Do you think that smoking causes lung cancer?

There is nothing to think about.. YES IT CAUSES... and it cuases many other things..
Its not only hazardous to the one who smokes but also (rather much more) to the people around him/her.

Yes, allthough some people are more geneticly predisposed to get cancer than others.

Yes, it really does. If not luncg cancer, chronic emphysema, bronchtis, tar build up... the list goes on.

i don't think it "causes" lung cancer,
but it is a large contributior

No. It's all bull. I don't believe the cholesterol thing they are pushing now either. Remember when it was bad to drink coffee, eat eggs, dye your hair? Do you remember when ulcers weren't caused by an infection? Remember when Soy milk was supposed to be so good for you? All this stuff is crap. You can't believe anything anymore.

No. It can cause, however it is not the initial factor.

Smoking can contribute to lung cancer. Some people can smoke their whole lives and not develop the cancer. Some who never smoke develop it. There are other environmental factors that accelerate the development of the cancer.

I don't think it does.

I know it does.

Well it's not like you can't get lung cancer from smoking or secondhand smoking alone, it can actually be because of other causes, but yes I do believe smoking causes lung cancer.

Smoking increases your chances by a lot, and if you have a family history of cancer, I would stay away from it.

It all depends on who you are, some people might never get lung cancer.

It can also cause horrible things such as severe bronchitis or emphasyma which are really bad, and you might even have to use a puffer just to climb a set of stairs.

If you are a smoker, do the right thing.
Quit, for your life, for the lives around you.

Its a known fact that smoking can cause lung cancer !

This article would seem to indicate you can get lung cancer without smoking, so it appears smoking isn't necessarily the cause.

not 100% of the time ... but it's not going to help any

The correlation has already been proven.

what doesn't give u cancer these days?

Hello? Have you been on another planet? Lung cancer and emphysema are both caused by smoking or second hand smoke.

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer. Ninety percent of lung cancers can be prevented by completely giving up tobacco. Smoking marijuana cigarettes is considered yet another risk factor for cancer of the lung. These cigarettes have a higher tar content than tobacco cigarettes. In addition, they are inhaled very deeply; as a result, the smoke is held in the lungs for a longer period of time.

hmmmmmm..............YES

yes it is
also proved by medical science

in my opinion, it certainly is a contributor. As for the actual "cause", I guess.......

As a Radiology Tech I see the difference in smokers lungs and non smokers lungs every day. So yes I know that smoking is definitely a contributing factor in lung cancer. Although I have also seen patients that don't smoke but are then diagnosed with lung cancer. So you can not say that every person who smokes will get lung cancer but that you are at a higher level of risk by doing it.

It can, but it is not the only cause, nor is cancer the only illness that smoking is a major contributor of.

of course it does...I've known people who have passed b/c of it.

A LONG TRAIL OF EVIDENCE LINKS CIGARETTE SMOKING TO LUNG CANCER

As someone whoâ€™s life has been touched by the tragic effects of cigarette smoking, I was saddened last week when the Supreme Court barred the FDA from regulating cigarettes. About 48 million adult Americans smoked cigarettes last year, according to the CDC. Thatâ€™s one in four people, a fact that astonishes and alarms me. Why? Because this year an estimated 180,000 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States, and 90% of them will die within three years -- and 96% of these cancer victims are cigarette smokers.

Is there a cause-and-effect connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer? Two years ago, I wrote my first columns for the Post Dispatch, explaining the scientific evidence that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, and that cigarette smoking is addictive. If these two points are indeed true, then cigarettes , so much a part of American life, are in fact an addictive deadly drug! In the hope of encouraging readers to urge congress to act, I am reprinting these columns. In todayâ€™s column we will follow the trail of evidence that proves clearly that smoking causes cancer. In next weekâ€™s column I will examine the evidence that smoking tobacco is addictive.

POINTING THE FINGER AT CIGARETTES

The long trail of evidence linking cigarettes to lung cancer has its beginnings right here in St. Louis, at Washington Universityâ€™s School of Medicine. In 1948 a young first-year medical student, Ernst Wynder, witnessed an autopsy of a man who had died of lung cancer, and noted the lungs were blackened. Curious, he looked into the background of the patient. There was no obvious exposure to air pollution, but the manâ€™s wife revealed he had smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years! Like a dog with a juicy bone, Wynder had found a puzzle that would occupy him much of his professional life, and despite much controversy, he never let go of it.

Over the next two years, Wynder doggedly reviewed records to see if there were other cases linking cigarettes and lung cancer. He found that many lung cancer patients were smokers. Interviewing lung cancer patients and "control" patients with other cancers, far more cancer occurred among the smokers. Early in 1950 he published his results in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Comparing 649 lung cancer patients with 600 controls, he found lung cancer an incredible 40 times higher among smokers, with the risk of cancer increasing with the number of cigarettes smoked.

Later that year, Richard Doll, a well known British scientist, reported an even more convincing finding linking smoking to lung cancer. Over a period of years, Doll had interviewed quite a large number of physicians, inquiring of each about their smoking habits -- then waited to see which ones developed lung cancer. Overwhelmingly, they were the smokers. Because it was not "after the fact", Dollâ€™s test of the smoking causes cancer hypothesis was particularly rigorous and powerful. From that day forward, the scientific case linking smoking to lung cancer has been clear-cut.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum1 - Links - 1 - 2
HealthExpertAdvice does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. 0.134
Copyright (c) 2011 HealthExpertAdvice Saturday, March 23, 2013
Terms of use - Privacy Policy