dant
The Living Force
Hmm...
I wonder if a smoke-filled environment is a great pathogen killer?
Did Native Americans get it right with their smoking huts for one
the above reasons? Do Native American reservations still have
those smoking lodges or were they stamped out by the PTB?
Interesting indeed!
I wonder if a smoke-filled environment is a great pathogen killer?
Did Native Americans get it right with their smoking huts for one
the above reasons? Do Native American reservations still have
those smoking lodges or were they stamped out by the PTB?
Interesting indeed!
Iconoclast said:
Hi Iconoclast,
I am not sure that air is replaced every 3 minutes. What has happened over the years is that, no extra water is carried to keep the humidity in the cabin at a comfortable level. This resulted in less weight carried and hence a savings in fuel cost to the airlines. So my thinking is that it has more do do with humidity in the aircraft. Basically modern aircraft do not have humidifiers for the cabin.
On one flight, I carried a hygrometer and at the start of the flight it was showing around about 30% and about 5 to 6 hours into the flight, the reading was zero! That was taken in the cockpit where there is supposedly a humidifier which by the way doesn't work 99% of the time!
Don't know if there are studies done to see how and what are the effects if you are in a pressurised and zero humidity environment for long periods of time?
abstract
Dagobah Resident
Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?
My guess is that it's hard to find on purpose. Lung cancer in smokers is little more than a commonly believed myth, IMO.
As I like to say, this is topsy turvey world. Good is bad, bad is good...not that it's true for everything but i've personally learned to
run like heck from the majority beliefs.
My guess is that it's hard to find on purpose. Lung cancer in smokers is little more than a commonly believed myth, IMO.
As I like to say, this is topsy turvey world. Good is bad, bad is good...not that it's true for everything but i've personally learned to
run like heck from the majority beliefs.
Horus_Risen
Jedi
Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. How about mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure?
foofighter said:
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. How about mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure?
foofighter
Jedi Council Member
Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?
What I'm looking for is quite simple: what does lung cancer in non-smokers look like? Is there any difference between an image of lung cancer in a non-smoker and lung cancer in a smoker?Desiderata said:
Iconoclast
Jedi Master
well, the QI team is known for some decent research but alas it's only a tv show... ;)
the quote is from season 1 which aired in '03/'04
but i think it would be very hard to keep the humidity really at zero (or under 10%) considering that a full planeload of people breathing probably produces considerable humidity. to keep it so extremely low they would maybe need to have a dehumidifier running?
the quote is from season 1 which aired in '03/'04
but i think it would be very hard to keep the humidity really at zero (or under 10%) considering that a full planeload of people breathing probably produces considerable humidity. to keep it so extremely low they would maybe need to have a dehumidifier running?
Horus_Risen
Jedi
Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?
Well, if we are to think that smoking isn't as dangerous as we are lead to believe, then that leaves us with the idea that lung cancer is being caused by toxic particles that people are exposed to in their environment, like Laura said about coal mines etc. So, if we look at cases of lung cancer known to be caused by pollutants and compare them with cancer allegedly caused primarily by tobacco use, I'm betting that they're not going to be much different, if our thinking is correct.
Then there is the interesting notion that the Cassiopaeans brought up that people are reading the surgeon general's warning on packs of cigarettes and listening to culturally accepted statements about smoking causing cancer, and that this creates the belief that one is going to get cancer, thus causing the cancer to manifest in the individual. What does that look like on an X-ray when compared with someone who got cancer out of the blue?
Well, if we are to think that smoking isn't as dangerous as we are lead to believe, then that leaves us with the idea that lung cancer is being caused by toxic particles that people are exposed to in their environment, like Laura said about coal mines etc. So, if we look at cases of lung cancer known to be caused by pollutants and compare them with cancer allegedly caused primarily by tobacco use, I'm betting that they're not going to be much different, if our thinking is correct.
Then there is the interesting notion that the Cassiopaeans brought up that people are reading the surgeon general's warning on packs of cigarettes and listening to culturally accepted statements about smoking causing cancer, and that this creates the belief that one is going to get cancer, thus causing the cancer to manifest in the individual. What does that look like on an X-ray when compared with someone who got cancer out of the blue?
Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?
If empirical memory serves... I don't remember any difference, once it was caused, how it looked liked was more a matter of histological type and cancer stage, rather than if the person smoked or not.
How about coronary heart disease? What does arterial atherosclerosis in non-smokers look like? Is there any difference between an image of arterial atherosclerosis in a non-smoker and arterial atherosclerosis in a smoker?
Well... I actually remember quite a number of people with the worst arteries and they never smoked nor were actively exposed to second hand smoking. What could actually make a heart surgeon cringe before surgery, is knowing that he or she will have to perform bypass surgery in calcified/petrified arteries of a person with diabetes, even if the person is a non-smoker. In clear candidates of bypass surgery, I will say that chances are that a non-smoker diabetic person will have worse arteries than a smoker non-diabetic person.
Food for thought.
If empirical memory serves... I don't remember any difference, once it was caused, how it looked liked was more a matter of histological type and cancer stage, rather than if the person smoked or not.
How about coronary heart disease? What does arterial atherosclerosis in non-smokers look like? Is there any difference between an image of arterial atherosclerosis in a non-smoker and arterial atherosclerosis in a smoker?
Well... I actually remember quite a number of people with the worst arteries and they never smoked nor were actively exposed to second hand smoking. What could actually make a heart surgeon cringe before surgery, is knowing that he or she will have to perform bypass surgery in calcified/petrified arteries of a person with diabetes, even if the person is a non-smoker. In clear candidates of bypass surgery, I will say that chances are that a non-smoker diabetic person will have worse arteries than a smoker non-diabetic person.
Food for thought.
abstract
Dagobah Resident
Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?
Also, heamoglobin carries oxygen in the blood, yes? Since smoking increases heamoglobin, one might actually be better oxygenated as a result of smoking. I've also read that tobacco smoke kills off harmful pathogens that can cause sickness.
Also, heamoglobin carries oxygen in the blood, yes? Since smoking increases heamoglobin, one might actually be better oxygenated as a result of smoking. I've also read that tobacco smoke kills off harmful pathogens that can cause sickness.
Re: Lung cancer in non-smokers?
Smoking is also said to have a protective effects against endometrial cancer because smoking reduces the levels of estrogens.
Smoking linked to decrease in uterine cancer risk
_http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKCOL56218920080715
Of course, other people and studies try to debunk the benefits of smoking and endometrial cancer, but that can only be expected.
Here are a couple of threads on estrogen dominance (it is bad!):
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12247.0
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12458.0
Smoking is also said to have a protective effects against endometrial cancer because smoking reduces the levels of estrogens.
Smoking linked to decrease in uterine cancer risk
_http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKCOL56218920080715
Of course, other people and studies try to debunk the benefits of smoking and endometrial cancer, but that can only be expected.
Here are a couple of threads on estrogen dominance (it is bad!):
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12247.0
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=12458.0
