PSA: Second-hand smoke does NOT cause cancer

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: bctbct


Nice scientific data, BTW your grandparents both have throat cancer right?

Not to be dsrespectful of your family but dont share ancedotal evidence and confuse it as scientific.

I think you're throwing probability into the wind there with that argument.

If I injected you with a substance that causes a disease 25% of the time, compared to a naturally occuring rate of 1% of the time, and you got that disease, what would you attribute the cause to be if you got that disease? Sure, you aren't guaranteed that the injection is the cause, but it's much, much more likely to be the cause.

If his mom is a non-smoker and his dad is a non-smoker, why do you think she got lung cancer? Do you think it's due to the extremely low incidence of lung cancer in non-smokers, or is it due to the much higher probability of getting it from exposure to smoke over a long period of time?

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: erub

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: bignateyk
meh.. im sure with continued exposure over a long period of time it does, but either way, I think the people that bitch about second hand smoke and use that as an excuse need to get a life.

I think smokers who subject others to their smoke need to DIAF.

QFT. Or TPAD!!!

Yes. It doesn't matter if it doesn't cause cancer, second hand smoke can kill people who have asthma. Do you think that that's not a problem? Smoking should be condemned, the people who do it are killing themselves and hurting other people.

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: Vegitto

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
According to irishScott's links, Second hand smoke has twice the nicotine and tar as first hand smoke

Awesome, smokers should get their hands on this 'second hand smoke'.. After all, it has twice the nicotine, the chemical they want, right?

Yeah, they should just light up the cigarette and wave it really fast in front of their face and inhale REALLY hard through their mouth. They'd be even MORE addicted and then they wouldn't have to blow it out! Brilliant!
(sry for double post, had to comment on that one =))

 

[rbV5]

If his mom is a non-smoker and his dad is a non-smoker, why do you think she got lung cancer?

Actually, she got throat cancer (so-far) Like the type that killed lifetime smoker George Harrison for an example. Earlier detection may very well have saved him as well.

Her doctor stated that her lungs and throat looked like that of a long term smoker despite never smoking in her life, and no smoking in the household at all since she married my Dad.

There are other factors than 2nd hand smoke, like other indoor and outdoor air pollution for instance.

She worked at hospitals and an OB office for several years when I was growing up commuting to the Portland Metro area from a rural area, and grew up herself in logging camps in the Cascades of the Pacific Northwest. She's lived on a Sailboat in Mexico's Sea of Cortez for the past 25 years or so.

Not exactly normal urban levels of exposure to polluton and particulates, which makes me suspect my grandparent's heavy smoking as the primary culprit. I was around them quite a bit both before when they both smoked heavily both in the car/motorhome/camper and in their small house.

I was also around after when my grandparets had quit smoking and started really suffering from affects of smoking all those years. Neither lived long enough to see the negative effects on my Mom, but both were adamantly opposed to cigarrette smoking in the end, and scolded me plenty on the "costs" the had to bear, both physically and financially from smoking cigarrettes.

 

[jpeyton]

Who cares? Second-hand smoke stinks. Ban smoking in public.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: rbV5
I'm pretty convinced (as well as my Mom's Doctor)that my Mom's throat cancer (lifetime non-smoker) was directly caused by constant exposure to 2nd hand smoke from my grandparents (both, lifetime 1 pack+ /day smokers) that continued untill she married my Dad (lifetime non-smoker)

Thankfully, through Early Detection, Surgery and Radiation, she appears to be making a full recovery 3 years after her diagnosis.

Only morons, corporate appologists and the "head in the sand" crowd can't seem to make the obvious connection between longterm ingesting poisonous gases/particulates and chronc disease, long term health affects and cancer.

Nice scientific data, BTW your grandparents both have throat cancer right?

Not to be dsrespectful of your family but dont share ancedotal evidence and confuse it as scientific.

Who confused it as scientific bozo? I'll share my personal experience if I want to, and btw, both of my grandparents died seperately of Pneumonia in a hospital after decades of suffering from Emphysema and other chronic illness. I attribute their suffering to 1st hand cigarrete smoke.

I did offer this as scientific evidence if my posts confused you, maybe you want to focus on that?:

Originally posted by: rbV5

Results: Inhaled fresh sidestream cigarette smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram total particulate matter (TPM) than mainstream cigarette smoke.

Link

apparently gleaned from Phillip Morris's own research, with plenty of links and references.

Text

Text

Researchers have an agenda, they also turn that agenda into money.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Results: Inhaled fresh sidestream cigarette smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram total particulate matter (TPM) than mainstream cigarette smoke.

Link

apparently gleaned from Phillip Morris's own research, with plenty of links and references.

Owned? Cigs are bad and second-hand smoke has 50 ways of causing cancer. This isn't a PSA, this is tobacco apologetics.

 

[n7]

PSA: Smokers need to be banned from life :frown:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares? Second-hand smoke stinks. Ban smoking in public.

If foul smell is the sole criteria, do we then banning farting in public next? String those rude flatulators up?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: n7
PSA: Smokers need to be banned from life :frown:

What's your rush? Isn't smoking supposed to be killing them anyway?

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares? Second-hand smoke stinks. Ban smoking in public.

If foul smell is the sole criteria, do we then banning farting in public next? String those rude flatulators up?

I've never gone to a club or bar and come out reeking of farts. I think my right to go to a public place and not have my clothes stunk up by weak willed asshole smokers is just as important as smokers' rights to smoke inside the bar.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares? Second-hand smoke stinks. Ban smoking in public.

If foul smell is the sole criteria, do we then banning farting in public next? String those rude flatulators up?

I've never gone to a club or bar and come out reeking of farts. I think my right to go to a public place and not have my clothes stunk up by weak willed asshole smokers is just as important as smokers' rights to smoke inside the bar.

You have no such rights, legal or otherwise, in those private establishments.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: ironwing
The Surgeon General says you're full of shiit.

that was the point of the Penn & Teller bullshit episode, even the surgeon general is quoting piss-poor faulted statistics. It's like a game to see who can condemn smokers the most, and if you cut them ANY slack, you're satan.

Sounds reasonable. Smokers who subject others to their smoke deserve no slack.

why? it smells nice and has no ill effects

Quote some sources non-"piss-poor faulted statistics" because every study I've read that's conducted by an independent group has confirmed that first-hand smoke and second-hand smoke are terrible for you.

How about this? You go to as many smoking areas as possible and take a billion deep breaths. See if you'll be better off than me

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares? Second-hand smoke stinks. Ban smoking in public.

If foul smell is the sole criteria, do we then banning farting in public next? String those rude flatulators up?

I've never gone to a club or bar and come out reeking of farts. I think my right to go to a public place and not have my clothes stunk up by weak willed asshole smokers is just as important as smokers' rights to smoke inside the bar.

You have no such rights, legal or otherwise, in those private establishments.

I would like to be able to see a band live without getting my clothes stunk up by smokers. Those private establishments that show live music will not alienate smoking customers, even if those customers are a minority.

Bring on the legislation, fvck the smokers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares? Second-hand smoke stinks. Ban smoking in public.

If foul smell is the sole criteria, do we then banning farting in public next? String those rude flatulators up?

I've never gone to a club or bar and come out reeking of farts. I think my right to go to a public place and not have my clothes stunk up by weak willed asshole smokers is just as important as smokers' rights to smoke inside the bar.

You have no such rights, legal or otherwise, in those private establishments.

I would like to be able to see a band live without getting my clothes stunk up by smokers. Those private establishments that show live music will not alienate smoking customers, even if those customers are a minority.

Bring on the legislation, fvck the smokers.

Why would legislation be required if what you say is true? Do you think those same establishments want to alienate their majority non-smoking customers?

edit: BTW, Barack Obama (in your sig) is a smoker.

 

[flashbacck]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: ironwing
The Surgeon General says you're full of shiit.

that was the point of the Penn & Teller bullshit episode, even the surgeon general is quoting piss-poor faulted statistics. It's like a game to see who can condemn smokers the most, and if you cut them ANY slack, you're satan.

how do you know it's not Penn & Teller that are quoting bullshit statistics? When it comes to health studies, you trust Penn & Teller over the Surgeon General?

 

[rbV5]

Text

Text

Researchers have an agenda, they also turn that agenda into money.

and the use of tactics like discrediting "the messenger" to deflect away from the actual players, like say Ragnar Rylander and Phillip Morris;

? I got a bit scared in 1997 when I saw that Ragnar Rylander received grants from the tobacco industry. That is not very nice, but all our scientists have the right to try out their hypotheses and it is difficult to censor what they do, he says (Dagens Nyheter, 4/8/2000). It might be a problem when research is being openly financed by some industry. But when such financing is done secretly, and the prefect does not find out until somebody has read formerly confidential documents, then more than one person's credibility is at stake. There is one document, from November 17th 1974, in which Dr. Rylander asks Tom Osdene at Philip Morris to transfer the funds to the universities in Geneva and Gothenburg through quarterly payments of 10.000 dollars to his personal bank account in New York

 

[TheRyuu]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
I had actually forgotten all about this till I saw an episode of Pen& Teller's Bullshit. The big study in the early 90s that really blew the lid of smoking said it found a non-statistically significant risk associated with inhalation of 2nd hand smoke. For people that never took stats that means the study could not determine if the risk actually came from 2nd hand smoke or something else. This did not stop the media from throwing more blame on cigarette companies. They also continue to cite the risks, even doctors do it, despite the fact that study after study after study has found no elevated risk from inhaling 2nd hand smoke. There has never been a study which has found a statistically significant link between 2nd hand smoke and any form of disease.


edit: The point of the Penn & Teller bullshit episode was even the surgeon general is quoting piss-poor faulted statistics. It's like a game to see who can condemn smokers the most, and if you cut them ANY slack, you're satan.

O RLY?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_hand_smoke

A wide array of negative effects are attributed, in whole or in part, to frequent, long term exposure to second hand smoke. Some of the symptoms which have been or are frequently attributed to second hand smoke include:

* Increased risk of lung cancer
o The effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. Studies from the USA (1986,[7][8] 1992,[9] 1997,[10] 2001,[11] 2003[12]), Europe (1998[13]), the UK (1998[14][15]), and Australia (1997[16]) have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.
* Increased risk of cancer[17]
o Reviewing the evidence accumulated on a worldwide basis, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2002 that "Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."[18]
* Increased risk of heart disease[19]
* Increased risk of miscarriage and birth defects[20]
* Increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)[21]
* Increased risk of developing asthma, both for children[22] and adults[23][24]
* Learning difficulty in children[citation needed]
* Increased risk of behavior problems in children, such as depression, anxiety and immaturity. [3]
* Increased risk of lung infections[citation needed]
* Increased risk of ear infections[25]
* Increased risk of allergies and death of children[26]
* Worsening of asthma, allergies, and other conditions[27]

Although the nature of passive smoking makes study design problematic, meta-analyses from around the world suggest that dangers of passive smoking are significant.[28][29][30]

It is estimated that passive smoking kills 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.[31]

(source)

You know, your kinda right in a way. It doesn't just cause Caner, it cause a LOT of other sh!t too.

/thread

 

[NiteWulf]

Originally posted by: Dunbar

Originally posted by: NiteWulf
Why would anyone think that inhaling somke from five feet away is any different than inhaling smoke from the end of a cig?

You can't figure that smoke sucked straight from the end a cigarette is going to be much more potent than smoke blown into the air? It's not like second hand smoke is being shot-gunned from one persons mouth to another.

More potent, of course, but not different. If it causes cancer in the smoker, it will cause cancer in the second-hander with more exposure

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Text

Text

Researchers have an agenda, they also turn that agenda into money.

and the use of tactics like discrediting "the messenger" to deflect away from the actual players, like say Ragnar Rylander and Phillip Morris;

? I got a bit scared in 1997 when I saw that Ragnar Rylander received grants from the tobacco industry. That is not very nice, but all our scientists have the right to try out their hypotheses and it is difficult to censor what they do, he says (Dagens Nyheter, 4/8/2000). It might be a problem when research is being openly financed by some industry. But when such financing is done secretly, and the prefect does not find out until somebody has read formerly confidential documents, then more than one person's credibility is at stake. There is one document, from November 17th 1974, in which Dr. Rylander asks Tom Osdene at Philip Morris to transfer the funds to the universities in Geneva and Gothenburg through quarterly payments of 10.000 dollars to his personal bank account in New York

Everyone has motives. I would say that you have to wonder how impartial Glantz is based on this

Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
TobaccoScam is a project of Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Professor Glantz is co-author of The Cigarette Papers and Tobacco War. This project is supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund.

Would you trust him to disclose scientific data that does not support his opinion, passion, and means of income?

I dont know if SHS is good for you or not. However I think the link to cancer is a leap and as much time and money that has been spent on it by now, there should be conclusive evidence.

 

[dighn]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Accipiter22

Originally posted by: ironwing
The Surgeon General says you're full of shiit.

that was the point of the Penn & Teller bullshit episode, even the surgeon general is quoting piss-poor faulted statistics. It's like a game to see who can condemn smokers the most, and if you cut them ANY slack, you're satan.

Sounds reasonable. Smokers who subject others to their smoke deserve no slack.

why? it smells nice and has no ill effects

it does NOT smell nice. it is foul, choking smoke. cancer-causing or not, smokers should have the courtesy to not smoke around non-smokers. it is just plain rude, akin to continuous farting in front of others, only much worse.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares? Second-hand smoke stinks. Ban smoking in public.

If foul smell is the sole criteria, do we then banning farting in public next? String those rude flatulators up?

I've never gone to a club or bar and come out reeking of farts. I think my right to go to a public place and not have my clothes stunk up by weak willed asshole smokers is just as important as smokers' rights to smoke inside the bar.

You have no such rights, legal or otherwise, in those private establishments.

I would like to be able to see a band live without getting my clothes stunk up by smokers. Those private establishments that show live music will not alienate smoking customers, even if those customers are a minority.

Bring on the legislation, fvck the smokers.

Why would legislation be required if what you say is true? Do you think those same establishments want to alienate their majority non-smoking customers?

edit: BTW, Barack Obama (in your sig) is a smoker.

If I like the band, I'm going to go to the show no matter what. It's just the culture of small music venues.

I don't care if Obama smokes, as long as he does it outside

 

[0roo0roo]

government putting out lies
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6134138168753053667
The History of Marijuana - Woody Harrelson

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares? Second-hand smoke stinks. Ban smoking in public.

If foul smell is the sole criteria, do we then banning farting in public next? String those rude flatulators up?

I've never gone to a club or bar and come out reeking of farts. I think my right to go to a public place and not have my clothes stunk up by weak willed asshole smokers is just as important as smokers' rights to smoke inside the bar.

You have no such rights, legal or otherwise, in those private establishments.

I would like to be able to see a band live without getting my clothes stunk up by smokers. Those private establishments that show live music will not alienate smoking customers, even if those customers are a minority.

Bring on the legislation, fvck the smokers.

Why would legislation be required if what you say is true? Do you think those same establishments want to alienate their majority non-smoking customers?

edit: BTW, Barack Obama (in your sig) is a smoker.

If I like the band, I'm going to go to the show no matter what. It's just the culture of small music venues.

I don't care if Obama smokes, as long as he does it outside

You think smokers don't feel the same way? They'll go even if the owner decides not to allow smoking in his establishment.

There aren't any smoking bans in my city for bars, taverns, etc., and roughly half the bars have voluntarily gone non-smoking. It's the newest rage it seems, and business is good for them, while mostly only the dive bars still allow smoking.
OTOH, in the larg-ish bedroom community next door but across the river and in another state, there is a statewide ban on smoking (unless it's an Indian casino), not just inside the premises but anywhere within 25 feet of any door or window, and yet they put up tents just for the smokers directly in front of the entrance of almost every bar.

 

[Mark R]

Has the OP actually read the Surgeon general's report?

The report analyses hundreds of studies on the effects of second-hand smoke. What's interesting is that many of the studies individually show no definite effect (the statistics are not significant). However, it's now well recognised in medical statistics that simply reporting 'a signficiant difference' or 'no significant difference' is inadequate.

Where possible statistics should be quoted in terms of a confidence interval - which gives not only a measure of significant the risk is, but what the level of experimental error is likely to be. In the context, of the 2nd hand smoke studies the statistic is a relative risk. E.g. a relative risk of 2 means that the exposed group is 2x as likey to have the disease. For example in one study of men, with wives who smoked, the RR was 1.96 with a confidence interval of (0.7 - 5.4). Because the confidence interval spans 1 (no difference) the result is not statistically significant - so while this study does not confirm the presence of an increased lung cancer risk, it is suggestive, but is limited by large experimental uncertainty (a range of 0.7 - 5.4 is massive).

This is a recurring problem - many of the studies are based only on small population samples (e.g. they study cancer sufferes in one region, or they follow up a limited number of healthy people to see if they get any diseases).

If the data is reanalysed in a pooled fashion (e.g. data from several studies is combined and analysed together), then it is possible to reduce the uncertainty. In the case of 14 out of 16 pooled analyses, a significant result was found.

The other powerful indicator that there is a genuine effect has been the demonstration of a 'dose-response' relationship. This shows, with statistical significance, that people exposed to more secondhand smoke have a higher rate of lung cancer than those exposed to lower levels, who in turn have higher risk than those exposed to none. Again, there have been several studies showing trend with strong statistics.

The point is that to reach an overall conclusion you need to look at all the studies, their weaknesses and strong points, the pooled analyses, evidence of trends, etc. Overall, the best studies show a harmful effect, and it's on the basis of that, that the recommendations stand.