ps418

Yet another study of second-hand smoke appears today in the British Medical Journal. The study, which is a prospective cohort study including 118,000 participants, reports no signficant association between ETS exposure and coronary heart disease or lung cancer.

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98, BMJ 2003;326:1057 (17 May).

See also the commentary in The New Scientist

Patrick

Majestyk

We're not going to let facts get in the way of a good crusade now, are we?

NialScorva

Not at all!

Where's my tractor? I feel an urge to drive it into the reflecting pool...

scombrid

It makes my cloths smell awful and aggravates my asthma. Maybe I should eat a giant can of beans for lunch and then sit in the smoking section of a restaurant that evening and then pass gas until my ass hurts and see if a smoker complains about my being rude. I have to smell their smoke, they can smell my fart. Hell, the smoke is worse because I'd leave the restaurant smelling like smoke but they wouldn't leave smelling like fart but I bet they'd get aggravated with my flatulence anyway.

Of course I don't think states have any business outlawing smoking but I think restaurants have every right to provide a clean environment for patrons by disallowing the practice and I wish my mother would ease up on the smoking when I'm home. I have to wash clothes that I haven't even worn after I've visited my parents. If restaurants get sufficient business as smoke houses, more power to them.

JGL53

I agree one hundred per cent. If fact, I'd go a step further and say I don't give a rat's ass whether second hand smoke has been sufficently proven to be unhealthy in some way, or ever will be.

Like scombird, I find a room full of smoke MORE disgusting than a room full of fart. We couldn't make a biological necessity like farting illegal but, as mentioned, hardly anyone is rude enough to sit in a public place and let his anus just blast away, with NO reguard for anyone else.

Many smokers ARE this rude, hence the need for a law. First California, then New York, one day the fucking WORLD!

dirtymatt

I must say I disagree with the laws 100%. There is nothing at all forcing anyone to go to or work in any place that allows smoking. It's really not that hard to find restaurants that don't allow smoking. If you really don't like it vote with your dollars. If enough people start boycotting restaurants that allow smoking, they will stop allowing it. And you will have won without getting the government in on the party. The truth is people want smoking sections in restaurants.

I don't like First Union because they don't allow non First Union members to make deposits at their ATMs. As such I do not use FU ATMs for anything. I am not going to let them get my $2 when they deny me a service. At the end of the day it really doesn't make any difference, but I feel better knowing I am not subsidizing FU.

Nuno Figueira

Well, at least they "proved" that being married to a smoker doesn't increase one's risk of dying from cancer or CVD. Scientists can be pretty dumb sometimes. A study that didn't even measure the total time of exposure to second hand smoke will hardly tell us anything. Most smokers I know that live with nonsmokers, especially with children, don't smoke in the house. At least the civilized, respectfull ones.


Even if it didn't increase cancer risk or CVD it STILL agravates every single respiratory tract disease and is particulary harmfull for asthmatics and children. Not to mention the smell and the eye burning sensation.

Would you pro smokers also be pro letting junkies contaminate a first need asset (not sure it's the right expression) like the water supply with something like heroin? This is what smokers do with the air I need to bread so would it also be ok?

It's a radical example but not that far fetched if you think about it. Just curious.

ps418

That's just silly. The study tells us what the overall odds ratios of lung cancer and CHD are between those exposed to significant ETS and those who are not, and that there is no signficant difference. This is most definitely "something," even if it doesnt answer every question you'd like answered. The fact that there was no overall signficant difference means that if there was a signficant risk for some subgroup --say those whose partners smoke like freight trains inside the house-- that group would have to be small, or the risk would have to be very low. Otherwise, there would in fact be signficant overall difference in the odds ratios. Also, the fact that no signficant risk shows up in spouses of smokers is signficant in that this is probably the nonsmoking subgroup that is exposed to the most ETS (though Im sure some may be exposed to more, such as those who work in poorly ventilated bars).

That's right. It would be better if anti-ETS proponents simply stuck to these facts instead of making bogus claims about, say, cancer mortality associated with ETS.

Patrick

Nuno Figueira

Well, I don't know if you're a smoker or not, but you're certainly performing your job in helping tabaco industry missinformation campaign.

Your study is of doubtfull value and I can provide as many as you like proving links to deaths caused by second hand smoke. See below.

Can you please explain to me the wonderfull magic mechanisms that make cigarrete smoke lose it's cancer causing properties when it travels by air into someone elses lungs? I would love to hear it.





Still dying from second-hand smoke at work: a brief review of the evidence for smoke-free workplaces in New Zealand.

Wilson N, Thomson G.

AIM: To briefly review the evidence on the hazard from, and control of, second-hand smoke (SHS) in New Zealand workplace settings. METHODS: Medline searches and searches of New Zealand health databases for unpublished reports. RESULTS: The New Zealand evidence suggests that over 30% of workers continue to be exposed to SHS in workplace settings. The best available estimate is that SHS exposure in these settings causes around 100 avoidable deaths per year from lung cancer, coronary heart disease and stroke collectively. National survey data and studies in hospitality industry settings (measuring nicotine in hair and cotinine in saliva), strongly indicate that smoke-free workplaces result in reduced exposure to SHS. The data indicate that there is widespread concern regarding SHS and clear support for smoke-free workplaces. CONCLUSIONS:Available New Zealand data are fully consistent with the extensive international data indicating that smoke-free policies in workplaces can improve health protection for workers. New legislation is likely to enhance the control of SHS in New Zealand, but additional actions such as a mass media campaign on SHS are also desirable.

Second-hand tobacco smoke in Oklahoma: a preventable cause of morbidity and mortality and means of reducing exposure.

Miner RN, Crutcher JM.

Tobacco Use Prevention Service, Oklahoma State Department of Health, USA.

Evidence has mounted in recent years establishing second-hand tobacco smoke exposure as a cause of morbidity and mortality in nonsmokers. The ratio of deaths is approximately one nonsmoker dying from illness caused by second-hand smoke exposure for every eight smokers who die from diseases caused by tobacco use. This is equivalent to about 750 nonsmoker deaths each year in Oklahoma caused by exposure to second-hand smoke. This article reviews the components of second-hand smoke, its health effects, its prevalence in Oklahoma, and the means of protecting children and nonsmoking adults from exposure. Oklahoma physicians are encouraged to advise their patients about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke and to actively support public policies that decrease exposure to second-hand smoke in public places and workplaces.

How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke?

Woodward A, Laugesen M.

Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, PO Box 7343, Wellington South, New Zealand. woodward@wnmeds.ac.nz

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the number of deaths attributable to second hand smoke (SHS), to distinguish attributable and potentially avoidable burdens of mortality, and to identify the most important sources of uncertainty in these estimates. METHOD: A case study approach, using exposure and mortality data for New Zealand. RESULTS: In New Zealand, deaths caused by past exposures to second hand smoke currently number about 347 per year. On the basis of present exposures, we estimate there will be about 325 potentially avoidable deaths caused by SHS in New Zealand each year in the future. We have explored the effect of varying certain assumptions on which the calculations are based, and suggest a plausible range (174-490 avoidable deaths per year). CONCLUSION: Attributable risk estimates provide an indication for policy makers and health educators of the magnitude of a health problem; they are not precise predictions. As a cause of death in New Zealand, we estimate that second hand smoke lies between melanoma of the skin (200 deaths per year) and road crashes (about 500 deaths per year).


Williams MD, Sandler AB.

Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.

Lung cancer continues to be the leader in cancer deaths in the United States. The incidence of lung cancer in men has slowly decreased since the late 1980s, but has just now begun to plateau in women at the end of this decade. Despite modest advances in chemotherapy for treating lung cancer, it remains a deadly disease with overall 5-yr survival rates having not increased significantly over the last 25 years, remaining at approximately 14%. Tobacco smoking causes approximately 85-90% of bronchogenic carcinoma. Environmental tobacco exposure or a second-hand smoke also may cause lung cancer in life-long non-smokers. Certain occupational agents such as arsenic, asbestos, chromium, nickel and vinyl chloride increase the relative risk for lung cancer. Smoking has an additive or multiplicative effect with some of these agents. Familial predisposition for lung cancer is an area with advancing research. Developments in molecular biology have led to growing interest in investigation of biological markers, which may increase predisposition to smoking-related carcinogenesis. Hopefully, in the future we will be able to screen for lung cancer by using specific biomarkers. Finally, dietary factors have also been proposed as potential risk modulators, with vitamins A, C and E proposed as having a protective effect. Despite the slow decline of smoking in the United States, lung cancer will likely continue its devastation for years to come.

Viti

scombrid, everyone in my home is a smoker and people are surprised that they can't smell it when they walk in...secret? The Ionic Breeze...buy one for your folks for Christmas or something...just a hint to help you out.

There are less expensive ones on the market as well, but you may want to see comparisons at epinions or Consumer Reports or something. Good deals on eBay for it as well.