and non smokers get lung cancer? . and if smoking merely increases the chances.....why is there so much hysterical anti-smoking feeling around?
Cancer - 12 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Because it's sort of like playing a game of gambling. Smoking doesn't guarantee you will get lung cancer. But it greatly increases the odds that you will. In the same way, not smoking does not guarantee that you will not get lung cancer. But it greatly reduces the odds that you will. Smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer. Exposure to other inhaled carcinogens, such as radon, can also play a role.
2 :
because some people are lucky, and some are not.
3 :
because some also smoke marijuana, which has been shown to prevent cancer growth
4 :
Cancer represents a genetic disease cause by the accumulation of error's in a cell's DNA. These mutations are usually prevented through a series of protection mechanisms, however sometimes they fail and the mutation is propagated. Depending on the type of the error a cell can be predisposed to accumulate error's, become neoplastic and/or immortal (tendency to multiplicate and disrupt other cells). There are certain elements that may increase the odds of a mutation happening (chemical, radiation, even viruses - HPV ). Smoke is one of those elements, so while there is no guarantee that smoking will actually give you cancer, it increases the odds. Since carcinogens in tobacco smoke gets into your blood-stream you can get cancer basically anywhere. Smoking also substantially increases the risk of cardio-vascular diseases and other pulmonary afflictions such as emphysema (especially if you're a chain smoker). If you are curious about genetics a great and accessible book is Matt Ridley's Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters.
5 :
You are advised to walk on the side of the road and cross at zebra crossings. But there are a lot of people who walk on the road and cross anywhere. A vehicle hitting you is more when you walk on the middle of the road and cross as you like. But some of them are not hit by the vehicle. Some who walk on the side and cross at zebra crossing are hit by a vehicle. But the odds are that those who play it safe are more safe. Those who live dangerously are at more danger. Take your choice. But you cannot reverse the damages caused by smoking to your body (lungs, arteries, heart, brain etc.) later in life. Even if you don't get a cancer you are prone to get bronchitis, emphysema, heart attack, stroke, impotence and many many problems due to smoking. Don't look at a lucky few who may or may not get a problem later in life. DO NOT SMOKE.
6 :
Hmmm. Men are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancers if they are chronic cigarette smokers. That is not a mere association. That is an overwhelming cause and effect. Malignancies are far more complicated than the average person thinks. A confluence of factors leads to a malignant clone of genetically altered cells which have the capacity to grow without normal human body restraints. The person must first be susceptible to genetic alterations caused by carcinogenic chemicals - of which there are dozens in tobacco / cigarette smoke. Then the immune system must drop its guard and allow that clone to grow. Over many years a lung carcinoma will grow until it is large enough to be seen on any x-rays or scans. Lung cancers must be even larger to cause any symptoms. Symptoms occur only in the very last, most advanced stages of the disease. By then it is too late. The barn door has long been open - all the horses have gone - and they have had baby horses already - before you find out. I like the answer by "serengeti_lion" and "katiefrehner" who said it was a matter of luck. It is indeed a matter of luck. In the Canadian study I often quote - 1 in 6 men who were chronic smokers developed lung cancers - so it is a slow form of Russian roulette. Male smokers - lifetime risk of lung cancer 1 in 6 Female smokers – risk of lung cancer is 1 in 9 Risk of lung cancer in non-smokers is 1 in 77 Can J Public Health. 1994 Nov-Dec;85(6):385-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7895211 But that means 5 of 6 smokers did not develop lung cancers. They "got away with it" - though many died prematurely with emphysema or cardiovascular disease. I would guess about half of people who are chronic smokers "get away with it." The trouble is this - if you do develop a smoking related disease - the treatment is very expensive and a burden on everyone. And that disease could have been prevented if you had not smoked. Should people who choose to smoke not be treated when they fall into the "unlucky" group? They made there own mistake, and they lost. Same thing for people who choose to eat their way into obesity with all of those inherent medical risks. These are societal, moral, ethical concerns with the skyrocketing cost of medical care. There are so many more medications we can use to try to eek out a few extra weeks or extra months for people who develop lung cancers, but it would be much better to avoid ~90% of these in the first place by not becoming addicted to smoking cigarettes. We can easily spend a million dollars on each person who develops a smoking related disease in the U.S. today. Yes, I know that medical care is overpriced - but why are we spending so much money to attempt to save or prolong the lives of people who asked for their own disease by smoking cigarettes year after year? I estimate that the average person I saw with lung cancer over my 20 years as a cancer specialist doctor had smoked half a million cigarettes. I saw hundreds of people with lung cancers in North Carolina - USA. Almost every one was a chronic cigarette smoker. Medical oncologists - despite all of the expensive new treatments we have - almost always fail in fighting advanced lung cancers. Most oncologists would rather they were prevented in the first place. Cigarette smoking is the number one cause of lung cancer deaths in the U.S. At least 31% of all cancer deaths in the USA are caused by smoking. Each one of those people is very, very expensive to treat - almost always in a losing battle. Is cigarette smoking really necessary? Can humans live without smoking cigarettes?
7 :
Smoking increase your exposure to multiple carcinogens contained in cigarette smoke many thousand-fold. It dramatically increases the amount of mutations that occur in cells in your body and therefore increases the chances of developing several types of cancer, not just lung cancer. You say "merely" as if it is not important. Playing Russian roulette "merely" increases your chances of being shot in the head! That doesn't mean you wouldn't be an idiot to do it. Even though it just increases the chances of developing lung cancer (as well as several other cancers, emphysema, atherosclerosis and thus heart disease and stroke, etc), the association between smoking and these things is SO strong that it far outweighs many other risk factors out there. It is one of the strongest associations in medicine. So yes, it "merely" increases the chances, but it increases them very dramatically. And that is for several different diseases so all together the chance of ANY cancer or disease related to smoking is very high. Some forms of lung cancer are associated with smoking and others are not. While lung cancer is more common in smokers, non-smokers can get some forms of the disease too.
8 :
Google Lung Cancer - it shows that drinking alcohol, unhealthy diet, driving a car causes the exhaust fumes to enter the car which has more cancer causing chemicals than smoking, industrial chemicals, radon which rises from the ground through your floorboards have cancer causing chemicals in it and all new houses are being built with tin foil material on the floor boards to prevent the radon gases entering our homes, radiation, xrays, etc are all higher risks than smoking.
9 :
CoachTrip - Excellent questions to which there are partial answers. To some extent, those smokers who get lung cancer statistically relate to the number of "pack-years" or how much and how long they have been smoking. Probably there are some genetic factors yet to be identified which put some persons at greater risk. Of all possible causes of lung cancer, the overwhelming highest connection has been with inhaled tobacco smoke. When the smoke damages the lungs, even if cancer doesn't develop, a huge number of people develop the "living death" of emphysema and can't live without being attached to a tank of oxygen. These are some reasons for the strong anti-smoking feeling, not to mention the high cost of medical care and the harm that smoking does to the blood vessels of the heart leading to earlier heart attacks. Be aware that the lung cancer in smokers is usually called squamous cell carcinoma or non-small cell type. However, the non-smokers who get cancer usually get a different type of lung cancer called small cell carcinoma. So all cancers do not have the same causes in the lung and non-smokers do get lung cancers. I prefer to play the odds as safely as I can and never again smoke.
10 :
They are now saying that alot of people are getting lung cancer and dont realize its from exspestos, the CDC is saying 1 out of 3 people have developed lung cancer from exspestos (airborne pathogen). I know for a fact there companies helping to get a settlement for anyone with lung cancer. My aunt had lung cancer and found out it was caused by a infestation in her house and won her case she was paid like 140 grand. They tried to settle out of court but she took 'em for everything.. anyway here is the company's site that is doing it http://www.lung-cancer-compensation.tk hope that helped:)
11 :
It purely depends on the immunity system of the person who smokes. Lung cancer is directly related to smoking. The risk of developing lung cancer is directly related to the number of cigarettes smoked. But the person with high immunity may not get effected soon compared to the one with less immunity.
12 :
Some people are more susceptible to lung cancer from smoking than others. And some who smoke smoke more than others. And some smokers inhale more deeply than others. Finally, there is a difference between cause and effect, and cause and a probability of an adverse consequence, such as lung cancer developing in a smoker. The cigarette manufacturing companies tried to say that if smoking causes lung cancer, then everyone who smokes should get lung cancer. But the lung cancer research scientists responded that there is also something known as a relationship between some cause and the probability of developing lung cancer, and lung cancer falls into the latter category. There may well be genetic factors, as well, that relate to susceptibility -- those who are more susceptible to developing lung cancer because of their increased hereditary risk are much more likely to get lung cancer than someone who did not inherit those factors that genetically increase the risk. At present, we have no good or inexpensive way to determine who is more likely to develop cancer with risky behavior, but there are probably several genes, maybe more than a dozen, that increase the risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke. I do not personally view the anti-smoking feeling as hysterical. There is a very solid foundation in clinical research that has been duplicated repeatedly. If we know -- and we absolutely do know -- that smoking cigarettes increases the risk of lung cancer, then doesn't it make sense to make a good effort convince smokers to stop and non-smokers not to start? I've read the clinical articles over the past forty-five years, and I am absolutely convinced that there is a very close relationship between smoking cigarettes and the development of lung cancer. I wish my younger brother had the same convictions. He smoked a pipe -- it seemed as though it was all the time -- and he inhaled the smoke! He died June 15, 2008 of lung cancer at the age of 63. I know something from this loss that cannot be out in research papers, and I do my level best to get my patients to stop smoking. If you are a smoker, what can I do so that the last cigarette you lit before reading this is the last cigarette you ever light? I just want you to know that this is beyond an scientific conviction for me -- it is a deeply personal and emotional campaign -- I want my brother back -- the #1 Corvette Master Show Judge in the United States and one of the leading hospital design architects in this country -- I want him back. So, you see, there is the scientific angle, and for me, an emotional one too.
Read more discussions :
- How long can a person live with stage 4 lung cance...
- Can Lung Cancer Affect You Mentally or Physically ...
- How much cigarette is enough to cause lung cancer
- What is the chance of dying from lung cancer
- How long does it take a person to die from lung ca...
- What are the chances of a 16 year old getting lung...
- What is the minimal age for lung cancer
- How long does lung cancer take to kill you
