Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
THE world's leading health organisation 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 even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.
 

·
I have poor impulse control.
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer? I'll bet you $100 dollars that one or more of the Tobacco companies funded/donated to this so-called research. (No, i'm not really betting, but i don't buy it for a second)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
The Congressional Research Service would disagree with you.


(Redhead and Rowberg, 1995)
(Osteen, 1998)
(Boffetta, et al, 1998)
(Jenkins, et al, 1999)

(WHO 2010... unreleased to the public)

In a study spanning 16 U.S. cities, the U.S. Department of Energy researchers placed monitors on nonsmoking bartenders and waiters who worked in smoke-filled bars and restaurants to measure the amount of environmental tobacco. The conclusion was that the monitors detected minuscule amounts of tobacco products. (Jenkins, et al, 1999) The harm that might come from such minuscule amounts of exposure was calculated as “none” to “improbable harm”. The anti-tobacco forces have condemned this study because it was partly funded by the R.J. Reynolds Company. Later, a group of individuals visited the establishments and concluded that since they saw few individuals smoking, the study was flawed. In spite of this study being done by Oak Ridge National Laboratories, it was painted with a broad brush because of the funding from the tobacco industry.

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is considered by many authorities to be an important component of indoor air pollution in part because it is often viewed as being equivalent to mainstream cigarette smoke (MS). It has been clearly demonstrated that ETS is not the same as MS. Side stream cigarette smoke (SS) is a major contributor to ETS. Side-stream smoke is generated under different conditions than MS, and as a result, has a different relative chemical composition. Exhaled MS, the second primary contributor to ETS, is a different material from that which leaves the cigarette butt and enters the lungs. Exhaled MS has been substantially depleted in vapor-phase constituents, and the particulate matter is likely to have increased its water content in the high-humidity environment of the respiratory tract. As the cigarette smoke, both SS and exhaled MS, enters the atmosphere, it is diluted by many orders of magnitude and subsequently undergoes both physical transformation and alterations in its chemical composition. Upon standing, or during air exchange from other sources, ETS continues to change… (Guerin, et al, 2000)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer? I'll bet you $100 dollars that one or more of the Tobacco companies funded/donated to this so-called research. (No, i'm not really betting, but i don't buy it for a second)
:laughing: You lose... man has been smoking all through written history, cancer is a product of the industrial revolution.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
**** that noise.

Smoke ****s up everything that breaths it.
ANY.........Smoke.
 

·
I have poor impulse control.
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
:laughing: You lose... man has been smoking all through written history, cancer is a product of the industrial revolution.

Wait, what? I lose? Looks like I would've won $100. I bet on who funded the results. Fork over the money vfpreacher. :laughing:

vfpreacher said:
it was partly funded by the R.J. Reynolds Company
Imagine the surprise that a tobacco company shelled out some money to help say that ETS, SS, SMS, S&M smoking doesn't cause cancer.
==========================

RJ Reynolds Company

Who We Are
Innovative Total Tobacco Company

The second-largest tobacco company in the United States, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company makes many of the nation’s best selling cigarette brands, including Camel, Pall Mall, Doral, Kool, Winston and Salem. R.J. Reynolds provides adult tobacco consumers with the highest quality products and is an innovation leader in the industry.

R.J. Reynolds takes great pride in the principled and responsible manner in which we conduct ourselves and our business. We are proud of the fact that we abide by these rules while continuing to effectively compete for the business of adult tobacco consumers.
Learn More
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
So by your logic... secondhand smoke is bullshit because the cancer society donated money to institutions to find if secondhand smoke is a carcinogen... and therefore deadly and worthy of further funding by the government... increasing the wealth of the cancer society ?

Contributions are the determining factor in a true outcome ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
**** that noise.

Smoke ****s up everything that breaths it.
ANY.........Smoke.
How about animals ? Why do we not see a direct correlation in animals that belong to smokers... and death by cancer or a reduced life expectancy ?
 

·
I have poor impulse control.
Joined
·
3,813 Posts
How about animals ? Why do we not see a direct correlation in animals that belong to smokers... and death by cancer or a reduced life expectancy ?
Well, we can go into the scientific and biological aspect of that question if you'd like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Cancer is a gene. Nothing -causes cancer. It is the environment that we live in the awakens (for lack of a better word) that gene. Smoke can no more be pointed at as the cause of that awakening... then the carcinogen's in your carpet or the plastic in your car.

It is a nuisance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #12

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
How about we start with arsenic (EPA's main carcinogen relayed as most hazardous to human health and the major cause of cancer) ? Is any level of arsenic acceptable ?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Cancer is a gene. Nothing -causes cancer. It is the environment that we live in the awakens (for lack of a better word) that gene. Smoke can no more be pointed at as the cause of that awakening... then the carcinogen's in your carpet or the plastic in your car.
tell that to the people that get stomach cancer from NSAIDs use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Cuaze their life span is only 15 years?:laughing:

Exactly... and the answer is NO. The effects would be very evident in these animals... as opposed to humans, due to this very reason.

has there been a noticeable reduction in deaths caused by secondhand smoke over the last 30 years (since the initial claim and ban began) ? The answer is no -even though there has been a decrease in the number of smokers by 43% (68% in children of smokers)... yet the EPA, government groups and the cancer socity states there has been an increase to 600 thousand cases of death attributed to second hand smoke... per year... they have actually risen, if you are to believe the above mentioned... even though there are far fewer smokers... and the exposure has been limited to outdoor areas.

Really ?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
I smoked for about 1 year when I was....

mmmmmmm....bout 23 I think.

My buddies used the theory that they would hook up with more chicks if they smoked.

I had most of them beat with the score ratio before they even picked up the habit, let alone after.
My score ratio never increased, and it was cutting into my funds for titty bars n booze four days a week, so I promptly quit.:laughing:

I will continually vote for your right to smoke, but I pass on the smoke for me....:thumbsup:
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top