Reducing Secondhand Smoke Would Slash Heart Disease Rates, Study Says

fox ^ | 5/9/6 | jenny warner

[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.

[Stone Mountain]

What’s up with Diet Coke or is it fat people seem to like it more?

If you are trying to lose weight (sucessful or not), one of the easiest things to do is to switch from regular soda to diet - that can reduce intake of hundreds of calories per day. Of course, lots of people believe that since they are now drinking diet soda, they can now eat that extra dozen doughnuts...

[absolootezer0]

If the owner of a bar doesn't mind people smoking therein, why should that be a concern of yours?

that's where the problem is. most of the bar owners i know DON'T want people smoking in their bars. they only allow it because they know that more people will go to the next bar down the street if they can't smoke, then people will come in to enjoy smoke free air. that's why bar owners will push state bans but oppose city or county bans.

[383rr]

"You mean the freedom to pollute the air with your toxic smoke?"

Can't you come up with anything better than that?
No-one advocates smoking ANYTIME,ANYWHERE. We're just tired of the B.S.

All we advocate is;
1. The right of business owners to choose to allow smoking or not;
2.No governmental intrusion into our homes
3.Protect freedom of choice.

It sounds to me like you don't like smoke. Fine, it is your business. There are many non-smoking establishments, and most places are already smoke-free. And yes, taking away my freedom to choose IS freedom slipping away.

So, let me get this straight. Your rights trump mine.
That's not freedom, it's mob rule.

[from occupied ga]

I find it a great improvement

Good for you, but this "study" was purported to link health issues with second hand smoke, not issues regarding comfort.

[383rr]

" It's merely about controlling the habits of others of which they smugly disapprove. It's about control."

That, is the true agenda.

[New Girl]

"You mean the freedom to pollute the air with your toxic smoke?"

Don't forget the millions of cigarette butts that get snuffed out on sidewalks, in front of office buildings, in parks, etc. that the rest of us end up cleaning up for all of those courteous smokers out there. It's no different than throwing trash in the street.

[New Girl]

" It's merely about controlling the habits of others of which they smugly disapprove. It's about control."

It's not about control -- it's about common courtesy towards others. Most people wouldn't have a problem with smokers if they were more polite with their habit -- as in not blowing smoke into others faces, lighting up around children, and dumping cigarettes butts all over the place.

[KoRn]

" Your ATTITUDE stinks!!!!!!!!!"

Was is something I said? =)

[Moonman62]

Don't forget the millions of cigarette butts that get snuffed out on sidewalks,

How can I forget? They are everywhere and I see them everyday. They have no respect for other people's property. And then they are the first to complain about their "right" to pollute and litter. Since they think it is our obligation to avoid their smoke, they must think we should pick up their cigarette butts too.

[Sunshine Sister]

"I'm screwed!"

Thanks for the laugh. Freepers are for the most part really funny!

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

For the same reason I want that business to be compliant with fire and health codes

1 It's none of your damn buisness what or how people run their buisness as long as it's legaly run passing laws that prevent smokers from their freedoms to choose but give non-smokers a created "SPECIAL RIGHT TO WHINE" is not american it's anti-social and pro-liberal

2 Your frees to shop eat or drink anywhere you want why the hell should fifty people have to put out their cigarettes just because YOU don't smoke ? I guess your special huh ?

[Gone GF]

What an intelligent comment. Seems to violate at least two of the rules for the forum.

[Moonman62]

"You mean the freedom to pollute the air with your toxic smoke?"

Can't you come up with anything better than that?

Considering the angry responses I got I'd say it hit the bullseye.

3.Protect freedom of choice.

You know which activist group you sound like with that.

So, let me get this straight. Your rights trump mine. That's not freedom, it's mob rule.

That's why we have a Supreme Court to decide which rights take precedence. If you want to sound ridiculous and say that's mob rule go right ahead. More and more governments are deciding that I am not obligated to avoid your smoke in public places or to pick up your cigarette butts. If you don't like it file a suit and see how far you get.

[antisocial]

"what's to deny?"

Junk science with an agenda

[DJ MacWoW]

the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

Claims of secondhand smoke risks don't pass science test

[antisocial]

"You mean the freedom to pollute the air with your toxic smoke?"

Is that you AlGore?

[antisocial]

"You need to form your own state, like Smoketana."

You and like minded people are already forming your own state=Nannytanna.

[LouAvul]

They have no respect for other people's property.

My wife and I stayed at a remote "resort" this past weekend to visit some of her family. The room had a "no smoking" sign posted.

But it was obvious the prior guests smoked. Burns all over the carpet. And the smell. I literally washed all of my clothes when I got home. Even the clean ones.