Passive smoking risks in doubt, study says

Times OnLine ^ | 5/16/03 | Nigel Hawkes

[VRWC_minion]

Attempting to extrapolate thuis study to the general population is an example of people who have no clue about statistics.

Assuming the study is fully valid, the study compares married couples only. It doesn't compare nonsmoking workers exposed to smoking workers. One might be able to say that the incident of cancer is not statistically different for being married to a smoker or a nonsmoker but that is all that can be safely deduced.

It is quite possible that a cancer prone person is less likely to marry a smoker. It is quite possible the nonsmoker spouse isn't exposed as much as a co-worker. It is quite possible that a smoking spouse married to a nonsmoker smokes less in the home than he does at work. It is possible that a spouse of a smoker is checked more thoroughly by the doctors than one who doesn't have obvious exposure to smoke.

That said, this study won't do squat to change the current flood of bans that will engulf each state in the coming few years. The reason for the bans have nothing to do with health and everything to do with the stench and the fact nonsmokers are fed up with smokers.

[BlackbirdSST]

Maybe not. But the health problems caused by smoking sure have a huge effect on the pockets of taxpayers!

BULL! Go back for some more indoctrination, and maybe a better argument. Blackbird.

[Terridan]

And I love to enjoy a good shot once in a while, along with a good smoke at our local pub... but now I can't cuz the libral idiots here in Kalifornia who happen to be visiting as tourists, want to bring their kids in and sit. I go in once in a blue moon to enjoy a drink and I have to put up with young toddlers and 6 year olds. No food served or reason for them to be in there! I am sick of all of this bullsh*t... I would never bring my kids into a bar. Everyone at the local pub smokes, but now we are relagated to being outside. Hence, the pub is empty during the winter months... so far, 4 new owners. Great for small buisness owners.

[cosine]

Viscusi did study of costs/benefits of smoking for government. Idea that smokers cost states money via higher medical costs is, well, so much smoke. It wouldn't be a problem if we hadn't socialized 50% of medical care--under true insurance, smokers pay a slight premium for insurance, one that is roughly equal to the extra risk they pose.

Good overviews on the data relevant to the second hand smoking debate have appeared in Regulation. Viscusi at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3e.html and Levy and Marimout "Blowing Smoke About Tobacco Related Deaths" at http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-29-99.html. "Blowing Smoke" really stirred up the health socialists and a number of not very effective rebuttals have appeared. They make entertaining reading.

[BagCamAddict]

Since no one seems to know what breaking news really is, that one's as good as any.

I hear ya.

Here's how I think of breaking news: If I'm watching TV, and the network "breaks in" with news about second hand smoke.... they are going to get an irate phone call from me in a big hurry.

To me, breaking news isn't simply a function of Timing (the news was released moments ago), but it is ALSO a function of Importance. Things that are of an "Alert" nature... such as Amber Alerts, Earthquake reports, Tornado Warnings, Terrorist Alerts, etc.

But, as you said, every one else's definition of breaking news is quite a bit more broad than mine. :-)

[1_Of_We]

Thanks for your post. NOW.... I wonder if any studies have determined the effect on the human anatomy of second-hand internal combustion engine exhaust fumes.

I suspect cigarette smoke is catching a lot of flack for problems which may be caused by auto/bus/truck/etc. emissions. How many militant anti-smokers drive vehicles?

[Great Dane]

Gee, I was under the impression that second hand smoke and passive smoking was one and the same.

And isn't it strange the argument used by the ANTI's, is the very same we are using about the EPA studies, but in our case..... it's not to be believed.

[Great Dane]

Maybe not. But the health problems caused by smoking sure have a huge effect on the pockets of taxpayers!

You are sooooo wrong, smokers are paying enough taxes, to pay their own healthcare, plus that for a lot of the non-smoking population.

[Great Dane]

Same thing for obese people. And your point?

Right, and the smokers pays the piper, obese people do not.

[E Rocc]

Assuming the study is fully valid, the study compares married couples only. It doesn't compare nonsmoking workers exposed to smoking workers. One might be able to say that the incident of cancer is not statistically different for being married to a smoker or a nonsmoker but that is all that can be safely deduced.

As long as the antismoking zealots refuse to recognize the importance of concentration, they have no place questioning the statistical validity of studies that don't support their claims. Their rejection of this very basic concept makes it clear what their agenda really is.

-Eric

[P.O.E.]

It's been known for some time that the WHO's case for second-hand smoke hazards were overstated, if not fictitious.

[arielb]

this study was funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research which the American Cancer Society says is an arm of Philip Morris and other tobacco companies.

[netmilsmom]

Okay Lorianne, how do you explain this?

[Diddle E. Squat]

We won't be fooled again.

[Madame Dufarge]

Okay Lorianne, how do you explain this?

Just my guess:

A belligerent reiteration that smokers are arrogant and belligerent and she doesn't like the smell.

She's going to ignite a barrel of roofing tar in the middle of the sidewalk, and just see how we all like that!

[Madame Dufarge]

See Post #36.

[Madame Dufarge]

Oops, sorry.

I thought I included you in the reply.

[netmilsmom]

She's going to ignite a barrel of roofing tar in the middle of the sidewalk, and just see how we all like that!

---

And of course no one will tell her what is healthy for HER!
;-).
Don't you just picture a woman sitting at the computer screen, with her hands over her eyes yelling, "La la la, I can't read you!"?

[Old Professer]

One would think that a 40+ year tracking study would carry some weight, but just watch how fast this floats out of sight.

[Old Professer]

My wife worked with a young doctor (oncologist) at the VA hospital in West Los Angeles who contracted and died from lung cancer in his 30's; he was a lifelong non-smoker whose only "addiction" was to watermelon.

Interestingly enough, while she worked there every oncologist who died was as a result of one form of cancer or another.

Cardiologists have been known to drop dead while making rounds in the hospital from a heart-attack.

Darned risky world we live in, eh?