RSR
Platinum Member
Resting tidal volume won't circulate much air "deep" into the lungs. Argue that if you want, but look where most primary lung cancers form. That was and is my point, which I see was a bit above your reading comprehension. Your poignent brain power is adding the the wrong emphAsis to the wrong syllAble.
You contradicted your self there, too, champ. I didn't say any. I said the particulate that doesn't get swept gets absorbed where it can cause issue. Please reread what I wrote, or at least read the entirety of what I wrote prior to your condemning and accusatory resposes.
I'm not backing off because you are incorrect on your premise. You're trying to twist my words then say it's incorrect while leaving out other context I've also written. Luckily it's all still on the forum for other to read.
While my specialty isn't oncology, my patients are also frequently cancer patients. None of them developed cancer from a single 2.5um particule deep in a lung. If it wasn't purely genetic, it was repeated exposure to the irritant/carcinogen.
Resting tidal volume won't circulate much air "deep" into the lungs. Argue that if you want, but look where most primary lung cancers form. That was and is my point, which I see was a bit above your reading comprehension. Your poignent brain power is adding the the wrong emphAsis to the wrong syllAble.
You contradicted your self there, too, champ. I didn't say any. I said the particulate that doesn't get swept gets absorbed where it can cause issue. Please reread what I wrote, or at least read the entirety of what I wrote prior to your condemning and accusatory resposes.
I'm not backing off because you are incorrect on your premise. You're trying to twist my words then say it's incorrect while leaving out other context I've also written. Luckily it's all still on the forum for other to read.
While my specialty isn't oncology, my patients are also frequently cancer patients. None of them developed cancer from a single 2.5um particule deep in a lung. If it wasn't purely genetic, it was repeated exposure to the irritant/carcinogen.
My 5 year old has better reading comprehension than you. Go back and read Nings post. Slowly. He says nothing of cancer. He talks about irritants and pollutants from PM2.5 that can cause all sorts of health problems. You appear to have somehow interpreted this to mean PM2.5 only causes lung cancer, which is a laughable conclusion, or position, from which to make your argument.
It's pretty telling that in your attempt to disparage my intelligence, the very sentence and post in which you do so is littered with spelling errors and grammatical mistakes.