scombrid

How the heck did I miss the journal citation?

I know that lymphoma is fairly common in cats. This is the second that my parents have had die from it. The first was associated with FeLV but the vet ruled that out in this case. It's likey impossible to indentify the cause in this case but it's interesting to find that smoking increases the risk of a cat developing lymphoma.

redstar2000

As a life-long smoker, one of the things that has always made me extremely sceptical of anti-tobacco research is that the results are always given as some kind of ratio without reference to the real numbers beneath the ratio.

For example, suppose I set up a "study" comparing death rates for commercial airline passengers in airplane crashes with deaths in airplane crashes of people who have never flown. It would be "easy" to derive enormous ratios from such a study..."proving" that flying was thousands of percent more dangerous than never flying.

By not revealing the real numbers, I have made a remarkably safe activity look incredibly dangerous.

Some years ago, I saw a letter published in Science News in which a doctor happened to mention in passing that the annual death rate for smokers is 12 per 10,000. (No one wrote in to question that number and the doctor was actually talking about a different subject, not smoking.)

The math is obvious...the "deaths caused by smoking" that we see in the media have to be exaggerated 10-fold at least...the alternative is that every man, woman, child, infant, cat and dog in the U.S. is puffing away. (!)

I did, as a matter of fact, see an article on the study of cats living with smokers which, to my amazement, actually gave real numbers...and don't I wish I could remember them accurately? But it went something like this: 50 cats in non-smoking homes succumbed to lymphoma vs. 300 cats in smoking homes...out of 100,000!

I suspect that the true risks of cigarette smoking are comparable to those of driving an automobile...but neither I nor anyone can know until the real numbers are revealed.

Shameless Plug: In Defense of Smokers by Lauren A. Colby -- full text at http://www.lcolby.com/index.html

Oxymoron

Wow, you smoked as a baby? That's addiction!

Look, most non-smokers don't give a toot what you do to yourself. The evidence is there, go figure. If you get cancer, or bronchitis, or emphysema, or suffer from fertility problems, or have heart problems, or can't run 20 yards without gasping, or even suffer no apparent ill effects or whatever, that's your choice. Fine.

But smoking is intrusive. Even if I don't get sarcomae as a result of sniffing your cigarette in the streer, I don't like it, it isn't good for me, it makes my clothes and hair smell, it affects my skin, I don't want it. I have just as much a right to not get it as you have to smoke it. However, smokers reason thusly: "I have accepted the risk*, therefore smoking is ok for me, and I am more important to me than anyone else, therefore my smoking is ok for everyone else, too". Smokers accept the risk* for others by proxy. Just watch mothers and/or fathers smoke in front of their babies for evidence of this.

*Accepting the risk = crossing fingers and believing "it won't happen to me" which is about as rational as believing Jebus is coming back.

Dr Rick

Just because you haven't looked for or found the "real numbers" doesn't mean that they haven't been "revealed." The "real numbers" can always be found in the primary medical and scientific literature:

Am J Cardiol, January 15, 2003; 91(2): 121-7.

Predictors of cardiac and noncardiac mortality among 14,697 patients with coronary heart disease.

R Dankner, U Goldbourt, V Boyko, and H Reicher-Reiss

Unit for Cardiovascular Epidemiology, The Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Tel Hashomer, Israel.

"The decrease in mortality from ischemic heart disease during the last 25 years may partly reflect improvement in diagnosis and treatment of patients with coronary heart disease. These patients, therefore, are experiencing morbidity and mortality due to other causes. The aim of our study was to describe the incidence and causes of cardiac mortality (CM) and noncardiac mortality (NCM) and to identify predictive factors. A cohort of 14,697 patients with coronary heart disease was merged with the Central Population Registry to identify mortality records from 1990 to 1996. Among the 1,839 deaths, 1,055 (57.4%) were cardiac, 626 (34.0%) were noncardiac, and 158 deaths (8.6%) were due to unknown causes as classified in the International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Edition (ICD). The 3 most significant predictors were age for a 10-year increment (odds ratios 1.75 and 2.25 for CM and NCM, respectively), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratios 1.67 and 1.71), and current smoking (odds ratios 1.29 and 1.66). A history of cancer was a predictor of NCM, but not of CM, whereas peripheral vascular disease predicted CM but not NCM. As the number of predictive factors increased from none to >or=5, the risk of NCM gradually increased from 1.9% to 15.5%. Similar predictors expose subjects with coronary disease to CM and NCM, but smoking plays a more pronounced role in the prediction of NCM, whereas past myocardial infarction, lower levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and peripheral vascular disease are mainly associated with CM. Because of the similarity of antecedent predictors, treatment of risk factors among patients with coronary heart disease should prove valuable for the prevention of all-cause mortality."

You have made a strawman argument

The numbers are well-known and have been published ad nauseum; the number of deaths from cigarette smoking is about 8 times greater than the number of deaths attributed to automobile travel:

MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, April 12, 2002; 51(14): 300-3.

Annual smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and economic costs--United States, 1995-1999.

"Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States and produces substantial health-related economic costs to society. This report presents the annual estimates of the disease impact of smoking in the United States during 1995-1999. CDC calculated national estimates of annual smoking-attributable mortality (SAM), years of potential life lost (YPLL), smoking-attributable medical expenditures (SAEs) for adults and infants, and productivity costs for adults. Results show that during 1995-1999, smoking caused approximately 440,000 premature deaths in the United States annually and approximately $157 billion in annual health-related economic losses. Implementation of comprehensive tobacco-control programs as recommended by CDC could effectively reduce the prevalence, disease impact, and economic costs of smoking."

The numbers are completely revealed in the body of the report; go to the CDC website if you wish to purchase that report or the ones on automobile deaths.

Rick

redstar2000

"[evasions and personal prejudices]"--Oxymoron.

Gee, that's an easy way to argue...why didn't I ever think of that before?

Of course, I smoked as a baby...or at least inhaled the second-hand smoke from my father's two-pack-a-day consumption. In today's neo-puritanical legal climate, I could probably sue the bastard for "child abuse".

I don't, as it happens, hang out much with non-smokers but when I do, I usually respect their preferences as long as they're reasonable...e.g., I don't smoke in their cars or in their homes.

But oxymoron doesn't like to smell cigarette smoke "in the streets". :boohoo: Considering what one is likely to be breathing on the streets of a major city these days, I think there are more serious things to worry about.

I agree that most non-smokers don't care if others smoke...even around them. But those rational folks are not the ones we hear from. It is the neo-puritans determined to abolish smoking that flood the media with hysteria and pass draconian anti-smoking legislation and impose outrageous taxes, etc.

It's the "war on drugs" all over again...with the easily predictable consequences.

"Accepting risk?" Do you know the technical term that doctors use for a "risk-free" state? They call it death.

openeyes

I would think the dose of nicotine and other chemicals would be much higher in the air that has just forcible been drawn through a burning cigarette directly into the lungs than in the more dilute air of the surrounding room.

That said, I couldn't stand to wait in a bar the other week for some take out food that I ordered after eating my own lunch in the smoke-free restaurant area across the lobby. The bar was not crowded but everyone in it was smoking (10 people?) and it was awful. Though I don't think I raised my cancer risk significantly, I didn't particularly feel well and decided to wait elsewhere. I wouldn't be able to work in such an environment.

I wish that people would present findings in a straightforward manner so that good decisions can be made. My "hunch" is the second-hand smoke does some damage, but not as much as some would lead us to think.

I, like Oxymoron, dislike walking outside, expecting "fresh" air (and yes, we can find it here in Minnesota) and having to hold my breath and walk a wide swath to avoid smelling and breathing in cigarette smoke. And what's with all those cigarette butts tossed out car windows (are they too stinky to keep in the ashtray?) Yeah, people have a right to get addicted to nicotine through smoking if they'd like, but I wish I didn't have to have the quality of my life lowered because of it, even if the direct effect on my health in minimal.

But hey, I'll keep my job dispensing all those breathing, circulation and heart meds that so many smokers seem to need in their later years, if they can afford them.

Oxymoron

What (exactly) am I evading?

Yes, I have what you call personal prejudices, though I call them "preferences". I am not "pre-judging" anything. I am an ex-smoker (yes, we are always the worst, aren't we), and I've made choices in my life. So smegging what?

Maybe the nicotine has interfered with your thinking?

Yeah, my dad smoked too. Which might account for my asthma (admittedly mild compared to some). Plus, it made it quite a bit more likely that I would smoke myself.

You choose what to worry about, my friend, and accord others the right to choose theirs. You're quite right, people who smoke in the street piss me off a little. And it really grates me up when they throw the butts just about anywhere, lit, unlit, ground into the pavement... yuk. I've been especially sensitive since my wife has been pregnant, had to ask people in restaurants if they'd mind not smoking next to her.

Well :boohoo: to you too.

[sarcasm]
Yes, most people who contract a serious smoking-related illness usually say "fair cop, guvn'r, I had a good innings at 35"
[/sarcasm]
The reaction of the sufferer of lung cancer or whatever is usually "why me?" or "it's so unfair" or some other appeal to the fact that when they "accepted the risk", they didn't really do the sort of cost-benefit analysis that shows they had considerably more to lose than gain when becoming addicted to toxic chemicals; against the advice of the vast majority of the medical profession, sporting institutions, governments... Humans being what they are, they believe they have a good chance of winning the National Lottery (14 million to 1 in the UK) and virtually no chance of contracting a smoking-related illness (pick your stats, whatever they are they're orders of magnitude less than millions to 1).

Risk is, as you imply, an important part of living. Most people who accept risk in their lives - folk who indulge in dangerous sports, for example - know how to mitigate the risks. They know they are in control of the situation and if they're well trained and prepared, then they have a good chance of surviving. This is just not the case with smoking and so the whole "I've accepted the risk" argument is just totally bogus.

scombrid

My office mate came back from the pub yesterday afternoon. Damn he reaked. Of course that's what you expect when you go to a pub but it kind of sucks to smell like that when you didn't even get the pleasure of a smoke.

I particularly like it when people smoke in an exterior stairwell and it gets drawn back into a building that I'm working in. I wonder if they'd like it if I back my old truck onto their front porch and let it idle for awhile.

I also enjoyed the butt piles at the entrances to every dorm and building when I was an undergrad.

For any smokers that say "I don't care if it shortens my life by ten years, those are the worst years anyway". If smoking is what gets you, the last ten years will still be the worst. Cronic lung disease is peachy. Look at the stats that Risk posted regarding health care for smokers.

Mad Kally

This is my first hand anecdotal evidence for smokers.

copernicus

I agree with Oxymoron's position on this. Smoking is a right only to the extent that it is shared with consenting adults, and you can't get consent from everyone around you when you are in public. It is a public nuisance, and quite probably a public health menace.

One problem with these debates, whether they are about guns or drugs or smoking, is that we tend to discount the real health menace. It has to show up in mortality rates, or it isn't really taken seriously. Mad Kally's occupation puts her in that situation all the time, and she appears to be looking at the argument as if it were just about death rates. It is also about insurance rates and tax-supported medical care. The more sick people we have, the more we all suffer. I don't have to die from smog or passive smoking in order for it to qualify as a danger to me and to my community.