We may finally know why so many lifelong smokers never get lung cancer | Hacker News Reader

We may finally know why so many lifelong smokers never get lung cancer

bgr.com

Tobacco use does not cause cancer, neither does smoking. What is causing smokers to die en masse since the 1950's is what the industry innocuously calls "additives." The additives are over 300 known carcinogens intentionally added to nearly all brands of cigarettes in order to increase the addictiveness of nicotine. What is in those cigarettes could only very charitably be called half tobacco. It's the other half that is killing people, and it seems absurd when the gov't beat Big Tobacco in the 1990's, that this practice of adding death to cigarettes was not made illegal. Big Tobacco paid about half the settlement, and the rest was (for unknown reasons) forgiven in the early 2000s.

Smoking creates carcinogens. Burning creates a bunch of semi oxidized particulates, of which many are harmful.

You're going to need to source this "smoking does not cause cancer" claim because evidence is increasingly mounting that even non-tobacco related smoke is linked to higher rates of cancer

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

https://www.camfil.com/en-us/insights/air-quality/air-pollut...

Bear in mind, pipe smokers use natural tobacco, without additives:

No. 1103, p.112 [1]

>Death rates for current pipe smokers were little if at all higher than for non-smokers, even with men smoking 10 pipefuls per day and with men who had smoked pipes for more than 30 years.

No. 1103, page 92 [1]

> Among the pipe smokers.... The US mortality ratios are 0.8 for non-inhalers and 1.0 for inhalers.

...which means pipe smokers who inhale live as long as nonsmokers, and pipe smokers that don’t inhale live longer than non-smokers.

Cancer rates for smokers skyrocketed after the 1950s chemical revolution. Previously, it was not so. What causes smokers to get cancer is the added carcinogens, not the tobacco. Granted, smoking anything is not healthy. Smoking causes emphysema and a host of other health issues. My only point is that what causes smokers to get lung cancer is obviously the added carcinogens.

[1] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/tobacco/nnbbmq.pdf

There is also air polution which plays a big role.

Yea, but from what I’ve seen in my limited 47 years of life, is that while smoking may not give you cancer, it still f’s up your lungs. Emphysema is a cruel master.

AFAIK the addictiveness of the additives is a by-product, as far as I know these additives are used to increase the yield and "quality" of the crop, and to process the leaves once harvested. Whether these have been willingly added to the tobacco is going to be hard to prove.

I would like to see the harm of smoking (or inhaling anything that is not clean "air") somehow treated differently from the harm caused by the undisclosed additives.

It bothers me that the gvts didn't get much scrutiny into this and let it be.

You are mistaken about what additives are. They're not fertilizer. This video explains them in a few minutes.[1] What is in cigarettes is definitely not tobacco.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdV_1u-TodY&t=13m25s

TL;DR

That’s because their DNA is able to repair the body before the cell mutations develop into tumors. These DNA repair genes can be inherited or acquired, scientists say. And exactly what makes one person’s body better at repairing DNA is still a mystery.

A new sub-species is evolving: Homo Smokus

Reply on news.ycombinator.com