|
|
Please note that any comments expressed in these forum posts do not reflect the opinions of Medical News Today in any way at all. Opinions posted in this forum do not constitute medical
advice, which should be sought from qualified medical advisers. Disclaimer.
No Smoking In Public Places
posted by Pete on 19 May 2008 at 6:36 pmThis is just another bit of ammunition to justify public smoking bans. Mind you the evidence was already overwhelmingly in favor of bans before this study was released.
Read the news article that this opinion was posted about:
Passive Smoking: 30 Minutes Is Enough To Cause Observable Changes In The Arteries
Another Fabrication Of Fact
posted by John Channel Isles on 20 May 2008 at 8:14 am
Another gross fabrication of truth. There is no health impacts to passive smoking. Study after study after study demonstrates this. As a smoker of 30 years I have never seen any smokers dropping dead whilst clubbing and pubbing for 30 years (and that's direct smoke inhalation!!). I've never seen non-smokers keeling over in clubs or pubs in 30 years either. This disturbingly untruthful and lame article needs to be filed in "bin" along with all the other trash junk science about passive smoking.
This Is More Anti-smoking Propaganda!
posted by Kin Free on 20 May 2008 at 9:24 am
"Various trials have shown that passive smoking causes cardiovascular damage equal to 80% to 90% of the damage suffered by smokers." -
This is just NOT true - just about every long-term study on this subject has proved that passive smoking has little or no effect.
What does "30 minutes exposure makes arteries react like smokers arteries" mean - If I run up a hill, my lungs will react the same as a maraton runner, I will breathe heavier - but will that cause me to get some deadly disease? NO.
All the scientific studies carried out thus far, over many years, cannot even prove that smoking causes lung cancer, or any other cancers for that matter,(Check the research, legal cases etc)- so how on earth can anyone say that passive smoking causes cancer? (I assume that the implication is that passive smoking is harmful to health!)
I ask the question - who is sponsoring these scientists to produce results such as in this article? This tells more about the research and researchers than anything they produce! (a big clue is usually found in their title - 'Tobacco control' -because that is all it is - it has little to do with health)
If any scientists in this field, not aligned with 'tobacco control' or pharmaceutical industries, are reading this - please try to look beyond the 'tobacco kills' mantra and look at the real evidence! You may have to dig deep to find it as anything that goes against this mantra is usually suppressed, but it is there!
Look at why in the heaviest smoking countries, you will usually find that there are LESS cancers than in countries where smoking rates are less.
Ask the question - Why is there not more research in cancer causation that does not begin with 'apart from smoking...'
Ask the question - How much would it cost governments in litigation if the real cause of cancers are more to do with substances such as:- Asbestos, known to be cancerous since the 1930's with a time lag from exposure to effect of 10 - 60yrs. It's use and exposure to the public was widespread up to the 1990's, not just to workers but those who resided near (nationalised) industries using it; Diesel smoke - known to contain far more cancerous substances than cigarettes, yet it's use is increasing daily; PM2.5's - more associated with any combustion. eg incinerators, petrochemical industries etc).(general pollution)
Ask why, when the incidence of smoking is roughly the same throughout Britain, is lung cancer mortality significantly greater in just a few small geographical areas, and significantly less in others.
These questions need to be looked at more closely with an open mind - are there any scientists out there who can still do this? The answer is probably very few - scientists have to feed their children and pay a mortgage like the rest of us. Without a sponsor who truly wants to find the truth (and I dont know of any that are)the public will continue to be deceived and science will continue to become more and more discredited as they produce more and more ridiculous claims such as "20% reduction in heart attacks in 6 months since smoking bans" (or similar) - think about that one, smoking allegedly takes up to 30 years to have any adverse effect, according to some research!
ps. No doubt this will be 'screened out' as unsuitable - it does not agree with the so called 'consensus' but beware, more people ARE questioning the alleged 'consensus' and my ultimate faith in truth and justice will I am sure, prevail.
Parental Smoking And Illness
posted by Maria Parquez on 21 May 2008 at 5:45 am
My parents both smoke. I am 16. I have recently left home to college where smoking is not allowed indoors. For the first time in my life my life-time respiratory problems have all gone. My parents are just like John from Channel Islands. Their attitude was that if I did not drop dead I was fine.
Passive Smoking Is A Scam:
posted by Carlos Lopez on 21 May 2008 at 7:12 am
well you are fine- the baby boomers grew up in a very smoky period and guess what- they are fine now!! This article is complete garbage and clearly funded by special interest pharmaceutical firms.
Here's some real facts on SHS:
Not one single death has ever been scientifically proven to have been caused by tobacco
Not one single death anywhere, ever, has been caused by second hand smoke
There is a higher risk of lung cancer from milk, cheese, and coffee than there is from SHS
There is no scientific justification for any smoking ban, anywhere
Smoking bans bring economic devastation and destroy communities
Smoking bans INCREASE the number of smokers (see Ireland as an example)
Modern Air Management systems make the indoor air clean for ALL patrons
The public did NOT want a blanket ban and said so for three years running
The debate is over: the science on SHS is a FRAUD
Strange, Though
posted by Claus H on 21 May 2008 at 1:07 pm
According to science, children of smokers are likely to develop a better defence against passive smoking, than children of non-smoking parents.
Children of smokers are not so likely to develop astma, food allergy and even lung cancer.
Maybe you were just very unlucky? Having respiratory problems?
The Usual Old Names
posted by Alan Parkinson on 21 May 2008 at 3:08 pm
The usual old names of Carlos, Channel Island Man, and about six others appear throughout the internet saying the tobacco industry is victim of big business, and that there is a conspiracy against them by the pharma industry with Nazi propaganda. Look out for those same names. If you voice an opinion against them they will call you Nazi, or an evil person who is out to victimize the poor old tobacco industry.
The fact is, quite simply, passive smoking is the last straw for this dying breed of tobacco industry lobbyist. They are cornered and really do not know what to say. So, the language becomes very similar to that used by the President of Zimbabwe or Sadam Hussein when he was alive - we are all against them and there is a giant conspiracy and they are the victims.
Pediatric Respiratory Problems
posted by Dr. Yamura Shimura on 21 May 2008 at 3:12 pm
I am a pediatrician and specialize in respiratory problems (among children). The majority of children I treat live in households where one or both parents smoke indoors while the children are in the house. A very small minority of my patients live in households where nobody smokes in the house. The majority of people in my country (Japan) do not smoke.
I rest my case.
And before some of the paranoids above accuse me of being part of a conspiracy - I have no links with any big business, pro or anti tobacco. I am just a doctor who treats children for respiratory disease.
Claus Lives In Cloud Cuckoo Land
posted by Dr. Juan Rodriguez on 21 May 2008 at 3:19 pm
Claus is talking a bunch of horse manure. I am a respiratory specialist and know for certain that all evidence points in the opposite direction. To say children of smokers have less asthma is like saying people who cross the road with their eyes closed develop an immunity to being hit by cars.
Dr Juan, Get Reading
posted by Dave Atherton on 21 May 2008 at 3:49 pm
I am afraid you need to do more reading Juan, here is the result of a peer reviewed study in New Zealand reported on this same website. "MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand."
"The team found that the children of atopic parents were less likely to have positive SPTs at 13 years if either parent smoked (odds ratio [OR]= 0.55." Yes if your parents smoke about a 50% reduction in sensitisation to allergies.
Lung Cancer
posted by Dave Atherton on 21 May 2008 at 4:01 pm
Dr. Yamura Shimura: Japanese people smoke twice as much as Europeans but have half the lung cancer, compared to the UK. You have 1/4 of deaths per head. My conclusion is our high fat diet. Did you know that the RR for lung cancer is 1.24 for a spouse of a smoker, but 2.14 for a non smoker who drinks whole fat milk daily? For many years a German paeleontologist was castigated for saying that birds were descended from dinosaurs, alas like passive smoking he was proved to be right.
Lung Cancer In Japan
posted by Dr. Kenji on 22 May 2008 at 2:34 am
Atherton is writing with no Authority. I work in the Japan Lung Society. 46% of Males smoke, 16% of females smoke (was 50% and 15%, my figures are the latest). An adult average of 31% - lower than Italy, Spain, France and many European countries, higher than UK and USA.
Lung Cancer the the most common cancer killer in Japan. Quote below -
http://www.ncc.go.jp/en/ncch/annrep/2002/thoracic_oncology.html
"The incidence of lung cancer in Japan is increasing especially in female and elderly population, and lung cancer has remained the most common cancer death in male patients since 1994. The majority of lung cancer patients are diagnosed at the advanced stage, and the prognosis of these patients is still poor. It is extremely important to establish new effective treatments against advanced lung cancer."
Loads Of Info
posted by Joe on 22 May 2008 at 2:52 am
A quick search in this Journal gave me 30 pages. HEre are the first three. A more extensive search in the BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, Canadian Medical Journal, Journal of the Australian Medical Association gives loads. See below-
Cardiologists Spell Out How Passive Smoking Damages The Heart And ...
Some of the world's leading cardiologists have urged peers at their biennial world congress to recognise the full extent of the dangers of tobacco, ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/108264.php
Link Between Ear Infections And Passive Smoking
A new report from Perth's Telethon Institute for Child Health Research has found a strong link between childhood ear infections and exposure to tobacco ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/108018.php
Passive Smoking: 30 Minutes Is Enough To Cause Observable Changes ...
Those who are habitually exposed to passive smoke run a cardiovascular risk almost as high as those who smoke; people who do not smoke but inhale second ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107923.php
Passive Smoking Raises Breast Cancer Risk For Under 50s
27 Jan 2006 ... According to the California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, passive smoking (second hand smoke) raises the risk of ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/36707.php
Passive Smoking Risk To Kids Exposed , UK
Chancellor Alistair Darling has been urged to double the price of 20 cigarettes to Ł10 in Wednesday's Budget. The demand by the Royal College of Physicians ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100084.php
Exposure To Passive Smoking Increases Sleep Disturbance Among ...
Pregnant women exposed to passive smoking are more likely to have sleep disturbances such as subjective insufficient sleep, difficulty in initiating sleep, ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/81311.php
Passive Smoking At Home More Serious Than Outside, House Of Lords
7 Jun 2006 ... A House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee says banning smoking in public places is not justified as evidence shows the greatest risk is in ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44712.php
Passive smoking kills 30 people a day in the UK
2 Mar 2005 ... Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis - Passive smoking kills at least 30 people every day ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20577.php
Smoking Ban Helps Reduce Passive Smoking
Every year, hundreds of people in the UK die from lung cancer believed to have been caused from exposure to secondhand smoke. One reason why secondhand ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/88278.php
Passive smoking ban will cut smoking in the home
14 Jul 2005 ... A new report released today by the Royal College of Physicians shows that a ban on smoking in enclosed public places is likely to reduce the ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/27414.php
Passive Smoking Raises Carcinogen Levels In Urine Rapidly
If you work in a bar your urine levels of NNK can rise rapidly after a short period of breathing in secondhand smoke, even if you are a non-smoker, ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75693.php
Link between passive and active smoking and breast cancer
3 Jun 2005 ... Breast cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers among women in Western countries. In North America, for example, ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/25553.php
Active and passive smoking causes habitual smoking
2 Oct 2004 ... In a study involving 15555 randomly selected men and women aged 25 to 54 from 5 countries, researchers found that current smokers, ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/14331.php
Passive smoking damages IVF success as much as active smoking
26 May 2005 ... It has been known for some time that smoking can affect a woman's fertility, but Canadian research published (Thursday 26 May) in Europe's ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/25145.php
Passive Smoking Almost Doubles Risk Of Degenerative Eye Disease
Passive smoking almost doubles the risk of the progressively degenerative eye disease, age related macular degeneration, shows research in the British ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/35161.php
Damage of passive smoking revealed by leaked report
18 Oct 2004 ... A leaked report by the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) highlights the damage that passive smoking can cause.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/15133.php
Passive smoking in childhood may increase risk of lung cancer in ...
Environmental tobacco smoke and risk of respiratory cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in former smokers and never smokers in the EPIC ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/19353.php
Passive smoking hinders healing, study explains why
5 Apr 2004 ... Being exposed to high levels of 'second-hand' smoke can reduce the speed at which wounds heal, leading to a lack of healing or greater ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7013.php
Effects of passive smoking may have been underestimated
Passive smoking and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: prospective study with cotinine measurement BMJ Online FirstThe full effects of passive ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10113.php
Reduction In Passive Smoking Exposure In Italy Probably The Main ...
Hospital admissions for acute heart attack in people under 60 fell by 11% in the Piedmont region of Italy in the five months after the introduction of a ban ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/53265.php
Smoking Ban Deters Teens From Becoming Established Smokers
Latest News For Smoking / Quit Smoking. Cardiologists Spell Out How Passive Smoking Damages The Heart And Join Youth To Counter The Threat 21 May 2008 ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/107065.php
Second Hand Smoke May Cause 1.9 Million COPD Extra Deaths In China
1 Sep 2007 ... The writers say the link between an increase in passive smoking and a ... "Passive smoking exposure and risk of COPD among adults in China: ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/81273.php
10 Reasons For A Smoke Free Europe - New Report Issued In The ...
27 Mar 2006 ... "Passive smoking causes death and disease, particularly in hospitality ... Detailed figures regarding passive smoking burden are also ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/40327.php
Passive smoking can increase coronary heart disease risk by up to 60%
According to researchers, passive smoking is much more dangerous for the non-smoker's health than previously thought.Although past research has focused on ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10422.php
Why smoking is bad for you
Smoking doesn't just harm the smoker. It can also cause disease and death among people exposed to the smoke. Passive smoking is thought to cause several ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10566.php
Passive smoking kills, Smokefree workplaces save lives 4500 ...
On Monday 5 July at 9am, Deputy Chairman of the BMA (British Medical Association), Dr Sam Everington and Deputy Chairman of the Board of Science, ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10337.php
The human cost of passive smoking - a BMA report
In a stark BMA report, 'The Human Cost of Tobacco', published today, (9 November 2004), doctors chronicle individual stories behind the statistics to show ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/16088.php
Passive smoking killing hotel workers cancer council Australia
The New South Wales Cancer Council says passive smoking may be killing hotel and club employees at a rate of five every month.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7772.php
Passive smoking in kids may lead to lower math, logic and ...
A study at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center has indicated that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, even at extremely low levels, ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/18573.php
Genetic defect may boost risk of childhood asthma from passive smoking
A defect in genes responsible for triggering detoxification may boost the risk of developing childhood asthma from passive smoking, reveals research in ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/10179.php
New study adds weight to link between passive smoking and death
Adults who have never smoked and who live with smokers have a 15% higher risk of death than those living in a smoke-free household, according to new ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7018.php
Asthma Body Applauds Smoking Ban, Australia
10 Jul 2007 ... The detrimental impact of passive smoking has been extensively documented, with the US Environmental Protection Authority branding ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76311.php
Smoking When Pregnant Raises Child's Risk Of Stroke, Heart Attack
8 Mar 2007 ... Smoking during pregnancy can result in intrauterine growth retardation and low birth weight. Active and passive smoking in young adults also ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/64477.php
Exposure To Passive Smoke in Womb or Childhood Linked to Asthma ...
The medical scientists also examined exposure to passive smoking from other household members during the individual's childhood. ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26895.php
German Survey Finds Every Fifth Adolescent Smokes
24 Apr 2008 ... Data on the current smoking status and on exposure to passive smoking were collected for the years 2003 to 2006. ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/105183.php
Review Study Finds Association Between Tobacco Smoking And ...
They found consistent evidence that smoking is associated with an increased risk of TB; they also found that passive smoking (secondhand smoke) and the ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/60866.php
Heart Attack Rates Fall Following National Smoking Bans
Passive smoking has been shown to increase the risk of coronary heart disease and the recent smoking ban is obviously having a beneficial effect on both ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/98683.php
Teen Asthma: The Role Of Leisure Activities
28 Sep 2007 ... "For children and teenagers, smoking, whether active or passive, is a well-recognised risk factor for asthma", they comment, emphasising its ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/83716.php
Secondhand Smoke Is Harmful, Says US Surgeon General, Richard Carmona
Over 126 million people in the USA are regularly exposed to passive smoke. He said passive smoking causes lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and a host of ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/46058.php
Ireland: Drop In Smoking Illnesses Welcomed
Dr Maurer said the move had been recognised internationally as a pioneering step to reduce heart illness caused by smoking and passive smoking. ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/100085.php
Damage of passive smoking revealed by leaked report
A leaked report by the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) highlights the damage that passive smoking can cause. Although SCOTH revealed its ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/15133.php?rating=5&visitortype=hcp
Association Of Tuberculosis With Smoking And Indoor Air Pollution
Among hundreds of reports from electronic databases, the authors reviewed 33 eligible papers on tobacco smoking and TB, five papers on passive smoking and ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/61248.php
Leading tobacco manufacturer conceals links to tobacco research ...
By contrast, much of its published work comprises papers that seek to cast doubt on methods used to assess the effects of passive smoking. ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/16231.php
Underage Smoke Exposure Raises Bladder Cancer Risk
9 Nov 2006 ... (Second hand smoke = Passive smoking = Inhaling the smoke of another smoker, but not smoking yourself) The scientists looked at information ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/56319.php
Passive smoking kills one pub or bar worker every week in the UK
Secondhand tobacco smoke kills at least 3600 people a year in the UK, according to a new study, including the death of one pub or bar worker every week.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8393.php?rating=1&visitortype=hcp
Smoking ban reduced heart attacks by 40% in 6 months in small town
Apart from increasing the risk of lung cancer and heart attacks, passive smoking also affects the stickiness of the blood and the elasticity of the arteries ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7021.php
All Tobacco Forms Are Harmful To Health
18 Aug 2006 ... 22 hours per week exposure to second-hand smoke (passive smoking) raises heart attack risk by 45% Study leader, Professor Salim Yusuf, ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/49972.php
Lung Cancer
posted by Dave Atherton on 22 May 2008 at 4:58 am
Dr. Kenji, I think we have our wires crossed to a certain extent and this is one of the things that really irks me when discussing smoking, differentiating between active and passive smoking. Smoking without doubt is a major contributor to lung cancer. In the UK 88% of lung cancer patients are smokers. Passive smoking however is either a negligible or no risk from a lung cancer point of view. Enstrom/Kabat the 39 year study gives an RR of 1.25. Drinking chlorinated water is 1.5 and whole milk is 2.14. People in Canada who have wood stoves have an RR of 3.0.
Also I quote from an article which backs me in suggesting your diet rich in fresh fish is protective and I quote: Professor Gordon McVie, director general of the Cancer Research Campaign, said: "This research once again emphasises the important interaction of diet and tobacco in deciding whether we will develop cancer" and "Professor Toshiro Takezaki, who led the study, said: "Japanese people love their fresh fish, particularly sushi.
"We think that is why, even though the Japanese smoke as much as people in the UK, their rate of lung cancer is only two-thirds as high." I believe it to be half our rate. Our figures are 50/10,000 for men and 30/10,000 for women.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1309091.stm
Statistics And Peer Reviewed Studies.
posted by Dave Atherton on 22 May 2008 at 5:12 am
Joe thank you for taking the time to post the URLs, my turn.
No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse.2 3
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abridged/326/7398/1057
The making of ETS: Lying about passive smoking
by Henry R. Sturman
The notion that ETS (also known as passive or second-hand smoke) can kill you is a scientific fraud. Or rather, it's a witch hunt (on smokers) masquerading as science. The main reason it's very unlikely that passive smoking is deadly, is that the dose is extremely low - about one thousandth of the dose a smoker typically receives (source: Covance Laboratories). And indeed, most studies fail to show a statistically significant correlation between passive smoking and disease. For example, a very large study commissioned by the World Health Organization showed no link between passive smoking and lung cancer or heart disease. The results even indicated a possible beneficial effect of passive smoking on the health of children. The reaction of the World Health Organization, which is vehemently anti-smoking, was to attempt a cover-up of the study (source: The Economist, 12 March 1998). In 1992 the EPA did a study in which they claimed to have shown a link between passive smoking and lung cancer. In 1998 a federal judge ruled that the EPA's decision to classify passive smoke as a carcinogen based on that study was invalid. According to the judge the EPA had grossly violated accepted scientific standards in their study. (Source: Washington Post, 19 July 1998.)
http://henrysturman.com/english/articles/passivesmoking.html
More Stats For Joe
posted by Dave Atherton on 22 May 2008 at 5:30 am
Here are some more peer reviewed articles for you.
"Despite the growing medical (and political) consensus about the dangers of passive smoking, the issue has remained controversial. The Swedish toxicologist Robert Nilsson, while accepting the plausibility of the lung cancer link and the fact that numerous studies appear to show a statistically significant increase in risk, has questioned its epidemiological significance (13). He offered estimates of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from various environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23)...environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) (2). By contrast, in a population which consumes Japanese seafood (which contains Arsenic) this will cause 12 cases of cancer, where there are traces of natural Arsenic in drinking water, this will cause five cases; eating mushrooms will cause three cases. In other words, the risk of ETS is comparable with that of environmental agents that are generally regarded as an insignificant threat to health.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA7A4.htm
SHS Bias
posted by Martin Hensman LLB (Hons) on 22 May 2008 at 5:54 am
I have only examined one of the reports your refer to Joe. It states -
More than 79,000 adults die each year as a result of passive smoking in the 25 countries of the European Union, according to statistics published today by the Smoke Free Partnership,
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/40327.php
Interesting how many of the reports appear to be closely connected with the Toibacco control movement.
Please direct me to some law citations where damages have been awarded by the courts for personal injury proven to have been caused by ETS. Otherwise I shall remain entirely sceptical of all of the above cited medical reports.
Here is one such law report
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html#conclusionsandresult
You will note that even Sir Richard Doll gave evidence to the Court which had also examined many published medical articles on the subject. It makes interesting reading to those of us who approach the subject with an open mind.
A Lie, If Repeated Often Enough, Will Become The Truth
posted by Kin Free on 22 May 2008 at 6:49 am
Joe;
You have listed a number of sources for the anti-smoking debate, and yes, there are quite a number of them BUT you must understand firstly that anti-smoking 'tobacco control' is given billions in sponsorship by governments, working to the agenda of the anti-smoking lobby, and pharmaceutical industries intent on maximising profit, to 'prove' that smoking and passive smoking is bad for health. In reality it is not to ascertain what is or is not bad for health but what can be best used in 'tobacco control'. Any research into an opposing arguement gets zilch - nothing.
This is not just vexatious, it is criminal! Diverting attention away from the real causes of lung cancer etc in pursuit of an idealogical goal means that many will suffer and die in the mean time.
There have been a number of occasions that funding of certain research (with a remit to produce unbiased results) that is in danger of concluding anything other than what the sponsor REALLY wants, is quickly withdrawn. True unbiased research that is allowed to fully complete is hard, almost impossible, to find, (in relation to smoking and increasingly with other aspects too; eg alcohol) Any genuine research that proves anything other than the 'consensus' view is withdrawn, suppressed, attemts to discredit, or ignored.
The net result is that there is less of it in the public domain. Yet still it can be found, even though, those who have the courage to do so may find themselves bankrupt, vilified by the establishment and find it hard to obtain future employment. It is often down to pure determination of a few individuals, at their own cost, that the smoking deception is seen for what it is.
"smoking is a habit that is loathsome to the eye, hurtful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and smokers infect others by soiling and infecting the air around them"
Is this a recent quote from an eminent 'tobacco control' scientist about the 'proved' effects of smoking - No - it was said by James I of England, an avowed anti-smoker,------ in 1604 !!, using all the scientific research facilities of the day. History has a way of repeating itself; the rhetoric remains the same, the methodology remains almost the same!
"A lie, if repeated often enough, will become the truth" (Lenin)
Joe; Your links fit in closely with this communist 'principle'
I have listed a couple of links for your perusal below that will show you how most, if not all, of the links you supply can be genuinely knocked for six, quoting real research and pointing out why most of the 'consensus' studies on smoking and passive smoking are fatally flawed!
To all the Doctors commenting on here - what research have you done to verify what you say? Have you considered other, less fashionable reasons for lung cancer/asthma etc. eg. Asbestos, Diesel smoke, PM2,5's, radiation/radon, general pollution etc. All of these, I submit, are far worse than smoking.
Look at the melanoma/lung cancer map published by CRUK (2005)- not the generalised one that only shows regional cancer morbidity but the detailed one that highlights specific geographical lung cancer morbidity. Relate that to smoking incidence throughout Britain (roughly the same(within about 5%) everywhere)
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=32
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/296834/what_they_wont_tell_you_smoking_has.html
If you need more please ket me know,
Kin_Free
A Relevation
posted by Peter Harrow on 23 May 2008 at 1:08 am
I will, from now on only read studies that are funded by the Tobacco industry and ignore all those funded by governments and cancer charities. Thank you!!
Passive Smoking Studies That Come Up With The Wrong Result.
posted by Dave Atherton on 23 May 2008 at 3:41 am
Peter, the Enstrom/Kabat report which ran from 1960 to 1998 was funded by the American Cancer Society (ACS)from 1960 to 1997. Obviously ACS are rabid anti smokers, and most of the data is based on information supplied by ACS. In fact, the meta analysis is called ACS1 and ACS2. When the ACS was not getting the "right" results they cynically withdrew funding. Yes, tobacco companies paid for the literal printing costs, on the condition that they did not have sight of the results. The Enstrom/Kabat before publication in the BMJ (equivelent of the New England Journal of medicine and The Lancet) was thoroughly peer reviewed by 5 equally eminent scientists, Epidemiologists, statisticians etc. The methods, data and conclusions were entirely scuitinised and the conclusions scientifically have to stand. Please no innuendo and cheap remarks because you cannot read what you want to read.
Talk About Calling The Kettle Black
posted by Patricia Valerie on 23 May 2008 at 5:01 am
To call a Cancer society 'rabid', coming from a tobacco lobby group really made my day. It reminds me of a Turkish fairy tail about a wolf who complains that the rabbit droppings frighten her offspring.
Who Am I To Believe
posted by Gerardo Guindas on 23 May 2008 at 5:08 am
Who am I to believe. A bunch of people who are obviously part of some pressure group, or the Surgeon General of my country (USA). Which one forms part of a global conspiracy, the Surgeon General or Tobacco companies? Which is the rabid one, I wonder?? Uhmmm!!? Now, that really is a no brainer, isn't it? From the Surgeon General, USA, below
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report
Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:
1. 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.
Supporting Evidence
* Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
* Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
* Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.
2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
Supporting Evidence
* Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
* Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
3. 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.
Supporting Evidence
* Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
* Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
* Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
* Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
* Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
Supporting Evidence
* Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
* Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.
5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Supporting Evidence
* Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
* Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.
6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
Supporting Evidence
* Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
* Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
* The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers’ comments.
Citation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
For more information, please refer to the Resources page. Additional highlight sheets are also available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco.
Mr Smokey - Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring compound
posted by Lindsay Klein on 22 Sept 2010 at 8:29 pm
"These are mainly heavy metals like benzene or acroleine which cause oxidative damage to arterial endothelium and the mitochondria which is the cell breathing organ,"
Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring compound. I don't kinow about his stats or medical knowledge but he hasn't got a clue about chemistry!
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions
MediLexicon International Ltd
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
Bexhill-on-Sea, United Kingdom
MediLexicon International Ltd © 2004-2012 All rights reserved.
MNT (logo) is the registered EU trade mark of MediLexicon Int. Limited.
