Smoke claim disputed

2002-11-07

[SheLion]

A British chemist is disputing research showing almost 400 New Zealanders a year die of passive smoking. The research has contributed to expectations that New Zealand could become the first country in the world to ban smoking in pubs and clubs.

But Chris Proctor, head of science and regulation at British American Tobacco, said yesterday it had not been scientifically proven that passive smoking killed.

He said the New Zealand research was based on overseas studies of questionable scientific merit.

"When you look at those studies overall the majority don't show a statistically significant increase in risk. What that means scientifically is that you have no confidence that there is actually anyone dying, certainly not from heart disease with exposure to second-hand smoke, nor really from lung cancer with second hand smoke."

Public health experts Murray Laugesen and Alistair Woodward estimated two years ago that passive smoking was killing 388 New Zealanders a year, including 50 babies.

Of that number they calculated 243 were dying of heart disease, 88 from strokes, 50 from cot death and seven from lung cancer.

But Dr Proctor said the overseas studies on which their research was based either showed weak findings or findings that had no statistical significance.

"A lot of scientists, including the US surgeon- general, have said we are not convinced at this stage that second hand smoke causes heart disease."

Dr Proctor said passive smoking could cause problems for asthmatics and there were people who did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke but there was no scientific basis for a ban in public.

Publication date: 2002-11-07

[SheLion]

Dr Proctor said passive smoking could cause problems for asthmatics and there were people who did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke but there was no scientific basis for a ban in public.

[SheLion]

PUFF

[SheLion]

Here is the link:

Smoke claim disputed

[oyez]

.........studies of questionable scientific merit.

Wonder how many other policies are determined by studies of questionable scientific merit. ? Cholestrol, waste management, public education, tax spending or just name it. If you don't like something, just grab a study that says what you want, grab some signatures and take it the the appropriate politician, bureacrat or other person of authority and vola! If your cause has the lubricatian of liberal sentiment success is insured.

[SheLion]

If you don't like something, just grab a study that says what you want, grab some signatures and take it the the appropriate politician, bureacrat or other person of authority and vola! If your cause has the lubricatian of liberal sentiment success is insured.

It's called Junk Science. And it's horrible. When a special interest group gets ahold of unreliable information and pushes it to the forefront as the gospel, they try to create a snow ball going down hill.

[Just another Joe]

You know what they are going to say, She. Since this guy works for a tobacco company his findings are all irrelevant.

[oyez]

I think Junk Science started in the USSR. If some ministry wanted more funding they kicked out information that supported their end of the politburo.

[Great Dane]

Another stupid study shot down.