Cecil stuck to talking about one thing… perhaps the only thing we have research of.
But what about the writer’s hunch that most bad things, in a small enough amount, are good for you? The general term for it is hormesis. Examples of it are those same sulfides in wine. Another more arguable example is exercise, which will make your lungs burn, your heart ache, and in some cases kill you on the spot (see: the guy who ran the first marathon).
So what’s the deal with smoking occasionally? Can the stress on the lungs and arteries make them a bit stronger? The research re alzheimers isn’t what i’m looking for, because there the correlation is “the more you smoke, the better the effect,” and that’s not hormesis.
I’m not sure about hormesis. That sounds a little like the rationale I’ve heard for homeopathic medicine (small amounts of something that makes you sick will cure other, similar illnesses). I don’t buy it.
On the other hand, I’ve read of recent studies that indicate some toxins are actually more dangerous in small doses than in larger ones. I’m sure it was in Science News, but I can’t find a cite right now.
I have a dimmer memory that some cancers (at least) go through a sort of two-stage cell promotion, where one toxin “promotes” cells to a precancerous stage, and another toxin actually starts the growth of cancer. So it sounds like the risk of exposure to the second toxin isn’t really linear, it’s a trigger. That’s the main reason I don’t indulge in “just one” pipe full of tobacco now and then–I worry that one puff might be all it takes.
Back to cigarettes and the original article, another thing I’ve read recently is that smoking alleviates the symptoms of schizophrenia, suggesting that schizophrenics who smoke a lot are actually self-medicating. Just another curiosity.
Definition of homeopathic medicine: non-existant amounts of something will cure you. That’s why people ridicule it, because it would be against the laws of physics. You should know why people ridicule something before you join them.
That’s interesting what you read about some toxins that are worse in smaller doses. That sounds rather bizarre. That would work with something like a vitamin, where too little is bad for you, a moderate amount is good, and too much will obviously kill you as well. In fact, your study must point to more reasons to understand that the dose-harm curve of substances is complex, far from what words like “poison” or “nutrient” imply. It’d be great if you could dig that article up.
When my sister was diagnosed with breast cancer, I hit the medical library in my hospital to research all the latest info for her. There was a particularly helpful book put out by the American Cancer Society. This book had a chapter on each type of cancer. The chapter on breast cancer had a single sentence stating that smokers have statistically lower rates of breast cancer which they attribute to the lower estrogen levels in dedicated smokers. This sentence was quickly followed with a reminder that the increased rate of lung cancer easily wipes out any decreased mortality from breast cancer.
Still, when my sister asked me why she (who never smoked) got breast cancer instead of me (a degenerate nicotine addict) I had to bite my tongue…
Similarly, endometrial carcinoma is less common among smokers, likely due to the same, hormone-related reasons. They mentioned this issue in med school, then said “don’t tell people to start smoking”, and then went on with something else.
I should note that my brother smokes like a chimney and is at very low risk for endometrial cancer.
Some 20 years ago I read a book called “The Smokers Guide to Health” which was written, as I recall, by a couple of medical doctors, and it detailed some objective views on the medical characteristics of nicotine, to the point of describing it as a wonder drug.
Again, the benefits don’t outweigh the clear risks, but at the time I was impressed by the presentation of some positives to smoking that I had not previously considered
Just did a quick search on the title without success, YMMV.
Nicotine is a drug which has benefits for a few, select conditions, such as for ulcerative colitis.
However, the delivery system is crucial if one is to see benefits from the nicotine. Smoking as a delivery system for nicotine sucks, as it carries many risks with it.
Nicotine patches, gum, and even in aerosol form can be appropriate ways to deliver the drug.
What is known is that components of cigarette smoke (whether inhaled by you or secondhand by others) can exacerbate cardiovascular problems. For someone who’s susceptible to stressors, even exposure to smoking on an occasional basis could potentially put them over the edge. I don’t think such events have been well documented in studies, but the short-term physiologic changes are well known.