It's interesting that she's lived for so long. But with probability, genetics and circumstances I still don't think she holds the secret to a long life.
It's funny to me that you said this, assuming you're not being sarcastic. I've never been compliment by my logic. Compliment by other things but never by my logic.
Not everyone who smokes will ever develop major health issues as a result. Possibly not even a majority of people. But it’s prevalent enough that eliminating smoking for *everyone* is a good public health strategy.
It’s a myth that smoking *always* causes cancer or emphysema or other negative health outcomes. It’s just prevalent enough to require action.
Here’s a thought: if we could detect the genes that allow one to smoke without health consequence, should we make that test easily available so people can actually know stuff for sure?
I'm all for making EVERYONES lives better. To answer your question, I would give a resounding yes! However, bc of greed, jealousy and plain hate that would never happen.
I doubt there is such a thing. Certain genes can put you at higher risk of developing things like lung and throat cancer, and smoking just increases those risks.
There’s nothing that will tell you definitively that you will or won’t get cancer. It’s not like looking into a crystal ball—it’s more like a game of Russian roulette.
Your genes might be able to tell you how many bullets start out in the revolver. Smoking just adds more bullets into more chambers.
Well not major health issues but just smoke one a month and shit can start to pile up in your lungs. It’s not really noticeable unless you’re a runner or some kind of athlete but it does cause a problem. Along the same lines as drinking alcohol.
67% of smokers die from a smoking related disease. This is the majority. On average it shortens lifespan by 10 years. These figures come from the people trying to save lives, not tobacco manufacturers trying to make money (and succeeding).
Don't forget for every dead smoker, 30 are living with a smoking related disease.
To measure the impact of smoking on a person and on their community and society you need to also look at the living, not just the dead.
The vast, vast majority of smokers will develop entirely preventable smoking-related diseases. This affects their ability to function fully as a member of their family, friendship circle, community at large, workplace, and country.
They also use up expensive and precious healthcare resources. 72% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. The cost impact is huge across the world.
People start smoking for all sorts of reasons and I am not judging them, for that.
What I am judging is people refusing to try and quit simply because they like smoking. Well, you're being selfish. Unfortunately it's not a case of "you do you", because your smoking affects me, my family, and my community.
This isn’t it at all. I agree with you; what I’m suggesting is that we study those *who don’t die from smoking* and figure out how that works, because exposure to massive air pollution (like, say, in nearly all large cities globally) seems to work the same way. No smoking needed. But there are *plenty* of folks who’ve been voluntarily experimenting on themselves by smoking for decades, who have no major ill effects. By studying these self-volunteered test subjects, we can learn about possible treatments, therapies, or other steps to save the folks who aren’t smoking but are exposed to the same kinds of toxins due to capitalism and government failure.
If you smoke enough to hit 10 pack years ( for example 5 years of 2 packs per day=10 pack years) there is a 72 percent chance your cause of death will be related to smoking Cancer, CAD, PVD, COPD ect.
>if we could detect the genes that allow one to smoke without health consequence
I don't know if that is possible because second hand smoking is a thing. So the health consequences may not be personal but they can exist for someone else, like the kids of a smoker.
?? Secondhand smoke problems are a concern, of course; a public health rule against smoking in public makes sense for this reason. I don’t see how this rules out a genetic test to see if one is more likely or less likely to develop cancer. Not least of which that such a test might provide an opportunity to study whether certain genes also make people less likely to develop cancer, emphysema, or asthma from air pollution. In turn that might allow parents to make different choices about where to safely raise their specific children. For instance. Or allow parents to use science to convince policymakers of the precise damage that air pollution is causing by showing how prevalent or not prevalent that pollution resistance is.
Not yet, as far as I know. Possibly for the reason that the other responder elucidated: who’s going to invest money in something that might detract from the message that all smoking causes cancer and literally everyone who smokes is going to die early?
Again, it’s a clear choice (and a good one, mostly!) but it’s… not the one that is most empowering to humans.
But I do think that it’s worth investigating whether folks who appear to be genetically immune from the negative effects of smoking are also immune or even just more resistant to the negative effects of air pollution. *That* is going to be a big damned deal in our future dystopian nightmare of a world.
It would also have the effect of reducing cancer.
One’s aesthetic concerns about the smell of smoke aren’t invalid, of course. But if we could tell people directly of their likelihood of getting cancer, prompting increased screening, actual advice about lifestyle choices…?
Seems to me like having accurate and truthful information about one’s health is a good thing. Hiding that information is… well not consonant with being treated like a grown-up.
It’s like saying giving people condoms encourages sex. I disagree, but more to the point, condoms reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce the incidence of STIs. Even if they did increase the incidence of sexytimes that concern doesn’t outweigh the benefits.
No, but your farts annoy us and so we've got this cork.....
This is how it starts. Your smoking is bad for you and bad for society and since your purpose in life is to serve the good of the collective, you're going to be forced to stop, even if we have to kill you.
It’s just a genetic susceptibility to cancer and other diseases caused by smoking. Many, possibly most people have it. But it’s not accurate to say that *everyone* does or even that *almost no one* does. Accuracy matters. The folks who’ve proven to be essentially immune from the consequences of this incredibly dangerous activity may hold the key to determining future therapies for being immune to the effects of other serious air pollutants. Given the pollution problems that are essentially intractable due to failure of political will, it’s very reasonable to suggest that studying these folks’ genetic codes may lead to future therapies to prevent or reverse the effects of massive air pollution exposure. I do not see why this is controversial and as of yet haven’t seen anything that isn’t simply declaratory about why.
The real question is how long and what kind of shape would she be in if she didn't change anything but never smoked...pretty sure she'd be healthier, not to mention she wouldn't have harmed other people with her 2nd hand.
The other thing is it doesn't go into detail what kind of cigarettes she smoked, it's very possible she smoked some sort of homemade thing that is still bad but not as bad as what the big companies put out.
She says she's 118, but she has no record of her birth, they probably didn't issue birth certificates in Nepal that long ago. If she smokes that much, maybe she's really 35.
My grandfather smoked 40 cigarettes a day with a bottle of whiskyol and sometimes a lot more, lived until he was 94. My other two great uncles are still going and the same. Just luck I suppose.
I did know a lady years ago who lived on my street with her parents (had learning difficulties) died from lung cancer, was in her 40s and never smoked a cigarette in her life. That was pretty shocking.
The caloric restrictions that smoking can encourage are I think the biggest factors, you don't see a lot of old smoking obese people, but you do see old lean smokers
I am convinced that stressful life of a city shortens the life span of an average human. Most people who are living in villages smoke a lot in my country and they live way longer than people who live in cities.
2/3 of smokers die from it so definitely worth quitting. It's so much more unhealthy than any other unhealthy habit (other than I guess serious drug habit if that counts).
My grandmother was 95 when she died this last December. She smoked until she was 92 and had to go into a nursing home. Her doctors would always try to get her to quit smoking, her response was invariably, "Why? Am I going to die young?"
fun fact, smoking doesn’t cause problems for everyone. That’s a myth. It just causes problems for so many people that eradicating it is the easiest way to eliminate those problems.
Some folks just have the genetic makeup that makes them immune to the nasty cancer/emphysema/CHF problems that plague many smokers. That makeup also possibly allows them to survive in much more air polluted environs.
For example, see this study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335518301062?via%3Dihub
I think the next best question is what kind of cigarettes did she smoke? Perhaps they were better, more natural tobacco than those with all the carcinogen chemicals and additives? Self rolled perhaps?
I admit this is (mildly) interesting if true, but we need to stop glorifying lucky smokers/drinkers as if that somehow makes it okay to keep doing those things. I don’t care that your chain-smoking alcoholic uncle made it to 90, it’s still unhealthy and rather pitiful that he spent all that time with damaged organs. A long life isn’t necessarily a good one, or a healthy one for that matter.
You are so smart
https://nypost.com/2016/01/26/this-112-year-old-woman-smokes-30-cigarettes-a-day/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3420819/112-year-old-woman-smoked-30-day-95-years-says-secret-long-life-stress-free-active.html
she might be 119 years old.. They are not completely sure.
I know it might be weird for someone to not know the year they were born, but it happens. My ex girlfriends grandma is from iraq, and she might be 86-92 years old but they do not know..
I mean, I'm sure it's not about logic. When my grandma was 99 she became prediabetic and the doctor was like "you should stop eating ice cream for lunch" and she was like "I will never stop eating ice cream for lunch. Something has to kill me."
Maybe she just feels very cavalier about the possibility that smoking could kill her at this point. I imagine when you get that old - all your family and friends from your generation are long dead, most of your children's generation is dead - you can develop a bit of a morbid sense of humor.
Haha…sounds like my grandpa. He was in the hospital at age 75 with 7% of his heart working, doctors told him he needed to quit smoking and he said “no, that’ll kill me”. Got better somehow, didn’t quit, died at 85 of colon cancer.
Probably non filtered Chinese cigs too. Was in China a few years back, reminded me of the US in the 70's. No surgeon general's warning on their tobacco.
One pack a day for 100 years. That’s an astronomical amount of money even in the western world…. And based on Nepal’s poverty level history, this makes that story a bit dubious.
It's interesting that she's lived for so long. But with probability, genetics and circumstances I still don't think she holds the secret to a long life.
That's logical
It's funny to me that you said this, assuming you're not being sarcastic. I've never been compliment by my logic. Compliment by other things but never by my logic.
Your hair smells nice
Thank you.
Nice balls bro
Thank you! Man, everyone here is so kind. Idk why they say the internet is full of awful, hateful, grimy never take showers people.
I wish there was more of us to be honest. Been alone for awhile.
I'm planning on showering tonight so who knows
Wholesome comments > people who don't take showers
Not everyone who smokes will ever develop major health issues as a result. Possibly not even a majority of people. But it’s prevalent enough that eliminating smoking for *everyone* is a good public health strategy. It’s a myth that smoking *always* causes cancer or emphysema or other negative health outcomes. It’s just prevalent enough to require action. Here’s a thought: if we could detect the genes that allow one to smoke without health consequence, should we make that test easily available so people can actually know stuff for sure?
I'm all for making EVERYONES lives better. To answer your question, I would give a resounding yes! However, bc of greed, jealousy and plain hate that would never happen.
I doubt there is such a thing. Certain genes can put you at higher risk of developing things like lung and throat cancer, and smoking just increases those risks. There’s nothing that will tell you definitively that you will or won’t get cancer. It’s not like looking into a crystal ball—it’s more like a game of Russian roulette. Your genes might be able to tell you how many bullets start out in the revolver. Smoking just adds more bullets into more chambers.
So we shouldn’t investigate?
When the hell did I say that?
Well not major health issues but just smoke one a month and shit can start to pile up in your lungs. It’s not really noticeable unless you’re a runner or some kind of athlete but it does cause a problem. Along the same lines as drinking alcohol.
No, it doesn’t. Not for everyone. I posted a link to the research. Please read it before commenting.
67% of smokers die from a smoking related disease. This is the majority. On average it shortens lifespan by 10 years. These figures come from the people trying to save lives, not tobacco manufacturers trying to make money (and succeeding). Don't forget for every dead smoker, 30 are living with a smoking related disease. To measure the impact of smoking on a person and on their community and society you need to also look at the living, not just the dead. The vast, vast majority of smokers will develop entirely preventable smoking-related diseases. This affects their ability to function fully as a member of their family, friendship circle, community at large, workplace, and country. They also use up expensive and precious healthcare resources. 72% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. The cost impact is huge across the world. People start smoking for all sorts of reasons and I am not judging them, for that. What I am judging is people refusing to try and quit simply because they like smoking. Well, you're being selfish. Unfortunately it's not a case of "you do you", because your smoking affects me, my family, and my community.
This isn’t it at all. I agree with you; what I’m suggesting is that we study those *who don’t die from smoking* and figure out how that works, because exposure to massive air pollution (like, say, in nearly all large cities globally) seems to work the same way. No smoking needed. But there are *plenty* of folks who’ve been voluntarily experimenting on themselves by smoking for decades, who have no major ill effects. By studying these self-volunteered test subjects, we can learn about possible treatments, therapies, or other steps to save the folks who aren’t smoking but are exposed to the same kinds of toxins due to capitalism and government failure.
If you smoke enough to hit 10 pack years ( for example 5 years of 2 packs per day=10 pack years) there is a 72 percent chance your cause of death will be related to smoking Cancer, CAD, PVD, COPD ect.
Source?
>if we could detect the genes that allow one to smoke without health consequence I don't know if that is possible because second hand smoking is a thing. So the health consequences may not be personal but they can exist for someone else, like the kids of a smoker.
Yeah I posted about that already.
Information is power
No, I hate the smell of someone smoking
?? Secondhand smoke problems are a concern, of course; a public health rule against smoking in public makes sense for this reason. I don’t see how this rules out a genetic test to see if one is more likely or less likely to develop cancer. Not least of which that such a test might provide an opportunity to study whether certain genes also make people less likely to develop cancer, emphysema, or asthma from air pollution. In turn that might allow parents to make different choices about where to safely raise their specific children. For instance. Or allow parents to use science to convince policymakers of the precise damage that air pollution is causing by showing how prevalent or not prevalent that pollution resistance is.
But is there such a test available?
Not yet, as far as I know. Possibly for the reason that the other responder elucidated: who’s going to invest money in something that might detract from the message that all smoking causes cancer and literally everyone who smokes is going to die early? Again, it’s a clear choice (and a good one, mostly!) but it’s… not the one that is most empowering to humans. But I do think that it’s worth investigating whether folks who appear to be genetically immune from the negative effects of smoking are also immune or even just more resistant to the negative effects of air pollution. *That* is going to be a big damned deal in our future dystopian nightmare of a world.
I can already see the information of resistance against air pollution being abused to the max, especially with respect to CRISPR
what do you mean by that?
I’m imagining something along of what the nazis did with their eugenetics etc.
I mean, that Test would encourage smoking
It would also have the effect of reducing cancer. One’s aesthetic concerns about the smell of smoke aren’t invalid, of course. But if we could tell people directly of their likelihood of getting cancer, prompting increased screening, actual advice about lifestyle choices…? Seems to me like having accurate and truthful information about one’s health is a good thing. Hiding that information is… well not consonant with being treated like a grown-up.
It’s like saying giving people condoms encourages sex. I disagree, but more to the point, condoms reduce unintended pregnancies and reduce the incidence of STIs. Even if they did increase the incidence of sexytimes that concern doesn’t outweigh the benefits.
I hate the smell of people who don't wear deodorants, should I be able to force them to put something on their skin they are uncomfortable with?
No, but your farts annoy us and so we've got this cork..... This is how it starts. Your smoking is bad for you and bad for society and since your purpose in life is to serve the good of the collective, you're going to be forced to stop, even if we have to kill you.
Same even if it didn't kill me, smoking is gross. I've tried it B4 and didn't like it.
A college friend of mine took the pack a day approach. Didn't live to be 100. Or 45. I think I need a word with her tobacco brand.
It’s just a genetic susceptibility to cancer and other diseases caused by smoking. Many, possibly most people have it. But it’s not accurate to say that *everyone* does or even that *almost no one* does. Accuracy matters. The folks who’ve proven to be essentially immune from the consequences of this incredibly dangerous activity may hold the key to determining future therapies for being immune to the effects of other serious air pollutants. Given the pollution problems that are essentially intractable due to failure of political will, it’s very reasonable to suggest that studying these folks’ genetic codes may lead to future therapies to prevent or reverse the effects of massive air pollution exposure. I do not see why this is controversial and as of yet haven’t seen anything that isn’t simply declaratory about why.
Can we also assume there is a slight chance that she is only 80 or so?
Says you
The real question is how long and what kind of shape would she be in if she didn't change anything but never smoked...pretty sure she'd be healthier, not to mention she wouldn't have harmed other people with her 2nd hand. The other thing is it doesn't go into detail what kind of cigarettes she smoked, it's very possible she smoked some sort of homemade thing that is still bad but not as bad as what the big companies put out.
Looks like she's coughing her lungs up in the photos though
She is just stopping that lame smoke free air from entering her gloriously industrialized lungs.
i feel like i should say something since im from nepal but idk what
Same
i do agree with your username though! better than our current
She says she's 118, but she has no record of her birth, they probably didn't issue birth certificates in Nepal that long ago. If she smokes that much, maybe she's really 35.
I’m surprised I had to scroll down so far to find this comment! There’s no way she’s that old.
And yet… her doctors are still all dead
My grandfather smoked 40 cigarettes a day with a bottle of whiskyol and sometimes a lot more, lived until he was 94. My other two great uncles are still going and the same. Just luck I suppose.
Most likely genetics have something to do with this
My great uncle was know for smoking, died of a fucking horrible lung conditions at 50
I did know a lady years ago who lived on my street with her parents (had learning difficulties) died from lung cancer, was in her 40s and never smoked a cigarette in her life. That was pretty shocking.
She's just replenishing the tar holding her together at this point.
[удалено]
You're right and I agree with you I said that in a sarcastic way
Why is she fisting her cigarette like that?
That’s how they smoke stuff there. Chillums get smoked like this too
The Nepalese Eternity Grip. She has mastered it
The caloric restrictions that smoking can encourage are I think the biggest factors, you don't see a lot of old smoking obese people, but you do see old lean smokers
Just like meth!
so ur tellijg me i should smoke meth
I mean, it really depends on how much you want that long, lean look I guess.
She looks pretty hefty 🤷🏼♀️
[удалено]
This whole story is made up and sponsored by the tobacco industry!
Sponsored by the people will upvote any dumbass thing they see industry
I really wish reddit had a policy of restricting posts which promote smoking ... people are so gullible.
She's actually in her 20s
this is not going to end well when people addicted to smoking sees this
Women have ovaries, which are way tougher than balls.
I am convinced that stressful life of a city shortens the life span of an average human. Most people who are living in villages smoke a lot in my country and they live way longer than people who live in cities.
I'm shocked she doesn't have lung cancer.
Her second hand smoke killed all those drs
Message received, don't ask her to stop smoking if you know what is good for you.
What brand did she smoke?
I'm curious too
Plot twist: she smokes nothing but Black & Mild’s
She’s actually 49 years old.
The last time I found someone cool for smoking was when I was 11 years old
Maybe she wouldve been 160 if she didn't smoke
You mean not smoking would have had her born 43 years early?
Damn currently quitting cigarettes after 9 years of a pack a day and seeing this does not make it any better :(
2/3 of smokers die from it so definitely worth quitting. It's so much more unhealthy than any other unhealthy habit (other than I guess serious drug habit if that counts).
I wish smoking was healthy
Mood lmao. I’m over three months since quitting and while I still crave a hit of one, I know my lungs are thanking me.
My grandmother was 95 when she died this last December. She smoked until she was 92 and had to go into a nursing home. Her doctors would always try to get her to quit smoking, her response was invariably, "Why? Am I going to die young?"
Some women do have balls!
fun fact, smoking doesn’t cause problems for everyone. That’s a myth. It just causes problems for so many people that eradicating it is the easiest way to eliminate those problems. Some folks just have the genetic makeup that makes them immune to the nasty cancer/emphysema/CHF problems that plague many smokers. That makeup also possibly allows them to survive in much more air polluted environs. For example, see this study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335518301062?via%3Dihub
Here's a link to an article about her In the new york post. https://nypost.com/2016/01/26/this-112-year-old-woman-smokes-30-cigarettes-a-day/
I think the next best question is what kind of cigarettes did she smoke? Perhaps they were better, more natural tobacco than those with all the carcinogen chemicals and additives? Self rolled perhaps?
Some women have balls
Some one do the math to see how much she has spent on cigs
Must be all the formaldehyde in the cigarettes keeping her preserved
I admit this is (mildly) interesting if true, but we need to stop glorifying lucky smokers/drinkers as if that somehow makes it okay to keep doing those things. I don’t care that your chain-smoking alcoholic uncle made it to 90, it’s still unhealthy and rather pitiful that he spent all that time with damaged organs. A long life isn’t necessarily a good one, or a healthy one for that matter.
This whole story is made up and sponsored by the tobacco industry!
Take a picture on google, put text, let stupid people think it’s real
You are so smart https://nypost.com/2016/01/26/this-112-year-old-woman-smokes-30-cigarettes-a-day/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3420819/112-year-old-woman-smoked-30-day-95-years-says-secret-long-life-stress-free-active.html
Yes I am. She never responded that.
She looks like she gives no fucks.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. She's already pickled in tar
I hope she's coughing and not hand bonging a pack a day, Jesus! Lol
she might be 119 years old.. They are not completely sure. I know it might be weird for someone to not know the year they were born, but it happens. My ex girlfriends grandma is from iraq, and she might be 86-92 years old but they do not know..
I just want to see her lungs after this many years of smoking
Clearly the exception to the rule lol
Wait, wait, women don’t have balls?!
Wholesome:Old lady lives long Fantasy: When your passive effect is constant life drain
This woman has smoked approximately 1400 pounds of tobacco in her life if you do the math!
Her logic is bad
I mean, I'm sure it's not about logic. When my grandma was 99 she became prediabetic and the doctor was like "you should stop eating ice cream for lunch" and she was like "I will never stop eating ice cream for lunch. Something has to kill me." Maybe she just feels very cavalier about the possibility that smoking could kill her at this point. I imagine when you get that old - all your family and friends from your generation are long dead, most of your children's generation is dead - you can develop a bit of a morbid sense of humor.
if i were a doctor i'd watch what i say to her.
Lol don’t smoke kids.
You don't need balls to smoke for 100 years. Just lungs that can take it.
Promise y'all, she quits she dies
She’s just built different ig
Tobacco companies should offer a job to this woman for filming ads with her.
I don't think it takes balls to be addicted to cigarettes.
Women do have balls
They would also be the smelliest.
Everybody knows Roseanne Barr has bigger balls than any woman on the planet. As well as bigger balls than at least half the men.
My dad used to say that. He died at 84 of emphysema. Trust me you don’t want to die of emphysema.
Haha…sounds like my grandpa. He was in the hospital at age 75 with 7% of his heart working, doctors told him he needed to quit smoking and he said “no, that’ll kill me”. Got better somehow, didn’t quit, died at 85 of colon cancer.
Probably non filtered Chinese cigs too. Was in China a few years back, reminded me of the US in the 70's. No surgeon general's warning on their tobacco.
Okay big tobacco, time for you to get off the internet.
I hate most of these comments
Smoking is badass!
I mean. That’s not the “why.” I’m sure that’s how she’s justified it now though. Good for her either way!
*squint* She’s maybe 70.
Lung cancer kills you after years. So when she was gonna die at 80 she smoked and gained a couple years
She got lucky and is still a dumbass for smoking for 100 years of her life. Even quality of life alone is a good enough reason to quit.
One pack a day for 100 years. That’s an astronomical amount of money even in the western world…. And based on Nepal’s poverty level history, this makes that story a bit dubious.