FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Sexily dressed smokers
Sexily dressed smokers
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Sorry, you can't polish a turd! "well i've been called some things in my time | |||
| |||
| |||
"Sorry, you can't polish a turd!
well i've been called some things in my time "Polish people are quite nice | |||
"Lol yeah may just be but a kink all the same " im in the process of arranging two meets of the back of this weeks threads  | |||
"Sorry, you can't polish a turd!
well i've been called some things in my time
Polish people are quite nice"Are we doing the "d*unk Polish workers took offence" thread again? | |||
"Sorry, you can't polish a turd!
well i've been called some things in my time
Polish people are quite nice
Are we doing the "d*unk Polish workers took offence" thread again? "That story was really smokin! | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like" well your certainly living upto your name aintcha | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like" charming.
| |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like" I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit" "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it" PMSL did you really just say that  | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that "Apparently not.... | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that "That phrase is getting quite popular on fab this week. Not so sure building bridges should be encouraged, it's the traditional place for trolls to live. #justsayin | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not.... "thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site "Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts? Irony clearly isn't your strong piont | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont"oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted  | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted "There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison. | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison."bet you drive a cancer causing car. | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison."loads of things has the potentiol to cause cells to mutate smoking is just one of them Hundreds of thousands of people smoke and never get cancer im not suggesting that smoking is good for you but to say smoking causes cancer is a bit of a sweeping statement | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
bet you drive a cancer causing car."I can afford to drive because I don't spend an average of £2200 a year on deliberately poisoning myself with a 20 a day "habbit". | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted "think yourself lucky your not talking anout bakewell tart he had more to say but he definetly didnt day build a bridge probley copied it from facebook today | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
loads of things has the potentiol to cause cells to mutate smoking is just one of them
Hundreds of thousands of people smoke and never get cancer
im not suggesting that smoking is good for you but to say smoking causes cancer is a bit of a sweeping statement "Are you saying it's unreasonable to say that smoking causes cancer? | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted think yourself lucky your not talking anout bakewell tart he had more to say but he definetly didnt day build a bridge probley copied it from facebook today "I'm not on facebook | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
bet you drive a cancer causing car.
I can afford to drive because I don't spend an average of £2200 a year on deliberately poisoning myself with a 20 a day "habbit"."hypocritical. nothing more to be said really, you can't argue with a hypocrite because they contradict themselves and have no problem with that. | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
bet you drive a cancer causing car.
I can afford to drive because I don't spend an average of £2200 a year on deliberately poisoning myself with a 20 a day "habbit".
hypocritical.
nothing more to be said really, you can't argue with a hypocrite because they contradict themselves and have no problem with that.
"Explain the hypocracy of what I said? | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted think yourself lucky your not talking anout bakewell tart he had more to say but he definetly didnt day build a bridge probley copied it from facebook today
I'm not on facebook"well wherever you copied it from its still hilerious | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted think yourself lucky your not talking anout bakewell tart he had more to say but he definetly didnt day build a bridge probley copied it from facebook today
I'm not on facebookwell wherever you copied it from its still hilerious"*hilarious | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
bet you drive a cancer causing car.
I can afford to drive because I don't spend an average of £2200 a year on deliberately poisoning myself with a 20 a day "habbit".
hypocritical.
nothing more to be said really, you can't argue with a hypocrite because they contradict themselves and have no problem with that.
Explain the hypocracy of what I said?"*hypocrisy  | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
loads of things has the potentiol to cause cells to mutate smoking is just one of them
Hundreds of thousands of people smoke and never get cancer
im not suggesting that smoking is good for you but to say smoking causes cancer is a bit of a sweeping statement
Are you saying it's unreasonable to say that smoking causes cancer?"yes i am, it is unreasnable to say smoking causes cancer, its not unreasnable to say it can cause cancer smoking can cause cancer in some people Smoking will not cause everybody whos smokes cells to mutate into cancerous cells some people can smoke all their lifes and never get cancer, some people can never smoke and get cancer, some peoples cells mutate easier than others so smoking can cause them to get cancer where as it wont other people its not as simple as just saying smoking causes cancer because for hundreds and thousands of people it does not and for those who do smoke and get cancer there is simply no way at all of knowing that they woulodnt have developed it had they not smokes As i said im not suggesting smoking is good for you, we all know its not but you really cant say smoking causes cancer | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
bet you drive a cancer causing car.
I can afford to drive because I don't spend an average of £2200 a year on deliberately poisoning myself with a 20 a day "habbit".
hypocritical.
nothing more to be said really, you can't argue with a hypocrite because they contradict themselves and have no problem with that.
Explain the hypocracy of what I said?
*hypocrisy "*swings and roundabouts | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
loads of things has the potentiol to cause cells to mutate smoking is just one of them
Hundreds of thousands of people smoke and never get cancer
im not suggesting that smoking is good for you but to say smoking causes cancer is a bit of a sweeping statement
Are you saying it's unreasonable to say that smoking causes cancer?
yes i am, it is unreasnable to say smoking causes cancer, its not unreasnable to say it can cause cancer
smoking can cause cancer in some people
Smoking will not cause everybody whos smokes cells to mutate into cancerous cells
some people can smoke all their lifes and never get cancer, some people can never smoke and get cancer, some peoples cells mutate easier than others so smoking can cause them to get cancer where as it wont other people
its not as simple as just saying smoking causes cancer because for hundreds and thousands of people it does not
and for those who do smoke and get cancer there is simply no way at all of knowing that they woulodnt have developed it had they not smokes
As i said im not suggesting smoking is good for you, we all know its not but you really cant say smoking causes cancer "*im not even going to bother going back and correcting all my typos in there | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
loads of things has the potentiol to cause cells to mutate smoking is just one of them
Hundreds of thousands of people smoke and never get cancer
im not suggesting that smoking is good for you but to say smoking causes cancer is a bit of a sweeping statement
Are you saying it's unreasonable to say that smoking causes cancer?
yes i am, it is unreasnable to say smoking causes cancer, its not unreasnable to say it can cause cancer
smoking can cause cancer in some people
Smoking will not cause everybody whos smokes cells to mutate into cancerous cells
some people can smoke all their lifes and never get cancer, some people can never smoke and get cancer, some peoples cells mutate easier than others so smoking can cause them to get cancer where as it wont other people
its not as simple as just saying smoking causes cancer because for hundreds and thousands of people it does not
and for those who do smoke and get cancer there is simply no way at all of knowing that they woulodnt have developed it had they not smokes
As i said im not suggesting smoking is good for you, we all know its not but you really cant say smoking causes cancer "Smoking causes cancer - that's a FACT - it's unreasonable to say otherwise. | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
bet you drive a cancer causing car.
I can afford to drive because I don't spend an average of £2200 a year on deliberately poisoning myself with a 20 a day "habbit"."Is a "habbit" a cross between a rabbit and a hobbit? | |||
"I think smokers are absolutely disgusting - regardless of that they look like I'm sure you'd turn down a smoking hot woman everyone has their kink who are you to judge, at clubs the smoking area is normally the most sociable area even though it's suppose to be an anti social habit "Judge"? I expressed my opinion - build a bridge and get over it PMSL did you really just say that
Apparently not....
thank god for that, i was hoping my eyes were lying as i was sure this is a 18+ site
Trying to imply I'm being childish with such childish posts?
Irony clearly isn't your strong piont
oh build a bridge and get over it
and lighten up while your over there its supposed to be light hearted
There's nothing light hearted about smoking - it's a cancer causing poison.
bet you drive a cancer causing car.
I can afford to drive because I don't spend an average of £2200 a year on deliberately poisoning myself with a 20 a day "habbit".
hypocritical.
nothing more to be said really, you can't argue with a hypocrite because they contradict themselves and have no problem with that.
Explain the hypocracy of what I said?"what is there to explain? you think it's ok to for yourself to use cancer causing chemicals yet others are disgusting for doing so. you might wanna go read about cancer and how it's thought your body kills off at least 17 cancer cells a day. all people get cancer every day but your body deals with it, it's once your body can't control it is when it becomes a problem. | |||
" Smoking causes cancer - that's a FACT - it's unreasonable to say otherwise." putting FACT in capitals does not make is so | |||
 | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here "to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion. | |||
" Smoking causes cancer - that's a FACT - it's unreasonable to say otherwise. putting FACT in capitals does not make is so "I know - it doesn't need to be in capitals to be FACTUAL | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion."It's a forum | |||
| |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum "and you don't know forum etiquette, so what? | |||
" Smoking causes cancer - that's a FACT - it's unreasonable to say otherwise. putting FACT in capitals does not make is so
I know - it doesn't need to be in capitals to be FACTUAL"well if you say so i'm sure you know more than the medical profession | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here "questioned on your opinions. What did you expect | |||
" Smoking causes cancer - that's a FACT - it's unreasonable to say otherwise. putting FACT in capitals does not make is so
I know - it doesn't need to be in capitals to be FACTUAL
well if you say so
i'm sure you know more than the medical profession
"You clearly know a lot less | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
"Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of"no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now. i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that. | |||
| |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that."The facts speak for themselves - smoking causes cancer and it's idiotic to say otherwise - simple as that. | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that."oh oh pick me pick me *holds hand up* | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that.
The facts speak for themselves - smoking causes cancer and it's idiotic to say otherwise - simple as that."of smoking causes cancer then all smokers have cancer, is that really what you believe? | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that.
The facts speak for themselves - smoking causes cancer and it's idiotic to say otherwise - simple as that."except nobody medical has confirmed this at all. you will not find a single fact to back up your claim that smoking causes cancer. the only known definite carcinogens are the ones found in cancerous tumours, smoking has never been a definite cause as nympho has already said. Carcinogens and Cancer 11 APRIL 2013, BY ONCOSEC, 0 COMMENTS The causes of cancer can be very broad and complicated. Increased cancer risks stem from genetic history, lifestyle choices, workplace exposures, household exposures, diet, and other factors. Generally, cancer occurs when a cell’s DNA is altered such that the cells go through normal programmed cell death slower than they divide via mitosis. This unregulated cell growth leads to tumors, which can then spread to other nearby parts of the body through proximity. The lymphatic system and bloodstream can transmit cancer from one part of the body to others (referred to as metastasis). Carcinogens are substances involved in causing cancer. These cancer-causing agents lead to cancer in ways other than DNA modification – such as accelerating cell division – leading to an increase in the opportunities for DNA changes to occur. The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual. | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that.
oh oh pick me pick me *holds hand up* "i googled on his behalf, wasn't hard, and am debating myself now lol. | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that.
The facts speak for themselves - smoking causes cancer and it's idiotic to say otherwise - simple as that.
of smoking causes cancer then all smokers have cancer, is that really what you believe?"Your logic does not compute | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that.
The facts speak for themselves - smoking causes cancer and it's idiotic to say otherwise - simple as that.
except nobody medical has confirmed this at all. you will not find a single fact to back up your claim that smoking causes cancer.
the only known definite carcinogens are the ones found in cancerous tumours, smoking has never been a definite cause as nympho has already said.
Carcinogens and Cancer
11 APRIL 2013, BY ONCOSEC, 0 COMMENTS
The causes of cancer can be very broad and complicated. Increased cancer risks stem from genetic history, lifestyle choices, workplace exposures, household exposures, diet, and other factors. Generally, cancer occurs when a cell’s DNA is altered such that the cells go through normal programmed cell death slower than they divide via mitosis. This unregulated cell growth leads to tumors, which can then spread to other nearby parts of the body through proximity. The lymphatic system and bloodstream can transmit cancer from one part of the body to others (referred to as metastasis).
Carcinogens are substances involved in causing cancer. These cancer-causing agents lead to cancer in ways other than DNA modification – such as accelerating cell division – leading to an increase in the opportunities for DNA changes to occur. The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual."1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. You're welcome. | |||
| |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that.
The facts speak for themselves - smoking causes cancer and it's idiotic to say otherwise - simple as that.
of smoking causes cancer then all smokers have cancer, is that really what you believe?
Your logic does not compute"
the whole argument is silly really
P.S white rabbit | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that.
The facts speak for themselves - smoking causes cancer and it's idiotic to say otherwise - simple as that.
except nobody medical has confirmed this at all. you will not find a single fact to back up your claim that smoking causes cancer.
the only known definite carcinogens are the ones found in cancerous tumours, smoking has never been a definite cause as nympho has already said.
Carcinogens and Cancer
11 APRIL 2013, BY ONCOSEC, 0 COMMENTS
The causes of cancer can be very broad and complicated. Increased cancer risks stem from genetic history, lifestyle choices, workplace exposures, household exposures, diet, and other factors. Generally, cancer occurs when a cell’s DNA is altered such that the cells go through normal programmed cell death slower than they divide via mitosis. This unregulated cell growth leads to tumors, which can then spread to other nearby parts of the body through proximity. The lymphatic system and bloodstream can transmit cancer from one part of the body to others (referred to as metastasis).
Carcinogens are substances involved in causing cancer. These cancer-causing agents lead to cancer in ways other than DNA modification – such as accelerating cell division – leading to an increase in the opportunities for DNA changes to occur. The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual.
1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals.
2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer.
3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer.
4. You're welcome."so explain why EVERY smoker does NOT have cancer | |||
| |||
"The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual. 1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. You're welcome." except read the above. they can and might not, so smoking will not cause cancer in everyone. nobody in my family who smokes has had cancer. also: Lab studies Scientists get much of their data about whether something might cause cancer from lab studies in cell cultures and animals. There are far too many substances (both natural and man-made) to test each one in lab animals, so scientists use what is already known about chemical structures, results from other types of lab tests, the extent of human exposure, and other factors to select chemicals for testing. For example, they can often get an idea about whether a substance might cause a problem by comparing it to similar chemicals that have already been studied. Although lab studies alone can't always predict if a substance will cause cancer in people, virtually all known human carcinogens that have been adequately tested also cause cancer in lab animals. In many cases, carcinogens are first found to cause cancer in lab animals and are later found to cause cancer in people. Most studies of potential carcinogens expose the lab animals to doses that are much higher than common human exposures. This is so that cancer risk can be detected in relatively small groups of animals. It is not always clear if the results from animal studies will be the same for people as they are normally exposed to a substance. For example, the effects seen in lab studies with very high doses of a substance may not be the same at much lower doses, or the effects of a substance when it is inhaled may not be the same as if it is applied to the skin. Also, the bodies of lab animals and humans don't always process substances in the same way. But for safety reasons, it is usually assumed that exposures that cause cancer at larger doses in animals may also cause cancer in people. It isn't always possible to know how the exposure dose might affect risk, but it is reasonable for public health purposes to assume that lowering human exposure will reduce risk. Studies in people Another important way to identify carcinogens is through epidemiologic studies, which look at human populations to determine which factors might be linked to cancer. These studies also provide useful information, but they have their limits. Humans do not live in a controlled environment. People are exposed to many substances at any given time, including those they encounter at work, school, or home; in the food they eat; and in the air they breathe. It's very unlikely they know exactly what they've been exposed to or that they would be able to remember all of their exposures if asked by a researcher. And there are usually many years (often decades) between exposure to a carcinogen and the development of cancer. Therefore, it can be very hard to definitely link any particular exposure to cancer. By combining data from both types of studies, scientists do their best to make an educated assessment of a substance's cancer-causing ability. When the evidence is conclusive, the substance is labeled as a carcinogen. When the available evidence is compelling but not felt to be conclusive, the substance may be considered to be a probable carcinogen. But in some cases there simply isn't enough information to be certain one way or the other. | |||
"I'm being attacked by smokers because I expressed my opinion on smoking and smokers - very fair minded people on here
to be fair this topic and no-one in it ever asked for your opinion.
It's a forum
and you don't know forum etiquette, so what?
Feel free to enlighten me on this "etiquette" you speak of
no. tell you what though, seeing as it's a 'fact' i'd like you to back up your claims now.
i know about DNA and cell replication so you can use the proper terminology and i'll be fine with that.
The facts speak for themselves - smoking causes cancer and it's idiotic to say otherwise - simple as that.
except nobody medical has confirmed this at all. you will not find a single fact to back up your claim that smoking causes cancer.
the only known definite carcinogens are the ones found in cancerous tumours, smoking has never been a definite cause as nympho has already said.
Carcinogens and Cancer
11 APRIL 2013, BY ONCOSEC, 0 COMMENTS
The causes of cancer can be very broad and complicated. Increased cancer risks stem from genetic history, lifestyle choices, workplace exposures, household exposures, diet, and other factors. Generally, cancer occurs when a cell’s DNA is altered such that the cells go through normal programmed cell death slower than they divide via mitosis. This unregulated cell growth leads to tumors, which can then spread to other nearby parts of the body through proximity. The lymphatic system and bloodstream can transmit cancer from one part of the body to others (referred to as metastasis).
Carcinogens are substances involved in causing cancer. These cancer-causing agents lead to cancer in ways other than DNA modification – such as accelerating cell division – leading to an increase in the opportunities for DNA changes to occur. The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual.
1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals.
2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer.
3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer.
4. You're welcome.
so explain why EVERY smoker does NOT have cancer "FACT - "smoking causes cancer" - that doesn't mean it causes every smoker in the world to have cancer all at the same time - so to imply or infer that from the FACT is an illogical conclusion to come to. As I said before 'the facts speak for themselves' - so listen. | |||
| |||
"The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual. 1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. You're welcome. except read the above. they can and might not, so smoking will not cause cancer in everyone. nobody in my family who smokes has had cancer. also: Lab studies Scientists get much of their data about whether something might cause cancer from lab studies in cell cultures and animals. There are far too many substances (both natural and man-made) to test each one in lab animals, so scientists use what is already known about chemical structures, results from other types of lab tests, the extent of human exposure, and other factors to select chemicals for testing. For example, they can often get an idea about whether a substance might cause a problem by comparing it to similar chemicals that have already been studied. Although lab studies alone can't always predict if a substance will cause cancer in people, virtually all known human carcinogens that have been adequately tested also cause cancer in lab animals. In many cases, carcinogens are first found to cause cancer in lab animals and are later found to cause cancer in people. Most studies of potential carcinogens expose the lab animals to doses that are much higher than common human exposures. This is so that cancer risk can be detected in relatively small groups of animals. It is not always clear if the results from animal studies will be the same for people as they are normally exposed to a substance. For example, the effects seen in lab studies with very high doses of a substance may not be the same at much lower doses, or the effects of a substance when it is inhaled may not be the same as if it is applied to the skin. Also, the bodies of lab animals and humans don't always process substances in the same way. But for safety reasons, it is usually assumed that exposures that cause cancer at larger doses in animals may also cause cancer in people. It isn't always possible to know how the exposure dose might affect risk, but it is reasonable for public health purposes to assume that lowering human exposure will reduce risk. Studies in people Another important way to identify carcinogens is through epidemiologic studies, which look at human populations to determine which factors might be linked to cancer. These studies also provide useful information, but they have their limits. Humans do not live in a controlled environment. People are exposed to many substances at any given time, including those they encounter at work, school, or home; in the food they eat; and in the air they breathe. It's very unlikely they know exactly what they've been exposed to or that they would be able to remember all of their exposures if asked by a researcher. And there are usually many years (often decades) between exposure to a carcinogen and the development of cancer. Therefore, it can be very hard to definitely link any particular exposure to cancer. By combining data from both types of studies, scientists do their best to make an educated assessment of a substance's cancer-causing ability. When the evidence is conclusive, the substance is labeled as a carcinogen. When the available evidence is compelling but not felt to be conclusive, the substance may be considered to be a probable carcinogen. But in some cases there simply isn't enough information to be certain one way or the other. " I never said smoking causes cancer "in everyone" I said "smoking CAUSES cancer" - and guess what? SMOKING CAUSE CANCER - simple. | |||
"The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual. 1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. You're welcome. except read the above. they can and might not, so smoking will not cause cancer in everyone. nobody in my family who smokes has had cancer. also: Lab studies Scientists get much of their data about whether something might cause cancer from lab studies in cell cultures and animals. There are far too many substances (both natural and man-made) to test each one in lab animals, so scientists use what is already known about chemical structures, results from other types of lab tests, the extent of human exposure, and other factors to select chemicals for testing. For example, they can often get an idea about whether a substance might cause a problem by comparing it to similar chemicals that have already been studied. Although lab studies alone can't always predict if a substance will cause cancer in people, virtually all known human carcinogens that have been adequately tested also cause cancer in lab animals. In many cases, carcinogens are first found to cause cancer in lab animals and are later found to cause cancer in people. Most studies of potential carcinogens expose the lab animals to doses that are much higher than common human exposures. This is so that cancer risk can be detected in relatively small groups of animals. It is not always clear if the results from animal studies will be the same for people as they are normally exposed to a substance. For example, the effects seen in lab studies with very high doses of a substance may not be the same at much lower doses, or the effects of a substance when it is inhaled may not be the same as if it is applied to the skin. Also, the bodies of lab animals and humans don't always process substances in the same way. But for safety reasons, it is usually assumed that exposures that cause cancer at larger doses in animals may also cause cancer in people. It isn't always possible to know how the exposure dose might affect risk, but it is reasonable for public health purposes to assume that lowering human exposure will reduce risk. Studies in people Another important way to identify carcinogens is through epidemiologic studies, which look at human populations to determine which factors might be linked to cancer. These studies also provide useful information, but they have their limits. Humans do not live in a controlled environment. People are exposed to many substances at any given time, including those they encounter at work, school, or home; in the food they eat; and in the air they breathe. It's very unlikely they know exactly what they've been exposed to or that they would be able to remember all of their exposures if asked by a researcher. And there are usually many years (often decades) between exposure to a carcinogen and the development of cancer. Therefore, it can be very hard to definitely link any particular exposure to cancer. By combining data from both types of studies, scientists do their best to make an educated assessment of a substance's cancer-causing ability. When the evidence is conclusive, the substance is labeled as a carcinogen. When the available evidence is compelling but not felt to be conclusive, the substance may be considered to be a probable carcinogen. But in some cases there simply isn't enough information to be certain one way or the other. I never said smoking causes cancer "in everyone" I said "smoking CAUSES cancer" - and guess what? SMOKING CAUSE CANCER - simple." except it doesn't, it's classed as a carcinogen and a RISK. you haven't even read that and it explains how scientists came to the conclusion that something is a carcinogen. fluoride is a carcinogenic and everyone uses that every day if you clean your teeth. so do you get that classing something as carcinogenic might not mean it even is a cause of cancer. | |||
"The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual. 1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. You're welcome. except read the above. they can and might not, so smoking will not cause cancer in everyone. nobody in my family who smokes has had cancer. also: Lab studies Scientists get much of their data about whether something might cause cancer from lab studies in cell cultures and animals. There are far too many substances (both natural and man-made) to test each one in lab animals, so scientists use what is already known about chemical structures, results from other types of lab tests, the extent of human exposure, and other factors to select chemicals for testing. For example, they can often get an idea about whether a substance might cause a problem by comparing it to similar chemicals that have already been studied. Although lab studies alone can't always predict if a substance will cause cancer in people, virtually all known human carcinogens that have been adequately tested also cause cancer in lab animals. In many cases, carcinogens are first found to cause cancer in lab animals and are later found to cause cancer in people. Most studies of potential carcinogens expose the lab animals to doses that are much higher than common human exposures. This is so that cancer risk can be detected in relatively small groups of animals. It is not always clear if the results from animal studies will be the same for people as they are normally exposed to a substance. For example, the effects seen in lab studies with very high doses of a substance may not be the same at much lower doses, or the effects of a substance when it is inhaled may not be the same as if it is applied to the skin. Also, the bodies of lab animals and humans don't always process substances in the same way. But for safety reasons, it is usually assumed that exposures that cause cancer at larger doses in animals may also cause cancer in people. It isn't always possible to know how the exposure dose might affect risk, but it is reasonable for public health purposes to assume that lowering human exposure will reduce risk. Studies in people Another important way to identify carcinogens is through epidemiologic studies, which look at human populations to determine which factors might be linked to cancer. These studies also provide useful information, but they have their limits. Humans do not live in a controlled environment. People are exposed to many substances at any given time, including those they encounter at work, school, or home; in the food they eat; and in the air they breathe. It's very unlikely they know exactly what they've been exposed to or that they would be able to remember all of their exposures if asked by a researcher. And there are usually many years (often decades) between exposure to a carcinogen and the development of cancer. Therefore, it can be very hard to definitely link any particular exposure to cancer. By combining data from both types of studies, scientists do their best to make an educated assessment of a substance's cancer-causing ability. When the evidence is conclusive, the substance is labeled as a carcinogen. When the available evidence is compelling but not felt to be conclusive, the substance may be considered to be a probable carcinogen. But in some cases there simply isn't enough information to be certain one way or the other. I never said smoking causes cancer "in everyone" I said "smoking CAUSES cancer" - and guess what? SMOKING CAUSE CANCER - simple." I would think your blanket statement had the inference that all smoking "causes" cancer ,it appears to me also the subsequent poster has you stumped for something more substantial to add to uphold your beliefs | |||
| |||
"The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual. 1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. You're welcome. except read the above. they can and might not, so smoking will not cause cancer in everyone. nobody in my family who smokes has had cancer. also: Lab studies Scientists get much of their data about whether something might cause cancer from lab studies in cell cultures and animals. There are far too many substances (both natural and man-made) to test each one in lab animals, so scientists use what is already known about chemical structures, results from other types of lab tests, the extent of human exposure, and other factors to select chemicals for testing. For example, they can often get an idea about whether a substance might cause a problem by comparing it to similar chemicals that have already been studied. Although lab studies alone can't always predict if a substance will cause cancer in people, virtually all known human carcinogens that have been adequately tested also cause cancer in lab animals. In many cases, carcinogens are first found to cause cancer in lab animals and are later found to cause cancer in people. Most studies of potential carcinogens expose the lab animals to doses that are much higher than common human exposures. This is so that cancer risk can be detected in relatively small groups of animals. It is not always clear if the results from animal studies will be the same for people as they are normally exposed to a substance. For example, the effects seen in lab studies with very high doses of a substance may not be the same at much lower doses, or the effects of a substance when it is inhaled may not be the same as if it is applied to the skin. Also, the bodies of lab animals and humans don't always process substances in the same way. But for safety reasons, it is usually assumed that exposures that cause cancer at larger doses in animals may also cause cancer in people. It isn't always possible to know how the exposure dose might affect risk, but it is reasonable for public health purposes to assume that lowering human exposure will reduce risk. Studies in people Another important way to identify carcinogens is through epidemiologic studies, which look at human populations to determine which factors might be linked to cancer. These studies also provide useful information, but they have their limits. Humans do not live in a controlled environment. People are exposed to many substances at any given time, including those they encounter at work, school, or home; in the food they eat; and in the air they breathe. It's very unlikely they know exactly what they've been exposed to or that they would be able to remember all of their exposures if asked by a researcher. And there are usually many years (often decades) between exposure to a carcinogen and the development of cancer. Therefore, it can be very hard to definitely link any particular exposure to cancer. By combining data from both types of studies, scientists do their best to make an educated assessment of a substance's cancer-causing ability. When the evidence is conclusive, the substance is labeled as a carcinogen. When the available evidence is compelling but not felt to be conclusive, the substance may be considered to be a probable carcinogen. But in some cases there simply isn't enough information to be certain one way or the other. I never said smoking causes cancer "in everyone" I said "smoking CAUSES cancer" - and guess what? SMOKING CAUSE CANCER - simple.I would think your blanket statement had the inference that all smoking "causes" cancer ,it appears to me also the subsequent poster has you stumped for something more substantial to add to uphold your beliefs " Logic - 1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. Logic doesn't lie. 5. You're welcome. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
" Logic - 1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. Logic doesn't lie. 5. You're welcome." you keep missing out the word CAN smoking CAN cause cancer there is no evidance what so ever to prove it does there are more smokers that never get cancer than ones who do, suggesting you have more chance of NOT getting cancer if you smoke than getting it as you say logic does not lie the percentage of smokers who develop lung cancer is 7.62% in men and 6.61% in women, which is obviously higher than we would like but way to low to say smoking causes cancer and out of those who do there is no way of knowing if they would have developed cancer had they not smoked, thousands if none smokers still get lung cancer | |||
"doesn't petrol and diesel contain carcinogens too ? a different substance yes but does it cause cancer ?if so arnt we all breathing in toxic potential harmful chemicals on a daily basis whether we smoke Tabbaco or not ? " the way they class something as carcinogenic though is by giving high doses of something to animals and see if they get tumours or by correlating info from the population that might not be factually corect. kiler and pesticides are carcinogenic if you work with them and you need to use safety equipment to handle large doses of them, but for most of us we just use them in small doses and it won't effect us enough to cause any damage. there's also 3 classes of carcinogens in the uk: European Union The European Union classification of carcinogens is contained in the Dangerous Substances Directive and the Dangerous Preparations Directive. It consists of three categories: Category 1: Substances known to be carcinogenic to humans. Category 2: Substances which should be regarded as if they are carcinogenic to humans. Category 3: Substances which cause concern for humans, owing to possible carcinogenic effects but in respect of which the available information is not adequate for making a satisfactory assessment. | |||
| |||
"Smokers trying to say smoking doesn't cause cancer - an age old unbiased position to take of course." ive never said it cant, ive just said all the way through its not as cut and dry as saying smoking does cause cancer loads of things can cause cells to mutate, smoking is a very small contributor to cancer | |||
"As much as I'd like to continue to try to engage with a few select members of the more illogical half of humanity in a purely logical debate - I can't - I must sleep instead - so piss off "you've demonstrated no logic at all. just kept repeating yourself and saying facts and not backing them up with anything at all. good night. | |||
"doesn't petrol and diesel contain carcinogens too ? a different substance yes but does it cause cancer ?if so arnt we all breathing in toxic potential harmful chemicals on a daily basis whether we smoke Tabbaco or not ? " yeah but its ok for us none drivers to breath their harmful shit in | |||
"As much as I'd like to continue to try to engage with a few select members of the more illogical half of humanity in a purely logical debate - I can't - I must sleep instead - so piss off
you've demonstrated no logic at all. just kept repeating yourself and saying facts and not backing them up with anything at all.
good night.
"he did back it up he said FACT not fact | |||
"As much as I'd like to continue to try to engage with a few select members of the more illogical half of humanity in a purely logical debate - I can't - I must sleep instead - so piss off
you've demonstrated no logic at all. just kept repeating yourself and saying facts and not backing them up with anything at all.
good night.
he did back it up he said FACT not fact "haha, well yes i'm sure that is a well known scientific method i haven't heard of. the sun gives us cancer, fucking summer trying to kill everyone. | |||
"As much as I'd like to continue to try to engage with a few select members of the more illogical half of humanity in a purely logical debate - I can't - I must sleep instead - so piss off
you've demonstrated no logic at all. just kept repeating yourself and saying facts and not backing them up with anything at all.
good night.
he did back it up he said FACT not fact
haha, well yes i'm sure that is a well known scientific method i haven't heard of.
the sun gives us cancer, fucking summer trying to kill everyone."thats ok im going to incland on holiday this year no chance of the sun killing me there | |||
"As much as I'd like to continue to try to engage with a few select members of the more illogical half of humanity in a purely logical debate - I can't - I must sleep instead - so piss off
you've demonstrated no logic at all. just kept repeating yourself and saying facts and not backing them up with anything at all.
good night.
he did back it up he said FACT not fact
haha, well yes i'm sure that is a well known scientific method i haven't heard of.
the sun gives us cancer, fucking summer trying to kill everyone.
thats ok im going to incland on holiday this year no chance of the sun killing me there "don't usually get any up here in the north west tbh, if i get skin cancer i will be gutted because i've never had a tan. i feel quite nerdy after this topic. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
I like being outside and often find myself sat with the smokers all night | |||
"The risk of developing cancer is an interplay between many factors, such as the nature of the exposure, the intensity and duration of the exposure, and genetic factors. Therefore, exposure to carcinogens does not result in cancer in every situation and the risks are different, from individual to individual. 1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. You're welcome. except read the above. they can and might not, so smoking will not cause cancer in everyone. nobody in my family who smokes has had cancer. also: Lab studies Scientists get much of their data about whether something might cause cancer from lab studies in cell cultures and animals. There are far too many substances (both natural and man-made) to test each one in lab animals, so scientists use what is already known about chemical structures, results from other types of lab tests, the extent of human exposure, and other factors to select chemicals for testing. For example, they can often get an idea about whether a substance might cause a problem by comparing it to similar chemicals that have already been studied. Although lab studies alone can't always predict if a substance will cause cancer in people, virtually all known human carcinogens that have been adequately tested also cause cancer in lab animals. In many cases, carcinogens are first found to cause cancer in lab animals and are later found to cause cancer in people. Most studies of potential carcinogens expose the lab animals to doses that are much higher than common human exposures. This is so that cancer risk can be detected in relatively small groups of animals. It is not always clear if the results from animal studies will be the same for people as they are normally exposed to a substance. For example, the effects seen in lab studies with very high doses of a substance may not be the same at much lower doses, or the effects of a substance when it is inhaled may not be the same as if it is applied to the skin. Also, the bodies of lab animals and humans don't always process substances in the same way. But for safety reasons, it is usually assumed that exposures that cause cancer at larger doses in animals may also cause cancer in people. It isn't always possible to know how the exposure dose might affect risk, but it is reasonable for public health purposes to assume that lowering human exposure will reduce risk. Studies in people Another important way to identify carcinogens is through epidemiologic studies, which look at human populations to determine which factors might be linked to cancer. These studies also provide useful information, but they have their limits. Humans do not live in a controlled environment. People are exposed to many substances at any given time, including those they encounter at work, school, or home; in the food they eat; and in the air they breathe. It's very unlikely they know exactly what they've been exposed to or that they would be able to remember all of their exposures if asked by a researcher. And there are usually many years (often decades) between exposure to a carcinogen and the development of cancer. Therefore, it can be very hard to definitely link any particular exposure to cancer. By combining data from both types of studies, scientists do their best to make an educated assessment of a substance's cancer-causing ability. When the evidence is conclusive, the substance is labeled as a carcinogen. When the available evidence is compelling but not felt to be conclusive, the substance may be considered to be a probable carcinogen. But in some cases there simply isn't enough information to be certain one way or the other. I never said smoking causes cancer "in everyone" I said "smoking CAUSES cancer" - and guess what? SMOKING CAUSE CANCER - simple.I would think your blanket statement had the inference that all smoking "causes" cancer ,it appears to me also the subsequent poster has you stumped for something more substantial to add to uphold your beliefs Logic - 1. Tobacco smoke contains CARCINOGENS - which are cancer CAUSING chemicals. 2. Cancer CAUSING chemicals CAUSE cancer. 3. Conclusion - smoking CAUSES cancer. 4. Logic doesn't lie. 5. You're welcome." Every time you post I hear a whoooosh noise. Like something going straight over your head.
| |||
| |||
"Wow that escalated quickly...... wish I'd not bothered sharing now lol" Haha you crack on and share whatever you like hun take no notice x x
(Mrs) | |||
"doesn't petrol and diesel contain carcinogens too ? a different substance yes but does it cause cancer ?if so arnt we all breathing in toxic potential harmful chemicals on a daily basis whether we smoke Tabbaco or not ? yeah but its ok for us none drivers to breath their harmful shit in "If you didn't smoke you'd save a minimum of £2200 a year on a 20 box a day so you'd then be able to afford to drive instead of deliberately breathing in and poisoning yourself with harmful tobacco smoke every day instead.. because it's healthier to drive than it is to smoke | |||
"doesn't petrol and diesel contain carcinogens too ? a different substance yes but does it cause cancer ?if so arnt we all breathing in toxic potential harmful chemicals on a daily basis whether we smoke Tabbaco or not ? yeah but its ok for us none drivers to breath their harmful shit in
If you didn't smoke you'd save a minimum of £2200 a year on a 20 box a day so you'd then be able to afford to drive instead of deliberately breathing in and poisoning yourself with harmful tobacco smoke every day instead.. because it's healthier to drive than it is to smoke"And there's that whoosh noise again....... | |||
"doesn't petrol and diesel contain carcinogens too ? a different substance yes but does it cause cancer ?if so arnt we all breathing in toxic potential harmful chemicals on a daily basis whether we smoke Tabbaco or not ? yeah but its ok for us none drivers to breath their harmful shit in
If you didn't smoke you'd save a minimum of £2200 a year on a 20 box a day so you'd then be able to afford to drive instead of deliberately breathing in and poisoning yourself with harmful tobacco smoke every day instead.. because it's healthier to drive than it is to smoke
And there's that whoosh noise again....... "( ) | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Smokers trying to say smoking doesn't cause cancer - an age old unbiased position to take of course." but I'm not a smoker | |||
"doesn't petrol and diesel contain carcinogens too ? a different substance yes but does it cause cancer ?if so arnt we all breathing in toxic potential harmful chemicals on a daily basis whether we smoke Tabbaco or not ? yeah but its ok for us none drivers to breath their harmful shit in
If you didn't smoke you'd save a minimum of £2200 a year on a 20 box a day so you'd then be able to afford to drive instead of deliberately breathing in and poisoning yourself with harmful tobacco smoke every day instead.. because it's healthier to drive than it is to smoke"like ive already pointed out I don't smoke and do own a car too | |||
| |||
