Smoking and Scapegoat 香烟,万恶之罪还是万能替罪羊?
Jaydad
03 Jan 2009
(disclaimer - I write my personal opinion, never intend to replace expert or official advice)
NCI tells you cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths and is responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. Also, depending on whose research you believe in, many other cancers information websites may also list smoking as major risk factor - breast, colon, pancreas and prostate.
The cause of cancer is one of the most difficult subject to study, not only because cancer takes many years (10+ years) to develop which makes laboratory prediction with short-living rodent model nearly impossible, but the world we live in is now greatly polluted with increasingly complex brew of known, suspected, probable and possible cancer-causing chemicals. Therefore, you may wonder, how did they at NCI derive such precise percentage? what kind of animal experimentations or epidemiological investigations made NCI this much certain?
It turns out, what they really meant was, 87% of lung cancer patients smoke or had smoked. OK, here is American government intelligence 101 - If you have lung cancer, and if you have ever smoked, bingo, your lung cancer was caused by smoking! It doesn't matter whether you smoke 3 packs a day, or 3 sips a week, a smoker is a smoker - your addiction caused your cancer, tobacco industry partly responsible. Blame yourself, good luck sueing tobacco firms, and tell your loved ones to quit. Easy, we discovered solution for ~90% lung cancer problems - don't politicians love this!
I am not denying cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. But since my head is above my shoulder, not below waist like that of doctor NCI, i am not going to believe 87% of all lung cancers are caused by cigarette smoking. There was a half joke in the grad school about project selection. If you want your experiment to be published no matter what, choose cigarette smoking because it is so much so politically correct. Cigarette smoking has been studied for many many years in many many diseases, and will continued to be so as long as the government is willing to burn money in the name of 'doing public good'. See, just while I am writing this, today's headline reads, "smoking ban made heart attack rate drop". However, I prefer things this way - "quitting smoking solves all public health problems", then no more burning tax-payer dollars in the bottomless pit.
Yes, cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer. And we have known for a while what chemicals in cigarette smoking cause DNA damage and start the carcinogenesis cascade - the initiation. Benzo(a)pyrene 苯并吡 was one of the most cited member of smoking produced known human carcinogens, among other PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). It is a very lipid soluble compound that is part of the smoking tar, or that yellowish/brownish color on heavy smoker's fingers. It was also the nastiest thing inside airplane cabin before smoking was banned on passenger planes (hence the damage of second hand smoking in closed-compartment). It is worth pointing out though, the thing that makes smoking addictive, nicotine, has nothing to do with causing cancer.
We also know that different people handle the smoking carcinogen very differently. To some people their liver can easily destroy benzopyrene by making it water soluble thus leaving little chance for genome damage; yet to others, the epoxide derivative of benzopyrene can end up forming DNA adduct (prelude to DNA mutation) in chromosomes commencing the long march initiation-promotion-progression towards deadly cancer. Such is human polymorphisms (of cytochrome P450s, if you care about the biochemistry behind it) which may explain why smoking guns like emporer Mao or comrade Xiaoping did not get lung cancer after life-time intimate relationship with tobacco.
However it is very important for you to know, that benzopyrene occurs in much larger quantities in other situations - coal tar 焦碳, diesel exhaust 柴油污烟 (that black smoke spewing from school buses), incomplete wood burning 木材不完全燃烧,and BBQ 烧烤 and even in incense smoke 烧香. And look at your food, according to Wikipedia, cooked beef has about 4 ng/g of benzo[a]pyrene, fried chicken, 5.5ng/g, and in overcooked charcoal barbecued beef, benzopyrene is as high as 62.6ng/g (although I concede that benzopyrene in your foods does not have too much chance getting into your lung as vs down your stomach, liver and intestines).
This benzopyrene is same as that benzopyrene, regardless of smoking status. So, now we know that mister diesel engine operator who died of lung cancer lately may just be actual victim of the machine, instead of the demise of his own addiction; and that petite buddhist thai lady who never smoked herself but caught lung cancer in her 50s could just be the victim of her life long incense smoke exposure, not (or in addition to) his hu*****and's 2nd hand smoking.
Beside smoking and/or benzopyrene, are there anything else that causes lung cancer? Yes, there are quite a few things or risk factors. Some are more or less known, others are likely suspects but before the suspects become officially convicted cancer-causing felons there are powerful corporations that would do anything including spending million even billion dollars fighting to maintain the innocense of their pollutants.
1) radon
Radon is the derivative of natural Uranium in the earth we dwell on. It is a gas and is a strong carcinogen. If your house has high radon level, the wise thing to do, is to move on and out. But, in extreme cases, people have done just the opposite - they move Uranium/Radon from far-away places such as Africa into their home as expensive decoration, in the form of marble decor or granite countertop. Now you read this, the minimum you can do is to get a radon test kit for a quick measure at home. Some states even give kits out for free. If yours dont, you can get one from amazon.com for less than $20.
2) cooking fumes - the oil
Some cooking oil, such as rapeseeds oil 原菜籽油, when heated at high temperature, gives off significant amount of PAHs, nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 1,3-Butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde, all known or suspected carcinogens.
3) cooking fumes - the meat and pollutants
When animal meat, skin or fat is stir fried or burned at high temperature, a rich brew of carcinogenic chemicals can find their way down your windpipes. These include PAHs, heterocyclic amines, POPs (dioxins, DDT, PCBs), and suspended particulates.
4) cooking fumes - the teflon coating PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid)
It is part of the non-stick coating in many kitchen utensils. Apparently it does not stick strongly enough when heated at very high temperature, and if you use these things for cooking, you most likely already have PFOA in your lung and your blood. Chemically PFOA is more stable than other persistent organic pollutants (POPs), thus you can call it "super POP". In 2005, an EPA advisory panel waked up and recommended, "PFOA is a likely carcinogen in humans." As far as I can tell, the jury is still out on this one. But, I can also definitely tell that some big corporation's PR and law firm are working very very hard to do damage control, as well as voice silencing as usual. On the same PFOA but from a different situation - underground water contamination from teflon manufacturing plants in West Virginia - in December 2005 DXXXXX compay announced a settlement with EPA in which they will pay US$10 million in fines and US$6 million for two supplemental projects WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY. Based on 'secret history', we may never know the truth. I definitely won't count on Joe Biden on this one. Don't ask me why.
5) indoor air pollution
The construction materials, furniture, carpet and other house-hold industries routinely use tons and tons of formaldehyde (HCHO) in manufacturing processes. Depending on how the industries post-process their products, some will end up at your home with negligible traces, other with dangerously high concentration of HCHO inside your house. Everyone knows now it is highly carcinogenic, but EPA still says it is a 'probable' carcinogen. It is volatile and gets into your lungs easily. You liver could cope better since there are many enzymes to take the detoxification job, but your lungs are not equally equipped.
One thing worth mentioning is the indoor air in biological laboratories. Some of you probably remember how formaldehyde (in the form of 37% water solution, or "formalin" 福尔马林) was abused in labs - jars everywhere, windows and doors closed. If you have biologist friend with lung cancer, it is probably not coincidence.
6) a*****estos
A*****estos is responsible for mesothelioma, cancer of the chest wall lining. Stricly speaking it is not lung cancer, as the location is outside the lungs. However, you can imagine, how do a*****estos get into mesothelioma patients body? Right, through their lungs! And you know what, during the hey days, heavy-exposure a*****estos workers died very young of lung failure, before they even had a chance to develop cancers. Now, please prove to me by means of science that this nasty cancer-causing dust causes only mesothelioma, but not any other lung cancer! Incidentally, mesothelioma is a rare cancer, and patients are eligible for class-action law suit compensation.
7) atmospheric air pollution
I read in a book describing some scene at smogtown Los Angeles in the 1940s. It sounded like hell. A california study in 1998 found increased risks of incident lung cancer were associated with elevated long-term ambient concentrations of particular matter <10microns (PM10) and sulphur oxide (SO2) in both genders and with ozone (O3) in males. A visit to beijing last year made me think the situation in China's cities is probably no better than Los Angeles.
8) automobile exhaust
Besides diesel exhaust mentioned above, inefficient gasoline engines cough out benzopyrene as well, just not as much as in dirty diesel smokes. Next time you smell the stinky ford or chevrolet in front of you, do something about it such as cutting off that 'fresh air' vent and using side windows instead, you might just be saving your lungs.
9) food additives
Unlike most of the above genotoxic compounds, most food additives don't have direct access to your lungs, and further they most likely don't cause direct chromosomal damage. So why do i still include them? You have to understand that carcinogenesis is a prolonged multi-step process, part of that is called tumor promotion in which the eventual presence of a materialized cancer is dependent upon whether the intra- and inter-cellular environments are beneficial or detrimental to the clonal expansion of the initiated tumor cell. Therefore, the preservatives, hormones, agricultural chemicals, sweetners and coloring agents, might just help creating such tumor-promoting environment in your lungs where other carcinogens have already began the carcinogenesis process.
10) your genes
It is very attractive. Sexy. High tech. With over a million death worldwide it is hugely important to study lung cancer genes, that is if there are such genes. How often do we hear lung cancer genes or gene loci or snps or mutations being discovered? Too often for me to keep track of. So ear-pleasing that "my ear tunnel is growing warts" (translate please). Are there genetic factors associated with lung cancer? Yes, for example, cytochrome P450 polymorphism as mentioned above. Have they found a qualified "cancer gene" such as BRCA? No! But there is no shortage of jokes on the subject. Someone published a journal article claiming they have now found a new gene that is responsible for lung cancer, and they even know this gene codes for a protein/enzyme that is part of the nicotine metabolism. I was like - wow, even nicotine is now cancer suspect, that must be politically super-duper correct! But don't worry nicotine gums, nicotine patches won't be banned any time soon. I am not saying none of the genomic and genetic studies is valuable, but I have a problem with the media coverage with them, especially media hype by some half-genius reporters. Often a rosy picture is painted like this, we will find the evil gene first, devise gene therapies next, and cure your lung cancer at step three. When some big genome center headed by some big mouth is burning big cash making some big 'cancer map' and promising fantasy cure for diseases that are to the best only marginally genetic (inherited), we know the future is going to get tougher for the innocent tax-paying public.
Summary
Why would the government want to over-play the importance of cigarette smoking in lung cancer and other diseases? Let me ask, if you were a super powerful well-connected multi-national chemical company executive, and your secret inhouse data have already confirmed that one of your very popular house-hold product caused cancer in the laboratory, what do you fear most? And what would you like to hear most? What would you like agencies such as EPA, FDA, ACS and NCI, which are always sorrounded and heavily influenced by your lobbyist, lawyers and PR, to tell the people? How about a readily available scapegoat?!
It helps to see the whole picture by looking back at the history of smoking and cancer link. In the 1930-40s German and Britain scientists have already found the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, and by the 1960s, american scientists had identified the chemical in cigarette smoke that was responsible for inducing cancer in mice. But look at what the powerful and rich ACS was doing back then - they were busy collaborating with the tobacco industry to create "safer" cigarettes! And they were not the most shameful party, the American medical association (AMA) waited until 1979 to declare for the first time that cigarette smoking was bad for lungs. Money makes intelligent people do funny things. Money drives politics, and politicians employ scape-goats. The only difference being it was tobacco money back then, vs other big moneys now (chemical, plastics, petro, big pharma, you name it).
I see as less and less people start smoking, and more and more people realize the true and fair assessment of smoking contribution to lung cancer in population, smoking will appear less and less attractive as scapegoat to cover up other truly scary cancer-causing pollutants. Can you guess what the scapegoat alternate is on the horizon?
Jaydad
03 Jan 2009
(disclaimer - I write my personal opinion, never intend to replace expert or official advice)
NCI tells you cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths and is responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. Also, depending on whose research you believe in, many other cancers information websites may also list smoking as major risk factor - breast, colon, pancreas and prostate.
The cause of cancer is one of the most difficult subject to study, not only because cancer takes many years (10+ years) to develop which makes laboratory prediction with short-living rodent model nearly impossible, but the world we live in is now greatly polluted with increasingly complex brew of known, suspected, probable and possible cancer-causing chemicals. Therefore, you may wonder, how did they at NCI derive such precise percentage? what kind of animal experimentations or epidemiological investigations made NCI this much certain?
It turns out, what they really meant was, 87% of lung cancer patients smoke or had smoked. OK, here is American government intelligence 101 - If you have lung cancer, and if you have ever smoked, bingo, your lung cancer was caused by smoking! It doesn't matter whether you smoke 3 packs a day, or 3 sips a week, a smoker is a smoker - your addiction caused your cancer, tobacco industry partly responsible. Blame yourself, good luck sueing tobacco firms, and tell your loved ones to quit. Easy, we discovered solution for ~90% lung cancer problems - don't politicians love this!
I am not denying cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. But since my head is above my shoulder, not below waist like that of doctor NCI, i am not going to believe 87% of all lung cancers are caused by cigarette smoking. There was a half joke in the grad school about project selection. If you want your experiment to be published no matter what, choose cigarette smoking because it is so much so politically correct. Cigarette smoking has been studied for many many years in many many diseases, and will continued to be so as long as the government is willing to burn money in the name of 'doing public good'. See, just while I am writing this, today's headline reads, "smoking ban made heart attack rate drop". However, I prefer things this way - "quitting smoking solves all public health problems", then no more burning tax-payer dollars in the bottomless pit.
Yes, cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer. And we have known for a while what chemicals in cigarette smoking cause DNA damage and start the carcinogenesis cascade - the initiation. Benzo(a)pyrene 苯并吡 was one of the most cited member of smoking produced known human carcinogens, among other PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). It is a very lipid soluble compound that is part of the smoking tar, or that yellowish/brownish color on heavy smoker's fingers. It was also the nastiest thing inside airplane cabin before smoking was banned on passenger planes (hence the damage of second hand smoking in closed-compartment). It is worth pointing out though, the thing that makes smoking addictive, nicotine, has nothing to do with causing cancer.
We also know that different people handle the smoking carcinogen very differently. To some people their liver can easily destroy benzopyrene by making it water soluble thus leaving little chance for genome damage; yet to others, the epoxide derivative of benzopyrene can end up forming DNA adduct (prelude to DNA mutation) in chromosomes commencing the long march initiation-promotion-progression towards deadly cancer. Such is human polymorphisms (of cytochrome P450s, if you care about the biochemistry behind it) which may explain why smoking guns like emporer Mao or comrade Xiaoping did not get lung cancer after life-time intimate relationship with tobacco.
However it is very important for you to know, that benzopyrene occurs in much larger quantities in other situations - coal tar 焦碳, diesel exhaust 柴油污烟 (that black smoke spewing from school buses), incomplete wood burning 木材不完全燃烧,and BBQ 烧烤 and even in incense smoke 烧香. And look at your food, according to Wikipedia, cooked beef has about 4 ng/g of benzo[a]pyrene, fried chicken, 5.5ng/g, and in overcooked charcoal barbecued beef, benzopyrene is as high as 62.6ng/g (although I concede that benzopyrene in your foods does not have too much chance getting into your lung as vs down your stomach, liver and intestines).
This benzopyrene is same as that benzopyrene, regardless of smoking status. So, now we know that mister diesel engine operator who died of lung cancer lately may just be actual victim of the machine, instead of the demise of his own addiction; and that petite buddhist thai lady who never smoked herself but caught lung cancer in her 50s could just be the victim of her life long incense smoke exposure, not (or in addition to) his hu*****and's 2nd hand smoking.
Beside smoking and/or benzopyrene, are there anything else that causes lung cancer? Yes, there are quite a few things or risk factors. Some are more or less known, others are likely suspects but before the suspects become officially convicted cancer-causing felons there are powerful corporations that would do anything including spending million even billion dollars fighting to maintain the innocense of their pollutants.
1) radon
Radon is the derivative of natural Uranium in the earth we dwell on. It is a gas and is a strong carcinogen. If your house has high radon level, the wise thing to do, is to move on and out. But, in extreme cases, people have done just the opposite - they move Uranium/Radon from far-away places such as Africa into their home as expensive decoration, in the form of marble decor or granite countertop. Now you read this, the minimum you can do is to get a radon test kit for a quick measure at home. Some states even give kits out for free. If yours dont, you can get one from amazon.com for less than $20.
2) cooking fumes - the oil
Some cooking oil, such as rapeseeds oil 原菜籽油, when heated at high temperature, gives off significant amount of PAHs, nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, 1,3-Butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde, all known or suspected carcinogens.
3) cooking fumes - the meat and pollutants
When animal meat, skin or fat is stir fried or burned at high temperature, a rich brew of carcinogenic chemicals can find their way down your windpipes. These include PAHs, heterocyclic amines, POPs (dioxins, DDT, PCBs), and suspended particulates.
4) cooking fumes - the teflon coating PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid)
It is part of the non-stick coating in many kitchen utensils. Apparently it does not stick strongly enough when heated at very high temperature, and if you use these things for cooking, you most likely already have PFOA in your lung and your blood. Chemically PFOA is more stable than other persistent organic pollutants (POPs), thus you can call it "super POP". In 2005, an EPA advisory panel waked up and recommended, "PFOA is a likely carcinogen in humans." As far as I can tell, the jury is still out on this one. But, I can also definitely tell that some big corporation's PR and law firm are working very very hard to do damage control, as well as voice silencing as usual. On the same PFOA but from a different situation - underground water contamination from teflon manufacturing plants in West Virginia - in December 2005 DXXXXX compay announced a settlement with EPA in which they will pay US$10 million in fines and US$6 million for two supplemental projects WITHOUT ADMITTING LIABILITY. Based on 'secret history', we may never know the truth. I definitely won't count on Joe Biden on this one. Don't ask me why.
5) indoor air pollution
The construction materials, furniture, carpet and other house-hold industries routinely use tons and tons of formaldehyde (HCHO) in manufacturing processes. Depending on how the industries post-process their products, some will end up at your home with negligible traces, other with dangerously high concentration of HCHO inside your house. Everyone knows now it is highly carcinogenic, but EPA still says it is a 'probable' carcinogen. It is volatile and gets into your lungs easily. You liver could cope better since there are many enzymes to take the detoxification job, but your lungs are not equally equipped.
One thing worth mentioning is the indoor air in biological laboratories. Some of you probably remember how formaldehyde (in the form of 37% water solution, or "formalin" 福尔马林) was abused in labs - jars everywhere, windows and doors closed. If you have biologist friend with lung cancer, it is probably not coincidence.
6) a*****estos
A*****estos is responsible for mesothelioma, cancer of the chest wall lining. Stricly speaking it is not lung cancer, as the location is outside the lungs. However, you can imagine, how do a*****estos get into mesothelioma patients body? Right, through their lungs! And you know what, during the hey days, heavy-exposure a*****estos workers died very young of lung failure, before they even had a chance to develop cancers. Now, please prove to me by means of science that this nasty cancer-causing dust causes only mesothelioma, but not any other lung cancer! Incidentally, mesothelioma is a rare cancer, and patients are eligible for class-action law suit compensation.
7) atmospheric air pollution
I read in a book describing some scene at smogtown Los Angeles in the 1940s. It sounded like hell. A california study in 1998 found increased risks of incident lung cancer were associated with elevated long-term ambient concentrations of particular matter <10microns (PM10) and sulphur oxide (SO2) in both genders and with ozone (O3) in males. A visit to beijing last year made me think the situation in China's cities is probably no better than Los Angeles.
8) automobile exhaust
Besides diesel exhaust mentioned above, inefficient gasoline engines cough out benzopyrene as well, just not as much as in dirty diesel smokes. Next time you smell the stinky ford or chevrolet in front of you, do something about it such as cutting off that 'fresh air' vent and using side windows instead, you might just be saving your lungs.
9) food additives
Unlike most of the above genotoxic compounds, most food additives don't have direct access to your lungs, and further they most likely don't cause direct chromosomal damage. So why do i still include them? You have to understand that carcinogenesis is a prolonged multi-step process, part of that is called tumor promotion in which the eventual presence of a materialized cancer is dependent upon whether the intra- and inter-cellular environments are beneficial or detrimental to the clonal expansion of the initiated tumor cell. Therefore, the preservatives, hormones, agricultural chemicals, sweetners and coloring agents, might just help creating such tumor-promoting environment in your lungs where other carcinogens have already began the carcinogenesis process.
10) your genes
It is very attractive. Sexy. High tech. With over a million death worldwide it is hugely important to study lung cancer genes, that is if there are such genes. How often do we hear lung cancer genes or gene loci or snps or mutations being discovered? Too often for me to keep track of. So ear-pleasing that "my ear tunnel is growing warts" (translate please). Are there genetic factors associated with lung cancer? Yes, for example, cytochrome P450 polymorphism as mentioned above. Have they found a qualified "cancer gene" such as BRCA? No! But there is no shortage of jokes on the subject. Someone published a journal article claiming they have now found a new gene that is responsible for lung cancer, and they even know this gene codes for a protein/enzyme that is part of the nicotine metabolism. I was like - wow, even nicotine is now cancer suspect, that must be politically super-duper correct! But don't worry nicotine gums, nicotine patches won't be banned any time soon. I am not saying none of the genomic and genetic studies is valuable, but I have a problem with the media coverage with them, especially media hype by some half-genius reporters. Often a rosy picture is painted like this, we will find the evil gene first, devise gene therapies next, and cure your lung cancer at step three. When some big genome center headed by some big mouth is burning big cash making some big 'cancer map' and promising fantasy cure for diseases that are to the best only marginally genetic (inherited), we know the future is going to get tougher for the innocent tax-paying public.
Summary
Why would the government want to over-play the importance of cigarette smoking in lung cancer and other diseases? Let me ask, if you were a super powerful well-connected multi-national chemical company executive, and your secret inhouse data have already confirmed that one of your very popular house-hold product caused cancer in the laboratory, what do you fear most? And what would you like to hear most? What would you like agencies such as EPA, FDA, ACS and NCI, which are always sorrounded and heavily influenced by your lobbyist, lawyers and PR, to tell the people? How about a readily available scapegoat?!
It helps to see the whole picture by looking back at the history of smoking and cancer link. In the 1930-40s German and Britain scientists have already found the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, and by the 1960s, american scientists had identified the chemical in cigarette smoke that was responsible for inducing cancer in mice. But look at what the powerful and rich ACS was doing back then - they were busy collaborating with the tobacco industry to create "safer" cigarettes! And they were not the most shameful party, the American medical association (AMA) waited until 1979 to declare for the first time that cigarette smoking was bad for lungs. Money makes intelligent people do funny things. Money drives politics, and politicians employ scape-goats. The only difference being it was tobacco money back then, vs other big moneys now (chemical, plastics, petro, big pharma, you name it).
I see as less and less people start smoking, and more and more people realize the true and fair assessment of smoking contribution to lung cancer in population, smoking will appear less and less attractive as scapegoat to cover up other truly scary cancer-causing pollutants. Can you guess what the scapegoat alternate is on the horizon?
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
