Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official

13 November 2002

[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."

[cinFLA]

Incidentally, my current brand of cigarettes was introduced to me by the top orthopedic surgeon in the area;

Would you dare give his name so that I may verify? He may care about your feet but he has no concern for your lungs. Or maybe, he is cultivating business for his friends.

[cinFLA]

Au contraire, ma 'tite fille

Now for some English - You are one who is prone to erroneous assumptions and ignorance of facts.

[Gabz]

One thing old Stan should realize by now: Private Citizens DO have the right to speak out! He's just putting spin on us trying to make us look like fools.

He's trying to make US look like fools - but in the end he is the only one that is going to look like a fool.

I would suggest that he also read the latest surgeon General report regarding obesity. It sure looks like ol' stan 'anti-smoking allows people like me pay our mortgages' glantz could afford to shed a few pounds.

[Gabz]

I've got a question for you based upon your contention that someone is erroneous in his/her assumptions and ignorant of the facts. I agree with you that people ignorant of facts and/or erroneous in assumption should not get much in the way of credibility.

My question is based upon your statement.

If someone, espousing your side of this issue, was erroneous in his/her assumptions and ignorant of the facts in a specific situation would you have the same contempt as you show toward those who have the opposite position of you with this issue???

[cinFLA]

If someone, espousing your side of this issue, was erroneous in his/her assumptions and ignorant of the facts in a specific situation would you have the same contempt as you show toward those who have the opposite position of you with this issue???

I disagree with anyone that posts false information, however, my time is limited and I reserve my posts for those that portray smoking in a positive manner.

[Max McGarrity]

I wonder where he is getting all this inside information, information the insiders know nothing about???

Information?? We don't need no stinkin' information!!

Remember, it was Glantz's bunch (ANR) who told Michael Siegel when he got his ahem in a wringer for lying about Ros Marimont and Robert Levy that "our politics is more important than your science." And of course, it was Siegel himself who told antis "Don't debate the science...instead, bring out the researcher's ties to Big Tobacco." Left unsaid but clearly understood and used consistently is "whether or not there is any such tie."

[Max McGarrity]

Would you dare give his name so that I may verify?

So that YOU may verify??? YOU??? My, don't we think highly of ourselves? Why on earth would it be important to anyone here that YOU verify anything? Get a grip.

[Max McGarrity]

A driver smoking a cigarette in another car does not pose a health risk to me. Someone smoking a cigarette at a nearby table does represent a risk.

Assuming that's true, does someone smoking a cigarette at a table in another building represent a risk to you? You should be all for separate establishments--some would be smokefree, some would be smoker-friendly, and some would cater to both. That gives everyone a choice. Sounds reasonable to me, how about you?

[Gabz]

I disagree with anyone that posts false information, however, my time is limited and I reserve my posts for those that portray smoking in a positive manner.

In other words, you won't bother with false information being espoused, as long as it is by your side.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

[Gabz]

LOL!!!!!!!!1

You got that right!!!!

This time around - it's going to back fire on the fat slob BIG TIME. And I can't wait to see the fall out!!!

there's no science being talked here - this is total grass roots activism. Something that glantz and his cronies encourage their members to do - but also tell them to not mention their membership in certain organizations - so it looks like it is grass roots!!!!

[VRWCmember]

Very Interesting. Here is some more interesting information from the Philip Morris Company's website:

Secondhand Smoke

From their website:

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
...
Philip Morris U.S.A. believes that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.

[VRWCmember]

Actually in economic terms "air" is considered a public good not to be "owned" by anyone.

In economic terms "air" would be a resource -- not a good. A good is something that is produced using resources, or factors of production. Not really central to the argument regarding ETS, but since you couched this in economic terms I thought a correction was in order.

[Gabz]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

top orthopedic surgeon

And she asks about feet??????? And expects us to pay any mind to anything she says?????

Good Grief - I know numerous people that have encountered the knife or laser of orthopedic surgeons and not a one has been for feet. SHEESH

[Gabz]

I find it so interesting that the anti-smokers have been screaming for years about how the tobacco industry, PM in particular, are liars, can't be believed etc., until they say something the anti-smokers agree with.

They are either liars, or they are not - which is it??????

[cinFLA]

In other words, you won't bother with false information being espoused, as long as it is by your side. Thank you for clarifying your position.

Unlike you who uses the false propaganda to promote smoking.

[aristeides]

I was reading some place recently that people who were some distance from the bomb at Hiroshima also have low rates of cancer. I'm trying to remember the word for how low-level exposure to a carcinogen may provide protection. I think it's a Greek word ending in -osis.

[Gabz]

Never, have I ever promoted smoking. I am an adult and I choose to smoke.

The only thing I have promoted is the right of a business owner to permit the smoking of tobacco in his establishment.

Thank you for again clarifying that is it perfectly fine with you that the propagation of false information as long as it is done by your side is acceptable.

[cinFLA]

Thank you for again clarifying that is it perfectly fine with you that the propagation of false information as long as it is done by your side is acceptable

It is despicable that you put those words up to discredit me when I have made no such position and in fact have stated the opposite! But I expect nothing less from your side.

[cinFLA]

The only thing I have promoted is the right of a business owner to permit the smoking of tobacco in his establishment.

But that's the rub; there is no right!