Has Barack Obama finally quit smoking? Do we care?


I must care a little, I’m making a post about it. Several news outlets, and news outlets are obsessed with Barack Obama’s smoking, reported earlier this week that Barack Obama has not smoked for nine months.

That ain't rosacea ... that's a drunk

I don’t know why the media is so fucking fixated with Obama’s smoking. I wish they had been this obsessed with Bush’s drinking, or, I dunno, his lying about getting us into the Iraq War. Can we just move on please? No one quits cigs easily. If he falls off the nicotine wagon, who cares. (By the way, this photo is a fake. Right-wingers love the photo because it somehow makes Obama look sleazy, but it’s as fake as Palin’s boobs. Most people think it’s for real, but it was photoshopped by a Republican operative)

And fucking Ronald Reagan, the right-tards’ baby Jesus, not only smoked … he actually appeared in CIGARETTE ADS. “This Christmas, I’m giving all friends lung cancer!”

For the record, lots of presidents have smoked.

JFK

FDR

LBJ

Gerald Ford

Fucktard Reagan selling cigarettes

Reagan being a fucktard in another ad

Surgeon General new report on smoking … cigarettes are bad, M’kay


OK, what has gotten a lot of press from a truly extensive Surgeon General’s report on cigarettes released yesterday is a conclusion that “there is no safe level of cigarette smoke.”

The media has turned this into “just one cigarette can kill you.” Unfortunately, the report does contain a passage that just a few minutes of cigarette smoke can give a person with heart disease a heart attack. Well, having someone sneak up on you from behind and say, “Boo!” can give you a heart attack if you have serious heart disease. It’s a really stupid point.

The real crux of the report, which the media has missed somewhat, is that it examines how cigarettes cause various forms of cancer and lung disease.
In summary:
• The chemicals and toxicants in tobacco smoke damage DNA, which can lead to cancer. Nearly one-third of all cancer deaths every year are directly linked to smoking. Smoking causes about 85% of lung cancers in the U.S.
•Exposure to tobacco smoke quickly damages blood vessels throughout the body and makes blood more likely to clot. This damage can cause heart attacks, strokes, and even sudden death.
• The chemicals in tobacco smoke inflame the delicate lining of the lungs and can cause permanent damage that reduces the ability of the lungs to exchange air efficiently and leads to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

I found the lung cancer chapter the most interesting. Sure enough, here is the conclusion I was looking for:

“There is consistent evidence that a combination of polymorphisms in the CYP1A1 and GSTM1 genes leads to higher DNA adduct levels in smokers and higher relative risks for lung cancer than in those smokers without this genetic profile.
“Exposure to cigarette smoke carcinogens leads to DNA damage and subsequent mutations in TP53 and KRAS in lung cancer.”

So, here’s the thing to wrap your heads around. Smoking fucks with your DNA. It isn’t just irritating the cells of your lungs, it’s actually changing the DNA of those cells.

The various cancers mentioned by the report were lung, mouth, throat, stomach, pancreas, bladder, kidney and leukemia. Surprisingly, lymphoma was not mentioned. I had always thought there was an increased risk of lymphoma if you smoked, but this report doesn’t mention that, so I suppose not.

One of the things that has long baffled scientists is why most smokers don’t get lung cancer. Somewhere between 10 to 20 percent do, depending on what study you read. Why don’t the 80 or other 90 percent get lung cancer is smoking is carcinogenic?

The answer apparently is in genetics, which the report refers to above, and I was hoping it would talk about that. People with a certain gene are more prone to lung cancer. If they smoke and have this gene, they are at extreme risk of lung cancer. If they don’t smoke, they are still at elevated risk of lung cancer. That’s why 10 percent of men who get lung cancer aren’t smokers, and 20 percent of women. Perhaps there are other environmental factors, such as radon or air pollution. But, the fact remains, that roughly 85 percent of the people who get lung cancer are smokers.

So, if you don’t have this gene and smoke, you will probably never get lung cancer. You may die in your 50s of heart disease or die from COPD or some other form of cancer, but you probably won’t get lung cancer. So, you’re not somehow magically out of the woods if you don’t have this gene. It isn’t that simple.
Anyway, here is the press release on this report. You can download the whole 700-page document if you wish. Or you can just download the executive summary.

Boston Red Sox getting Carl Crawford


Woo, hoo, what an amazing offseason for the Red Sox, maybe their best offseason since they got Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell. Now the Red Sox, after looking like they were out of the running, got Carl Crawford from the Tampa Bay Evil Rays for 7 years, $142 million.
Carl Crawford is a career .296 hitter (he hit .307 last year) and has averaged 50 stolen bases a year over the last eight years. He even hits 15 to 20 home runs a year. An awesome player.

MLB urged to ban chewing tobacco


10 national health agencies, including the American Heart Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and American Cancer Society, this week sent a letter to MLB asking that baseball ban chewing tobacco by players. This could conceivably be done via a collective bargaining agreement. Even Congress got involved several months ago, asking MLB to drop chewing tobacco.

OK, before you throw a conniption fit over the legality of this, remember, chewing tobacco has been banned in the minor leagues since 1993. Most colleges ban it by their players. What’s being asked is that that minor league ban be extended to the majors.

I get smoking, but I truly don’t get chewing. I really. I mean it is flat disgusting, gross and foul, and just look up “chewing tobacco” in Google images, and you’ll get a potpourri of disgusting photos of what chew does to a person’s mouth and jaw. I mean dying of lung cancer is bad enough, but why would anyone take the risk of having their face mutilated because a cancerous jaw or cheekbone had to be removed. Honest, I don’t get it.

But, chew is deeply ingrained in baseball culture for some mystifying reason, along with bubble gum and sunflower seeds. Shockingly, as many as one-third of MLB players are tobacco chewers (as opposed to less than 10 percent of the general population.).

I remember reading an article many years ago about Rod Carew that said Carew chewed tobacco because it “helped keep his face tight” so he could see the ball better. Huh? That had to be the craziest thing I’ve ever heard (Carew also mixed bubble gum and chewing tobacco … YUCK!). When junior high school and high school kids see their heroes chewing, hey, what does that tell them? It’s cool to chew. While smoking rates for kids have declined the last few years (not as much as I would like) the rate of chewing among young people has either risen or remained flat. Something about “you can’t get lung cancer from chew…”

No, but you can get this! →

One former professional ballplayer, Rick Bender, actually goes out on the speaking circuit talking against chew … as best as he can without a jaw.

I don’t know what’s going to become of this letter. I suspect MLB may just scoff at it, but the health departments are right. It’s been banned in the minors for 17 freaking years, they can ban it at the major league level. Let players chew off the field. Let them chew gum and seeds in the dugout. And they can still scratch if they would like.

Amazing Mono Lake!

There was an amazing story on Mono Lake that scientists had discovered a bacteria that lives only in Mono Lake that can survive on eating arsenic — that’s right, rat poison.

While this might not sound like a big deal to the layman, this is a huge discovery within biology and astrobiology circles. This is the first time any organism has been found that can live on arsenic, and it opens up the idea that forms of life can live in environments both on earth and in space that we can’t even imagine.

How cool is it something like this came out of Mono Lake? Mono Lake is one of the most interesting lakes I’ve ever seen. It sits at 6,500 feet in the desert just east of the Sierra Nevada. It’s surrounded by the Sierra to the west and a series of volcanoes to the south called the Mono Craters. Dry hills to the north, and barren desert wasteland to the east. Clint Eastwood made High Plains Drifter along the shore of Mono Lake in 1971. Today, you couldn’t film a big movie like that. The area is protected.

Four small streams from the Sierra flow into the lake, and the water just stays there. It has nowhere to go. Mono Lake does not drain anywhere.

Beginning in the 1940s, the L.A. Department of Water and Power, which was already taking water from the Owens Valley to the south, began siphoning water out of the four streams. They built a giant tunnel underneath the Mono Craters, and the water flows through the tunnel into the Owens River, then into the Los Angeles Aqueduct. The water goes more than 400 miles without a single pump. It’s all gravity fed. It was an engineering marvel.

And an environmental disaster. The lake shrank and the famous tufa towers of Mono Lake appeared. These are formations of calcium carbonate, created by the weird water chemistry of the lake. The lake shrank by one-third until a bunch of environmentalists won multiple court and state agency decisions against the L.A. Department of Water and Power. The case went all the way to the California Supreme Court. Now, the lake is maintained, by law, at a certain elevation. It will never be as big as it once was, but it won’t be allowed to die, either. The Forest Service manages it as a recreation area, and the DWP helped build a big, fancy visitor’s center by the highway.

If you ever go to Yosemite or Lake Tahoe, you really should take a trip to see Mono Lake. The tufa towers are amazing. And there is an old, dead volcano on the south shore you can hike to the top of. The volcano is made completely of black glass. Watch your step! And you can make a side trip to Bodie, one of the biggest ghost towns in the U.S. It’s only a few miles away in the hills north of the lake.

Mono Lake is often described as poisonous, but it is anything but. Sure, you will get deathly ill if you try to drink the alkali water (if you dip your hands into the water, it will feel very slimy, and then about an hour later if you don’t watch, you skin will start burning as if you’ve been using bleach without gloves), but that alkali water breeds trillions of brine shrimp and brine flies. Millions of birds — seagulls, grebes and phalaropes — stop at Mono Lake every year to feed on the shrimp and flies. You will never be surrounded by as much life. It is a riot of birds there. (But don’t go in the spring, because it is also a riot of no-see-ums).

If you really want to learn more about Mono Lake, check out MonoLake.org (and they’re pretty darned excited by Mono’s little bacteria!) If you want to know more about the LAWDP, pick up “Water and Power” on Amazon or at the library.

Lung cancer doesn’t just kill smokers — The story of Jill Costello

Chris Ballard had an excellent article in this week’s Sports Illustrated. (Normally, I’m not a big fan of Chris Ballard’s stuff, some of it I find kind of trite, but this was his best article yet.).

Ballard wrote about a young coxswain for the University of California, Jill Costello, who led her rowing team to a Pac-10 championship, and to the national championship meet, while battling lung cancer.

I knew as soon as I started reading the article how it was going to end. Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival rates. Why? Part of the reason is because not a lot of research dollars go into lung cancer as compared to other kinds of cancer. Why? Because lung cancer has a stigma. Because many people still assume anyone who gets lung cancer deserves it.

Jill Costello was one of the 20 percent of women who get lung cancer who are non-smokers. About 15 percent of the people, male and female, who get lung cancer are non-smokers. Some studies have suggested that lung cancer is genetic. If you have a certain gene, and you smoke, there is a very high likelihood you are going to get lung cancer. If you don’t have the gene and smoke, you will probably never get lung cancer — but you will still get all the heart disease and COPD and other kinds of cancer smoking causes. If you have the gene and don’t smoke, you are at increased risk for lung cancer — not as much as if you smoked — but still an increased risk. Jill probably had the gene.

Jill battled her illness, and, more dramatically, the myriad side-effects of the chemotherapy, while continuing to compete for the Cal rowing team. It was a heart-wrenching article for me, having watched a parent go through this 30 years ago.

Like I said, I knew the story would end a certain way. Cal did not win the national championship. They came in fourth, and a month after the national championships, Jill died at the age of 23.

One of the things I’ve come to appreciate when I started getting involved in tobacco issues is how much stigma there is attached to lung cancer; how many times people with lung cancer have to answer the question, “are you a smoker?” I’ve since gone to great lengths to avoid attaching blame to smokers who get lung cancer. It isn’t there fault they took up a bad habit in their teens that turned out to be physically addicting. We all did dumb things in our teen years, but most of us can laugh about it. A smoker trying to quit, or a smoker with cancer, it’s not a laughing matter when they look back and say, “Why did I start smoking when I was 15?”

So, all I ask is if you know someone with lung cancer, just don’t ask them, “are you a smoker?”

Maps, maps, MAPS!

Ok, per Haruko’s request, here are several fascinating maps about smoking bans, lung cancer rates, diabetes rates and the 2008 election.

This four things may not sound related, but it’s definitely *intriguing* of how these four factors correlate.

What does it mean? Republicans hate smoking bans because they’re a regulation (I’m sure it has zero to do with how much money Republican legislators rake in from Big Tobacco.).

Where there are no smoking bans, smoking rates are higher. Where smoking rates are higher, lung cancer rates are higher. Also, education rates have everything to do with smoking rates …. and with how people smoke. College educated voters tend to vote Democratic, and Democrats tend to vote in favour of smoking bans.

And people who smoke tend not to take care of themselves healthwise more than nonsmokers. So more diabetes.

So, Republicans = high lung cancer rates, high rates of diabetes. It’s a vicious cycle, and that hypothesis is borne out by these maps.

White=Smoking bans, Black=no ban, Other colours=partial bans

Smoking bans

Lung cancer rates

Diabetes rates

2008 Presidential election

Damned amazin’, ain’t it!