Originally Posted By jonvn "I wonder what we may have seen from Disney had cigarettes not taken him away so early. I heard he smoked like a chimney." He smoked so badly he coughed constantly. He would go on coughing jags that would last a few minutes at a time sometimes. People knew they weren't good for you back then. No one was fooled. They used to call them "coffin nails." Once, after a particularly long coughing run with Ward Kimball, with a cigarette in his hand btw, Kimball just got fed up with it and started screaming at him. "Why the ____ don't you just stop smoking those things already! They're going to kill you!" Or words to that effect. Walt's response was "A guy has got to have some vices." So, that was that. He smoked, he got lung cancer from it, and died maybe 20 years early.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I am a proponent of these smoking bans, but I think people are a little bit foolish if they attribute a lot of these health problems to smoking. About 90% of your health is genetically driven, regardless of behavior, and there's not much you are going to do to fight genetics. The people who are genetically susceptible to cancer are probably going to get it one way or another, whether it's caused by smoking or some other factor. On the contrary, there are folks who can smoke like a chimney forever and never develop a cancer. My grandfather falls in the latter category -- he smoked unfiltered cigarettes for 60+ years and died at the age of 94 of natural causes.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The people who are genetically susceptible to cancer are probably going to get it one way or another" Don't kid yourself. Smoking is the single largest reason for lung cancer. It is not the only reason, but the single largest reason far and away. It is almost the sole reason for emphysema. There would be practically no one suffering from this disease (which killed Johnny Carson) if it weren't for smoking. But lung disease isn't the only thing. Heart disease is also a big killer of smokers. In fact, most people have heart transplants because of damage down to their heart by smoking. Yes, there are people who smoke and still live a long time. They are the exception and a very small exception that is.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Don't kid yourself. Heart disease and cancer are largely byproducts of the fact that humans are living far longer than the body was physiologically designed to last. The human body was designed to last about 40 years -- long enough for the species to rear enough children to allow the species to continue. The fact that we are living far beyond that age has introduced a number of illnesses and genetic weaknesses that would be occurring regardless of any outside influence. I won't say that smoking does not cause cancers, or that there are other external influcences on disease, but most people are predisposed to illness based on their genetics. There is very little you can do to avoid it. Our human nature is to believe that we can control our outcome in life, so most people don't like to hear the facts that most of the outcome of their life was predetermined before they left the womb.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Not really. Most research supports my post #26. There are certainly statistics that show a correlation between smoking and cancers -- but most of those studies do not take into account genetic susceptibility to disease in the first place. That is an important factor to take into account in any study on disease. And we are still obligated to treat and provide medical advice to those who are susceptible to disease, so if we can get someone susceptible to cancer to stop smoking, they might live to be 60 instead of 55 when they are overcome by the cancer they were going to get anyway.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Don't kid yourself." I'm not. There is not a shred of evidence that says other than what I am saying. "The human body was designed to last about 40 years" Oh, it was designed that way, eh? Even if we assume that to be true, which it really isn't, it simply does not matter. Cigarettes cause disease. They trigger cancer and heart disease and other illnesses. This has been well documented. Second hand smoke also causes disease, from lung problems, to increased amounts of ear infections in children who have parents who smoke. Smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer. Period. People may be susceptible to it, but for the smoking, it would not have been there at all. Every single bit of medical research shows this to be true. Even Phillip Morris on their website says it is unhealthy. To suggest otherwise is to be sticking your head in the sand. Actually, it is worse, because it is lying to yourself. Given your 40 year old time limit on life, and your attitude on smoking, I would guess you are a twenty something smoker. Well, life doesn't end at 40, and if you take care of yourself, 40 doesn't feel all that different than your 20s. Of course, if you smoke, you're going to not be as healthy, and if you are 200 pounds overweight, you're not going to be as healthy, but the human body was not "designed" to be grossly overweight nor to inhale tobacco smoke. We have made great strides in killing off diseases, chiefly through antibiotics that used to kill people off at an early age. People didn't use to just croak at 40. People have always lived a lot longer than that. They would die when something we can now take care of, like a bacterial infection, would kill them. Another reason our average age is higher now than it used to be is the reduction in infant mortality. If you have a large number of children dying of disease, your average lifespan goes down. More than anything, this is what has increased what people consider our lifespan. What has really increased is our average life expectancy. Our lifespan really hasn't changed at all.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I'll let you believe what you want to believe with respect to genetics and disease, but you guessed wrong on my age and my habits. 30-something, not 20-something. Never smoked a cigarette in my life. Never drank a drop of alcohol in my life. Go to the gym 5 times a week. Genetics are on my side with my family's history of illness, so I'm more likely to get blown up the next time I get deployed to Iraq than I am to die of a hereditary disease.
Originally Posted By jonvn "30-something" Fine under 40. I was close enough. "Never drank a drop of alcohol in my life." Ok, you obviously do not follow what is and is not good for you. Just today a new study came out saying that those who drink 1 or 2 drinks a day actually are clearer thinkers than those who do not drink at all. Drinking 1 or 2 glasses of red wine a day helps reduce heart disease, cancer rates, raises serotonin levels, prevents strokes, and inhibits other disease such as diabetes. You think you are healthier because you don't drink? Sorry, but the opposite seems to be true. At least according to medical research. "I'll let you believe what you want to believe with respect to genetics and disease," What I believe is what history and medical research have to say on the subject. What I don't believe is some random person on the internet who doesn't seem to think cigarettes are harmful, when 50+ years of research by absolutely everyone except the tobacco industry says the complete opposite.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I don't think I'm healthier for not drinking. I just choose not to do it. For what it's worth. All the studies on the benefits of alcohol for your health are paid for by the spirits industry. Something I learned when i was in graduate school and one of the advisors in my department had a big grant from Seagram's to do that research. If you set the experiment up right, you'll find that alcohol can benefit just about anything you want it to benefit. I also think cigarettes are harmful -- particularly to those who are already predisposed to certain cancers and illnesses. The bulk of the population is predisposed to these things, so it's best for most people not to smoke.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I don't think I'm healthier for not drinking. I just choose not to do it." You mentioned it in terms of your overall health. "All the studies on the benefits of alcohol for your health are paid for by the spirits industry." All of them, eh? Well, that's interesting. Except that Seagram's, for example, does not make red wine, which is where most of the benefits come from. These benefits are shown repeatedly by various studies all around the world. Point me to some studies done by the spirits industry. Spirits are different from wine, you know.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj OK, you can believe the red wine studies too. I'll stick with non-alcoholic beverages for now. Have you ever seen the chemical reaction where alcohol is metabolized vs. the chemical reaction for normal metabolization? I did that once in organic chemistry. Alcohol really isn't designed to be used by the body. I really don't want that reaction happening in my body. It's not very pretty -- free radicals are nasty things!
Originally Posted By mrichmondj And for what it's worth, check out the Seagram's corporate home page. They sell a heck of a lot of wines.
Originally Posted By jonvn "you can believe the red wine studies too" What I believe is what medical research is saying. "Have you ever seen the chemical reaction where alcohol is metabolized vs. the chemical reaction for normal metabolization?" Meaningless. What is important is what happens when you drink in moderation, and how that affects people. Now, if a study comes along and says it is NOT helpful, then I'll look at that. And there has been a study recently showing that previous studies have had a flaw in them making alcohol look more beneficial than it is. But, that is one study. Overall, it's considered beneficial, and denying that is denying current scientific understanding. All due to what? An experiment you did in chemistry class? Somehow all of the research done on the subject falls because of that one thing? Give me a break. "Alcohol really isn't designed to be used by the body." Alcohol isn't designed. It's something that occurs naturally, and without it, we probably wouldn't even be here as we are today.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj You are right, before there was such a thing as water treatment, alcohol was a pretty good way to sterilize water so that you didn't get the runs. In modern society, I'm not sure there's so much benefit. We've had treated water for quite some time now.
Originally Posted By jonvn Seagram is owned by Pernod Ricard. They do own wine companies as well as the Seagram brand, it appears.
Originally Posted By jonvn No, that's not right, either. They own Seagram Gin. Seagram 7 and VO are owned by a company called Diageo, which also owns a few vineyards. It looks like Seagram's, as an independent company died in 2000 after some really bad management mistakes, and the brands were sold off to other corporate entities.
