Surgeon general: No safe level of secondhand smoke

It's called 'taking a break'.
_____

Clearly you have a smoking fetish Member: #17854 ~ perhaps you could join fatty in a smoke filled sword fight.

 

It's called acetylcholine and dopamine.

I'm not a smoker, never have been. There goes that theory.

 

Afterwards we can watch old videos of the time you won state, err, almost won state!




For somebody who makes it part of their act to be a buffoon on the message board and in real life, or so you claim, you sure seem to take things quite seriously!

Really nomar? I guess all that cagefighting training is paying off!

 

Um, you're the one who's arguing that cigarrette smoking is not a health hazard nomar.

It doesn't get much funnier than that!

 

Wrong again.

I'm arguing that secondhand smoke does not pose a significant health risk. Get it straight.

 

So you think the Surgeon General is wrong dispite the all the evidence he has, what evidence makes you believe other wise?

 

Epidemiological studies suggest that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking. In 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a review of the evidence available from epidemiological and other studies regarding the relationship between secondhand smoke and heart disease and estimated that passive smoking was responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 deaths per year in the United States in the early 1980s. Some studies make the claim that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25 per cent increase in risk of death from heart attack, are more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes contract genital cancer. Some research, such as the Helena Study, suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. The Helena Study claims that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent. Though the “researchers” made this claim to the press, but their final paper actually showed 40%, not 60%. Parents who smoke appear to be a risk factor for children and babies and are associated with low birth weight babies, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), bronchitis and pneumonia, and middle ear infections.

In 2002, a group of 29 experts from 12 countries convened by the Monographs Programme of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:

These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.

The National Asthma Council of Australia [1] cites studies showing that: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is probably the most important indoor pollutant, especially around young children:

* Smoking by either parent, particularly by the mother, increases the risk of asthma in children.14,15,
* The outlook for early childhood asthma is less favourable in smoking households.15,
* Children with asthma who are exposed to smoking in the home generally have more severe disease.16,
* Many adults with asthma identify ETS as a trigger for their symptoms.17,
* Doctor-diagnosed asthma is more common among non-smoking adults exposed to ETS than those not exposed. Among people with asthma, higher ETS exposure is associated with a greater risk of severe attacks.18,

Enstrom and Kabat

Two recent studies by Enstrom and Kabat conclude that the previous studies overestimated the effect of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) on both lung cancer and heart diseases.

These studies have been criticised by the American Cancer Society, which describes the study as "misinformation", as both the original cohort and Enstrom and Kabat's spotty follow-ups, were entirely inappropriate for reliably determining ETS exposure, smoking history, etc. Furthermore, Enstrom and Kabat are funded by the tobacco industry. ASH published an analysis of the studies that concluded that the studies can not be trusted, as there appears to be a direct conflict of interest. Alongside other faults, this analysis also criticizes the BMJ for failing to inform readers who funded the studies.

Enstrom and Kabat have rejected this criticism, claiming that the American Cancer Society funded most of the first study, but pulled their funding at the last minute, forcing the researchers to look elsewhere to find funding. Further, they say were only able to find funding from a foundation funded by the tobacco companies. In response, ACS vice-president Michael Thun asserts that Enstrom had been funded by the tobacco industry since 1997 without informing the ACS, and that Enstrom had communicated with Philip Morris about the potential value of the CPS-I follow-up as early as 1990.

It's really VERY difficult to say it's not a serious health hazard. Sure, I guess you could argue that small amounts would be negligible, but inhaling any amount of the following is NOT recommended:

Nitrosamines, Crysenes, Cadmium, Benzo (a) pyrene, Polonium 210, Nickel, P.A.H.s, Diberiz Acidine, B-Napthylamine, Urethane, N. Nitrosonornicotene, Toluidine, and over 4000 others including DIOXINS. If you think inhaling dioxin is not a "serious health risk" you're nucking futs.

 

And, once again, for "science", find someone who can outrun me in a 1 mile race. Hell, my ankle isn't even fully healed yet! It should be a piece of cake, right?

 

...

:You satisfied non-smoker? So you see?

: No, I'm still not convinced and I never will be.

:Why don't the two of you just race?

: That's a good idea.

: No, no, no, a race - out of the question.

: I know, you've been saying that for twenty pages because you know you can't beat me. You ca't beat me with smoking and you can't beat me without smoking now.

: Race him. Race him.

: All right! I'll do it. The race is on.

 

Alright, lois, alright.

I'm surprised nobody picked up on that for 24 hours!

 

Are there any safe levels of sunshine?

 

I like boobs. They are pretty cool.

 

Dam 15 pages of posts. Who would think this would be such a controversial topic.

Just to get my two cents in I'm a non-smoker but don't support the smoking bar smoking bans. We've had one here for about two years in Minneapolis and it is nice to not be smelling like smoke after coming out of bars but then again I don't go to bars for my health. At the same time most of the people I know who work in bars smoke too. I'm sure its been brought up but it seems to me that bars should be allowed to have a smoking license like they have a liquor license. If there is such a demand for non-smoking bars then it would make sense for bars to go non-smoking while those that feel that they need smokers could stay smoking. Bottom line for me is that tobacco is still a legal product and people should be allowed to use it in more places than outside or in their homes. If we can have businesses where people drink, watch live sex shows, gamble, eat fatty fried foods and do other things not good for your health why not smoke?

I noticed Sam Fisher has issued another physical challenge. Hold on there Sam. You can't go around challenging other Clutchfans to feats of physial exertion until you fight me first!

 

I can't wait for the Houston smoking ban. We can finally breathe fresh air!! The poor, poor suppressed bartenders will be free at last! Our problems are solved!

 

Let me know when... I really need to let off some steam.

And Sammy: I hate to admit this, but the Uncle Rico analogy is pretty funny.

 

AH HA!!

Something we can both agree on.