Smoking with kids in the car

[crookesey]

I've never been shot but I know it isn't good for my health.

 

Thanks for sharing.

[Guest]

I had a quick scan through this one, and it's not definitive, but it does seem to suggest that the effects of "passive smoking" are fewer and less severe than commonly supposed.

 

Children, of course, whose cells are in rapid division the whole time, are inherently more vulnerable, and they were not included in this study. But nevertheless it's a serious piece of relatively recent research where the results are definitely food for thought.

 

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

That's a rather infamous publication. I remember the subsequent furore; it generated lots of chuntering about funding and methodology. This is a fairly representative summary.

 

The BMA's response at the time:

It would be wrong to be swayed by one flawed study funded by the tobacco industry - set against the studies and numerous expert reviews that demonstrate that passive smoking kills.

[SnailyBoy]

Thanks for sharing.

 

You're welcome, thanks for missing the point

[crookesey]

You're welcome, thanks for missing the point

 

There was no point, tell us how much being shot hurts and what the extraction of the bullet feels like, alternatively I could share my smoking days.

[SnailyBoy]

There was no point, tell us how much being shot hurts and what the extraction of the bullet feels like, alternatively I could share my smoking days.

 

I'll try again, it's pretty simple

 

You said

 

As an ex smoker I try not to get involved in these threads as there are so many experts around, who have never smoked.......

 

Implying that one can only be an 'expert' of the subject if one has actually participated.

 

So I said

 

I've never been shot but I know it isn't good for my health.

 

So, really it isn't about being shot. More to do with your comment to do with 'experts'

 

Hope that clears it up.

[fake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11844169

 

The first global study into the effects of passive smoking has found it causes 600,000 deaths every year.

 

No it didn't, the report stated that these were estimates of the possible deaths caused by passive smoking.

 

quote:

 

"The study used estimates of the incidence of specific diseases and of the number of people exposed to second-hand smoke in particular areas."

 

The reason they use estimates is because it is impossible to tell if someone died as a direct result of passive smoking. All that can be said is its possible that passive smoking may have contributed.

 

quote:

 

"However, the researchers said were limitations to the study, including uncertainties about the underlying health data and gaps in the data relating to exposure to second-hand smoke.

 

Writing in the Lancet, Dr Heather Wipfli of the University of Southern California and colleagues, said: "There are well acknowledged uncertainties in estimates of disease burden."

 

The gaps in the data are down to the fact that there has been no scientific study to produce any data about the effects of passive smoking.

 

All in all, not a very scientific or accurate study.

[Uptowngirl]

How do you explain people are living far longer now than they ever have then?Or do you deny they are and a large percentage are smokers who have spent their lifes around smoke and smokers.

 

You have seen NO proof that passive smoking is harmful to anyone but act like you know it all but actually all you know is what youve seen on TV adverts!

 

That's pretty easy. 50 years ago 55% of the population smoked. Now its down to barely 20%. We also have far cleaner air than we did. Asbestos has been removed from the environment and people are no longer getting killed down the mines or picking up the diseases from industry. We can treat many of the fatal diseases that killed our parents.

 

Regarding the proof about passive smoking, it is pretty well accepted by everyone but the idiots. That'll be why you don't accept it.

[Uptowngirl]

No it didn't, the report stated that these were estimates of the possible deaths caused by passive smoking.

 

quote:

 

"The study used estimates of the incidence of specific diseases and of the number of people exposed to second-hand smoke in particular areas."

 

The reason they use estimates is because it is impossible to tell if someone died as a direct result of passive smoking. All that can be said is its possible that passive smoking may have contributed.

 

quote:

 

"However, the researchers said were limitations to the study, including uncertainties about the underlying health data and gaps in the data relating to exposure to second-hand smoke.

 

Writing in the Lancet, Dr Heather Wipfli of the University of Southern California and colleagues, said: "There are well acknowledged uncertainties in estimates of disease burden."

 

The gaps in the data are down to the fact that there has been no scientific study to produce any data about the effects of passive smoking.

 

All in all, not a very scientific or accurate study.

 

 

That's fine. You are free to walk around with your head up your backside if you want. I suppose you will say that there are no deaths that can be proved to have occured due to Chernobyl, as everyone who died there could have died through other causes. It is just that there are an awful lot of them. Rather too many to be a coincidence.

 

As I've said before it doesn't matter what the nutters like you want to think. The politicians listen to experts & sensible people, not you.

[Phanerothyme]

That's a rather infamous publication. I remember the subsequent furore; it generated lots of chuntering about funding and methodology. This is a fairly representative summary.

 

The BMA's response at the time:

It would be wrong to be swayed by one flawed study funded by the tobacco industry - set against the studies and numerous expert reviews that demonstrate that passive smoking kills.

From the same article:

 

An accompanying editorial, by George Davey Smith, professor of clinical epidemiology at Bristol University, says that the researchers "may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings" and points out that they found an increase in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

 

But he says there have been problems with passive smoking studies and he considers this one a valid addition to the debate.

 

 

There's quite a bit of postscript on the article on the BMJ site too, worth reading considering their decision not to withdraw the article.

 

And then there's the Lufthansa research, a 37 year longitudinal study of cabin crew which also seems anomalous. That certainly wasn't funded by the tobacco lobby (to my knowledge).

 

There is certainly an attempt to equate the dangers of smoking to the dangers of 'passive smoking'. I think the dangers of passive smoking are several orders of magnitude less than direct smoking, and are more akin to those of particulates in traffic fumes, traffic fumes themselves, metal particulates from railway lines, nuisance dust, woodsmoke etc.

[Xt500]

That's pretty easy. 50 years ago 55% of the population smoked. Now its down to barely 20%. We also have far cleaner air than we did. Asbestos has been removed from the environment and people are no longer getting killed down the mines or picking up the diseases from industry. We can treat many of the fatal diseases that killed our parents.

 

Regarding the proof about passive smoking, it is pretty well accepted by everyone but the idiots. That'll be why you don't accept it.

 

Your ignoring the fact of as you say

 

" 55% of the population smoked "

" cleaner air " So was bad

And "Asbestos "

 

Yet with all these people are living longer than they ever did before,how bad can it have been?