Posted on 10/17/2006 1:09:34 PM PDT by trumandogz
TUESDAY, Oct. 17 (HealthDay News) -- A new study finds that at least 1 in every 4 smokers will develop progressive and incurable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a much higher risk than previously believed.
COPD is a respiratory disease that results in blocked air flow to the lungs and grows progressively worse.
For this study, published online in the journal Thorax, researchers at Hvidovre Hospital analyzed data on 8,000 men and women, ages 30 to 60. All were monitored for 25 years as part of the Copenhagen City Heart Study.
At the start of the study, all the participants' lungs were healthy and working normally. However, over the course of the 25 years, the lungs of almost all the male non-smokers continued to function normally, compared to 60 percent of men who continued to smoke.
Among women, 90 percent of non-smokers still had healthy lungs at the end of 25 years, compared to 70 percent of smokers.
Overall, 25 percent of the participants developed moderate or severe COPD over the 25 years. Persistent smokers were six times more likely to develop COPD than non-smokers.
During the 25 years, there were 2,900 deaths in the study group. Of those deaths, 109 were directly attributable to COPD, and nearly all those deaths were in people who were active smokers at the start of the study. Only two non-smokers died of COPD.
The study also found a sharp decline in the risk of COPD among people who stopped smoking soon after the start of the study. Over the 25 years, none of these ex-smokers developed severe COPD.
I wouldn't want to speak for all anti's any more than I'd want to speak for all smokers.
In my personal experience, it's been pretty wholesale the other way around.
Which is false?
Ever hear of using absurdity to show the absurd.
Have a good weekend. GO TIGERS!
"I wouldn't want to speak for all anti's any more than I'd want to speak for all smokers."
Yes, but I can almost garuntee that all anti's are nasty, because not all non-smokers are antis. That is the distinction, much like the loony liberals or DUers. They make an effort to categorize themselves. With smokers, there are folks of all stripes, just like the general population.
I realize that a lot of research supports that statistically.
Though in my personal experiences, smokers have SEEMED to me to have a lot more in common than any other similar large group of people. Haven't seen research to support that. Bet I could design some that would. But I have plenty other stuff to do. LOL.
Your allergist is giving you correct advice.
The fact that she laughed at my anecdotal story about my sister leads me to believe that she might be in her mid-thirties to early forties, and is thus thoroughly schooled in the current propaganda.
The fact that she laughed at the story about your sister, means that it is laughable.
What, if you don't mind me asking, do you see an allergist for?
Juniper and grasses.
I've found that three cups of coffee every day and a thrice-weekly cigar from late January through April and October until about now keep it under control with but only the occasional dose of antihistamine, decongestant, and a shot for the juniper.
It also helps to forego dairy products during the peak juniper pollen season in February / March.
I took weekly shots for grass for 14 years. Guess what? It worked!
Unfortunately, there are some things that bees won't eat.
AK, I'm proud of you. That was a lucid, intelligent and well thought out argument. It certainly beats your indoor barbecue grill defense. You'll have to forgive me for the name calling, I mean after all, when somebody brings up Weber grills in an intellectual discussion, you as a rocket scientist would immediately dismiss them as a retard too.
I'm glad that you took a few moments out of your work at NASA to actually research the Enstrom study and Osteen ruling on the web. This makes for a much more interesting and intellectually stimulating debate.
Since I'm not worthy to debate a NASA rocket scientist, Mensa member with a 200 IQ about Dr. Enstrom's epidemiological study, I'll let you debate him since he doesn't need CSM or me to argue on his behalf:
Here's his website:
http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.com/defense.html
In the meantime please enlighten us stupid people about the WHO report that suggested that ETS wasn't harmful, which was covered up and swept under the rug.
Do a little Google search on that one too. In a matter of fact I'll make it easy for you. I'll give you the link from Rush Limbaughs' site in a moment.
When you're done with that. Tell us how this stupidity about SHS passes the scientific test that the rest of us who don't live in a laboratory use; THE LAUGH TEST.
We've all been exposed to smoky environments for our entire lives. Name me one person who you can conclusively prove who has dropped dead from getting a whiff of a cigarette.
AK, I don't want you to waste your valuable time that could be better used in your important work as a rocket scientist looking for the link to the WHO cover up online, so here it is:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html
It's straight from Rush Limbaugh's "essential stack of stuff" if you are a subscriber to Rush 24/7 which I'm sure you are. Great website. I recommend it to all.
Please do us/me a favor in return. Give me the link to the websites where you got your information about Enstrom's study or Osteen's ruling.
I really would like to see it. I mean that sincerely.
Do what I do and go get yourself a nice, fresh $10 cigar three times a week, light it and suck it down over a couple of hours.
Why do you continue to deny the fact that someone (not you obviously) gets asthma when they breathe tobacco smoke? BTW juniper doesn't bother me at all. I love it.
You're having the second-hand smoke fit.
Try it first-hand.
I didn't intend to have a useless polarized debate with you. All I asked of you was for some data supporting your comments/position/conclusion.
I happen to be in the health care profession.....And I tend to to be lead by objective data supported by facts........Nothing more, nothing less....You've supplied none.
If it's any odd comfort to you....my father died of lung cancer, primary from heavy smoking..and I think blatant everyday cigarette smoking is very unhealthy.
FWIW- OO
You read the article... but did you read the study referenced in the article? If you didn't, please do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.