Smoking Kills

CNN.com ^

[William Terrell]

I don't recall saying "all". And even if I did, and you can find more, you can't defeat the vast majority of agreement among the researchers. If you don't want to smoke, then don't smoke.

Wasted too much time here already. Bye.

[cinFLA]

I don't recall saying "all".

The results are all below the level of significant risk.

[William Terrell]

Who cares. The data is there for all to see, independently confirmed, and none of it contracted by the "pro-smoking site".

If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't smoke. Isn't that simple enough?

Last post here for now. Busy. Bye.

[cinFLA]

And even if I did, and you can find more, you can't defeat the vast majority of agreement among the researchers. If you don't want to smoke, then don't smoke.

Whatever. I still fail to see how your 'studies' on SHS are relevant to primary smoking risks of dying from cancer ...

[Dec31,1999]

Pepublicans tend to smoke more than Liberals, so why do they even care? However, Liberals tend to dismember babies. Never vote for the baby killers.

[cinFLA]

you can't defeat the vast majority of agreement among the researchers.

The vast majority of researchers find a link to SHS.

[sawmill trash]

When I was a kid
Me and my friend Billy
We found a half full pack of cigarettes
and we were out behind the barn smoking them
and my Dad, he came around the corner and caught us
and my Dad, he pulled out this big pistol
and he shot Billy
right between the eyes
and he looked at me and said "See son, smoking can kill you ... let that be a lesson."

(attributable to some comic I heard somewhere sometime or another)

[sawmill trash]

Smoking killed nearly five million people in 2000, accounting for almost equal numbers in the developed and developing nations and painting a bleak picture for the future, scientists have said.


I wonder, in those same developed and developing nations, how many babies were aborted in the year 2000 and how THAT can paint any less bleak future for the future.

[Doe Eyes]

I read these tobacco smoking threads and smile. Some day you too will be persecuted as the marijuana smokers are.

[cinFLA]

http://www.lungcancerfrontiers.org/nwsltrs/lcf19_t/lcf19_T_14.html

Tob Control 2004 Mar;13 Suppl 1:148-56
Carcinogen derived biomarkers: applications in studies of human exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.
Hecht SS.

University of Minnesota Cancer Center, Mayo Mail Code 806, 420 Delaware Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. hecht002@umn.edu

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on carcinogen derived biomarkers of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS). These biomarkers are specifically related to known carcinogens in tobacco smoke and include urinary metabolites, DNA adducts, and blood protein adducts.

METHOD: Published reviews and the current literature were searched for relevant articles.

RESULTS: The most consistently elevated biomarker in people exposed to SHS was 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL) and its glucuronides (NNAL-Gluc), urinary metabolites of the tobacco specific lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK). The tobacco specificity of this biomarker as well as its clear relation to an established lung carcinogen are particularly appropriate for its application in studies of SHS exposure.

CONCLUSION: The results of the available carcinogen derived biomarker studies provide biochemical data which support the conclusion, based on epidemiologic investigations, that SHS causes lung cancer in non-smokers.

Editorial Comment (TLP): The above two abstracts provide additional evidence about the epidemiology and biochemical factors that are risks for lung cancer in nonsmokers who inhale environmental tobacco smoke. Thus a continued large body of evidence implicating secondhand smoking is emerging. Fortunately, reason and political will are gradually leading to an elimination of smoking in public arenas in most of the United States. This needs to become standardized throughout our 50 states and elsewhere in the world.

[cinFLA]

Smoke this.

"Nevertheless, the epidemiological studies of passive smoking provide convincing evidence of the detection of an effect at environmental levels of exposure. The most powerful evidence of effect is the existence of dose-response relationships: of the 30 world studies of passive smoking & lung cancer extant in 1992, 14 reported a test for exposure-response, and 10 were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (p<0.05) [U.S.EPA, 1992]. The probability of ten or more studies reaching this level by chance alone is less than 1 in ten billion. This evidence was sufficient for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to conclude that SHS was a "known human carcinogen."

http://repace.com/fact_intro.html

[cinFLA]

Ibid

[cinFLA]

Accidents in Patients with Epilepsy: Types, Circumstances, and Complications: A European Cohort Study
Mariska van den Broek and Ettore Beghi for the RESt-1 Group
Summary: Purpose: To investigate the risk of accidents in a cohort of patients with epilepsy and in matched nonepilepsy controls, by type, circumstances, and complications.

Methods: A total of 951 children and adults with idiopathic, cryptogenic, or remote symptomatic epilepsy and 904 matched controls seen in secondary and tertiary centers in eight European countries (England, Estonia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, and Slovenia) were followed up prospectively for 17,484 and 17,206 person-months and asked to report any accident requiring medical attention, its site, and complications. Risk assessment was done by using actuarial methods, relative risks (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: During the study period, 199 (21%) patients and 123 (14%) controls reported an accident (p < 0.0001); 24% were seizure related. The cumulative probability of accidents at 12 and 24 months was 17 and 27% in the cases and 12 and 17% in the controls. The risk was highest for concussions (RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.8), abrasions (RR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-4.0), and wounds (RR, 1.9; CI, 1.2-3.1). Domestic accidents prevailed in both groups, followed by street and work accidents, and were more common among cases. Compared with controls, patients with epilepsy reported more hospitalization, complications, and medical action. Disease characteristics associated with an increased risk of accidents included generalized epilepsy (concussions), active epilepsy, and at least monthly seizures (abrasions). Most risks decreased, becoming nonsignificant after excluding seizure-related events.

Conclusions: Patients with epilepsy are at higher risk of accidents and their complications.

(But WT says a RRF < 3.0 should be thrown out. Thus patients with epilepsy are NOT at higher risk of accidents and their complications.

[nkycincinnatikid]

Man you took your time getting back on that!

[cinFLA]

I have actually suffered the effects of CO poisoning - so I don't need to read about the symptoms, which BTW are nearly identical to that of mold poisoning.

I don't remember posting anything about symptoms. At least not in the post you are responding to.

[cinFLA]

Man you took your time getting back on that!

:-)

[Gabz]

Cigarette smoke contains enough CO to set off a CO monitor. The smoker lives because he takes in fresh breaths between puffs. 147 posted on 07/02/2004 1:41:40 AM EDT by cinFLA

Now I will return to my daughter's birthday....since you are obviously incapable of reading the fact that I had already informed you of that I must repeat it.

[cinFLA]

Cigarette smoke contains enough CO to set off a CO monitor.

See my post where I more specifically addressed your claim. As you can plainly see, I said it contains enough CO to set off the monitor, I didn't say it will set off the monitor. My guns have enough bullets to kill a lot of people but that doesn't mean that they will.

You have seen my posts on CO concentration in smoke and those levels are higher than the CO monitor alarm setpoints.