Passive smoking kills 600,000. Thank goodness for our smoke free workplaces

[NoddyHolder]

That bloody trumpet player has got a lot to answer for.

[Guest]

Passive smoking 'kills 600,000' worldwide

 

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.

 

One-third of those killed are children, often exposed to smoke at home, the World Health Organization (WHO) found.

 

The study, in 192 countries, found that passive smoking is particularly dangerous for children, said to be at higher risk of sudden infant death syndrome, pneumonia and asthma.

 

Passive smoking causes heart disease, respiratory illness and lung cancer.

 

"This helps us understand the real toll of tobacco," said Armando Peruga, of the WHO's Tobacco-Free Initiative, who led the study.

 

 

Thank you to all the MPs who voted to ban smoking in enclosed public places.

 

 

What is the point of this thread and it's obsession with smoking when the anti smoking legislation has already been in place for some time?

 

Despite all these reports, NO ONE STILL HAS ANY PROOF that any single cancer or any other disease was categorically caused by passive smoking.

 

If smoking is as dangerous as you suggest and if every government believed so, I would expect every government to ban smoking completely - do you think this will ever happen?

 

Amazing how something so bad, can be so easily tolerated, when it brings in a good tax bounty.

 

Give it a rest - you sound like a stuck record.

[anywebsite]

But can't you see that you are the only person who has done this????????????

 

Nobody is saying that smoking and passive smoking causes infectous illnesses, the point is that smoking and passive smoking exacerbates those illnesses. Is this point difficult to understand?

 

It isn't difficult to understand.

 

What is difficult to understand is how they worked out what proportion of deaths from infectious diseases were caused by passive smoking. Not everybody who gets an acute respiratory illness, like flu, will survive even in a perfectly smoke free environment. There is no way to ethically do a controlled study on that & this was nothing like a controlled scientific study, it's pure guesswork.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't cause any extra deaths, but 600,000 is a very large number & it's all based off their own estimates, rather than actually trying to find out the real numbers.

 

Estimates are nothing more than guesses. In other words there is no actual real new information in it, they've made the whole thing up. It's all based on estimates based on possibly false assumptions, it isn't actual new research.

[Redyam]

What is the point of this thread and it's obsession with smoking when the anti smoking legislation has already been in place for some time?

 

Despite all these reports, NO ONE STILL HAS ANY PROOF that any single cancer or any other disease was categorically caused by passive smoking.

 

If smoking is as dangerous as you suggest and if every government believed so, I would expect every government to ban smoking completely - do you think this will ever happen?

 

Amazing how something so bad, can be so easily tolerated, when it brings in a good tax bounty.

 

Give it a rest - you sound like a stuck record.

 

They won't ever ban smoking completely, but not for the reason you think so.

 

Banning smoking would cause riots on the streets. Thousands of smokers needing their fix and unable to get it, complaining about their rights. The black market would appear overnight, selling cheap rip-offs even more dangerous to health.

 

All the government can do is encourage people to stop, by giving them information about what smoking does to you, letting people make up their own mind. Giving support to quitters. Which is exactly what they are doing now.

[Anna Glypta]

If smoking is as dangerous as you suggest and if every government believed so, I would expect every government to ban smoking completely - do you think this will ever happen?

 

 

I really don't care. If you want to kill yourself that's OK by me. Just don't think that you have the right to kill others though.

 

And regarding your pathetic attempts to deny the dangers..

 

Give it a rest - you sound like a stuck record.

[JFKvsNixon]

It isn't difficult to understand.

 

What is difficult to understand is how they worked out what proportion of deaths from infectious diseases were caused by passive smoking. Not everybody who gets an acute respiratory illness, like flu, will survive even in a perfectly smoke free environment. There is no way to ethically do a controlled study on that & this was nothing like a controlled scientific study, it's pure guesswork.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't cause any extra deaths, but 600,000 is a very large number & it's all based off their own estimates, rather than actually trying to find out the real numbers.

 

Estimates are nothing more than guesses. In other words there is no actual real new information in it, they've made the whole thing up. It's all based on estimates based on possibly false assumptions, it isn't actual new research.

 

So maybe then you need to read the research to understand how it was carried out, so you can critique it properly if you're interested. At the moment it does seem that your making it up as you go along, as you don't seem to know how the research was carried out.

 

If it helps I'd imagine that they did something like a retrospective cohort study.

[Guest]

I really don't care. If you want to kill yourself that's OK by me. Just don't think that you have the right to kill others though.

 

And regarding your pathetic attempts to deny the dangers..

 

Give it a rest - you sound like a stuck record.

 

 

You really don't care because you really don't know.

 

Don't see how I can manage to kill anyone else when I smoke outside and have done for some years.

 

I have made no attempt, pathetic or otherwise, to deny the dangers - I have stated the simple and truthful fact that these dangers are theory and not proven.

 

How original to have copied my last line - I manage to think for myself.

[Swan_Vesta]

Despite all these reports, NO ONE STILL HAS ANY PROOF that any single cancer or any other disease was categorically caused by passive smoking.

.

 

Even as a reluctant smoker I think this is complete pendulous, masculine, fecund orbs.

 

Two words: Roy Castle.

[SnailyBoy]

You really don't care because you really don't know.

 

Don't see how I can manage to kill anyone else when I smoke outside and have done for some years.

 

I have made no attempt, pathetic or otherwise, to deny the dangers - I have stated the simple and truthful fact that these dangers are theory and not proven.

 

How original to have copied my last line - I manage to think for myself.

 

http://tinyurl.com/33867mz

[Guest]

Even as a reluctant smoker I think this is complete pendulous, masculine, fecund orbs.

 

Two words: Roy Castle.

 

 

What about him - it was ASSUMED that he contracted cancer through passive smoking - this, and every other similar case, was never proven.

 

All the arguments the anti smoking lot are putting up are based purely on supposition - you will have to do better.

 

You are all having a go at smokers AFTER the law has been changed and AFTER the pub bans are in place because you simply want to be nasty.

 

When the government bans smoking completely (and forgoes the lucrative tobacco tax), I will believe that smoking must be dangerous.

 

Until then, we will continue to wait for some proof and carry on regardless.