Medical Risk of cancer from smoking or alcohol?

[Gerenuk]

Does anyone have a number or source how much the chance of dying of cancer increases if you smoke or drink?

The actual question is:
How many people from a group of smokers die additionally compared to a group of non-smokers?

Somehow most press statements don't seem sufficient to answer this question...

 

[shoehorn]

Does anyone have a number or source how much the chance of dying of cancer increases if you smoke or drink?

The actual question is:
How many people from a group of smokers die additionally compared to a group of non-smokers?

Somehow most press statements don't seem sufficient to answer this question...

I don't have the figures for cigarette smoking to hand, but I do remember being surprised by how low the figure for smoking-related cancers was. Something like two to five percent, if memory serves.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't have the figures for cigarette smoking to hand, but I do remember being surprised by how low the figure for smoking-related cancers was. Something like two to five percent, if memory serves.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/tobac-tabac/idcds-adctc/index-eng.php" , 22% of all deaths.

 

[shoehorn]

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/tobac-tabac/idcds-adctc/index-eng.php" , 22% of all deaths.

Well, that report does seem to indicate that cigarette smoking is primarily responsible for 22% of all deaths during the period in question. However, it doesn't appear to tell us anything about the lifetime risk of dying from a smoking-related cancer, which is what (I think) the OP is after.

I've been wracking my brain trying to remember where I saw those figures but despite checking the thoroughly cheery mortality data from here in the UK, I can't quite find the appropriate data.


Regardless, it might interest the OP to learn that studies of smoking cessation indicate that the effect of smoking cessation on life expectancy is pretty profound. This famous long-term study of the benefits of smoking cessation among British GPs (doctors) is well worth a read.

 

[phyzguy]

Smoking is absolutely one of the worst things you can do to your body. Don't do it! Here is a good site:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/content/STT_1x_Cancer_Facts_Figures_2010.asp?from=fast

According to the "Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2010.pdf" from this site:

" The risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers and 13 times higher in female smokers, compared to lifelong nonsmokers"

"Smoking, on average, reduces life expectancy by approximately 14 years"

 

[shoehorn]

" The risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers and 13 times higher in female smokers, compared to lifelong nonsmokers"

Canadian data seems to suggest that those figures are quite high:

"Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%; among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in nonsmokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women." Source.

"Smoking, on average, reduces life expectancy by approximately 14 years"

This doesn't tell us anything useful without more information, such as the actual distribution of life expectancy reduction due to smoking and specification of the features in the model.

The figure of fourteen years is also strongly contradicted by the study I linked to earlier, and isn't one I've heard before.

 

[phyzguy]

Canadian data seems to suggest that those figures are quite high:

"Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%; among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in nonsmokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women." Source.



This doesn't tell us anything useful without more information, such as the actual distribution of life expectancy reduction due to smoking and specification of the features in the model.

The figure of fourteen years is also strongly contradicted by the study I linked to earlier, and isn't one I've heard before.

The detailed references are all in the document I referred to at the link I posted. i would say, if you don't believe smoking is really bad for you, please go ahead and smoke.

 

[shoehorn]

The detailed references are all in the document I referred to at the link I posted. i would say, if you don't believe smoking is really bad for you, please go ahead and smoke.

Nobody here has said smoking isn't bad for your health. What we're questioning is the precise impact it has on health in terms of smoking-related cancers and whether or not smoking is, in and of itself, a death sentence. Despite the obvious negative impact smoking will have on your health, it's clear that smoking isn't guaranteed to result in cancer nor is it guaranteed to result in your death.

One of the difficulties in producing a straightforward judgement on the impact of smoking on health is that there appears to be quite a high variance about the mean in the body of work that's been performed to assess this. In addition, the seemingly widely held belief that smoking will kill you is flatly contradicted by most if not all of the available data. All of this can be said without in any way condoning smoking.

 

[phyzguy]

Nobody here has said smoking isn't bad for your health. What we're questioning is the precise impact it has on health in terms of smoking-related cancers and whether or not smoking is, in and of itself, a death sentence. Despite the obvious negative impact smoking will have on your health, it's clear that smoking isn't guaranteed to result in cancer nor is it guaranteed to result in your death.

One of the difficulties in producing a straightforward judgement on the impact of smoking on health is that there appears to be quite a high variance about the mean in the body of work that's been performed to assess this. In addition, the seemingly widely held belief that smoking will kill you is flatly contradicted by most if not all of the available data. All of this can be said without in any way condoning smoking.

Nobody has said that smoking is guaranteed to kill you. In fact, the human body is quite resilient at fighting off damaging things. So even a 10-20X increase in the odds of getting cancer still means that your chances of getting cancer are reasonably low. Playing Russian roulette isn't guaranteed to kill you either - that doesn't make it a smart thing to do.

On another point, as far as your earlier post on the difference between the Canadian figures and the figures I quoted, if you look at page 44 of the "Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2010.pdf" that I referred to earlier, you will see that the two data sets are actually quite consistent (and may even represent the same data). The difference is that what you quoted was the increase for lung cancer only (~13X increase in deaths for males), while the number I quoted (~23X increase in deaths for males) refers to all types of cancers. While lung cancer is the most common, smoking causes other cancers as well.

 

[shoehorn]

On another point, as far as your earlier post on the difference between the Canadian figures and the figures I quoted, if you look at page 44 of the "Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2010.pdf" that I referred to earlier, you will see that the two data sets are actually quite consistent (and may even represent the same data). The difference is that what you quoted was the increase for lung cancer only (~13X increase in deaths for males), while the number I quoted (~23X increase in deaths for males) refers to all types of cancers.

There are two points here. First, you've now moved the goalposts by contradicting what you said earlier:

According to the "Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2010.pdf" from this site:

" The risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers and 13 times higher in female smokers, compared to lifelong nonsmokers"

Second, you were actually correct the first time: the report you linked to actually states on p42 that the 23x figure is for lung cancers only.

That figure may very well be correct; it is, after all, based on a DHHS study and so presumably had a good methodology. My point is simply that it appears to be significantly higher than other studies I've encountered. In particular, while it's not inconceivable that regional differences between the US and Canadian data could account for some difference between the risk rates, I have some trouble believing that this could produce such a large difference.

 

[nismaratwork]

Smoke is bad, but smoking tobacco is especially deadly, because of the method of curing, but also TSC's!

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/40706

Epigenetic disorders give rise to several human diseases, including various cancers, neuron disorders, psychosis, and cardiovascular diseases, many of which are mediated by altered expression and activity of DNA methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1; refs. 1–8). DNMT1 is involved in DNA methylation (4). Cancer cells undergo changes in 5′-methylcytosine distribution, including global DNA hypomethylation and region-specific hypermethylation of promoter CpG islands associated with tumor suppressor genes (TSGs; ref. 9). Aberrant promoter hypermethylation of CpG islands associated with TSGs can lead to transcriptional silencing and result in tumorigenesis (4). DNMT1 is reported to be especially overexpressed in lung and liver cancer patients that are smokers (10, 11).

The key ingredient of tobacco smoke carcinogen, nitrosamine 4-(methylnitro-samino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (also known as nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone; NNK) systemically induces tumors of the lung in rats, mice, and hamsters and also plays a major role in lung carcinogenesis (12, 13). As previously reported in mouse and rat studies, NNK exposure not only leads to gene mutation, but also induces hypermethylation of multiple TSG promoters in liver or lung tumors, such as cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (p16, inhibits CDK4) (p16INK4A), death-associated protein kinase 1 (Dapk1), retinoic acid receptor β (Rarb), and runt-related transcription factor 3 (Runx) (14–17). Clinical studies indicated that smoking is associated with promoter hypermethylation at more than 20 TSGs in lung tumors (18, 19). However, the mechanism underlying the promoter hypermethylation of TSGs relevant to tobacco carcinogenesis has not been elucidated.

NNK has been shown to induce alterations in many signaling pathways, such as the EGFR, AKT, MAPK, ERK1/2, and NFκB pathways (13, 20–22). Therefore, we proposed that NKK induces overexpression of DNMTs through some signaling pathways, thereby leading to hypermethylation at multiple TSG promoters. Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide and is the leading cause of cancer mortality in industrialized countries (23). About 85%–90% of lung cancer cases are caused by cigarette smoking (12). Using lung cancer as a model, we performed cell, animal, and clinical studies to analyze the molecular mechanisms of DNMT1 overexpression in relation to NNK.

This is an issue with or without the particulate content of the smoke as well.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/16/8/1567.abstract

Smokeless tobacco has been proposed as a reduced risk substitute for smoking, but no large studies have investigated exposure to the powerful carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) in smokeless tobacco users versus smokers. The purpose of this study was to carry out such a comparison. Levels of 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol and its glucuronides (total NNAL), a biomarker of NNK exposure, and cotinine, a biomarker of nicotine exposure, were quantified in the urine of 420 smokers and 182 smokeless tobacco users who were participants in studies designed to reduce their use of these products. The measurements were taken at baseline, before intervention. Levels of total NNAL per milliliter of urine were significantly higher in smokeless tobacco users than in smokers (P < 0.0001). When adjusted for age and gender, levels of total NNAL per milligram of creatinine were also significantly higher in smokeless tobacco users than in smokers (P < 0.001). Levels of cotinine per milliliter of urine and per milligram of creatinine were significantly higher in smokeless tobacco users than in smokers (P < 0.001). These results show similar exposures to the potent tobacco-specific carcinogen NNK in smokeless tobacco users and smokers. These findings do not support the use of smokeless tobacco as a safe substitute for smoking. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(8):1567–72)

There is reason to believe that these carcinogens effect the liver and other organs, meaning that the risk of cancer in general is higher, and not just lung cancer.

Examples:
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/82/12/6084
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/69/7/2990
Even if you "don't inhale": http://www.unc.edu/courses/2009spring/envr/740/001/Sem%20Cancer%20Biol%2004%20Env%20and%20chem%20carcinogenesis.pdf

Abstract
People are continuously exposed exogenously to varying amounts of chemicals that have been shown to have carcinogenic or mutagenic
properties in experimental systems. Exposure can occur exogenously when these agents are present in food, air or water, and also
endogenously when they are products of metabolism or pathophysiologic states such as inflammation. It has been estimated that exposure
to environmental chemical carcinogens may contribute significantly to the causation of a sizable fraction, perhaps a majority, of human
cancers, when exposures are related to “life-style” factors such as diet, tobacco use, etc. This chapter summarizes several aspects of
environmental chemical carcinogenesis that have been extensively studied and illustrates the power of mechanistic investigation combined
with molecular epidemiologic approaches in establishing causative linkages between environmental exposures and increased cancer risks.
Acausative relationship between exposure to aflatoxin, a strongly carcinogenic mold-produced contaminant of dietary staples in Asia and
Africa, and elevated risk for primary liver cancer has been demonstrated through the application of well-validated biomarkers in molecular
epidemiology. These studies have also identified a striking synergistic interaction between aflatoxin and hepatitis B virus infection in
elevating liver cancer risk. Use of tobacco products provides a clear example of cancer causation by a life-style factor involving carcinogen
exposure. Tobacco carcinogens and their DNA adducts are central to cancer induction by tobacco products, and the contribution of specific
tobacco carcinogens (e.g. PAH and NNK) to tobacco-induced lung cancer, can be evaluated by a weight of evidence approach. Factors
considered include presence in tobacco products, carcinogenicity in laboratory animals, human uptake, metabolism and adduct formation,
possible role in causing molecular changes in oncogenes or suppressor genes, and other relevant data. This approach can be applied to
evaluation of other environmental carcinogens, and the evaluations would be markedly facilitated by prospective epidemiologic studies
incorporating phenotypic carcinogen-specific biomarkers.
Heterocyclic amines represent an important class of carcinogens in foods. They are mutagens and carcinogens at numerous organ sites
in experimental animals, are produced when meats are heated above 180 ◦C for long periods. Four of these compounds can consistently be
identified in well-done meat products from the North American diet, and although a causal linkage has not been established, a majority of
epidemiology studies have linked consumption of well-done meat products to cancer of the colon, breast and stomach. Studies employing
molecular biomarkers suggest that individuals may differ in their susceptibility to these carcinogens, and genetic polymorphisms may
contribute to this variability. Heterocyclic amines, likemost other chemical carcinogens, are not carcinogenic per se butmust be metabolized
by a family of cytochrome P450 enzymes to chemically reactive electrophiles prior to reacting with DNA to initiate a carcinogenic
response. These same cytochrome P450 enzymes—as well as enzymes that act on the metabolic products of the cytochromes P450
(e.g. glucuronyl transferase, glutathione S-transferase and others)—also metabolize chemicals by inactivation pathways, and the relative
amounts of activation and detoxification will determine whether a chemical is carcinogenic. Because both genetic and environmental
factors influence the levels of enzymes that metabolically activate and detoxify chemicals, they can also influence carcinogenic risk...

 

[Gerenuk]

These numbers seem senseless, because they are incomplete information. I'm not sure how to answer my particular question with them :(

 

[phyzguy]

Does it actually matter whether your risk of getting cancer is 13X higher or 23X higher if you smoke cigarettes? Would you decide to smoke if your risk of dying a horrible death is "only" 13X higher, but would decide not to smoke if it is 23X higher?

 

[shoehorn]

Does it actually matter whether your risk of getting cancer is 13X higher or 23X higher if you smoke cigarettes? Would you decide to smoke if your risk of dying a horrible death is "only" 13X higher, but would decide not to smoke if it is 23X higher?

It matters very much when the matter at hand is a discussion about the precise figures. Indeed, in such a discussion one might argue that it's the only thing that matters...

 

[phyzguy]

What if the results said that the risk of dying from cancer was increased by 17X, with an uncertainty in the figure of +/- 40%? Then would you make a different decision? There are always statistical uncertainties in these studies, because there is no way to do controlled experiments.

 

[shoehorn]

What if the results said that the risk of dying from cancer was increased by 17X, with an uncertainty in the figure of +/- 40%?

Do the results say that?

 

[phyzguy]

I'm going to bow out. You can read the documents as well as I. I hope you make the right choice.

 

[russ_watters]

These numbers seem senseless, because they are incomplete information. I'm not sure how to answer my particular question with them :(

You mean this question?:

How many people from a group of smokers die additionally compared to a group of non-smokers?

The question makes no sense. Specifically, what does "die additionally" mean?

The thing to keep in mind when considering smoking risk statistics is that smoking provides a cumulative risk. What this means is two-fold:
1. The more/longer you smoke, the greater your risk of dying from it.
2. The longer you are able to avoid getting hit by a truck, the greater your chance of dying from it. In other words, if you plan on dying young, don't worry about it. If you hope/expect to live into your 80s, smoking will have a high probability of becoming a big problem.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm going to bow out. You can read the documents as well as I. I hope you make the right choice.

A thought: The knowledge-transfer does not have to be occur with unfounded assumptions about what will be done with that knowledge. Nor does it have to be delivered with moral messages demanding someone make a choice about it.

The OP is doing exactly what we would hope in our wildest dreams he is doing: educating himself.

 

[nismaratwork]

A thought: The knowledge-transfer does not have to be occur with unfounded assumptions about what will be done with that knowledge. Nor does it have to be delivered with moral messages demanding someone make a choice about it.

The OP is doing exactly what we would hope in our wildest dreams he is doing: educating himself.

Sure, but from a medical perspective it's a bit like someone asking about the wisdom of Russian Roulette. It's not so much a moral issue as it is practical: smoking is an necessary vice that has only one good use, which no one has mentioned yet. Smoking cigarettes can be helpful for some people taking anti-psychotic medications. Beyond that, it's just a drag on your health, it contaminates your immediate environment with carcinogens, and I hear it makes you feel like crap. Oh yes, it's also a drag on families, and costs taxpayers.

Education is wonderful, but this is practical application: smoking tobacco is hazardous and incredibly addictive. If your life consists of unprotected sex with prostitutes, smoking and other drug use, driving fast without a seatbelt, well, you're making a choice. Smoking, unsafe driving, and unprotected sex all have the chance to cause harm tot he self, and to others to varying degrees. This makes it about more than morality, and in my experience, education is not the issue in the USA and Western Europe.

What is the relevance of an exact actuarial count fo the risk? Either you are willing to take the risks, or you're addicted and knowledge is not the issue.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure, but from a medical perspective it's a bit like someone asking about the wisdom of Russian Roulette. It's not so much a moral issue as it is practical: smoking is an necessary vice that has only one good use, which no one has mentioned yet. Smoking cigarettes can be helpful for some people taking anti-psychotic medications. Beyond that, it's just a drag on your health, it contaminates your immediate environment with carcinogens, and I hear it makes you feel like crap. Oh yes, it's also a drag on families, and costs taxpayers.

Education is wonderful, but this is practical application: smoking tobacco is hazardous and incredibly addictive. If your life consists of unprotected sex with prostitutes, smoking and other drug use, driving fast without a seatbelt, well, you're making a choice. Smoking, unsafe driving, and unprotected sex all have the chance to cause harm tot he self, and to others to varying degrees. This makes it about more than morality, and in my experience, education is not the issue in the USA and Western Europe.

What is the relevance of an exact actuarial count fo the risk? Either you are willing to take the risks, or you're addicted and knowledge is not the issue.

The OP wanted facts. It's like the Holy Grail for PF. Imagine - a member simply wanting facts.

What is it with people and always having to find fault?


It's like that time a member came in and asked a simple question. They got simple answer. They said thanks. PF nearly imploded.

 

[nismaratwork]

The OP wanted facts. It's like the Holy Grail for PF. Imagine - a member simply wanting facts.

What is it with people and always having to find fault?


It's like that time a member came in and asked a simple question. They got simple answer. They said thanks. PF nearly imploded.

This is medicine, not physics, the issue is the real complications that arise and not a purely academic exercise. If you find this frustrating, why deal in the medicine section? It's like discussing politics in the BSM forum. Medicine is not the rigorous and fundamental science that physics is, and it has different aims. Ignoring the human and social toll in medicine obviates the whole point of medicine.

 

[Gerenuk]

The thing to keep in mind when considering smoking risk statistics is that smoking provides a cumulative risk. What this means is two-fold:
1. The more/longer you smoke, the greater your risk of dying from it.
2. The longer you are able to avoid getting hit by a truck, the greater your chance of dying from it. In other words, if you plan on dying young, don't worry about it. If you hope/expect to live into your 80s, smoking will have a high probability of becoming a big problem.

Glad to see someone is referring to the actual question :)

I hope this explains the question:
I consider two groups, smokers and non-smokers. Now I look at the cases that suffered from cancer. How much is this rate (percent over lifetime) different between those two groups?

So I could say: "Hey, you are 10 smokers, and one of you will die (additionally) from cancer which wouldn't have happened if you all were non-smokers".

I suppose if you research information like how many smoke and how many die of cancer (caused by whatever) you could use the information given here to answer my question. But I don't seem to get reasonable numbers.

 

[nismaratwork]

Glad to see someone is referring to the actual question :)

I hope this explains the question:
I consider two groups, smokers and non-smokers. Now I look at the cases that suffered from cancer. How much is this rate (percent over lifetime) different between those two groups?

So I could say: "Hey, you are 10 smokers, and one of you will die (additionally) from cancer which wouldn't have happened if you all were non-smokers".

I suppose if you research information like how many smoke and how many die of cancer (caused by whatever) you could use the information given here to answer my question. But I don't seem to get reasonable numbers.

There is no single study that gives one clear answer. The variables are vast, so the best you can get is a risk factor above the norm, much as someone taking "the pill" and smoking, and going on an airplane raises their overall risk for clotting or stroke. Saying, "one in ten people will die" is too exact, but how much your baseline risk (which is often variable) increases is not.

 

[DaveC426913]

One of the ways I attempted to tackle this myself a ways back was to take a life insurance fitness questionnaire. I answered their hundred questions or so and it told me my life expectancy. I then took the test again, and changed a single variable (it wasn't smoking), and it told me my altered life expectancy.

All research aside, IMO insurance companies live and die on their accurate assessments of real-world risks. I believe they have spent milllinos of dollars ensuring they're got the best and broadest algorithms, so I trust their numbers.

The trick is to find a life insurance questionnaire that you can take.

 

[nismaratwork]

One of the ways I attempted to tackle this myself a ways back was to take a life insurance fitness questionnaire. I answered their hundred questions or so and it told me my life expectancy. I then took the test again, and changed a single variable (it wasn't smoking), and it told me my altered life expectancy.

All research aside, IMO insurance companies live and die on their accurate assessments of real-world risks. I believe they have spent milllinos of dollars ensuring they're got the best and broadest algorithms, so I trust their numbers.

The trick is to find a life insurance questionnaire that you can take.

That makes sense, but again it's personal, and not the OP's desire for "these 10 smokers are here, look to your left, and right, one of these will die within 10 years." We're all saying roughly the same thing: it's too variable, and about increases in actuarial risk, not a matter of "cigarettes will kill one in ten." Those numbers are always varied and suspect.

 

[BW338]

Smoking is absolutely one of the worst things you can do to your body. Don't do it! Here is a good site:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/content/STT_1x_Cancer_Facts_Figures_2010.asp?from=fast

" The risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers and 13 times higher in female smokers,..."

"Higher" than what? These "scary" numbers are meaningless.

 

[nismaratwork]

"Higher" than what? These "scary" numbers are meaningless.

Higher than a baseline of non-smokers... Did you simply fail to read the study?

 

[BW338]

OK. What is the baseline number of male, non-smokers?

 

[nismaratwork]

OK. What is the baseline number of male, non-smokers?

Read... the... study...

A baseline is only valid within the context of the sample group.

 

[christinedwrd]

Thanks for this post! My husband has been smoking for 20 years and I've been convincing him to quit but he keeps saying that "more nonsmokers die of cancer than smokers". He was talking about a smoker's body to create cells resilient to nicotine. Maybe with this thread, I can convince him once and for all to quit.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks for this post! My husband has been smoking for 20 years and I've been convincing him to quit but he keeps saying that "more nonsmokers die of cancer than smokers". He was talking about a smoker's body to create cells resilient to nicotine. Maybe with this thread, I can convince him once and for all to quit.

Please forgive. Your husband is a fool who is in denial. He knows perfectly well that what's he's saying is not true; it's a rationalization.

Suggest that he at least have the grown-upness to be honest with himself.

 

[nismaratwork]

Please forgive. Your husband is a fool who is in denial. He knows perfectly well that what's he's saying is not true; it's a rationalization.

Suggest that he at least have the grown-upness to be honest with himself.

Harsh, but utterly correct. There is a whole body of research into the resolution of the cognitive dissonance created by undertaking risky activity, and smoking tobacco is often the model used. The manner of resolution is usually in the forms of:
"Something has to kill me, if it's not smoking, something else will."
"Only a percentage of people who smoke die from lung cancer, and it's not a majority."
"I don't buy the science and medicine which says I'm at risk."

Obviously the flaw in the first is that you're not mitigating risk, and you're ignoring the idea that you're shortening your life, even if it's not smoking that seems to kill you. This dovetails with the second which while accurate, ignores the many way in which smoking is deleterious to cardiac and pulmonary health! This can be reformulated as a notion that more nonsmokers die of cancer, but of course, they don't die from lung, mouth, and throat cancer: that's for smokers and a few other select groups.

The final one, is what DaveC has pinpointed: and it's a kind of selective madness. It's true that people develop tolerance to nicotine as a drug, but there is no adaptations to avoiding the effects of carcinogens from smoking. IN FACT, there are TSC's (Tobacco Specific Carcinogens) which is essentially the opposite of your husband's thesis: tobacco is uniquely carcinogenic, like asbestos, or radon, and the human body's defense against runaway mutation (cancer) is more easily defeated by these carcinogens that those the non-smoking popultion is exposed to.

Oh, and yeah, more nonsmokers die of cancer is wrong, but I get what he's saying... and it's bull****. There are more nonsmokers than smokers, and age is the biggest risk factor for cancer. As smokers tend to die earlier than nonsmokers by quite a few years on average, they have lower incidences of some cancers because they don't survive long enough to enter that the riskiest period for them. It's a statistical illusion which really does the opposite of what your husband believes.

The one area I disagree with DaveC is that your husband is not a fool; your husband is afraid. To rationalize as he does, he must have a sense of the risk he's taking, and the difficulty in quitting his habit. If you approach him as a fool who requires education you'll be ignoring the fact that these are defense mechanisms he's developed to avoid the constant fear of death. I don't think you need to be gentle, but be aware that his intelligence and maturity may not be the issue; he's just human. Now smack some good sense into this human before he dies horribly, because dying from COPD's or Lung Cancer is a TERRIBLE way to die.

 

[DaveC426913]

... your husband is not a fool...Now smack some good sense into this human...

OK, he's not a fool. But smack some sense into him nonetheless.

You know, when he was young, there was nothing wrong with him adding risks to his life that would shorten his lifespan. Now he's not young; he has commitments to loved lones.

Pehaps ask him if it's all right with him that he dies a few years early (best case), leaving you (and your children) without a husband/father...

 

[Evo]

Thanks for this post! My husband has been smoking for 20 years and I've been convincing him to quit but he keeps saying that "more nonsmokers die of cancer than smokers". He was talking about a smoker's body to create cells resilient to nicotine. Maybe with this thread, I can convince him once and for all to quit.

Why do smokers think that the only smoking related ailment that will kill them is cancer?

My brother-in-law recently died of COPD, caused by smoking. It is a horrible disease to die from. He had just been given 2-5 years to live when diagnosed, but he got a bacterial infection that a healthy person would have easily thrown off with antibiotics. He was dead in less than two weeks.

There are many smoking related diseases that can kill you, cancer is just one.

I disagree with nismar, your husband IS a fool. Denial is not only foolish, it can kill you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do smokers think that the only smoking related ailment that will kill them is cancer?

My brother-in-law recently died of COPD, caused by smoking.

Huh. Never thought of it that way.

 

[Evo]

Huh. Never thought of it that way.

COPD is bad. It's just one of many smoking related illnesses.

What Is COPD?
COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary (PULL-mun-ary) disease, is a progressive disease that makes it hard to breathe. "Progressive" means the disease gets worse over time.

COPD can cause coughing that produces large amounts of mucus (a slimy substance), wheezing, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and other symptoms.

Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of COPD. Most people who have COPD smoke or used to smoke.

COPD is a major cause of disability, and it's the fourth leading cause of death in the United States.

COPD has no cure

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Copd/Copd_WhatIs.html

 

[hamster143]

Also, when it is cancer, it is not necessarily lung cancer. The whole upper gastrointestinal tract is a high-risk area among smokers, since rates of stomach & esophagus cancers are substantially higher than among nonsmokers, and prognosis for those is typically quite as poor (there are no visible symptoms until it's too late). My grandfather was a heavy smoker, he died of stomach cancer at 69. If it's COPD, at least it tends to be manageable. If it's stomach cancer, you'll be lucky to have 6 months after diagnosis.

Besides, some people seem to get the wrong message. Smoking does NOT increase your chance of dying. The simple reason being that your chance of dying is 100%. What it does do (aside from the question about the best way to die - e.g., all else equal, is it better to succumb to Alzheimer's or pneumonia than to die from cancer), is reduce your life expectancy by about 15 years. So, if you're a nonsmoker in a good physical shape and without any heritable diseases, you can probably count on living to about 80 to 85 before various deficiencies in the design of your body become too difficult to manage. (Sometimes less, but then it's mostly bad luck.) Add smoking to the mix, and you're suddenly looking at a significant chance of not making to your 70th birthday.

 

[nismaratwork]

COPD is bad. It's just one of many smoking related illnesses.



http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Copd/Copd_WhatIs.html

My friend from childhood's mother smoked for decades, and she died sloooooowly from emphysema. I've never seen a worse death, although cancer with bone pain is a close tie.

I would add that there is growing evidence of TSC's collecting in carpeting, or on other surfaces and potentially harming others. Certainly your own skin and clothing become carcinogenic if you're a smoker, so the family angle is even more critical. If he can't do this for himself, he should do it for others.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61753920100208

 

[bobze]

Does anyone have a number or source how much the chance of dying of cancer increases if you smoke or drink?

The actual question is:
How many people from a group of smokers die additionally compared to a group of non-smokers?

Somehow most press statements don't seem sufficient to answer this question...

You're not going to find accurate and correct numbers, despite the numerous studies done. The best way to associate risk of acquiring a disease from an exposure is through cohort studies.

The problem is there is too many confounding variables and "cancer" is too broad of a category.

For example; One of the many bad things produced from smoking is benzopyrenes. Which bond to nucleic acid bases and wreak mayhem in your DNA.

You body's (or rather cell's) way of dealing with these guys, is to put them in vesicles and oxidize the hell out of them. This seems to work pretty well, but the problem is people aren't exact copies of each other and some people's bodies deal with some toxins better than others.

In some individuals, things like benzopyrenes may stick around a long time causing lots of damage in replicating cells. While in others it may have an extremely short biological half life. Even something like aspirin has an incredibly diverse biological half life depending on the individual (Consequently this is where you're seeing medicine go now, being tailored specific to the genes one has).

We just reviewed an interesting case of a geriatrics patient who at 91 years old, had smoked since he was 14. Nothing wrong with his lungs at all and sadly his demise was at the hands of vancomycin which seemed too much for his old kidneys (little other options were available, he was unable to clear a post-operative infection). Again, iterating the point that individual bodies deal with toxins in different ways. This man's body seems to have (by and large) been able to deal with all the carcinogens that come from the combustion of organic material and chemicals found in cigarette smoke. However, a regularly used antibiotic sent him into renal failure and death.

Anyway the bottom line is, cancer is complex, as is an individual's genome --So "hard-line" conclusions may not be representative of the population at large (and certainly not on an individual basis).

That doesn't mean I condone smoking though, before anyone asks. Smoke (tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke, any kind of combusted organic smoke) contains a nice cocktail of carcinogens and by smoking you are really playing Russian roulette that your genes are all "good" genes for dealing with those carcinogens. Because of the plethora of them, the odds simply aren't in your favor and smoking will likely shorten your life-But one can't say for certain.Edit: Sorry had to fix the size of my benzopyrene!

 

[bobze]

OK, he's not a fool. But smack some sense into him nonetheless.

You know, when he was young, there was nothing wrong with him adding risks to his life that would shorten his lifespan. Now he's not young; he has commitments to loved lones.

Pehaps ask him if it's all right with him that he dies a few years early (best case), leaving you (and your children) without a husband/father...

Not that you were necessarily suggesting this Dave, but to point out to anyone reading along;

Quitting an addiction for someone else (such as a loved one, etc) is a bad idea. The addict is likely going to relapse. People with addictions (even to cigarettes) have to want to quit for themselves first. If they don't, they will never be committed to quitting.

You're best bet is to educate your husband and get him to want to quit for his own health. If he quits for you or the kids, he'll be outback sneaking a smoke in no time at all.

 

[mugaliens]

Does anyone have a number or source how much the chance of dying of cancer increases if you smoke or drink?

From what I recall, your chances of dying from lung cancer range from 1 in 500 from being a human being, to 1 in 3 from being a life-long smoker.

If you want specific stats, please ask, though I don't feel they're very understanding or sensitive for this forum.

The actual question is:
How many people from a group of smokers die additionally compared to a group of non-smokers?

Well, we all die. The question is, "from what?" If it's a difference between 1:500 to 1:3, then the difference is 500/3, or 166. That means, if you smoke your entire life, statistically speaking, you're 166 times as likely to die of lung cancer than of any other disease.

I've known three who died of lung cancer. Two died horribly (pain and suffering). The third, a prominent businessmen, shot himself.

I was able to get my mom to quit smoking in the 80s, and my dad in the 90s. Today, they're both in good health!

Please. Whatever you do, quit now.

That's all I'll say.

Somehow most press statements don't seem sufficient to answer this question...

Just google "'smoking' and 'lung cancer'" and you'll find some better results.

 

[mugaliens]

Why do smokers think that the only smoking related ailment that will kill them is cancer?

My brother-in-law recently died of COPD, caused by smoking. It is a horrible disease to die from. He had just been given 2-5 years to live when diagnosed, but he got a bacterial infection that a healthy person would have easily thrown off with antibiotics. He was dead in less than two weeks.

There are many smoking related diseases that can kill you, cancer is just one.

I disagree with nismar, your husband IS a fool. Denial is not only foolish, it can kill you.

Evo, I am so sorry for your loss. While living in Vegas I knew and interacted with some folks in my church who said they were suffering from COPD, along with the more usual and many other affects.

I agree with you - Denial is foolish. Abuse of one's body even in the mildest of ways will bite us in the end.

Meanwhile, next month, I'm heading on a river rafting trip in a river known for it's sewage effluviant. If one of you scientist types would like to provide us adventurist types with a means of taking samples, complete with detailed descriptions as to how to do so, we'll videotape our doing so, including sealing of samples, so that your records may be complete.

I'm as interested in the bottom line as you are, and if there's no evidence here, so be it. But if there is, let's get to the bottom of it!

- Mugs

PM if you're interested.