Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Smoker's saliva a 'cocktail of chemicals'
Yahoo ^ | 06/02/04 | Reuters

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."


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: health; pufflist; smokers; smoking; smokingbans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900901-905 next last
To: FrankR
Cigarettes damaged my health, and if someone were to ask me, I'd advise them not to smoke - but after that, they're on their own. It is not my place to lecture, quote facts, hand out phamplets, or call my Congressman about it. In fact, it is incumbent on me to mind my own business and be responsible for myself.

Perhaps if you had been exposed to more lectures, facts and pamphlets, your health would not have been damaged.

881 posted on 06/07/2004 12:10:54 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"Perhaps if you had been exposed to more lectures, facts and pamphlets, your health would not have been damaged."

What is it about the phrase, "IT WAS MY CHOICE" that you don't understand?

The fact that it damaged MY health, is none of YOUR business...nor any others in the tobacco police squad.
882 posted on 06/07/2004 2:14:22 PM PDT by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 881 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
The fact that it damaged MY health, is none of YOUR business...

You were the one that brought it up. I never asked about your health.

883 posted on 06/07/2004 6:56:12 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 882 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
Even as recent as the mid 80's, we smoked at work at close-quartered desks. The non-smokers never complained, never coughed...not once; never filed any lawsuits and never asked us to stop.

I remember the mid-eighties. There were three of us in a workgroup with two offices. Then a fourth (a smoker) joined us. The junior guy got put in with the smoker and boy did he complain. He used to bring in portable air cleaners, etc.

884 posted on 06/07/2004 7:01:33 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
Talk about propaganda! This site says there is no link between smoking and early death!


885 posted on 06/07/2004 7:06:56 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
It is quite obvious to all of us who are NOT in a coma, that cigarettes are not good for you - hell, we called them "coffin nails" in the 40's for crying out loud. No one has discovered anything we didn't already know about cigarettes.

Why would anyone, not in a coma, smoke something referred to as "coffin nails"?

886 posted on 06/07/2004 7:14:34 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
As it is generally considered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is roughly equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day,4

That 'consideration' is based on a metastudy of non-smokers who live with smokers, which adjusted only for diet and not any other confounding factor.

we extrapolated the relative risk due to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke from the relative risks for smoking 1-9 cigarettes per day.

There's no direct evidence that a linear extrapolation is valid.

887 posted on 06/08/2004 2:09:09 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

Are you saying that this study has substantial errors?

I agree. In fact, if you read the comments by some professionals, you will see that they have major problems with the study. Of course, you will inform judith that this study paid for by big tobacco money should no longer be referenced as a source that SHS has no affects. Particuarly since the study doesn't look at effects, only at deaths.


888 posted on 06/08/2004 2:13:33 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 887 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Are you saying that this study has substantial errors?

I'm saying I know of two errors, both of which lead to an overestimate of the harm of SHS.

889 posted on 06/08/2004 2:22:30 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 888 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA

37 of 39 years this study was funded by the American Cancer Society..........they didn't like the results they were seeing and thus defunded it.

The vast majority of the professionals with problems with this study are decrying the funding of the last 2 years of the study - not with the actual work performed.

2 years of a nearly 40 year study does not a Big Tobacco funded study make.

Not until the BMJ publishing of the final findings of this study was anything raised about what they were doing.......for 37 years. The last 2 years of funding by a tobacco company apparently made no difference in the findings.......they had remained consistent.

37 years with no question of the work of these 2 men by the medical community.............hidden agenda here - you better believe it.


890 posted on 06/08/2004 2:23:27 PM PDT by Gabz (RIP President Ronald W. Reagan 1911-2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 888 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Thanks, Gabz. You will have to post that at least a thousand times before cinfla will read it, though. And then it still won't believe it.

And it will keep twisting my words, and twisting the conclusion until hell won't have it again. I'm out of all the discussions where that liar posts. That ubiquitous, egregious falsity makes me sick.


891 posted on 06/08/2004 2:26:41 PM PDT by Judith Anne (HOW ARE WE EVER GOING TO CLEAN UP ALL THIS MESS?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 890 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights; Gabz

I guess when both sides find major error in a study, the only recourse is to discount the study.


892 posted on 06/08/2004 3:05:12 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 889 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Actually, all the evaluation was done in the last two years. The first 40 or so years was just data collection.


893 posted on 06/08/2004 3:06:45 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA

WRONG...........

The American Cancer Society defunded it because they did not like the results of the evaluation.....to finish all the work more funding was needed. The body parts cartel and the rest of the anti-smoker establishment wouldn't touch it because the results were counter to those that were desired.

Face it....the study didn't prove what the antis wanted it to prove and after 30+ years of not finding fault with the methodology of the study, they continue to not find fault with the methodology - only the funding of the final 2 years.


894 posted on 06/08/2004 3:15:04 PM PDT by Gabz (RIP President Ronald W. Reagan 1911-2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 893 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Face it....the study didn't prove what the antis wanted it to prove and after 30+ years of not finding fault with the methodology of the study, they continue to not find fault with the methodology - only the funding of the final 2 years.

Interesting. Earlier you commented that those professionals that found fault with the methodology were just anti-smoking ...

895 posted on 06/08/2004 3:20:40 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

All I know is Dear MrLeroy (and others) always said to be wary of who funding the studies and paid for the summary conclusion. Since Big Tobacco paid for both, I tend to be wary.


896 posted on 06/08/2004 3:22:06 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
keep twisting my words

It was you that started all this by saying (twisting) that the study showed that SHS had no ill effects (paraphrased).

In fact, the study cannot conclude such a finding since it only looked at deaths and in fact could not rule out a 20% risk factor for SHS related lung cancer.

897 posted on 06/08/2004 3:24:05 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I don't leave discussions becuase of misinformation of other posters..that is why I stay......so others are made aware of the misinformation. I hope you rethink your decision.

I'm out of this one for now not for any other reason than my daughter graduates from kindergarten this evening and I need to find my shoes!!!!!


898 posted on 06/08/2004 3:24:48 PM PDT by Gabz (RIP President Ronald W. Reagan 1911-2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
And it will keep twisting my words

Where?

899 posted on 06/08/2004 3:26:07 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Here is where it all started. Show where I twisted your words. I merely pointed out that your statement was false since the study only looked at deaths and had no database to evalute for effects other than death and that you failed to point out that the study was paid for by big tobacco money.



Posted by Judith Anne to Don Simmons
On News/Activism 06/03/2004 9:49:42 AM PDT #591 of 899


Now, Don, there's where you're wrong. There is a safe amount of cyanide. Yeppers. And the nanny-staters don't want to find out what a safe dose of tobacco smoke is, and they don't want to agree with the UCLA actual scientific study that showed NO effects from shs, so that study was published in Europe, even though it was done here in the states.


900 posted on 06/08/2004 3:30:03 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 891 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900901-905 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson