Re: WTHOTDSOTMOT:Hot of the Press

On Oct 28, 6:50 pm, Mike Burke <mbu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:49:19 -0700, Larisa <purple_bov...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Perfume and loud music do not cause lung cancer. I can plug my ears
if ambient noise is too annoying (I carry earplugs for just that
purpose - I've got a high-frequency hearing loss and I don't want to
make it worse). I cannot plug my nose if ambient smoke is too
annoying - at least, not for longer than 2 minutes.

Second-hand smoke is annoying and sets off allegies in some people.
That's just about all that can reasonably be said against it.

More than allergies, according to some of the research cited below:
asthma, ear infections, sinus infections, even dental caries.

Here's the WHO on the subject:

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

The bit I like is this bit:

Begin quote:

The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented
in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of
similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes
lung cancer in non-smokers.

The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung
cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure
the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample
size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although,
the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of
exposure.

It just means that they did a bad study and therefore don't know
whether or not there is an increase in lung cancer. It does not prove
that secondhand smoke does NOT cause lung cancer. It just proves that
they don't know.

End quote

Due to small sample size (ie in a study carried out over seven years
by 12 research centres in 7 European countries under the leadership of
WHO's cancer research branch -- the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC), '...neither increased risk was statistically
insignificant'.

In plain English, this means that claims that exposure to second-hand
smoking causes lung cancer are, at the very worst, still more
theoretical than real. And that's for people who live and work with
smokers who are, presumably, smoking in confined spaces. The risks to
people who happen to be exposed for a few seconds, or even minutes, as
they walk past somebody, or a succession of somebodies, smoking in the
street are infinitesmal.

No, it does not mean that.

Here are some more studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17897989&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
(measuring, among other things, the concentrations of urinary cotinine
in nonsmoking hospitality workers in Italy before and after a smoking
ban was passed there - there was a more than four-fold decrease)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17897468&ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
(analysis of respiratory diseases among nonsmoking flight attendants
before smoking was banned in airplanes; more hours spent in a smoky
airplane cabin were strongly associated with more asthma, sinusitis,
and middle ear infections - not lung cancer, true, but definitely not
things I'd want to experience...)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17827487&ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
(change in children's exposure to secondhand smoke before and after
Scotland passed a smoking ban - the concentrations of urinary cotinine
decreased dramatically)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17707302&ordinalpos=15&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
(correlation between household exposure to tobacco smoke and dental
caries in adolescents)

Such claims belong in the same class as claims that if we don't do
something about global warming, the Greenland Icecap will melt real
soon now and YOU'LL BE SOORRRRRRRY! Two words: emotive bull***.

No, hard data. I can supply more - or you can just enter "secondhand
smoke" into PubMed yourself and look it up. It's easy to find. Even
though the tobacco industry tries to cover it up (see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17938301&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
), you really can't argue with hard data. And unlike global warming
claims, this is easy to prove - just distribute questionnaires to ask
people about respiratory disease, monitor asthma statistics before and
after a smoking ban is passed, monitor cotinine concentrations in
people's urine or saliva - easy stuff.

Want to smoke? Carry an airtight enclosure with you and smoke in it -
all you want. Smoke cigarettes, pot, crack, oregano - whatever you
like. As long as I don' t have to breathe it, I don't care what you
do.

Well, that's a tad extremist. But up to a point I agree with you.

Up to what point, though?

LM


.

Loading