to identify a cause of death, and to assess the health of a dead person's organs. Here, the lungs include black deposits that may be due to smoking or exposure to air pollution."

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/297372/enla...

Thomas wrote:

<quoted text>
Here, the lungs include black deposits that may be due to smoking or exposure to air pollution."
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/297372/enla...

So what you are saying is: they could be a smokers or a non smokers - you don't know - The people who were HOLDING THEM don't Know.

NO DIFFERENCE!!

Thanks for verifying my point!

Thomas wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullshit. Smoking and/or air pollution leave black deposits that are very obvious during an autopsy.
"Post-mortem examinations, also known as autopsies, are carried out to identify a cause of death, and to assess the health of a dead person's organs. Here, the lungs include black deposits that may be due to smoking or exposure to air pollution."
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/297372/enla...

You ALSO May want to stop for a second - and think about what they are ADMITING!- AIR POLUTION CAN CAUSE THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS THAT SMOKING CAN!!!!!

BTW - THis is an EXTREME case - WHICHEVER IT IS!

Thomas wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/297372/enla...

Since you seem to get most of your understanding from pictures - here's another for you - not QUITE so extreme - positively identified as a NON SMOKERS LUNG:
http://www.berriman-usa.com/images/hc1b.jpg

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you seem to get most of your understanding from pictures - here's another for you - not QUITE so extreme - positively identified as a NON SMOKERS LUNG:
http://www.berriman-usa.com/images/hc1b.jpg

You remind me of Linda. She stayed in denial regarding the dangers of smoking and posted non-stop that smoking risks were being inflated by health organizations. Then she died of lung cancer. Quit burying your head in the sand......

Ima Jean Yaas wrote:

<quoted text>
You remind me of Linda. She stayed in denial regarding the dangers of smoking and posted non-stop that smoking risks were being inflated by health organizations. Then she died of lung cancer. Quit burying your head in the sand......

Lung cancer diagnosis among nonsmokers is on the rise - The Denver Post

"What is causing these cancers in people who don't smoke? We don't know, and I doubt we'll ever find a particular cause," said oncologist Ramaswamy Govindan at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

"It could be genetic, or a combination of factors.... It's mostly bad luck. A random thing."

Reports the following year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology estimated that "15 percent of men and 53 percent of all women with lung cancer worldwide are never smokers," though researchers were stumped about the reasons.

Read more: Lung cancer diagnosis among nonsmokers is on the rise - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_20622...

This is just one of DOZENS of articles about the EXTREMELY high NON SMOKING lung cancer rates.

They are ALWAYS PUZZLED - and have NO IDEA WHY!

Well - it's because they have spent 50 years and TRILLIONS of dollars trying to CONVINCE the world - THAT IT HAS TO BE SMOKING!!!

A 2010 study of Lung Cancer in Calif. found:
THAT OF 626 PEOPLE WITH LUNG CANCER - Only 14.7% were current smokers - 62.3% were "Quiters" (most of them had quit 20 years previous)- and 23% were NON/NEVER smokers
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/725138

MY HEAD is OUT OF THE SAND - Now YOU GUYS NEED TO "PULL YOURS OUT"

That is pretty funny.
I hear about all of this crazy weather back in the late 1800's & early 1900's when there was less Carbon emissions.

All of these crazy blizzards & hurricans & tornadoes back then.

It seems like we were in a rather calm weather pattern in the middle - late half of the 20th century.

Ironically our weather was more calm when global warming was increasing the most.

When in the 2000's when global warming slowed down & even some global cooling happened 2005-2010 is when we saw worsening weather.

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>

MY HEAD is OUT OF THE SAND - Now YOU GUYS NEED TO "PULL YOURS OUT"

You're an addict that behaves as most addicts do......by trying to twist the facts and circumvent the truth in order to justify your habit.

Ima Jean Yaas wrote:

<quoted text>
You're an addict that behaves as most addicts do......by trying to twist the facts and circumvent the truth in order to justify your habit.

You're an buttcrack that behaves as most buttcracks do......by trying to twist the facts and circumvent the truth in order to justify your habit.

Slow Witted Boob wrote:

<quoted text>
The ONLY TIMES a persons lungs turn black is if they have breathed a LOT of Carbon dust - like coal miners - or when the lungs have turned cancerous (From smoking or NOT)

In response, I posted an actual autopsy photo of lungs, which clearly showed the dark areas associated with the inhalation of particulates. Anyone who has worked in an operating room or a morgue knows that the appearance of lungs chronically exposed to tobacco smoke (or other particulates) is different from healthy lungs. One would think that this might be a learning opportunity for the Boob, who has never seen human lungs in these settings. Unfortunately, the dumb runs very deep in this one...

Pointy Headed Goof wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for verifying my point!

Actually, your "point" is obvious to everyone who reads your consistently wrong assertions... Yes, inhalation of particulates whether self-inflicted or by breathing polluted air can change the appearance of the lungs, contrary to what what you shouted out just a few messages earlier. This is one of the nice features of Topix - you don't get to go back and edit out your stupid statements.

dorky dimwit dullard wrote:

<quoted text>
In response, I posted an actual autopsy photo of lungs, which clearly showed the dark areas associated with the inhalation of particulates. Anyone who has worked in an operating room or a morgue knows that the appearance of lungs chronically exposed to tobacco smoke (or other particulates) is different from healthy lungs. One would think that this might be a learning opportunity for the Boob, who has never seen human lungs in these settings. Unfortunately, the dumb runs very deep in this one...
<quoted text>
Actually, your "point" is obvious to everyone who reads your consistently wrong assertions... Yes, inhalation of particulates whether self-inflicted or by breathing polluted air can change the appearance of the lungs, contrary to what what you shouted out just a few messages earlier. This is one of the nice features of Topix - you don't get to go back and edit out your stupid statements.

Actually, you have no point and your spam is moldy.

HugeKielbasa wrote:

That is pretty funny.
I hear about all of this crazy weather back in the late 1800's & early 1900's when there was less Carbon emissions.
All of these crazy blizzards & hurricans & tornadoes back then.
It seems like we were in a rather calm weather pattern in the middle - late half of the 20th century.
Ironically our weather was more calm when global warming was increasing the most.
When in the 2000's when global warming slowed down & even some global cooling happened 2005-2010 is when we saw worsening weather.

Well you certainly a big Kielbasa, better know as dick, another person in denial, good luck with that

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

Smoking DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER!- smoking causes an INCREASED RISK for cancer!- Nothing more - Get it straight!!!

You speak as though you are about 15, and just want to smoke to be cool, keep going and see where you end up

Thomas wrote:

<quoted text>
In response, I posted an actual autopsy photo of lungs, which clearly showed the dark areas associated with the inhalation of particulates.... is different from healthy lungs.

And in response - I posted a picture of a Non smokers lungs (BTW - classified as "HEALTHY" Lungs)

Thomas wrote:

Yes, inhalation of particulates whether self-inflicted or by breathing polluted air can change the appearance of the lungs, contrary to what what you shouted out just a few messages earlier.

Well if you would read the post again - you MAY begin to understand that I was referring to the "BLACK LUNGS" that are shown to Kids in school - You know - the Cancerous ones that are ALWAYS "Deceptively" ascribed to a "Smoker" - and labeled "SMOKERS LUNGS" - I NEVER ONCE stated that lungs DON'T SHOW ANY BLACK SPOTS!
- ONLY THAT THEY CAN'T TELL by looking - whether they are a smoker or NOT - and Your Picture MADE THAT PERFECTLY CLEAR!

Thomas wrote:

This is one of the nice features of Topix - you don't get to go back and edit out your stupid statements.

You're RIGHT - But I don't need to go back and "EDIT" - you just need to go back - and read it closer!!

EDUCATED wrote:

<quoted text>
You speak as though you are about 15, and just want to smoke to be cool, keep going and see where you end up

Unfortunately, he claims to be 62. If so, it's to late to try to talk rationally with him. He'll be in denial until he's dead.

I'm done with him (which I'm sure he will interpret as "I won!")