Study finds second-hand smoke does not cause cancer or heart disease

[Syringer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,957231,00.html

 

[BAMAVOO]

Nope but it makes you stink and cough.

 

[Viper GTS]

It still smells like ass though.

Viper GTS

 

[BCskunk]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
It still smells like ass though.

Viper GTS

err...what kind of smoke u smelling...

 

[spidey07]

I knew it!

All the anti-smoking nazis can sit down and shut up.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

still smells like sh!t and makes everyhting around smell.
Also, when i start coughing because i inhaled cig smoke, it's because it's doing something to cause that, ie something bad. Cig smokers have a filter to protect them, we (the non smokers do not) We may not get cancer, but we'll get all the other crap in our lungs.

 

[Electric Amish]

That goes completely against all logic...

amish

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: BCskunk

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
It still smells like ass though.

Viper GTS

err...what kind of smoke u smelling...

the smoke everyone on ATOT is blowing out their asses, of course.

 

[feralkid]

You may remember other such reports as: "Smoke Yourself Thin" and "Cancer Schmancer".

 

[Eli]

I call BS.

Unless all the carcinogens magically disappear after it's exhaled, it's BS.

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
It still smells like ass though.

Viper GTS

So does BO. And car oil. We should ban all people from working out and mechanics from going into restaurants.

 

[spidey07]

This article is going in my favs so I can quickly whip it out and say

"Sit down and shut up, smoke nazi"

Wahoo!!

 

[everman]

That is basically saying that the person smoking it filters everything out 100% which is absolutely ludicrous!

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
It still smells like ass though.

Viper GTS

So does BO. And car oil. We should ban all people from working out and mechanics from going into restaurants.

Engine oil does NOT smell bad!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I call shenanigans. I think I will hunt down the paper and check methods and how the sample was chosen.

 

[spidey07]

Quote from article...

The two authors, James Enstrom of the school of public health at the University of California and Geoffrey Kabat of the department of preventive medicine at the State University of New York, analysed data from more than 100,000 Californian adults who enrolled in the American Cancer Society prevention study in 1959 and were followed until 1998.

The study focused on the 35,561 people who had never smoked, but who lived with a spouse who did. They found that passive smoking was not linked to death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer, no matter how much or how often the spouse smoked.



100,000 adults since 1959. I'd say that is pretty convincing evidence.

 

[Eli]

Come on folks, it's common sense. Does the smoke go through some magical cleansing when you exhale it? Give me a break.

 

[blackdogdeek]

another quote from the article:

But the cancer society said its study had been misused. It was impossible to separate out the effects of a spouse smoking because in 1959, smoking was all-pervasive, it said. There was also no information on the spouse's smoking habits collected after 1972, they could have stopped in the 26 years until the study ended.

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

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.

sounds like it may be flawed.

 

[Jimbo]

You know spidey07, this is not the first study to say this.
The original EPA META study was denounced as "junk science" by a Federal judge that went on to accuse the EPA of "cherry picking their data" to match a previously announced conclusion.

Also, a major study was done by Los Alamos Labs that showed that the earlier conclusions were based on an impossible and unrealistic level of exposure.

I brought this up over a year ago was was flamed for just doing that.

The more studies that are done, the more this appears to be a bogus issue.

 

[feralkid]

"Funded by the Tobacco Industry"

 

[Kev]

Was this study conducted by the Iraqi information minister?

 

[Phuz]

spidey07, please tell me you're not really that gullible.

 

[AthlonXP]

why would you?

 

[BennyD]

it still causes the smoker to get a smack

 

[Pastore]

The authors say it is not possible that passive smoking causes a 30% increased risk of heart disease, although a small increase cannot be ruled out.

Ok, so basically this study means jack sh!t. Fantastic.