Smoking in Public / Cancer

Hamburglar,

I only need reply to you, for you are the epitome of an ignorant smoker. The only thing relevant in this debate is fact. You skim through my posts taking what you like and ignore the truths within. You type a lot but you're not saying anything.

Smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke causes cancer. That is a fact. That is truth Hamburglar. From that premise we can conclude this debate. I never, ever, said you don't have the right to smoke. I never said ban smoking. I asked that smokers have respect for others. Didn't you read my posts? That would be a good idea if you wish to have a beneficial dialogue.

Your pro-smoking propaganda is short-lived. Truth is unbiased. Fact doesn't discriminate. The truth is smoking kills you and the people around you. Therefore, smoking around others is a direct disregard for someones elses health.

What is surprising is your lack of evidence. What is surprising is that all you have to back up your claims are anectodal evidence [Translation=No Scientific Relevance Whatsoever] and whining about the smell and the inconvenience, which are IRRELEVANT to this discussion.

Hanburglar the mountains of evidence are irrevocable. If you don't trust the myriad of valid reports and studies, I recommend taking your pro-smoking propagandist antics a little higher, adding an element of truth. Become a scientist and conduct the studies yourself. By the same token of you disbelieving the prevailing evidence by top health authorities, I have no reason to believe your smoking-isn't-bad-for-you nonsense.

Hamburglar, are you absent-minded? I never complained about the smell or inconvenience, I assume you're suggesting inconvenience of the smell? However, not being able to conduct business in public domain, without the advent of second-hand smoke is absolutely inconvinient. That is relevant, the topic is part: 'Smoking in Public'. Are you reading this stuff man?

Read this, unless you are afraid to find out that all of the claims you and rest of the anti-smoking zealots–who really want to ban it entirely and use ETS as a crutch to get rid of something they just don't like–are based in a BS study that has no scientific worth. In short, your precious study was a LIE.

They are both from the same source genuis. A propagandist website with no official merit whatsoever. However it's perfectly possible a judge found the study with error.

Again, garbage. I just demolished your only source. In fact, your American Cancer Society source comes directly from the EPA study. Sorry, but the judge says that one isn't allowed. So, if the truth is so obvious, surely there must be some other awe-inspiring study that shows a CONCLUSIVE LINK between ETS and LUNG CANCER (as you recall, this was the point of this thread).

Demolish? A little violent over the truth aren't we? Sure there's more evidence buddy.

Smoking Among Adults in the United States: Cancer

Cancer is the second leading cause of death and was among the first diseases causally linked to smoking. (p. 39)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes most cases. (p. 61)

Compared to nonsmokers, men who smoke are about 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer and women who smoke are about 13 times more likely. Smoking causes about 90% of lung cancer deaths in men and almost 80% in women. (p. 39)

In 2003, an estimated 171,900 new cases of lung cancer occurred and approximately 157,200 people died from lung cancer. (p. 42)

The 2004 Surgeon General’s report adds more evidence to previous conclusions that smoking causes cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, lung, and bladder. (pp. 42, 62, 63, 116, 166)

Cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) in tobacco smoke damage important genes that control the growth of cells, causing them to grow abnormally or to reproduce too rapidly. (p. 44–45)

Cigarette smoking is a major cause of esophageal cancer in the United States. Reductions in smoking and smokeless tobacco use could prevent many of the approximately 12,300 new cases and 12,100 deaths from esophageal cancer that occur annually. (p. 119)

The combination of smoking and alcohol consumption causes most laryngeal cancer cases. In 2003, an estimated 3800 deaths occurred from laryngeal cancer. (p. 62)

In 2003, an estimated 57,400 new cases of bladder cancer were diagnosed and an estimated 12,500 died from the disease. (p. 166)

For smoking-attributable cancers, the risk generally increases with the number of cigarettes smoked and the number of years of smoking, and generally decreases after quitting completely. (pp. 39, 42)

Smoking cigarettes that have a lower yield of tar does not substantially reduce the risk for lung cancer. (p. 61)

Cigarette smoking increases the risk of developing mouth cancers. This risk also increases among people who smoke pipes and cigars. (p. 67)

Reductions in the number of people who smoke cigarettes, pipes, cigars, and other tobacco products or use smokeless tobacco could prevent most of the estimated 30,200 new cases and 7,800 deaths from oral cavity and pharynx cancers annually in the United States. (p. 67)


New cancers confirmed by this report

The 2004 Surgeon General’s report newly identifies other cancers caused by smoking, including cancers of the stomach, cervix, kidney, and pancreas and acute myeloid leukemia. (pp. 137, 167, 170, 183, 254, 324–325)

In 2003, an estimated 22,400 new cases of stomach cancer were diagnosed, and an estimated 12,100 deaths were expected to occur. (p. 178)

Former smokers have lower rates of stomach cancer than those who continue to smoke. (p. 182)

For women, the risk of cervical cancer increases with the duration of smoking. (p. 169)

In 2003, an estimated 31,900 new cases of kidney cancer were diagnosed, and an estimated 11,900 people died from the disease. (p. 166)

In 2003, an estimated 30,700 new cases of pancreatic cancer were diagnosed, attributing to 30,000 deaths. The median time from diagnosis to death from pancreatic cancer is about 3 months. (p. 136)

In 2003, approximately 10,500 cases of acute myeloid leukemia were diagnosed in adults. (p. 252)

Benzene is a known cause of acute myeloid leukemia, and cigarette smoke is a major source of benzene exposure. Among U.S. smokers, 90% of benzene exposures come from cigarettes. (p. 252)

Citation

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004.

Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and has negative health impacts on people at all stages of life. It harms unborn babies, infants, children, adolescents, adults, and seniors.
source

You act if their hard to acquire. Just type in smoking or cancer on a major search engine. Also, you have the right to contact angencies directly. Plus studies are abound in plenty of other regions as well.

Ridiculous. First, what is wrong is that it is unconstitutional to deny PRIVATE citizens (and private business owners) the right to decide whether a LEGAL product can be used on their premises. But, I guess folks like you only care about the Constitution when it serves your interests. So quick to throw away rights. Shame on you.

Third. you don't know whether I smoke or not. Assuming I do, you don't know have any idea as to the state of my health. Lung cancer is quite selective, as Tinkle points out below your post.

Stop hiding in a shround of nonsense and face the truth. Again, no ones asking you to stop smoking. This thread was created to highten awareness and convey the disrespect for others you display when you smoke around them. Shame on you.

I know you smoke. For if you didn't you wouldn't be so easily susceptible to the biased and unfactual data you base your beliefs on.

Second, if you don't like it, walk away. Leave. Go to a bar that has (of its own volition) decided to disallow smoking on premises. EVERYONE will be happy. No wants you around anyway, as you are clearly a nosy harpy who uses BS "facts" and ridiculous "obvious truths" to promote a nonsensical agenda.

Oh please, hahaha, lets leave social activity out of this. Your trying to assume a lot more than me.



And if you don't mind, can we discuss this without resorting to primitive comments? I never meant to offend you with the presentation of reality.

And that is really the crux of the issue isn't it? You are clearly not concerned with facts. By your own admission, this "boils down to morality" for you. Sadly, your view of morality is not a strong enough justification for banning smoking. THAT ALONE is what makes all of my rebuttals perfectly germane to the discussion. Becuase for you, it won't matter that I just PWNED your "facts." You'll keep on believing your garbage regardless, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DON"T LIKE SMOKING.

Oh my goodness again, please read my posts if you wish to comment on them. I never said ban smoking.

I have no idea what PWNED means, enlighten me, is thats some internet lingo?

I belive the truth hamburlgar, besides, the same can be said about you. You'll keep on believing your grabage because you like smoking. Whats the difference?

That makes you a deplorable individual, and you should be ashamed of your systematic efforts to control something on the basis of your personal preference. You probabaly dislike drinking too, so I guess we should ban that, right? What else dont you like Kalibur? Why don't we ban everything you dislike, because heaven forbid your delicate sensibilities be offended by something and heaven forbid you should have to make a rational, cogent argument as to why something should be banned. Instead, let's just ban everything and let you off the hook.

Asking, my dear lost friend, is not control. Ashamed that I care for my fellow man and his well-being? Yeah right. I'm proud I have the ability to care for myself and other people to the extent that, simple weaknesses would never implore me to jeopardize their health directly and intentionally, in the manner smoking does.

Jeeze - Again I never said ban. Drinking, oh all knowing one, doesn't directly damage the health of someone sitting next to you. A totally invalid example. Whether or not I like something is not the point, i wish you read a post instead of just copying quotes. The point is smoking in public harms people around you directly and causes cancer.

My argument is the spitting image of cogency. For not-liking smoking is not my reasoning, the fact that it damages the health of those around smokers is. You smoke, and you want to find reasons to tell yourself its not bad. That's the only reasoning I see from you, the only attempt at a cogent argument.

LOL. It's exactly the same as I wrote before. I do know McDonald's (when consumed with wanton abandon) is bad for me. Does that mean we should ban it? I think not. And there is the difference. But I bet I know what you think, Kalibur. I bet you and your BAN-NAZIS are getting your protest signs and your quasi-scientific disinformation ready to take down the next big elephant, fast food.

Again, please read my posts. Nope, no banning Mc Donalds - you make the choice to subject yourself to that crap and in doing so your not directly harming the health of the pulblic. Do you understand the difference yet?
Besides, I wouldn't dream of having you banned from two denatured and astoundlingly damaging debaucheries - that in no way promote basic health. Heart disease and cancer it up,you only live once right?

Try the fruit salad!!!

As for you, Tinkle. I very much look forward to discussing with you, as you appear to be quite a rational individual. Furthermore, you seem much more inclined to reason a situation out, rather than jump on the bandwagon, which I greatly respect. I appreciate your patience while I get situated in my new job. I will definitely get back to you more, especially regarding the status of the EPA study and the (surprising) results and (not-so-surprising) reporting of the results of the WHO study.

Why don't you try jumping off the pro-smoking bandwagon? Some food for thought. Oh how I humbly await your reply oh great master of knowledge.

Originally posted by Kalibur
I only need reply to you, for you are the epitome of an ignorant smoker. The only thing relevant in this debate is fact.

Perhaps, but that would make you the epitome of a nonsensical, fearmongering, crybaby, who would rather ban an annoyance than discuss the TRUE FACTS.

If you read my links, you'd know that your supposed facts, are not fact at all. You keep claiming "fact" but have yet to back it with actual fact. You are a reactionary, who has no knowledge on the topic you started. I work in the research side of the health care industry. I know how to read a study, and I know how to differentiate between the FACTS of a study and BS the study's funders report to the media for whiners like you to get upset over.

Here is how it works... EPA fakes a study. Judge throws it out. You don't care. EPA keeps it reputation, and gets more money to fake more studies to help you ban legal products.

And, lest we forget, you started this whole thread by claiming that SECOND HAND SMOKE CAUSES LUNG CANCER.

I wan't this point to be very clear. I don't care what you think about smoking and its associated hazards. THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION. ONLY ETS AND LUNG CANCER. Nobody here will argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer. ONLY ETS AND LUNG CANCER.

Originally posted by Kalibur
Smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke causes cancer

Only the second part of your statement is what is in debate here. I have not once said that smoking doesn't cause cancer. Just second hand smoke. Just because one does, doesn't mean the other does too. That is not how epidemiology and toxicology works. If you think it is, you either have no idea how the world of scientific research and peer review works, or you are the dumbest epidemiologist on the planet.

Originally posted by KaliburThat is a fact. That is truth Hamburglar.

Nonsense. Back it up with a study that hasn't been vacated and that actually agrees with your point. Then, maybe we can conclude this discussion.

The FACT is, that you will not be able to find a SINGLE study that backs up your claim that ETS causes LUNG CANCER.

You can nanny-nanny-boo-boo at me all you want, but until you back it up, you haven't a leg to stand on.

As for respect, smokers (still assuming I smoke) in my experience have plenty of respect. They don't light up during my meal, they don't blow it in my face, and they TRY to keep it away from me. Out of respect for them, I don't piss and moan every time they light up. And, I certainly don't spend every moment trying to find ways to make sure that they can't. If it gets bothersome to me, I go somewhere else. That is respect. That is courtesy. That door swings both ways.

I read your posts. You lie. Plain and simple. You want a ban, but claim not to want to infringe on people's rights. That is lying.

Originally posted by KaliburYour pro-smoking propaganda is short-lived. Truth is unbiased. Fact doesn't discriminate. The truth is smoking kills you and the people around you. Therefore, smoking around others is a direct disregard for someones elses health.

Prove it.

Originally posted by KaliburHanburglar the mountains of evidence are irrevocable. If you don't trust the myriad of valid reports and studies, I recommend taking your pro-smoking propagandist antics a little higher, adding an element of truth.

I keep asking you for the "mountains of evidence" and the "myriad of valid reports and studies." So far, your only response is a NON-VALID, VACATED study.

I would really like to keep this shorter than the rest of these. So, ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO READ THE EXCERPTS FROM KALIBUR'S "STUDIES," PLEASE READ HIS LAST POST.

That said, I read your excerpts Kalibur. There was one striking simlarity. NONE OF THEM SAID ANYTHING ABOUT SECOND HAND SMOKE, WHICH IS THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

All kidding aside, are you actually mentally challenged? I have to ask becuase you started this thread on one topic, but keep providing sources for another topic.

Has anyone else noticed this? I ask for studies. I get one. It has been vacated, which means it is not a valid study, and its conclusions are BUNK. Where are the rest? If there are mountains, surely they shouldn't be hard to find.

Originally posted by KaliburThey are both from the same source genuis. A propagandist website with no official merit whatsoever. However it's perfectly possible a judge found the study with error.

SourceSource 2Source 3Source

None of these include the original, which is here in case you want to read THE ACTUAL DECISION BY THE JUDGE IN WRITING IN HIS OWN WORDS HOW MUCH MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED YOU OSTRICH?Original Source

Satisfied that it happened yet?

All the rest of your blathering is now moot. PROVE THAT ETS CAUSES LUNG CANCER and you will have something worth listening to. Until then, it's just more of the same.

Don't have any more time for you now. I will rebut the rest of your nonsense a bit later.

In the meantime...

I apologize for my rudeness and disrespect (this topic is one of my personal pet peeves). Just because you are mistaken does not give me the right to attack you personally. That said, i sincerely hope you read the judge's ruling before posting again. Any of the other sources will give you the highlights in case you don't have the time to read the whole thing.

But please, please, read the ruling, then tell me what you think about the ruling and its implications for ETS and CANCER, and thus its implications for the scientific basis for a ban on smoking in public.

I think it's safe to say we all know where each other stands on this debate

I would like you to take a look at this though, and respond?

BMJ article on second-hand smoke.

Hong Kong study (guess what! It doesn't use the EPA study

)

(I'm going to repost in awhile after I've digested a few other study documents. Just fair notice )

Quick edit: The EPA decision was based upon the legality and validity of the EPA's authority in that context, relating specifically to the designation of a substance as a carcinogen. This does not imply, by any breadth of definition, that the facts found within that study were either incorrect or inaccurate; merely that the EPA had no bloomin' right in making itself the author of such decisions, etc etc.



[edit on 5-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]

As far as I remember, the second hand smoke study that seemingly activated a lot of non-smokers to start banning smoking in public places, was pretty much later proven to have been fudged--a lot. Only thing is the non smoking bans didn't get lifted. As a matter of fact, the reports dubunking the original study didn't even get anything more than cursory news coverage, and in many cases, no news coverage. I won't deny that Radon in cigarette smoke causes lung cancer--in smokers. But I sure will debate that second hand smoke is much more than an annoyance to non-smokers in places such as restaurants. I will even agree with non-smokers that cigars and pipes should be banned from such because even smokers think they stink, but I will not agree concerning cigarettes.

I don't even mind putting out a cigarette when pregnant women or small children are in the immediate area, especially if there is no seating elsewhere. However, when they deliberately sit in a smoking area (when they had adequate options for sitting somewhere else) and then complain about smoke, well they can go to H....

And in addition (sorry, sorry, I'll get my posting head on properly at some point, I promise!)...

" The EPA appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a unanimous decision on December 11, 2002, the court ruled that the EPA report was not a reviewable agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that there were "no legal and direct consequences of the report which constitute final agency action." In other words, because the EPA report had no legal or regulatory function and was rather advisory, Judge Osteen's judgment was dismissed."

(emphasis mine)

Source

Does this mean we can all go back to using the EPA study now?

Tinkleflower if you ever looked at the number of projected, probable cases of cancer due to second hand smoke in the U.S. (even accepting as gospel the conclusions of the study Osteen threw out), you would find the probability of getting cancer from second hand smoke is apprx. 0.00001, or about 1 person out of 100,000. I personally don't find odds like that unacceptable and I certainly don't think it constitutes grounds for banning smoking in many public places. Hell, we probably lose more people than that to tripping over cracks in the sidewalk.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I personally don't find odds like that unacceptable and I certainly don't think it constitutes grounds for banning smoking in many public places. Hell, we probably lose more people than that to tripping over cracks in the sidewalk.

That wasn't the point though

It's up to you if you think the risk is acceptable; but it needs to be said that deaths due to tripping over sidewalk cracks are generally not blamed on the direct actions of someone else who deliberately sets say...seven or eight cracked paving stones in succession directly in your path, just so's you DO increase your odds of a trip. You know?

Too much of a difference for your comparison to work.

It's seemingly a case of someone's actions directly contributing to the healthcare of another person. That's where the problem lies.

I'm sure you got the point of the comment though.

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
And in addition (sorry, sorry, I'll get my posting head on properly at some point, I promise!)...

" The EPA appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a unanimous decision on December 11, 2002, the court ruled that the EPA report was not a reviewable agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that there were "no legal and direct consequences of the report which constitute final agency action." In other words, because the EPA report had no legal or regulatory function and was rather advisory, Judge Osteen's judgment was dismissed."

(emphasis mine)

Source

Does this mean we can all go back to using the EPA study now?

Saints be praised. Someone reads!

Tinkle, you are right about Osteen's decision being dismissed. As to why he made his decision and why it was dismissed, you are a bit off.

In fact, Osteen the Judge said this:

The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."

That is just one part of his decision. And here in lies the problem I was hoping to get Kalibur to see. If we can SCIENTIFICALLY show that there is a link (and not with relative risk of less than 2 - 3, thank you very much) between ETS and cancer, then I would be much more open to discussion about the use of tobacco products in public.

Instead, what the EPA did was determine what their findings would be ahead of time.

Next, instead of doing their own study, they performed a meta-analysis. You seem to be involved in the health community, so I will assume you know what this means. I will further assume that of the 3 kinds of studies (case-control, cohort, and meta) you know that meta-analyses tend to be tenuous at best unless conducted WITH THE UTMOST CARE.

They then "cherry-picked" the studies they used in their meta-analysis (Osteen's words, not mine).

Then, their own study returned, "

Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1.

, again, Osteen's words, not mine. This did not support what they had ALREADY PUBLICALLY ANNOUNCED.

In essence, whenever relative risk includes 1, a thing has no relative risk. For reference, most journals will not publish findings with a relative risk less than 2 - 3.

So, the EPA then DOUBLED their margin of error in order for the numbers to support what they had already claimed to the media (that ETS caused 3,000 deaths from lung cancer per year).

Based on THAT , they grouped ETS as a Class A Carcinogen!!

THAT'S why Osteen vacated. His decision on the other hand was vacated because

The court held that there were "no legal and direct consequences of the report which constitute final agency action.

.

Quite a difference in reasons. And, I'd like to ask every business owner who's business has slacked (in my own county) by 30%-50% on average, whether they think that their were no direct consequences of that FRAUDULENT report.

EPA was allowed to squeak by on this one, and we both know it. Furthermore, it is a disgusting disgrace to the scientific community at large, and a travesty for those who would champion against junk science.

That said, I have so far only read the EPA and WHO reports. WHO did a much better study (not a meta-analysis), that contrary to reports in the press, found no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT link between ETS and lung cancer.

This EPA study has damaged us all. It has fostered a group of folks like Kalibur who are clamoring to fund a bunch of studies to prove what they want to be true. Eventually, they will get their wish (if they haven't already), but you always have to question whether results are based on lobbying, funding, and politics, or on true science. After the EPA report started this fervor, I suspect that many will be based on the former.

That's sad.

I appreciate your posts Tinkle. You make me think and I have to be on my toes. I hope you will be able to concede the difference in reasons behind the two decisions, and rest assured, I will read your two recent links very carefully.

Another quick point on yours and Kalibur's, about this being an issue of one's actions affecting the health of another.

EPA report say 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year (remember, this thread is about cancer, and I am not yet qualified to discuss/debunk their claim of 35,000 heart attack deaths per year) are from ETS.

MADD says there were over 17,000 drunk driving fatalities last year. Surely at least 3,000 were other people (you know, hit by a drunk driver). So, why don't we ban alcohol? I understand you aren't supposed to drive drunk, but many do. Bartenders are supposed to make sure people don't leave drunk, but almost none do. In short, we have let "the alcohol manufacturers" off the hook for a product that quite clearly kills, and we have continued to condone the sale and service of this murderous product. Why?

Because more people like it, and it doesn't make your clothes stink? Surely it can't be that the thousands killed by drunk drivers aren't as important as those who MIGHT be harmed by ETS?

So why? No evasion about rules and regs regarding service alcohol either. We both know it doesn't matter. What matters is, those people are DEFINITELY dying from alcohol, and we aren't all that concerned. We haven't banned it yet (at least not again).

Thanks for your great posts Tink. I do enjoy your logic and you sound arguments.

Hamburglar,

Still you read my posts acting as if its hard to comprehend the simply structured text. I hope your postion in the Health Care industry doesn't provide you direct access to patients - you're exteremely hard-headed.

This is the last time i'll tell you I never said to ban smoking. I suggest you read my posts, instead of recycling the same fruitless banter.

It is obvious that Second-Hand smoke is unhealthy. Not to mention a carcinogen. That is what this thread is about. Did you forge qualifications to land your health care job? I mean, you claim to be in the said industry, yet you don't understand smoking in public harms non-smokers and increases their potential for cancer?

ETS/Cancer Studies For The Hamburger Man (Non-EPA based)

Here I have provided you with the information you're scared to seek yourself. These are but excerpts with links to the full reports. Don't be scared, learn fact.

1.CONCLUSIONS--Environmental tobacco smoke is a significant occupational health hazard for food-service workers. To protect these workers, smoking in bars and restaurants should be prohibited.

2.Exposure to ETS through passive smoking has been associated with many diseases including lung cancer, and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

3.Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer.

4.The analysis showed that the tobacco industry went to great lengths to battle the ETS issue worldwide by camouflaging its involvement and creating an impression of legitimate, unbiased scientific research.

5.researchers from Europe report that kids exposed to secondhand smoke have a higher risk of lung cancer, while researchers in Hong Kong link secondhand smoke to a greater risk of death from any cause -- including lung cancer

6.nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke were 18 percent to 32 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than those not exposed to passive smoking.

7.Here's one more study that shows smoking is bad not only for the health of people who light up but also for those around them -- specifically, for children who breathe in their parents' secondhand smoke... Overall, the risk of all lung diseases was 30 percent higher for those exposed to secondhand smoke

8.Sensitivity analysis revealed that, if anything, the researchers' figures may underestimate the true risk associated with passive smoke exposure.

9.the possible onset of cervical cancer increased by 4.6 percent for every cigarette the woman's spouse smoked.

10. abcnews.go.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">women exposed to second-hand smoke have up to a 90 percent greater risk of breast cancer than women who are not.

Extra. Not cancer - disgusting just the same.
ETS has already been definitively linked to a number of medical problems in children, including sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), colic, middle ear disease, worsening of asthma symptoms, and other respiratory problems. Research has also begun to suggest that ETS may be neurotoxic, or damaging to the nervous system, with potential effects on the development of intellect and reasoning skills in children.

All you have to do is crawl out of your unscientifically-structured, smoker-biased, propagandist hole - view fact, relinquish your fiction and this transmission will prove beneficial. I'm done with you. Your primitive attempts at insult reveal your feeble character. It looks as if someone shattering your world of folley beliefs, with fact, is too much for you.

I'm glad you feel something though, perhaps its your subconscious struggling with what the conscious refuses to accept: You're willingly harming people when you smoke around them. Bad form.

If you ever wish to discuss fact, as related to Smoking in Public / Cancer, instead of propaganda to fuel your own ends, I'm more than willing. Your next post will proabably be the same tiresome malarkey and will not warrant a reply.

I pitty you. I wish you and all others who attept to quit smoking, a prosperous journey.



[edit on 5-8-2005 by Kalibur]

Kalibur - I know your post was not directed at me, but the link---
9.the possible onset of cervical cancer increased by 4.6 percent for every cigarette the woman's spouse smoked---Is ludicrous. This is the kind of thing--very similar to the approach of Greenpeace---that makes smokers take issue with other things put out by the anti-smoking lobby. If they would just publish the facts, and only the facts, as they conduct their "studies." instead of embellishing them and injecting their anti-smoking message every second sentence, then smokers might pay attention to them.

(Re: cervical cancer)

The main contributor to cervical cancer is the presence of HPV (human papilloma virus) - NOT smoking.

Though I'm usually the first to complain about the risks of smoking, I'm usually amongst the first to complain about hokey numbers, too

Fact remains: though smoking increases the risk (in some patients, considerably - this is related more to their individual physiology than anything else, and we still don't really understand why Jane Bloe will develop cancer when her sister Janet will not), cervical cancer is almost never found without the presence of HPV, even if a patient without the virus smokes 20 cigarettes every day for 60 years.

Source

(it also doesn't mean that simply having HPV - which is believed to be present in 3/4 of adult women in the US - will definitely lead to cancer; that's not the case at all)

I agree the figures are extreme. Nonetheless, the fact that smoking increases the risk period, makes my point. It doesn't matter if it's the primary cause - it is a cause.

*Also you should note a couple of the studies do refer to the EPA report, though it is not a crucial factor nor the foundation of their findings.

Originally posted by Kalibur
I agree the figures are extreme. Nonetheless, the fact that smoking increases the risk period, makes my point. It doesn't matter if it's the primary cause - it is a cause.

No....it means smoking "increases a risk already present". The risk has to be present first.

And again, without the presence of HPV to begin with, that risk is rarely, rarely present...and it's very ambiguous (at best) to actually call it it a direct cause.

Smoking increases the risk that's already present of developing cervical cancer.

It's not a cause in and of itself, unless someone can dig up a direct correlation?

Astronomer68,

I have nothing to do with an anti-smoking lobby. I have no desire to suppress personal freedoms. Everybody has the right to do whatever they want with their body.

My dispute is the right of others. When nonsmokers are smoked around, they are subjected to poisons that harm their health and promote cancer. I simply ask smokers find the courtesy to light up in private, or any other way that doesn't effect the health of those around them.

Even increasing the risk fortifies the point.

Right...but we've got to keep it in context, too.

Overeating increases the risk.

Multiple pregnancies; oral contraceptives; DES exposure: all things that increase your risk of cervical cancer.

Kalibur, you do have a valid point - smoking is not a healthy passtime, and it is absolutely a direct cause of several cancers. I'll even go all out and say quite categorically that yes, I do believe that second-hand smoking does directly contribute to certain conditions - even cancer, in some cases - in some people.

But cervical cancer isn't one of these conditions. And there's absolutely no indication at all that second-hand smoke is even a loosely contributing factor in cervical cancer.

I was only elaborating on the point with the last couple links. Second-Hand smoke attributes to the deteriorization of the persons exposed.

Even if ETS doesn't contribute to cervical cancer, which it does...

“Public health researchers already knew that passive smoking increased heart disease and lung cancer. What we found in addition is that both active and passive smoking increases a woman’s risk for developing cervical neoplasia. Our study results are one more piece of evidence that should encourage smokers to quit and warn non-smokers who live with smokers to decrease their secondhand smoke exposure. Exposure to secondhand smoke can be reduced, and taking steps to reduce exposure may help to prevent cervical cancer,” said Dr. Alberg.

I don't see how that purges all the outstanding evidence, hitherto, that Second-Hand Smoke does, in fact, cause cancer in others besides the smoker.

Alrighty.

Firstly - you're preaching to the converted. I've said, in post after post, that I do think that second-hand smoking can/might/will/does (use whichever term du jour is applicable) cancer, the certainty of which will vary depending on which cancer/population we're talking about. Please, excuse my grammar - I'm not nearly as caffeinated as I should be!

Secondly - let's take a look at that study.

Assuming that the study was carried out according to standards, and all checks and balances are in place, we see that: "The results of this long-term, prospective cohort study corroborate the association between active cigarette smoking and cervical neoplasia and provide evidence that passive smoking is a risk factor for cervical neoplasia."

A risk factor.

Sadly, the study makes no mention of the presence of other risk factors that may or may not be present; whilst this does not in itself negate the possibility of cervical neoplasia being directly caused by second-hand smoke, it doesn't provide any proof either. It's suggesting a risk factor, and unfortunately isn't taking into account any other risk factors.

Unfortunately, there are too many instances - even those carried out by the ACS - where defective studies have failed to detect (for example) all HPV and failed to measure the amount of exposure to it - these studies, meant to support the links between smoking and cancer, actually hurt the anti-smoking lobby. If a study is defective, it can (as we've seen with the infamous EPA study) severely undermine the data therein.

We need much, much more data before we can say with any certainty that this is the case.

And believe me, I'm constantly searching!