Incense

Incense! Ah, I can still smell the sweet fragrance from my old college dorm hallways. There were two guys that were always burning incense - behind closed and locked doors. But even though I knew why it was burning, I did enjoy the smell. Perhaps the memory of college life is what causes me to remember fondly the aroma wafting in the hallways.

But incense is not so much a part of life now. I'm not around a lot of people who use it. But I do know that some smokers will burn it in their homes to help cover up the smell of the cigarette smoke. Is that a good idea though? I mean, they already have a ton of smoke, why add to it. Well, researchers were curious about the same thing and published their findings in Environmental Health Perspectives. They wondered if burning incense would increase the risk for lung cancer.

Burning incense is known to have a large amount of pollutants, of which some are known or suspected to cause lung cancer. Okay, so what do you think they found? Well, the burning incense at home didn't increase the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers, but it did increase the risk in smokers. In fact, they describe the relationship as a synergistic one. To complicate this effect, the researchers also discovered that if radon was present in the home, along with the incense burning and cigarette smoking, the risk was even higher.

So what is the take home message? 1) Stop smoking, then you won't need the incense. 2) If you continue to smoke, at least stop burning the incense. 3) If you won't stop smoking or burning incense, then move to a house that doesn't have radon. But if you're going to go to all the trouble, you might as well just stop smoking, it will be easier and cheaper in the long run.

Trusting the Tobacco Companies

Okay, I know on the surface that asking a question like, "Can you trust the tobacco companies" is a little like saying can you trust a politician. We all know the answer. But lets just say, for the sake of argument, that we don't already know the answer. Is there any compelling documentation or proof that tobacco has acted in their own self interest in the face of overwhelming evidence that their products cause harm? I know, I know, just bare with me.

There is this thing in cigarette smoke called radioactive polonium 210 [(210)Po]. Yeah, it sounds nasty doesn't it? So if it's radioactive then does it do bad stuff when inhaled into the lungs? Intuition tells me yes, but lets continue. An article in Nicotine and Tobacco Research analyzed the internal secret documents that were made available by the Master Settlement Agreement of 1998. Wow, that sounded nefarious. Anyway, what did these documents tell us about (210)Po?

It looks like the industry was aware of this radioactive substance way back in 1959. Hello, is this thing on? That's 1959, 52 years ago. These secret documents also state that Big Tobacco knew of the potential for cancerous growth in smokers' lungs and estimated long-term radiation absorption doses emitted from the cigarette smoke. The amazingly accurate calculations were that inhaled tobacco would cause roughly 130 lung cancer deaths per 1,000 smokers per year. That's an astounding 13% death rate among smokers for just lung cancer alone. Still want that cigarette? But wait, that's not even the half of it, there's more.

In 1980, the industry discovered that you could acid wash the tobacco leaves which would effectively remove the (210)Po. Sounds great, right? Oh, but there is this little problem with acid washing. It does have an unwanted side-affect. You see, it ionized the nicotine, thereby effectively reducing its absorption into the brain. Since they knew nicotine was the hook that kept smokers coming back for more, the industry - as a whole - avoided the process. In other words, they would rather make money than save lives. I think they call this "blood money".

If this became known back in 1980 and then public in 1998, then why isn't acid washing currently performed on the tobacco leaves? Good question! It seems like a causal death rate in excess of 10% would be enough for conscience-minded people to take action and begin initiating the process of removing (210)Po. If the industry doesn't do it, then why, at the very least, doesn't the government make them? The whole idea of acting in the "public's best interest" and all. A question to ask your congressman or woman. Oh, but I'm reminded of how I started this post...you know, about "who you can trust".

So isn't it time you, quite literally, put down your "death stick" and joined the millions of people who have quit smoking?

Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction from CT Scan Screening

Today's study comes from the journal Lung Cancer and looks at the benefit of CT Scans to reduce lung cancer mortality. As many already know, smoking causes roughly 90% of all lung cancers, among many other terrible diseases. This particular study looked at a cohort of 7995 smokers who had a CT scan screen in New York. They compared this group to two unscreened cohorts (we'll call them A and B).

The researchers then had to do some fancy footwork to standardize the mortality ratio (to adjust for age, sex, and smoking history). The results showed a significant reduction in deaths from lung cancer. Thirty-six percent reduction from group A and 64% from group B.

So here is a case where smokers basically had a CT screening of their lungs despite having no other symptoms. These were pre-emptive, as it were. There are always discussions among lawmakers and healthcare professionals alike, as to whether we should do screening like this, because it's so expensive.

In the case of smokers, however, the evidence is pretty clear. CT screening is a great tool and can be part of a cost-avoidance strategy in this population. Ultimately though, it's better for the smoker to just stop smoking. That simple act can provide them with real disease prevention and decrease their health dollar expenditures.

beta-carotene Supplements for Smokers: Good or Bad?

Vitamins are good, right? Of course they are. It's a multi-billion dollar industry. Since everyone is taking vitamins and supplements, that must mean smokers should too. I recently came across an article at Prescrire that spoke to this topic.

Apparently, beta-carotene is an excellent supplement for those wanting to stave off lung cancer and the like. Eat lots of fruits and veggies to live a healthy life. Well, if you're a smoker, you may want to hold on just a minute. I'm not saying don't eat right, but think twice before taking a carrot supplement. That's right, beta-carotene supplements did not reduce a smoker's risk for developing lung cancer. On the contrary, it actually increased their risk of developing lung cancer!

Whoa! What a shocker that was. Apparently, beta-carotene supplements of 20-30 mg's did in fact, cause a statistically significant increase in the chance of lung cancer in smokers.

I've got an easy answer to the problem. You can either not take the beta-carotene or you can stop smoking. Well, since this is a stop smoking blog, you should be able to guess my recommendation.  That's right, stop smoking and  head to the health store, just don't be surprised if your skin turns a nice shade of orange.

As always, if you need a little extra stop smoking help, you can visit our website.