| Author |
Message |
    
jamie
Citizen
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 560
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:38 am: | 
|
Surgeon General: The Debate is Over. The Science is Clear
Tobacco Smoke Pollution is a Serious Health Hazard
Surgeon General has just issued a detailed report on secondhand smoke:
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2006pres/20060627.html
Hopefully down the road every state will ban cigarettes from the public, and perhaps an eventual ban on cigarettes.
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/
Here's the full report:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/
Here's a few of the major conclusions:
1. Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke.
2. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
3. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
4. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
5. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully pro-tects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to second-hand smoke. |
JazzMe
Citizen
Username: Jazzme
Post Number: 214
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:49 am: |
|
Thanks Jamie... but did you ever have any doubt? I sure didn't!
On a side note, my mother - who is a smoker - was visiting from Europe a few weeks ago and she had some cigarettes from there. I was shocked and a bit amused by the "warning" logo: the pack had a giant label taking the entire back side, which read TOBACCO KILLS... didn't stop her apparently but she and the rest of Europe can certainly consider themselves warned! |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14814
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:45 am: |
|
Actually, there was doubt about second hand smoke.
|
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 348
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Tom, The doubt was generated by the Tobacco Institute. Since the institute no longer exists, the doubt disappeared. It is similar to the anti-global warming "science" paid for by Exxon. |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 1:31 am: |
|
B/S there was much doubt as to the validity. |
Illuminated Radish
Citizen
Username: Umoja
Post Number: 6
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 3:28 pm: |
|
So the question is.... should they be made illegal?
I don't really like the fact that American government can't come to terms with smoking. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7693
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 12:10 pm: |
|
It will be extremely difficult to make tobacco smoking illegal. You really can't enforce legislation designed to prevent people from hurting themselves.
Long term, the best approach is to education young children as to the harmful effects of smoking so they never start and to increase efforts to get smokers to quit voluntarily. If successful, this could eventually limit the market for tobacco products so that manufacturers stopped making them but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Limiting the places where persons are permitted to smoke could help reduce the impact of second hand smoke if these laws are properly enforced but persons smoking in their own home will still be endagering the lives of their family members and persons smoking in their own vehicles will still be endangering the lives of their passengers, etc.
|
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 906
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 8:14 pm: |
|
I am a smoker and I know cigarettes are not healthy. I find it strange though that countries like France, Germany, Austria, Greece, Trukey, China, Russia who have alot of smokers have alot less smoke related deaths.
If a person dies from a heart attack and he/she was a smoker then the heartattack is deemed smoke related wereas it probably has more to do with stress, weight, cholesterol, lack of exercise, and general eating habits.
Alot of our killer deceases, like all cancers, are also hormon fueled and it's no surprise since most of the meat we eat is loaded with hormons. Vegetables are covered in carcinogens and our other habits to make our life easy are starting to take it's toll. None stick frying pans are bad, microwaving in plastic is bad and our much beloved french fries have been found to be real cancers sticks too if the oil they were fryed in was overused.
I am not defending smoking but I think alot of real killers are overlooked because it has become so fashionable to blame everything on cigarretes.
|
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 8:16 pm: |
|
I puff through about a pack of Newports a week. I figure I'll quit when I'm out of college. If not, well then I'll die early...wont I? |
jamie
Citizen
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 562
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Sadly, I was at a funeral this past Monday - lung cancer. CIGARETTES KILL!
It would be hard to make them illegal, but I think measures should be taken to limit the amount of chemicals used to spike the delivery of nicotine. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14852
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 1, 2006 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Bajou, I'm sure you're right that we blame a few things on cigarettes where other things might have been the causes.
I believe smoking can raise your cholesterol, so in that case, it's a mixed cause.
Glock, most people have a lot of trouble quitting. If you are an exception, I suggest you take advantage of that now, before quitting becomes too hard. After all, what benefit are you getting? Sure, there's some pleasure. I'm familiar with that. But weigh that against the potential cost. It doesn't seem worth it, unless you're really having trouble imagining pain, disease and death.
|
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 909
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 4:23 am: |
|
To Glock: As a longtime smoker I would suggest that you quit while you are ahead and you are since you are still young. I always thought I would quit when I was 35 and I just turned 39 and I still smoke. There is always that one last vacation, that one stressful week and that one whatever to get through and before you know it you are smoking 25 years. Even though I do not think that smoking should be blamed for everything, you as a smoker know how bad it is for you. My time is coming...I choose not to smoke during the day anymore but that's not good enough either. Should I be forced to quit? NO...it doesn't work and what is being done right now with the bans and all will not work either. The more difficult or possible illegal you make it the more kids will be drawn to it.... Look at drugs. If banning would work then there wouldn't have a drug problem in this world. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7712
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Bajou has a point. Smoking may in at least some cases be a contributing factor rather that the sole cause of so many premature death in this country.
Would my husband have contracted diabetes if he had not smoked? Probably. There is a history of both diabetes and hypoglycemia on both sides of his family. Would he have had two heart attackes if he hadn't smoked? Who knows. There is less family history of cardiac problems but the heart attacks could have been caused by the unmanaged diabetes. Would I have gotten a call one morning stating that if I wanted to see my husband alive again, I should immediately fly up to Rochester, NY where he was in the Emergency Room having a massive heart attack that could easily kill him? I don't think so! A goodly amount of gunk removed from his totally clogged blood vessels was clearly caused by the buildup of tobacco by products in his body.
Today he no longer smokes. He hasn't smoked since the day the emergency room doctor was moments away from putting a sheet over his head and declaring him dead. He feels much better now and has both his diabetes and his heart disease under control. This would not be the case if he still smoked.
Think of tobacco products as being a catalyst. Whatever is already wrong with you physically, cigarette smoking will make only worse.
If you are able to quit smoking, please do. If you are not yet suffering the physical affects of smoking be grateful enough to quit before you do. |
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 1725
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
I quit smoking a few months ago. I will start up again when either I am 80, or the doctor tells me I don't have much time left. Smoking my be unhealthy, but it brings just a little bit of happiness to people several times a day.
Hopefully there is no eventual ban on smoking. People should be free to do what they choose.
I am also sure that another lab will have out tests in a few weeks disputing these claims. On the one hand people refuse to believe any test results that are published with any funding from tobacco companies (no matter how independant the lab is). On the other hand, they fully accept without question the results from groups that have already made their minds up that second hand smoking is harmful.
I would not say that the debate is over. I would say that there is a long way still to go. |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 7:18 pm: |
|
I hate that most non-smokers assume that smokers don't know what it is doing to them. We know...and we do it anyway. |
Bajou
Citizen
Username: Bajou
Post Number: 918
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 10:15 pm: |
|
I don't see anybody yelling at overweight people buying cheeseburgers at McDonalds. Heartdecease is the number one killer in this country and it has been for a while now. People smoked alot more in the 50's, 60's and 70's then now but heart decease has steadily increased. This country is dying from heart realted illnesses because the average american is grossly overweight. If somebody weighs 400 pounds and has a heart attack at 50 it is not because he/she smoked! |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3465
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 10:51 pm: |
|
But someone eating a cheeseburger at McDonalds does nothing to threaten my health. Smoking near me does. I have no issue with people smoking. just not near me or my family.
As for the difference between the US and Europe regarding smoking related deaths, I have no doubt that they are over reported here. I similarly believe that they are under reported there. Just as "not smoking" is a part of the current American culture, "smoking" is still a part of most European countries cultures.
No one has claimed the sole factor (or even the major contributing factor) in heart disease is smoking. it is a factor, just as poor eating habits and lack of exercise are. |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1819
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 10:59 pm: |
|
Plus you've got to concede that smoking is... well... is "disgusting" the word I'm looking for here? Apart from chewing tobacco (and spitting it out in public), the only other thing I could come up with as comparable would be long, drawn out sessions of nose-picking or possibly someone with 'clinical level' flatulence. You know, the kind of flatulence that winds up either in the New England Journal of Medicine, or on some internet "Weird News" page.
You'd think that natural selection would eventually come into play here, with smokers finding themselves unable to reproduce - but so far, that doesn't seem to be the case.
There's probably a 95%/5% ratio in my outlook on the NJ smoking ban... 95% selfish and self-serving, 5% evil glee that the people who made my 'bar nights' as a youth somewhat uncomfortable are getting screwed with.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3466
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 11:04 pm: |
|
Case, though you have to admit, watching some people eat a double quarter pounder with cheese, a super sized fries, and a coke larger than anything you can buy at a supermarket can be pretty disgusting as well. |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, July 2, 2006 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Case, "disgusting" is a relative term. Keep it to yourself. |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1827
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Thanks for the advice, junior. Trust me, "disgusting" is an excellent description of smoking. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7720
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Limiting exposure to second hand smoke does not mean that we can't also try and deal with the problem of unhealthy diets. Healthier school lunch choices, nutrition education, and ingredient labeling are a start. We need to find ways to encourage more of the persons in our country to gain more exercise as a regular part of the daily routine; encourage food manufacturers to market more healthy choices in processed food; encourage restaurants to have low fat/low sodium/high fiber/whole grain choices on their menu; encourage more scratch cooking using healthy ingredients, make healthy food choices more affordable; etc. But this should be done in addition to trying to limit the consumption of tobacco products, especially in public spaces. It is not a matter of doing just one or the other. |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Prohibition is a difficult thing, be it for alcohol, tobacco, "other smoking materials", or greasy, fat-laden food.
If someone wants to eat themselves into an early grave, well... that's a shame (especially if tax dollars go towards renting the U-Haul sized ambulance), but that really isn't any of our business.
Do you want to get drunk every night? Bad idea, but go right ahead - just don't drive and endanger other people.
Want to smoke 4 packs a day? Great! Here's a lighter - enjoy the yellow teeth, hacking cough and admiring looks from everyone that sees you (they're thinking, "Gee I wish I was that cool", in case you're curious). However... don't blow smoke at someone who doesn't wish to participate.
If one of the smokers' arguments is, "Why ban public smoking - look at the unhealthy food and lack of exercise problem", well... that seems kind of silly to me. If you're cataloging human stupidity, I hope you have a very, very long piece of paper! |
Illuminated Radish
Citizen
Username: Umoja
Post Number: 8
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 10:18 pm: |
|
Smoking causes a negative externality though. Drinking can only be done in private. |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 10:48 pm: |
|
Case in point (hahaha): Smoking wasn't disgusting 50 years ago. Case, it's an extremely relative term. |
John James Leuchs Jr
Citizen
Username: Clairvoyant
Post Number: 104
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 3, 2006 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Glock, when you are so careful about things like firecrackers it just seems inconsistent to have started smoking. If you don't mind sharing, I am just curious how you started. Two factors that one has to consider are: the pollution that is already in the air in the most populated state and the difficulty people have in quitting. Do either of your parents smoke?
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7721
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 7:07 am: |
|
Glock:
You weren't around 50 years ago. I was. I can tell you that smoking was considered by many to be a disgusting habit then too. The difference was that most people really didn't know how harmful smoking and especially second hand smoke could be to people. This was way before the surgeon general's warning began appearing on each pack of cigarettes.
If the floor feels wobbly to you and you still walk on it, you are making a personal judgment as to your own safety. If a team of structural engineers examines the floor and tells you it is due to colapse any second, would you still be as likely to walk on it? |
Joanne G
Citizen
Username: Joanne
Post Number: 304
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 8:51 am: |
|
For what it's worth: try being very overweight and just once treating yourself to an item of fast-food - almost guaranteed that every eye in the establishement will be on you and every thought will be 'oh look at that slob - doesn't s/he know anything about nutrition?' Try having a disability or chronic condition that causes you to slur your words or smell of strange body odours, and just once indulge in an alcoholic drink in a public bar. Again, almost guaranteed every eye will be on you and every thought will be 'Disgusting drunk - ought to know better!' It doesn't matter what causes your difference, others are quick to assume they know better than you how to live your life.
Human nature seems to be to judge everyone else on our own impossible standards (to which we rarely measure up ourselves), without bothering to find out enough about their situations before rendering said judgement. Especially when we're talking chemical addiction, each person's cure will need to be different and customised. (My David gave up his 2-pack a day habit just to be around me as I'm allergic to the smell of tobacco - he gave up over lunch, cold-turkey! hasn't looked back for 18 years. Some say that was romantic - I say 'twas reckless and impulsive!!)
Can we avoid judging others' behaviour, and support those who wish to move on to healthier life choices? I phrase it that way as I find it hard to be around those who practise unhealthy life choices (where those choices involve tobacco or violence, for instance). I just find it tiresome being judgemental all the time... (another looooong day at work - you can tell, eh?) |
Soparents
Supporter
Username: Soparents
Post Number: 1808
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 9:22 am: |
|
My father was a smoker (30+ years ago). I remember him being in bed every Chistmas with a severe cold/chest infection brought on by smoking. I also remember at the age of 8 innocently telling him after watching him in bed again, that he will die becasue he smoked. This was WAY before anything was being said about smoking being bad for you. He never smoked again. My Aunt was a smoker, she saw a friend die of cancer and stopped smoking cold turkey. My Husband was a smoker, and tried and tried to quit. Finally when our girlies came along he quit, cold turkey. THAT was hard. He says that never a day goes by that he doesn't want one, but he will never smoke again.
My Father in law smokes. He has severe chest and lung problems, but when he is here, he goes outside and smokes... a lot. this man is skin and bone, be hacks when he coughs. He can't lift anything heavy, he can't walk fast or too far as he can't breathe...
His wife (my step-mum-in-law) smokes - she sees what he is like but doesn't connect the dots.
My Mother in law smoked... she got up one night coughing, went into the bathroom and looked in the mirror as she coughed - she was coughing up blood. She stopped cold turkey. That was about 8-10 years ago. She has had a bad chest/breathing for years. She was diagnosed last month with emphysema....
In England (I don't know about here) there is a surgeon generals warning on the cigarette packs "Smoking can damage your health and that of an unborn child" or something like that. It should also say that smoking around others can harm them too.. Anyone English reading this may remember Roy Castle. He was a comedian who played in the clubs. He died some years back of lung cancer, he never smoked a day in his life, but the docs said that being in the clubs week after week, year after year, smoke filled clubs, he was breathing all this in so he was "basically an unwilling smoker"......that was what caused the lung cancer.
Smoking is addictive - as addictive as anything else. Anyone who is able to give this us, whatever their reason for doing so, should be helped...
|
Joanne G
Citizen
Username: Joanne
Post Number: 305
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
Here in Australia, tobacco products now carry pics of cancer damage caused by smoking - rotted gums, cancerous lungs, gangrenous (?sp)/ulcerated legs etc plus the written warnings. But the sad fact is, it won't help if you're chemically addicted - no matter how much you intellectually know you need to stop. David always says 'when you find the right "why", then it's easier but it's never really easy'. And I see that in my work.
Both my parents chainsmoked when I was born. I am the middle child, they smoked while all three of us were young. We two youngest are asthmatic - my brother as a child, and I've grown into it. We have other issues probably related to secondhand smoke. But that doesn't matter -it's not about blame anymore, but about minimising environmental factors generally so we can all be healthier.
To a certain extent, I agree with Glock and other smokers - we should't guilt them into giving up, and shove them into cramped ikky corners of windtunnels outside buildings. They're fellow-humans, after all.
But we shouldn't support the habit either, just like we shouldn't support gambling, consumption of alcoholic and other drugs of addiction - and for that matter, other addictive, compulsive behaviours. Now for me, that includes MOL - so now I'm a certified hypocrite and in a moral bind so I'll plead tiredness and go to bed which is always an easy 'out' for me  |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 711
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
Glock, about your statement 'Smoking wasn't disgusting 50 years ago': IT WAS SO! As it was 150 years ago!
I remember in an antique magazine (from around the mid to late 1800's) it being described as a 'foul, uncouth and disgusting habit'. It was a 'ladies' magazine and they didn't exactly mince words!
|
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Damn... Glock, if you want attention I'm sure there's a more positive way to get it. It seems that EVERYONE is taking great pains to point out your errors here - does it feel good?
I guess it's true what they say: "It Takes A Village". |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1360
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Case, if you want to be rude, condescending, and generally bothersome...there are a million other places for you to go. |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1831
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Once again, junior, thanks for the advice - and you won't get a half dozen 'correction' posts... since you seem to be accurate this time! |
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
"Junior"? Don't patronize me. I'm tired of your lame attempts at making yourself feel better through insulting me. |
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 2:39 pm: |
|
In that case, try something new - stop posting stupid things and acknowledge it when someone (and there have been many!) catches you out in a false statement.
Just a thought. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 2046
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 6:21 pm: |
|
The World Health Organization's first study on SHS is a textbook example of the right way to conduct an epidemiological study. Unfortunately for them, it yielded unexpected results. They responded by doing a second one, a meta-analysis, that allowed them to extract the results they wanted. This is an analysis of their first study.
Fact: The World Health Organization conducted a study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and lung cancer in Europe.
Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.
Fact: This was a case control study using a large sample size.
Fact: The purpose of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of risk, to discover any differences between different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different types of lung cancer.
Fact: The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years.
Fact: The participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects. Patients with smoking related diseases were excluded from the control group. None of the subjects in either group had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime.
Fact: Three of the study centers interviewed family members of the participants to confirm the subjects were not smokers.
Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
Fact: The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.
Fact: The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means
• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.
-But-
• Because the Confidence Interval includes 1.0, The Relative Risk of 1.16 number is not statistically significant.
Fact: The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the RR of 1.16 is not statistically significant.
Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually not considered important and, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Epidemiology 101 for more details.)
This rule of thumb is routinely ignored by the anti-smoker activists.
Fact: The study found no Dose/Response relationship for spousal ETS exposure. See Epidemiology 102 for more information.
Fact: The RR for workplace ETS was 1.17 with a CI of .94 - 1.45, well below the preferred 2.0 - 3.0, and with another CI that straddled 1.0.
Fact: The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14, with a CI of .88 - 1.47.
Fact: The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI.
The WHO quickly buried the report. The British press got wind of it and hounded them for weeks.
Fact: On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."
Finally, the WHO issued a press release. Although their study showed no statistically significant risk from ETS, their press release had the misleading headline "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer - Do Not Let Them Fool You." (I say "misleading" because it would be impolite to call it an outright lie.)
Fact: In paragraph four they admitted the facts: "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." (Emphasis added.)
Fact: The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer.
Fact: The WHO tried to blame the results on a small sample size. However, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, where the results were published, the researchers clearly state: "An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its size, which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical precision..." |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3486
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 4, 2006 - 10:48 pm: |
|
Care to share where you cut and paste that from? A nice independent resarch analyst? |
JazzMe
Citizen
Username: Jazzme
Post Number: 220
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 9:31 am: |
|
"Fact: The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer."
There you have it folks, for your own good and that of your children you simply SHOULD SMOKE around them.
 The Libertarian: pro-choice on everything, including endangering your children! |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14894
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Glock, this is a messageboard for posting opinions. Do you think we should we be telling people to keep their opinions and to go somewhere else?
To be clear, I'm not defending rudeness, and some have been rude to you. On the other hand, some others have been very kind to you.
|
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 4:03 pm: |
|
The FACT: list comes from www.davehitt.com. Which I imagine is some sort of unbiased, scientifically sound, government-backed research institute.
|
Case
Citizen
Username: Case
Post Number: 1835
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 - 6:32 pm: |
|
A Journal of One Man's Opinion |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 2050
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 12:11 am: |
|
read the original World Health Organization report. it will tell you the same thing as the article i posted. not written by a tobacco company or a tobacco paid organization, the World Health Organization. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 2051
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 6, 2006 - 12:15 am: |
|
Californians can't smoke in bars. Why? Lawmakers in Sacramento think they're protecting the health of patrons who don't smoke.
But breathing secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer. At least there's no proof of it.
That's not the politically incorrect propaganda of the smokers' lobby. It's the conclusion of a major study by the World Health Organization, a smoking foe. And it has the data to back it up -data that California bar and nightclub owners would no doubt like to get their hands on.
If they knew more about the study, that is.
Far from California, across the Atlantic, the British press has amplified the results of the WHO study. But you'd be hard pressed to find the story in the American media.
Overseas interest might be greater because WHO tracked 2,000 people in six European countries. But some suspect anti-smoking bias is behind scarce coverage here.
After all, the WHO study casts doubt on the Environmental Protection Agency's ''meta-analysis'' that called passive smoke a carcinogen and led to personal injury lawsuits. In effect, WHO found that nonsmokers breathing in a smoke-filled room are at no greater risk of developing lung cancer than they are breathing in a clear room.
WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer stated in its recent biennial report that the risk of lung cancer did increase slightly among those exposed to secondhand smoke at work, at home from a smoking spouse, or both. But none of these increases was ''statistically significant.''
This means that ''there's a good chance that there's no association whatsoever'' between passive smoke and lung cancer, said Michael Gough, a senior associate and program manager at Congress' now-defunct Office of Technology Assessment, which advised committees on scientific policy.
Gough, now director of risk and science studies at the free-market Cato Institute, can hardly be accused of being a tool of the tobacco industry. He directed OTA's landmark '81 study, which found that direct smoking was behind 30% of U.S. cancer cases.
''It's very clear that smoking is bad,'' Gough said. But passive smoke is a different matter, he adds.
WHO's findings, first reported in early March, have received wide coverage in British papers such as the London-based Sunday Telegraph. The full study has yet to be published because it is ''still in the process of peer review,'' said Enrique Madrigal, U.S. regional adviser to WHO for alcohol, tobacco and substance abuse.
But on this side of the Atlantic, most of the press has yet to lift the fog.
''There's no question'' that the American media would have jumped on the study's results if they had gone the other way, said Reason magazine senior editor Jacob Sullum, who wrote ''For Your Own Good,'' a critique of the anti-smoking movement.
Despite the scant coverage so far, observers say the study could weaken the case for smoking bans and passive-smoke suits.
The prospect may have prompted WHO, which has long crusaded against tobacco, to issue a press release headlined in all-capital letters: ''Passive Smoke Does Cause Lung Cancer; Do Not Let Them Fool You.''
The release conceded that the findings were not statistically significant, but said that results were ''very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere'' that show increased risk.
Skeptics agree that the results are in line with other studies. But they add that most other studies also show the risk of lung cancer is so small as to be scientifically meaningless.
When it pooled the results of several passive smoke studies a few years ago, the EPA had to double its margin of error in order to show a small, albeit statistically significant, risk.
''The bottom line on all the evidence on secondhand smoke and lung cancer is that it doesn't prove anything,'' Sullum said.
The link hasn't held up in court either.
Last month a Muncie, Ind., jury found that cigarette makers were not liable in the '91 lung cancer death of nonsmoker Mildred Wiley.
Lawyers for her husband, who brought the injury suit, claimed that Wiley contracted lung cancer through exposure to passive smoke at a veterans' hospital, where she worked as a nurse. She died at 56.
Upon hearing the verdict, ''I was just shocked,'' said Joseph Young, one of the plaintiff's lawyers. ''I thought that we were going to win. We've been working on this for six years.''
Young, who is considering an appeal, thought the case would be easier to win than direct smoking cases. How so? Wiley was a victim who did not assume the risk of other people's smoking, he explained.
But defense attorney William Ohlemeyer hammered away at the lack of scientific proof.
''On the news, the public doesn't hear the other side of the story or the entirety of the science,'' Ohlemeyer said. ''But in a courtroom, where you get the chance to tell both sides of the story, I was pretty confident a fair jury would find (that the scientific evidence was) very weak, very equivocal and just doesn't quite prove what people expected it to prove.''
Ohlemeyer latched onto the WHO study, getting an expert witness to walk jurors through the findings in the final days of the trial.
Michael Thomas, whose father smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and died of lung cancer at 49, was just the type of juror plaintiff's lawyers were aiming for when they argued that jurors should in effect send a message to tobacco companies.
But Thomas, a nonsmoker like the rest of the jurors, did not think the plaintiff's lawyers presented a convincing scientific case.
''The defense leaned a lot on the studies that had been done (that showed) that risks involved in terms of secondhand smoke were inconclusive,'' Thomas said in an interview. ''The plaintiffs didn't do enough to contradict that.''
In addition to lawsuits, the WHO study could play a role in state rows over smoking bans.
Some are up in arms because of a California smoking ban that has now extended to all bars as well as restaurants. Even lighting up in a cigar bar violates the law.
''You're starting to see an awful lot of civil disobedience,'' observed Kate Nelson, president of the California Licensed Beverage Association and owner of the Hollywood Palace, a 1,500-seat theater with six bars.
A bill recently passed the state Assembly to temporarily allow smoking in bars until a state regulatory agency comes up with a ventilation standard. It appears to be stalled in a Senate committee. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7751
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 9:22 am: |
|
Libertarian:
Do you know what population served as the basis for the study? (average age, gender, urban/suburban/rural, medical history of participants and their close contacts prior to the study, frequency of medical checks of study participants and their close contacts during the study and after the study ended and for how long the medical follow up continued, environmental factors which may have influenced the results, type(s) of tobacco products used by the smokers in the study, frequency with which the tobacco users in the study smoked, average length of time per day close contacts were exposed to the second hand smoke, if this exposure was inside or outside any enclosed structure, etc.) All of this would be useful when it comes to interpreting the data.
Unfortunately, some of the effects of second hand smoke can be very long term and may not yet have fully emerged if the study was done recently. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2823
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 12:48 pm: |
|
FYI:
http://www.forward.com/articles/8060 |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7753
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Great article. Thanks for sharing. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2832
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 9:22 pm: |
|
You're welcome Joan. You should consider subscribing to the Forward. Much of the writing is excellent and there is a great diversity of viewpoints. I have also seen them "scoop" the NY Times a couple of times. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7756
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 6:48 am: |
|
Anon:
Thanks for the invite. I had no idea the Forward published an English edition. As a child, I remember it being strictly a Yiddish paper. |
Illuminated Radish
Citizen
Username: Umoja
Post Number: 13
Registered: 6-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 12:18 pm: |
|
I don't think we should be so quick to judge. People like being self-destructive, I'm convinced. People smoke knowing it's bad, people drink knowing it's bad, people drive fast knowing it's bad. Maybe not all people are like this, but in general people like putting themselves in some sort of risk.
I think we're just going through another prohibition era with cigarettes right now. I feel this one is better ochestrated, but at the same time it seems rather silly, everyone knows it's bad and that it's addictive. But maybe people who smoke want to make life easier for American workers by dying before they can collect social security? |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7760
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Illuminated Radish:
You may feel that you like putting yourself in some sort of risk. Perhaps your friends do too but trust me, the vast majority of persons I have met in my lifetime don't share this view of life.
Another problem I have with your argument is the implication that smkers are only putting themselves at risk. This simply isn't true. Smokers are also putting everyone close to them at risk. Would you get in a car as a passenger when the driver has had so much to drink that their perception and reflexes are compromised? Being in the same enclosed space with a person who is smoking and repeating this behavior over time carries with it a very similar risk. The production of second hand smoke is not a victimless crime.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page