Smokers Unite!

[vraiblonde]

I've also known babies who had respiratory issues whose mothers never smoked, nor were they ever around smoke while they were pregnant. So if two infants have respiratory problems, one mother smokes and the other doesn't, how do you determine whether the smoking mother's infant's problem was caused by smoking?

Practically every kid in our neighborhood has asthma - our kids (all four of them) do not. These mothers do not smoke - I do.

Can someone explain this to me? Seriously.

 

[BlackSheep]

YAY! A medical person! Because I have a question:

How can you tell if something is smoking-related, second-hand or otherwise? Because I've known women who had breast cancer who never smoked a day in their lives - the cancer would obviously not be "smoking-related".

So when a smoker gets breast cancer, how do you know if it's because of the smoking and not for the same reason the non-smoker got it?

This is a serious question, not an attempt at scoffing.

Both gals (1 is 39 and the other 50+) admitted they were/are 1+ packs a day smokers-presented and treated for lung cancer first.

 

[vraiblonde]

He's gonna' tell you she was exposed to second hand smoke.

I would suggest that EVERYONE is exposed to second-hand smoke at some point in their lives. So why aren't we all dead?

I assume there is a test or something where they can determine the cause of disease and rule out one catalyst or another. I'm just curious what it is.

 

[vraiblonde]

Both gals (1 is 39 and the other 50+) admitted they were/are 1+ packs a day smokers-presented and treated for lung cancer first.

But non-smokers get lung cancer as well. My great-grandmother died of lung cancer and she didn't smoke nor was she ever smoked around because she was allergic to it.

So she obviously got her lung cancer from something other than cigarette smoke. And my question is, how do you determine (with a smoker) that they got their disease from smoking and not from the same source as the non-smoker? Just because they smoked doesn't mean that's what caused their cancer, otherwise non-smokers would never get it.

 

[mAlice]

 

[vraiblonde]

:shrug:

I tried Googling it but couldn't come up with anything of substance. Nobody seems to want to share the techniques of determining cause of disease other than to say that at some point in their lives, the deceased was exposed to second-hand smoke.

 

[Bustem' Down]

I've always wondered how they test that second hand smoke causes cancer. With all of the other things everyone is exposed to, I wonder how they isolate cigarette smoke. Those are the mundane things that interest me.

 

[vraiblonde]

I've always wondered how they test that second hand smoke causes cancer. With all of the other things everyone is exposed to, I wonder how they isolate cigarette smoke. Those are the mundane things that interest me.

That's what I'm trying to find out as well.

 

[SamSpade]

I've always wondered how they test that second hand smoke causes cancer. With all of the other things everyone is exposed to, I wonder how they isolate cigarette smoke. Those are the mundane things that interest me.

How hard could it be to set up a test subject? I mean, I always thought the same about asbestos or coal dust, because no one breathes that any other way but secondhand.

 

[PsyOps]

This past weekend I put in 48 hrs at my local hospital-I saw 6 patients w/end stage lung cancer (smoking related), 3 peds. w/2nd hand smoking related respiratory issues, 1 preemie baby w/respiratory issues linked to mama's smoking, 1 guy w/cancer of the throat, 2 gals w/breast cancer (started out in the lungs-smokers) if y'all want to continue doing what you KNOW will eventually kill you-knock yourself out.

My dad has heart disease (had a triple bypass) and my aunt just found out she has stage 4 lymphoma that originated in the lungs. Both smoked for decades. I cry for them but the emotional pain they are putting their family through can't be defined. I have watched my dad's health go to pot and is nearly completely dependent on my mom. My aunt will die a painful slow death while the rest of the family has to watch. This doesn't even address the insurance nightmare they are going through.

These folks may believe it's their right to do this, but it's not their right to drag their family through this trauma.

 

[Bustem' Down]

How hard could it be to set up a test subject? I mean, I always thought the same about asbestos or coal dust, because no one breathes that any other way but secondhand.

I just mean that everyone is subject to a wide array of things that cause cancer, and asbestos is the same way, along with the genetic possibilities, I'd just like to see how they did it. My brother died when he was 8 from cancer so I guess he was just genetically predisposed to cancer. How do you eleminate a variable that you might not know exists. How things work is facinating to me, I could sit through an hours long lecture on the test procedues without getting bored at all.

 

[chernmax]

Wow look at the time, SMOKE Break...

 

[itsbob]

There are no absolutes, you can never smoke and get cancer, or you can smoke and not, but the proof and evidence is out there that if you DO smoke your chances of getting lung cancer are greatly increased.

I would guess you get a test somewhere to see if you are genetically predisposed to get lung cancer if you smoke or not (the same genetic tests they can do for breast canccer now), but I'm thinking a lot of smokers contract it even if they aren't genetically predisposed..

In other words, you're born with it, or you go out of your way to get it

or you are born with it, and get it much sooner or and lot worse.

I smoked for years before I quit, and I still wonder how much damage did I do.

 

[itsbob]

There are no absolutes, you can never smoke and get cancer, or you can smoke and not, but the proof and evidence is out there that if you DO smoke your chances of getting lung cancer are greatly increased.

I would guess you get a test somewhere to see if you are genetically predisposed to get lung cancer if you smoke or not (the same genetic tests they can do for breast cancer now), but I'm thinking a lot of smokers contract it even if they aren't genetically predisposed..

In other words, you're born with it, or you go out of your way to get it

or you are born with it, and get it much sooner or and lot worse.

I smoked for years before I quit, and I still wonder how much damage did I do.

 

[mAlice]

I guess it's just one of those mysteries, like god. You just have to believe. :shrug:

 

[PsyOps]

I would suggest that EVERYONE is exposed to second-hand smoke at some point in their lives. So why aren't we all dead?

I assume there is a test or something where they can determine the cause of disease and rule out one catalyst or another. I'm just curious what it is.

This is a most rediculous argument. Why should any of us have to be exposed to second-hand smoke just because you believe it's your RIGHT to smoke? Isn't it equally (if not more so) my right to not be exposed to it?

 

[mAlice]

This is a most rediculous argument. Why should any of us have to be exposed to second-hand smoke just because you believe it's your RIGHT to smoke? Isn't it equally (if not more so) my right to not be exposed to it?

That wasn't the point of her post. You're a smart guy. Try again.

 

[BadGirl]

It is my understanding that there are certain characteristics in cancer cells that are specific to a particular type of cancer. For instance.....lung cancer has traits that is inherent to cancer of the lungs. Breast cancer has it's own specific type of cancer cells. Skin cancer has characteristics that are specific to cancer of the skin. In other words.....it is not likely that you'd be misdiagnosed with lung cancer, because the biopsy screening would indicate that the cells removed from your body were indeed a very particular type of cancer. Here's a for-instance: I was diagnosed with aggressive skin cancer, that had a very specific definition and growth pattern. Think of it in the terms of a mole that is shaped like the tentacles of a jelly fish. Some of those tendrils (containing skin cancer cells) can break off and travel throughout the body, and end up settling in random places, such as a lung (I still go in for every-six-month chest x-rays to see if this happens). Anyway, if a skin cancer cell settles in my lung and I die, I have died from SKIN CANCER and NOT lung cancer, even though that is where the cancer cells have settled and grown. I probably did absolutely nothing to properly explain this, but it is a quick/lame attempt at clarification, with my understanding of how cancer can effect an individual.

 

[mAlice]

It is my understanding that there are certain characteristics in cancer cells that are specific to a particular type of cancer. For instance.....lung cancer has traits that is inherent to cancer of the lungs. Breast cancer has it's own specific type of cancer cells. Skin cancer has characteristics that are specific to cancer of the skin. In other words.....it is not likely that you'd be misdiagnosed with lung cancer, because the biopsy screening would indicate that the cells removed from your body were indeed a very particular type of cancer. Here's a for-instance: I was diagnosed with aggressive skin cancer, that had a very specific definition and growth pattern. Think of it in the terms of a mole that is shaped like the tentacles of a jelly fish. Some of those tendrils (containing skin cancer cells) can break off and travel throughout the body, and end up settling in random places, such as a lung (I still go in for every-six-month chest x-rays to see if this happens). Anyway, if a skin cancer cell settles in my lung and I die, I have died from SKIN CANCER and NOT lung cancer, even though that is where the cancer cells have settled and grown. I probably did absolutely nothing to properly explain this, but it is a quick/lame attempt at clarification, with my understanding of how cancer can effect an individual.

It explains a lot, but it doesn't answer vrai's question.

 

[Azzy]

YAY! A medical person! Because I have a question:

How can you tell if something is smoking-related, second-hand or otherwise? Because I've known women who had breast cancer who never smoked a day in their lives - the cancer would obviously not be "smoking-related".

So when a smoker gets breast cancer, how do you know if it's because of the smoking and not for the same reason the non-smoker got it?

This is a serious question, not an attempt at scoffing.

EVERYTHING is smoking related If they are smoker's, it's smoking related, non smoker's-second hand smoke related and I'm not even a medical person