Whats smoke do to your lungs black stuff?

Answer 1

when you smoke it is using some of your oxygen and and your lungs turn black because of the tobacco; but that's only the beginning: First the smoke interferes with the mucocilliary escalator and you develop constant low grade infections because there's nothing to keep the bacteria out, then you replace elastic tissue for scar tissue, soon your lungs will not be able to empty all the way and so you now have chronic obstructive lung disease. And, of course, all those tars and oxidizing chemicals increase your chances of developing the big C........................................The Black Lung Lie

Posted on August 6, 2012 by Frank Davis

A discussion of 'smokers' black lungs' started in the comments today. It's the widespread belief that smokers' lungs turn black. Rose pointed out that it all started with James I about four centuries ago. She also dug up some refutations:

"Dr. Duane Carr - Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: "Smoking does not discolor the lung."

Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: "I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked."

Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: "…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung."

And Brigitte even found a YouTube video:

There is even this (in German) in which a forensic medic states that these "tar" lungs do not exist.

Rich White's Smoke Screens reports the same:

This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951 - 1984. In a television interview in the 1980's he stated that, translated from Dutch, "I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I've seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers".

..........................................................Smokers' lungs used in half of transplants

Almost half of lung transplant patients were given the lungs taken from heavy smokers, with one in five coming from donors who had smoked at least one packet of cigarettes a day for 20 or more years

Despite this, new research shows that those people given the lungs of smokers were just as likely to be alive up to three years after transplantation as those who had organs from non-smokers. In some cases, they had improved survival rates.

"Donor lungs from even heavy smokers may provide a valuable avenue for increasing donor organ availability," says André Simon, director of heart and lung transplantation and consultant cardiac surgeon at Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust.

"Our findings provide for the first time real world figures for the perceived risk of implantation of lungs from donors with even a heavy smoking history, and they show that such donor lungs may provide a much-needed lease on life to the critically ill patient whose chances of survival diminish with every day or week that passes by on the waiting list.

"I believe that candidates significantly decrease their chances of survival if they choose to decline organs from smokers."

Lung transplantation is a life-saving therapy for patients with end-stage lung disease, but a shortage of organ donors means people are dying while waiting. UK Transplant Registry data show that only 20 per cent get transplants within six months. The figure rises to 51 per cent after three years, but by that time nearly one in three patients has died waiting for a transplant.

The demand for lung transplants, which are carried out for suitable patients with a number of diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cystic fibrosis, far outstrips demand. Using lung transplants from smokers is a way of boosting supply, but such use has attracted concerns and controversy because of a perceived risk to the health of the recipients.

The new research, conducted at Hare field Hospital in north-west London where Professor Sir Ma gdi Ya coub carried out the first UK heart and lung transplant in 1983, looked for any differences, including short-and medium-term survival, between patients given lungs from smokers and those who had organs from non-smokers.

Over a six-year period since 2007, a total of 237 lung transplants were carried out at Hare field, and 90 per cent were double-lung transplants. Just over half, 53 per cent, had lungs from non-smokers, while 29 per cent were from donors who had smoked for less than 20 years, and 18 per cent had the lungs of people who had smoked 20 or more a day for at least 20 years.

Results show that one-year and three-year survival figures were about the same for all three groups. Those with lungs from non-smokers even fared slightly worse in terms of one-year survival. A total of 77.7 per cent with non-smoking donors' lungs were alive after the first year, compared with 90.8 per cent with smokers' lungs. There were also no differences in a number of other measures, including overall effectiveness of the lungs, the amount of time spent in intensive care, and the length of time in hospital.