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 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 581-584 next last
To: Just another Joe
Now if you want to stay on topic, the topic is Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
Not whether people that smoke are addicts or not.
201 posted on 11/13/2002 2:11:55 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: borisbob69
Thanks borisbob69, but many here do not understand. They insist that they have a RIGHT to smoke wherever they choose. When that argument fails, they claim PROPERTY RIGHTS. The fact remains that LAWS have always defined PROPERTY USE, which is what they are actually arguing. In some states that have restricted smoking, it is still legal to open a smoking club where those who prefer to smoke can do so without restriction. I visit them sometimes, but mostly I prefer a cigar in the open air. I can understand the fear that even this use may be banned, but so far it has not. My problem is that by insisting on their RIGHT to smoke ANYWHERE, they have forced others to form a MOB...previously referred to as VOTERS...in order to assert THEIR RIGHT to a smoke-free environment.
202 posted on 11/13/2002 2:12:35 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: XDemocrat
Post #201 was to you.
203 posted on 11/13/2002 2:12:58 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
My right vrs your right, let's say, just for argument, that they cancel each other out.
Now how about we let the property owner decide. Could you buy that?
204 posted on 11/13/2002 2:14:55 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Skip the last one. Seems to be more of an anti-fluride site than anything.

The one from the theoretical journal is interesting though. I particularly liked his closing comment.:

"For those of you who actually read through the whole article...

As long as I'm being controversial by presenting both sides of the story, do I dare tell you that a woman is three times more likely to die from an abortion than from delivering a baby (WHO data)."


205 posted on 11/13/2002 2:18:51 PM PST by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Are you the Joe, Joe Camel? Glad to meet you. Just kiddin', can you tell?
I have enough proof for me, several dead people that were a big part of my life that I'm convinced would stll be here if they hadn't been heavy smokers. The reason I say addicts is because I know too many people that have tried desperately to give up smoking after losing loved ones and still couldn't. I know I'll never get you to admit nicotine is addictive, but anyone that intentionally smokes and knows it bad for them and their loved ones is addicted.
206 posted on 11/13/2002 2:19:37 PM PST by XDemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
"The fact remains that LAWS have always defined PROPERTY USE"

Laws commanded that Blacks be slaves, and have all nature of crimes committed upon them. Law in a dozens countries ordered Jews, gypsy’s, the cripple and lame to the death camps. Laws gave Stalin leave to kill millions.

No doubt you would of obeyed.

God when he released Abraham from killing his son, Isaac showed that even his law has limits.

207 posted on 11/13/2002 2:21:13 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
My right vrs your right, let's say, just for argument, that they cancel each other out. Now how about we let the property owner decide. Could you buy that?

I'm sorry, Just another Joe, but we do not allow restaurant owners to determine restaurant use. If you want to talk about the broader topic of property rights we'd need to define that also, but anyone who owns a restaurant will tell you that they have hundreds of laws that restrict their unfettered use. I don't like property rights violations, but the fact is that the states have always placed restrictions on land use. When it tips too far, we form a mob...previously called voters...and work to bring us back to equilibrium.
208 posted on 11/13/2002 2:25:31 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Laws commanded that Blacks be slaves, and have all nature of crimes committed upon them. Law in a dozens countries ordered Jews, gypsy’s, the cripple and lame to the death camps. Laws gave Stalin leave to kill millions.

You're right. I don't know how I missed it. Smoking restrictions will ultimately lead to death camps. Forgive me Leisler, somehow I missed it.
209 posted on 11/13/2002 2:29:29 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: XDemocrat
I have enough proof for me

Enough proof for you doesn't equate to scientific proof or enough proof for several million others.
I don't deny that nicotine CAN be an addictive substance. Some are able to resist addiction better than others. (scientific fact)
So, what's addictive for one person may not be for another. To lump all smokers into the lump of "addicted" is not at all correct and condensending as all get out.
And like another poster said, until the surgeon general changed the term "addictive/addicted/addict" ANY smoker was not considered "addicted". Since that time, chocolate is also an "addictive" substance.

210 posted on 11/13/2002 2:30:36 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
but we do not allow restaurant owners to determine restaurant use.

But we have, up till the current antismoking explosion, allowed them to decide what was allowed in their business if it did not affect the public health and it was legal.
Until that point they WERE allowed to decide.
If unequivical proof can be given that ETS affects the public health I will agree that the govt should be allowed to decide for the business owner.

211 posted on 11/13/2002 2:34:48 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Leonard210
No problem. You are uneducated, ignorant and unread. Start here, although there are no pictures
.
212 posted on 11/13/2002 2:49:18 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
There are studies that point to second-hand smoke, or passive smoke, as cause for concern. One study related it to artery problems JAMA (1998;279:119-124) also see The Lancet 2001;358:2103-2109. Smokers get one study and they run the streets waving it over their head. I'd do a more extensive search for passive smoke studies, but smokers will never allow their rights to be violated.
213 posted on 11/13/2002 2:54:33 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: XDemocrat
My wife and I sat by her dad's beside while he died from cancer from smoking. It was awful for him and the family. The most insane thing was as he lay dying he still smoked. The only good thing is he died before knowing, according to the doctors, his oldest daughter got emphysema from his smoking. It would have hurt him deeply because he would have done anything he could for his children.

After he couldn't get out of bed and sneak into the bathroom to smoke he had us wheel his bed and him out to the parking lot to smoke. Of course he wasn't addicted. He enjoyed thme.

Two of our children never knew him and the other two miss him terribly. My wife struggles a lot with the loss of his presence at most family events. She often laments she wishes Dad could be here.

214 posted on 11/13/2002 3:02:17 PM PST by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Thanks for the post !
215 posted on 11/13/2002 3:19:14 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Posting a picture does not constitute intelligent discourse. What did Hayek say about the connection between smoking restrictions and death camps?
216 posted on 11/13/2002 3:22:04 PM PST by Leonard210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: per loin
You can easily verify this. Go to your kids' field day sometime. Those whose parents smoke will be in back during the footraces.

It's ridiculous that smokers in particular would be jumping on this bandwagon. Everyone I know in the Army who smokes freely admits that it adds time to their 2-mile runs and causes them to huff and puff when trying to go up large hills.

It's time for people to stop using personal liberty as an excuse for attacking the health of their children. It's a reflection of the self-centered age we live in and this is the kind of "my pleasure at the expense of all others" thinking that will drive this country directly down the toilet.

217 posted on 11/13/2002 3:24:27 PM PST by American Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: CDHart
This is really sad. People pretend they don't know what cigarettes do so they won't feel guilty about feeding their addiction and smoking in front of their kids. I'm normally not the type of guy to get all warm and fuzzy about kids' issues but this one gets me riled up.

Any person being intellectually honest should be able to understand that smoke is ... get ready for this ... bad for you to breathe! It's amazing that people would attack me for this. It doesn't require detailed scientific knowledge nor a subscription to the New England Journal of Medicine to understand this. SMOKE IS BAD FOR YOU!

This is why the soldiers who were near the burning oil fields in Kuwait got sick, this is why firefighters who get too close to the action without masks get sick, and it is why people who are exposed to cigarette smoke get sick - even if they never develop any detectable cancer, their lungs and circulatory system suffer.

218 posted on 11/13/2002 3:32:38 PM PST by American Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
"Some are able to resist addiction better than others. (scientific fact)"

Well, now we're getting somewhere, you now admit that smoking is addictive to at least some people. I don't have to have a government agency to prove to me that the planet Pluto exists although I haven't seen it. The evidence is unquestionable. The evidence is even more clear to me that smoking makes you sick and shortens the life of most people.
219 posted on 11/13/2002 3:51:42 PM PST by XDemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
I definitely didn't mean to be nasty to you. I was definitely too emotional in my posting. This is one of the few issues that actually touches me personally, i.e. physically, that I encounter on this forum, and I should make a conscious effort to tone it down. If you interpreted anything that way, I apologize publicly and sincerely to you, and your family, and I thank you husband for his service.

That said, you are fortunate. Yes, as was made clear in my previous posts, I went and did various sports before there was a custody change and I moved out and went to my dad's house when I changed schools. So I went directly from a smoking to a non-smoking household and me, my coach, and the family doctor instantly figured out why I was suddenly getting all this endurance I never had before. It was painfully obvious. For me all it meant was lousy performance on the track, but for a more sickly child the results would obviously be more severe. That's why I take this issue seriously.

Of all the freedoms I protect, the first is the freedom of American children to live happy and healthy lives. If forcing my family and friends to be inconvenienced by getting away from my kids when they're smoking and refusing to expose my kids to it irritates people, oh well. As I see it, being a good parent is not always compatible with being "cool." (Of course, fortunately, mom only lives 1.5 miles from my house, so it's easy for me to pick her up - obviously I wouldn't want to have kids and then raise them with no grandma).

Again, I'm sorry for my tone previously and for offending you. It was my fault and I take responsibility for it.

220 posted on 11/13/2002 3:52:59 PM PST by American Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 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