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."
Your nasty. Did you register with Free Republic just so you could come in here and jump on us?
I would much rather be around smokers anyday then a person with an attitude such as yourself.
You talk about farts like it's a sexy thing. I don't think there is anything sexy about farting. That's a man thing. Keep it with your buddies.
He registered with Free Republic just so he could come in and bash us. ~sigh........
Then we have acrid mushrooms that are peppery.
Chances are it's a very diverse word.
I am not familiar with his other example.
I'm not either, Tumble. I guess when you hate something so much, you can come up with just about anything.
Do you know how many times we have heard this childish arguement...... it does not mature with age.
I picked up my great-grandfather's and my grandfather's habit of eating raw garlic cloves. It works wonders to keep the small-minded bigots away, but in combination with my cigarette smoke, my smelly clothes and my yellow teeth, it keeps about 98% of people away and that's the way I like it. (/sarcasm)
Of course the rest of your screed is pretty sophmoric too, but serves as an entree to the subject of property rights and restaurant owners.
How do you feel, newbie, about the owner being able to choose his clientele, be it smoking or non-smoking and would you respect the owners rights or would you favor government intervention to have your way?
Your shirt stunk before it was ever exposed to smoke. What bad taste!
Seriously there, newbie, you seem to be having trouble understanding both the phrase, "being out in public", and the meaning of the term "assault".
You'd urinate on most people exactly once before,
a.) you got your head handed to you and
b.) you were arrested for assault and spent a lot of dough on a lawyer and court fines and fees.
You say that cigarette smoke is nasty. What is this, a law of physics? I don't smoke, never have save maybe an entire pack in four years in the military, due to standing around boredom, and I don't find second hand smoke nasty. The best you can say is that YOU, personally, find it nasty. Now, it is a subjective matter and you are in a public sphere with your subjective likes and dislikes. Welcome to the club. We all have our particulars, but we suppress it. It is called socialization. For instance, I can't stand grown adults caterwauling over some public annoyance like a liberal's two-year-old. Deal with it, stiffen up man, you're not going to hit the floor with tracheal spasms and be jumped by gay waiters.
After a little research, I'm fairly sure that GeoffreyTransom ia an Australian, where their favorite pastime is bending over and taking it in the ass from their socialist government.
Notice the British spelling the whiny twit uses here:
"Society rightfully would frown on my behaviour ..."I'm sure that he would love for everybody to be as miserable as he is, but since "Jeffy Joe Transom" isn't even an American, who gives a sh!t what he thinks.
I put up with years of discomfort by the smokers that had NO courtesy. Now it is payback time. You have NO right to blow smoke in my face. Your liberty ends where mine begins - the right to not be harassed by your smoke. Not going away? Think again.
"On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Non-Smoking Proletariat"
As published in People's cinFLA, 16th April 1956 with the following editorial note:
The following article was written by the Editorial Department of the 'Non-Smoking People's Daily' on the basis of the discussion which took place at an enlarged meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of cinFLA. It was published in the Non- Smoking People's Daily on April 5, 1956. Editor
The 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union summed up the fresh experience gained both in international relations non-smoking and in domestic construction. It took a series of momentous decisions on the steadfast implementation of Lenin's policy in regard to the possibility of peaceful co-existence between non-smoking countries with different anti-smoking social systems, on the development of Soviet democracy, on the thorough observance of the Party's principle of collective leadership, on the criticism of shortcomings within the Party, and on the sixth Five-Year Plan for the development of the national economy.
The question of combating the cult of the individual smoker occupied an important place in the discussions of the 20th Congress. The Congress very sharply exposed the prevalence of the cult of the individual and the smoker which, for a long time in Soviet life, had given rise to many errors in work and had led to ill consequences. This courageous self-criticism of its past errors by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union demonstrated the high level of principle in inner-Party life and the great vitality of non-smoking Marxism-Leninism.
In history and in all the smoking capitalist countries of today, no governing political party or bloc in the service of the exploiting smoking classes has ever dared to expose its serious errors conscientiously before the mass of its own smoking members and the people. With the parties of the smoking working class things are entirely different. The parties of the smokingworking class serve the broad masses of the people; by self-criticism such parties lose nothing except....
My main issue is that smokers are not considerate and because they are inconsiderate they are experiencing a backlash.
You are not alone there, but you must also realise from the many smoking posts you have participated in that even amongst never-smokers and ex-smokers, there are others who don't mind the smell of smoke.
Does this mean that just because some people have no sense of smell that those of us that do should accept it ?
And this is where it comes down to your values
What a jump. Why does this have to do with my values ? I know that I don't like the smell. That isn't a value.
- do you support the right of 25% of your fellow citizens to do something that you personally find objectionable,
Depends on what they are doing. If we narrow the discussion down to smoking then I can safely say that I don't want folks smoking within "smellshot" of my nose.
or do you consider the discrimination/segregation/overt taxation/humiliation/castigation/zero-accommodation of that very large minority to be acceptable?
If its the will of the majority, yes. I have no problem with our governing system. Its worked well for us all these years and I expect it will continue to work well. If you believe your being singled out then go for a constitutional amendment.
I suggest to you that most conservatives would say, "No. I will put up with a certain level of discomfort to support the rights of that significant minority."
A significant minority is considered to be 40%. You folks are way below that and dropping fast.
The alternative - which is presently playing out - of forcing all smokers outside, regardless of how cold it is, or how old they are and, in extreme cases, of "smoke-rage" resulting in murder of smokers, should be too appalling for even those who despise the smell to consider.
They could quit couldn't they or seeing that they are not addicted they could wait till they get home. Or ae they addicted. You cannot have it both ways.
Like I've said, we aren't going away, so what would you propose we do?
I don't think you folks are going to be given much slack and should quit. The three environments that lead the nation are political, economic and social. Your smoking cause is rapidly losing ground in each of the three areas at an ever increasing pace. Its not going to get better.
And........he has to stand on a CHAIR!
KS! How come when "I" say this stuff, I get collared by a Moderator?! humph!
~Whoa......Leisler! Where did you find this stuff???
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.