Posted on 10/15/2009 4:45:18 PM PDT by Drango
Smoking bans in places like restaurants, offices and public buildings reduce cases of heart attacks and heart disease, according to a report released Thursday by a federally commissioned panel of scientists.
The report, issued by the Institute of Medicine, concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke significantly increased the risk of having a heart attack among both smokers and nonsmokers. The panel also said it found that a reduction in heart problems began to take effect fairly quickly after a smoking ban was instituted and that exposure to low or fleeting levels of secondhand smoke could cause cardiovascular problems.
“Even a small amount of exposure to secondhand smoke can increase in blood clotting, constrict blood vessels and can cause a heart attack,” ~snip
“I don’t think there’s any question that the evidence is now overwhelming,” said Dr. Richard D. Hurt, ~snip But, Dr. Goldman said, evidence was sufficient to “conclude a cause-and-effect relationship exist between heart disease generally and secondhand smoke exposure.”
“It increased the risk of coronary heart disease by about 25 to 30 percent, a pretty significant increase,” she continued.
And she said, “we found a cause and effect relationship between smoking bans and decreases in heart attack and acute coronary events. It showed remarkable consistency. All of the studies showed decreases in the rate of acute myocardial infarctions after implementation of smoking bans.”
~snip
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“It increased the risk of coronary heart disease by about 25 to 30 percent, a pretty significant increase,”
More evidence that people will ignore 'cause they believe their science is better and more informed. But this is another report that can't be ignored.
What about third hand smoke?
And fourth hand smoke?
Since this study was funded by the Federal Government, it is political by nature. Hard to know if it is true or not. The Federal Government usually specifies the results it wants as a precondition to getting the money.
There is also “scientific” proof of man-made global warming.
Didn’t you know that colder temps proved the earth is getting warmer?
Have you seen the study that by just seeing a fat person causes the person viewing the fat person to gain weight leading to numerous health problems?
I am so sick of this crap! They got their way what more do they want. Why don’t the just outlaw smoking altogether. S.P.I.T.
...while the Institute of Medicine report is among the most comprehensive analyses of the link between smoking bans and drops in heart disease, the state of the science in this area appears to be swaying even the public pronouncements of tobacco companies. David Sutton, a spokesman for Philip Morris U.S.A., ... ... Mr. Sutton said the company supported smoking bans in public areas.
For the report, commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the scientific panel did not conduct its own study. It instead extensively examined the published and unpublished data...
Second hand studies.
How many studies were included in the "extensive examination of the published and unpublished data"?
How many studies were left out? How thoroughly were studies vetted for the rigorousness of their methodology?
How much did the motivation of the "scientific panel" enter into it's evaluation of the second hand studies?
In other words, did they go in looking for validation for their belief in the need for nanny-state regulations against smoking?
If the “foxes that guard the chicken house” can figure out how to conclude that third hand smoke causes cancer and thereby erode the Constitution of the United States by further restricting freedom, I’m sure we will read their conclusions that further their taxpayers funding. It is hard to believe ANYTHING I read when the conclusion is decided before the facts are gathered. In the case of this study, actually there was none. Just a press release that proves nothing.
These “reports” have long been debunked. Mostly by medical and science experts in the anti smoking industry.
Yes.
Why do I have the feeling that the tobacco companies have a study that shows that smokers who are not allowed to smoke at work or in other public areas trend to smoke more when in areas where they are allowed to smoke. Thus, tobacco companies support a ban on smoking in public areas because they sell more cigarettes.
OK that made me laugh. Dang near blew coffee out my nose. Good one! (Wait...you're not joking?)
Have you ever seen a smoker get off an airplane? They go right to the exit and chain smoke several cigarettes until they get their nicotine levels back up. I wouldn’t be surprised if smokers smoke less when they can regulate their intake evenly throughout the day, rather than chain smoking during coffee breaks, quick trips outside to the bank or post office, or between flights.
Everything about this “study” reeks of the same kind of biased “science” that “proves” Global Warming... oops... I mean Climate Change. (Gore forgive me.)
Why should you care? My Grandfather started smoking at 13 and died at 87. His poor wife, my Grandmother, died at 96, after being exposed to all that second hand smoke for the 63 years of their Marriage.
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.