Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official

13 November 2002

[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."

[SheLion]

Still calling names and still no scientific proof.

Reminds me of a horse wearing blinders. :)

[VRWC_minion]

People live, and then they die, even those too frightened to ever really live the way they want to.

And some of us try to live so that we don't damage the health of others or bring on an untimely death.

The most selfish person is one who imposes those risks on his kids. Its disgusting.

[per loin]

Yes, quit whining about your frailties, and go watch TV. It's good for you.

[SheLion]

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.

NO NO NO! You have it all wrong. We do NOT insist on smoking anywhere we want. We just want our own space. Especially with recreation hours where we spend our own money to enjoy ourselves. The anti-smokers have turned US into a MOB defending our rights to smoke a legal product and we are defending the rights of a business owner to protect his business to run it the way HE/SHE sees fit.

That's it!

[SheLion]

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)."

Hahaaaaaaaaaa! Your kidding me! I didn't get that far yet.

The good ole WHO, who gave out thousands of condoms in Utah for the Olympics. LOL!

The city came unglued having to clean that mess up. :)

[per loin]

If you've not noticed, the article concerns a study that debunks that myth. Of course, there are individuals, who, because of genetic defect or propaganda induced hysteria, cannot be around smoke, but laws for the rest of us ought not be based on the needs of the defective ones.

[SheLion]

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.

Alcohol is addictive. Prescription drug use is addictive. Coke and Pepsi has addictive qualities. How about we smoke because we just enjoy it? What's wrong with that. It's legal.

Obesity far outweighs health care and disease today in the United States then smoking! The government has already started on FAT people! It never ends.

[commish]

Unfortunately there are always exceptions to the rule - I grew up in a house where both my parents were chain smokers,my brother and sisters all smoked like chimney's too once they reached their teens

I have never touched a single cig. NOT ONE. Ever.

At age 38 I was diagnosed with transitional cell carcinoma of my right kidney - A cancer that is linked almost 100% to Life long cigarette smoking.

I don;t care what this study says - no one can ever tell me that Passive smoke does not cause cancer!

[VRWC_minion]

If you noticed, the article says its not statistically significant. This is the equivalent of there is no effect.

Additionally, if you noticed, the article only deals with cancer. There are many other lung ailments and health problems attributable to smoking. Especially emphysema.

Finnaly, if you noticed, my issue is WHY TAKE THE CHANCE, when its your childs health that is at risk VS. smoking in a different room. Sounds simple to me. So simple I can only conclude that smokers who do not refrain from smoking around their children are selfish and therefore must stay in denial so they can maintain their selfishness.

[lewislynn]

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer

Yea right, and automobile pollutants aren't harmful unless you wrap your lips around the exhaust pipe either.

"Passive Smoking"?

The anti's sure do not want us to see this one, either, I bet!

Who cares what you see through the smoke filled haze you live in. That study doesn't make your smoke any less disgusting nor is it a license to blow smoke in other peoples faces.

[VRWC_minion]

Correction:If you noticed, the article says its not statistically significant. This is NOT the equivalent of there is no effect.

[SheLion]

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.

How many times do we have to post this stuff?

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

Project Title: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Study ORNL Project Support: R. W. Counts

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?"

American Cancer Society Admits "Mistake" in Ad

"53,000 deaths from second hand smoke?  They made a typo!

Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Second Hand Smoke It may be politically correct to attack secondhand smoke, but it is not scientifically correct nor, in the Court’s opinion, legally correct.

The Passive Smoke Whopper

The Facts About Second Hand Smoke

(Finally)

THE EPA ETS FRAUD
THE WORLD HAS BEEN CHEATED BY THE ANTI-TOBACCO CARTEL

Funny Stats Used By Anti-smoking Crusaders

McFadden asserted that only about three million Americans die each year from all causes.

[SheLion]

Thanks for the post !

Your welcome!!!!

[per loin]

If you noticed, the article says its not statistically significant. This is the equivalent of there is no effect.

Have you a reading problem? What the article says is:

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.

[SheLion]

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

I certainly accept your apology. It's a passionate issue with you and very passionate issue with me as well.

I just wish that we, as American's, could stop this squabbling over such an undane issue when we have much bigger wars to fight. Why are we fighting among ourselves over this? I think Osama would LOVE to read our in-fighting over a stupid assed subject like second hand smoke.

We are Americans. We are Free, so far. Some do things that others don't like. But who is it to say that we can't do it because others don't like it?

We are good, decent American Republican's and some of us choose to smoke. That does not make us the scum of the earth. I think the countdown to the REAL scum is right around the corner. And it isn't the American Smoker!

We can sure be friends in here American Soldier! We are on the same side, right?

[SheLion]

Next thing you know they will tell us eating fish is bad for you. Oh wait, they just did ....

Coffee is bad for you........no wait.......coffee is good for you......no wait........coffee is bad for you.......no wait..........coffee is good for you...........sigh

Yep!  It's always something!

[Leisler]

Nice try. No mention of dad, eh? Blacks, and black families have a lot more to worry about then smoking. Like being neo-slaves on the democrat plantation. Living in deindustrialized urban tax farms. Trapped in pseudo-schools. And what are you going to post next, testaments against KFC? I don't mean to bring up science, but since it is a fact that air quality has improved, medicine has improved, housing improved, and even amongst low income people, smoking decreased------why has asthma increased?

[SheLion]

The only difference is spit doesn't have any long lasting effects.

hmmmmmmm tis not true. Why do you think our Soldiers are putting masks on the prisoners? The prisoners were spitting on the Soldiers. So, they got either masked or hooded.

I sure wouldn't want some strangers spit on ME, today. ugh!

[John Lenin]

Remember the population bomb ? That book was big when abortion was first legalized. I suspect the fish story is to make it easier to shut down fisherman.