nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index nglreturns.myfreeforum.org
Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


No link between passive smoking and cancer
Page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Health
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 1:46 pm    Post subject: No link between passive smoking and cancer  Reply with quote

A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer

Quote:
... a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as 'borderline statistical significance.' Gerard Silvestri of the Medical University of South Carolina and member of the National Cancer Institute’s Screening and Prevention Board [said] the study merely confirms what many researchers already believed. "What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: at low passive exposures the risk is not that great," he said.


Provided that the information used is accurately put across I do allow myself the hope that this might be a small but significant piece of ammunition in the war against what strikes me and many other people (not all of them smokers: I'm not) as the increasing stigmatisation of people who smoke.
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 5:05 pm    Post subject: Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:


Quote:
at low passive exposures the risk is not that great,"  


 


Low exposure, low risk. This seems to be as one would expect.

Which would still make high exposure a problem, as with people who worked in pubs and the like before smoking in such places was banned.
_________________
Remember, 22nd August is Ralph the Liar's Day!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek
Senior Community Member


Joined: 15 Jul 2013
Posts: 4885



PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:36 pm    Post subject: Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer

Quote:
... a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as 'borderline statistical significance.' Gerard Silvestri of the Medical University of South Carolina and member of the National Cancer Institute’s Screening and Prevention Board [said] the study merely confirms what many researchers already believed. "What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: at low passive exposures the risk is not that great," he said.


Provided that the information used is accurately put across I do allow myself the hope that this might be a small but significant piece of ammunition in the war against what strikes me and many other people (not all of them smokers: I'm not) as the increasing stigmatisation of people who smoke.


No clear link does not mean no link it just means that it is not clear.  Do you smoke Shaker.  Does anyone in your household smoke.
_________________
Christians believe in the Godhead. God, the father, and his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who testifies of His Truth. Three  Separate and Distinct Individuals. Anything else is false doctrine, the teaching of men.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:42 pm    Post subject: Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer Reply with quote

Ralph2 wrote:
No clear link does not mean no link it just means that it is not clear.

Indeed. A link which is not clear is what competent English users usually mean by 'no clear link.'  

Quote:
Do you smoke Shaker.

No.  

Quote:
Does anyone in your household smoke.

No.

Relevance?
_________________
There’s no reason to be agnostic about ideas that are dramatically incompatible with everything we know about modern science. - Sean M. Carroll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek
Senior Community Member


Joined: 15 Jul 2013
Posts: 4885



PostPosted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:13 am    Post subject: Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
No clear link does not mean no link it just means that it is not clear.

Indeed. A link which is not clear is what competent English users usually mean by 'no clear link.'  

Quote:
Do you smoke Shaker.

No.  

Quote:
Does anyone in your household smoke.

No.

Relevance?


Just checking for any bias.
_________________
Christians believe in the Godhead. God, the father, and his son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who testifies of His Truth. Three  Separate and Distinct Individuals. Anything else is false doctrine, the teaching of men.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shaker
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Aug 2008
Posts: 8694



PostPosted: Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:27 pm    Post subject: Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer Reply with quote

Ralph2 wrote:
Just checking for any bias.

You should check out my addition to the "gay marriage to be fast tracked" thread over on the News sub-forum, where this theme crops up. You don't have to be gay to support equal marriage and you don't have to be a smoker to feel that increasingly smokers - people who indulge in a perfectly legal activity which rakes in billions yearly in taxes - are getting the shitty end of the stick in terms of mounting social stigmatisation, even isolation.

You just have to feel that people are being treated unfairly for something that they do (but you don't) and then make the imaginative leap to think of that in terms of being treated unfairly yourself for something that you do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cyberman
Senior Community Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Posts: 3750


Location: Edinburgh

PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 4:34 pm    Post subject: Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:


Quote:
at low passive exposures the risk is not that great,"  


 


Low exposure, low risk. This seems to be as one would expect.

Which would still make high exposure a problem, as with people who worked in pubs and the like before smoking in such places was banned.


Well, that dose of reality went down like a lead balloon....
_________________
Remember, 22nd August is Ralph the Liar's Day!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
genghiscant
Community Member


Joined: 29 Jun 2011
Posts: 844


Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:58 pm    Post subject: Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer Reply with quote

cyberman wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:


Quote:
at low passive exposures the risk is not that great,"  


 


Low exposure, low risk. This seems to be as one would expect.

Which would still make high exposure a problem, as with people who worked in pubs and the like before smoking in such places was banned.


Well, that dose of reality went down like a lead balloon....


Which is how Lead Zeppelin were supposed to have come by their name.
_________________
People look at the possibilities, choose the one that most appeals to them, and then work backwards to justify the position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rose
Community Member


Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 927


Location: Now Ramblin free

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:54 pm    Post subject: Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer Reply with quote

Shaker wrote:
A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer

Quote:
... a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as 'borderline statistical significance.' Gerard Silvestri of the Medical University of South Carolina and member of the National Cancer Institute’s Screening and Prevention Board [said] the study merely confirms what many researchers already believed. "What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: at low passive exposures the risk is not that great," he said.


Provided that the information used is accurately put across I do allow myself the hope that this might be a small but significant piece of ammunition in the war against what strikes me and many other people (not all of them smokers: I'm not) as the increasing stigmatisation of people who smoke.


I don't smoke either but my workplace have just ruled that staff are not allowed to have any smoking breaks at all and have to smoke outside in their own lunchtime and have put out anti smoking literature all over the canteen.

All done for our own good of course!

When you go out, there are more people outside the pub than are sat in it, often.

Mind you I am glad I don't smoke, too expensive!

Julie
_________________
Ramblin' rose, ramblin' rose
Why you ramble, no one knows
Wild and wind-blown, that's how you've grown
Who can cling to a ramblin' rose?

Ramble on, ramble on
When your ramblin' days are gone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
genghiscant
Community Member


Joined: 29 Jun 2011
Posts: 844


Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The study doesn’t cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else’s cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease.



_________________
People look at the possibilities, choose the one that most appeals to them, and then work backwards to justify the position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Health All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum