Smokers aren't the only ones that get cancer

reply to post by Carreau


Second hand smoke is not a "cause of death" in the way you're implying.

If somebody was suffocated with a pillow, would the cause of death be "pillow?"

No, it wouldn't, it would be asphyxiation.

Similarly, if I was riding my motorbike down the road and fell off, hitting my head against a lamp post or something, examined my helmet and decided it was fine because I couldn't see the mircocracks along the material, then later I had a massive crash where I died because of the poor quality of my helmet where I would have survived had I not crashed earlier, the cause of death would be listed as cranial trauma, the lamp post would not be mentioned.

Your point is invalid.

At a glance, it seems like cancer rates started soaring after worldwide nuclear testing began.

Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks

Cancer in People Exposed to Nuclear Weapons Testing

reply to post by Dispo


My request for proof that second hand smoke has killed 50,000 people or more per year is valid, and you also have not shown any examples.

Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger


PDF with footnotes

Dave Hitt's search for proof

Emails


Dr. Michael Siegel

Link

The American Lung Association can not provide anyone who died as a result of second hand smoke. If they could they would.

reply to post by Carreau


None of those sources are credible.

Edit: Sorry, let me clarify why I said your point is invalid. Basically, it doesn't work like that. We can show that second hand smoke negatively affects general health, causes or exacerbates specific diseases etc, but second hand smoke does not cause death. Smoking does not cause death. Smoke can lead to diseases which cause death, but asking for a death certificate which says "second hand smoke" is silly because that would be like asking for a death certificate that says "driving" in place of the actual injury that caused the death.

A meta analysis of second hand smoke on children and foetuses: bmjopen.bmj.com...
Second hand smoke adversely affects people throughout life.

A study on the size of the airways in developing children due to pollution and second hand smoke: europepmc.org...
Second hand smoke makes your breathing passageways smaller.

A meta analysis on the relationship between second hand smoke and meningitis: www.biomedcentral.com...
Second hand smoke in the home doubles the incidence of meningococcal disease.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by wantsome

 

So I'm killing people who happen to catch a whiff of my cigarette smoke faster then myself even though I'm inhailing smoke directely all day long? I don't get it the logic seems flawed to me?

I think main debate that 2nd hand person gets more sick is because there is 2 different smoke coming from a smoker.

1) the inhaled smoke(filtered) then exhausted.

2) the smoke from the burning cigarette, which ha potentially worse chemical than the inhaled.


The smoker is less susceptible to 2nd hand smoke because it moves away from the smoker(due to breathing and environment), while the 2nd hand smoker gets affected by both.

So pretty much someone near the smoker is getting double dose as well as other potentially worse chemicals.

did you just make this up not to loose the battle or you actually have some proof to this statement???

Here is an intersting article

Some highlights... Overall 10-15 percent of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. About 50% occur in former smokers.

You might want to read this.

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by Carreau

 

None of those sources are credible.

Edit: Sorry, let me clarify why I said your point is invalid. Basically, it doesn't work like that. We can show that second hand smoke negatively affects general health, causes or exacerbates specific diseases etc, but second hand smoke does not cause death. Smoking does not cause death. Smoke can lead to diseases which cause death, but asking for a death certificate which says "second hand smoke" is silly because that would be like asking for a death certificate that says "driving" in place of the actual injury that caused the death.

A meta analysis of second hand smoke on children and foetuses: bmjopen.bmj.com...
Second hand smoke adversely affects people throughout life.

A study on the size of the airways in developing children due to pollution and second hand smoke: europepmc.org...
Second hand smoke makes your breathing passageways smaller.

A meta analysis on the relationship between second hand smoke and meningitis: www.biomedcentral.com...
Second hand smoke in the home doubles the incidence of meningococcal disease.

edit on 21-2-2013 by Dispo because: (no reason given)

The source isn't valid? Did you even read it?

EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated
www.bmj.com...

Just saying . . .

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


The source isn't credible. I resent the implication that I haven't read the articles cited.

The flaws they point out are flawed.

I'll look in to the bmj article you cited later.

To address the title in this thread, it is correct and more to the point here is that smoking is your last worry in life be it second hand smoke or direct.

How about Asbestos for some yum yums eh? Or how about Mercury, Pesticides/Toxic Diesel fumes from buses and transport trucks/ Lead paint/drinking water/ just about anything you can imagine if it turns a profit for someone it is definitely not good for you.

Regards, Iwinder

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

The source isn't credible. I resent the implication that I haven't read the articles cited.

The flaws they point out are flawed.

I'll look in to the bmj article you cited later.

Ummmm the flaws are flawed? Because you disagree with them? Go tell that to the UCLA professor whose research was peer reviewed and used to have the previous extrapolations of the study thrown out.

FYI - This study is not a valid source as the results have NOT been made available . . . proves nothing.
bmjopen.bmj.com...

It seems like you just posted a few articles, the first two show a significant effect of a specific disease when a pregnant woman is smoking and is blowing smoke in the infant's face after birth.

They also focus solely on indoor potentials and do not bear any relevance on outdoor "SHS".

Did you even look at the studies this meta analysis sourced?

Association of particulate air pollution and secondhand smoke on endothelium-dependent brachial artery dilation in healthy children.
europepmc.org...

Methods:

This cross-sectional study was conducted from January to March 2011 in Isfahan, which is the second large and air-polluted city in Iran. The areas of the city with lowest and highest air pollution were determined, and in each area, 25 prepubescent boys with or without exposure to daily tobacco smoke in home were selected, i.e. 100 children were studied in total.

Yes the second large . . . someone epically failed in translating this paper. This lame typo would not fly here in the states when trying to present a paper and would be sent back for grammatical errors immediately so I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and say poor translation.

Second hand smoke exposure and the risk of invasive meningococcal disease in children: systematic review and meta-analysis
www.biomedcentral.com...

Exposure measures

We included all sources of SHS exposure (parental, household, carer, other family members) measured by either self-report (typically by questionnaire) or biochemical markers of exposure such as cotinine in saliva. Exposures were classified as either in-utero, postnatal, infant, or childhood exposure. Studies of the effects of active smoking were excluded.

Self reporting via questionnaire is a quick way to invalidate a study . . . especially when trying to prove a causal relationship between SHS and diseases.

Personally I think that blowing smoke in a kids face is a sure way to cause trouble later on in life. However I do not support people using the "public good"/"greater good" excuse to ban others from doing things.

I am a smoker and am in better shape than 90% of all humans on the planet based on meta-analytic research methods similar to those used by the above city.

reply to post by Dispo


Do not believe this study

You know what I think? And i'm a smoker and i'll say this freely in fairness....

Smokers (not me so much) but many have a lot of filthy cockamamie habits aside from smoking.

Think about it, what % of smoker who can't smell as good bathe or wash hands as often as others... how many "take a drag" from cigs of others very often strangers, the person who smokes does he/she jog? lol not often... how about diet, same personality that smokes often chugs coffee, throws in that doughnut more likely to use drugs and scoff down frozen pizzas eh? Mostly sure


I believe the correlation... it's just not "science" to find a correlation and make an assumption... not good science at least

Moms that smoke kids get meningitis or whatever... must be second hand smoke OR... maybe just very often the same parents who eat crud, don't take vitamins feed the kids cocoa puffs all day don't wipe their rear ends so well spend a lot of time standing in the cold and rain to smoke cigs lol and are just plain outside smoking while little Jr is sticking their fingers in the garbage?


second hand smoke COULD be a FACTOR very mild suppression of the immune system... but lets be real smokers are more likely to live like pigs period...

You know what IS BAD about second hand smoke no one talks about?

Addiction.... truth is you have to be regularly around some thick ol smoke without ventilation for it to ever even begin to darken your lungs even a bit

BUT

The tiniest little traces will get in you blood stream and build receptors in your brain for nicotine....

How do I know this? Parents smoked in my house all the time... I was a cycling champ for years lungs of gold, circulation of a gazelle...nada nothing no effect, but when I tried my first cig? I was hooked in 3.2 seconds like a crack addict

Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by Jefferton

 

Strange how not a single person has ever hand "second hand smoke" on their death certificate as cause of death isn't it?

No, it's not strange. No one's death certificate says they "died by smoking" either. The death certificate may say "cancer," "heart disease," or something else that was CAUSED by smoking, however.

Saying that "Smokers aren't the only ones that get cancer" is a back asswards way of looking at it. OF COURSE there are people who smoke eho never get cancer and people who don't smoke who do. That has NEVER been in dispute. The fact is that people who smoke are MORE LIKELY to get cancer than people who don't, or heart disease, or any number of other diseases such as emphysema. This medical fact is so well established that insurers charge you more if you smoke. Why? because you cost more if you smoke the same way younger drivers pay higher insurance because they get in more accidents. If this were not true there's one huge class action suit to be had, but it is true, so the only suits are against tobacco companies.

Go ahead and smoke if you want, but to deny that smoking vastly increases your chances of contracting a smoking-related disease is ignorant. Deny ignorance at your peril.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


First, please stop implying that I don't read studies, that I don't understand them, or that I'm anything but impartial.

The fact that the person who critiqued the study is a UCLA professor is irrelevant, your education and experiences allow you to make valid points, they do not make your points valid.

As for your peer review point, this is a very interesting and informative thread on the entire concept: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Second hand smoke is second hand smoke, nobody has specified where it has to be in this thread.

The first study is not complete, the findings are preliminary, if you follow it you will eventually find the published list of studies.

You argue that a typo invalidates a study while murdering a bunch of ellipses.

The self-reporting issue is not an issue in this instance, and it was not the only research method used. Using a certain tool may be lazy, but it does not destroy the entire study.

I do not think smoking should be banned (or controlled at all by government legislation, except in government buildings) either, but that doesn't mean I have to argue that smoking is healthy. The long and short of it is that smoking is bad, second hand smoke is also bad, possibly to a lesser degree, but it's still a factor. The positions are not intertwined - I can support individual rights and responsibilities while acknowledging that smoking negatively impacts on health.

Originally posted by penninja
but lets be real smokers are more likely to live like pigs period...

That line basically sums up your entire argument. It's unfair, unscientific and unfounded.

reply to post by schuyler


I don't smoke.

I never claimed that smoking didn't cause health problems. A post claimed that smokers are killing non smokers and i asked for proof of that.

Full disclosure, I smoke and I love it.

But I agree with the OPs premise. It is like, you have lung cancer, were you a smoker? No? Must be second hand smoke.

Meanwhile I know people who spray lysol and febreze and all these chemical air fresheners and god knows what else and breathe it in with absolute glee. These people, by and large, are hypochondriacs, and anti-smokers. I'm a smoker and I wouldn't be caught dead inhaling that stuff.

I worked in a plastic factory for a couple of years breathing in evaporated plastic particles I'm sure of it, if you can smell plastic in the air it is chemical particles. That's how the olfactory system works. That couldn't have been healthy. Maybe I'll get lung cancer from that and not the fact I've smoked for years.

People just want a quick answer.

There's all sorts of aerosolized death out there.

Originally posted by Carreau
i asked for proof of that.

A study on lung cancer and second hand smoke: www.nature.com...
If your partner smokes and you don't, you are more likely to develop lung cancer than if neither of you smoked.

reply to post by Dispo


That source isn't credible and your point is invalid.

reply to post by Carreau


Why?