Cancer, Asthma, Underweight Baby Statistics of Smokers, Non-Smokers, etc

[Maplepie]

My explicit questions are highlighted in blue.

Forward

I like to take pauses from my research to do some research.

There's a treasure trove of information out there that suggest one to two cigars every day does not increase the rate of lung cancer in individuals (it does increase the rate of mouth cancer (2.1x), esophageal cancer (2.3x), larynx cancer (6.5x) and pancreatic cancer (1.2x) whilst lowering the rate of heart diseases).

In the same papers, they report around a pack a day of cigarettes which will cause an 7x increase in lung cancer risks (whilst increasing the rate of mouth cancer (6x), esophageal cancer (2.4x), larynx cancer (8.7x), COPD (8.9x), and pancreatic cancer (1.7x) and the rate of heart disease (1.4x)).

This study done by Dr. David M. Burns (Pulmonologist, University of California) seems to be the major reference when it comes to cigar and cigarette rates of cancer bar a study done by in Bethesda, MD on behalf of the Health Agency of the US of by God A'. I'll discuss that later.

Does anyone actually have any more RECENT scientific, peer reviewed, well documented studies for the effects of cigarettes, cigars, and pipes on various parts of the body as well as the potential cancer rates?

It would be nice to finally let go of using this 20 year old source to reference everything when it comes to health effects of cigars/cigarettes.

The facts and all her friends

One thing that really peeves me about the media and the government is their twisting of data/analytical methods to suit their own ideologies. Case and point is when the US surgeon general states that cigars are not a safe alternative to cigarettes. Cigars are NOT an alternative to cigarettes. Full stop.

But the worse possible example is when even the Victorian (province of Australia) "Quit" paper that is self titled "Fact Sheet" segregates a few cancers in order to talk about them seperately. On the bottom of page 2, these 'facts' are stated:

-Cigar smokers have high risks for cancers of the mouth, throat, larynx and oesophagus, similar to cigarette smokers.
-Cigar smokers have lower risks than cigarette smokers for lung cancer, heart disease, and the lung disease ‘chronic obstructive pulmonary disease’ (COPD). However, they have greater risks for these diseases than people who have never smoked.

Click the picture for the link to the Victorian information sheet:

I gave you the risks of cancers for the mouth, throat, larynx, and esophagus above in the preface. Take a look at the numbers and tell me if they are "similar". Mouth cancer for cigars: 2.1x. Mouth cancer for cigarettes: 6x. The only thing with a semblance of 'similarity' is the risk of esophageal cancer.

The second point is even more laughable. The study with a 95% confidence ratio indicates that cigar smokers have greater risks for Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, and COPD compared to people who don't smoke. Rather, the study shows rates of increase to be 0.99x, 0.98x, and 1.28x. These results means that there is no correlation (let alone causation) between heart disease/ lung cancer rates and 1-2 cigars smoked per day.

The better part about this claim is that the Australian government seemed to have actually used Dr. Burns' study and his numbers (THE EXACT NUMBERS THAT YOU AND I HAVE BEEN READING) whilst saying that it increases the risks of heart disease and lung cancer.

I will yield that the more cigars you smoke, the higher your rates of all these nasty diseases will be. Your lung cancer rate shoots up a drastic 2.36x if you dare venture into the realm of smoking 3-4 cigars per day. But what this study fails to mention is the need to maintain a good atmosphere - the usage of air filters, going outside, etc will drastically change these rates.

But yeah - allow people to continue using chlorine releasing bleach in their homes or high concentrations of air fresheners. We all know those poly-ol based scents are known to the state of California to cause cancer but that won't deter people from using them because they smell good.

Oh and let's not forget about painters, welders, etc who are frequently inhaling large volumes solvents because it's the easiest thing to do. Let's start taxing them 80% of their salaries just in case I need to foot for their lung cancer treatment one day.

But that got me thinking... Would you or I get exposed to solvents or other carcinogenic compounds if we didn't smoke?

The Average Smoker Does Not Smoke Cigarettes

The whole spark that got me thinking about this was my condo hunting downtown. I don't really want to live south of Bloor street (the heart of downtown Toronto) due to the air quality. It's daunting attempting to find a tree and everywhere is either a pickup truck with a bad catalytic converter or a gaggle of chain smokers producing 5x more smoke than said pick up truck. I hope I've found a place just north of Bloor wedged right between a cemetery and a dog park.

This led me to do a bit of research on the actual effects of living in a large city. Looking into it, it's actually pretty hard. Not many long term studies have been done on this and people only hypothesize that it's bad. They indicate that people who work and live within 500m to a highway or high congestion zone is actually prone to lung cancer, asthma, and underweight births leading to all sorts of illnesses later on in life.

Personally, I see this as a lot of media pandering to instil fear, albeit unsuccessful. Another thing they failed at was giving actual numbers for this. They claimed that proximity to highways claim x thousands of lives of Canadians every year. But what the hell does that mean? Really... What does that mean? How do they die? Do they just run onto the highway and SPLAT?

Does anyone have any solid numbers to back up this media hype about traffic proximity and preventable deaths? This is silly that I can't find any articles detailing the actual rates of cancer, asthma, and underweight births as a partial result of living beside these highways.

I can't lie, though. Part of the reason I want this data is to use it against some people. The next time someone tells me cigars are bad, I'll hope to tell them (backed up by empirical data) that being downtown for 5 hours is much worse.

How's that for a media storm?

Well... That's my break over. Finish this scotch and it's back to work for me.

[PapaDisco]

I also appreciate seeing the data in absolute numbers. The whole "6X worse" business is there to add drama. For instance, if the risk of having your brains sucked out by a zombie was 1 in 10 million in Los Angeles, but 6 in 10 million in Toronto, why Toronto would have SIX TIMES THE RISK OF BRAIN EATING ZOMBIE ATTACKS!!!! Pretty scary when you say it that way, and in capitals.

[Maplepie]

The whole "6X worse" business is there to add drama. For instance, if the risk of having your brains sucked out by a zombie was 1 in 10 million in Los Angeles, but 6 in 10 million in Toronto, why Toronto would have SIX TIMES THE RISK OF BRAIN EATING ZOMBIE ATTACKS!!!!

Pretty scary when you say it that way, and in capitals.

Ah, yes. Thank you, PapaPolka That's something I normally always bring up when I mention these numbers. Not sure why I didn't bring it up there.Thanks for mentioning that much needed specification in order to interpret the data correctly.

[Orion21]

It's called lying with statistics. It's the weapon of choice for special interests trying to indoctrinate the uneducated masses.

[srbbones]

Hats off to you for doing this. I recently tried a lit search on this subject. Got about what you said. At this point, the issue of smoking is too political. The government would likely not fund a study to evaluate the risk of cigars compared to cigarettes. If a cigar manufacturer tried to do one, the results would be attacked even if bias did not exist. Too many "know" the answer, and nothing will change that. They are so sure they are right, they want to make decisions for everyone, and have no interest in "data". We live in scary times

[Rye]

Nice read butternuts! Thanks for taking the time, as well as sharing!

[Maplepie]

I'm reminded of Paracelsus the Alchemist and one of the notable "first" Chemists. For all the Deutchophones out there:

Most of our whole world is toxic, our drinking water, food, air, clothing, pharmaceuticals, personal hygiene products, homes, cars...etc.

I don't worry about enjoying my cigars because in the end there is no such thing as "preventable death". Last I heard we're all going to die and there's no preventing it.

"Alle Dingen sind gift und nicht ist ohne gift. Aber, die dosis macht, dass eine Dinge kein Gift ist."

Translated to:

Everything is toxic and nothing is without toxicity. But, it is only the dosage that determines how toxic a substance is.

Bear in mind if you drink 10L of diet soda, you will OD on the water before the aspartame kills you. But it's just what's worth it in the end...

But I will contest you on the preventable death. Broken necks from drunk driving is preventable. Pulmonary edema from crystal methamphetamine is preventable. But I do get what you mean, though. There's a fine line when it comes to things like this.

[reffy]

Do you have citations for the studies you referenced? It seems to me that the numbers you cite most likely come from a periodical source. I could be wrong, just wondering.

As for more recent articles (<20 years like you said) with light research I found

Cigar and Pipe Smoking and Lung Cancer Risk: a Multicenter study from Europe by Boffetta et al. (However this study is only younger by 4 years).

As for urban living, just based on reading the abstract I found this.

Perez, Laura, et al. "Near-Roadway Pollution And Childhood Asthma: Implications For Developing "Win-Win" Compact Urban Development And Clean Vehicle Strategies." Environmental Health Perspectives 120.11 (2012): 1619-1626. Academic Search Complete. Web. 31 Mar. 2015.

I cannot comment about how this may pertain to your city, but it gives a general idea of the risks involved with living in an urban environment (albeit with some pretty obvious bias towards greener societies).

On the note of using the data as fodder for conversations, my opinion on the matter is that yes, living a city has it's own health risks (dependent on the city) but, it'd be hard to compare the the two environments (city vs smoking) without a study specifically exploring this vein. That being said, everything in moderation. For all intents and purposes a cigar every week probably won't kill you, but you cannot ignore the fact that it can kill you

[Scroats]

I remember hearing about a study done on the health effects of the cross Bronx expressway. I'll see if I can find it. Although it's probably an old study, 60s or 70s. The was considered an engineering feat jamming a 6 lane Highway into a sunken channel right through an urban aream

[Scroats]

The one thing I really miss about college was access to research databases.

[dicko]

Do you have citations for the studies you referenced? It seems to me that the numbers you cite most likely come from a periodical source. I could be wrong, just wondering.

As for more recent articles (<20 years like you said) with light research I found

Cigar and Pipe Smoking and Lung Cancer Risk: a Multicenter study from Europe by Boffetta et al. (However this study is only younger by 4 years).

So what did it say? Cheers

[soutso]

Well this just proves that people just take what they wish out of these studies to suit their own agenda.

For the record, this is what I got out of it:

This 2.1x, 6x etc take on stats can be misleading

Urban life can cause diseases

Smoking outside drastically reduce (probably by 20x! ) the negative affects of cigar smoking on your health

Thus, I will smoke more cigars!

Thank you

[wea1959]

1,000,000 to 1 odds suck if you are the 1

[wea1959]

The one thing I really miss about college was access to research databases.

I miss snogging in the stacks of the library.

[Professor Twain]

There is a pretty extensive post about this topic, including statistical information and references I provided, from the forum back in 2006

http://www.friendsofhabanos.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=35744

The paper that has been mentioned showing that people who smoke two or fewer cigars per day have little or no mortality differences than nonsmokers can be found in pdf form, for free, at http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/4/333.full.pdf+html If you look at the statistical table (Table 3) you can see both the relative risk and number of deaths per group. Note, the 1-2 cigar per day group does not differ significantly from the never smokers on ANY form of cancer.

Of note, the abstract and discussion of this paper does not report this finding of a seemingly safe level of cigar smoking. Instead, the authors choose to report overall statistics.

There are many more recent papers on cigar smoking and cancer. You can find them through Google Scholar. Here are search results for --"cigar smoking" cancer--with results limited to studies from 2011-present http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2011&q=%22Cigar+smoking%22+cancer&hl=en&as_sdt=0,10 As you can see there are plenty of studies. But, in brief, very few report statistics concerning health correlates of smoking 1-2 cigars a day.

In brief, tobacco scholars are generally not interested in identifying safe levels of cigar smoking. They are out to stamp out the evils of smoking. It is unlikely that a tobacco scholar would receive funding from the National Cancer Institute or other federal agencies to study whether moderate cigar smoking is safe.

I highly recommend two blogs by tobacco scholars. They don't write much about cigars but they expose hypocrisy in scientific writing about tobacco and cancer. Their main focus recently has been on e-cigs and efforts to distort science about these:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/

I'm very interested in this topic and if I had the time and funding necessary to do it, I'd love to write a comprehensive review of this research, and even better, reanalyze some of the existing data sets. But work and life conspires against that.

[Hunter1974]

It's called lying with statistics. It's the weapon of choice for special interests trying to indoctrinate the uneducated masses.

nailed it

[reffy]

So what did it say? Cheers

To put it simply, they attributed 8% of asthma cases in LA (27,100 children) partly to living within 75m of a major road.

[Geaux]

97.2% of all statistics are made up.

[Cigar Surgeon]

I post this because I have it bookmarked, this topic comes up so often.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199906103402301

As far as I am aware this is the only wide spread CIGAR ONLY study that has been done. Most other studies focus on cigarette smoking and as such their results are not accurate.

There are easy to read reference tables that break out the risk factors and as you can see for a 'casual' non-inhaling cigar smoker (that's less than 5 cigars a day) you risk factors are SIGNIFICANTLY less than reported in other studies.

Since most cigar smokers do not inhale, and most cigar smokers smoke less than 5 cigars a day, the biggest health risk most cigar aficionados should worry about is whether they are overweight, exercise regularly and enjoy alcohol responsibly.

[Professor Twain]

Thanks for pointing this one out, I'd seen it as well. Of note is that the manuscript interprets Table 4 NOT for showing no significant risk with less than 5 cigars a day, but instead as proof of a dose-response relation"

"Except for all cancers combined, there were clear dose–response relations: the risks associ-ated with cigar smoking were greater among thosewho smoked five or more cigars a day, as compared with those who smoked fewer". The abstract does the same thing. Technically accurate, but burying an important part of the story.

I post this because I have it bookmarked, this topic comes up so often.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199906103402301

As far as I am aware this is the only wide spread CIGAR ONLY study that has been done. Most other studies focus on cigarette smoking and as such their results are not accurate.

There are easy to read reference tables that break out the risk factors and as you can see for a 'casual' non-inhaling cigar smoker (that's less than 5 cigars a day) you risk factors are SIGNIFICANTLY less than reported in other studies.

Since most cigar smokers do not inhale, and most cigar smokers smoke less than 5 cigars a day, the biggest health risk most cigar aficionados should worry about is whether they are overweight, exercise regularly and enjoy alcohol responsibly.

[Maplepie]

Sorry for being so late on this one. Working a late night at work so I have some time to respond to queries and give thanks where it is due

But I see what you're trying to do and respect that. Personally I try not to engage in arguments with people that presume to judge me and what I do...it just shortens my life span.

Very fair! Here, we will agree to... agree!

Do you have citations for the studies you referenced? It seems to me that the numbers you cite most likely come from a periodical source. I could be wrong, just wondering.

Oh come now... I had an entire section on the thing I wrote to denounce periodical sources of statistics as reliable. Using periodical sources would not only make me a hypocrite but would also invalidate my entire message, lmao. I'm careless and lazy... but not THAT careless and lazy.

I am lazy enough to not state the source as it was indirectly linked . It was David M. Burns's study on cigar and cigarette smoking as well as his entire report on pop culture references, media attention, population, etc. His source is what is overwhelmingly used by all governments to demonise cigarettes and, to some extent, cigars. It's a laughing fit to do so as the side-effects for occasional cigar usage (as opposed to daily) is non-existent.

As for more recent articles (<20 years like you said) with light research I found

-Cigar and Pipe Smoking and Lung Cancer Risk: a Multicenter study from Europe by Boffetta et al. (However this study is only younger by 4 years).

-Perez, Laura, et al. "Near-Roadway Pollution And Childhood Asthma: Implications For Developing "Win-Win" Compact Urban Development And Clean Vehicle Strategies." Environmental Health Perspectives 120.11 (2012): 1619-1626. Academic Search Complete. Web. 31 Mar. 2015.

In brief, tobacco scholars are generally not interested in identifying safe levels of cigar smoking. They are out to stamp out the evils of smoking. It is unlikely that a tobacco scholar would receive funding from the National Cancer Institute or other federal agencies to study whether moderate cigar smoking is safe.

I highly recommend two blogs by tobacco scholars. They don't write much about cigars but they expose hypocrisy in scientific writing about tobacco and cancer. Their main focus recently has been on e-cigs and efforts to distort science about these:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/

I'm very interested in this topic and if I had the time and funding necessary to do it, I'd love to write a comprehensive review of this research, and even better, reanalyze some of the existing data sets. But work and life conspires against that.

Thank you for those resources on my side. I've bookmarked them and will study them in my free time :ok.

Twain, I would be extremely interested in a publically abridged version of those blogs and studies. People don't have time or the resources to view various articles or data sheets. Unfortunately, it's up to the media to interpret this data and give it to the general public. We should be the media instead of the rating-hungry, biased puppets.

I post this because I have it bookmarked, this topic comes up so often.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199906103402301

As far as I am aware this is the only wide spread CIGAR ONLY study that has been done. Most other studies focus on cigarette smoking and as such their results are not accurate.

Hi John! Glad to see you back to the forum... Glad I was able to bring you back Been sorely missed everywhere. Hope your federation has been doing well.

I will bookmark this study on that side. In turn, you may want to bookmark Burns, D. M's US study. I have the link somewhere on my home computer that I'll ammend the original post to include soon. On that note, It's something to skim myself over and create an overwhelming "Health Post About Cigars" in the next month or so. On top of it, it will be very beneficial to compare it to the effects of living downtown. This will hopefully be able to scientifically state that cigar smoking is not bad as various other methods of "pleasant smoking" (ie. walking beside a highway, living downtown, etc).

It's the first step to dodging government restrictions of pleasurable tobacco products in comparison to habitual tobacco products.

[reffy]

Oh come now... I had an entire section on the thing I wrote to denounce periodical sources of statistics as reliable. Using periodical sources would not only make me a hypocrite but would also invalidate my entire message, lmao. I'm careless and lazy... but not THAT careless and lazy.

I am lazy enough to not state the source as it was indirectly linked . It was David M. Burns's study on cigar and cigarette smoking as well as his entire report on pop culture references, media attention, population, etc. His source is what is overwhelmingly used by all governments to demonise cigarettes and, to some extent, cigars. It's a laughing fit to do so as the side-effects for occasional cigar usage (as opposed to daily) is non-existent.

I was just wondering because the way you stated the information was very periodical-like and having the part denouncing was paradoxical haha.

[Maplepie]

I was just wondering because the way you stated the information was very periodical-like and having the part denouncing was paradoxical haha.

I noticed it halfway through but kinda liked the formatting... So I kept it!

Didn't mean to cause confusion there,

[Orion21]

I was talking with a physician friend of mine the other day and brought up this post. We discussed why the only relevant studies on cigars smoking are from the 60's and his comments were essentially: "Doctors are a bunch of a-holes. They are lazy and too busy to put in any critical thought about cigars. If you were to talk to a traditionally educated and trained MD 45 or under they just accept the smoking lobby's talking points that ALL tobacco products kill. It's much easier to be one of the sheep that goes along with the status quo. Cigar smokers are lumped in with cigarette smokers and that's the way it will be forever. The cult of modern medicine provides no gray area anymore because in their minds it's hard science. But I will tell you breathing the air in Los Angeles, or any big city, is far more harmful than smoking the occasional cigar. Pollution and stress are far more toxic than the few cigars you smoke."

[perkinke]

One of the reasons I suspect no one will print a study with "favorable" results for cigars has to do with the number of studies the cigarette manufacturers faked over the years; unfortunately as people have noted ad nauseum cigars unfortunately get lumped in with cigarettes. Therefore few researchers would be willing to risk their careers publishing results that could see them labeled as a fraud or tobacco industry stooge.

The other thing is that it seems the practitioner side of medicine is changing, I've had three different doctors in three different fields comment on my smoking cigars as no big deal at all. The insurance industry on the other hand....