Topic awaiting preservation: Passive smoking study

Well according to a new report passive smoking isn't bad for you:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,957201,00.html

but how can this be so as it goes against all the health advice around? Oh hold on:

quote:

---

There were also claims that the authors had failed to declare the extent of their involvement with the tobacco industry.

---

quote:

---

Dr Enstrom and Professor Kabat declared they had received funding from the tobacco industry in recent years. They also acknowledged that their study had support from the dismantled Center for Indoor Air Research.

Last December an article in the British Medical Journal showed how the CIAR was used as cover for studies funded by tobacco companies aimed at rebutting claims hat passive smoking is harmful.

---

so they are coming in with a heavy bias but still... oh no wait what is this I see:

quote:

---

the cancer society said its study had been misused.

---

quote:

---

"ACS scientists repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that (the) data were unsuitable," said the society's vice president Michael Thun.

---

I suppose I shouldn't be suprised that tobacco sponsored scientists are using flawed data to make their paymaster's look good but what amazes me is that such a prestigious journal would publish the paper (I'd be interest in the extent of tobacco funding amongst the editors).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

From personal experience, I can tell you that second hand smoke is a bad thing. I have asthma, and my husband smokes like a chimney. Has for over 20 years (we're discussing his quitting, it's a touchy subject). He used to smoke inside, I made him start smoking outside as his New Year's Resolution (very successful). In the months since he has stopped smoking in the house, my incidence of daily asthma attacks has decreased exponentially. The back of my throat, and my breathing passages used to be constantly inflamed by smoke filled air. Since he has moved it outside, I can breathe without discomfort. That in itself is enough to convince me.

But I'm not surprised that this sort of study exists, or that they insisted on using flawed data. The cigarette companies will try anything to keep their money rolling in...

Bodhi - Cell 617

Amen, bodhi23...and that coming from a smoker, me.

Yup, Emps, I read that myself...*shakes head*

Really incredible...looks like the downfall of a number of 'prestiges' news sources, lately...

Penn & Teller: Bullshit! did a bit on smoking. Some eye-opening stuff. Biased perhaps, but still something to think about.

Ever notice how popular it is to attack smokers?

Face it, passive smokers are just plain lazy, getting someone else do do all the work.

Now if they can just get someone else to drink, listen to loud music, and get laid for them...

Actually there's very little evidence showing that second hand smoke has significant effects. Check out this from the straight dope

It explains the controversy pretty well. Most of the basis for second hand smoking legislation has been based on 2 early 90s EPA studies that were found to be "shoddy science" (by a judge in a court of law no less)

In this article It says that out of 13 studies on second hand smoke, 7 found no link between lung cancer and second hand (or passive as it's sometimes called) smoke.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Right on, bit. If we are going to start worrying seriously about a misuse of propoganda we need to look very carefully at the anti-smoking lobby. They have used outright falsehoods in their campaign against second hand smoking.

Don't get me wrong, I hate smoking but I hate lying even more. We cannot sacrifice truth in the form of scientific data because we don't like people smoking around us.

. . : slicePuzzle

Did you know that people who smoke are 40% more likely to be Hitler?

Wangenstein - where did you get that?

I smoked for several years - it aggravated my asthma into something that I cannot control without daily doses of cortico-steroid medication for both my sinuses and my lungs. As a secondary result, I have an increased sensitivity to smoke in just about all forms. Even a camp fire or grill.

I don't smoke now for my health. I don't feel justified in dictating to someone else what they decide to do. But in the case of my husband, his second hand smoke was aggravating my condition further. If he wants to remain living with me - the smoke goes outside. Period. For his health, I want him to quit smoking. But I also understand how difficult that is to do. So I don't push it.

As for whether secondhand smoke actually causes cancer, I can't say. The evidence that's out there generally converges to that conclusion, but there is no definite link. I do know that it has aggravated a minor health concern into a large health concern for me - and that's reason enough for me to not want it around anymore...


Bodhi - Cell 617

This is one of those issues I find interesting but don't really care about. I've seen this meme a couple of times but actually the Penn&Teller Bullshit piece was the first to catch my interest. (Great show BTW).

I've smoked for some time off and on and I find it interesting to see that much of the legislation passed regarding this was based on iffy data. That being said however, living in CA both before and after the ban in public places I have to say even as a smoker I actually appreciate not having people smoke in restaurants and other public places. (Even smokers generally aren't big fans of second hand smoke). Of course I've never been forced to go outside to get a fix when it's 10 degrees out like they do in NY now.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Did I misunderstandd something, or the "study" claiming that the second hand smoke isn't bad, only based on the fact that the studies that say it is in fact bad MAY BE NOT ACCURATE? That's rubbish.

My geology professor (who is a freak-environmentalist) told us something about radiocactive Pollonium (not sure) in cigarettes, or some other isotope which after decaying becomes pollonium, and irradiates your lungs and the people around you. The smoke particles on smoker's clothes, things, skin all emit tiny amounts of radiation which in the long run causes cancer. If anyone curious, do some research about it and maybe post some links. I'm a smoker so I dont really care about second hand smoke...