OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)

[email address is blocked due to 100K+ p.a.
unsolicited email, spam, viruses, etc.]

A few times over the years there have been posts
referring to smoking and lung cancer. I stayed out of
those discussions until several months ago. I did this,
in part, because I was attempting to get to professional
researchers in an effort to get the [US] government to
re-evaluate its claim. I tried first with a member of
Congress, hoping to be put in touch a professional.
When that failed, I tried to get into court using legal
assitance to force the government to evaluate my
findings. Last week, I received a form letter declining
legal assistance. Since I can't seem to get into court,
you are my jury.

On January 1, 1992, after hearing a news item
concerning a law suit against tobacco companies,
I decided to investigate the claim that smoking causes
lung cancer. For a few weeks I read articles about
cancer and reviewed various claims about what causes
various types of cancer. After that I continued by reading
the occasional magazine article and generally paying
attention to what others claimed, all the while rejecting
the claim that smoking causes lung cancer.

In April 1994, I heard a news item that said "Today, the
[US] National Instututes of Health reported an increase
in the lung cancer rate among female smokers. No
expanation was given." Immediately, the word "radiation"
came to mind. This was followed by the explanation ,
"During the late 1980's there was an increased awareness
of breast cancer. This led more females, including more
female smokers, to get mammograms. Stray x-radiation
from the mammograms caused the lung cancer." It then
follows that if an increase in radiation exposure caused
the increase in cancer, then it is a cause of lung cancer.

[As I would work it out later, the "increased awareness"
occurred in October 1988, the increased exposure was
during 1989, the increased cancer was 1993, and reported
in 1994.]

To this day, I have no idea why those words came to mind.
For a couple years, I tried occassionaly to understand why
but finally gave up.

Then in Octeber 1997, my father (now deceased) was
diagnosed with bladder cancer. The cancer occurred 44
months after exposure to radiation. This was his second
incident. The first was 12 years earlier and also occurred
about 4 years after a visit to a chiropractor, where, I
assume, a spinal x-ray was taken.

Through the end of 2000, there were a other things that I
saw or heard that suggested radiation preceded cancer but
no hard evidence. In 2001, I decided to try to understand
how radiation might cause lung cancer. Once again, I chose
to just read a lot of articles about x-rays, chemicals, tobacco,
etc., to see if I could find the connection.

On the morning of September 2, 2001, I sat, as I had been
doing every morning for months, at my computer to spend
some time just thinking about the "how". On that morning, the
lyrics at the end of the Moody Blues song "Nights in White
Satin" kept repeating in my head.

Cold hearted orb that rules the night
Removes the colors from our sight
Red is gray and yellow white
But we decide which is right
And which is an illusion

As these lyrics repeated, I was looking at the red mouse
pad next to my keyboard. I occurred to me that a red
mouse pad is not red when there is no light shining on it.
Next I got a flashlight, aimed it at the mouse pad, and
pressed the switch. The mouse pad lit up as almost
white. That is when I understood: When x-rays pass
through the lungs, it strikes the residue of tobacco smoke
lining the lungs stimulting unltra-violet radiation. It is the
untra-violet that causes the damage that leads to cancer.

The explanation is simple chemistry but, by unconsciously
simulating an x-ray machine, it became clear.

By the begining of 2002, I had this understanding. The
accumulation, in the lungs, of the residue of tobacco smoke
creates a condition that makes certain forms of radiation
hazardous. These include x-rays and particle emissions
from radon. When cancer occurs from x-ray exposure,
it occurs at nearly four years after exposure.

But this understanding is a hypothesis based on little
hard evidence. Nonetheless, I tried to get the [US]
government to recognize this alternative to its claim.
Instead, I got this from he who was elected to
represent me. "I speculate that while radiation passing
through lung tissue may get absorbed by the buildup of
tobacco smoke, as you suggest, and then cause cell
mutation, it is still the tobacco smoke, not the radiation
from x-rays, that is the proximate cause of lung cancer."

In mid-October 2002, I turned my attention to
documents where I might find more evidence. The
first of these is the American Cancer Society report,
"Cancer Prevention & Early Detection Facts &
Figures 2002".
< http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CPED2002PWSecured.pdf >
The chart on page 4 shows some anomalies.

Looking at 1948, there is an intermediate peak for
lung cancer deaths for both men and women. This is
preceded by a rise above trend, which for men started
in 1946 and for women 1947 (maybe 1946). What this
suggests is a three year event occurring four years
earlier (1942-44). The [US] buildup for WWII fits
that time frame. Those volunteering to serve (or males
being drafted) underwent physical examinations to
determine their fitness. A passing acquaintance had
mentioned that he was ordered to report for the draft
a few times, and each time, he was given a chest
x-ray, which revealed the presence of a congentital
heart defect. This disqualified him for service. It also
suggests the general use of chest x-rays as part of
physical examinations. Some in their late-30s and 40s,
who were entering the service, would have had the
residue of tobacco smoke in their lungs.

There is a surge in 1968 for women. "1963: The first
randomized controlled trial of screening by the Health
Insurance Plan of New York finds mammography
reduces the 5-year breast cancer mortality rate by
30 percent." Thus 1964 is likely the first full year of
breast cancer screening. After the surge in 1968, rates
continue above the prior trend.

The increase in 1993 for women was given in the news
item that lead me to concentrate on x-rays.

It is not possible to determine from the line for cigarette
consumption whether smoking causes lung cancer or
smoking creates a condition that makes x-rays hazardous;
but the availablity of x-ray explanations for some of the
anomalies suggests the latter.

The second document is the American Cancer Society,
Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II), Questionaire for
Men.
< http://www.cancer.org/downloads/RES/cps_1982m.pdf >

On the first page, under History of Diseases, item 4, is
asked the number of x-ray examinations, but not the
dates of these examinations. This seems insufficient to
determine the temporal relation between x-ray exposure
and cancer incidence among those who smoke. This
means, simply, that the questionaire was designed
around similar models for both radiological and chemical
causation. My studies suggest that model for chemical
causation is flawed. That being the case, the use of surveys
based on that model to conclude that smoking causes lung
cancer are equally flawed.

The third document is "Experimental Production of
Carcinoma with Cigarette Tar". [I retrieved a copy on
October 20, 2002, from tobaccodocuments.org; but
cannot find the same file now.]

In any case, I have no problem with the experiment,
only with the conclusion. The experiment appears to
show, based on the model for chemical causation, that
the application of the residue of tobacco smoke to the
backs of mice induced skin cancer. What I notice is that
the experiment was conducted in the presence of light,
while there is no light in the lungs. Light is a form of
electromagnetic radiation (EMR), as is x-rays. To me
the equivalent is that EMR striking the residue of tobacco
smoke stimulated ultra-violet radiation, which caused
skin cancer on the mice and causes lung cancer in humans.

For the fourth item, I couldn't find a copy documenting
the experiment. The experiment showed a bonding
between BPDE, a chemical found in tobacco smoke, and
the p53 tumor suppressor gene. As I understand the
experiment, the residue of tobacco smoke smoke was
placed in a petri dish with p53 tumor suppressor cells
from mice. During the experiment, the BPDE bonded
with the cells. One comment about the experiment is
"The conclusion is inescapable: the mutations inducing
lung cancer are caused by chemicals in cigarette smoke."

Again I have no problem with the experiment, only with
the conclusion. The experiment seems to have been
conducted in the presence of light. There is no light in
the lungs, therefore the result of the experiment can not
be relied upon as naturally occurring, or merely chemical
causation.

There is a process used in the production of printed
circuit boards where an ultra-violet sensitive chemical
is applied to a copper-clad board. The board is then
exposed to ultra-violet light source. This causes a bond
between the chemical and the copper creating a liquid
that is then cleaned off the board. A similar process may
be at work in the experiment. If BPDE is ultra-violet
sensitive and other chemicals in tobacco smoke produce
ultra-violet radiation in the presence of EMR, then light
acted to precipitate the bonding process. In the lungs,
x-rays preciptate the process.

As was previously mentioned in this group, studies
concerning environmental tobacco smoke do not show
any significant coorelation to cancer. This is another
case where results do not fit the model for chemical
causation.

What is the bottom line? The model for chemical
causation is flawed. Another model that incorporates
radiation may explain more. This new model could not
include the claim that smoking causes lung cancer. Until
proper surveys are conducted to verify the temporal
relation between radiation and cancer when chemicals
are present, the benefits of that knowledge will not be
realized.

Don't be concerned about my choice for the subject line,
things can happen quickly. I have been disabled for
almost ten years now and have been unable to get
assistance with terms I find acceptable. Regardless of
what may happen, it looks like I will be off the internet
October 27th.


.

Relevant Pages

  • The Deadliest Cancer
    ... The Deadliest Cancer ... Lung cancer kills more Americans than any other type of malignancy-and some ... radiologists are devising new ways to detect small, localized tumors. ... advanced-stage patients. ...
    (soc.culture.african.american)
  • Newsweek article - on lung cancer
    ... The Deadliest Cancer ... Lung cancer kills more Americans than any other type of malignancy?and ... patients still die within a year of diagnosis, ... tumors are covered with estrogen receptors, ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Recent review articles about lung cancer (InTextoResearch)
    ... occupational-derived lung cancer. ... Lung cancer in never smokers--a different disease. ... small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. ... Clin Cancer Res. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • OT -- Tangled Web of Conflicts Over Lung Cancer Screening
    ... Tangled Web of Conflicts Over Lung Cancer Screening ... potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported." ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Todays report on Revici
    ... His response? ... You bash evidence based medicine. ... "You requested that I look into Dr. Revici's treatment of cancer. ... they see in the "before and after" x-rays. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)