Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
13 November 2002

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."


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: antismokers; butts; cigarettes; individualliberty; makenicotineschd1; michaeldobbs; niconazis; prohibitionists; pufflist; smokingbans; taxes; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 581-584 next last
To: Leonard210
Lenny, you're talking to the wrong guy. I've been breaking laws all my life and I don't intend to stop for a post-nasal drip like you.
161 posted on 11/13/2002 1:17:52 PM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
And let's leave it up to the restaurant owner if he wants smoking sections or not. How about that?

That's fine, unless enough of us, sitting accross from your "smokers section" decide to restrict the restaurant owners RIGHT to provide such a facade unless it truely keeps your RIGHT from infringing on our RIGHT...BY LAW.
162 posted on 11/13/2002 1:20:36 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1
The government doesn't exist, but save an idea. What we commonly call the government are people who work together for and with power. Power over others. It is an old story. They know no limits, and the pillars of limitations of their actions has long since died in the harts of people save us few. No matter. The armed revolution was started in taverns, let it start again.

Leisler12pack
163 posted on 11/13/2002 1:21:29 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: MattAMiller
I don't see any reason to believe that this study is the truth and all others are fatally flawed.

Most of the studies that the anti-smoking cartel use have been PROVEN to be fatally flawed, by the Congressional Research Institute, OSHA, or some other governmental agency.

164 posted on 11/13/2002 1:23:16 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Lenny, you're talking to the wrong guy. I've been breaking laws all my life and I don't intend to stop for a post-nasal drip like you.

Well, metesky, you're still young. One of these days some of those laws will catch up to you.
165 posted on 11/13/2002 1:24:21 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
Your conclusion that I have no response is the typical comment of someone who believes that since a law is a law it must be just (and aren't you just so clever?). The only problem with the antis is that they aren't content to force smokers outside or into designated areas...their ultimate objective is to make it illegal for us to smoke a legal product anywhere.

And don't think I missed the extra s in the word leading off your previous post before this one.

166 posted on 11/13/2002 1:25:13 PM PST by borisbob69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Unsupportable conclusion.

As a father I have two choices. I could avoid smoking near my children and be 100% sure that any subsequent lung problems were not from my smoke or I could just deny that any connection as an unsupportable conclusion If it were me, I rather err on the side of caution. However, if its up to the smoker they would ratehr err on the side of convience. That is why they are selfish.

167 posted on 11/13/2002 1:25:45 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Someone show this to our mayor, Adolf Bloomberg, before he eviscerates every small bar and restaurant in the city with his total ban on smoking.
168 posted on 11/13/2002 1:26:28 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MattAMiller
I don't see any reason to believe that this study is the truth and all others are fatally flawed. You should expect some studies to fail to find correlations that exist. They are designed to make such errors unlikely, but not impossible.

You haven't been paying attention have you.
Yes, all those other "studies" are fatally flawed, and the courts found them to be so: contrived, invented, unscientific and assembled to fit a preconceived conclusion.
See the link to the court findings elsewhere in this thread.

Neurotic controllers always assume that the end justifies the means, and that the universe (of course) revolves around them.

169 posted on 11/13/2002 1:26:54 PM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: MattAMiller
I don't see any reason to believe that this study is the truth and all others are fatally flawed. You should expect some studies to fail to find correlations that exist. They are designed to make such errors unlikely, but not impossible.

This is definitely NOT just one study.

The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society
 
Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Second Hand Smoke
 
Oak Ridge Labs & SHS
 
I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S.Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?

Also: Second Hand Smoke Frauds

170 posted on 11/13/2002 1:29:53 PM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
That's fine, unless enough of us, sitting accross from your "smokers section" decide to restrict the restaurant owners RIGHT to provide such a facade unless it truely keeps your RIGHT from infringing on our RIGHT...BY LAW.

Are you listening to yourself? What you say here and in an earlier post is simply that the mob rules; the rights in question are those of the retaurant owner, not the individual smoker.

If I go someplace where I find myself unwanted, I leave, you want to come in and kick me out - big difference.

Power has a way of shifting; when the tobacco pile is swept away there will still be a big broom scouring the floor for another pile, don't find yourself in it.

171 posted on 11/13/2002 1:31:24 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
That's fine, unless enough of us, sitting accross from your "smokers section" decide to restrict the restaurant owners RIGHT

So, if a large enough mob gathers together and decides to restrict someone else's property rights to accommodate their sniveling, gutless little lives, that's A-OK with you.

Yup, mob rule's just fine with Lennie.

Your posts reek of mental illness, too bad. Let me be the first to vote that you be committed, for the public good, for the attempted murder of freedom. By your reasoning, if we get enough votes by the end of the night, I guess you'll have to go along quietly with those nice men in the shiny ambulance.

Hands?

172 posted on 11/13/2002 1:31:39 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
How dare you presume to tar everyone with your brush of intolerance. You know absolutely nothing about smokers you've never encountered in person where you could observe whether they fit the pre-conceived notions you espouse! Typical lib/antismokingnazi!
173 posted on 11/13/2002 1:31:57 PM PST by borisbob69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Darwin wrote reams on the fate of the unselfish.
174 posted on 11/13/2002 1:34:27 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
That's fine, unless enough of us, sitting accross from your "smokers section" decide to restrict the restaurant owners RIGHT to provide such a facade unless it truely keeps your RIGHT from infringing on our RIGHT...BY LAW.

Oh, that's beautiful! What side of the world are YOU living on!

Smoking Bans Devastating to Business

175 posted on 11/13/2002 1:34:48 PM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
No, I have asthma and burning wood in your fireplace is supposedly worse than smoking.
176 posted on 11/13/2002 1:35:07 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: borisbob69
And don't think I missed the extra s in the word leading off your previous post before this one.

My sincere apology. I did not intend that "s". I don't think that any arguments are unproductive. Your comment is true to a point, but my argument is with smokers who insist that they have a LEGAL RIGHT to smoke anywhere. Well, it's a fact that in many places they no longer have that LEGAL RIGHT.
177 posted on 11/13/2002 1:35:45 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: borisbob69
If they smoke around their children, what else do I need to know to decide they are playing russian roulette with their health ? What are the mitigating circumstance ?
178 posted on 11/13/2002 1:36:33 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
1. Ask the owner. It is not "a restaurant." It is private property, a mans castle, as much as a farmers field or a fisherman’s boat or a cabbies cab. I don't think your going to do anything to any farmer, fisherman or cabby, in or on their property without their permission. Just as neither you would allow, without force, someone doing something in your house or property. I know that everyone here, save a few anti's, would support you to decide what occurs in your home, to your family and on your property .

2. Bleach, ne diluted chlorine, is very toxic in any form and fatal in less diluted concentrations. As a gas it was used in the trenches in WW I, and killed usually through the lungs, thousands. Even in its concentrations as you buy it in the store, it can permanently blind in minutes if not flushed. No one has ever been blinded in minutes, tissue burned or killed by ETS. They have by chlorine.
179 posted on 11/13/2002 1:38:08 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: montag813
Someone show this to our mayor, Adolf Bloomberg, before he eviscerates every small bar and restaurant in the city with his total ban on smoking.

BLOOMBERG? DID YOU SAY BLOOMBERG??!!

More On Bloomberg

180 posted on 11/13/2002 1:40:15 PM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 581-584 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson