Passive smoke 'bone risk boost'

[beam me up scottie]

Passive smoke 'bone risk boost'
Second-hand smoke increases the risk of the bone disease osteoporosis, researchers have found.


The US/Chinese study showed exposure to passive smoking boosted pre-menopausal women's osteoporosis risk threefold.

An International Osteoporosis Foundation meeting in Toronto, also heard men, as well as women, increase osteoporosis risk by smoking.

Osteoporosis, which affects one in three women and one in 12 men, is responsible for 200,000 broken bones per year in the UK - and 40 deaths a day.

It is often known as a silent illness because many people do not know they have it until it is too late.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5246538.stm

[salvorhardin]

1. I wonder how this works?

They mention carcinogens in the article, but I wonder which chemicals are interfering with bone formation?

[havocmom]

3. Have read chemicals in smoke can interfere with absobption

of some key nutrients. Might be part of it.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Good question.

From another study done on smokers:

The researchers say smoking appeared to primarily affect a specific type of bone called cortical bone, by reducing its thickness.

This very dense bone forms a layer, similar to the enamel on teeth, around softer, spongy bone.

The effects was most striking in the hip, where the mineral density was over 5% lower than in non-smokers.

[sam sarrha]

5. there are dozens of compounds in tobacco, Monoxide is one of the worst

it is about 300 times more reactive than Oxygen..it wont let go of hemoglobin.. so the body is running on deficit O2, and that increases the vapor pressure of CO2. the blood vessels constrict and that increases O2 deficiency even more especially at the capillary level where the blood cells cant make it thru at all.. and there are a lot of capillaries in the bones.. they might just get starved and are unable to repair or grow, nicotine also reduces fat cells, i worked on a nicotine study at Shell Research Development Corporation that was using nicotine on hogs to make the meat leaner.. it was a very dangerous study because we had to mix the nicotine in the feed wearing hazmat suits.. and breathing the dust while mixing could kill you. nicotine could effect the amount of more marrow in the bones.. it is mostly fat

[sam sarrha]

6. tests in the early 80's in Europe proved that oxygen defency caused cancer

[sam sarrha]

2. thanks for the information..you are brave to get between smokers and their

source of addiction, they get really uppity about their rights to poison other people. the tantrums are actually a demonstration of denial..

tobacco is many more times addictive than Heroin. moderate heroin withdrawl is described like 3 or 4 bad days and having the flu for a week or 10 days... and it is over, from those i have talked to, of course deeper systemic addiction is another thing, tobacco is a mean bitch it never lets up.. i understand only about 7% ever quit long term.

i am one of the lucky ones, i used meditation to quit nicotine and 30 years of alcohol addiction.. i quit tobacco first because i knew if i could quit nicotine, stopping alcohol would be a walk in the park.

with meditation i was able to just let them fall away without any withdrawl symptoms.. and 7 years latter i have no thoughts of either

[beam me up scottie]

7. Thanks, but that's why I posted this in LBN.

If I wanted flames, it would be in GD.

Congratulations on quitting your addiction(s), it's never been, nor will it ever be easy to kick the habit no matter what cessation aids are used.

[sam sarrha]

8. i was not flaming... what i said is a fact,

[beam me up scottie]

9. ?

I didn't accuse you of flaming.

I explained that flames were the reason why I posted this in LBN, sorry if you got the wrong impression.

[sam sarrha]

14. sorry.. it is late..

[spacelady]

10. I have been watching that drug documentary on A&E, and it made me

wonder how pure, unadulterated tobacco stacks up, poison-wise.
Was it as bad? before it began to be processed into modern cigarette form?

[beam me up scottie]

11. From what I understand,

no, it wasn't as bad.

Nor was it as addictive.

Cigarettes are a product designed to create addicts.

[salvorhardin]

12. How could it have been?

The tobacco in modern cigarettes has been sprayed with so many chemicals to enhance its' addictive qualities that it's enough to make the most dishonest drug dealer blush.

Also check out this article in Seed Magazine that talks about addictions that enhance other addictions.
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/07/the_selfperpetuating_cycle_of.php

[Nevernose]

16. A problem w/ "sprayed with so many chemicals"

The chemicals tobacco is sprayed with are the very same chemicals that most other plants are sprayed with. It's called "fertilizer." If you're arguing for organic produce, this makes sense, but if you're just arguing against cigarettes and not aginst 99% of the produce grown in this country, then the "chemicals added" thing is irrelevant.

And to be fair with your claim that "addictions that enhance other addictions," the article cited says that ALCOHOL enhances SMOKING, not the other way around.

Tobacco is bad, as are the companies that control it. But there's enough out there to prove it's bad without spreading bullshit. Cigarettes will kill a person either way. I just don't understand why the abnti-smoking folks focus on the "evilness" of tobacco companies instead of something that matters, like tobacco.

[beam me up scottie]

17. The "evilness" of tobacco companies? WTF are you talking about?

I think salvor was talking about the OTHER chemicals, the ones added by the manufacturers.

You know, that pesky list of 599 substances that includes Acetone, Ammonia, Arsenic, Benzene, Butane, Cadmium, DDT, Hydrogen Cyanide, Isobutyl Alcohol, Methyl Sulfide, Toluene, etc?

Maybe you should look it up, after all, I could be one of those "abnti(sic)-smoking folks (who) focus on the "evilness" of tobacco companies instead of something that matters, like tobacco" too.:eyes:

[Nevernose]

19. If my typing is the worst wou've got...

My typing sucks, I'll freely admit that. I've been the bane of many typing instructors and even a variety of Mavis Beacons over the years.

Acetone is a byproduct of ammonia, before it becomes a neutral. Ammonia (or its relatives) is freqently added to VIRTUALLY EVERY plant crop in the US. So are butane and benzene, though not directly, but through the breakdown of various petrochemicals, which are again widely used by the agriculutral industry. Cadmiunm isbn't found in anything added to tobacco within the federal guidelines for ANYTNING added to an agricultural crop; if you look for it, Cadmium can be found almost anywhere, though. It exists naturally. DDT isn't used in the US anymore, but is still used (to a disastorous effect) in Mexico awnd Latin America. Hydrogen Cyanide, although containing the very scary word "cyanide," is found in every single human being alive. Isobutyl Alchol isn't particularly harmful in small doses (it's poisonous, yes, but only in a certain does. Otherwise you get drunk), and breaks down incredibly rapidly. Methyl Sulfide and Toluene are both chemicals in most American Groundwaters that come solely from the gasoline industry. They're contamination that can be found in virtually any vegetable product, or even animal product.

More importantly, I'm a product of the 21st century: I'm largely immune to a corporation's and government's lies or half-truths about a product.

But the truth about tobacco is enough on it's own; we don't need to focus on the dishonesty of out grandparents. Yes, Evil Corporations lied to us, forty years ago. More importantly: It causes cancer and gives heart attacks and even causes anal cancer, all on it's own. Do a PDA about anal cancer (40x more likely!) and watch the drop in smoking rates, but don't feed me bullshit about ammonia, which is an additive to all agriculrual products.

The "addicitive chemical" argument is bullshit. Why argue with bullshit, when you have so many good ones?

[beam me up scottie]

20. My bad, it appears your arrogance and reading comprehension are much worse

;)

Nice mini-diatribe, do you always hijack threads or am I lucky?

[Nevernose]

27. I'm sorry, I thought I was discussing the effects of tobacco?

That is why you posted the thread, is it not?

And I believe that I, as were you, were discussing the effects of tobacco negatively?

And I think that, as far as "mini-diatribes" are concerened, I was speaking to a person that pubicly posted on a public message board? Perhaps either I or you should focus on a forum solely dedicated to expressingexactly how either you or I should feel about a subject if that's the only kind of opinion we want to hear?

And yes, you are extremely lucky to be graced by a post indirectly answering one of your own ;). The only thing that weirds me out is that we apparently agree with each other on 95% of the smoking issue, yet we are still finding a way to argue the subject.

*sigh*
*reads own sig line again for reminder*

I guess that's why we're Democrats.

[beam me up scottie]

28. It's about how second hand smoke increases the risk of bone disease.

If I wanted this thread to be a target for smoking/anti-smoking crusaders, I would have posted it in GD.

I disagree with the crusaders for the same reason you do, actually, but because salvorhardin is a dear friend of mine, I took offense at your implication that he was posting "bullshit".

He doesn't shy away from posting controversial opinions, but "bullshitting" isn't his style.


Peace.

[Nevernose]

30. Everything I see in a TV commercial is usually bullshit

Though the rest of your post is fair enough (even though this particular thread was by Spacelady; you were more a branch than a thread, LOL).

I've been here a long time, and don't recognize as many names as I used to (I sound like myu granddad, :D), but I know both yours and Salvorhardins's. I don't always agree with you 100%, either, but respect your opinions.

And there is a difference between saying that someone is full of shit, and someone is spouting bullshit. One is on purpose, the other accidental, or it could be just a matter of perspective.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Why do you think I killed my TV?

I swear your IQ shoots up ten points as soon as it flat lines.

And I respect your opinions as well.

Like you, I'm afraid that all of the hyperbole by the anti-smoking crusaders will cause smokers to tune out and miss the facts.

This is a REALLY touchy subject on DU and the disinfo gets all the attention, but the bottom line, like you said, is that cigarette smoke is bad for us.

[salvorhardin]

36. You know too that I despise the crusaders as well?

Because I do, if I haven't explicitly said it.

[beam me up scottie]

43. Of course I do.

Even if you haven't said it before I would still know.

You always bring reason to the table, it's not your fault that the other dinner guests can't behave.

[salvorhardin]

21. Hydrochloric acid is found in every human alive too

That doesn't mean chugging down a pitcher of it is good for your health, nor would I want to be inhaling hydrogen cyanide.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Oh, puh-leeze.

You're just another one of those anti-hydrochloric acid people.

:rofl:

[Nevernose]

24. Once again, you are absolutely correct on one minor point.

It's been twenty years since I took chemistry, but I was still under the impression that Hydrogen Cyanide and Hydrochloric Acid were the same thing. HCl.

Although it's been the same number of years since I heard that too much opxygen can kill you, I think that's still the truth. In fact, too much pure water can kill as well.

The "cigarette additives can kill you" argument is bullshit. Those are mostly the same arguments that They put in everything else. Not only that, but 1/5 of the population still smokes, no matter how evil they belive tobacco comapines to be. But who among us, smoker or not, doesn't believe that all companies lie at some time or another? And who cares anymore? A majority? What's more important to you? The fact that someone you've never met told half-truths forty years ago, or the fact that your asshole might get cancer and kill you tomorrow?

My argument in the OP and here is, essentially, that: wouldn't it be more effective to focus on the dangers of CIGARETTES and to Hell with the corporations that manufacture them?

And if you still really, really want to argue, then why don't you answer any one of my earlier arguments or questions?

[salvorhardin]

25. Whoa dude.

You seem a little fixated on the old anus there.

Oh, and I forgot, but I'm pretty sure that Hydrogen Cyanide forms prussic acid (hydrocyanic acid) in solution, not hydrochloric acid.

[Nevernose]

29. HCN? HCl? Once again you're right.

It's been awhile, as I said. Both are bad in large quantities. None of my earlier questions were still not addressed in you posts, however.

What's my obsession with the anus? The fact that most of the TV commercials today apparenly focus on the Evil Tobacco Corporations, which, has already been stated, nobody much gives a rat's ass about anymore. Additives? Who cares? Have you seen the frigging additives on ANYTHING available at a convenience store?

The only anti-smoking commercical I've ever seen on TV speaks about ammonia, BTW. Added in one way or another to virtually everything. Most of the other chemicals mentioned are not added post-growing, but during the production of tobacco. The "evil chemicals" argument is a half-truth. Why use half-truths when there are so many vaild whole truths?

I've mentioned heart attack and stroke, too, but you, too, have focused on anal cancer. Could it be that anal cancer gets more attention, and thus may get better anti-smoking results? I think your somewhat snarky comment about "my obsession with anal cancer" could be taken as homophobic. I, on the other hand, tend to value my anus REGARDLESS of my sexual orientation, and consider the possibillity of anal cancer to be about the worst possible way a human being can go, regardless of sexual orinetation.

Do you rememebr the commercial a few years back of a girl on drugs? First she fried eggs in a skillet, and then, when she graduated to heroin, she broke stuff with the skillet? Imagine of they showed a doctor surgically removing her anus? How many people would bne lighting up then?

[sam sarrha]

35. they are evil, they kill over 400,000 annually here, and bribe politicians

to be able to keep doing it..

their source of customers is children, about 90% of smokers started as children, the kill off so many older smokers that they have to target children to stay in business, because few 30 or 50 year olds start smoking to be cool.. apparently children's thinking process Allies them to become addicted because it is not yet developed enough to access the consequences... they are doing it for childish social reasons provided to them by the advertising.. tobacco companies now spend $15,000,000,000 on advertising much of it targeting children.. Joe cool Camel.. so perfect..

hey even the word 'camel' is capitalized in the spell check.. but Walmart isnt... that is influence.!!

[Zhade]

40. You make an excellent point about a sensitive anatomical region.

I'm pretty sure most people don't want ass cancer. If indeed smoking can give you that (I was unaware), it actually would be a great anti-smoking campaign.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Your argument in the OP? The article is ABOUT the dangers of cigarettes.

If you want to discuss cancer of the anus, I know very little about that risk and would appreciate learning more.

Perhaps you could start a thread in the Health forum.






edited to remove unnecessary snarkiness

[Nevernose]

32. Nothing has ever made me more afraid of cigs than anal cancer.

Although I hope we've settled our differences in other forums, I'd like to point out that anal cancer is pretty goddamned scary. Smokers get it; non-smokers don't, at least according to 50 Things They Don't Want You To Know. Would you rahter have your anus cut out, or your lungs?



The authors aof that book and I could both be teribly wrong. But I think not, at least yet.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0971394288/sr=8-1/qid=1154847477/ref=sr_1_1/002-3028583-7346434?ie=UTF8

[beam me up scottie]

33. Personally, I don't want my lungs or my anus cut out.

I quit smoking, but it wasn't because someone scared me.

Smokers know that it's harmful and deadly, they don't deny that fact, however, some DO deny that second hand smoke is also harmful and deadly.

[salvorhardin]

18. Nice way to take offense at shadows

No, what I was referring to were the 1,110 additives the cigarette manufacturers use to enhance taste, properties of the way cigarettes burn, and addictiveness.

Here's a list.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/resources.php?records_per_page=1110

And I never claimed that smoking enhanced alcohol addiction, but smoking while drinking might lead to drinking more. Rather I was pointing out an interesting article about the way chemicals that give us pleasure interact with each other. It's all the same basic mechanism in the brain so this is not surprising. Ever thought about how good that cigarette is with coffee? Wonder why?

But yeah, the phrase "addictions that enhance other addictions" was not very scientifically worded. But then I thought we were just sitting around the old electronic campfire talking about an interesting news story. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Nevernose]

23. Not all 1,110 additives were added at the same time.

Most were added at different time to different brands with arying effects.

But yeah, the phrase "addictions that enhance other addictions" was not very scientifically worded. But then I thought we were just sitting around the old electronic campfire talking about an interesting news story. Sorry to disappoint you.

Okay, you're right. The last sentence, of course, was, "There's some evidence that smoking is more rewarding when you've had alcohol," and not vice versa. That was a little snarky, though, as was my first post on the subject.

And again, why not mention the fact that cigarette smokers are forty times more likely to have cancer of the anus than non-somkers? Would that have something to do with the billions that already-profitable cigarrette companies give to governments nationwide, or am I just another "dissappointment?"

[Zhade]

38. Um, probably because the tobacco companies lied for decades?

You know, getting people hooked on a deadly addiction?

Lies that were proven in court?

Maybe that evil-ness?

[sam sarrha]

13. the surgeon general published that theres NO acceptable exposure to tobacco

it starts effecting you immediately..negatively

[spacelady]

15. I have never believed in any Surgeon General hysterics since

Joycelyn Elders was sabotaged by "Pukes" for just being candid.

[sam sarrha]

34. so this is a BAD thing.?, it explains the increase in childhood asthma etc

it is a highly researched and detailed scientific paper, substantiated with blood gas tests and brain scans

are you just really really cynical or are you a smoker with kids in denial..?

[kineneb]

37. perhaps this explains grandma's osteoporosis

which began in her 60s. Grandpa smoked for years and finally gave it up after Mom (as a child) had severe respiratory problems. He was actually allergic to tobacco, and constantly sucked on cough drops, which caused him to loose many of his teeth to decay. By the time she died, at 92, Grandma's back was horribly bent and when standing, she had to raise her head to see forward.
Osteoporosis is dreadful- bones become brittle, the back bends forward and compresses the lungs, etc. And it develops so slowly.

[MysteryToMyself]

39. Has anyone ever noticed

Everything is blamed on smoking? With our polluted air, our chemical laced foods and sattelites baking our brains through cell phones with microwaves, it couldn't all be from smoking.

[Zhade]

41. No, because that's untrue hyperbole.

I will agree that all the other shit in our air, water, food and drink receive less attention than they should (like high-fructose corn syrup, the gateway to obesity, calcium loss, and a host of other health problems currently raging in the States).

[beam me up scottie]

44. Uh, no.

Because, like Zhade said, it's not true.

[MysteryToMyself]

42. It is getting ridiculous

They blamed everything on smoking rather than on chemicals we eat and breathe. When those who didn't smoke got things wrong with them, then they blame it on passive smoke.

Smoking isn't good, but it is NOT the cause of all health problems. They need to blame the chemicals too.

Smokers are paying high taxes for smoking. They must be getting ready to raise them again.

[beam me up scottie]

45. Get a grip.

Who are this mysterious "they" you keep referring to?

This article is about research on bone disease done by scientists, not people who :

1.) "blame it (the 'it' being whatever nonsmokers have wrong with them) on passive smoke"

2.) claim that smoke is "the cause of all health problems"

3.) are "getting ready to raise (cigarette taxes) again"


Are "they" causing you to be so paranoid, or were you born that way?

Jeesh.