Medical Risk of cancer from smoking or alcohol?

[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.