Smoking Exposure Now Linked to Colon, Breast Cancers

Reader Comments
Back to article

B.S.. Just like a bunch of other studies done that show no real proof.
I get tired of hearing these "studies" with no merit.
The latest studies show "Global Warming"- no wait- an "ice age"- no wait "climate change", or maybe not.
Coffee causes prostate problems- no wait- coffee is good for the prostate.
Eggs elevate cholesterol - no wait- eggs are actually good for you.
Don't take salt when you sweat a lot- no wait- take salt is ok.
Peanut butter is good protein- no wait- it is full of saturated fat.
And who are the experts and why do we listen???

walt of TX 8:51PM December 05, 2009

A new study from the same people who brought you the global warming hoax.

Paul norderud of IL 8:42PM December 05, 2009

Your farts, along with your breath, can be directly linked to colon and breast cancer, and all other cancers.
So what.
It's time for a smoke.
If you drive a car, you are creating 1000+ packs a day of secondhand smoke.
You are clearly idiots.

Tom Lowe of CA 2:35AM December 05, 2009

Nicotine is anti-bacterial
News re Naser at American Society for Microbiology 101st Annual Meeting, Orlando FL. 1) "Shocker: 'Villain' nicotine slays TB. R Suriano. Orlando Sentinel 2001 May 22. With PC drivel. 2) Nicotine shows activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Medscape - Reuters Health 2001 May 22. "'We found that this compound not only inhibits Mycobacterium tuberculosis growth, it kills it completely', explained lead researcher Dr. Saleh Naser of the University of Central Florida in Orlando... he believes nicotine may be effective against other bacteria as well. 'TB is a very tough bacterium. If you kill that one,' Dr. Naser said, 'you are on the right track.'"
And it logically follows that smokefree jails and prisons may promote the spread of TB.
http://www.smokershistory.com/index.htm

Dan of CA 12:11AM December 05, 2009

Ah, lost THAT bet - thank you!

Rob Grey of FL 11:23PM December 04, 2009

...Howard Kyi of LA says:
"the person that is causing them a "Hazardous" environment" -
...Odd how folks like Howard remain oblivious to automobile/
diesel exhaust fumes, charcoal grills, chimneys, etc. but should they see someone light up a cigarette across the way THEN they begin coughing? Could it be more likely that folks like Howard are merely 'psyched' by all the anti-smoking propaganda in the MSM? A placebo effect at work here?
...Also, "Scientists have 'proved' to us that -"
Well, if you examine those numbers closely what you will see is that scientists are demonstrating there is no greater incidence of any kind of illness among smokers than there is among non-smokers, ie: an incidence of less than one-half of one percent of cancer among (approx.70M)smokers and ditto for (approx.200M)non-smokers. Or, to state that same information from a different perspective - Fully ninety-nine and one-half percent of people who smoke DO NOT contract cancer or any other illness. Surely, if smoking actually causes cancer, we would see an incidence greater than less than one in two-hundred? Greater than non-smokers?
...And if I may point to history - Cancer was unknown among native Americans who cultivated tobacco for many centuries prior to Europeans settling here. Also, there was no significant increase in cancer when tobacco was introduced into Europe or when smoking suddenly became popular among women in this country.
...However, between the early 50's and the mid 60's there was a FIFTEEN-HUNDRED FOLD increase in cancers in the U.S. Now, since tobacco co's did not report anything like a fifteen-hundred fold increse in sales corresponding with that time frame - then what was responsible for this horrendous jump in the cancer rate? Any 'scientists' out there who care to hazard a guess about WHAT ELSE was going on back then? And continues to this day? Or to venture yet another question along the same vein - Any doctors out there who care to explain why doctors do not employ geiger counters when examining cancer patients?
...My my, but smoking certainly does make for a handy scape-goat, doesn't it? - Why, you can actually SEE the smoke!
PS: I'll bet your moderator won't post these comments -
.

Rob Grey of FL 11:14PM December 04, 2009

You see, what German scientists discovered very soon into their research, was that carbon-monoxide, a central component of tobacco smoke, creates resistance to pathocratic influence: i.e. imbibers are more likely to question and less likely to blindly follow orders from psychopathic leadership (perhaps we could think of it as ‘attitude’, as symbolised by ’50s icons like James Dean and Marlon Brando). What is more, research also suggests ’second-hand smoke’, as breathed by children of smokers, may in fact immunise them against the influence of psychopaths. Hardly useful, one would suggest, if the objective is filling heads with supremacist beliefs and obtaining undivided loyalty.

dan of CA 11:06PM December 04, 2009

Every smoking study report gets the same PR spammers' denials. Every single time.
For 50 years, every report on smoking in a newspaper was followed by, "The Tobacco Institute says the study is flawed." That's why the tobacco institute has been found guilty and ordered out of business.
Tobacco must be overjoyed that now they can make the same undercutting statements--without accountability! PR companies LOVE the internet.
Wikipedia explains the reality behind harley’s feeble PR in “Industry-funded Studies and Critiques”: http://tinyurl.com/yhrmxub

Gene of NY 1:18PM December 04, 2009

Ok where are the studies. I hear about them but we never get to see them. Are they just made up to get a point across. When and article is written about a study a link to the study should be posted.

azmac of AZ 9:25AM December 04, 2009

It would be helpful if reporter Amanda Gardner would list the reported papers as references at the end of her article for those of us who wish to examine them.
A news reporter's analysis is simply not adequate.

jsidney of CA 7:41AM December 04, 2009