I've always abided by the law, metesky!
Posted on 11/13/2002 9:23:09 AM PST by SheLion
UK Sunday Telegraph...
Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998
The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.
The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
-------
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.
-------
The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."
-------
Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
I've always abided by the law, metesky!
Unwarranted assumption #1.
You smokers are unreal ...
Unwarranted assumption #2.
Joe, when they reach the end of what they can debate or get to the end of their "knowledge" about a subject, then they start the insults. I see it time and again.
And as an added free bonus I actually can spell, too!
Does this mean the psychiatrist visit is out of the question?
That wasn't aimed at you, for heaven's sake! But it just pisses me off when THEY say WE are ADDICTED! ugh!
Joe, open up that Smoking Lounge and get Gabz a beer for heavens sake! 
Typical, hysterical, anti-smoking nonsense. People die after a few minutes without oxygen. See a shrink about your problems.
"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk."
They cannot face the potential dangers. If they do they have to face the fact they may be abuisve to their children when forcing them to breathe their smoke or in the very least playing russian roulette with their health.
Instead of honoring the children and giving them a clean environment they rationalize away the potential dangers so they can selfishly indulge their addictions without the inconvience of leaving the room and smoking outdoors or in a closed room away from the children.
facedown! Your working your little tail off! Looks like a good find. I bookmarked it so I can go back and read it.
Thanks so much for all your work! Your doing great!!!
Oh! Give it a rest!
I doubt that any doctor will testify in court that ETS has caused your life-long sinus condition; the simple truth is that allergies and chronic sinus conditions, absent tumors or adhesions have no specific cause.
Allergies come in all shapes and forms and are diagnosed by the presence of histamines; smoke does create histamines by itself, but it does cause an involuntary constriction of the airways, the severity of which is dependent on exposure amounts and duration.
Non-smokers gag when then try to inhale smoke from any source; practiced smokers will also redevelop the sensitivity after abstaining for long periods of time.
Nobody said smoking was good, only that the anti-smokers are using false and misleading claims to support their agenda.
If I had your weak constitution , I would move to northern Arizona.
Not that I have to tell you - but this constant use of the term 'addiction' or 'addict' just drives me nuts.
Yet they also say that there is no reason for a smoker to go for a cigarette for several hours. They can't have it both ways.
I go hours on end with out even thinking of smoking a cigarette -- but that's my choice. But for someone else to demand and force me to - that's another story, if you know what I mean.
I know this is off the subject, but this smoldering thread needs a little more gasoline thrown on it.
Most adults have little interest in "honoring" (I can't believe you said that) your children or their interests.
In fact, a lot of adults have little interest in any child's interests.
And I speak with certainty when I say that I have NO interest in any child's interests.
You won't see me anywhere where children are welcome.
"In 1998, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), cancer research branch of the World Health Organization (WHO), published a seven-country study that found a 16-17% increase in lung cancer risk associated with secondhand smoke."!!
The word "study" was the hyperlink to the report.
So not only are they dishonest, they are stoooopid!
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.