they would have to be pretty suseptible to cancer in the first place, I think
2007-07-06 08:53:56 · 4 answers · asked by sam r 1 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Cancer
Are you trying to justify smoking here?
2007-07-06 08:57:57 · answer #1 · answered by la buena bruja 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a person starts smoking and develops lung cancer several months later - the lung cancer was independent of the smoking. It takes a considerable amount of tar and nicotine exposure to cause lung cancer. Physicians speak in terms of 'pack years' of smoking. One pack daily for 30 years is 30 pack years. Two packs daily for 50 years is 100 pack years. Generally lung cancer is not likely to be due to cigarette smoking in less than 50 pack years although by 100 pack years more than 10% of smokers have or will develop lung cancer. I am hoping that you are not a smoker.
2007-07-06 17:40:00 · answer #2 · answered by john e russo md facm faafp 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Smoking isn't the only reason for developing cancer, only part of it. So, yes, they would have developed cancer anyway. There is way to many other circumstances contributing to this epidemic.
2007-07-06 18:44:38 · answer #3 · answered by whocares 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you don't get cancer in a few months-you just get symptoms-you already had cancer
2007-07-06 16:15:46 · answer #4 · answered by dulcrayon 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋