backtop


Print 14 comment(s) - last by Bostlabs.. on Aug 9 at 7:31 PM


A massive new pair of studies show those who smoke soon after waking up have a higher risk of multiple cancer types.  (Source: Alamy)

Smoking is linked to multiple deadly cancers.  (Source: World Health Organization)
Smokers, beware, your fate may rest on how quickly you light up after waking

It seems intuitive when you think about it -- those who must smoke the quickest after waking, are likely the most addicted to cigarettes.  And smokers who are most addicted, likely use more cigarettes on average, and thus have a higher cancer risk.

This straightforward hypothesis has been upheld in a pair of studies [1][2] currently previewed in the journal Cancer.  Penn State University College of Medicine researcher Joshua E. Muscat, Ph.D, was the lead author on both studies.

The first study surveyed 4,776 smokers with lung cancer, and 2,835 smokers without lung cancer (7,611 total smokers).  It found that those who smoked within half an hour of waking up were 80 percent more likely to have lung cancer than those who waited an hour.  Those who waited between 30 and 60 minutes were 30 percent more likely than those who waited a full hour.

The second study told a similar tale when it came to neck and throat cancers.  Those smoking between within 30 minutes of waking were 60 percent more likely, and those who smoked within 31-60 minutes were 40 percent more likely to develop these cancers than those waited more than an hour.

Based on these results, one would expect early morning consumption to also be linked to other tobacco-related ailments, such as brain damage.

Dr. Joshua Muscat suggested the possible link between level addiction and how quickly one had to indulge in a morning smoke, stating, "These smokers have higher levels of nicotine and possibly other tobacco toxins in their body, and they may be more addicted than smokers who refrain from smoking for a half hour or more."

Nicotine, the primary addictive chemical in tobacco smoke, has a half life of 2 hours in the body, meaning half of its dose is metabolically consumed within two hours of intake via inhalation.  Thus by six hours a mere 12.5 percent of the previous evening's dose remains, and by eight hours, only 6.25 percent, assuming the smoker lit up just before bed.

Despite the seemingly intuitive nature of this line of reasoning, the study authors, include Muscat emphasize caution, writing, "It is uncertain what explanation there is for the relationship."

Ultimately, the reason for the trend may be less important than the trend itself.  By identifying a high-risk subgroup within smokers, doctors have a new, target to focus their most concerted smoking cessation efforts on. 

Smoking and cancer were first linked by studies in the 1950s, but smoking was not categorized as a physiological and psychological addiction by the American Psychiatric Association until 1980.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

crappy headline
By Smilin on 8/8/2011 6:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Bunch of correllation does not equal cause BS in that headline. It all gets dashed in the first couple paragraphs though.




RE: crappy headline
By Warwulf on 8/8/2011 7:01:04 PM , Rating: 3
Would be interesting if the quantity consumed was kept constant and the only variable was the time of consumption was varied. That wouldd show causation. But without that, just correlation.


RE: crappy headline
By wolrah on 8/9/2011 2:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I think the first paragraph is likely right, those who smoke first thing in the morning are probably the most addicted and thus smoke more. I'd feel comfortable betting a decent sum that if the study were controlled for quantity smoked per day there would be no significant difference relating to time other than possibly corner cases like smoking the day's quantity in a sitting rather than spread out over the day.


yeah
By voodoochile123 on 8/8/2011 10:05:11 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah well, don't smoke and you can still get cancer, so whatever.




RE: yeah
By Gondorff on 8/8/2011 11:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
I could possibly be shot at any point, so I might as well just join the army and go to the front lines without wearing my helmet or any protective gear.

...

Take your lazy sophism and rationalizing elsewhere.


RE: yeah
By Breathless on 8/9/2011 9:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
That's some grade A idiocy right there...

What kind of crappy reasoning is that?


RE: yeah
By Bostlabs on 8/9/2011 7:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
You don't agree with what he is saying?

I know/known several people that have never smoked a day in their life that have had and or died of cancer.

My Uncle for one.

There are many different forms of cancer. Lung cancer is only one. Yes smoking can increase your risk of lung, mouth and throat cancer, but there are other forms that you can get as well and not even touch tobacco.


Who pays for these studies???
By herbstemple on 8/8/2011 6:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
This data is completely redundant. Yes, we know cigarettes contain carcinogens, which cause cancer. Does it matter what time of day this occurs?

Does this same organization also study how cold ice is and if it is colder in the morning or evening?




RE: Who pays for these studies???
By The Raven on 8/9/2011 9:48:23 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know but whoever is paying for them is wasting their (but likely grant or taxpayer) money. Even if this info was true (which doesn't exactly sound like it adds up completely), I don't think it will be swaying anyone on the whole, "Should I smoke or not?" debate. Udder waste of money.

I would be remiss if I didn't link this well known video:
http://www.theonion.com/video/study-multiple-stab-...


By The Raven on 8/9/2011 10:07:30 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I could've been completely wrong if the result was that smoking in the morning (or any other time of day in particular) would mean that you are somehow protected from the effects of smoking. Then it would be ok to smoke in the morning but not the evening or something like that.

But who would be stupid enough to waste money on even something like that? I could see the tobacco companies trying to push that, but I guess they are not that stupid, because even if they could "prove" that, I doubt anyone would listen to them, or even care.


This just in:
By Icopoli on 8/8/2011 8:23:42 PM , Rating: 2
Smoking cigarettes can cause cancer.

More news at 11.




RE: This just in:
By The Raven on 8/9/2011 10:09:43 AM , Rating: 2
And in an unrelated story, smokers most likely don't give a rat's @sz about the effects of smoking.


Study: Morning masturbation cures morning wood
By vapore0n on 8/9/2011 7:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
And also makes you feel better for the rest of the day.




By Digimonkey on 8/9/2011 8:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
and also helps reduce your chances of prostate cancer


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki