I just came across this news article: http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-scientists-cancer-purely-man-made.html About halfway in, the author cites a finding in 1761 that nasal cancer is linked to snuff users. My bullshit detector went off as soon as I read it. Anyone know anything about this study or what this supposed cancer link to snuff is related too?
The John Hill story. Lots and lots of articles tend to cite it, though there is highly quetionable credibility behind it. I think they just cite previous articles hoping their predecesor did the fact checking and they don’t have to. Even if it were true, there hasn’t been a second link. You need a lot of cases to validate it scientificly.
Roderick, that reminds me of the Great Stink of 1858.
This study is basicly about how untill humans started doing certaining things or introducing certain things in to their enviroment cancer doesn’t seem to show up much at all. Though there are more holes in it then nasal snuff. You know who knows maybe some snuff takers back then did get cancer of the nose, especialy with breathing in all that industrial smoke all the time.
Well this study is really an abstract more then research so they should have really checked the origin of thier information more then they did.
The study seems to lack a very simple observation, i.e. that most cancer attack older patients and take a rather long time to kill. That is, longer than average life expectancy was until very recently.
actualy it points out that more childhood cancers seem prevelant today then in the past.
Of course that ignores the fact that a child dying for a long time was consider just how things worked. Make enough of them and one will live. I.e. why did the child die because they where a child case closed (What they would say through out most of history.).
I believe it’s our unnatural diet.
1 Like
@bob - you’re right, I missed that bit. Still, the fact remains that a) there are quite a few types of cancer which wouldn’t be evident without some sort of autopsy; and b) a study based at least partly on _mummies_, that is bodies whose internal organs have been mostly removed, sounds a bit limited, IMHO.
pgcd: _“b) a study based at least partly on _mummies_, that is bodies whose internal organs have been mostly removed, sounds a bit limited, IMHO.”_This caught my attention, as well. Maybe the researchers have been snuffing _mummy powde_r…
yeah the holes in this are crazy. Of course it’s one of the things that is great about science. They aren’t saying from what I understand that cancer is new as much as they are saying there is little evidence that cancer is not really a new problem. Then again I need to read more of the study. Cause it seems like they took their info a little too far. One of the things with a study is you have to limit your conclusion to what is knowable. It’s knowable that cancer really wasn’t a problem untill recently. Doesn’t say why.
Nothing of that age can be used to determine anything because there are so many variables and systematic, rigorous scientific testing under controlled conditions and then peer reviewed was over 100 years in the future. Snuff has never been put to the test in the same way cigarettes have and there is often a contradiction in the meaning of the word snuff in any case. Speaking about English dry snuff: no health suits for the largest manufacturer in over 200 years says a lot. The problem is that snuff gets mixed up with other products such as the African bush snuff with dried carcinogenic roots and the US types of oral smokeless tobacco.
Even with US oral snuff, it’s not as bad as it’s made out to be. Dip gets stigmatized and far overblown by PSAs and high school health classes that few people have an idea of the real risks. Sure, everyone here will immediately tell you Skoal will give you mouth cancer and cost you your jaw, but how many realise that 1) that’s far more likely to happen to a smoker than a dipper, and 2) you’re more likely to develop pancreatic cancer as a direct result of using dip? Damn near none, because of fear-mongerers.
@shikitohno Good point. Although the TSNA’s in dip far exceed most nasal snuffs, and even many cigarettes, there are some brands that are a tad lower than others. Still relatively high though. Infrequent use shouldn’t be a problem, but snus would probably be the safest alternative. On the other hand, some chewing tobacco’s are very low in TSNA’s, even lower than snus and some snuffs.
Speaking of TSNAs, does anyone know of the levels in South African snuffs – Taxi, NTSU et. al?
Also , Don’t drink Cola : http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/cocacola021605.cfm And watch your food intake : http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Cancer\_and\_food Can we please stop the discussions now ? Otherwise stop snuffing, snussing, smoking, drinking, eating, sports etc. These all could potentially harm you. Oh yeah, don’t cross the street also…
Agreed with Micheltn. Life is the number one cause of death. Hell, as I continue my studies, I’m discovering more and more that general stress is the most harmful thing that happens in your body…and eating shitty food…and your genetics…and so on. Snuff doesn’t concern me, because even though it hasn’t been as popular as cigs the past hundred years or whatever, people still did it, and SOMEONE would have noticed something negative at some point. I think its hard for some of us to just accept snuff/snus/whatever for what it is, because all of us have been trained to recognize that TOBACCO=SATAN and it will definitely kill you period. But than again, they sell soda all over, and give it to kids, and too much of that shit equals Type II diabetes. Not to mention the golden arches of McCardiac Arrest. Snuff is the least of my concerns.
We all gonna die.
To be in bed, is the most dangerous place to be. About 80% of all people die while in bed. A graveyard is the dead centre of town, people are dying to get in there. Stay away from beds and graveyards!!! Please!!!