Quell surprise – No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer
The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers, and the relationship for both current and former smokers depended on level of exposure. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more.
Via Reason, where there’s more. h/t
Yeah well, all the noise about “second hand smoke” has me so terrified, I don’t dare quitting because that would expose me to second hand smoke which allegedly strip the chrome of a chevy bumper, 100 yds …..upwind.
So there’s no smoking gun?
Penn and Teller said this on their show a handful of years back and were forced to denounce their show and issue an apology.(lawyers probably)
I remember Colby Cosh writing about the same time(but earlier) as P&T that the largest study of it’s kind, done in Europe with a sample of over 100,000 people and funded by smoking and anti-smoking interests, showed that second hand smoke evidence was statistically insignificant such that the anti-smoking representatives pulled out of the study.
But,but.. Burn the witch.
The tobacco lies were one of the lead lies of modern govt propaganda, the do-gooders trumpeted their story on every front, stomped on the rights of the public and character assassinated all who asked for evidence.
Sound familiar?
But we did it for your own good, once again the ends justify the means, no lie too low, no myth too extreme to impose the will of the do-gooders upon everyone else.
I guess the libtards have never heard of the worst sexually transmitted terminal disease, everyone has it and no one gets out alive.
Life of course, but using the logic of the concern junkies(As a means to power) life kills, therefore we must stop people catching it.
Oopes I see they are well ahead of me, state funded abortion.
Nevermind.
You’re right, we knew all this years ago. The furore started with the infamous EPA study in the early 1990s, (yes, EPA, not FDA), that purported to find an effect. It was a meta-study, meaning that it simply was a book report of other studies and did absolutely no original research of its own. It:
1. made no effort to reconcile the differing methodologies (which would automatically have invalidated it on a scientific basis),
2. had a relative risk of just over 1.1, meaning it was indistinguishable from random chance, and
3. had its confidence levels reduced from 99 to 90 per cent prior to publication (also automatically invalidating it on a statistical basis).
I still remember many, many years ago when the World Health Organisation found the same thing and was astounded (no, not really) that MSM didn’t even cover it. That was when the smoking bans were just in their enfant stage and the anti-smoking radicals were calling for more bans due to “second-hand” smoke danger. Of course it has become totally insane since then with smoking bans outside in the open air and even on or in your own property in many situations. So smoking pot is fine and dandy but heaven help the poor sod who wants to enjoy tobacco in any form.
Studies disproving the dangers of secondhand smoke were available as early as the mid ’90s – talk about secondhand smoke mostly evaporated about the same time.
Just like the ozone layer, acid rain, etc… from the media’s viewpoint, it’s better to stop talking about one of their pet causes rather than to admit it’s been disproven.
The ban on smoking indoors isn’t about health and never was. New York City’s recent decision to ban the use of the completely harmless electronic cigarettes indoors is further proof that smoking bans are based strictly on intolerance and control and nothing else. It’s a sad fact of life but many, many people are addicted to bullying and controlling others. Smokers are not protected by the unwritten laws of political correctness and therefore provide an ideal target.
And now they tell me that my multivitamins are not helping to keep me sharp and alive.
HEALTHBEAT: Studies show multivitamins didn’t protect men’s aging brains or help heart disease
The genesis of the anti-smoking war had nothing to do with health. It was (and still is) a initiative brought forward by the UN/WHO to see what works and what doesn’t in the war against drugs. Smokers are highly visible and it’s a legal product so following campaigns to curb the use of tobacco products are easy to measure. Their theory was that what worked on smokers would also work on drug usage. In the early 90’s they found that second hand smoke had no traction at all until they threw the children into the breech and suddenly they had a formula that had some real impact. A few major lawsuits against tobacco companies by OJ Simpson type juries gave the activists legitimacy they could not attain in any research. Tobacco companies could not prove that tobacco was harmless and therefore were guilty. Radon gas and other factors like living in heavily polluted urban centers was inadmissible as a contributing factor. It just took off from there although the proof was very weak and had to be manipulated in typical activist fashion much like global warming. Anti tobacco activism is now a successful industry on its own although it seems to have failed miserably in the war against drug use and pot is gaining the acceptance that tobacco has lost. The entire war was always about controlling the sheeple, nothing more, but it showed that the nanny state had the power to remove personal rights if the majority deemed something socially unacceptable. Same template now being used against guns,carbon,CO2 and even alcohol. Even Eric Holder publicly stated that guns will have to be made as socially unacceptable as smoking. The activists now want the same warning labels on beer/alcohol as on cigarettes. Activists will never stop. When they have ridden one horse into the ground, they simply change horses and continue. Often financed by richer activists or even the taxpayer. Welcome to the 21st century.
foobert, in related vein you may have noticed a lot of news around exercise and aging the last month or so. I have my suspicions about these studies as well, because they claim all kinds of benefits for exercise from preventing dementia to extending life, curing diabetes etc.
It would be very convenient for a single-payer health system to be able to “prescribe” exercise for a variety of Baby Boomer age related maladies. Then when the patient doesn’t get better they can be told they are slackers, prescription is to redouble their efforts.
Very inexpensive treatment regimen from the payers side. Cheaper than insulin, for sure.
But now that second-hand smoke is scientifically proven to be not harmful, we can expect all those “NO SMOKING!!!!” signs to come down. Right? Because Canadian governments make their policies based on science, right?
Not holding my breath, friends.
I have long held that the anti-smoking activists were from the list of Usual Suspects.
The whole purpose being to destroy Free Enterprise one industry at a time.
And like the Salem witch burners, the gullible public become Useful Idiots.
Gun Control/Bans are for the same purpose as is the anti liquor campaign. Warnings on bottle labels are the first psychological
steps as are the almost useless trigger locks. It’s for your own good.
I was in a Mcdonalds restaurant back when the current appeasement was to segregate smokers. This dolt came in to the clearly marked smoking area with his kids and began screeching at someone who lit up. It was harmful to his kids? S*it for brains!
So there should be smoking sections in bars and restaurants in Toronto again, right?
By the way, Kate. It is spelled Quelle surprise. Without the second e you have the english word quell (to subdue, suppress) and your title makes no sense in English.
When truth and agenda clash, agenda wins. This has become very apparent during the last few decades, and the trend seems to be escalating in numbers.
Now the liquor companies will feed the alligator.
“This dolt came in to the clearly marked smoking area with his kids”
If I had a dollar for every time I saw a similar scenario, I would be mortgage-free. The really hard-core, rabid anti-smoking zealots seem to derive some sort of masochistic pleasure in joining a group of smokers (outside of course) and indulging in fake coughing fits, hand-waving, lecturing and other infantile activities.
What ever happened to people taking the initiative to simply avoid those things that annoy or aggravate them and just leave people alone? God knows it’s easy enough nowadays to avoid smokers without even trying.
Al-in=Ottawa, while I cannot speak for Kate I can speak for all those who support private property rights. It should be up to the restaurant or bar owner to determine if smoking areas will be allowed or not; not for the state to impose it. As these are businesses, such a decision would be made accordingly. As it stands even restaurants that due to the inside ban had special outdoors patios or whatever to cater to their smoking customers only to have even those now banned. Like most have pointed out this has zero to do with health, it has everything to do with ideology and those hell-bent on imposing their ideology on everyone else.
Alain, yuppers, you got that rite. I’v asked smokers to move as their smoking bothered me (makes me hack) and they always complied, and I thanked them adding an explanation as to why. I also have no problem with ppl who choose to smoke, as, of 5 siblings, the 3 who did not smoke had cancer(1 died) and the 2 who do smoke are cancer free, me thinks much of the cancer thing has to do with genetics.
I think we need a study on studies!!!!
I’v asked smokers to move as their smoking bothered me
Are you so crippled you couldn’t move?
This should lead to a “Tony Merchant” type class action lawsuit. The anti-Tobacco group is the same as the AGW group. Tobacco taxes (10% in California) are used in thier on going social agenda. They spread the sleaze into the 3rd world as a way to raise money by taxing the smokers. Bastards everyone of them!
Worthless Science is corrupt and ALL science must pay for allowing (without a whimper) this scum to film-flam the middle class. Professional societies have failed and must defend thier silence and/or complicity. That is what “errors and Omissions”
Insurance is intended to pay
JMHO
C.S. Lewis nailed it:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Alain, let me amend my sentence.
So there should be smoking sections in bars and restaurants in Toronto again, correct?
I also believe that the proprietors should have the right to designate smoking and non-smoking sections but the Ontario government does not. It passed the Smoke-Free Ontario Act in the last year of Bob Rae’s mis-management. The Act was later amended in 2006 by McGuilty’s bunch. Smoking is prohibited in all workplaces, ‘enclosed’ public areas and within a 9 meter radius outside the entrance to a hospital or nursing home. Since restaurants and bars have employees they are workplaces. If there is an awning over the patio at the bar it is considered enclosed. If there is someone under 16 in your car and you light a cigarette you’re breaking the law.
The Act was passed to prevent the dangers of second-hand smoke. Now that those dangers have been proven to be non-existent the McWynnty government will say “oops, those other guys screwed up” and quickly repeal the Act, correct?
I never was much obsessed by the second-hand-smoke-causing-cancer meme. To me it was more an issue that it burned my eyes, made my clothes and my hair stink and made places I now frequent thoroughly unpleasant and disgusting. I’m glad of the bans, though I agree it should be up to the proprietors to decide wether or not to be smoke free in their establishments. After trying smoke-free for as long as it has been in effect, I suspect most establishments that tried to re-introduce smoking would see a huge plunge in their business unless provision were made for separate venting.
The question of choice should not be in government hands. The smoking ban damaged the hospitality industry and in Britain, 6 years later it has still not recovered from the ban. Bingo halls also took a beating and in most countries Legion halls had to struggle to survive. Many did not. Interesting neutral article here on the over reach.
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=24
I am of the position that first the anti-Freon/ozone layer nonsense was cleverly constructed as an opening salvo/campaign by the watermelons for their now published AGENDA 21.
Remember these elements have long since dug into academia/media as tight as a tick.
Yeah, it really all is a communist plot!
OZ, I read that study years ago. there also was a huge one done in California where they followed medical professionals, nurses, doctors and others in the medical field. I think about 85,000 people over 20 years. the conclusion was also that second hand smoke was insignificant as a cause of cancer. today we do not ever want truth to interfere an agenda.
Strikes me, we can conclusively make the case, that do-gooders are dangerous to public health and well being.
A warning label must be imprinted upon the packaging of every such creature, contents may contain a nut?, as the loss of public wealth caused by their interference, stripping us of our ability to respond to an emergency has proven catastrophic.
The high fuel/ high intensity of todays forrest fires, the flooding of housing developments built on on flood plains, the failure of hygiene in our hospitals.
The environmental degradation caused by “clean energy” in Ontario, the sucking collapse of productive work in Canada caused by the welfare state, over regulation and political insanity..
All done in the name of doing good.
The road to hell being paved with such intentions.
History seems to demonstrate the clear advantage to society of enlightened self interest, that age old concept of treating others as you wish to be treated but you cannot destroy yourself to benefit the greater good, only socialist loons find that accceptable behaviour.
If your own well being and survival are not inherent in your thinking, you generally fail to survive.
So in my self interest I support the concept of a tax on do-gooders, they shall put up all of their own wealth for any scheme they claim benefits society.
As an examination of our tax exempt charities, societies and government sponsored “NGOs” will expose an inordinate number of very well paid parasites syphoning off the “help”, for their private benefit.
As an over taxed and over regulated tradesman, I am very close to openly recommending attacks on do-gooders. As these people are either crazy stupid or thieves.
One can not fix stupid, but you can not willingly give them power over you and expect your interests to be served.
Our police services are more criminal than the official bandits, Government is an unapologetic kleptocracy and property is a health hazard if you try to protect it.
No one is currently acting to preserve the interests of the productive in our society.
What do you have when the interests that built our society, fail?
“What do you have when the interests that built our society, fail?”
You have the imminent destruction of life as we knew it. Like hitting “replay” on the last hundred years.