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."
Great idea. Growth of government. Now I know what true conservatism is all about!
Your post wasn't about regulating smoking in public places, it was about smoking in restaurants. I'm happy to let owners decide the regulations for their property. In the case of public property, the public should decide.
Duh,yourself! We aren't all as clever as you.
If they are doomed to die anyways, why spend money on them ? Besides, plenty of emphysema patients live to be very old. And just because a treatment might work for some, its not going to work for all. Therefore there will only be a statistical relationship and we all know how worthless those relationships are.
You said none gave up smoking. If I show that at least one did, you will refrain from personal attacks on me?
OK. Where is the constitution does it say that the state cannot regulate smoking in restaurants open to the public?
Then let me be the first.
You're doomed to die too. Let's not waste any money on research on the disease that's going to kill you. In fact, let's not waste any money on research, period. Let's just keep wasting it all on statisticians.
/sarc
You're thinking of someone else's post.
I found a ready source. If you look at the medals, they are for different eras. It is possible to have both but unlikely. I have the second, the Vietnam Service Medal. Again, it was posted only to respond to a cheap shot that implied I had no authority to speak on veteran issues since (implied) I was not a veteran.
I was struck by the plague of locusts showing up early in this thread, complete with their 8 x 10 glossies of diseased lungs, arteries, etc. and then it struck me.
They were energized by the "UN No Smoking Anywhere in the Universe" day, or whatever the hell it was called.
Controlling twits are suckers for causes.
I must have hit the wrong reply. Should have been CSM.
Which 10 people are you referring to? If 7 out of the 10 oldest people were convicted of exposing themselves in front of children should we force people to expose themselves to children?
It was a double rib on your post. I wrote that post intending it to mimim the smoker's rant. You missed that entirely.
Thanks, FRiend. ;-D
I usually stay off the threads, but I had some free time, today.
According to your logic, then yes. But your response is exactly the point I was making and it shows the hypocricy of the gnatzie brain. It isn't about health, it is about controlling others to your preferances. Fascism, pure and simple.
The powers of our government are listed in the constitution. Unless listed there, the government is not empowered to act. It's called limited government. I'm having serious doubts about your understanding of the purpose of government.
So you are willing to work to prove others wrong instead of proving your own claims to be right? Typical.
I saved a boy and girl from drowning once, does that mean my opinions now hold more weight than the opinions of others? Does it add any value to the discussion?
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.