do you think that smoking causes lung cancer?

Answer 1

A LONG TRAIL OF EVIDENCE LINKS CIGARETTE SMOKING TO LUNG CANCER

As someone who’s life has been touched by the tragic effects of cigarette smoking, I was saddened last week when the Supreme Court barred the FDA from regulating cigarettes. About 48 million adult Americans smoked cigarettes last year, according to the CDC. That’s one in four people, a fact that astonishes and alarms me. Why? Because this year an estimated 180,000 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States, and 90% of them will die within three years -- and 96% of these cancer victims are cigarette smokers.


Is there a cause-and-effect connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer? Two years ago, I wrote my first columns for the Post Dispatch, explaining the scientific evidence that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, and that cigarette smoking is addictive. If these two points are indeed true, then cigarettes , so much a part of American life, are in fact an addictive deadly drug! In the hope of encouraging readers to urge congress to act, I am reprinting these columns. In today’s column we will follow the trail of evidence that proves clearly that smoking causes cancer. In next week’s column I will examine the evidence that smoking tobacco is addictive.







POINTING THE FINGER AT CIGARETTES


The long trail of evidence linking cigarettes to lung cancer has its beginnings right here in St. Louis, at Washington University’s School of Medicine. In 1948 a young first-year medical student, Ernst Wynder, witnessed an autopsy of a man who had died of lung cancer, and noted the lungs were blackened. Curious, he looked into the background of the patient. There was no obvious exposure to air pollution, but the man’s wife revealed he had smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for thirty years! Like a dog with a juicy bone, Wynder had found a puzzle that would occupy him much of his professional life, and despite much controversy, he never let go of it.


Over the next two years, Wynder doggedly reviewed records to see if there were other cases linking cigarettes and lung cancer. He found that many lung cancer patients were smokers. Interviewing lung cancer patients and "control" patients with other cancers, far more cancer occurred among the smokers. Early in 1950 he published his results in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Comparing 649 lung cancer patients with 600 controls, he found lung cancer an incredible 40 times higher among smokers, with the risk of cancer increasing with the number of cigarettes smoked.


Later that year, Richard Doll, a well known British scientist, reported an even more convincing finding linking smoking to lung cancer. Over a period of years, Doll had interviewed quite a large number of physicians, inquiring of each about their smoking habits -- then waited to see which ones developed lung cancer. Overwhelmingly, they were the smokers. Because it was not "after the fact", Doll’s test of the smoking causes cancer hypothesis was particularly rigorous and powerful. From that day forward, the scientific case linking smoking to lung cancer has been clear-cut.

Answer 2

Well it's not like you can't get lung cancer from smoking or secondhand smoking alone, it can actually be because of other causes, but yes I do believe smoking causes lung cancer.

Smoking increases your chances by a lot, and if you have a family history of cancer, I would stay away from it.

It all depends on who you are, some people might never get lung cancer.

It can also cause horrible things such as severe bronchitis or emphasyma which are really bad, and you might even have to use a puffer just to climb a set of stairs.

If you are a smoker, do the right thing.
Quit, for your life, for the lives around you.

Answer 3

As a Radiology Tech I see the difference in smokers lungs and non smokers lungs every day. So yes I know that smoking is definitely a contributing factor in lung cancer. Although I have also seen patients that don't smoke but are then diagnosed with lung cancer. So you can not say that every person who smokes will get lung cancer but that you are at a higher level of risk by doing it.

Answer 4

Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer. Ninety percent of lung cancers can be prevented by completely giving up tobacco. Smoking marijuana cigarettes is considered yet another risk factor for cancer of the lung. These cigarettes have a higher tar content than tobacco cigarettes. In addition, they are inhaled very deeply; as a result, the smoke is held in the lungs for a longer period of time.

Answer 5

No. It can cause, however it is not the initial factor.

Smoking can contribute to lung cancer. Some people can smoke their whole lives and not develop the cancer. Some who never smoke develop it. There are other environmental factors that accelerate the development of the cancer.

Answer 6

Its a known fact that smoking can cause lung cancer !

Answer 7

This article would seem to indicate you can get lung cancer without smoking, so it appears smoking isn't necessarily the cause.

Answer 8

Hello? Have you been on another planet? Lung cancer and emphysema are both caused by smoking or second hand smoke.

Answer 9

smoking is very addictive and harmful...it may not be the sole cause of lung cancer but is a heavy contributor and has a lot of bad ingrediants in it that youre burning and inhaling each time you smoke.

Answer 10

Just think you are filling your lungs with smoke and all the chemicals from cigarettes, so yes it is a leading effect of smoking.