Posted on 06/02/2004 4:43:14 AM PDT by Colosis
LONDON (Reuters) - Smoking destroys protective molecules in saliva and transforms it into a dangerous cocktail of chemicals that increases the risk of mouth cancer, scientists say.
"Cigarette smoke is not only damaging on its own, it can turn the body against itself," said Dr Rafi Nagler, of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel.
Saliva contains antioxidants, molecules that normally protect the body against cancer, but Nagler and his colleagues have discovered that cigarette smoke destroys the molecules and turns saliva into a dangerous compound.
"Our study shows that once exposed to cigarette smoke, our normally healthy saliva not only loses its beneficial qualities but it turns traitor and actually aids in destroying the cells of the mouth and oral cavity," he added.
In research reported in the British Journal of Cancer on Wednesday, Nagler and his team studied the impact of cigarette smoke on cancerous cells in the laboratory.
Half of the cells were exposed to saliva exposed to cigarette smoke and the other half just to the smoke. Cells exposed to the saliva mixture had more damage and it increased along with the time of exposure.
"Most people will find it very shocking that the mixture of saliva and smoke is actually more lethal to cells in the mouth than cigarette smoke alone," Nagler added in a statement.
Smoking and drinking are the leading causes of head and neck or oral cancers, which includes cancer of the lip, mouth, tongue, gums, larynx and pharynx. Nearly 400,000 new cases of the illness are diagnosed worldwide each year with the majority in developing countries. The five-year survival rates are less than 50 percent.
Nagler and his colleagues believe the research could open up new avenues to develop better treatments to prevent oral cancer.
"This insight into how mouth cancer can develop offers more reasons for smokers to try and quit," said Jean King, of Cancer Research UK, which publishes the journal. "People know the link with lung cancer and this research adds compelling evidence about the damage smoking can do to the mouth."
;-D
But would you trade your liberty for that nicety?
Keep twisting, eventually you'll get my words to sound like they support your antifreedom agenda.
None, most of them considered smoking to be the secret to long life.
Do you support legislation mandating everyone smoke, because some statistic says it might be beneficial?
Good for you. Our parents finally quit after nearly 40 years' of smoking. My dad actually asked our sister, "Why didn't you tell us how bad this smoking was?" (He was referencing 2nd hand smoking and the health dangers.) As if it was up to us kids who were raised to respect our elders to confront them about their bad habits........
BTW, suggestion - take up reading for helping organize your sleep habits. I'm a big believer in reading novels at bed time. No non-fiction or how-to's. It only makes me think too hard ;-).
A little secret. Right click on a photo and select properties and you have the source. Duh.
No, but he'd be glad to trade OUR liberty for that nicety.
Please provide a source for your baseless claim.
Huh?
Ohh Pulllease... point me in the Constitution where it says smoking in public places CANNOT be regulated.
Alcohol is another legal DRUG, and you can't just drink ANYWHERE you want, and Property Owners need a PERMIT to allow it on the premises.
Hmmm... there's an idea.
No, I did not serve in Vietnam. I dodged the draft by being born in 69.
Jealous?
And those proven health dangers from ETS would be?
For every study you can cite I'm willing to bet better than even odds I can cite another study to refute it.
Smoking poses a risk for certain health hazards. Scientific, proven fact.
Nothing has been proven about health hazards from ETS.
Why? You don't answer questions. Nobody should feel constrained to do anything YOU say, you are NOT the thread police.
I have a suggestion: why don't YOU disprove it? After all, that's what your statistics based scientists say when confronted with their shoddy research. (That's a PERSONAL anecdote, BTW. No source, you'll just have to believe me.)
Hmmm. I have NEVER seen these 'freedom lovers' complain about that.
You support using "statistics" to modify other's behaviour and restricting their use of private property. Would you also support forcing people to smoke if some "statistic" deemed it made people live longer?
Wrong, property owners need a permit to sell it on the premises.
Don't try to tell me that I can't have alcohol on my private property. Don't try to tell me I can't permit alcohol to be consumed on my private property.
That dog won't hunt.
I don't get it. Are you saying you deliberately misled us and claimed credit for medals you didn't receive? Or did you actually earn the medals and simply find a ready picture source?
Jealous of what? You're getting goofier.
You first. I have asked repeatedly for you to prove your claims to be true. You have fialed to respond every time. Heck, you don't even bother directly answering questions.
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.