Refer to it next time someone tries to shanghai you and force you into an establishment that allows smoking.
Posted on 05/09/2006 9:22:14 PM PDT by LouAvul
Eliminating the threat of secondhand smoke would prevent more than 228,000 new cases of heart disease and 119,000 heart-related deaths over the next 25 years, according to a new study.
Using a model to estimate the impact of eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke on heart disease, researchers found stopping secondhand smoke would quickly reduce the number of heart-related deaths. This effect would increase over time, adding up to hundreds of thousands of preventable heart attacks and other problems.
National surveys suggest that 4 percent to 17 percent of the nonsmoking population (depending on age and sex) are exposed to secondhand smoke at home, work, or at play.
Estimating the Impact of Secondhand Smoke
Researchers say current estimates show that average daily exposure to secondhand smoke among exposed individuals is equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day; that conveys about one-third of the additional risk of heart disease associated with smoking a pack a day.
Based on those estimates, researchers calculated the effects of eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke in 2005 over the next 25 years in the U.S.
Their results show that:
--New cases of heart disease would be reduced by 9,300 in the first year, adding up to 228,300 cases prevented by 2030.
--The number of heart attacks reported would be reduced by 8,100 in the first year and increase to 13,500 per year by 2030, resulting in a total reduction of 292,500 heart attacks over the 25-year period.
--Total heart disease-related deaths would drop by 2,200 in the first year after eliminating secondhand smoke and rise to 6,400 prevented deaths per year by 2030.
The results of the study were presented this week at an American Heart Association meeting in Washington, D.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The title is a lie. That's not a study--that's an editorial. Those aren't researchers--those are propagandists. Give us some double-blind data that shows any affect whatsoever. There is none.
this is interesting… I do notice most of the people I met that are way over weight drink diet coke. Why is that? What’s up with Diet Coke or is it fat people seem to like it more?
try $2.40 in taxes per pack here in NJ...and Corzine wants to raise it another 35 cents!
When you start a study with a preconceived and predetermined result and then start to extrapolate those false (but pc) results, you get these laughable conclusions.
I call Bullshit!
ping
Refer to it next time someone tries to shanghai you and force you into an establishment that allows smoking.
Will the bleating never end?
"Using a model to estimate the impact....."
Um, a model is not a study.
"Is much nicer to eat out, now."
Of course, prior to the legislation you were free to risk your own capital and work to make a non-smoking establishment available in the market. Instead you think it is nice to steal these rights from those that did risk their capital and invested the sweat of their brow. Socialism at its finest.
"Its just that other Conservatives dont want to inhale that nasty gunk when they're eating. And they shouldn't have to. Hope the police start ticketing them for it. Maybe then they'll think twice."
When did it become a Conservative principle to celebrate the use of government guns to trample on private property rights and the free market. Any individual was free to risk their own capital and work hard to establish a successful business, instead the lazy turned to the government to dictate their preferences.
The weakest in our society turn to the use of government force to ensure their preferences are met. Those of us that are self reliant understand freedom and individual liberty.
New cases of heart disease would be reduced by 9,300 in the first year, adding up to 228,300 cases prevented by 2030. Total heart disease-related deaths would drop by 2,200 in the first year after eliminating secondhand smoke and rise to 6,400 prevented deaths per year by 2030.
The numbers seem very low for a US population of 300 million now and one that will be approaching 400 million in 2030. It doesn't even appear to be outside a standard deviation. I question any study that can posit such exact numbers as 9,300. Other studies on second hand smoke have not found such a correlation.
Is this based on the hockey stick model for global warming?
Computer models are so convenient because you can program them to predict anything you want, and you just call anybody who questions the result names.
Computer models are the only "proof" of global warming, for the same reasons.
I dunno about smelling smoke, but I sure smell BS in this "study".
Indianapolis (Marion County)passed a smoking ban this year. Working in a large factory, I find it a great improvement. The indoor air is definitely better and you don't see cigarette butts on the floor. I also find high school sporting events more pleasant without spectators smoking in the stands.
Lemme guess, you drive a car to work? Thought so.
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.