2nd Hand Smoke May be Good for You

[Flygurl 0]

Interesting article:

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organisation 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 Organisation, 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. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

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 - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - 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 their 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 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." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, 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." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.

________________________________________

"One out of every four American's are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."

[quade 4]

The only thing "interesting" about this article is how old and recirculated it is.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/newets.htm

Google the headline and see how often and far back it pops up.

Gee, I wonder who in the world would benefit from keeping this pos going?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Gee, I wonder who in the world would benefit from keeping this pos going?

Hmmm



Smelly Smokers????

[TheAnvil 0]

Smokers do smell. Yuck. I hate cigarette smoke. There's a nice smoke free Irish pub I can waddle to that has an excellent selection of tequilas.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[fireballgrl 0]

Could it be possible that "big tobacco" with its billions could "buy" statistics and doctors to back up those claims? They have done just about every other deceitful and underhanded thing to get people to be addicted to their product.

[Shotgun 1]

Cool, I'll have to see if I can get Rich to start smoking again so that I can have some second-hand smoke to inhale. Or I guess I could just go play bingo.

[rushmc 23]

This just backs up the WHO report (that was released then repressed) from 10 years ago that stated second hand smoke did not cause cancer or health problems.

I don't smoke and I do not like being around cigarett smoke (I love a good cigar though) but it is a legal product and the government should stay out of private business to regulate it

But that did not fit the agenda of the media or the politions so it has been kept buried. Tobaco = money, then big food = money, they tried sueing the gun manufacturers for money, microsoft = money who/what is next?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>But that did not fit the agenda of the media . . . .

Right. The media gets most of its money from the commercial sector, so therefore it is biased against it. Perhaps it's the secret payoffs from Evil Dr. Liberal that make them do it. (Or perhaps Mini-Liberal has infiltrated their ranks!)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>But that did not fit the agenda of the media . . . .

Right. The media gets most of its money from the commercial sector, so therefore it is biased against it. Perhaps it's the secret payoffs from Evil Dr. Liberal that make them do it. (Or perhaps Mini-Liberal has infiltrated their ranks!)

Hit a sore spot did I

You know, all I ask is they cover both sides. They don't do that (daily) so they are left leaning hypocrites.
Sorry if the truth hurts....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

How about this.

You find links where 3 of the big 4 reported on the WHO report that stated second hand smoke does not cause cancer and I will say I am wrong (at least for this topic)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>You find links where 3 of the big 4 reported on the WHO report
>that stated second hand smoke does not cause cancer and I will say
>I am wrong . . .

If I find evidence you are right (that secondhand smoke does not cause cancer) you will say you are wrong? Is this some sort of right winger logic I am not getting?

[rushmc 23]

I thought we were talking about the media leanings??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln