Of course there will those risky few seconds when you have to lift the hood to spit in someone's face
.
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."
What version?
Thanks again!
I wonder how THEY feel about the smoke from YOUR steak???
Oh wow. I have a whole list of athletics I used to do, even as a smoker. Some people, especially today, with all the anti-smokers trash out there making the general public half afraid to leave their own homes, is getting WAY out of hand.
I had to reboot my system and now I'm getting it.
I had this poor box totally overloaded - I need a new puter - SOON (like last month!!!)
Very mature response. I bet it works too! For about the 1/2 second it would take for even a fifteen year old or a woman to respond.
Anything else I can answer, please let me know.
You may not live to be an elder, if you are a heavy smoker. It has been proven that the earlier you start smoking, the more damage it does to your lungs and the higher the likelyhood of cancer.
My father had a massive heart attack at 48 and died at 52 from a heart condition that was severely exascerbated by his heavy smoking habit. His mother died of lung cancer at 59 and my maternal grandfather died of lung cancer at 59, also (both smokers). That is not very old.
I have other relatives that have died of smoking related cancers, too, but they at least lived to be senior citizens. Still, it is not a pleasant way to die.
How do you know I am not an "elder" already? heh! Yes, I started smoking at the age of 16. I was totally active for most of my life. Every year, I go for my annual complete physical. My lungs are always clear. My Doctor knows I smoke, but when he listens to my heart and lungs, he says not a word.
Actually, I smoke a pack and a half a day. Not exactly a heavy smoker. As for cancer: I had it twice in my life! 5 years of radioactive iodine treatments which threw me into complete isolation for 5 days at a time every 6 months. Second time, I had another major surgery, followed by 6 months of chemotherapy. Both times, I had a team of Doctors. They ask me if I smoked, how much, and each time, both teams told me my cancers were NOT caused by smoking and not one of them advised me to quit.
My one grandmother died at age 42. Never smoked a day in her life. My other grandmother smoked three packs of non filtered Camels a day, lived to be 86 and died from old age. My grandfathers both smoked and lived well into their late 70's.
I realize that lung cancer would not be the preferred method of death, but so far, I am one of the lucky ones. Truthfully, I believe it's generics. What is heredity. Some can do it and some can not. It just the choices we all make.
Of course there will those risky few seconds when you have to lift the hood to spit in someone's face
.
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.