How Smoking Effects Cardiovascular Disease

9 Responses to How Smoking Effects Cardiovascular Disease

1. moose says:

   October 27, 2007 at 8:29 pm

   Nicotine, a substance in cigarette smoke, causes vasoconstrition and increases heart rate.?
   How do these effects lead to high blood pressure? Why are cigarette smokers more likely to die of cardiovascular diseases than nonsmokers?

   Reply
   • Anonymous says:

     November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

     Vasoconstriction occurs.

     After 20 years of smoking I recently quit. Afterwards, I had to cut my BP medicine in 1/2 because it dropped 30pts.
     ~

     Reply
2. lulu says:

   November 23, 2008 at 6:02 pm

   can you please help me correct my thesis sentence?
   This is the thesis for my search paper, can you check if it sound right for my analysis point.

   I am strongly agree that smoking can caused serious health problems because it can lead to lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, cardiovascular disease and cancer of the throat, mouth, kidney, bladder and other illnesses as well.

   So my topic is on the harmful effect of smoking, and that is what I want to write about, but how do I write an analysis throughout my paper. Can you help me with the first sentence in the body paragraph, please, because I do not know how to begin my first sentence. Thanks!!!!!!

   Reply
3. The Path I Choose says:

   January 13, 2009 at 6:01 am

   Do these effects happen in workplaces ? Do they determine if a project lives or dies ?
   http://email.newscientist.com/cgi-bin1/DM/y/mBg8J0MZDhf0vAu0FUuP0Fi

   How your friends’ friends can affect your mood
   a.. 30 December 2008 by Michael Bond
   b.. Magazine issue 2689. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
   c.. For similar stories, visit the Mental Health Topic Guide
   Read full article
   Continue reading page |1 |2 |3
   IF YOU live in the northern hemisphere, this is probably not your favourite month. January
   tends to dispirit people more than any other. We all know why: foul weather, post-Christmas
   debt, the long wait before your next holiday, quarterly bills, dark evenings and dark
   mornings. At least, that is the way it seems. For while all these things might contribute to
   the way you feel, there is one crucial factor you probably have not accounted for: the state
   of mind of your friends and relatives. Recent research shows that our moods are far more
   strongly influenced by those around us than we tend to think. Not only that, we are also
   beholden to the moods of friends of friends, and of friends of friends of friends – people
   three degrees of separation away from us who we have never met, but whose disposition can
   pass through our social network like a virus.

   Indeed, it is becoming clear that a whole range of phenomena are transmitted through
   networks of friends in ways that are not entirely understood: happiness and depression,
   obesity, drinking and smoking habits, ill-health, the inclination to turn out and vote in
   elections, a taste for certain music or food, a preference for online privacy, even the
   tendency to attempt or think about suicide. They ripple through networks “like pebbles
   thrown into a pond”, says Nicholas Christakis, a medical sociologist at Harvard Medical
   School in Boston, who has pioneered much of the new work.

   At first sight, the idea that we can catch the moods, habits and state of health not only of
   those around us, but also those we do not even know seems alarming. It implies that rather
   than being in charge of where we are going in life, we are little more than back-seat
   drivers, since most social influence operates at a subconscious level.

   But we need not be alarmed, says Duncan Watts, a sociologist at Columbia University, New
   York. “Social influence is mostly a good thing. We should embrace the fact that
   we’re inherently social creatures and that much of who we are and what we do is
   determined by forces that are outside the little circle we draw around ourselves.”
   What’s more, by being aware of the effects of social contagion we may be able to find
   ways to counter it, or use it to our own benefit. “There’s no doubt people can have
   some control over their networks and that this in turn can affect their lives,” says
   Christakis.

   To get an idea of what is going on, take Christakis’s findings on the spread of
   happiness, which were published last month. His team looked at a network of several thousand
   friends, relatives, neighbours and work colleagues who form part of the Framingham Heart
   Study, an ongoing multi-generational epidemiological survey that has tracked risk factors in
   cardiovascular disease among residents of Framingham, Massachusetts, since 1948. They found
   that happy people tend to be clustered together, not because they naturally orientate
   towards each other, but because of the way happiness spreads through social contact over
   time, regardless of people’s conscious choice of friends (BMJ, DOI: 10.1136/bmj.a2338).

   Christakis also found that a person’s happiness is dependent not only on the happiness
   of an immediate friend but – to a lesser degree – on the happiness of their friend’s
   friend, and their friend’s friend’s friend. Furthermore, someone’s chances of
   being happy increase the better connected they are to happy people, and for that matter the
   better connected their friends and family. “Most people will not be surprised that
   people with more friends are happier, but what really matters is whether those friends are
   happy,” says Christakis.

   Happiness is near
   They also discovered that the effect is not the same with everyone you know. How susceptible
   you are to someone else’s happiness depends on the nature of your relationship with
   them. For example, if a good friend who lives within a couple of kilometres of you suddenly
   becomes happy, that increases the chances of you becoming happy by more than 60 per cent. In
   contrast, for a next-door neighbour the figure drops to about half that, and for a nearby
   sibling about half again. Surprisingly, a cohabiting partner makes a difference of less than
   10 per cent, which coincides with another peculiar observation about some social epidemics:
   that they spread far more effectively via friends of the same gender.

   All this poses a key question: how can something like happiness be contagious? Some
   researchers think one of the most likely mechanisms is empathetic mimicry. Psychologists
   have shown that people unconsciously copy the facial expre
   Psychologists
   have shown that people unconsciously copy the facial expressions, manner of speech, posture,
   body language and other behaviours of those around them, often with remarkable speed and
   accuracy. This then causes them, through a kind of neural feedback, to actually experience
   the emotions associated with the particular behaviour they are mimicking.

   Barbara Wild and her colleagues at the University of T�bingen, Germany, have found that the
   stronger the facial expression, the stronger the emotion experienced by the person observing
   it (Psychiatry Research, vol 102, p 109). She believes this process is hard-wired, since it
   acts so rapidly and automatically.

   Others have suggested it works through the action of mirror neurons, a type of brain cell
   thought to fire both when we perform an action and when we watch someone else doing it,
   though it is not clear whether the mimicking would cause the neurons to fire or whether
   their firing would trigger the mimicry.
   What is clear is that unconscious imitation allows
   people to “feel a pale reflection of their companions’ actual emotions” and
   even “feel themselves into the emotional lives of others”, says Elaine Hatfield at
   the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, whose review of the latest research will appear next
   April in The Social Neuroscience of Empathy.

   There is plenty of evidence for emotional contagion outside the lab. In 2000, Peter
   Totterdell at the University of Sheffield, UK, found a significant association between the
   happiness of professional cricketers during a match and the average happiness of their
   teammates, regardless of other factors such as whether the match was going in the team’s
   favour (Journal of Applied Psychology, vol 85, p 848). He found a similar effect among
   nurses and office workers. It has also been shown that if a college student suffers from
   mild depression their roommate will become progressively more depressed the longer they live
   with them,
   and that emotional displays by bank employees have a direct impact on the moods
   of their customers.

   We can see, then, how a phenomenon such as happiness might pass quickly through a social
   network and infect clusters of friends and relatives. What none of these studies explains,
   however, is why the strength of the infection varies according to who is passing it to whom.
   Why are we so much more strongly affected by the happiness of a nearby friend than a nearby
   sibling? Why does a next-door neighbour have a significant impact, yet someone living a few
   tens of metres away on the same block have none?

   The power of strangers
   Two factors appear crucial: the frequency of social contact, and the strength of the
   relationship. This is not too surprising: we know that emotional contagion requires physical
   proximity. It is also likely that the closer we feel to someone, the more empathetic we are
   towards them, and the more likely we are to catch their emotional state.
   However, how these
   two factors play out in day-to-day interactions is uncertain. What is also unclear – because
   it has never been properly tested – is the extent to which emotions can propagate through
   virtual networks, where the opportunity for physiological mimicry is much reduced.

   So much for emotions – what about other phenomena that we unwittingly pick up, and pass on,
   through our social networks? In 2007, Christakis’s team, again tracking members of the
   Framingham Heart Study, found that obesity is transmitted in a similar way to happiness.
   Your risk of gaining weight increases significantly when your friends gain weight, and it is
   also affected by the weight of people beyond your social horizon. “Obesity appears to
   spread through social ties,” Christakis says. Again, how likely you are to catch it
   depends on who you are interacting with: after controlling for factors such as difference in
   socioeconomic status, the researchers found that an individual’s chances of b
   becoming
   obese increased by 57 per cent if one of their friends became obese, 40 per cent if a
   sibling did and 37 per cent if their spouse did, irrespective of age (The New England
   Journal of Medicine, vol 357, p 370).

   However, neighbours have no influence, and how far away you live from a friend counts for
   little, which implies that obesity spreads via a different mechanism to happiness. Rather
   than behavioural mimicry, the key appears to be the adoption of social norms. In other
   words, as I see my friends gain weight, this changes my idea of what an acceptable weight
   is. One similarity with happiness is that friends and relatives have a far greater influence
   if they are of the same gender. While it is not evident why that should matter for emotional
   contagion, norms of body size are clearly gender-specific: “Women look at other women,
   men look at other men,” says Christakis. This could also help explain the epidemics of
   eating disorders reported among groups of
   schoolgirls in recent decades.

   The spread of a social norm appears to account for another of Christakis’s findings:
   that when people stop smoking, they usually do so along with whole clusters of friends,
   relatives and social contacts. As more people quit, it becomes the socially acceptable thing
   to do, and those who choose to continue smoking are pushed to the periphery of the network.
   In this case, people are most strongly influenced by those closest to them – if your spouse
   quits, it is 67 per cent more likely that you will too. Your work colleagues can also have
   an effect, particularly if you are in a small, close-knit workplace; and more highly
   educated friends influence one another more than less educated (The New England Journal of
   Medicine, vol 358, p 2249).

   Happiness, obesity, smoking habits – activities that we traditionally think of as shaped by
   individual circumstances, turn out to be ruled to a large degree by social forces. Many
   other day-to-day
   phenomena fit a similar pattern, often counter-intuitively. Take autism:
   Peter Bearman at the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia
   University who in 2004 uncovered a link between suicidal behaviour and certain friendship
   patterns (American Journal of Public Health, vol 94, p 89), is looking at whether the recent
   rise in the diagnosis of autism is in any way socially determined. His study is ongoing, but
   he says his findings could be “explosive”. “It is likely that if you have an
   autistic child in your community the probability of your child being diagnosed with autism
   is significantly higher.”

   Happiness, obesity, smoking habits – all turn out to be ruled to a large degree by social
   forces
   Why three degrees?
   While the mechanism of social contagion varies depending on the phenomenon being spread, in
   many cases the dynamics are very similar. For example, Christakis has found that with
   happiness, obesity and smoking habits, the effect of other
   other people’s behaviour carries to
   three degrees of separation and no further. He speculates that this could be the case with
   most or perhaps all transmissible traits. Why three degrees? One theory is that friendship
   networks are inherently unstable because peripheral friends tend to drop away. “While
   your friends are likely to be the same a year from now, your friends of friends of friends
   of friends are likely to be entirely different people,” says Christakis.

   This poses the question: what shapes the architecture of our social networks and our
   position in them? Clearly, many factors contribute: where we live, where we work, family
   size, education, religion, income, our interests, and our tendency to gravitate towards
   people similar to us. New research by Christakis’s team, due to be published in the next
   few weeks, suggests there is also a strong genetic component. The study compared the social
   networks of identical and fraternal twins, and found that identical twins ha
   had significantly
   more similar social networks than fraternal twins, suggesting the structure of your social
   network is influenced by your genes. That may not sound remarkable, since personality traits
   such as gregariousness and shyness clearly play a role in determining how connected we are.
   But there is much more to it, says Christakis. “It’s not just about having a
   genetic predilection to be friends with a lot of people, it’s about having a genetic
   predilection to be friends with a lot of popular people. That’s mysterious: how could
   our genes determine our actual location in this socio-topological space?”

   Answering that should help us understand more about the “collective intelligence”
   of social networks, which some researchers liken to the flocking of birds – the decision to
   quit smoking, for example, is no more an isolated move than the decision by a bird in a
   flock to fly to the left.

   Sociologists and others are using mathematical models to test these dynamics to
   try to
   understand better what triggers the spread of behaviours. Duncan Watts at Columbia
   University has shown that seeding localised social groups with certain ideas or behaviours
   can lead to the ideas cascading across entire global networks. This contradicts the notion -
   promoted by the author Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point and others – that social
   epidemics depend on a few key influential individuals from whom everyone else takes their
   cue. It doesn’t ring true, argues Watts, because such “influentials” typically
   interact with only a few people. The key for the spread of anything, he says, from happiness
   to the preference for a particular song, is a critical mass of interconnected individuals
   who influence one another.

   Is there any way to mitigate the effects of such powerful and pervasive social forces? It is
   unlikely we can ever escape social influence entirely, even if we wanted to. “Even when
   you’re aware of it, you’re probably susceptible,” says Watts.
   Still, being
   aware can help, especially when we are seeking to avoid undesirable behaviours or adopt
   positive habits. We can be choosy about new friends, seeking out people whose lifestyles we
   aspire to: if you want to lose weight, for example, join a running club and – most
   importantly – socialise with its members.

   Actually cutting ties with old friends might be a bit drastic, though perhaps spending less
   time with those whose traits we do not wish to share would be a good idea – lazy people,
   perhaps, or those inclined to negative thinking. And beware those who hang out with such
   people even if they do not display their views or behaviours – remember the three degrees of
   contagion rule. Finally, if you really cannot avoid spending time with certain people whose
   behaviours or emotional state you would rather not take on board (certain relatives at
   family gatherings, perhaps), you could always try repressing your natural inclination to
   mimic their body language and facial
   expressions, and so limit the contagion effect – though
   be prepared for them to instinctively cool towards you as a result.

   What this game plan amounts to is a kind of subtle social reorientation. We will always be
   vulnerable to what those around us are doing, so as far as possible make sure you are with
   the right people. Remember the new adage: we are who we hang out with.

   Five tips for a healthier social network
   1. Choose your friends carefully.

   2. Choose which of your existing friends you spend the most time with. For example, hang out
   with people who are upbeat, or avoid couch potatoes.

   3. Join a club whose members you would like to emulate (running, healthy cooking), and
   socialise with them.

   4. If you are with people whose emotional state or behaviours you could do without, try to
   avoid the natural inclination to mimic their facial expressions and postures.
   5. Be aware at all times of your susceptibility to social influence – and remember that
   being a social animal is mostly a good thing.

   Reply
   • Anonymous says:

     November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

     Yes, and sometimes.

     Reply
4. j.lynn<3 says:

   July 5, 2009 at 8:04 am

   Why is marijuana illegal?
   I don’t understand how people can preach against marijuana when most of the health risks and dangers have been scientifically proven to be false. At one time it was said that smoking weed could, over time, cause brain damage and could also result in an increased risk of lung cancer, but it has never been proven. There has never been a single report of death or lung cancer in users caused purely by marijuana, and in fact, a study in 2006 actually showed that even heavy users had no sign of increased risk of cancer. Also, current medical tests used to detect brain damage have yet to link brain damage of any sort to the use of marijuana, even in heavy users. Most of the health claims were based on reports that date back a quarter of a century, which had never been supported by scientific study. There has never been convincing evidence that marijuana has any harmful effects on the human body at all. Why then is it that this substance is illegal, however, tobacco and alcohol is legal within public acceptance and an age limit? Tobacco is the second leading cause of death world-wide with an annual death rate of over 440,000 for three reasons – lung cancer, COPD, and cardiovascular disease. Marijuana does not. People smoke weed for the same reason people drink: euphoria. But alcohol, too, has been linked to a proven increased risk of various types of cancer, brain damage, kidney failure, and even strokes. Not only that, but alcohol is the cause of a staggering two million deaths a year world-wide, namely alcohol related car accidents. How often do you hear of someone getting in a head on collision because they were high? And while overdosing on marijuana is physically impossible, alcohol poisoning is actually more common than people think, and is sometimes fatal. I also strongly disagree with the people that say that marijuana is dangerous in the fact that it can be highly addictive. No it can’t. The only reason marijuana is ever addictive, as with any substance, is because you have poor self-control. If you can’t restrain yourself from taking certain actions and limiting your intake, then maybe you are the one who shouldn’t be using the substance. It is not marijuana’s fault that you can’t realize what is a priority in your life, nor is marijuana the addiction problem. You are. It’s the people that can’t comprehend what is important in life, and what is not, and they need to learn to excersize self-control before you start blaming a substance for their own shorcomings like it’s some kind of crusade against weed. You calling it an “addiction”, like it couldn’t have been prevented, is just a fine way to relinquish responsibility for their actions. It is only an “addiction” if you let it be, and just because a handful of people lacked the self-control to be responsible with a substance doesn’t mean it’s dangerous. I am 18 years old, I get straight A’s in school, and I smoke weed occassionally. However, I also know how to use it in moderation so it will never get to a point in my life where I feel the need to do it, and I could easily choose not to. If everybody was able to do that, what do you think the general point of view would be? Why are you against using the substance, other than because it is illegal? What if it wasn’t? Tobacco and alcohol is more dangerous and addictive than marijuana will ever be, so when it boils down to it what do you think the real reason is for it being illegal, when tobacco and alcohol is not? Because government can’t put a tax on it? Sorry for all the questions, it’s just something I’ve been wondering about.
   Thank you for giving me honest, serious answers. I had asked this in a different category and instead of answering my questions, they just flamed me for being a “hippie” who gets straight A’s but “can’t break my rant into paragraphs” and such. I love how defensive people get, and they start making ridiculous assumptions.
   I love it too <33
   lol

   Reply
   • Anonymous says:

     November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

     The government could put a tax on it, in fact the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was the first step in criminalizing the plant:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marihuana_Tax_Act

     Chemical and paper corporations didn’t want to compete with hemp so they drummed up some BS stories (Reefer Madness), raised the tax dramatically, and their lobbyists helped to push through legislation making the plant illegal & labeling (falsely so) a narcotic.

     Check out Chris Conrad’s site and books. He’s the man:

     http://www.chrisconrad.com/

     Reply
5. jhkjh says:

   January 6, 2010 at 3:24 pm

   My Health Questions… Please help me haha?
   1. What is a typical reason that a two-year-old should see a health care provider?

   to be assessed for cancer
   to receive an immunization
   to have a Pap smear
   to have blood work for cholesterol done

   2. While visiting your grandmother, you notice she loses her balance easily, has slurred speech, and is confused. Why should you get professional help from her health care provider?

   She may be having a stroke and needs immediate care.
   She may be bleeding and require an immediate transfusion.
   She may have need for the influenza vaccination to prevent further symptoms.
   She may require a shot of insulin to regulate her blood sugar.

   3. An injection of which of the following can help to the body improve one’s own immunity and life-long resistance to specific types of infectious diseases?

   hormones
   vaccinations
   chemotherapy drugs
   antibiotics

   4. Which of the following diseases is best described by chronic pain and swelling in the joints?

   osteoporosis
   Paget’s disease
   arthritis
   Down’s syndrome

   5. Which health care professional would be responsible for providing an ultrasound to a pregnant woman to visualize the fetus and its development?

   phlebotomist
   registered nurse
   dietitian
   radiologic technician

   6. What is hypertension?

   high blood pressure
   plaque buildup inside arteries
   ruptured arteries in the brain
   death of heart muscle

   7. Which birth defects occurs when the roof of the mouth does not fuse together?

   Muscular Dystrophy
   Spina Bifida
   Down’s Syndrome
   Cleft Palate

   8. The loss of which hormone contributes to osteoporosis?

   insulin
   oxytocin
   estrogen
   thyroxine

   9. Which of the following behaviors will not help reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease?

   using sunscreen
   maintaining a healthy weight
   exercising regularly
   eating a low-fat diet

   10. Which of the following might best describe how people with asthma feel during an asthma attack?

   they have a migraine headache
   they have increased sinus pressure
   they are having problems with their bowels
   they are trying to breathe through what feels like a small straw

   11. When the body doesn’t produce insulin, what is the effect?

   cells absorb too much glucose and the blood sugar is low
   cells don’t absorb enough glucose and the blood sugar is high
   cells produce too much glucose and the body uses fat for energy
   cells don’t produce enough glucose and the body stores fat

   12. What can people do to reduce their risk of developing type 2, or adult-onset, diabetes?

   reduce salt intake
   wear sunscreen or protective clothing when outside
   take insulin regularly
   eat a healthy diet and maintain a proper body weight

   13. What can people do to reduce their risk of developing skin cancer?

   reduce salt intake
   wear sunscreen or protective clothing when outside
   take insulin regularly
   eat a healthy diet and maintain a proper body weight

   14. What is the most prominent and preventable risk factor contributing to lung cancer?

   air pollution
   no insulin produced
   lack of exercise
   smoking

   15. What is the single, most effective means of breaking the chain of infection?

   wearing gloves when in direct contact with people
   using disposable tissues for the cold or flu
   washing hands frequently throughout the day
   cooking and storing foods at their proper temperature

   16. Which condition best describes atherosclerosis?

   cancerous tumor growths on the hands
   scar tissue developing after surgery
   fatty plaque and cholesterol buildup inside arteries
   high blood pressure

   17. How is brain tissue destroyed by a stroke?

   A blocked artery deprives part of the brain of oxygen.
   The heart stops beating and therefore blood circulation to the brain stops.
   Trauma to the skull causes swelling and pressure on the brain.
   The lungs are filled with fluid, causing abdominal swelling.

   18. A fifty-two-year-old woman feels a squeezing, crushing pain in her chest. The pain also extends to her left arm, neck, and shoulder. She is short of breath. What is she suffering from?

   diabetes mellitus
   a stroke
   a heart attack
   breast cancer

   19. What is metastasis?

   swelling because of fluid retention in the abdomen
   cancer cells leaving a tumor and invading other parts of the body
   breathing into an inhaler to open up the airways
   using a b

   Reply
   • Anonymous says:

     November 30, -0001 at 12:00 am

     Sorry, nice try, but you have to do your own homework.

     Reply