Guest loudmouth24 Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Hi everyone, My name is Rose, and I'm a student at Northeastern University in Boston. I am posting because I am writing an article for one of my classes on the effects of secondhand smoke. If anyone out there has been diagnosed with lung cancer, or knows anyone who has been, as a result of secondhand smoke, I would love it if we could chat. I am a huge advocate for lung cancer research, and have close relatives that are suffering with this disease. This article that I am writing is for a class, but it will be posted on the internet. Anyone who would be willing to talk to me , I would be extremely grateful. My aim s/n is Loudmouth24242 and my email is sopko.r@neu.edu. Thanks so much. -Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowflake Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Rose, Secondhand smoke is probably hard to tie to lung cancer. Many of us are exposed to it daily, even smokers. I choose not to explore that avenue as it would be something that my parent exposed me to or hanging out while in college and I really don't need to "pass the buck" so to speak. I have lung cancer. I never smoked. Doesn't matter my smoking history, I'm here. I have to deal with it, assigning blame doesn't do me a darn bit of good and I'm not going to even start down that road. I don't think it's the smoking that is the only cause, be it firsthand or secondhand. I think that if a cure were found, a cause would be easier to isolate. Heck, as some have pointed out on the board, it may actually be caused (or some types of it) by a virus, such as cervical cancer is caused by HPV about 98% of the time. I don't think a virus would be contained in a cigarette...the answer for lung cancer is not going to be found in an ashtray. Good luck on your research paper. Becky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindi o'h Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Hi there. It must be scary for you having so many close relatives with lung cancer. There may be a genetic link...I think that there has been some progress made to substantiate the hypothesis. And this reseach is being put to use in clinical trials of certain drugs. Good luck in your class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaine Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I am not sure how in heaven's name a person would know if second hand smoke caused his or her cancer. Yes, there are quite a few people on the board who are "never smokers"--about 10-15 per cent of all lcs arise in non-smokers--many of whom are young women. If only 85-90 per cent of smokers get lc, then surely there is something besides smoking that causes it. Since only a miniscule per cent of non-smokers get lc and only a small per cent of them have a significant second hand smoking history, then ....... No one on this board that I know of thinks that smoking is a healthy or wise thing to do. Likewise no one that I know of thinks that casting a simplistic blame as to the cause of lc is a healthy or wise thing to do. Most of us would agree that if smoking disappeared then eventually the rates of lc would be drastically reduced--but it would not be eliminated; thus, we would not have found THE cause of lc. As a former English professor, I am going to give you some unasked for advice. There are already hundreds, if not thousands of college papers written on second hand smoke. Why not write a paper on something that will truly inform your "audience" about lung cancer? As a person who read hundreds of college essays a semester, I can assure you I appreciated unique and informative papers, so it could help your grade, too. I thank you for your time and attention to a "silent" and stigmatized disease that needs and deserves more accurate and thoughtful attention. If you wish to have us help you come up with a different topic, I am sure many of us would help you brainstorm. elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna G Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 First, hello to a Bostonian. I was born and raised there. Your theory for developing lung cancer from second hand smoke would be a stretch I think. Did you know just living in a major city for 10 yrs or more puts you at risk for lung cancer? Living near an oil field puts you at risk? Working at a truck stop ( diesel fuel is 300 times more poluting than gas fumes) puts you at risk for lung cancer. See this article I posted a while back. I wanted to say that the oil fields in Lousiana put people at risk for lung cancer I read. If you search for info re the death of Kim Perrot, a young basketball player, an athlete, they discuss how growing up there exposed her to carcinogens. I was interested because I have lived in Slidell and Abita Springs. I knew there was a high risk for kidney cancer in New Orleans because of the exposure to the waters of the Mississipppi River but while there I didn't hear about the higher than average risk of lung cancer til I read these articles. We all need to band together for more research , prevention and early detection. We would be very interested in how your study is coming. Please keep us posted. Donna G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barbara5452 Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Quit looking for something to blame, look for a cure..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDianneB Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 This probably isn't what you're looking for, but as far as I know, the only *known* side effects of second hand smoke are that it gets the walls and curtains really icky and dirty, and if someone lights up and lets the smoke waft around the computer, it soon turns yellow and it takes a Q-tip to get the icky stuff out from between the keys. (eeeeuuu) Di Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patut Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I tried to blame second hand smoke on my own interstitial lung problem (caused most likely by my RA) as my husband smoked in our house for over 40 years. No one knows the answer. I found it interesting that where I live the hospital lab folks asked questions, but didn't even consider second hand smoke. I'm the one who had to bring it up. Yet where my daughter lives the doctors showed more concern when asked about it. I am thinking that it depends on where you live whether second hand smoke is considered a threat or not by the medical community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDianneB Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Remember the comedian Andy Kaufman? He died of lung cancer and never smoked. Some speculated that it was the time he'd spent as a stand up comedian in smoke filled clubs that caused his cancer, but there were no known connections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimblanchard Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I don't think a frank discussion about second-hand smoke is about blame but about prevention. There is nothing I can do to bring Becky back, but I have to do everything in my power to prevent this thing from attacking Katie. Of course we can't pin down the exact cause of this disease for anyone, but there is awfully good statistical evidence that tells us it is happening in aggregate. I know prevention won't help those that already have the disease. And I agree that we should be doing everything we can to find a cure. But that doesn't make the discussion of prevention a bad thing. Frankly, I am offended at the tone of some of those replies. Knowing what caused your cancer won't take it away, but it might help me protect my daughter. Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBeth Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Well said Curtis, I agree with you whole-heartedly. Love and prayers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDianneB Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Well, if I may, it's been my experience that most discussions about smoking and lung cancer -- directly or second hand -- usually are about blame, even though the ultimate goal might be to discuss prevention. Sometimes it's the hidden agenda. Try thinking of it in a different way ... You are a young woman with young children at home. You've done what your doc has recommended for as long as you can remember. You've never smoked, didn't grow up in a home with smokers, have hardly been around it much because whenever you detect smoke, you remove yourself from it. You've had mammograms as recommended, pap smears, and regular checkups. Then one day, you find out you have advanced stage lung cancer. How could this happen? No one ever warned you about it, even though you were in the segment of the population in which lung cancer is appearing at a higher and higher rate. Even if you had been warned, the chances are that they wouldn't have found it too early, because due to lack of funding, they just haven't come up with an effective test for detection yet. You might get angry, frustrated, or whatever, and think you have a real cause on your hands, except that no one in the media is interested unless you have breast cancer, because it gets the most attention. In short, you have the cancer that kills more women in a year than many of the other cancers combined. More and more young women just like yourself come down with this disease every year, yet nothing much changes. Why? It's the stigma of smoking that is permanently affixed to a diagnosis of lung cancer. And as long as that continues, people who never smoked or who were told they would be better off if they quit and believed it, will continue to be caught in the trap of this disease -- the catch 22, in that it's a huge killer, yet not many people in the world really care, because they tend to see it as self-inflicted. Remember when AIDS first got started? It didn't get much attention or $$ until it started hitting white, middle and upper class people. Lung cancer probably won't get much attention either until the number of non-smokers who get it equal or surpass the number of smokers. If left unchecked, it may not be too much longer before that happens. And that would be saddest thing of all, because after all, not many of the discussions were really about prevention, were they? At their core and underneath all the political correctness and the guise of prevention, they were really discussions about blame. And in the meantime, all the non-smokers out there get stuck in the same boat as everyone else. I don't know if this applies to the poster here or not, but generally when I hear these kinds of questions, the real question is this: "Please give us at least one tidbit that we can use to link second hand smoke to anything." Lots of people have tried to do that for a long time now, and have come up blank. And maybe a moot point anyway once they figure out if the genetic link holds the key to cause and prevention, whether a person is a smoker or not. No holds barred, Di Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaine Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I see nothing in the original post that mentions prevention. I see Rose asking to talk to anyone who got lung cancer from second hand smoke. I stand by my post. Who on this board can pinpoint second hand smoke as the cause of his or her lc and if so, why don't all people exposed to a great deal of second hand smoke get lc? elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharKats Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I have found 99% of discussions or written materials regarding lung cancer are focused on cigarette smoking and how "we" should have known better. I've heard/read too many times that "we" brought this on ourself and don't deserve to have as many research dollars devoted to lung cancer research for prevention and early detection. We don't DESERVE IT - even though it's the number one cancer killer!!!!!!!!!!! I live in Houston and we have many days where our air quality is worse than LA and there's a danger level posted and children and people with lung conditions are not allowed outside. One would think that perhaps the pollunants in our air alone would and could cause and/or contribute to lung cancer. Would heavy pollunants be considered a type of second-hand smoke?? Genetics must play a role, I, for one, am tired of feeling stigmatized by having smoked. I began smoking back in the days where it was heavily promoted, considered glamerous and you just weren't sophiscated unless you did smoke. I had smoked for almost 20 years before the first info was made public that smoking just might not be a healthy thing for a person to do. I should have quit smoking then but it's a very difficult habit to stop. But did I deserve to develope lung cancer? NO! And I'm angry about the lack of concern and research from the medical profession. I've heard a lot about the dangers of second hand smoke so I assume it must be linked to some type(s) of lung disease. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimblanchard Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 The house you described is very much like my house. Except the wife and mom is dead. So I think I am pretty sensitive to this. Why the hell would anyone want to talk about second hand smoke if not to talk about prevention? If getting smoke out of our restaurants would save lives, let's talk about it. If it's not going to save lives, then fine. Maybe that will come out too. At one level, it doesn't matter why Becky got lung cancer. The only thing that mattered was beating it. Prevention is no substitute for a cure. I can't say that any more clearly. But at the same time, I am in protection mode. If there is a genetic link, I want to find it, because Katie has a pretty scary family history now. If there is a link to Doritos, I want to find it. Second hand smoke isn't going to be linked to any one person's tumor because we are all so complex and live in such various situations. Rose's question was badly worded because nobody could reply to her because nobody knows that their cancer was caused by second hand smoke. Ok. But saying second hand smoke isn't a cause of lung cancer because no individual can blame that is like saying the firing squad didn't kill a guy because the bullet can't be traced to a particular rifle (they put blanks in all but one so that each guy in the squad can think he didn't kill the prisoner) Of course there are multiple causes, and it is the interaction of our genetics with our particular environments that causes all cancers. I have been exposed to as much second hand smoke as Becky, but that does not mean it cannot be a cause of her cancer. Curtis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elaine Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 I googled second hand smoke and lung cancer and came up with over 423,000 matches. I then googled lung cancer and stigma and came up with 100. Unless Rose is a medical or research graduate student, I still say that plenty is being written on second hand smoke and lc--and little is being written on other topics that effect those of us with LC or those who will get lc in the future in a climate (pun intended) similar to the one that exists now. Thus, unless she is writing this "paper" in order to further concrete and new information about lc and second hand smoke, I see no point in rehashing the knowns. This is the same advice I would give any student writing about any topic--find a new angle, don't write something that has already been done to "death." On the bright side, I applaud her for choosing a topic that impacts her own life situation. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=se ... gle+Search http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl ... tnG=Search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Ann Posted November 18, 2004 Share Posted November 18, 2004 In my opinion, I think there is a lot of politics involved in the "second hand" smoke issue. Will we ever know, or be given all the information that we need to reduce our risk for cancer? There has been research done(in other countries) that shows a significant increase in risk for breast cancer in women who have had abortions. I bet most people on this board have never heard of this. Doesn't it make sense that this information should be available to women so that they can make an informed decision? There are people out there(I'm not one of them) who truly believe that the cure for cancer has been found and is being kept from us because sick people generate more revenue. I know this is kind of off the topic, but it I felt compelled to respond. Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJAS Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 I believe there is far more to be learned about the real mechanics of what causes lung cancer. Did you know that only 2 out of 10 smokers get lung cancer. Just received fascinating report from CDC on Smoking related morbidity. Lung cancer is at the bottom of the list! Far more likely to get emphysema, chronic bronchitis and heart attack. http://www.cdc.ggov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5235a4.htm As far as secondhand smoke: My husband's father was a smoker, but worked afternoons and was an avid gardner and outdoorsman. My husband never smoked. He has an older brother & sister who were both heavy smokers until about two years ago. They are fine. The twist: they are adopted and he is not. Check the new family studies being done. While I'm not saying that smoking does not play a part, there is obviously much more to the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.