health

New research shows why non-smokers get serious lung condition

7 Comments
By Issam AHMED

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2020 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

7 Comments
Login to comment

smoking has been blamed also as a cause of lung cancer. The truth is it has no direct correlation; that if you smoke like 2 packs of cigarette a day you will have cancer is not true. Same with COPD. It is a risk factor by creating constant irritant to the body and decreasing oxygen to the body cells but many people develop it as well.

Smoking is a risk but all we have are circumstantial evidence. Smoking is found a the scene of the crime for cancer and COPD and many researchers simply said it is the smoking gun. I am just wondering why nobody is suing the medical field for claiming things that never were.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

@erbravia? What are you talking about?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

erbravia:

What are you smoking?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

smoking has been blamed also as a cause of lung cancer. The truth is it has no direct correlation;

The lung cancer rate among smokers is over 20 times that of non-smokers. I think that tells us something.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

"Life expectancy for smokers is at least 10 years shorter than for nonsmokers."

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm#:~:text=Cigarette%20smoking%20causes%20premature%20death,years%20shorter%20than%20for%20nonsmokers.&text=Quitting%20smoking%20before%20the%20age,related%20disease%20by%20about%2090%25.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

smoking has been blamed also as a cause of lung cancer. The truth is it has no direct correlation;

You could not be more wrong. Scientific study after study has shown the correlation.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The truth is it has no direct correlation; that if you smoke like 2 packs of cigarette a day you will have cancer is not true.

Are you sure you know what correlation means? The comment suggests that you don't, yet it's vital for even the most basic understanding of scientific method. Furthermore, without that basic understanding, it is impossible to understand science itself.

The correlation between smoking and cancer was observed in the 19th century. It was shown with considerably more detail in the 20th century, helped additionally by an increased number of smokers as well as an increased percentage of smokers in the global population.

Study of the correlation was the basis of the more complex task of actually establishing that smoking was a primary cause of lung cancer. It is the closest, most direct link between a lifestyle habit and a specific cancer that there is, and the science has demonstrated that the one leads to the other. That was established by the 1950s; it has simply been reinforced and added to since then. There hasn't been legitimate room for doubt for well over half a century.

What the science never said and doesn't say is "if you smoke like 2 packs of cigarettes a day you will have cancer".

"Will" would be 100% risk. The actual risk is much lower, but lifelong smoking in adults carries a high risk of lung cancer, and a less high but still often considerable risk of multiple other cancers, along with a high risk of heart attack and an increased risk of stroke.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites