Are the japanese immune to smoking? What's their secret?

>Correlation=causation.
tobacco users have a rate of rheumatoid arthritis twice that of the general population. Tobacco users are also more likely to have other autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, systemic erythematosus lupus, and crohn's disease

Is there a source for any of this? I'd expect outcry if a group tried to conceal healthy cigs from the public.

If it means my noggin will stay right (less Parkinson's/Alzheimer's has also been observed) there is some neuroprotection going on.

Again, correlation=\=causation. You're going to need some solid data backing hat up and not genetic cooncidences and miscalculated statistics and biased crap.

It was never popularly considered. We have been offered a regimen of propaganda about smoking the equal to abstinence only sex ed. And now there is no way to control the damage and that is why you can't catch a break being devils lawyer for them.

Diet.

Without high cholesterol, you can damage your arteries with smoke all you want and it'll never progress to a life-threatening plaque.

There is a correlation between me shooting someone and them dying.

Cigarettes aren't bullets, anti-smoker. Try again.

Are there any articles or sources discussing this disparity with healthier cigarettes or how Greece and Japan are obviously different than the U.S.? I think it'd be interesting.

A smoker is more likely to die from smoking related causes than a shooting victim is to die from causes related to the shooting.

Also, the premise of your thread is stupid because the Japanese have low cancer rates across the board, not just lower lung cancer rates. So it has nothing to do with smoking being non-cancerous.

>A smoker is more likely to die from smoking related causes than a shooting victim is to die from causes related to the shooting.

I'd like to know what health organization or government/pharma funded site you got that bullshit saying from so I can laugh at you. You're basically trolling at this point. What you're saying defies all rationality.

>Also, the premise of your thread is stupid because the Japanese have low cancer rates across the board, not just lower lung cancer rates. So it has nothing to do with smoking being non-cancerous.

I checked and cancers supposedly linked to smoking are twice as high in the U.S. even though Japan has far more smokers, so there's definitely something important there.

Besides, it is still important regardless, because the reasons as to why this is can help people live healthy lives despite smoking and remove the health risks and complications.

reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1x9siq/japan_has_smoking_population_that_is_about_13_of/cf9ncdb

/thread

Minimum 80% chance of survival from a gunshot

nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=2

You are confusing rationality with your shitty intuition which has nothing to do with reality.

>I checked and cancers supposedly linked to smoking are twice as high in the U.S. even though Japan has far more smokers, so there's definitely something important there.
Idiot, did you read the post you just quoted? They have half the cancer rate in almost EVERY kind of cancer. If smoking multiplies the base risk of lung cancer by some amount we would expect the overall cancer rate to be half that of the US because their base risk of cancer is going to be half that of the US.

Over 1/3 of smokers die prematurely from smoking related causes.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646951/

33.3% > 20%

>a ton of assumptions present in the analysis
>mentions how smokers die before age 85, leaving out the fact that the lifespans are only different by about nine years which isn't a significant enough gap to be a major concern for anyone who isn't a pussy that constantly tries to stave off death.

I'll still take those odds. Smoking is still ultimately a vastly overrated health risk and anyone who knows a few smokers realizes that. Alsp if you just quit by the time you're forty you'll be completely fine.

Oh my god, assumptions??? Well I guess we can't no nuffinz then because assumptions are not allowed. Don't even bother arguing why these assumptions should not be affected or make the conclusion wrong, just point out that there are assumptions! Scary.

>mentions how smokers die before age 85, leaving out the fact that the lifespans are only different by about nine years which isn't a significant enough gap to be a major concern for anyone who isn't a pussy that constantly tries to stave off death.
Yeah and only a pussy would be scared enough to not shoot themselves, since there's only a small decrease in average life expectancy from getting shot.

>reddit
>/thread

Assumptions often lead to overstating risks, which is where quite a bit of smoking alarmism comes from.

Also, shooting people and smoking are two different and completely not comparable things. Shooting people has different effects on the body and serves zero purpose psychologically. Smoking serves a psychological and relaxation purpose. I get the feeling you're being obtuse on purpose.

Genetics overwhelming with diet playing a much smaller role

A significant percentage of Eastern Europeans are immune to HIV because they carry a gene that does not allow the virus to enter the cells of the immune system

Everything is about genetics

Only certain strains of HIV

But your use of 'smoking related disease' is just as general

(Which was the intention of the WHO using the phrase to begin with)

>japanese cigarettes are healthier
>charcoal filters

I don't get people just blindly accepting what organizations like the WHO tell them, it's like people interested in science are more concerned with oft repeated alarmism instead of understanding the actual significant lack of risks that come with these kind of vices.

I'm not following you.

Why do people defend smoking so much? It's a sign of psychical weakness and an unhealthy way to deal with stress that has been proven. Now you have people defending it rabidly saying it's not as bad and that WHO is a bunch of liars. What's the point? Are you this salty about no smoking zones? Did someone laugh at you because of your cigarette?

Why do people hate to accept research made based on people using their diet and with similar genetics proves that smoking is bad. Meanwhile they make huge assumptions that smoking isn't bad because people in Japan smoke a lot (among sever other things) and still have great general health while using complete different diet and having Asian genetics.

>correlation doesn't equal causation!!!
The ultimate meme argument for people who want to dismiss data that disagrees with their biases.
>What the fuck man, you just ran over and killed my cat!
>No, I ran over it and then it died. You don't know that it died because I ran it over, correlation doesn't equal causation.

>Veeky Forums and reddit are rivals

That's a shitty example with a clear causal link and you should feel bad

Correlation implies causation for smoking and smoking related diseases because of the vast sample size and the consistency

Well that's allegedly a reason yeah.

>Why do people defend smoking so much? It's a sign of psychical weakness and an unhealthy way to deal with stress that has been proven.

Why do anti-smokers bash smoking so much? It's a sign of smug superiority.

Smoking is an amazing way to deal with stress for a variety of factors, otherwise people still wouldn't be doing it around the globe today.

>Now you have people defending it rabidly saying it's not as bad and that WHO is a bunch of liars. What's the point?

The point is to find out the truth and look through the zealotry to find balanced and clear answers, I thought this was a board about logic and reasoning but hey, guess not.

>Are you this salty about no smoking zones? Did someone laugh at you because of your cigarette?

Regardless of the consensus on smoking being good or bad for the individual, secondhand smoke is absolute bullshit of the highest order with as much credibility as climate change or chemtrails. And you'd be surprised as to how many people look down on smokers in a discriminatory and intolerant fashion like they have any right to judge people.

>Why do people hate to accept research made based on people using their diet and with similar genetics proves that smoking is bad. Meanwhile they make huge assumptions that smoking isn't bad because people in Japan smoke a lot (among sever other things) and still have great general health while using complete different diet and having Asian genetics.

Because that means it isn't smoking that's bad, it's a variety of factors that contribute to smoking being bad. If one removed those factors, it is possible smoking would then be mostly harmless.

>Because that means it isn't smoking that's bad, it's a variety of factors that contribute to smoking being bad. If one removed those factors, it is possible smoking would then be mostly harmless.
You are making the most retarded assumptions there. There is a variety of things related to overall life expectancy. As it's shown in western world, when you change a minimum of other factors while only adding/removing smoking, life expectancy goes down as a result of increased lung cancer rates among other things. Now you are using a nation with completely different culture, not even looking at the direct result of smoking, and saying it's ok cause they live long, forgetting that there are a whole bunch of factors adding to life expectancy besides smoking. They have way better diet for one, doesn't mean smoking wouldn't still be lowering their average life span.
>The point is to find out the truth and look through the zealotry to find balanced and clear answers
Your arguments are bad. You are making a lot of assumption with Japan, while smoking effect research make a lot less of them.
>Why do anti-smokers bash smoking so much?
Because second hand smoke is harmful and smells bad. If people give you looks for being all sweaty and smelly, then I will give people looks for using smelly smoke that's harmful. You are really pushing anything that white-washes smoking no matter how unreliable it is.
> secondhand smoke is absolute bullshit of the highest order with as much credibility as climate change or chemtrails
Climate doesn't change - user.
>look down on smokers in a discriminatory and intolerant fashion
That's because they are addicts that can't stop, and smoke in your face with all that smell. They can't even go outside.

Passive smoking affects non-smokers

>stress relief is why people smoke
>not addiction
Kek
And smoking makes you more stressed in-between cigarettes, and the stress relief decreases with every cigarette

Isn't "heredity" a social construct these days?

I think medicine is the only place that nonsense doesn't fly because malpractice lawsuits.

Stop taking your information from bullshit sources, because none of what you said is true.

>passive smoking affects non smokers

It does but the effects are not hindering or life threatening in the slightest, which is the point I was trying to make. It's capable of raising a risk in such an inconsequential and insignificant fashion that even if you were around passive smoke every day for four decades it would still do nothing to you that wasn't already a result of something you have that's inherent (like a tobacco allergy, which is also rare) and not a result of passive smoking.

And the street between cigarettes thing is also bullahit. There are multiple psychological reasons for why people smoke, that certainly isn't one of them.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking
I don't care, you don't have the right to detrimentally harm me (without my consent)

And you become more addicted and dependent over time, so you get more stressed in-between successive cigarettes . My wording was a bit off, I should have said you get more stressed because of cigarettes

nhs.uk/Livewell/smoking/Pages/stopping-smoking-benefits-mental-health.aspx

Did you read the talk page for that article? Wikipedia is a biased source of misinformation and should not be accepted as proof of anything, at best it's a simple starting point for information.

>There is a variety of things related to overall life expectancy.

The rates in Japan overall are hilariously small compared to the U.S. Genetics is one reason, but the fact that people always single out smoking with a desire for abstinence is ridiculous.

If one were to take the amount of effort put into anti-smoking and push it into all of the other factors that also count, such as diet, things would change in the west considerably. They've turned one vice into a gigantic scapegoat for health problems. Life spans for smokers in general aren't as low as people ultimately think. If they want to smoke and only live until they're in their sixties, by all means let them.

>while smoking effect research make a lot less of them.

I take it you haven't read many smoking health studies

>Because second hand smoke is harmful. If people give you looks for being all sweaty and smelly, then I will give people looks for using smelly smoke that's harmful. You are really pushing anything that white-washes smoking no matter how unreliable it is.
I could easily say the same thing about how you're pushing the idea that smoking and secondhand smoke are as harmful as you claim it to be. Many smoking/shs claims are ridiculous when put under inspection, and considering that combined with the sheer number of people not harmed by shs but around it far longer than you are, I'd say it's perfectly fair to criticize these claims. You also sound like a ridiculously intolerant person too scared for their own well being to understand that people shouldn't go out of their way to change for you just because you don't like what they're doing, especially in public.

>Climate doesn't change - user.

I should reword that. It's definitely not man made, but it does happen. I was talking about man made climate change which is complete garbage.

>They can't even go outside.

Going outside is a waste of time while they're trying to work or trying to get things done indoors, user.

>Assumptions often lead to overstating risks, which is where quite a bit of smoking alarmism comes from.
Which assumptions and how exactly do they lead to overestimating risk? Use your words like a big boy.

>Also, shooting people and smoking are two different and completely not comparable things.
I just did compare them.

>Shooting people has different effects on the body and serves zero purpose psychologically. Smoking serves a psychological and relaxation purpose.
Getting shot is also something done to you while smoking is something you do to yourself. If you wouldn't shoot yourself for the psychological thrill of it or perhaps even for the chance to win money in a game of Russian Roulette, why would you smoke? Because you are either ignorant of the risks involved or just too stupid to care. In your case it's both, since you deny the risks AND don't seem to care about 9 years of life expectancy, which is huge if you compare it to acts you do consider dangerous. The only reason cigarettes are legal is because they are culturally entrenched, not because they are negligibly harmful. If someone started selling a delicious candy that killed off 1/3 of the people who eat it they'd go to jail. You're just an idiot adopting an irrational contrarian viewpoint because you think disagreeing with everyone makes you smart. This is no different from flat earthers and antivaxxers.

What about the talk page?

Also, Wikipedia has references , and is moderated by a multitude of people and objectivity is a key part of the whole system.

>I was talking about man made climate change which is absolute garbage
Surprise, surprise

How does that respond to anything I said? Smoking greatly increases your risk of developing smoking related diseases. This is an empirically proven fact. The fact that the Japanese have half the rate of lung cancer as Americans while smoking is the same or greater is completely compatible with this fact, because smoking is not the only factor that determines the risk of lung cancer.

>If one were to take the amount of effort put into anti-smoking and push it into all of the other factors that also count, such as diet, things would change in the west considerably. They've turned one vice into a gigantic scapegoat for health problems.
You are retarded. You can't just magically put more effort into something and fix it. Doctors have been telling people to eat properly, exercise, and much more on top of smoking. What kind of retarded idea is it. Pls don't bully smoking because it isn't the only thing wrong.

Smoking is addiction, it's actually harmful, both for you and everyone else. It's also at least annoying for other persons if you can't believe it's harmful. It's also expensive. People who smoke are addicts.

>Going outside is a waste of time while they're trying to work or trying to get things done indoors, user.
You are wasting time smoking too, and inconveniencing other people along the way. I bet you just fart away too.

While I worked in Japan I asked my Japanese colleagues about this. Supposedly more than half of the adults smoke and the country smells like it. Few die of lung cancer. The conmmonly accepted explanation is that vast amounts of green tea prevents lung cancer.

OTH stomach cancer is common in Japan. And the commonly accepted explanation is that green tea is the reason for this too.

On returning from Japan my GP asked to take tests of me for research purposes. He discussed the results with a colleague of his who declared the results were excessively healthy, bordering on suspicious.

>If someone started selling a delicious candy that killed off 1/3 of the people who eat it they'd go to jail.

I'm sorry but that comparison is absolutely fucking retarded and tells me you have some butthurt rage against smoking. If the candy killed people off immediately then yeah, obviously it would be a terrible idea to even try to sell it. Smoking takes fucking decades to actually succeed in causing death in the people who end up dying of smoking related illnesses, so it's a personal health choice, not a form of self termination that is extreme as you're painting it to be.

I didn't say it killed people off immediately. Are you illiterate or a liar? Let's say the candy has lead in it. It won't kill you immediately, it will just cause some minor to damage your nervous system, maybe cause your kidneys to fail after many years of eating the candies. It's just a personal health choice after all, eating lead.

I know it's hard for a scientists mind to grasp basic philosophical or political thinking skills but it is, in fact, a personal health choice. If they advertise that their candy contains lead then that's all there is to it. I'm sorry you're too dense to understand that.

I didn't say it wasn't a personal health choice, retard. The point is that smoking is stupid and harmful. Once again, are you illiterate or a liar? Answer the fucking question.

It's not stupid and harmful to the ridiculous extent you're making it out to be. If you knew anything about the life expectancy involved and the actual harm (including how slow the harm ultimately sets in and the sheer number of factors involved that can make smoking harmless that have been discussed in this very fucking thread) you'd realize that.

Fuck it's like I'm arguing with a brick wall.

>twelve uncles and aunts on my dad's side
>only one smoker among them
>he's in the hospital with lung cancer

It's stupid and harmful to the extent that it's been proven to be. That's all I've said. I've provided evidence. All you've provided is conspiracy theories and equivocations.

So I'm just going to assume you're both illiterate and a liar since you won't answer the question.

>I don't care, you don't have the right to detrimentally harm me (without my consent)

Do we need people arguing for the importance of safe spaces for nonsmokers now? Is that how it's going to be?

if you wanna smoke, do it somewhere where you don't expose people who wanna stay away from that shit. The outside is big enough for you cancerbags.

Yes, but this is about Japanese levels of cancer and smoking related mortality versus the West.

Smoking gives you cancer yes.

youre a sissy

>reddit

You are regressive ideologues are worse than creationists.liberals are pro science when their agenda isn't vulnerable.

Don't bother, he's clearly obsessed with smoking like it killed his grandparents or something.

>Pls don't bully smoking because it's not the only thing wrong

Funny, this thread indicates a lack of health risks from smoking if one follows a modified diet like the kind Japan has. Getting rid of cholesterol is key.

That really makes sense with the American obesity being mostly due to high amounts of sugar and hence being a low cholesterol diet

Well done

>reddit:Veeky Forums = ebaumsworld:newgrounds
Point is give it a fucking rest morons
- it's currently only not an non-issue when arguing with ex-redditors pretending to be 2010 /b/tard meme masters.

>>Again, correlation=\=causation.
you do not even know what causation is. all there is is correlation

>American obesity being mostly due to high amounts of sugar
No, it's due to high amounts of calories.

Irrelevant. It's not obesity, it's cutting out cholesterol to save ones heart and arteries from plaque, which then makes smoking a negligible health risk.

Oh look another smoking thread by a fag sucker! You just cannot stop sucking those fags, fag sucker!

I'm sorry that you haven't discovered the joy of smoking like most people.

>The fact that the Japanese have half the rate of lung cancer as Americans while smoking is the same or greater is completely compatible with this fact, because smoking is not the only factor that determines the risk of lung cancer

so what other factor do you think is causing those extra americans to get cancer?
which environmental factor is more abundant in america then japan?

and do you have any data which supports your assumption?

Because smoking causes cancer of the soul.

*than

goddamn i hate when people do that, now i understand

Not that user but there's always Radon gas and Air pollution. Which was a big issue a while ago in america before they exported some of their companies to china and laying down regulations.

Which right now is starting to seriously fuck with China's population to boot.

>so what other factor do you think is causing those extra americans to get cancer?
I don't know. It's probably a complex mix of genetic and environmental components that is not easy to analyze. One likely factor is that ambient radiation is higher in the US.

>and do you have any data which supports your assumption?
The fact that the Japanese have half the cancer rate across all kinds of cancers. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

Maybe they don't smoke three packs a day like western "smokers".

That's probably not the difference. Tons of people in high stress industries smoke three packs a day (like mangaka) and they're fine.

>and they're fine

Japan has almost the same tobacco related death rate as america among males

>arthritis
>ms, lupus, crowns disease
And you're absolutely sure the research used to draw that conclusion was able to single out smoking as the cause, instead of multitude of other factors like sedentary lifestyle, diet, stress, and genetics? If that was really the case smokers would visually look like shit and perform on a shittier level than nonsmokers.

Correlation often means causation

They don't actually live very long, only a couple of decades or so. The thing is that they're like goldfish and they just replace the dead ones when you're not looking.

>immune
>still have deaths stemming from cigarette related effects.

I don't think that word means what you think it means OP. Is school out in America now?

Explain the sixty year old smokers in Japan then if you really think this.

Maybe not immune, but the effects are negligible compared to how people see it as a health related death sentence in the United States. Considering the fact that the U.S. singles out smoking without usually considering how cholesterol, diet, and various other problems combine with smoking and make it an actual health threat, I think it's important to consider what changes smokers could make to their lifestyle so they can still smoke and not have such a large number of health problems caused by a cominarion of factors.

> I think it's important to consider what changes smokers could make to their lifestyle so they can still smoke and not have such a large number of health problems caused by a cominarion of factors.

sure, just like people who eat their own shit every day should see how they can adjust their exercise habits so they can still eat shit and not have such a large number of health problems caused by a combination of factors

They're actually all 34. So much smoking has given them premature wrinkles.

underrated

Nah, guys like Akira Toriyama and Hayao Miyazaki are examples of multi-pack a day smokers and they're in their sixties with no noticeable life threatening issues.

What is it with people comparing smoking to awful shit using incompatale and fallacious reasoning? Are nonsmokers as brainwashed as climatologists?

But they do senpai.

Anecdotal "evidence"

Well, if someone's going to make the claim that smoking will always give you cancer, then anecdotal evidence is the best argument.

>Hayao Miyazaki
Three Japanese men have assumed this identity since the original's birth in 1941. The original died in 1975, and his replacement died in 1981. That one's replacement died in 1997, and after that replacement's death in 2009, he was replaced by the one currently alive.

All Japanese look the same, so it's a simple matter to replace a famous Japanese without the Western world learning about it.

The evidence you've provided is incredible, thank you user.

I'll try and find more examples/a mug larger group of people but it wouldn't be surprising if this was the norm for a lot of Japanese people.