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 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 581-584 next last
To: Madame Dufarge
Wow. Smoking is now a PROPERTY RIGHT? You win. You have descimated my reasoning. I bow to your perspicacity Madame.
181 posted on 11/13/2002 1:40:44 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
From your comments in post 167 However, if its up to the smoker they would ratehr err on the side of convience. That is why they are selfish

With that comment you indict all smokers, without acknowledging that many smokers choose to smoke away from their children/grandchildren!

182 posted on 11/13/2002 1:41:13 PM PST by borisbob69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
I'm almost sixty, young Lenny and I was in prison when you were still hiding behind your mother's apron strings.

Those laws that you think are written in stone are made for people like me to twist to my own evil ends, little boy.

Bwahahahaha!

183 posted on 11/13/2002 1:41:58 PM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
Hands?


184 posted on 11/13/2002 1:42:05 PM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: metesky
I am sure that you are right about heredity being a factor in longevity, but I think that it is irresponsible to tell people that smoking won't effect you until you get older, anyway, so go ahead and smoke. That is not necessarily true.

I do have some relatives who continued to smoke right up until their eighties, and although they haven't died of lung cancer, they have suffered other ill effects, such as macro degeneration (that's not the right term, but its a form of progressive blindness which is often attributed to the decrease in circulation due to smoking).

Anyway, I wasn't trying to convince anyone to stop smoking, that's not my business. I was just pointing out the fallacy of a statement that Shelion made to another poster.
185 posted on 11/13/2002 1:43:05 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Found these, check see if you have seen these.

Journal of Theoretics [Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer(According to WHO/CDC Data)]

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent I think this is the article you are looking for. (also Main Page)

Smoke and Mirrors: The EPA's Flawed Study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer

Here's a Golden Oldie Free Republic original thread!

Cigarettes Don't Cause Cancer (Not sure what to make of this one! But, thought you might like to see it.)

186 posted on 11/13/2002 1:43:37 PM PST by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: borisbob69
With that comment you indict all smokers, without acknowledging that many smokers choose to smoke away from their children/grandchildren!

Correct, in context my disdain is only reserved for those who insist on smoking in the same room as their minor children. It is those smokers who are selfish.

The only time the others are selfish is when they let themselves die from smoking related diseases.

187 posted on 11/13/2002 1:45:34 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Anyway, I wasn't trying to convince anyone to stop smoking, that's not my business. I was just pointing out the fallacy of a statement that Shelion made to another poster.

And my "fallacy" was?

188 posted on 11/13/2002 1:45:35 PM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
Smoking is now a PROPERTY RIGHT?

You're getting hysterical, aren't you? Try breathing into a paper bag or something.

The owner of the restaurant has property rights; and should be allowed to be determine whether he will accommodate smokers.

Your mob notwithstanding.

189 posted on 11/13/2002 1:45:48 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
How did LEGALLY passed restrictions to your USE of a product become a MOB rule? Our representatives are passing laws TODAY. Your reasoning would make them a MOB. Your comment sounds a lot like the MOB mentality you feign to decry, (i.e. 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. )
190 posted on 11/13/2002 1:46:34 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
OK, that's enough for me.

I'll make the call....

191 posted on 11/13/2002 1:47:06 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
You seem to miss the point of many in this discussion...we understand that those areas designated as non-smoking "by law" are off limits for us to indulge our habit.

Despite the illegality of these laws they continue to be enacted/upheld by those representing the antis...it amounts to seizure of private property and use designation without input/consent by the property owner.

Our beef is with the never-ending avalanche of ill-will and legal manuevering aimed at curtailing our right to engage in the enjoyment of a legal product anywhere!

192 posted on 11/13/2002 1:48:14 PM PST by borisbob69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: ET(end tyranny)
WOW ET! Got em! Thanks so much. I have seen most, but there is a couple there that I will definitely read later!
193 posted on 11/13/2002 1:48:23 PM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
OK, that's enough for me.

I'll make the call....


194 posted on 11/13/2002 1:49:47 PM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Your response #2 makes my point to #1.
195 posted on 11/13/2002 1:50:56 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: *all
Dinner time. I shall be back!


196 posted on 11/13/2002 1:52:32 PM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Eva; SheLion
I know you were just expressing your views on that one comment, Eva, and I don't speak for SheLion, but I think she was trying to say that lung cancers and other diseases associated with smoking are most often diseases that are associated with ageing, also.

Sometimes it's hard to be clear (let alone rational) from behind our keyboards.
:O)

197 posted on 11/13/2002 1:53:02 PM PST by metesky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
Have another cocktail.
198 posted on 11/13/2002 2:02:09 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
"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."

Excellent point, I had a few minutes and had to check in to see what our thin skinned smoking brothers and sisters were up to again. I see since I was gone a while, I've been called liberal, liar, scum, and quite a few other names because addicts can't admit they are addicts. The debate is fun as always, bu it's hard to enjoy when you've seen the results of long term smoking on people you love, like my dad. An old war vet, and great man that I watched in his last days struggle for his next breath, and had to have a fan blowing in his face so he could feel the air and at least feel he was getting some of it processed by his lungs. He died in his sixties. He told me smoking caused his sickness, I believe him.

199 posted on 11/13/2002 2:07:19 PM PST by XDemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: XDemocrat
and quite a few other names because addicts can't admit they are addicts.

Still calling names and still no scientific proof.

200 posted on 11/13/2002 2:10:26 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 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