[Flickthebean]

3 fekkin pages bangin on about cancer and all i wanted is to find out how to get a "happy ending" from my gp, frankly i´m a little disappointed

Flick

[Gom Jibbar]

You'll need a time machine for that alas. It used to be a common medical practice for doctors to "relieve" depression and "hysteria" in women by regular working over with vibrators. All very scientific of course.

[lez]

Flickthebean, on 29 May 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

3 fekkin pages bangin on about cancer and all i wanted is to find out how to get a "happy ending" from my gp, frankly i´m a little disappointed

Flick

wot was the question... there are only 2 pages i can see..

This post has been edited by lez: 29 May 2012 - 06:03 PM

[Stan909]

namkha, on 27 May 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

@Stan 909

the evidence suggests that humans have been using fire for several hundred thousand years... which inevitably has led to us evolving to tolerate it

The fireside hypothesis:
It is believed that sometime around 1.9 million years ago early hominid ancestors began to migrate out of Africa... the incidence of lung cancer is inversely proportional to the ostensible reliance on fire of geographically different groups

Thanks for the thoughtful response Namkha...

Broadly, If I'm honest... I dont think there's much that could convince me (personally) that we're adapted to inhale smoke (the lungs' function almost exclusively being gaseous exchange)... so that position is going to colour anything that I contribute on the matter

More specifically... the fireside hypothesis you mention is often described as controversial (it is a hypothesis after all?). There's obviously much interesting discussion to be had... for example the accuracy & reliability of archival data regarding the diagnosis of lung conditions including cancer etc. etc. Did those ancients look for cancer... did they recognise it?

For me a prime contention is the extent to which inhaling smoke around a campfire (which is a little like passive smoking i.e. inhaling a lower concentration of airborne particles) compares with inhaling smoke directly from a pipe, cigarette etc.

I agree that we are able to tolerate the inhalation airborne particles to an extent... the adaptations that I'm aware of include a layer of mucus on the lining of the respiratory tract (to trap particles of stuff) and cilia also lining the respiratory tract to 'sweep-out' the mucus, particles etc. giving us phlegm & snot etc. Without even smoking or sitting around a campfire we're going to inhale all sorts of dust & pollution etc. and so we are adapted to deal with that no doubt (but I'd be concerned if that was used as justification for saying/concluding that we're adapted to smoking - which is a risk on a site like this 'cos people obviously enjoy smoking and wold probably love for it to be risk-free ).

However frequently inhaling high concentrations of particles at relatively high temperatures (as we would if smoking pipes, cigarettes etc) for a sustained period of months & years is on a different scale I think... I'm not sure whether the paper you cite includes smoke inhalation on this basis? - I can't read the whole piece... tolerance will occur as a result of adaptation and AFAIK there are no physical or physiological adaptations to inhaling smoke in this way... smoke & carbon monoxide are known to paralyse/render useless cilia, making the job of getting crap out of the lungs even more difficult...

Also... the abstract mentions that this tolerance developed in folk who moved away from the equator to colder climes... so I guess that if a person lives in a hot country or near the equator and/or their family have lived there for generations then smoking is extra hazardous for them ('cos they're don't show the same adaptations/tolerance as cold-loving cavemen)... I've never heard of that meself but those with recent African ancestry best be careful...

As mentioned... I don't think I can be convinced so I'll stop trolling & leave it there...

ATB

Stan

(E4 punctuation )

This post has been edited by Stan909: 29 May 2012 - 07:48 PM

[namkha]

@Stan

fair enough, but it seems pretty clear to me that any species which can get away with inhaling smoke directly into the lungs daily, and get away with it for decades (aka 'smoking' of any kind), is definitely displaying adaptation to tolerate smoke...

I didn't spend long googling for stuff --- I'd be surprised if there isn't genetic evidence for smoke tolerance now - i.e. that actual genes have been identified

after all, your point about the hypothesis 'just being a hypothesis' doesn't exactly hold --- as the hypothesis is born out by the data... i.e. there is evidence for greater adaptation to tolerate smoke as you move north from equatorial Africa

i.e. northern populations are more adapted to smoke

i.e. genetic evolution to tolerate smoke is strongly implied

This post has been edited by namkha: 30 May 2012 - 12:59 AM

[Arnold Layne]

I've always had a suspicion about what you say being the truth of things, TBH, namkha. That and the notion that inhaling truly organic tobacco smoke is not the danger that inhaling modern chemistry rich cigarettes is. I gather that in indigenous cultures where strong tobacco use is a cultural rite of passage, or a tradition among older men or women, there is little if any evidence of cancers and other smoking related disease.

In short, I am of the persuasion that the cancer causing finger of blame should be aimed fair and square at the pollutants that make up so much of a modern cigarette. But the real culprit, IMO, is not individual drug absorption techniques but the mass forced gassing of the population with car exhaust fumes and other industrial gaseous waste. I am thinking that rates of cancer in society are possibly, maybe even probably in line with that society's growing dependence upon motorised transportation using petro-chemicals as fuel, and exponential industrial growth.

Tobacco smoking is a scape-goat. And yet again, individual liberty is being attacked, this time in the name of so called "Health Care"; which is largely silent about things like industrial pollution and contaminants in tobacco. Of course, it is ~ pollution and profit are sisters. Whereas individual liberty can be curtailed at very minimal expense. And in today's world, Jehovah may be dead but look, Profit is now your god! Bow down and worship, hear the word of the Great God Profit, and his priests in the CBI and Government!

Are we all sleeping comfortably, sheeple?

This post has been edited by Arnold Layne: 30 May 2012 - 08:01 AM

[rune]

Park_Lane, on 25 May 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Constant irritation will lead inevitably to cancer.

Sorry Park Lane but I can't agree with a sweeping statement such as that. That's like saying "smoking cannabis will lead inevitably to psychosis".

Do you know of any evidence to support this statement? If evidence to support this statement existed, I would think the aforementioned professor might well know about it....

[rune]

Park_Lane, on 25 May 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Is this the best source you can find to support your assumption? It was printed on the tenth of april 1914, may be rather out of date.

Reefer madness?

[WaxingGibbous]

Interesting theory about the adaptation to smoke... but I'm dubious how lung cancer or respiratory diseases could have an influence on survival if people only lived to around thirty before they kicked the bucket from Paleolithic hazards

[DrWho]

WaxingGibbous, on 30 May 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Interesting theory about the adaptation to smoke... but I'm dubious how lung cancer or respiratory diseases could have an influence on survival if people only lived to around thirty before they kicked the bucket from Paleolithic hazards

Thats just the average age but the figures are skewed due to the high no of infancy deaths.

[Park_Lane]

rune, on 30 May 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

Park_Lane, on 25 May 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Constant irritation will lead inevitably to cancer.

Sorry Park Lane but I can't agree with a sweeping statement such as that. That's like saying "smoking cannabis will lead inevitably to psychosis".

Do you know of any evidence to support this statement? If evidence to support this statement existed, I would think the aforementioned professor might well know about it....

Not really, Im a failed scientist who didnt cut it in possibly the most work intensive uni course ever invented *not suited to your average stoner*

We covered cell regeneration and cancer and the "conventional wisdom" was that rapid cell regen caused by irritation was a contributing factor. Bearing in mind this was 15 years ago and I was clearly punching above my weight IQ wise at my uni and in my course I could well be wrong.

Would just like to urge caution is all

*here endeth the lecture from Dr. Killjoy with his degree earned from kellogs coupons and a 2 pound postal order*