dont' worry too much about lung cancer.

[The Observer]

I realise alot of the smokers here and other places are concerned with lung cancer. Afterall inhaling any combusted plant matter into your lungs is unhealthy. But unhealthy does not mean it will cause cellular DNA mutations necessary to produce abnormal cell growth. We really don't know what causes cancer in this case but it sure isn't tar. If we understand that cancer is an actual DNA mutation of the cell then it becomes clear that for cacer to occur there must be something present in the smoke to actually affect the DNA or cause damage to the lung tissue for such a long period of time and so consistently that the cells finally mutate. Well, nicotine is isolated as being it. Simple google research will show how radioactive tobacco is and how long it's redioactive particles stay in the lungs. It's this type of cumulative damage from tobacco that can cause cancer in genetically susseptible individuals.

I would encourage the reading of this link

http://prfamerica.org/RadioactivityInCigaretteSmoke.html

It gives a very clear explanation. To date one thing we know in science and medicine is that radiation is a guaranteed to split and mutate your dna. How much you smoke is how much you absorb. It has therefore been shown that those smoking cannabis in joints usually mix them with tobacco. Even so, those that mix tobacco and cannabis have a significantly lower incidence of lung cancer. The consesus must be that cannabis has properties which protect against cancer, and we all know it does. So if you're using a vaporiser, good for you, but it's not necessary, but if it makes you feelmore secure the go for it.

[benagain]

LMMFAO. Radio active tobacco? OK, now I've heard it all. Excuse me if I don't tend to beleive the fact listed on a page made in microsoft word and hosted by The Property Rights Foundation of America. Plus not to mention that there is no actual lab-backed data on that page. Just some wild info from books published in the early 80s. Get us some up to date data backed by more than some dude that wrote a book over 20 years ago.

Other than that, thanks for the contribution. Don't let my post keep you for searching for the truth. It's allways good to keep an open mind, I just don't beleive this one too much.

[orangeman]

Meh, I dunno. It sounds sensable to me :p.

[The Observer]

LMMFAO. Radio active tobacco? OK, now I've heard it all. Excuse me if I don't tend to beleive the fact listed on a page made in microsoft word and hosted by The Property Rights Foundation of America. Plus not to mention that there is no actual lab-backed data on that page. Just some wild info from books published in the early 80s. Get us some up to date data backed by more than some dude that wrote a book over 20 years ago.

Other than that, thanks for the contribution. Don't let my post keep you for searching for the truth. It's allways good to keep an open mind, I just don't beleive this one too much.


This is a fact. Research it all you want you'll see. Tobacco is not exclusive in regards to radioactivity. Pretty much everything is, it just matters how much and the means through which it picks up it's radioactivity.

Here:

http://www.acsa.net/HealthAlert/radioactive_tobacco.html

you can look up all the references if you like on the bottom of the linked page.

[benagain]

Ok, I'll give it to you. It's possible that we get cancer from the radioactivity in tobacco. No one really knows and this is certainly a possibility. Just like getting cancer from tar is possible, it's also possible that we get cancer from a whole other source all together.
Bottom line is smoking is bad. Even if it doesn't give you cancer, it's still destructive to your lungs. Weed or not. Smoke 30 or 40 joints every day for a few years and I'm sure you'll develop a nice little hack (natures way of telling you smoke is bad).
All we can do is what seems best for ourselves based on the information that we're givin'. More info means more possibilities. Thanks for the links and welcome to the boards btw :D

[BongSmokityDuo]

Rock on the observer, rock on

[BloodAngel]

LMMFAO. Radio active tobacco? OK, now I've heard it all. Excuse me if I don't tend to beleive the fact listed on a page made in microsoft word and hosted by The Property Rights Foundation of America. Plus not to mention that there is no actual lab-backed data on that page. Just some wild info from books published in the early 80s. Get us some up to date data backed by more than some dude that wrote a book over 20 years ago.

Other than that, thanks for the contribution. Don't let my post keep you for searching for the truth. It's allways good to keep an open mind, I just don't beleive this one too much.

Everything, EVERYTHING is radioactive to some extent. Every single thing on this planet gives off some type of radiation

[hahaitsdoogle]

hoo-ray for smart people.

[The Observer]

Ok, I'll give it to you. It's possible that we get cancer from the radioactivity in tobacco. No one really knows and this is certainly a possibility. Just like getting cancer from tar is possible, it's also possible that we get cancer from a whole other source all together.
Bottom line is smoking is bad. Even if it doesn't give you cancer, it's still destructive to your lungs. Weed or not. Smoke 30 or 40 joints every day for a few years and I'm sure you'll develop a nice little hack (natures way of telling you smoke is bad).
All we can do is what seems best for ourselves based on the information that we're givin'. More info means more possibilities. Thanks for the links and welcome to the boards btw :D

Hey, thanks for the welcome.

My point was that if not abused, our lungs can handle a small ammount of combustible plant matter like cannabis. Moderation should always be used and you're absolutely right that too many joints (30-40) daily WILL give you a problem sooner or later. But will give you cancer? Will it cause DNA to fracture? Or will it just impair your lungs physical charasteristics in transfering oxygen into the blood stream. Two different issues here. I for one am unconvinced of actual dna damage resulting in a cancer from cannabis use....In healthy moderation that is.

[BabyFacedAbortion]

I have a book on this.. I'll quote directly from it

"Moderate smoking of marijuana appears to pose minimal dangers to the lungs. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. There have been no reports of lung cancer related solely to marjuana. HOWEVER, because researchers have foun precancerous changes in cells taken from the lungs of heavy marijuana smokers, the possibilty of lung cancer from marijuana cannot be ruled out. Unlinke heavy tobacco smokers, heavy marijuana smokers exhibit no obstruction of the lung's small airways. This indicates that people will not develop emphysema from smoking marijuana. "

- Marijuana Myths Marijauna Facts, a review of the scientific evidence. by Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D and John P. Morgan, M.D

[budsmoker]

who gives a fuck just keep tokin:smokin:

[YouD0nt]

who gives a fuck just keep tokin:smokin:

Speak it loud and clear my friend. :thumbsup:

[budsmoker]

Speak it loud and clear my friend. :thumbsup:

yes b4 i die my goal is 2 turn as many people into potheads as i can:rasta: