Pipe Smoking Dangerous or Not?

[Hiroki]

*blinks* Are we saying we don't care if 1 billion people die of lung cancer?

[ZBomber]

Originally posted by RayJones

i think he is doing it on purpose..

 

One would hope so.

 

Well, we do care if they die...... but the 1 billion people "Re-grow" fast, so the population doesn't really get effected much.

[yaebginn]

ok, the first time I posted this, it wouldnt let me post, now to try again.

 

 

zdawg,zbomber, reborn outcast- I never said statistics dont work, I said they are misleading, which they are. The actual number of people who die exclusively from smoking a pipe is very, very small. and when one does, (the only one you guys've showed me) it takes over 60 years. so wait, theres a small chance of me dying, a larger chance of me living longer (pipe smokers live longer then non-pipe smokers, says the results of a study) and if I do somehow die, it takes like, 60 years. good deal

 

rayjones-only one spot where I smoke, my back porch. sorry, no rooms.

[ET Warrior]

Wait a tic....you're telling me that you're going to exclusively believe the ONE study you linked to, which isn't even supported by telling you WHAT study it was or who conducted it..yet you refuse to accept the SEVERAL studies we have linked you to that were conducted by people with PHD's in the subject of human physiology that say you have a five fold increase of getting cancer and dying from it?

 

The actual number of people who die exclusively from smoking a pipe is very, very small.

You know why that number is small? Because very few people exclusively smoke pipes. It's a dying trend, so of course the numbers will be a LOT smaller as compared to the more popular forms of tobacco.

 

 

And nobody in here is telling you that you shouldn't smoke pipes, if that's your thing then just go right ahead, but don't try and tell us that it's going to make you live longer because that's just fallacy. Drinking pop really isn't good for me, I know this, but I'll still drink pop when I get the chance, I'm cutting back on it, but I'm not cutting it out. But I'm not trying to kid myself that if I drink a pepsi a day i'll live longer than everyone else

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by yaebginn

(pipe smokers live longer then non-pipe smokers, says the results of a study)

 

The site you quoted is pseudoscience. Pure and simple. It gave no peer-reviewed, primary source of information.

 

I'm not criticizing your choice to smoke a pipe, I'm only criticizing the use of pseudoscientific information to base your decisions on. Also, the title of the thread is "pipe smoking, dangerous or not?" The answer is clear: it is dangerous. As to whether or not the risk associated with pipe smoking is acceptable for whatever psychosomatic gratifaction you receive is another matter. Not inhaling won't protect against oral cancer from the intensive nature of the nicotine entering the mouth from the unfiltered pipe.

 

Face it, Yeab. If you believe pipe smoking will increase your life expectancy, then you are wrong. Period. There is no evidence to suggest this and a preponderance to suggest that the opposite is true. Just because a website says it, doesn't make it so.

[Reborn Outcast]

Originally posted by yaebginn

zdawg,zbomber, reborn outcast- I never said statistics dont work, I said they are misleading, which they are. The actual number of people who die exclusively from smoking a pipe is very, very small. and when one does, (the only one you guys've showed me) it takes over 60 years. so wait, theres a small chance of me dying, a larger chance of me living longer (pipe smokers live longer then non-pipe smokers, says the results of a study) and if I do somehow die, it takes like, 60 years. good deal

 

So, if studies are misleading, then the "study" you linked to about pipe smokers living longer than non-pipe smokers is VERY misleading. A smoke producing product that you inhale into your mouth or lungs that contains nicotine CANNOT increase your life. It's just not possible. Nicotine is an addicting drugs that take away years from your life.... and pipes have nicotine.

 

And life ET said, the number of pipe smokers is amazingly small compared to cig smokers, so you can't compare it like that.

 

Read from this website

 

COMPARABLE TO CIGARS

In addition, they had a 30 percent higher risk of heart disease, a 27 percent higher risk of stroke and nearly triple the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared to non-smokers.

 

That means pipe smoking is actually WORSE than cigar smoking. So, if you want to die less slowly, then smoke cigars.

 

From the same website:

 

Pipe smokers have five times the risk of lung cancer and nearly four times the risk of throat cancer as people who use no tobacco, researchers from the U.S. Cancer Society reported.

 

Writing in Wednesday’s issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, epidemiologist Jane Henley and colleagues said they studied more than 15 thousand male pipe smokers.

 

They found the pipe smokers also had a higher risk of cancers of the esophagus, larynx, colon and pancreas than people who do not smoke.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5120470/

 

Fifteen THOUSAND people. All of them at greater risk to have that happen to them.

 

You can try to deny it all you want but these are proven FACTS, not theories. These are clinical studies done by people who have studied this for years, even decades. These are hard facts, and they all point to pipe smoking is dangerous, no matter how often you smoke them.

[CapNColostomy]

I can't believe this is even being argued over. I thought everyone knew that breathing SMOKE is bad for you. I'm smoking a cig as I type this. It says on the box of EVERY PACK I'VE EVER OPENED that it's not good. And I know you're not talking about cigs, but it's still tobacco being smoked. This may be the dumbest argument ever. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

[yaebginn]

1.

So, if studies are misleading, then the "study" you linked to about pipe smokers living longer than non-pipe smokers is VERY misleading.

 

when did I say studies are misleading. I believe I said statistics were misleading. try again.

 

2.

Fifteen THOUSAND people. All of them at greater risk to have that happen to them.

ok, and what is this based on, what evidence is there? That has about as much proof as my Japanese theory. I predict millions will die from it. Oooh, now lets all run and hide in the cellars to protect from my factless theory.

 

3.

I'm not criticizing your choice to smoke a pipe, I'm only criticizing the use of pseudoscientific information to base your decisions on. Also, the title of the thread is "pipe smoking, dangerous or not?" The answer is clear: it is dangerous

 

you people asked me to post a link, and I did, you people are astonishingly liberal, even if I didnt see ur sig. and how exactly dangerous? I mean, there is some theoretical risk, but thats like saying riding a bike is dangerous, or going swimming, or taking a dump. (you might get a hard attack!)

 

4.

but don't try and tell us that it's going to make you live longer because that's just fallacy.

You're trying to tell me I'll die sooner. The authenticity of that is just as much of my live-longer theory.

[Ray Jones]

statistics are just some index for compared data. they cannot be "misleading". if you run an experiment for 6 months with 30000 people and 15000 of them always carry 20 kilograms on each hand and the other 15000 not, and 14000 of those who carry the kilos every day get longer arms and all the others not, then one can rise a statistic that 14000 of 15000 people get longer arms from carrying 20 kilos on each hand, while those who carry nothing don't. it's a comparison that gives you a value which enables you to say that if 30000 people carry 20 kilos on each hand 28000 most probably will get longer arms from it.

statistics are also and expression for experience, so if you try to jump over a fence 20 times and you stumbled 19 times while doing this and broke your left leg, then your (statistic) experience is you can make it, but most probably you will stumbe and brake your left leg. OF COURSE there is there are still other possibilities like you won't stumble or you will trip over the fence and brake your right leg or whatever. but your experience will always be "stumble and brake leg". so there is no misleading, because a statistic just tells you something about what happend under this and that certain circumstances. and from that point of view it's also a statistic value that more people drown while swimming in a lake than whike walking on the road.

 

also is pipe smoking dangerous or not is a very vague question, what kind of dangerous? it surely wont break your arm or make your nose fall off or make a truck fall down on you, if that's your meaning of dangerous. there are health risks compared to non smokers, you cannot deny that, but you can say "i dont think this is dangerous", what can be entitled "your opinion", but that wont annulate "observations" and "comparisons" which are made worldwide that smokers (in general) face a higher health risk than non-smokers.

 

and i still don't get why you made this thread since you seem not to be interested in what is said about health risks, but again maybe that is not what you were talking about by saying "dangerous".

 

as far as i can see there is only one thing you can do if you want to know more about health risk of (pipe)smoking: do your on obvervations (which means you will have to raise a statistic), and if you do so, dont observe just yourself and 5 of your fellows, make it representative. that's my advice.

 

OR tell us what do you mean by dangerous.

 

otherwise this whole thread is useless from a certain point of view.

[yaebginn]

for starters, stats overall are ok, but when you make up statistics based on theories, thats when its not only misleading, but very possibly wrong.

 

OR tell us what do you mean by dangerous

About time you made a good point. ok, good observation. I worded it wrong at first. Heres the correction.

 

Is Pipe Smoking Dangerous to a Fatal Degree.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by yaebginn

Is Pipe Smoking Dangerous to a Fatal Degree.

 

Well that all depends on if you're one of the ones who gets lung cancer and dies from it. It's not going to kill you in the next five minutes, no. But I have an uncle who died of lung cancer not long ago who was a smoker.

 

Seriously though, we aren't linking you to THEORIES, we are linking you to the results of DOCUMENTED RESEARCH, that was done by PROFESSIONALS, who went to school for many years to learn about human physiology. Now, originally, before the test was completed, they had a theory that smoking pipes was bad for you. Then after the tests concluded that it was, in fact very unhealthy, they have no created a FACT. An Undeniable fact that you are increasing your risks of cancer five fold.

[yaebginn]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

they have no created a FACT.

 

worded correctly- They have created no fact.

 

The truth is, fact has to have proof. If there is no proof, its faith. you have given me no proof. Only theories and guesses. Educated guesses, but still guess. and ET, though its hardly worth asking, because you can easily lie, what did ur Uncle smoke? Cigs? Cigars? Pipes? Weed?

[ET Warrior]

I think he smoked cigarettes.

 

And perhaps I should reword. It's not 100% guaranteed fact. But in repeated tests, utilizing control groups and other study methods, they have shown a VERY consistent correlation between pipe smoking and cancer. In fact, the numbers have told them that there is a 5 fold increase in the chances of getting cancer.

 

So MY question is, why on EARTH did you make this thread if you were just going to ignore the evidence presented, that has been given by PROFESSIONALS IN THE SUBJECT? Why not just go make a thread in the TaunTaun entitled "Smoking is good for me! I know it because I have the typical teenage mentality of invulnerability"?

[yaebginn]

I know I'm not invincible, but I dont jump at the sight of a cat. After all these debates, I think you woulda known I know how vulnerable I am. otherwise, I wouldnt carry my gear around and such. ok, cigs, he smoked. we arent talking about cigs, the thread isnt about cigs. and you have presented no evidence. Theories, and hypothesis, yes. but no fact. just, 'if you take the assumption that you take in smoke to your lungs, and combine it with the dangers of cigarettes, then its definitely deadly!' you dont take smoke into your lungs, you take it into your mouth, then blow it out. they guess its a five fold increase, but its yet to be proven. All I am asking for is some hard core proof. Not theories, not guesses, proof.

[El Sitherino]

well when you die from cancer, You'll have your proof ^_^

[wassup]

Here is your goddamn proof.

 

What they found: Pipe smokers had higher death rates than nonsmokers, including higher death rates from lung cancer, colorectal cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

 

Seriously, stop kidding yourself. Is it possible to prove that correlation = causation? Definitely not, because there are so many factors in a person's life that can determine the outcome of their death. If I talk on a cellphone while driving my car, is it 100% certain that I am going to die that day? No, because there is no way to establish the fact that just because one is talking on a cellphone while driving, one will die for sure (and vice versa). However, am I at a greater risk for harm? Yes, and there have been studies that have demonstrated this. Let's try another example. If one has had more education, can it be assumed that they will certainly earn a higher wage than someone who had less schooling? However, are they at a higher probability of earning a higher salary? You can keep on smoking if you like, but personally, I'd rather not take my chances.

[ZBomber]

If you really wanna debate, you coulda atleast said Smoking a Pipe doesn't effect your health. While still wrong, it sounds less...... unbeliable than saying smokin g pipes gives you a longer life exptancy.

 

Heh, maybe when they said longer life expectancy, they meant that you'll live longer because you're in the hospital on life support.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by yaebginn

you have given me no proof. Only theories and guesses. Educated guesses, but still guess.

 

What "theories" and "guesses" are you referring to precisely? I provided the proof of tested hypotheses. The hypothesis was: pipe tobacco is dangerous. The proof was the study I cited from peer-reviewed, primary literature (not some secondary source like a magazine or tertiary source like the pseudoscience site you posted). The same study that had an extremely large sample size of pipe smokers as well as an even larger control group of non-smokers.

 

The results were conclusive: pipe smoking is not as bad as cigarette smoking (pipe users rarely inhale), but about as bad as cigar smokers.

 

It's obvious in this thread that you are among the many people who only see that evidence which supports their preconceived notions and worldviews, whilst rejecting any contrary data out-of-hand, since because it doesn't fit in or justify your worldview(s) then it must be false, a lie, or uninformed. The refusal to revise or modify beliefs in the face of even solid evidence is a shortcoming, not an attribute.

 

To those that read this thread and wonder "WTF?," this thread isn't about the dangers of pipe smoking, its about epistomology and the human cognative belief engine. That driving force that convinces someone to ignore emprical data and tested hypotheses in favor of biased slant and that which he or she wants to be true.

 

I've had these same debates and arguments with proponents of wild claims of all kinds, from the "evidence" of interplanatary war in our solar system's ancient history, to the "evidence" of UFO/Extraterrestrial visitation, to the notion that the Ark of the Covenant is buried beneath Stonehenge in England. In the end, the only evidence or data the believer will see is that which supports his or her preconceived ideas.

 

The wild claim proponent almost always says, "show me any real proof, and I'll agree." Then, when data is presented, it is dismissed as not being real, as if the say so of the wild-claimant is sufficient to dismiss the work of Ph.D.'s and those that have done any real science. All the while, the wild claim is more vehemantly supported and revision is not forthcoming.

 

Originally posted by yaebginn

you people asked me to post a link, and I did, you people are astonishingly liberal,

 

First, the definition of liberal indicates a political or social worldview favoring reform, revision and progress.

 

Second, I fail to understand how you correlate the need to supply "a link" as being a "liberal" trait. Is "liberal" meant to be some sort of slur? If so, I don't get it. It doesn't define itself that way.

 

Finally, I thought what was asked for was a citation to a source of information. The "link" you provided was merely some unsourced website. One which made passing reference to a "Sweedish study" but provided no citation. It appears to be entirely contrived and fictitious. Moreover, the site is irresponsible, particularly if it encourages children such as yourself to begin smoking.

 

By the way, you didn't comment on the evidence I provided that proves that you are a criminal in the state of Florida (Florida Statutes, 2004: cited on page 1 of this thread). How do you feel about being a law breaker (at least I think I recall you saying that you were from Florida at some point)?

 

On last comment for me on this thread: If pipe smoking is indeed harmless, ask your mother if she minds your little "hobby." Convince her, don't convince us.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by yaebginn

About time you made a good point.

ha!! .. ha?? .. HA!!!

 

..

 

HA????!?!?!?

 

ok, good observation. I worded it wrong at first. Heres the correction.

 

Is Pipe Smoking Dangerous to a Fatal Degree.

 

about time you became wishiwashi again.

-> what is dangerous to a "fatal degree"?

[toms]

i don't know why i even bothered looking up any reputable facts and studies... I provide statistical evidence (you don't trust statistics), i provide anecdotal evidence (you don't trust anecdotes), i provide an individual (you don't believe the evidence of one guy).... i don't think you are going to believe a single thing anyone says in this thread, which makes me wonder why you asked the question in the first place?

 

1 - There was an initial study, a long time ago that indicated pipe smokers might live longer.... but all subsequent studies have indicated that they have a higher risk of smoking related disease than non-smokers. The thing you have to realise (though i know you won't) is that pipe smokers are a very small, self selecting group... which obviously affects results. Many people didn't take up pipe smoking until old age... which has major effects on the age statistic (which itself was fairly speculatory to start with).

 

2 - As smoking fires are the largest cause of home fires (including pipe smokers (matches, lighters) they are hardly simply restricted to idiots and are a major risk factor for anyone who smokes.

 

3 - You (as usual) seem to fail to realise that death isn't a simple matter. You are never going to find a case of someone who was perfectly healthy, had one pipe of tobacco, and then dropped down dead of tobacco related poisoning. Even if you did it would be an anomoly. Smoking causes deterioration in many parts of the body, these deteriorations can cause other deteriorations. It is almost impossible to find ONE specific cause of death... but you did ask for individuals. Almost every famous person who was a pipe smoker has died of some form of cancer. Some died old, some died young, and within 2 days of the day you asked the question there was another article about somone who was a pipe smoker dying of cancer. You aren't getting this are you....?

 

Hey, if you only smoke on the porch where it doesn't affect anone else (and you don't have kids) then it is entirely up to you. It is a risk only to you, and it is up to you to balance the risk vs the pleasure. (if you want to look like a stuffy old guy, have smelly hair and yellow teeth that is up to you, you obviously like the image it portrays).

 

But if you come in and ask a question then it is usually good manners to consider the responses... unless you are trying to cultivate that "selectively deaf old grandfather" style...

[yaebginn]

Skin, I dont know whether I said I was from Florida or not, but if not ,then ur phycic. But who said I am underaged? Your trying to make me out to be a criminal has no basis. Therefore, I am still a law abiding citizen. I said you were liberla, because you act like a liberal. You have the same characteristics of them. It wouldnt mean anything to you, cause ur a liberal, I am not.

 

ray- fatal degree. are you in first grade? Fatal. To a fatal degree. If you cant figure it out, then I feel bad for you.

 

toms- I cant get every individual repsonse in, cause there are like, three or four of you who post really long posts, and its difficult to address every issue. If you wre paying attention, youd see that I ahve addresses your article about the retired soldier died of throat cancer a few times. Everyone dies, so you cant say some people die more than others. Death is a tricky thing. You can get cancer from rushing into a burning building to save someone. You cant start a fire with a pipe unless you are trying to. If you dont puff for a few seconds, it snuffs itself out. That applies only to cigarettes and maybe cigars, (I dont know enough about cigars to know for sure) and what about the story you posted about the dead soldier? He started at 18 or before and died at 78. Wow, He lived longer than the average guy. (70 is average, I believe) Someone posted a link just now, and I'll check it in a bit. You'd have to do more than monitor death certificates. You have to se how they live. Its very hard to do. My conclusion-

 

Pipe smoking is theoretically dangerous, though not to a fatal degree. The benefits balance out or exceed the risks. (btw, pipe smoke actually smells good ,unlike cigs, though it is opion based on how it smells) You guys have failed to be convincing, bringing mostly thoeires, and guesses. I do acknowledge toms stuff. Good for you, toms. Though it isnt even close to enough to mean anything major.

[ZBomber]

"He started at 18 or before and died at 78. Wow, He lived longer than the average guy. (70 is average, I believe) "

 

As already stated, not EVERYONE who smokes a pipe will die early, but the chances of him dying early are pretty high. Also, he didn't live longer because he smoked a pipe.

 

 

EDIT - "But who said I am underaged? Your trying to make me out to be a criminal has no basis. Therefore, I am still a law abiding citizen. I said you were liberla, because you act like a liberal. You have the same characteristics of them. It wouldnt mean anything to you, cause ur a liberal, I am not. "

 

It is pretty obivous that you are under the legal age of smoking. And, if you aren't stop acting like you are.

[yaebginn]

what basis have you to say it didnt help him live longer? it got him past the average age. and I could and probably am under the legal adult age in America. but you have no proof of that, therefore, any criminal accusations you try to guilt me with would be invalid.

[ZBomber]

Originally posted by yaebginn

what basis have you to say it didnt help him live longer? it got him past the average age. and I could and probably am under the legal adult age in America. but you have no proof of that, therefore, any criminal accusations you try to guilt me with would be invalid.

 

I don't need proof for neither of those. They are so obivous they DON'T REQUIRE PROOF.

 

You want proof? Click the other thousands of links already posted here.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by yaebginn

ray- fatal degree. are you in first grade? Fatal. To a fatal degree. If you cant figure it out, then I feel bad for you.

read it from my lips punk. what do you mean by "d.a.n.g.e.r.o.u.s. to a fatal degree"? can't you understand a simple question? or are you just creepin' arrogant on purpose? i am surely not asking what 'fatal' means? what went wrong in your brain?

 

here's some help, for the very slow:

do you mean by dangerous?

(a) health risks?

(b) risk of getting kidnapped by aliens?

© risk of going to hell?

(d) risk of smelling like an ashtray?

(e) risk of swallowing the pipe?

(f) risk of being killed by a wild bunch of beavers?

(g) risk of becoming stupid?

(h) risk of anything ****ing else i cannot think of right now??

 

have you got my point now? tse.

 

also, noone knows if that guy would have lived longer without smoking pipe.