More on Smoking and Cancer

       I found your article on smoking quite interesting. (And I am currently a smoker.  I have quit several times, but can't stand the weight gain that occurs.  I am a 45 year old woman, with Fibromyalgia.)
       In 1984-86, I attended a community college where I majored in Psychology.  My professor had stated that it is impossible to ethically prove that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Some smokers never get lung cancer, and some who have never smoked a cigarette in their lives get lung cancer.
       It may well be that smokers have an inability to handle stress, and that this is part of the reason they smoke. Also, cigarette smokers usually have addictive personalities. 
       He stated that the only way to ever prove that cigarettes cause cancer is to randomly select a large group of children. Again, by random selection, one must divide them into two groups...half of them most smoke, and half are to never smoke. Then compare the incidence of lung cancer. Since this method is, of course, quite unethical, it can never be proven that it is cigarettes that cause lung cancer. 
       I just wanted to run that by you. I do intend to quit again, and I don't want my kids to smoke. But, I appreciated your article that supports the notion that cigarettes do not CAUSE cancer, only increase the risk. 

Thanks...
Lisa Messmer  dalmatia@eburg.com

Response from Dr. Siepmann: 

Recent studies have shown that for a certain subset of people, they are better off smoking than not. These are people whose blood pressure, stress, etc are improved with smoking. You are right that many smokers do have certain common characteristics such as you describe.

You are absolutely right that no controlled double-blind study can ever be done, so the true role of smoking in the development of lung cancer will never be accurately delineated. Just as recent studies have shown that alcohol used in moderation (1-3 drinks per day) may lengthen one's lifespan, there may be a benefit to moderate smoking (< 1 ppd) as it may decrease stress and improve resistance to certain respiratory infections (an unpublished WHO study).

Grandiose statements such as "smoking causes lung cancer" are patently false and prevent true intellectual debate and study. Though I personally dislike cigarettes, I dislike even more the intellectual dishonesty that is occurring among the scientific and medical communities.

Sincerely,
Dr. Siepmann

*   *   *   *  *

Jim,       

       You were too abrasive with the nuisance Mary Back, who only deserved a spanking for casting aspersions.
       Now, what is the incidence of lung cancer as a cause of death? If it is "small," then smoking should be of little concern when the smoker finds stopping too difficult. Less than 5% of heavy smokers die of lung cancer? Even 3% is too much if the incidence in nonsmokers is significantly lower. 80% of lung cancers occur in smokers: How is it in nonsmokers? Do smokers live significantly longer so that their chance of getting cancer is significantly increased? 
       Perhaps people developing lung cancer are genetically predisposed to it and simultaneously to a penchant for smoking? Do experiments in rats show a difference when exposed to tobacco smoke? 

Jacob Ghitits  ghitis@isdn.net.il 

Response from Dr. Siepmann: 

       Even though the risk of getting lung cancer from smoking is increased 10-40x that of a nonsmoker, the overall chance of a smoker getting lung cancer is only a couple percent. That 10-40x risk seems like a lot only because nonsmokers have less than 0.1% chance of getting lung cancer. For more info look at Appendix A of the article or check out the references given for actual data. Though I personally dislike cigarettes and think no one should smoke unless they understand the risks (i.e. lung cancer risk of <5%), but I deplore intellectual dishonesty more. 

Sincerely,
Dr. (Jim) Siepmann

*   *   *   *  *

My two bob's worth...

Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Having a genetic susceptibility to cigarette smoking causes cancer.  ALSO, I am currently developing the theory that stress is actually the common denominator of all cancers. I will of course have to go to great lengths to re-define stress for all of you, so that you are able to grasp the twist in logic needed to see how this could be so. My eldest brother is one of the epidemiologists who presented research data to the successful lawsuit against the tobacco companies in the USA. I am not on their payroll either. George Burns smoked cigars his whole life.  He was stress free and genetically strong because of this.

Glen Angus Graham  redshift@senet.com.au 

Re: The Journal's Editorials

      I would like to comment on two of your editorials that I found extremely interesting. [Note - A paper of mine (Atomic Electrons Field Mechanics) currently appears in The Journal of Theoretics Comprehensive Articles section.]
      The first of the editorials that I would like to comment on is your Feb/March editorial "Why Time does not Exist".  I not only concur with what you have written, but I felt you might enjoy something I discovered years ago on your subject that had a great deal to do with the article I that I have recently placed in your journal. I never bought the quantum mechanical argument of light's exclusivity with regard to its particle and wave nature. Instead, I reasoned that light would exhibit both wave and particle properties simultaneously. From this I reasoned that it had to be possible to write an down an energy equation for light where both its particle and wave properties showed up together. 
      The simple equation took the form E = psf, where p is momentum, s displacement, and f the frequency of displacement.  For the case of electromagnetic radiation, s is wavelength, the product ps is Planck's constant, and the product sf = c. The important issue is that time is not in the equation. As you point out, time is not a good fundamental physical concept on which to base our physics. I found in place of the current conceptual base of time displacement and time, the base momentum, displacement, and frequency were far more useful and matched far better with observations.  Frequency, unlike time, applies to all physical events and I feel that is similar to what you said in somewhat different words.
      In my paper, I began by showing a simple equation for radiation frequency and then showing how this simple equation not only matched with experimental results but also explained Rydberg's equation and provided the basis of a new interpretation for Schroedinger's equation. However, in my attempt to keep the paper from growing too long, I never mentioned how I came by the equation in the first place. Obviously, I could have derived it from Rydberg's equation just by moving in the opposite direction. But in actuality it was arrived at from the equation I mentioned above (E = psf) which ties back to your ideas about time.
      Your second editorial which I will be more succinct in commenting on is your Oct/Nov 2001 editorial "Why Theoretics". Sadly I agree with you. Not only is the emphasis too great on experiment, but whatever theory is given in the popular journals always rests upon the currently accepted models. As you say there is a mental inertia against new ideas. Novel ideas, no matter how well supported by logic or math, will not appear unless the authors have very strong reputations. The community of physics has become a priesthood and today's popular journals are merely biblical commentaries. 
      I would like to think that because of the communication the Journal of Theoretics provides to those who have their minds open to new theory, the validating experiment I described briefly in my article will be performed leading to a new understanding of physical phenomena. Yet more important than my gaining acceptance for my work is that the problem in the current structure of the physics institution will be brought to light. When that day comes the Journal of Theoretics will become the norm rather than the exception. 
      Thank you for your journal, and thank you for editorials. It brings a smile to my face to find there are others out their who understand the obstacles to presenting new theory, and who are actively revealing for others to see this state of affairs in physics. 

Sincerely, 
Joel Sheinmel  jsheinmel@hotmail.com

[This was another email from Joel Sheinmel.]

       I recently placed a paper in your journal and was very pleased by how easy the Journal of Theoretics makes it for authors. Your submission process is user friendly, your format guidelines non-intrusive, and your review process timely. Most importantly, your journal provides a quality forum for long standing theoretical issues to be addressed and communicated. I wish to thank everyone involved with the Journal of Theoretics for their dedication to science.

Sincerely,
Joel Sheinmel   jsheinmel@hotmail.com