Smoking — Does It Affect Your Tinnitus or Hyperacusis?

For all the smokers..does it affect your T or H?

 

Not for me... sometime is the only way to "vent". Sure is not good for the general healt but when i think that about T & H the doctors say that even an orange can be wrong but the SSRIs and benzos can be good... i send them to f**k you and smoke before hide and cry in my pain who only the suffers and God can know!

 

You smoke Lynn?

 

no

 

Never to late to start smoking

 

that was my thought Nick. I quit 16 yrs ago ..but the thought crossed my mind..

 

Well this lady seemed to function well with black lungs!

http://jezebel.com/5984946/102-year-old-woman-quits-smoking-but-not-for-her-health

 

Again I'm not saying smoking is not bad for an individual, but it is very interesting to see how many smokers reach there nineties which in my book is a long life!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8251281

 

Sure, it is in mine too. But this is cherry picking. Compare the average life span of smokers vs non-smokers and I bet the results won't be that surprising. There are exceptions to just about every norm.

 

Does not seem to have any effect on my T whatsoever

 

any kind of smoke irritates my mucous membranes and can make me congested, I don't think my ears like it much.

 

I started smoking when I got T, I am not sure if it has any effect as I haven't quit. Smoking less or more doesn't seems to make a difference.

 

Whats cherry picking about a post that was of interest but wasn't trying to prove anything?

Your right with one thing, it is surprising how allot of individuals seem to be able to abuse the shit out of there body's with little affect on there health.

But If you want a debate about it, I can link you to the actual pub med documents that prove the health industries are overestimating the health, (or bad health affects) of smoking and are still doing it!

Here's just a couple...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352232/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16549850

This was as early as 1993....

The actual figures from the article show no such thing. Perhaps the presentation was too complex for the media to decipher. The expected years remaining merely had to be added, via simple arithmetic, to the age group in question.


LIFE EXPECTANCY
AT AGE: FEMALES
never smokers FEMALES
current smokers MALES
never smokers MALES
current smokers 25 - 29 87.6 80.7 79.7 72.2 30 - 34 87.7 80.9 80.1 72.7 35 - 39 87.9 81.1 80.3 73.3 40 - 44 88.1 81.3 80.7 73.8 45 - 49 88.3 81.6 81.1 74.5 50 - 54 88.6 82.0 81.4 75.2 55 - 59 89.0 83.0 82.0 76.4 60 - 64 89.5 84.2 83.0 78.1 65 - 69 90.4 85.4 84.3 79.9 70 - 74 91.5 87.3 85.7 82.4 25 + 93.1 90.1 88.1 85.3
These statistics show that average current smokers' life expectancy is 72 and 81 for men and women, respectively, as of age 25-30, and 85 and 90 if they're 75+.

This is despite not considering the socioeconomic differences between smokers and non-smokers, which account for a substantial proportion of the lifespan difference.

The difference between never-smokers and current smokers is about seven years at ages 25-29, and 3 years at age 75+. In comparison, there is more than eight years difference in life expectancy between men and women among both smokers and never-smokers at ages 25-29, which diminishes to about five years at age 75+ years.

(An average female smoker lives about as long as an average male never-smoker.

Again I am not advocating smoking has no affect on health, just not as much as we are all lead to believe.

Not smoking is always the ideal but just remember scare tactics have been used right through out our history to make sure the general public conform to accepted ideals.

Fact: The native American Indians smoked tobacco for generations with little affect on health, in fact, there life expectancy was almost double that of Europeans during the same time.( we are talking before white settlement).

They also considered it a natural medicine, perhaps they knew about this before any of us!http://www.sott.net/article/270514-Nicotine-vs-nicotinic-acid-niacin

Admittedly it was straight tobacco without the chemicals that are in cigarettes now, which if you were going to smoke, roll your owns are always the better option.

Now cherry pick away!

I smoked for 25 years (roll your own) with Tinnitus with little affect on it, I gave up three years ago and not long after that I sank into depression and my T started to play up and lead to the suctioning which increased my T big time.
I am slowly getting the depression sorted but still with loud T.

I'm not saying there's a link, but who know's?

 

Straying a bit off topic, but sticking on the tobacco part of the thread:

Think its pretty well known that the vast majority of smokers live not only shorter, but unhealthier, lives. They get to spend more time (and money) in the doctor's office and hospital. Two stats from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

• Overall mortality among both male and female smokers in the United States is about three times higher than that among similar people who never smoked.
• The major causes of excess mortality among smokers are diseases that are related to smoking, including cancer and respiratory and vascular disease.

You can read the report these came from here:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_sta...h_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm

Not to mention how protracted and miserable it is to die from lung cancer. I watched two people do it. Thank god it's a habit I never developed because its a tough one to quit, nicotine is so addictive.

 

Please say its a joke...smoking is bad for anyone who indulges. It could only be bad. Thats why its called a vice.

 

eh...what's anoher 10 yrs in this hell.

 

You know what's bad for health. fking tinnitus, hyperacusis and chronic pain..but I digress...

 

Your site that you have linked is not a pub med document and as such should be taken with a grain of salt, I will only site pub med's as they have the raw facts and figures without the bias of the reporter or article author.

Truth be known the life expectancy of a smoker compered to a non smoker is roughly 5 years, give or take, as my links in the previous post have pointed out!

 

Only 5?...oh.

 

When I gave up smoking, after a month of bad withdrawal symptoms,(I was bed ridden for two weeks), I developed gingivitis (a gum disease) and for the first time I started suffering from smelly breath even though my oral care is brilliant. I even started getting allot more sick from flu viruses where as before I hardly got sick even common colds were a once a year thing!

I'm not trying to use this as proof for anything just an interesting experience I suppose.

My general health was pretty good for a smoker.

 

Lol I'm not going to get into something like this. Good job with the research.

 

Thanks, I didn't really want to either, but I just can't resist a challenge to my opinions!

 

Lol understood... Well no one can accuse you of being misinformed... Never thought I'd see the day someone could put forth such a good argument for smoking. Haha don't know what you do for a living, but you'd be a good lobbyist

 

Lol Thanks, I'm just a well informed truck driver, I may think about a change in career later on in life when i start to slow down.

 

I don't feel the need to "challenge" @RichL or anyone else, so this is my last post on this thread. But just to be clear:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the United States' largest public health surveillance network and among the leaders in global health. It's mission is to track disease, and environmental/biological and other factors that cause disease and injury. It analyzes this data for emerging trends and suggests prevention measures -- information that is disseminated in its reports, like the one I linked to on my post above.

PubMed is part of the US Library of Medicine, under the umbrella of the National Institute of Health. It publishes citations referencing biomedical research published in peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals, government health publications and books.

Both the CDC and PubMed are excellent sources of public information. Neither is infallible. Research and public health data surveillance always will have its limits.

Having said that: It's pretty universally agreed that smoking is not good for you. Sure, most smokers will not drop dead at 40. And yes, maybe it doesn't have the pronounced affect on longevity that most people might imagine. But studies consistently have shown that smoking puts you at serious risk for developing lung cancer and chronic pulmonary diseases. And the research that @RichL cited does not address the fact that these diseases are costly and debilitating. Yeah, I might live longer than one might think if I smoked. But I personally would prefer (this is opinion, not research) not to spend the last years of my life tethered to a portable oxygen tank and slowly suffocating to death.

 

It may be that the relative risks of smoking are not being somewhat overplayed, as part of a pendulum effect from 30-40 years of bad science that denied cigarettes had any health consequences. Who cares? The OP was asking about tinnitus.

And with that, I'm going to fire up a hand-rolled cigarette, because I'm chilling in the woods in West Virginny, and that's how we roll out here.

 

Truth be known there is a large portion of people who have never smoked a day in their life that end up tethered to a portable oxygen tank slowly suffocating to death.

And with all due respect not wanting to discuss the matter by stating that "this is your last post on the thread" is a respectful way of saying "I don't care what evidence is produced I have closed my mind to it".

Oh I can address that too if you really want to debate it, but I'm sure you hinted that you were only interested in research that has been through many mouths before it reaches the population!

Yes and like I said it is the raw facts that if one has gained the necessary knowledge to read and understand it, they can make an informed opinion on it themselves without the bias of a second and third hand reporter or author!, It makes a heck of a difference to ones opinion when you can see the facts for yourself!

The publication that I have linked to previously shows that your publication is indeed very slanted towards what we have all been told.
An overestimated impact of smoking and life expectancy.

Fact:...Road accidents, when a drunk driver is speeding and has an accident, (kills someone or whatever), do you know what the cause is put down as?....Speed and alcohol, when in actual fact, it should be put down to alcohol related only.
So, when the statistics are put together that accident will be ticked in two box's, when it should have only been put into one, Alcohol related!, See what I'm getting at?,
When the statistics are put together, you get a slanted figure and one that's not completely accurate!

It's the same when a smoker dies of some illness, no matter what, the statistic will say it was a smoking related unless it's accidental death, but the same apply's, you end up with slanted figures.

Raw information is always better for an informed opinion, you have the raw facts right in front of you!

 

dude, is your whole point here that while toxic smoking may not be as bad for you as some people believe?

Who cares?

What does that have to do with how it interacts with tinnitus?

Are you seriously suggesting that tobacco is not carcinogenic and is not directly and strongly correlated with various undesirable health outcomes?

If not, then what does it matter if it's a 1% risk or a 10% risk? What does that have to do with tinnitus? Why do you care if people who don't smoke have a slightly unrealistic view of the health risks?

 

Exactly. .I just wanted to know if smoking affected anyone's T or H..haha

Damn y'all need to chill out..maybe have a smoke!