Quitting Smoking Triggering Lung Cancer?

[Freudian_Slit]

@chimera222

Incidentally, if you want an earful of this kind of hooey, go hang around a theater (professional or community theater, not a movie theater). Actors and other showbiz people are the most unrepentant smokers around, and will regale you for hours with tales of Aunt Hazel who chain-smoked Camels and lived to be 106. This is, incidentally, why there’s so much smoking in plays and movies; the actors can’t go 10 minutes without a cigarette, so they announce “I’ve decided my character smokes.”

Is that true today, of plays? Isn’t it illegal to smoke indoors pretty much everywhere now?

[aruvqan]

@Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker

While I think the OP has been sufficiently answered, I’ll just throw in this anecdote:

My mother died almost two years ago, nine days after falling suddenly ill with respiratory problems: lung cancer so far advanced that treatment was not even an option. We could only keep her doped up on painkillers until the end.

That she had not shown any symptoms of the illness until the very end is atypical, but not unusual. What did surpise us, though, was the apparent suddenness of the onset. Just a year earlier, she had been admitted with breathing problems, and, knowing her history of smoking, they checked pretty thorougly for signs of cancer. None to be found. Her breathing problems had been caused by an allergic reation to some medication (a medication she had never received before), and not by cancer.

After her diagnosis of cancer, her case was the topic at a hospital staff meeting. They brought out all her Xrays and scans from the year earlier, and went back over them, to see if whether there had been anything they missed. Their conclusion: They still could not find any indication of cancer. Now, the doctor (a pulmonary critical care specialist) did say that he couldn’t guarantee that there were no cancer cells in her body at that time, but if there were, they didn’t form a tumor big enough to be picked up on any of the imaging.

Point being, while 100-250 days for doubling might be typical, it apparently can also be dramatically faster.

FWIW, I had a pea sized noninvolved lipoma that stayed pea sized for years go from pea sized to ping pong ball sized in about 30 days. I did not have a corresponding weight gain or loss … just massive amounts of stress.

[Dr.Drake]

@Another_Primate

An additional curiosity: My co-workers are both intelligent people. They vigorously proclaimed that “any change in metabolism can trigger a cancer”. I don’t understand that, nor do I understand why quitting smoking would change one’s metabolism.

As others have said, this is a folk belief involving magical thinking. You can understand it by understanding cultural beliefs in magic, but you shouldn’t be looking to science. Intelligence does not render people immune to magical thinking.

If I change my routine / diet / pattern of life, that can trigger a change in my body by sympathetic magic. The change can be good or bad depending on how I do it; this magical thinking is common in fad diets. —Dr. Drake, folklorist.

[TriPolar]

I hate jumping into the smoking/lung cancer thing because of the misunderstandings that abound, but here goes anyway.

1. Smoking does not cause lung cancer by any means currently known. Smoking makes it more likely to occur. It might actually be the trigger, but that hasn’t been established.

2. Lung cancer seems to have a genetic factor. I’m not sure where the research is on that right now, but it’s possible that many or most people cannot get lung cancer from smoking.

3. Stopping smoking does not trigger lung cancer. Period. It may be possible in some cases that the existing lung cancer progresses more rapidly after stopping smoking, but it seems more likely that people stop smoking because of a change to their general health, and that change turns out to be lung cancer as yet undetected.

4. Not sure exactly what Chief Pedant is saying, but the difference in life expectancy and quality of life for those stop smoking after age 60 may not change all that much. IMHO if you have 6 months to live, or 7 months if you quit smoking, it may not be worth quitting. This doesn’t address the OP or very many people anyway. If you’re about to die, you might as well drink to excess, take damaging drugs, not wear a seatbelt, and have unprotected sex with strangers.

5. MOST IMPORTANT. None of this matters. The whole smoking/lung cancer thing was started by health nazis to frighten people into quitting tobacco. The greatest dangers from smoking are other cardo-pulmanary diseases and cancers which affect everybody under all circumstances. Only about a third of people who smoke seem to have any risk of developing lung cancer in their lifetime, while about 100% will have other effects on their health. SMOKING IS ALWAYS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH. I have no objections to smoking, but it’s stupid to pretend that is not unhealthy.

[Wendell_Wagner]

wolfmom13 writes:

> I, personally, do not trust anything I read as all information is slanted.

Yeah, for instance, what’s with this 2 + 2 = 4 nonsense? Why do all those slanted elementary school textbooks contain this “fact”? What’s their agenda?

[TriPolar]

@DrDeth

Maybe in plays, but not in movies. Pretty much every puff is paid for by the Tobacco industry. Try watching “Thank you for Smoking” sometime.

So, unless it is something like an Edward R Murro Bio, then the smoking you see on screen is largely there as a bought and paid for Cig ad.

That is absurd. It was once true on television. Product placement in movies is something that started after cigarette ads were banned on television. Characters in plays, movies, and television smoke because it’s someone’s artistic interpretation of a character. It may be a poor interpretation, but it’s not paid for by the tobacco industry. They don’t even put much effort into attracting new smokers in this country because of the bad publicity and legal ramifications. Their marketing efforts are concentrated on brand loyalty for existing smokers.

It isn’t necessary to invent new bad acts by tobacco companies, there are plenty of old ones to complain about.

[elbows]

I have no problem believing patients are told to not quit during chemo etc. Stress isn’t going to help, only hurt. There will be time to quit when the chemo is over.

Think about people in AA, they are often heavy smokers. No one tells them they should quit at the meetings, as trying to wrestle two demons, at once, will surely result in failure. Even once they’re sober, they want them to be so over a year before they begin to break any other, (non immediately life threatening), addictions they may need to address.

[Yllaria]

@Freudian_Slit

Is that true today, of plays? Isn’t it illegal to smoke indoors pretty much everywhere now?

If you’re on a stage, freedom of speech applies, at least according to Ron White. Ron smokes during his standup act and gloats over the fact that he’s the only person in the club/bar/theater who can.

[constanze]

@Chief_Pedant

There is much less point in stopping smoking after about 60, except perhaps to make chronic lung disease more manageable (and maybe to slow down its progression since chronic lung disease is sort of a dose-related progression). This is a rogue position with respect to what most doctors will tell you, and worth what you are paying for it (less the $15 fee for SDMB membership) but if someone wants to argue it, ask 'em for data.

Anecdotally, I have heard several times that very old people (70+, 80+) with cancer or other problems were told by their doctors to not bother quitting, because the strain of withdrawal would be greater than the benefits. Though some stopped of their own in advanced age - I think they didn’t like the taste anymore, or the addiction had declined.

[constanze]

@Chief_Pedant

Anyway, consider that the doubling time of lung cancers might range from 100 or so days to 250 days (in round numbers; here’s an example reference http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/4/199 ). Extrapolate that out and it’s easy to see why you may need 10 or 20 years to get clinically significant cancers from the point at which the actual cancer began.

This is also why it is so critical for people to understand that you don’t get to smoke risk-free from age 15 to 30, and then quit. You may have a cancer that started when you were 20 and shows up at age 40 even if you quit at age 25. The last three lung cancers I diagnosed on presentation to my Emergency Department were 10, 12, and 15 years out from when the patients had quit smoking.

That surprises me. I read an article somewhere about the astonishing healing powers of the human body, and they claimed that in some study, when people who smoked and whose lungs looked like black rocks on pictures, quit, after 5-10 years the lungs looked pink and normal again in pictures.

Or do you mean that despite the recovery, some part was still damaged and develops into cancer in the studies you cited?

[constanze]

@TriPolar

That is absurd. It was once true on television. Product placement in movies is something that started after cigarette ads were banned on television. Characters in plays, movies, and television smoke because it’s someone’s artistic interpretation of a character. It may be a poor interpretation, but it’s not paid for by the tobacco industry. They don’t even put much effort into attracting new smokers in this country because of the bad publicity and legal ramifications. Their marketing efforts are concentrated on brand loyalty for existing smokers.

It isn’t necessary to invent new bad acts by tobacco companies, there are plenty of old ones to complain about.

The most drastic example of this that comes immediatly to my mind is the Cigarette-Smoking Man (CSM, also known as cancer-candidate) from the X-files: his smoking immediatly marked him as thoroughly bad guy; none of the good guys smoke. An interesting and drastic change in attitude in society in just a few decades, when good guys smoked casually in the 50s and 60s on TV.

[constanze]

@TriPolar

I hate jumping into the smoking/lung cancer thing because of the misunderstandings that abound, but here goes anyway.

1. Smoking does not cause lung cancer by any means currently known. Smoking makes it more likely to occur. It might actually be the trigger, but that hasn’t been established.

huh? How can that be? I thought smoking causes esp. lung cancer through :

• you inhale a lot of small particles into your lung which irritate the issue, leading to problems; hence non-cigarette small particles that are breathed in also lead to cancer, like coal dust (silicon lung), asbestos, fine dust…
• in addition, a lot of the contents of the cigarette are carciogenic by themselves
• in further addition, nicotine is a poision, and other contents of cigarettes mess with the immune system

[TriPolar]

@constanze

huh? How can that be? I thought smoking causes esp. lung cancer through :

• you inhale a lot of small particles into your lung which irritate the issue, leading to problems; hence non-cigarette small particles that are breathed in also lead to cancer, like coal dust (silicon lung), asbestos, fine dust…
• in addition, a lot of the contents of the cigarette are carciogenic by themselves
• in further addition, nicotine is a poision, and other contents of cigarettes mess with the immune system

There’s no known cause and effect relationship between smoking and lung cancer. There is a very high correlation though. There may be combinations of environmental and genetic factors required to get lung cancer. Most smokers never develop lung cancer, but they die at an earlier age than non-smokers, and develop a variety of illnesses including other cancers at a higher rate than non-smokers. A small but steady percentage of non-smokers develop lung cancer across a variety of environmental conditions, and there is an increase in lung cancer rates within families, so a genetic factor is in play.

That’s why I hate discussions of this subject. People take the word ‘cause’ to mean any kind of relationship, not just a ‘causal’ relationship. As you pointed out, smoking may be setting the stage for another causal factor to flourish in. And we just don’t know of a causal relationship right now, one may be discovered, maybe soon.

[kenobi_65]

@Yllaria

If you’re on a stage, freedom of speech applies, at least according to Ron White. Ron smokes during his standup act and gloats over the fact that he’s the only person in the club/bar/theater who can.

It likely depends on local laws. When Chicago passed more stringent anti-smoking regulations a few years back, one of the effects was that the cast of “Jersey Boys” (which was then playing in the city) could no longer smoke on stage.

[Clark_Cello]

@Yllaria

If you’re on a stage, freedom of speech applies, at least according to Ron White. Ron smokes during his standup act and gloats over the fact that he’s the only person in the club/bar/theater who can.

I’m no Lawyer, but this doesn’t make sense to me. I believe that the audience of a comedy show have just as much freedom of speech as a performer. I am not a worldly man, and have been to few comedy shows, but I don’t recall signing a Constitutional Waiver when I attended.

[billfish678]

I lived for about 6 months in a house with 3 chain smokers. It didnt bother me that much even though I don’t smoke and never have. But damn, in a short period of time 2 left and the remaining started smoking only outside. I could literally feel my breathing and general health getting better day by day for about a month. And I consider myself far from hypocondriac material.

After many years stopping smoking may not influence your cancer odds much. But, it sure seems to me its got to do wonders for you near future health and well being.

[user_hostile]

@TriPolar

There’s no known cause and effect relationship between smoking and lung cancer. There is a very high correlation though. There may be combinations of environmental and genetic factors required to get lung cancer. Most smokers never develop lung cancer, but they die at an earlier age than non-smokers, and develop a variety of illnesses including other cancers at a higher rate than non-smokers. A small but steady percentage of non-smokers develop lung cancer across a variety of environmental conditions, and there is an increase in lung cancer rates within families, so a genetic factor is in play.

That’s why I hate discussions of this subject. People take the word ‘cause’ to mean any kind of relationship, not just a ‘causal’ relationship. As you pointed out, smoking may be setting the stage for another causal factor to flourish in. And we just don’t know of a causal relationship right now, one may be discovered, maybe soon.

The way it was pitch to me about the dangers of smoking was that the odds of coming down with lung cancer were relatively small, as were all the other diseases associated with them. Where the danger comes in, however, is the odds do add together. The result is that you are more likely than not to come down with some detrimental illness that reduces your potential life span. If smoking were the only result in lung cancer, it is unlikely it would be so high on the public health radar. But the correlation between smoking and disease demonstrate that it is, indeed, hazardous to your health.

Are the above assumptions correct?

[Sateryn76]

@user_hostile

The way it was pitch to me about the dangers of smoking was that the odds of coming down with lung cancer were relatively small, as were all the other diseases associated with them. Where the danger comes in, however, is the odds do add together. The result is that you are more likely than not to come down with some detrimental illness that reduces your potential life span. If smoking were the only result in lung cancer, it is unlikely it would be so high on the public health radar. But the correlation between smoking and disease demonstrate that it is, indeed, hazardous to your health.

Are the above assumptions correct?

It is my understanding that recent research on many cancers have pointed to the involvement of viruses. This goes back to the “Boy in the Bubble” case in the 70s, and has paid dividends recently with the development of the Gardisil vaccine.

It is theorized that smoking damages the lungs to the extent that an average bronchial virus can get a toehold that a non-smoker can fight off, and after many years, the viral mutation develops into a cancer.

This can also explain why the rates of smoking v. lung cancer vary so much - if you do not come into contact with the correct viruses, or are able to fight it off, the virus is defeated like any other infection.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

While the probability of a smoker coming down with lung cancer (as well as mouth, tongue, and esophugal cancers) are small compared to overall mortality, they are dramatically higher compared to that of non-smokers. In addition, other morbidity cofactors and general chronic quality of life issues are correlated with long-term smoking. You may get cancer, but if you smoke long enough the odds are good that you’ll suffer emphysema and other smoking-related illnesses.

Stranger

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@TriPolar

5. SMOKING IS ALWAYS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH.

Just thought I’d mention that this is true, but there’s the interesting exception of endometrial cancer, where smoking reduces your risk.

Cite, cite