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."
Since smoking has been banned on airliners, they cut back on the fresh air to save fuel. They figured that since there is no smoking, they can cut the fresh air back.
However, more people are getting sick due to the stale air and virus's floating around.
It's a two way street. I don't cuss around ladies and ladies don't come around when I'm cussing.
"Don't urinate in the street".
The street doesn't belong to me. I have a right to piss in my sink but not yours.
In truth, I would wipe out any and all who disagreed with me, if it was within my power.
This lie is a real debate killer.
I have no problem at all, it's not my forum. Furthermore, I'm not required to be here, am free to leave anytime I choose. You seem truly devoid of any notion of rights or private property.
And if you knew me, you would know that my "preferred conclusion" is for the elimination of about 99.5% of the population of the planet (in as humane a way as apossible, fo course) - starting with anybody who has registered as a member of any political party or religious group.
I would keep a small force of desexed drones to fulfil labour requirements for production, to ensure a suppply of "stuff" for myself and other Remnants. There are simply too many barely-humans wandering around thinking that the tyranny (to me) of "democracy" makestheir opinions worth revealing.
US foreign policy will result in a series of sufficiently large-scale events such that (hopefully) the US will devolve into a scattered group of marauding tribes who will only maraud INTERNALLY, rather than trying to be Rome all over again.
Help us out here, Geoff, just what college are you a sophomore at? Would you be a third or fourth year sophomore?
GeoffreyTransom, we hardly knew ye.
If I hide my medications under my tongue, then the stuff just comes to me after a few days and since I don't give the orderlies any problem they let me use their computers and go online. Tonight is Jell-O night, that's how I know it is Sunday!
I suppose asking you what your opinion on the decline and death of the various Greek and Sicilian city states, Rome, and other republics is a question wasted on a ignoramus.
Can't think of a more deserving misanthrope.
"And the meek shall inherit the earth."
Bet you can hardly wait for the will to be probated, huh?
I love the little word picture, "meek," "little."
Who could disagree with the downtrodden, meek, little pipples of the earth? What kind of monster wouldn't give way to their righteous whining?
Do you even have a clue of how you come across?
I'm 55 years old.
What I specifically remember was that the non-smokers didn't dramatically fake-cough, frantically wave their arms around, get the vapors, or grab their throats and drop to the floor in the throes of their "allergies."
I grew up in a working-class mill town where reticence was considered a weakness.
Trust me, if anyone had had a problem with being in the company of smokers, it wouldn't have gone unstated.
I understand that the "working class mill town" reference is a nice, easy opening for the elitist wimps who get the vapors at the very thought of smoking to zero in on the "socio-economic" angle.
We're "uneducated" ("educated now being equated with "credentialed"), with calloused hands, as if that were a thing to be ashamed of.
People like you have weakened America, and you'll never understand why
That bears repeating, Madame Dufarge.
This topic is a bunch of bull. I am a smoker, but I just checked the World Health Organization's Web site, there is no such article. I guess none of you have actually investigated the facts behind this topic. The author used psychological rhetoric to make people fall for this enticing piece of fiction. I was getting ready to use this thread for a research document, but I needed the facts, and unfortunately the facts DO NOT EXIST.
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.