[Rhodes22-list] Smoking cessation reply to Bob and Slim, et al.

[Rik Sandberg]

Excuse me Ed, but I gotta' agree with Robert on this one

>Finally, you should be ashamed of yourself for 
>uttering even a syllable of discouragement in the 
>presence of someone undertaking the most difficult 
>task of breaking an addiction.
>
Better to quit smoking than to continue. Quitting WILL cause an 
improvement in health. Not quitting WILL cause further damage. Which is 
better??? Would an encouraging word be too much to ask from you once in 
a while???

Rik



Robert Skinner wrote:

>Ed, in your own endearing way, you have left on a 
>one-man parade of verbosity without putting your 
>pants on.  For your edification, I have interspersed 
>my observations and corrections in your stream of 
>unconsciousness.
>
>/Robert
>
>Tootle wrote:
>  
>
>>Bob,  You say that you are sorry about
>>informing others of the veracity of posts
>>by checking Snopes?
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, Ed, I regret that some of our more enlightened 
>members may feel some hurt as they find that 
>long-standing beliefs are at odds with the facts, 
>and have to accommodate a new view.  I do not expect 
>that you have that problem.
>
>  
>
>>I have not checked Snopes on the following because not
>>all will agree with it up front.  You said, "At this
>>point, the docs cannot determine whether we ever smoked
>>based on our physical exams.  It's now as if we never
>>smoked."
>>    
>>
>
>Note that I used the phrase "at this point".  I was 
>referring to a point in time, specifically THIS point 
>in our personal lives.
>
>  
>
>>Then you better change doctors because competent
>>physicians usually can detect smokers who have
>>smoked as little as three years fifty years ago.
>>    
>>
>
>I'll stick with my doc, thank you.
>
>  
>
>>While the body is able to repair much damage caused by smoking to internal
>>organs, some, especially to the lungs is permanent.  Many patients have told
>>me that they do not smoke and I record that information on patient
>>histories, only to have a Radiologist ask me to ask the patient for more
>>details.  Nine times out of ten, they smoked years ago.  The other one in
>>ten turns out to have been exposed to air borne junk, like mine work or
>>cotton mill work.
>>The good part of quitting is that some recovery does take place,
>>less damage continues to occur and the risk of lung cancer drops.
>>    
>>
>
>I hear what you say.  It may be true that if you 
>dig deep enough, you might find some evidence.  
>Sort of like WMD in Iraq.  However, in our case, 
>the doc measures current lung function and lung 
>capacity, and we are up to norms.
>
>  
>
>>The eventual development of emphysema does not go away.  When damage occurs
>>to air sac (aveoli) walls it is permanent...
>>    
>>
>
>That is debatable.  I find it difficult to believe 
>that in as critical an organ as the lungs there is 
>no repair mechanism - especially in my observations 
>of my own health.
>
>Further, there is some reason to suspect that 
>emphysema has a genetic component.  If so, I'm 
>pretty well off - my father smoked incessantly 
>until a person driving over the speed limit 
>killed him at 87.
>
>Finally, you should be ashamed of yourself for 
>uttering even a syllable of discouragement in the 
>presence of someone undertaking the most difficult 
>task of breaking an addiction.
>  
>