Why is smoking bad for you?

>Why is smoking bad for you?
Tar accumulates in the lungs, gumming up cillia and reducing the lung's ability to function.

Does the gar buildup decrease if the smoking is done irregularly ?

I like the taste of tobacco and smoke cigarettes, pipe or cigars sometimes. During exam periods I go up to a cig a day.

Will my lungs be fucked in 30 years or does the body remove tar if it isn't added continuously

>does the body remove tar if it isn't added continuously
I don't know.
My GP says every puff does irreversible damage, but the TV propaganda says when you quit, your lungs get cleaner over time.

Your alveoli get roughly buttfucked, which leads to less surface area for diffusion of oxygen/carbon dioxide and a reduction in compliance, leading to emphysema and having a shit time. I still smoke though.

I would continue at this pace of smoking. I thought some time in my 30s I'd change my lifestyle completely and go from Veeky Forums as fuark to triathlete focused on longetivity and health. Only then I would completely switch to filter pipe for smoking if at all even.

I just don't hope I made enough damage in my youth that it would become a problem

Honestly depends how you smoke. I just straight up smoke tobacco and have done several consultations on it. If you source it completely naturally it doesn't do as much damage but supposedly is still sorta bad. Not as bad though

Burning organic matter releases highly reactive compounds, which can be absorbed by cells in your airways causing DNA damage and leading to cancer; fine particulates, which irritate the lining of the lungs causing mucus to be released and which can damage the immune cells sent to digest them, causing the immune response to go into overdrive and damage the lungs (immune cells can only get through tissues, as opposed to crawling over a surface or flowing through blood vessels, by eating a path through them which doesn't repair so well in delicate tissues like the lungs); and simply the hot gases, which cause the cilia lining the larger airways to become sluggish which prevents mucus (already being overproduced) from being carried out of the lungs, hence why smokers cough so much. Damage from this variety of sources eventually leads to emphysema (damage to the alveoli resulting in a smaller exchange area) which, along with more alveoli being blocked by mucus, leads to decreased lung capacity and efficiency causing long-term smokers to be chronically short of breath and vulnerable to respiratory infections. There is obviously the long-term cancer risk as well, but also the cocktail of chemicals you're breathing in are channeled directly onto the second largest exchange surface in your body after the intestines, so a whole range of them make it into the blood stream and damage other areas of the body too, primarily the blood vessels themselves.

Is a long life really a noble goal? Put your focus on achieving something great, not just lasting for as long as possible.

Freaky shit goes on at Los Alamos. When one of my relatives worked up there, there was a tritium release that shut down the McDonald's. And that was 20 years ago. God knows what happened before then.

Breathing any kind of smoke is bad for you. Nicotine leaves in particular are sticky, so mineral dust accumulates on them from fertilizer, and the smoke is tarry from the stuff that makes the leaves sticky, which helps gum up the cilia that clean your lungs and stick nasty things in them, including things your breathe other than cigarette smoke (which is why smokers suffer much more from, for instance, asbestos exposure). The mineral dust contains traces of uranium and thorium, and their decay products, notably polonium, a potent alpha emitter.

The nicotine itself interferes with a number of bodily processes. You don't get a stimulant effect for nothing, and while it's hard to poison yourself with caffeine (and the body adapts to compensate for routine dosing almost completely), it's quite easy to poison yourself with nicotine. One of the more notorious effects of nicotine is that broken bones take about twice as long to heal. Nicotine's harmful effects are poorly understood due to being hard to separate from the effects of other substances in tobacco, but data should be coming in thanks to the increasing popularity of vaping.

At least one guy here is sane.

Thing is, it's not NEARLY as bad as people think. It can "damage" lungs by reducing respitory capacity but lungs can repair themselves fairly well and the ideals of it doing that has always been overrated (since there are plenty of smokers with perfectly fine lungs). That's all it does. The cancer/disease/cardiac problems associated with smoking have always been propaganda.

Tobacco readily soaks up Pulonium-210 and Lead-210 which get deposited into your lungs and release alpha and beta particles until stabilizing.

Unconditional denial is sanity? Sounds about what I'd expect from you.

The only one denying anything is the people who refuse to see the corruption of tobacco control. Take the EPA for example.

junkscience.com/2012/12/whats-epa-smoking/
schachtmanlaw.com/epa-cherry-picking-woe-epa-1992-meta-analysis-of-eta-lung-cancer-part-1/

This interview is also funny in that it's clear that they deny their corruption by skirting around an actual response.

pbs.org/newshour/bb/health-july-dec98-smoking_7-21/

Explaining what happens instead of why it's supposedly so bad for you will get you nowhere. What ou e said sounds bad, but that doesn't mean it's a big deal.
Also interesting that you provided no source. At least pro smoking people provide links.

Total trolltard detected.

It clogs up your filters beyond repair.

Anti-smoking alarmist detected.

>why is smoking bad for you?

This is not really accurate. This "mucus/lung capacity decrease" is caused by stuff like bacteria/viruses and COPD/emphysema (which are genetic diseases that also occur in nonsmokers).

Didn't you know that cigarettes contain benzopyrene, a chemical that leads to lung cancer? We now know that when benzopyrene enters the body, it changes to benzopyrene diolepoxide and attaches to the receptors on the P53 gene, the gene which causes lung cancer. The BPDE attaches to the P53 gene in three specific locations and causes pre-cancerous changes to the lung tissue.

Can you please be sure to come back here and post results when you're on your deathbed? We're all very eager to see how your personal "smoking isn't harmful" experiment plays out. Luckily all of us nonsmokers will live to see how it ends.

go away cancerbag. you're not allowed to advertise smoking on Veeky Forums.

Eh, from what I've heard.. Tobacco absorbs a lot of radon from the soil. You smoke the tobacco, the radon gets in your lungs and alpha decays. Normally alpha decay isn't a big deal since alpha particles (helium without the electrons) are heavy and have a charge. This means they can't make it through many materials, such as your clothes or skin.

But since they're in your lungs, you have no protective layer against the alpha particles and thus they can cause a lot of DNA damage, mainly by creating acids, free radicals, whatever.

I mean 'radium', not radon. But it decays into radon apparently. Either way.. :^)

So now nonsmokers resort to celebrating or longing for the death of others just because they smoke? How cruel. Nonsmokers will probably die before most smokers do because of some neurological disorder or genetic heart problem anyway. Or they'll live long enough to be decrepit Alzheimer's zombies. Take your pick. By the way I'm a nonsmoker.

I'm tired of people who do nothing but support faulty government or activist funded science here. The links posted that have discredited the anti-smoking movement have resulted in people still sticking their heads in the sand. What a shame.

I switched to vaping and do it for the health effects honestly. No more smoke, you just puff on this delicious Mt. Dew flavored goop. \//\

>xddddddddd i am le epic troll
nigga get a job it's more satisfying and you get paid for it

>fine particulates, which irritate the lining of the lungs causing mucus to be released and which can damage the immune cells sent to digest them

For two weeks after I quit smoking, I was hacking up phlegm that literally had brown globules of tar in massive amounts. I was coughing up at least 100 mL of this stuff every day until finally it stopped.

I could not believe I was voluntarily putting myself through that torture. Nicotine is a hell of a drug.

>no one replied to the secondhand smoke lies told by major organizations like the EPA

Interesting. The best links, as always, are skipped in threads like this.

The following deserves to be known.

It is absurd that smokeless tobacco must include the label "not a safe alternative to cigarettes". It is like saying that driving sober is not a safe alternative to driving drunk.

The following paragraph says it all. Smokers live 7.8 years less than non-smokers. Smokeless tobacco users live 15 days less.

From circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/15/1520:

>Data from international, European, and US studies overwhelmingly demonstrate that compared with ST (smokeless tobacco) users, active smokers are at much greater risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and have shorter life spans.44,–,46,52,128 When examining life expectancy, Rodu and Cole145 found that the life expectancy of a 35-year-old ST user was 35.9 years, only 0.04 years (ie, 15 days) less than a nontobacco user but 7.8 years greater than an active smoker.

In 20 years your body will recover enough it will be as if you never smoked at all, in terms of statistically expected chances of heart attack, lung cancer, etc. If one quits early enough, the damage can be undone. But any smoker knows quitting is so difficult it is far better to never start at all.

Lrn2basic-information pls
www3.epa.gov/pm/basic.html

>7.8 years less

Psh, not really a big deal

>statistically expected chances of heart attack, lung cancer, etc.

Those "status vitally expected" chance are overrated.

You're seriously expecting the same jokers who made the secondhand smoke claims that banned smoking indoors during the 90's to be honest about smoking in general?

You're seriously expecting me to share your paranoia?

So does food.
Trace amounts of radioactive metals is a non-statement.

It's like anti-GMO people. Anti-smokers have nothing but hysteria to support their asinine position that smoking is bad.

I'm expecting you to think critically and not just believe in what your goverent tells you.

The "paranoia" is justified analysis of the EPA, or did you not read the fucking thread or any links posted? Wait, don't bother answering, I know you didn't.

I don't need to believe the government, I believe my lungs

atherosclerosis. Also damages cillia reducing surface area to volume ratio, thus preventing removal of shit and diffusion of important shit

Smoker's lungs will go back to normal after you quit. Also, lung transplants using smokers show no real difference between nonsmoker lungs.

medpagetoday.com/surgery/transplantation/44628

Just because something feels like it hurts doesn't mean it actually does. Is working out bad for you because it makes you feel sore?

>5. Common genes for lung cancer & smoking
longecity.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38868&view=findpost&p=388507

>9. Heart attacks from SHS myths (a 'friend saying Boo' is more "hazardous" for your heart than SHS)
longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-13#entry389471

>10. Glycotoxins/AGE in tobacco smoke -- backfires badly
longecity.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38868&view=findpost&p=389528

>11. Smoking protects against cancers (reversal of values in cancer state and another common sleight of hand), Smoking vs Caloric Restrictions (and on fundamental wrong-headedness of C.R.)
imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=38868&view=findpost&p=389609

>12. More on anti-carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke and how to translate Orwellian antismoking "science" to real science
longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/?view=findpost&p=389717

>14. Smoking and diabetes, insulin sensitivity -- another "proof" backfires
longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-14#entry390153

>15. How to prove that 'Lifting weights is harmful for muscles' - pinhole vision sleight of hand of antismoking "science" illustrated
longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/page-14#entry390233

His information pretty much proves it's not a big deal to smoke. Considering all anti-smokers have is wives tales like which prove nothing, I know whose side in taking.

>Why is smoking bad for you?
It isn't. If you smoke, you do so because you decided to do so. This means you must value it more than you fear the negatives, unless you are irrational.

You have no proof smoking causes atherosclerosis. Bad diet and genetics do.

>Smoker's lungs will go back to normal after you quit.
They absolutely don't, and there are plenty of studies to show that. They partially recover with time, but they don't go back to the functionality of a non-smoker of the same age.
Here:
ijpp.com/IJPP archives/2012_56_2_ Apr - Jun/154-160.pdf
>Though some studies have suggested that
ex smokers still show lung damage and the
negative effect remains even after a smoker
quits (15), our study revealed recovery in all
the pulmonary functions in ex smokers. But
still these lung functions were significantly
below that of the non smoking group. These
findings are similar to another study where
ex smokers had better lung function values
than smokers, but their mean curves were
below the values of non smokers (9). Another
study conducted on elderly men had also
reported recovery of PFT parameters in ex-
smokers (16).

>Also, lung transplants using smokers show no real difference between nonsmoker lungs.
That's bullshit. You've posted that study in the past, and you're still completely misrepresenting its conclusions. The short-term outcome of the transplant itself is the same for smoker's and non-smoker's lungs. That's not the same thing as the lungs themselves having the same amount of function.

>longecity.org
>Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
No.

>His information pretty much proves it's not a big deal to smoke.
And all of the studies that DO show decreased function and increased risk of lung disease are what, deception by the lizard-people who are allergic to nicotine?

Did you not read the part where the transplant patients with smokers lungs actually had longer survival rates? or did that not register with you? That alone dispels the idea that smokers lungs are that bad.

And short and mid term follow up has so far proven that their lungs are fine regardless. I am sure long term follow up will be sufficient as well once they get there.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550424/Smokers-lungs-just-likely-transplant-patients-alive-non-smokers-organs.html

>Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

I like how you poison the well by discrediting the information on a forum merely because of the name. The guy meticulously goes through every anti-smoking study mentioned in the thread and he shits on app of them. Nice to know you have nothing to say though. Go ahead and fucking dismiss a source due to the name, you'll end up missing a lot of useful information and you'll stay ignorant Iike some fucking flat earther. I can't believe people have the gall to just dismiss this shit offhand.

Smoking really only raises your risk of cancer/ emphysema/ shit if you smoke more than half a pack a day.

I smoke when I drink, but find it nasty af sober.

In your view is this also depending on how many puffs you take per cigarette? How do you make this claim for sure?

I personally don't think the correlation between smoking=disease is even strong at all.

It's what my stepmom's GP told her, and she smokes 7-10 per day. She's in her 60's and looks like she's in her 40's, and it in shape.

Personally I think it's more genetics than anything. If you're not predisposed to cancer, smoking won't do it unless you puff down like 2 or 3 packs per day.

General Practitioner? Well you don't usually see them talking about smoking in a non-negative fashion, guess that's interesting.

>Did you not read the part where the transplant patients with smokers lungs actually had longer survival rates?
Only in the very short term, and not to any particularly significant degree. Definitely not by enough to strongly imply anything.

>And short and mid term follow up has so far proven that their lungs are fine regardless.
Well yes: Most smokers are unlikely to keel over dead in the next three years. And between the lung transplant and whatever caused the need for a lung transplant, the effects of smoking are going to be relatively small.
Also, while I'm no expert on the subject, I'd imagine that any lungs being used for transplantation would have gone through at lest some kind of selection process, which would necessarily reduce the impact of reviving lungs from a smoker donor.

None of this actually shows that smoking is safe though, it's a complete red herring.

>I like how you poison the well by discrediting the information on a forum merely because of the name.
>The guy meticulously goes through every anti-smoking study mentioned in the thread and he shits on app of them.
And I'm replying to you, not him. I don't give a fuck about his opinions, and if I did I'd be posting there rather than here.
If you want to talk about actual papers then post them, but one dumb argument on one forum full of idiots is enough for me.

>I can't believe people have the gall to just dismiss this shit offhand.
Your degree of emotional attachment to some random source that happens to agree with you is a little concerning.

>Smoking really only raises your risk of cancer/ emphysema/ shit if you smoke more than half a pack a day.
What are you basing that on?
Research on light smoking seems surprisingly rare, but:
circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/13/1518.long

>I personally don't think the correlation between smoking=disease is even strong at all.
That's simply wrong.

You're doing god's work user

Tobacco is tobacco,additives and pesticides are the onces causing cancer.

>Only in the very short term, and not to any particularly significant degree. Definitely not by enough to strongly imply anything.

The short term is the same for smokers and non smokers and smoker lungs have the better survival rates. What else do you fucking need?

>I'd imagine that any lungs being used for transplantation would have gone through at least some kind of selection process, which would necessarily reduce the impact of reviving lungs from a smoker donor.

They needed more lungs due to a shortage of nonsmoking donors.

>None of this actually shows that smoking is safe though, it's a complete red herring.

Bullshit. It shows that in a specific situation smokers lungs actually on average do better than nonsmoking ones.

>And I'm replying to you, not him. I don't give a fuck about his opinions, and if I did I'd be posting there rather than here.

Do I need to fucking green text every argument he makes then? Because I will go there if that's what is needed. He lays out, rather plainly, that smoking is seen as a health risk due to bad science that has been successful in conning an impressionable public.

>If you want to talk about actual papers then post them, but one dumb argument on one forum full of idiots is enough for me.

Well, I do have these

>" ...all smokers had less plaque, gingival inflammation and tooth mobility than nonsmokers and similar periodontal pocket depth." - Veterans Administration, Outpatient Clinic (Boston). Chauncey. H.H,; Kapur, K.K.; Feldmar, R S. "TheLongitudinal and Cross-Sectional Study of Oral Health: in Healthy Veterans (Dental Longitudinal Study)

>- "Smokers have lower incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis than nonsmokers." - Guy's Hospital Medical School (England). Jones, R.M. "Influence of Smoking on Peri-Operative Morbidity."Hypertension (High blood pressure) is less common among smokers.

>- "Hypertension prevalence rate among smokers was 3.94 percent; among nonsmokers the rate was 4.90 percent." - 0146. Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases. Chen, H.Z.; Pan, X.W.; Guo, G. et al. "Relation Between Cigarette Smoking and Epidemiology of Hypertension.

>- "Hypertension and postpartum hemorrhage were lower in smokers."
0045. University of Tasmania (Australia). Correy, J.; Newman, N. Curran, J. "An Assessment of Smoking in Pregnancy."

>- "RBCs [red blood cells] from cigarette smokers contain more glutathione and catalase and protect lung endothelial cells against O2 [dioxide] metabolites better than RBCs from nonsmokers." - 0759. University of Colorado. Refine, J.E.; Berger, E.M.; Beehler, C.J. et al. "Role of RBC Antioxidants in Cigarette Smoke Related Diseases." Jan 1980 - continuing. (A number of studies in the 1991 CDC bibliography describe the apparent protective effect of smoking with regard to mouth ulcers).

Cont.

>"Excess risks of lung cancer found in miners and foundry workers could not be fully explained by the high prevalence of smoking among these occupations," - 0495. University of Zurich, Institute of Pathology (Switzerland). Schuler, G. "Epidemiology of Lung Cancer in Switzerland."

>"Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers." - 0429. Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy (Poland). Lange, A. "Effect of Smoking on Immunological Abnormalities in Asbestos Workers

>"Relative risk of lung cancer for asbestos workers was "highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and deaths from mesothelioma." - 0565. University of London, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "Cancer of the Lung Among Asbestos Factory Workers."

>"In general, motor performance in all groups improved after smoking."0530. London University, Institute of Psychiatry. O'Connor, K.P "Individual Differences in Psychophysiology of Smoking and Smoking Behavior

Lungs were built to absorb air anything else they were not adapted for. It's that simple

Useless waste of ressources that could be invested in productive endeavors like hookers and blackjack.

That's a terrible way of putting it. Even oxygen can be bad for the lungs. More non smokers than ever are getting lung cancer now.