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."
It did but it was politically correct not to say anything about it.
I know you care naught for the truth but here is the link to my post. You will find it is NOT what you posted.
http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:rSlobn8IlT4J:beta.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1000582/posts+Any+cute,+single+FReeperdopehead+women+out+there&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
He's a sour pickle............
I thank them for their service.
But..........I watched the WW2 Dedication Sunday. There were quite a few there, but most of the ones that fought in WW2 grew old and died. It WAS three DECADES ago.
The ones they interviewed were quite old. How long would you like to live? Forever?
And who are you to say that "they are dead and they died from smoking?" I'm sure many of them died of old age. And if they DID smoke, there was something else going on with them that contributed to their death.
And you know this how?
We are all still alive!
Read the early posts in this thread that I responded to. There is more than ONE.
No! You go back and copy and paste. I don't believe it!
Have you ever kissed someone with ole beer breath and you don't drink beer? It's a turn-off for SURE!
Thanks, Mears. I just posted that before I read yours.
Kissing someone with "ole beer breath" is SO digusting. I don't drink beer, but oh brother............
Madame Dufarge, I believe when my time is up, it won't give no iota if I ever smoked or not! Period!
I am SO sorry for you. However, in all the days of my life, I have never ever known anyone with emphysema. Not one. And my family smoke and most of my friends. Never ever in my life have I ever run across anyone with emphysema!
I had two major cancer surgery's in my life followed by radio active iodine treatments for 5 years, then for my other cancer, I had 6 months of chemo. Even when I was in the hospital for treatment, NONE of the other patients had emphysema.
Where the hell do you LIVE?
Oh yes.........both times I had two teams of Doctors. They ask me if I smoked and how much. Each time, each team told me that my cancer was NOT caused by smoking!
I'M A SURVIVOR! AND I STILL ENJOY SMOKING!
(PS: Had my yearly physical two weeks ago. My lungs are clear as a bell!)
But I can't remember what's on it at this time. But I will ck it again.
To: Gabz wish someone would teach me how to be a bit more taciturn with some of the pro-WOD jagoffs that insist on showing up in threads about cigarettes and hijacking the thread to their issues........... i've had it with these freaking people.
Then why does he come into the smoking threads and stink UP the place!!!!!!!!
Lesson Four: Never make statements such as "I've had it with these freaking people."
Is he typing in CODE? What's "&quot?????????"
hehe! That article was from FOX NEWS. Mine was from RAND. Which one do you think the lurkers will believe. Surely not from Fox! LOL
Are you 12 or lazy?
However, it is not proven at this time. I believe establishing public policy based on conjecture is both unwise and fraught with unintended consequences.
In any case, this all started with some posters here claiming that smoking isn't bad for you. I haven't read all of the thread but I'm curious if you've told them that they're wrong.
Without rereading every post, I don't recall anyone saying smoking isn't bad for you. As far as I remember, the jist of what was said is that every smoker is not detectably harmed and that the risks of smoking are overstated. There have also been some posts that smoking may actually be beneficial in limited cases. I haven't checked but such statements sound reasonable to me.
For the record, I don't smoke and never have. In the case of my children I strongly urged them not to smoke and am happy to say they don't. Smoking is a proven health risk.
I think smoking is stupid and smokers are stupid in that aspect of their lives. However, I also realize that anyone observing me over the course of a day would find literally hundreds of things that I do that are stupid and counterproductive to my overall goals as a human being. What's worse than individuals exercising rights to behave counter productively is mandating that they cannot. The unintended consequences of that have accompanied every actual and attempted enslavement in history.
Now apply some of that brain power.
The place you cite as a reputable source clearly states that second hand smoke is bad for you and yet you cite them as backing up your claim that second hand smoke is not bad for you. Something doesn't add up in your logic.
As I've said a few times here, I think smoking should be legal. I also believe that those of us who don't want to be forced to breathe their smoke should have that right.
For years I had to endure smoke in public places and suffer in silence. I have a season ticket for hockey. Before the restrictions on smoking there, by the third period the arena was filled with a smoke filled haze that caused me to sneeze uncontrollably for 45 minutes. It couldn't have been good for me.
As much as I am on my computer, I doubt very much if I am "lazy." And as much work as I have done over the years fighting for Smoker's Right.........doesn't make me "lazy."
I'm just tired of you trying to goad me into a fight. I'm done with you.
I can't change your mind and you will NEVER change mine. Cya!
This, of course, is the crux of the argument, the notion that you were forced to do so. In fact, you had a choice. I went to an air show once, which I enjoyed. However, the noise adversely affected my daughter so I left earlier than I otherwise would have and never went to another. I had a choice. One thing I didn't choose to do was insist that the government mandate noiseless jets at air shows.
That said, I have already posted that smoking at the hockey arena, provided it was public ally owned, is fair game for regulation. My concern is private property. I don't believe I have any more right to walk into McDonald's and insist my preferences be met there anymore than I do to walk into your house and demand the same.
The hockey arena is owned by a private company.
"Yes, as long as those affairs do not harm others."
If that is truly your position, why do you celebrate junk science when no harm to others can be proven?
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.