medusa Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 but we use them to breathe do we not The lungs don't do the breathing. What we call 'breathing' is the inhalation and exhalation of air and waste gases, which is done by the diaphragm, ribcage and intercostal muscles, along with the very fortuitous vacuum seal between the outside of the lungs and the pleura, which means that when the diaphragm pushes down and the intercostals push the ribcage outwards then the lungs expand and take in air accordingly. As soon as the muscles relax this then pushes the inhaled air back out of the lungs and we have 'breathed' some air. What the lungs do is simply to have a very large surface area of very thin membranes which allow gaseous transport across the membranes in and out of the bloodstream. Other than this they don't move or pump anything- that is all done by other parts of the chest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingray-man Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 We use many parts of our to body to breathe. Lungs don't generally "fail" - they're quite good at their task. The lungs don't do the breathing. What we call 'breathing' is the inhalation and exhalation of air and waste gases, which is done by the diaphragm, ribcage and intercostal muscles, along with the very fortuitous vacuum seal between the outside of the lungs and the pleura, which means that when the diaphragm pushes down and the intercostals push the ribcage outwards then the lungs expand and take in air accordingly. As soon as the muscles relax this then pushes the inhaled air back out of the lungs and we have 'breathed' some air. What the lungs do is simply to have a very large surface area of very thin membranes which allow gaseous transport across the membranes in and out of the bloodstream. Other than this they don't move or pump anything- that is all done by other parts of the chest. so as i said we use them to breathe, if we didn't have lungs we wouldn't be able to breathe would we ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Does smoking THC kill? In short, no! No recorded cases, ever. That's all I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Just curious. A friend of mine recently started smoking cannabis and is now in the hospital with suspected lung failure. This might be worth a read. Cannabis lung health risks underestimated One third of people think cannabis is harmless despite the fact that smoking it is 20 times more likely to cause cancer than tobacco, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 This might be worth a read. Cannabis lung health risks underestimated One third of people think cannabis is harmless despite the fact that smoking it is 20 times more likely to cause cancer than tobacco, Well, it is from the Telegraph! This bit is interesting: "...one study has suggested that smoking just one cannabis cigarette every day for one year increases the risk of developing lung cancer by a similar amount to smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes for the same period, although further research is needed..." So they have simply assumed a linear relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked and the chance of developing cancer. If only everything in life were that simple! This is obviously NOT the work of scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Well, it is from the Telegraph! This bit is interesting: "...one study has suggested that smoking just one cannabis cigarette every day for one year increases the risk of developing lung cancer by a similar amount to smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes for the same period, although further research is needed..." So they have simply assumed a linear relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked and the chance of developing cancer. If only everything in life were that simple! This is obviously NOT the work of scientists. Published by the British Lung Foundation and on the NHS website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zer0 Posted September 17, 2012 Author Share Posted September 17, 2012 I know most people smoke cannabis mixed with tobacco, which is where I can understand the cancer bit coming from. But if cannabis was to be smoked pure - in a bong, then surely the cancer is cut out? I did read somewhere that all these "studies" that prove cannabis causes cancer, is just scare tactics issued by the government to dissuade people from using the drug because it's not legal and they can't tax it. Thoughts? (UPDATE) Friend is OK. Pneumonia or some crap..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattricia Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Just curious. A friend of mine recently started smoking cannabis and is now in the hospital with suspected lung failure. Cannabis is even more dangerous than tobacco for the lungs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Any kind of smoke can contribute to lung cancer-tobbacco, cannabis and bonfire smoke can too. small particles/dust contribute to lung diseases cotton workers who cleaned up in mills used to get cancer.there's miners lung, farmers lung, asbestos etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 The great thing (one of the great things about cannabis) is that you don't have to smoke it if you're worried about your health. And of course there is the steady stream of evidence emerging that cannabinoids may be potent anti-cancer agents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.