How does smoking cause cancer? I want very scientific answers only. Not any of that "smoking causes cancer cause it's bad!!" or "99% of smokers die cause they smoked a lot!!" bullshit that public media randomly throws at you.
>>7732267
Inflammation
Some natural and artificial compounds found in tobacco are carcinogenic, when you smoke the tobacco these compounds enter your lungs and can mutate the DNA in whichever cells it enters. This means that when they replicate via mitosis to replace themselves, they could potentially grow uncontrollably and form a tumor (mass of cells). This is all due to chance as some mutations are harmless and go unnoticed.
I haven't done bio in years so thats the best I could do.
>>7732267
Polonium. Agitation of tissues from hot vapors and smoke, slowing the function of cilia over time. Probably some compounds that pass cell membranes and potentially alter DNA. Might function as a cancer promoter by inhibiting the immune system.
>>7732290
>vapors
So vaping can potentially cause cancer by that logic? Too bad for e-cig promotors.
Granted, while smoking is certainly capable of causing cancer it rarely seems to actually be a risk in cancer developing in the majority population.
>>7732305
Vaping is almost certain to be pretty shitty for you. It's just that no one has shown it yet, so there's a grace period before regulation catches up with reality... and lots of money to be made in that time.
"Inhaling aerosol oils? How can I lose?"
>>7732314
http://ecigarettereviewed.com/anti-vaping-propaganda-confusing-public
E-cigs are probably relatively harmless except for a few unlucky people though. I'm not entirely convinced that it's that dangerous yet.
internal exposure to radiation
I'm afraid you're confusing healthy skepticism with an inability to comprehend the answer, blatant denial of the easily-accessible-information (even wikipedia is OK on this), and a hefty bias toward your wishful beliefs.
>>7732314
>How can I lose?
If you were instead inhaling the combustion products of commercial tobacco.
Glycerine is non-toxic, unlike virtually everything you inhale from tobacco smoke. Also it's not oil.
>>7732280
Anon, I'm a science teacher, and this is pretty well it in a nutshell.
>>7732305
No but let's be honest: that's only because most of the public doesn't smoke. If you do it long enough, cigarettes WILL kill you.
>>7732410
Yup, and McDonald's is actually food! Listen, I dab every day. I get this awesome resin from up the street, it's pressed out of the bud like olive oil, no solvent required.
Air is mostly nitrogen, aka the single least reactive compound known to mankind. THATS what your lungs were built to deal with, and prolonged misuse of your lungs isn't good, whether that's exposing them to thc or nicotine or glycerin. Sure vaping won't kill you as fast as cigarettes, but it is a long way from benign. It's still a drug.
>>7732280
>when you smoke the tobacco these compounds enter your lungs and can mutate the DNA in whichever cells it enters.
Expanding on this point. It isn't the only mechanism that smoking may increase risk of cancer, but it is a big one.
Flat, hydrophilic, aromatic compounds like benzene and other derivatives are common in cigarettes and other tobacco products.
When these compounds enter cells they can "slide" between DNA bases and cause mutation of the cell by interfering with DNA replication. This process is an example of intercalation.
Usually when this occurs the apoptotic cycle will kick in, kill off the cell and replace it with a new healthy cell, but it is possible that the mutation of the DNA will result in a cell that replicates itself, and proliferate further.
This is a cancer cell. A normal cell that has lost its off-switch and will just keep growing and spreading.
As I said, usually cancer doesn't happen. The cell dies off and is replaced. Cancer happens by chance mutation, and the probability of developing cancer rises by participating in risky behaviours, like pumping hydrocarbons into your lungs.
Flat hydrocarbons like benzene are absurdly common in modern environments and people ingest them every day of their lives, so the possibility of this happening is pretty much universal for everyone, but as stated, smoking significantly increases your exposure to these compounds and increases your risk of developing cancer.
>>7732397
/thread
>>7732540
What's another, everyday route of exposure to benzene and the like?
>>7732540
>Flat hydrocarbons like benzene are absurdly common in modern environments and people ingest them every day of their lives, so the possibility of this happening is pretty much universal for everyone, but as stated, smoking significantly increases your exposure to these compounds and increases your risk of developing cancer.
Then why should people avoid smoking if exposure to this stuff is pretty much unavoidable? Why are public places and buildings restricting smoking when it likely won't hurt anyone but the user?
>>7733385
No that guy but, I'm guessing concentration of them in cigarette smoke.
>>7732267
Carcinogens. Literally materials known to cause cancer, are packed in them.
cause its naughty
>>7733385
>Why are public places and buildings restricting smoking when it likely won't hurt anyone but the user?
contrary to what most people believe, the smoke you actively inhale isn't as bad in comparison. simply because inhaling rises temperature to a level where most carcinogens split into more harmless substances.
"passive" smoking is so dangerous in comparison, because a lit cigarette that isn't actively being smoked produces way cooler smoke in which most carcinogens aren't destroyed.
>>7733385
>why should people avoid smoking if exposure to this stuff is pretty much unavoidable?
the answer can be found quite literally in the sentence you just quoted
are you mentally retarded?
>>7733385
this >>7733408
Plus all of that is going straight to your lungs to be popped straight into your bloodstream to go about your body.
Look up benzopyrene mechanisms. Basically, DNA damage happens all the time, but your body has evolved ways of fixing this damage (look up Nobel Prize 2015). The thing is, we haven't evolved with efficient mechanisms of getting rid of these benzopyrenes. so they cause more permanent damage which leads to cancer.
>>7733421
>are you mentally retarded?
>probably a /pol/ack
Of course.
>>7732267
Smoke OP, smoke a lot, test it out, let darwin win, and definitely, for the sake of huminity, don't pass along your genes
The mutational profile in your lung cells lasts permanently after you stop smoking as well.
I saw a talk recently where it was possible to quantify (to a certain percentage of likelihood) the origin of a lung tumor as smoking-related or non smoking-related, by comparing mutation profiles in the patient's normal non-lung and smoking-affected lung non-cancerous tissues.
>>7733385
>Why are public places and buildings restricting smoking when it likely won't hurt anyone but the user?
Because it smells bad.
>>7733418
Wait, are you implying that secondhand smoke is worse for people than active smoking? I'm going to need a citation, that seems to go against epidemiological evidence.
>>7733446
That isn't even remotely a good reason. Something smelling bad shouldn't be a reason to ban it. Otherwise prior wod ban BO and body spray and people who walk into a place who smell like they're drenched in weed.
>>7733468
I've actually heard this numerous times aswell but I can't sauce it for you.
>>7733468
Not necessarily. I mean, I don't have any sources on hand to show you, but you can derive this conclusions logically.
>Active smoking is usually done through a cigarette
>Most cigarettes have filters
>Filters block out many, but not all, carcinogens and other harmful substances
>The burning end does have such a filter
>Anyone who inhales smoke from the burning end is breathing pure unfiltered smoke
However
>Even though active smoking is "less" harmful, having multiple cigarettes a day increases your exposure levels
>This is why most people that develop cancer from smoking are the active smokers rather than the passive ones, even though active smokers inhale "less harmful" smoke
>They just inhale it more often that it overrides the effects
>>7733562
This goes against quite a few epidemiological studies that showed no harm to people in bars/in smoking homes exposed to secondhand smoke over the course of several decades.
So even if it is more harmful than active smoking, it's weird that smokers suffer more health problems than people who are around smokers for an equal period of time.
>>7733418
Perhaps you're confusing CVD with cancer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Evidence
>epidemiologists have found it hard to understand how second-hand smoke, which is more diluted than actively inhaled smoke, could have an effect that is such a large fraction of the added risk of coronary heart disease among active smokers.[66][67] One proposed explanation is that second-hand smoke is not simply a diluted version of "mainstream" smoke, but has a different composition with more toxic substances per gram of total particulate matter.[66] Passive smoking appears to be capable of precipitating the acute manifestations of cardio-vascular diseases (atherothrombosis) and may also have a negative impact on the outcome of patients who suffer acute coronary syndromes.[68]
>>7733581
>it's weird that smokers suffer more health problems than people who are around smokers for an equal period of time
Why is that weird? Breathing in hot, poisonous gases ought to be more harmful than not breathing in hot, poisonous gases. Secondhand smoke is just exposure to particulate.
>>7733562
>>The burning end does have such a filter
>>Anyone who inhales smoke from the burning end is breathing pure unfiltered smoke
The smoker is inhaling secondhand smoke too, and probably more than anyone else considering their proximity to the cigarette.
>>7733476
I don't want to be "that guy" but it is a perfect reason to ban it if enough people are against it. If half of your employees don't like the smell and can't work as good as they could (or leave), you will lose money.
>>7733608
Again, that seems sort of ridiculous. If an employee doesn't like it they can find another place to work. Most indoor smoking bans (especially in bars and smaller spaces like grocery stores or offices) strike me as based on nonexistent or unscientific health concerns from the state or government. Considering how organizations like the EPA and WHO talk up shs as being responsible for numerous deaths, the fear and misinformation isn't surprising.
>>7733617
>Again, that seems sort of ridiculous. If an employee doesn't like it they can find another place to work.
Likewise, if the employee doesn't like the smoking ban, but the majority of the company's employees support it, then that employee can find another place to work.
>>7733581
>showed no harm to people in bars/in smoking homes exposed to secondhand smoke over the course of several decades
Source?
>>7733627
If something is supported by unscientific fears then it needs to be reevaluated and people need to be educated. If it poses zero health risk ( especially zero serious health risk) then I don't see a problem, and it seems that even the consensus ITT is that it isn't that big of a deal to be exposed to it.
people seem to forget the little fact that we all die, doing, or not doing, won't change it.
Also the paper that a typical cigarette is wrapped in is soaked and coated with numerous carcinogens. That's one advantage of (with weed) staying away from blunts. Cancer can be tougher to nail down a single mechanism compared to other diseases, but typically you find uncontrolled cell replication, either through repression of tumor suppressor genes or activation of oncogenes. The body will lose its ability to recognize and/or destroy these damaged cells. I was hoping my syllabus for a molecular mechanisms of cancer class I'm taking next semester would be up to look it up, but no luck yet.
>>7733628
I can't post all of the source individually due to spam, but this website has a list of sources cited (actual studies and reports) at the bottom of the article that are useful.
http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/
The CRS report and the studies by Enstrom/Kabat, Matthews, etc. are all important to consider.
>>7733428
Holy shit you dumb nigger. Smoking raises the chance of developing cancer by exposing you to carcinogens more than you would not smoking, through the inhalation of cigarette smoke and the toxins within being allowed into your lungs in more concentrated amounts.
>>7732394
>E-cigs are probably relatively harmless
Enjoy your cancer you dumb fuck
>>7733643
>The CRS report
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259796/report.pdf
>The CRS report was not peer reviewed and the authors themselves comment that it was produced under resource constraints which precluded detailed review of all relevant studies. Committee members noted that the Report gave undue prominence to studies from within the industry or from its consultants. Problems connected with misclassification of smokers and the question of threshold effects were presented as seriously threatening the conclusion that ETS causes lung cancer, but much of the discussion was hypothetical and speculative. Members agreed that the Report did not critically challenge the detailed reviews by independent scientists, concluding that ETS causes lung cancer in non smokers.
So it wasn't even published and was subjected to industry funding effect. Here's a more recent peer-reviewed, published analysis
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167527315301352
>Enstrom/Kabat
That was debunked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Industry-funded_studies_and_critiques
>The American Cancer Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data, criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom and Kabat's methodology prior to publication.[118] Notably, the study had failed to identify a comparison group of "unexposed" persons.[119]
>Matthews
http://junksciencearchive.com/news3/sixcigs.html
It's literally just some pop science article. I can't even find any of these studies they're citing and I'm not sure how they would even be relevant to determining harmfulness or harmlessness . Do you have links to them?
>>7733637
>people seem to forget the little fact that we all die, doing, or not doing, won't change it.
So kill yourself right this second if it doesn't matter, faggot. Oh, right, you don't actually mean that, you're just being an edgy moron.
>>7733707
The Ebstrom Kabat one was "debunked" for what looked like shitty or pedantic reasons, combined with Enstrom being let go because he dared point out something corrupt about where he was employed.
Polonium-210 probably isn't a great thing to ingest...
That being said, fuck it, smoke 'em if ya got 'em.
>>7732399
This. OP is a fag who disappointed me.
>How does smoking cause cancer? I want very scientific answers only. Not any of that
Very good question. OK now...
>"smoking causes cancer cause it's bad!!" or "99% of smokers die cause they smoked a lot!!" bullshit that public media randomly throws at you.
Yes, it's the huge anti-tobacco industry sprea ding this propaganda. Please smoke some more. Please.
>>7734012
The public media certainly doesn't help things. The EPA "secondhand smoke is responsible for this many deaths a year" crap is proof of that.
>>7732267
Go ahead and believe that smoking is good for you. Enjoy your agonizing death. The world won't miss you one bit.
>>7733740
What's ironic is that your comment seems equally edgy if not more.
>>7733468
there are certain chemicals in cigs that with second hand smoke you approximately 600% more exposure to them than with first hand smoke
>>7734481
>600%
Where the fuck did you get this number?*
If it was true we'd see a ton of shs related problems in non smokers who hang around smokers, which we haven't so far even after smoking was a huge deal at any given time before the 1970's.
*I get you were likely over exaggerating but come on, seriously?
>some chemicals have the ability to rip molecules out of DNA
>some of these chemicals happen to be in cigarettes
Wow, that was complicated.
>>7734529
Don't forget the polonium.
>>7734560
Where are you getting this info? And this sounds more like philosophy than /sci/.
If shs isn't harmful then it just smells bad, and bad smells are unavoidable indoors and outdoors when you're in public.
If it is bad for you, then why exactly ban it when a large amount of chemicals from pollution or furniture or air conditioning (or anything else people are exposed to in public) allowed? When you consider how much shs is in a room, it would likely take a considerably long time for a person to suffer negative health effects from being in their workplace or house.
>>7734594
>libtard
Nice try but fighting smoking bans or anti-smoking sentiment is more of a conservative/libertarian thing, unless by libtard you meant libertarian.
>>7733707
You forget to mention that the American cancer society actually gave data to Ebstrom and Kabat, and when they concluded shs wasn't harmful, they immediately covered their ass and criticized them. I think they just didn't like the results and got angry at the scientists they gave the data to. Enstrom also was let go from the UCLA for reasons that implied that the UCLA was corrupt.
and how is Kabat hiding from the scientific community exactly? He is an epidemiologist with an md and ph.d. He studies environmental risks and cancer risk. He's active in the scientific community. That doesn't exactly strike me as hiding. And don't fucking pull the shill gambit. If you want to assert something, actually provide a source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Kabat
Doesn't seem like he's a shill or is hiding from anything. And it seems like he's a well read epidemiologist that has only been called out specifically for his smoking related studies, which implies that maybe people are too overzealous in hyping smoking risks.
>>7734594
Smoking =/= literally drenching someone in piss. And even so, sometimes being in a public space has a price.
>>7732267
>How does smoking cause cancer?
It doesn't.
Smoking is *associated* with cancer, not the same thing.
Lrn2risk
>>7734860
Exactly
Smoking doesn't cause cancer, cancer causes smoking. People who are in the very early stages of cancer undergo biochemical changes that makes them drawn to smoking.
>>7734860
but it literally does
>>7735378
It literally doesn't, it figuratively does. Pedant.
>>7734860
>Correlation implies no causation
We've gone full circle. Fuck off.
>>7735372
Nice smoking meme bro
>>7735388
That's not even what he said, anti-smoker. Smoking doesn't cause cancer, just like how red meat and alcohol doesn't cause cancer. They're risk factors.
>>7735379
>over 26 times natural annual background radiation dose from regular smoking
>radiation doesnt cause cancer, its just associated with it
you're dumb as fuck m8
>>7734594
Even if shs actually was harmful (which it isn't) then anti-smoking crowds would be hypocrites then
>use deoderant with aluminum
>are constantly around flame retardants in furniture and car upholstery
>use chemical ridden shampoo and other products
>eat pesticide drenched foods
>I can't be around shs you guys it's bad for me!
>>7735401
Risk factors can be causal. They are not mutually exclusive terms. lol?
>>7735401
>anti-smoker
>being bad in any way
WHOOPS I guess nothing causes cancer then! how silly of me, only cell failure causes cancer! :^)
![image001[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/0CISWJM.gif "image001[1].gif")
>>7735372
thanks Ronald :^)
>>7735468
>lets demonized people who smoke even though it relieves tension
>lets make shit up about how cigarettes work
So you're just a troll not looking for honest debate? Carry on then.
>>7735475
>stop demonizing me! you're calling me evil!
how exactly am I making things up, stupid faggot? You're the one spouting idiocy like "no risk factors are causes". You're an idiot for smoking shit that kills you.
>>7735475
There are ways to deliver nicotine that involve fewer "risk factors".
And there are better ways to relieve tension than nicotine anyway.
But you can't reason for shit, so I don't know why I'm bothering to reply...
>>7735504
I don't smoke, but I know quite a few people who do and I think I might just start if it pisses people like you off so much. Smoking as a danger has been overhyped to hell and back for decades.
There is still zero conclusive and hard evidence that shs is harmful to the general population. Most of the links neglect the fact that many health risks are also at play like diabetes, obesity, poor diet/nutrition, and exposure to radon, pollution, viruses and bacteria, or poor genetics are all likely the main cause of people problems, not shs.
>>7735535
enjoy your risk factors then
>lol my emphysema, reduced exercise capacity, diabetes, atherosclerosis, lung cancer, oropharyngeal cancer, pancreatic cancer bladder cancer and overall reduced quality of life weren't unambiguously caused by smoking
>smoking only dramatically elevated the risk and severity
>>7735546
Tons of people who never smoke and are of average health also get those diseases. It doesnt help that people often put 'smoker' on death certificates of people who have stuff like pancreatic cancer even if they've never smoked or barely smoked decades ago.
>>7735572
>Tons of people who never smoke and are of average health also get those diseases
and people whove never been involved in gange activities die from gang violence, but that doesnt mean that being in a gang isnt going to dramatically increase your likelyhood of unnatural death
>>7735583
You're seriously trying to compare an enjoyment of smoking to gang shootings/deaths?
>>7732267
Tried setting yourself/lungs on fire?, shits not good anywhere
>>7732267
The way I see it, our lungs are only meant to take in air and put out waste; if it's doing anything other than taking in air, it's not going to be good for you to some degree. I suppose there's some cases where breathing in something other than air is 'good' for you, like a bronchodilator when you have some kind of lung problem, but I wouldn't vouch for smoke.
>>7735784
im sure bangers enjoy the commeradery no differently
until they die
>>7732267
One reason is alteration of your cell cycle.
One of the main cellular checkpoints called G1/S and G2/M they ensures that the cell has proliferated to an adequate amount before DNA synthesis and after that it has atleast double the DNA at GS/1 checkpoint respectively. When exposed to mutagens (in this case carcinogens from combusting tobacco) it can cause cellular degradation and mutation of regulatory proteins at the checkpoints. This can lead to unregulated cell proliferation, so the formation of tumours (cancers)
>>7732314
>"Inhaling aerosol oils? How can I lose?"
Wow, look at the disingenuous appeal to emotion on this one. Bet you call Subway "yoga mat bread" too.
>>7735786
The lungs begin to repair themselves after a single cigarette. Hell marijuana has more tar and is probably worse for your lungs overall if you're a regular pot smoker.
>>7733385
>Why should people avoid radioactive materials if exposure to this stuff is pretty much unavoidable
because it does not matter whether or not you come into contact with it, but the dosage
>>7738286
>the dosage
You mean for shs? The dosage for that in public is hilariously small. Even when released into a building or bar in large quantities it has been shown to be harmless.
And if benzene and other radiation type forms of exposure are unavoidable, why specifically single out shs when there are dozens of other poisons capable of sickening people over time?
>>7738056
The body begins to repair itself after a single knife wound, therefore many knife wounds won't kill you
5mh tbqh pham
>>7738301
>in public
actually i meant more the first question.
everyone comes in contact with the carcinogens but smokers do in large quantities
also while it dissipates in a room, people standing nearby also get a larger than average dose so their risk also increases
Smoking is the direct cause of lungs cancer and that's because of the effects of some gazes and chemicals contained in the smoke such as monoxide carbon that poisons the hemoglobin's molecules , and also the effect of some chemicals on the cells and that may cause changes in the DNA to force the cell to grow up and divide in a rapid pace to replace itself , causing a rapid cell growth and malignant spreading as it is usually the case with cancer
