[gela]

Comparing a person's life style to their health problems is science but not what is termed as "real" science. It provides some stats for making an speuclative guess, but it is not proof. That is partly because the study can be slanted to get the results you have on your agenda, and because they could leave out a lot of possibles when they conduct that study group. I have debated this, any real scientist would agree with me, and yet you deny it. Just go down to the science and technology forum and ask those who debate there that have lots of knowledge about science and they can explain the difference between real science and stat collecting.

sci·ence (sī'əns) n. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

The phenomena: Disease
The observation: Observing the life styles of people who suffer from a disease
The Identification: Recognising common patterns in these observations
Experimental Investigation: Looking into how the disease is caused by the pattern; and/or studying the health of other people who follow this pattern in life style.
Theoretical Explanation: Link the Life style Pattern to the Disease.

Yep.. seems like a science to me. Can't see any way or form that it isn't science. I also googled 'real science' to see if there was such a term, and I couldn't find any such thing.

I am not a scientist, but the only reason I do not have the data your scientists have is because they got no proof to give to me. Only those statements of potential deception. At least none is being shared via internet resources. Not even my own doctor could supply me with such data. Repeating a statement over and over does not make it true, would you believe Hitler's government if they did that?

There have been studies taken for years and years, all over the world, done in different cultures and under different governments. Yet there is no study, anywhere, that contradicts the fact that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer.
There is no more proof we can possible give. You are the one you has to disprove it now. If you want to say a widly accepted fact isn't true, then your the one who has to come up with the proof, not the rest of us, who have proved it countless times.

What is your point about people living in a city and being exposed to high doses of carbon monoxide from car fumes? Why is that anymore wrong then your claims?

My point was, that smokers and non smokers live in the city, and are exposed to car fumes. Yet it is still the smokers who are more likely to get lung cancer. Non smokers can also get lung cancer from the car fumes, but you are more likely to get it if you smoke.

If you wish to make it simple just tell us the trace amount in smoke form one cigarette.

In short. No. I've already wasted enough time on this thread; I have no doubt that I could go and do it, but it would be time consuming, and I don't care that much. Besides even if I did get the exact amount you would claim it is agenda driven.

If the lungs did not act like a filter how come the tar did not continue into the blood instead of remaining in the lungs? By the way, the illness you discribe is passed down via the genes (dna) and not "caused" in the manner you discribe. According to other science sources. Why do you think doctors ask about your family tree history? Why do they ask if anyone in your family, such as your mother or grandmother, ever had cancer - etc. Because they have evidence by another study that it is a genetic illness. Which is a different cause then cigarette smoke.

DNA makes you predisposed to cancer. Its a very simple concept. If your grandmother had lung cancer, then you are more likely to develop cancer if you smoke. However, if you don't smoke, and you eat the steamed vegetables, then you can also avoide the disease. Being geneticaly disposed to a disease is just another aspect to a disease to factor in. Correct me if im wrong, but doctors also ask wether or not you smoke.

Lungs do not act like a filter. Cellular respiration is the swiching of oxygen and carbon dioxide through a semi permiable membrane. The membrane is there so the blood doesn't spill into your lungs. Its semi perbiable so that cellular respiration can still occur - the CO2 can leave the blood and the Oxygen can enter the blood.
The filtering effect is coincidental, your lungs are not designed to be a filter - if they were, then they would have a method of releasing what they have filtered out.

And 'that disease' was Emphysema.
Emphysema - Risk Factors and Causes - pulmonologychannel

The primary risk factor for emphysema is cigarette smoking. More than 90% of cases occur in people who smoke or have smoked cigarettes (sometimes called "smokers emphysema"). The risk for emphysema increases with the number of cigarettes a person smokes each day and the longer a person smokes. Exposure to second-hand smoke also increases the risk. Chemicals in cigarette smoke can cause continuous low-grade inflammation in lung tissue. Inflammatory cells release enzymes (i.e., proteins that change the rate of chemical reactions), which break down substances in alveolar walls that maintain the structure and elasticity of the air sacs (e.g., collagen, elastin). Damage to the alveolar walls limits the ability of the air sacs to shrink during exhalation and increases the size of the alveoli. Eventually, it disrupts the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in lung tissue and increases the size of the lungs, which makes less room in the chest for them to expand during breathing Alpha–1 antitrypsin (AAT), also called alpha-1 protease inhibitor, is an enzyme (protein) that helps to protect lung tissue and allow the alveoli to function properly. People who have a genetic (hereditary) deficiency of alpha-1 antitrypsin are at increased risk for developing alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency emphysema or familial emphysema. In this condition, damage to the structure and elasticity of the air sacs occurs unchecked. It is important that people who have this deficiency never smoke. AAT is manufactured in the liver, and patients who have this deficiency also may experience liver damage (e.g., cirrhosis, hepatitis).

What was that? Theres a special name for emphasema thats caused by purley genetic reasons. Because they have a certain protein that doesn't work in there body.
However, emphysema caused by cigarette smoke, in perfectly healthy lungs make up 90% of cases.

You are simply saying that I have no right to question your authority because if is back by their authority. The scientific research community that tells us eggs cause cancer one week and then the next week they do not but are healthy. The authorites who reported the electric blankets cause cancer, until another study reversed that claim. The same authorities who go on TV and say they just found a cure but must study it for 10 more years, so they need donations, then the cure is never ever marketed and everyone fogets the about the phoney claim. Hell, if they marketed a cure they would loose their jobs researching for a cure, now that makes sence.

Theres a difference between questioning authority, and claiming that every single scientific study into the effects of smoking are wrong, and your hunch that cancer is caused by stress, is right.

Do not use the results of singular studies to prove a point about the millions of studies that have been done on smoking and its health risks.

I think the rewards and the fame and the glory of finding a cure to cancer would by far outweigh the wage of continued research. Think about what you are saying there.

But you have got me defending cigarette smoking relative to claims made by the anti-tobacco group. But you have avoided all the reasons why I smoke in my first posting, and have not debated those reasons. Which is the purpose of this thread, to talk about the reasons why people smoke, not the evidence pro and con about para-scientific research. We should get back on the right track.

Don't worry, this will probably be my last post on this thread. If thousands of pathological, and epidemilogical studies on smoking can't prove it to you, I doubt my debating will.