Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

There is yet no definitive causal link between smoking and cancer [discuss] Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Simple as really discuss the proposition, i'm rather curious to see peoples arguements to both sides)Do bare in mind though the proposition does not mean that there's no higher incidence of cancer in smokers nor is it saying in any way, shape or form that it doesn't cause irreprable harm. It is merely that as of yet there is no absolute unassailible proof that smoking = cancer
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Napp)
    Simple as really discuss the proposition, i'm rather curious to see peoples arguements to both sides)Do bare in mind though the proposition does not mean that there's no higher incidence of cancer in smokers nor is it saying in any way, shape or form that it doesn't cause irreprable harm. It is merely that as of yet there is no absolute unassailible proof that smoking = cancer
    Outside of maths and closed systems, couldn't you say the same thing for pretty much any argument? I.e., no absolute proof. 99.9% perhaps, but never a 100% certainty?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Bonkers mate. This one is certainly proven beyond reasonable doubt. Do a bit of Googling and I'm sure you'll come up with some credible research. But more simply, they haven't curbed tobacco marketing in every conceivable format for nothing.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Final Fantasy)
    Outside of maths and closed systems, couldn't you say the same thing for pretty much any argument? I.e., no absolute proof. 99.9% perhaps, but never a 100% certainty?
    To a point yes but whilst with say... smoking there is absolute proof that if you smoke many cigarettes for many years it will damage your lungs [to the point of emphasima maybe/maybe not] with cancer there is yet any iron clad evidence that you will develop cancer at some stage, i mean its obviously likely however whilst many do a reasonable number dont plus theres nothing actually proving that said cancer was caused by smoking itself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarek)
    Bonkers mate. This one is certainly proven beyond reasonable doubt. Do a bit of Googling and I'm sure you'll come up with some credible research. But more simply, they haven't curbed tobacco marketing in every conceivable format for nothing.
    I made no comment on whether or not I agreed or not, either way the arguement can still go both ways depending on how you argue it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Idiot.. Nothing is absolute.... Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. An exception can break reality but merely existing. Most evidence does suggest a link between smoking and cancer. Inhaling fumes must be bad, why do we have a aversion to smoke then? We don't group around large releases of smoke do we? Most people tend to hate the smell and for good reason. If you can't trust Science atleast trust your body to move from that horrid stench. Obviously im against smoking as im a sufferer of second-hand smoking but that entails bias. But most of my stuff still stands.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp;[url="tel:66819736")
    66819736[/url]]I made no comment on whether or not I agreed or not, either way the arguement can still go both ways depending on how you argue it.
    Yes, the tobacco lobby tried this for years, but even they have given up.
    • Section Leader
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    No proof is ever 100% but does that matter when smoking is clearly harmful to people's health even if it doesn't cause cancer in everyone . ( Lost two relatives potentially (one almost definetly did) due to smoking, one from lung cancer, one due to too much tar in their artery for surgery for a repair to be successful)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am convinced so I am taking up smoking
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    But there is a link between me coughing, pulling a disgusted face and smoking

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Small/Oat cell carcinoma: an aggressive lung cancer that is found almost exclusively in smokers (98 - 99% correlation)

    To have this kind of cancer, and not be a smoker/passive smoker, is incredibly rare.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Seems like a pretty silly discussion to me.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.