Monday, December 28, 2009

What's the youngest a child could develop lung cancer from second hand smoking

What's the youngest a child could develop lung cancer from second hand smoking?
If a child's parents smoked, how long would it take, an approximate minimum, for it to be realistic that the child developed lung cancer because of second hand smoke. (I'm writing a novel and need to know if it is realistic that one of the characters have developed lung cancer from second hand smoking by their parents as a child)
Cancer - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Not gonna happen and you aren't gonna get any help in a serious health forum. Go to books and authors or homework help.
2 :
Children do not get lung cancer and second hand smoke is not that big a deal.
3 :
Exactly what the other two posts said. There is no respectable scientific case that relates second hand smoke to lung cancer. The risk is considered NON SIGNIFICANT, because it's exponentially too small to measure, if a link even existed. The 1993 Environmental Protection Agencies linking health concerns to second hand smoke was thrown out by a district judge for cherry-picking their information, even with the bias they could only conclude: “The studies showed that for any given nonsmoker, the lifetime risk of getting lung cancer remains small: 4 to 5 in 1000 ordinarily, and 6 to 7 in 1000 if he or she has been living with a smoking spouse.” http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/artcl-new.php?ID=40 That's 100% exposure indoors over a lifetime. BMJ did the longest most in depth study and concluded: “Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 The smoke campaigns also like to bring up the idea that it's for the safety of the workers, This shows waitresses in smoke filled bars are exposed to only a 5th of what the EPA considers hazardous: http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00 The EPA also states the following: “Studies that support a CASUAL association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.” “the chance of declaring these increases statistically significant was small.” “EPA has never claimed that minimal exposure to secondhand smoke poses a huge individual cancer risk.” “The lung cancer risk from secondhand smoke is relatively small compared to the risk from direct smoking” http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html So as you can see the science behind the health concerns of others over second hand smoke are practically impossible to even been seen in case studies, let along be justification enough to pass any bans. This information needs to be shared with the world, so the lies from the campaigns don't influence people to vote stupidly. Like the quotes goes, "If you hear a lie long enough, eventually it becomes the truth." Also at Forces international they publicly display all the scientific cases done on the matter at: Other Source(s): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/200907/is-second-hand-smoke-really-dangerous http://www.cigarmony.com/downloads/smoking%201440.pdf “Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.[JNatlCancerInst1998;90:1440–50]” http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/artcl-new.php?ID=40 http://skepticdoc.com/?p=9



Read more discussions :

Posted by lung cancer at 4:09 PM

Thursday, December 24, 2009

What are some symptom for thermal lung cancer

What are some symptom for thermal lung cancer?
Sister has had termal lung cancer for two years and seems to in a daze for the last two months. Why
Cancer - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
my Boyfriends mom has been told she only has 9 monthes to live she has lung cancer and she just started acting very confused or disoriented Is your sister on heavy meds I am almost positive this is the reason , but I will say a prayer for her.
2 :
Thermal lung cancer? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that exactly. Do you mean terminal? Lung cancer frequently doesn't have a lot of symptoms. Maybe a chronic cough, but that is so common, especially among smokers, that it is fairly nonspecific. Unfortunately, by the time more alarming symptoms appear, such as unexplained weight loss, it is because the cancer has already spread and therefore it is too late to really cure. As for your sister being in a daze, it could be because it has spread to the brain. Cancer can also cause you to lose your appetite, so more optimistically, maybe she just isn't getting adequate nutrition. Nutrition drinks like ensure may be worth a try. Good luck and I'm sorry to hear about your sister.
3 :
My husband had no symptoms. He thought he hurt his back at work. Was diagnosed March20th passed June 6th. He went thru radiation, chemo, gamma knife procedure(for brain tumor ask your doctor) and took a drug called tarceva. If she is in a daze it could be a tumor on the brain or else the medication. So very sorry for you and your sister. Stay strong and good luck



Read more discussions :

Posted by lung cancer at 4:08 PM

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Can anyone tell me the life expectancy for someone with small cell lung cancer limited stage 3rd level

Can anyone tell me the life expectancy for someone with small cell lung cancer limited stage 3rd level?
My mother was just diagnosed with small cell lung cancer. She has been undergoing testing and just started treatments this week with it. I do know shes at stage 3 and its limited stage. Please any information you could give would be great I have seen some information but hoping what you may find looks better than what i have. We still haven't gotten all the results back yet we will this Friday. But thanks for any and all help.
Cancer - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Small cell is best treated with chemotherapy which aggressively deals with it. If your mother can finish the chemotherapy, then radiation is usually administered. Although each person is different, the five year survival rate is very low. I know that cancer is stressful to the patient and loved ones but try to do your best to help her relax. Plus, it is a good idea that her surroundings are as clean as possible to prevent infection. Her immune system will be compromised. My mother had small cell but was already in a bad shape before she was diagnosed at age 77. Her oncologist was surprised that she didn't respond better to treatment. I can understand what you are going through. I will be thinking of her and sending good thoughts her way. Good luck to you. Please let us know how she is doing.



Read more discussions :

Posted by lung cancer at 4:06 PM

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

What is the best way to treat small cell carncinoma Lung cancer

What is the best way to treat small cell carncinoma Lung cancer?
My Mom was recently diagnosed with lung cancer. She's 63, breast cancer survivor of 6 yrs, 1 pack a day, 2 heart attacks, and high blood pressure... please help... i love my MOM.... My Mom was recently diagnosed with lung cancer. Her "cyst" is only 1 1/2 centimeters along. Today we begin the first doctor appt... Please help.. i love her Thanks
Cancer - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Stop smoking and start chemo and radiation are the best bets at the moment.
2 :
Without treatment, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has the most aggressive clinical course of any type of pulmonary tumor, with median survival from diagnosis of only 2 to 4 months. Compared with other cell types of lung cancer, SCLC has a greater tendency to be widely disseminated by the time of diagnosis but is much more responsive to chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Because patients with small cell lung cancer tend to develop distant metastases, localized forms of treatment, such as surgical resection or radiation therapy, rarely produce long-term survival. With incorporation of current chemotherapy regimens into the treatment program, however, survival is unequivocally prolonged, with at least a 4- to 5-fold improvement in median survival compared with patients who are given no therapy. Furthermore, about 10% of the total population of patients remains free of disease during 2 years from the start of therapy, the time period during which most relapses occur. Even these patients, however, are at risk of dying from lung cancer (both small- and non-small cell types). The overall survival at 5 years is 5% to 10%.
3 :
Hello Magnolia, I'm sorry to hear about your mom. My husband was diagnosed with cancer over 3 years ago that traveled to his lungs. After going thru chemo and radiation he was no better and the cancer was growing. That's when I found the website http://cancertutor.com. I found tons of information on alternative medicine cures and was able to get some direction on what to do next. Today he is active and healthy at 52. Check out that site, you will find tons of very helpful info and it may give you some hope. God bless, Diane



 Read more discussions :
Posted by lung cancer at 4:05 PM

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Does the lung cancer occur because of a large amount of second hand smoke of one year

Does the lung cancer occur because of a large amount of second hand smoke of one year?
In the case of Squamous cell lung cancer.
Cancer - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
there's not even DEFINITIVE proof that DIRECT smoking causes lung cancer let alone second hand smoke. especially over such a short period. Fact is, people that NEVER smoked in their lives or were even around secondhand smoke also get lung cancer. It is thought that smoking increases the risk but that's all there is to it. I'm sure your fine. if your experiencing obvious symptoms, see a doctor.
2 :
If that was true all four of my dads kids would have lung cancer. He loved to take us for rides in that old station wagon. Then he smoked continually. That thing filled up with smoke while he was showing us the wonders of nature. He died of stomach cancer which was a suprise, we knew one day his lungs would give out. None of us have cancer and we are all getting close to 70 years old.
3 :
If people died of second head smoke then half the population of this country must be dead already Stop worrying of things you can't change and start working on things YOU (and the next generation) can do something about



 Read more discussions :
Posted by lung cancer at 4:03 PM

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Do they have proof that smoking actually CAUSES lung cancer

Do they have proof that smoking actually CAUSES lung cancer?
I know it has proven to increase risks, but do they know if it causes lung cancer? I will vote for best answer if you need more points and have an intellegent answer. =] Just let me know. Thanks and happy holidays!
Cancer - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's not 100% positive you'll catch cancer from smoking but it increases your risk at an alarming rate. Tobacco is a carcinogen. And it not only gives you Lung Cancer but also Esophageal cancer, Bladder Cancer, etc.....
2 :
Technically, the only way they could PROVE a causal relationship is by experimenting: that is by having two test groups with randomly chosen participants. One group would be assigned to smoke cigarettes and the other group would have to smoke placebo cigarettes with no carcinogens with neither group knowing if they were smoking for real or not. However, this would be extremely unethical, so it can't be done. But still, there exists such a high correlation between smoking and lung cancer that the causal relationship is assumed by.. well, everyone. Something like 95% of lung cancers occur in smokers or former smokers.
3 :
well, no, not 100% proof. i think it's about the same percentage of proof that stupidity causes dumb questions.
4 :
maybe! But i really think smoking CAN giv u lung cancer! So make sure you don't get into smoking! happy holidays to you too!
5 :
It is not the cigarette but rather the ingredients in the cigarettes such as nitrosamines and benzpyrene. If the ingredients in cigarettes are known cancer causing agents then it is safe to conclude that smoking them can induce cancer.
6 :
I dont think there is any REAL evidence to support the fact that smoking "causes" lung cancer. There are many people who smoke their entire lives and never get lung cancer. And then there are those who never smoked and get it. What we know for sure is that people who do smoke have a higher incidence of all kinds of cancer than those who dont. Everyone has potential cancer cells. I dont know if anyone knows, with certainty, what activates these cells to proliferate into cancer. Since smoking messes with the immune system, the respiratory system along with other systems of the body, it seems to follow that smokers predispose themselves or encourage these cells to grow. The body is not at top function so unable to keep these cells in check. Finally, we know that smoking causes long term lung problems, circulatory problems among others. Unfortunately, the symptoms do not usually show up until the long term damage to the body is done...25, 30 or more years after one starts smoking. It makes sense, then, to never start smoking or to quit while very young.
7 :
Smoking does increase the risk and is a CAUSE of lung cancer. However there is a wide variety of other causes besides lung cancer. Cigareete and tobaco companies are FORCED to put a warning on the box that using the products INCREASES their risk for developing lung cancer. They would not do this if it wan't PROVEN. The majority of lung cancer patients have been affected by tobacco use and test have PROVEN that it was the cause for those people. BUt even if someone smokes their whole life they may luck out and never get lung cancer, or they may have other problomes because of smoknig. Basically Increased the risk is they same thing as causing it because that would be why ther person gets it. Again however non smokers are at risk beacuse there are non tobacco related casues of lung cancer also.



 Read more discussions :
Posted by lung cancer at 4:02 PM

Friday, December 4, 2009

Someone has a life insurance policy and states non smoker but they are dying from lung cancer

Someone has a life insurance policy and states non smoker but they are dying from lung cancer?
This policy is about 18 years old and recently an agent was out to update the policy and i am not sure any changes were made as it would have been very apparent that this person smokes now. Since then they found out they are dying of lung cancer should they notify the agent that they are a smoker even though they are already dying? There is no current dec page stating if that was changed or not. Can the policy be voided?
Insurance - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Possibly, especially if the corner marks smoking as a possible cause of death. A lot of places will mark smoking as a cause of death even if it was through an unrelated cause so you may be out of luck. I'd go over the terms of the insurance policy very carefully, it should answer your question.
2 :
lung cancer doesn't mean the insured smokes...there are other causes, you know.
3 :
If they make a change now to add in smoking, my guess is the policy will be void. The change will likely require at least a questionnaire that asks about their current health. A diagnosis of cancer will certainly not get the policy renewed. FYI, people do get lung cancer without smoking. I believe about 10% of lung cancers are not due to smoking. That's a pretty good amount.
4 :
Better find out now if the agent really did change the policy!!!! If the agent did change the policy a new contestibility period starts. And, if this person really is dying it probly would make the policy null and void if they die within the first 2 years of the policy. Better talk to the agent now and stop that change from happening if it is in the process or has taken place. You can have serious problems when replacing the policy with another one. Call the Department of Insurance in your state and file a complaint. The agent could be in serious trouble for not looking out for the customer's best interest and negligent in his duties. This could be a lawsuit just waiting to happen. Call the Department of Insurance for help.
5 :
OK, first, you CAN get lung cancer even as a nonsmoker. That's what all those asbestos claims have been about! Second, the policy is not voided. They've probably SINCE taken up smoking. Additionally, even if they HAD lied on the application about it, it's too late for the insurance company to contest it. No problems. The payout will happen.



 Read more discussions :
Posted by lung cancer at 3:56 PM

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

What is the role of Cytochrome p450 in lung cancer

What is the role of Cytochrome p450 in lung cancer?
Is there a correlation between lung cancer and these so called phase 1 and phase 2 enzymes?
Cancer - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/3/3/363.full read this



Read more discussions :


Posted by lung cancer at 3:53 PM
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)