I knew that! (need a lift?)
Posted on 05/24/2006 11:46:28 PM PDT by neverdem
The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one. Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers.
"We expected that we would find that a history of heavy marijuana use--more than 500 to 1,000 uses--would increase the risk of cancer from several years to decades after exposure to marijuana," explains physician Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, and lead researcher on the project. But looking at residents of Los Angeles County, the scientists found that even those who smoked more than 20,000 joints in their life did not have an increased risk of lung cancer.
The researchers interviewed 611 lung cancer patients and 1,040 healthy controls as well as 601 patients with cancer in the head or neck region under the age of 60 to create the statistical analysis. They found that 80 percent of those with lung cancer and 70 percent of those with other cancers had smoked tobacco while only roughly half of both groups had smoked marijuana. The more tobacco a person smoked, the greater the risk of developing cancer, as other studies have shown.
But after controlling for tobacco, alcohol and other drug use as well as matching patients and controls by age, gender and neighborhood, marijuana did not seem to have an effect, despite its unhealthy aspects. "Marijuana is packed more loosely than tobacco, so there's less filtration through the rod of the cigarette, so more particles will be inhaled," Tashkin says. "And marijuana smokers typically smoke differently than tobacco smokers; they hold their breath about four times longer allowing more time for extra fine particles to deposit in the lungs."
The study does not reveal how marijuana avoids causing cancer. Tashkin speculates that perhaps the THC chemical in marijuana smoke prompts aging cells to die before becoming cancerous. Tashkin and his colleagues presented the findings yesterday at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego.
"Personally...I'm inclined to this this nutrition/dietary deficiency related."
While interesting work on Vitamin D indicates it might be related to winter depression and that 1,000 IU rather than 400 IU might be an appropriate usage, I think there are other more likely nutrients for smoking.
Smoking destroys Vitamin C, about 25 mg for each cigarette. Thus a person smoking a pack a day should take a 500 mg. Vitamin C tablet for each pack of cigarettes smoked. An orange only has 60 mg. of C. In addition it wouldn't hurt to take an additional 500 mg. for air pollution and general needs. C is eliminated or used in 4 to 5 hours, so spreading the use into 4 doses at 5 or 6 hour intervals is best.
The Japanese consume lots of seaweed or kelp in their diet which is very high in trace minerals. Taking kelp tablets, using sea salt (which is 40% mineral salts other than sodium), or a good trace mineral formula might substitute. Nature Plus(R) has a good trace mineral tablet.
Vitamin A is very good for protection of mucuous membranes. So eating raw fruits and vegetables is good. Unfortunately, chemical fertilizers may reduce or eliminate the amount of A in produce. Eating organic or taking an A & D capsule could suffice.
I take around 2000 units of D a day. Generally, but not always, I take between 4 and 8 grams of C a day.
Nutrition is an interesting thing. They have for years said "...eat a balanced diet" without ever specifically saying what a "balanced diet" is. Not to mention the fact that it changes every decade or so.
And the debacle of the 20th century IMHO will turn out to be all the folks who ate all the "trans fats", that's now built into their cell walls, and basically messing with cell metabolism.
I've basically come to the conclusion that you HAVE to take supplements. It would be impossible for a person to eat enough of the right kinds of foods to get the things you need.
I knew that! (need a lift?)
At what age? 21?
Study produced by "stoners."
Jeezzzz! I wonder what all those people who were crapping in the woods 10000 years ago had for supplements?
Where do Eskimos get their Vitamin C? Really, they basically eat fish and seal blubber, neither have much C at all! Think about it!
There's still alot, a whole lot, we don't know.
I just think the body has alot of capacity to live far beyond the late teens and 20's, the breeding years. There are really a limited number of major systems in us, and most have alot of self-repair ability built in. But for whatever reason, they start to break down. And I'm inclined to think the reason is really fairly simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.