Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Health
Shaker

No link between passive smoking and cancer

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.
cyberman

Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer

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.
Derek

Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer

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.
Shaker

Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer

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?
Derek

Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer

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.
Shaker

Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer

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.
cyberman

Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer

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....
genghiscant

Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer

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.
Rose

Re: No link between passive smoking and cancer

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
genghiscant

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.
Lexilogio

Interesting.

Couple of points:
- the study looked at only women. Disease pathways can vary between genders, so it would be interesting to see a corresponding male only study. (I haven't looked into this, so there may have already been such studies).

- as Genghis pointed out, the study concentrated only on lung cancer. The biggest danger from smoking is more the cardiovascular disease and COPD.

- I would, ideally, like to examine the methodology before drawing conclusions (inclusions / exclusions, sample locations, smoking habits of partners, length of smoking time etc)

But, it does imply that the risk is not as great as previously thought.

It seems a shame no one has done a study on long term bar workers?
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
It seems a shame no one has done a study on long term bar workers?

it would be interesting, but I suspect (on grounds based on personal experience) that the sample size would be pretty small as generally I think there are very few bar workers who stay in that line of work for a very significant length of time - year after year after year, I mean: it tends to be far more of a short-term occupation.

I suppose what you could look at is those pub landlords/ladies who have been in the business for a very long time, i.e. well before the ban came in and therefore well used to the days of smoky old pubs (which I certainly remember). It might suffer from the same methodological flaw though - how many people keep a pub for decades?
Rose

Years ago    pubs used to come with a lounge ( if you wanted to be posh) a workers bar ( if you were wearing very casual or work clothes) and a jug( where all the old boys and their sheep dogs used to sit).

I always think it is a shame they have all gone down the route of having one big bar.

Smokers could have always gone in their own room instead of trying to shelter in the doorway out of the rain!

Julie
Ketty

Lexilogio wrote:
It seems a shame no one has done a study on long term bar workers?


It's only one chap, but Roy Castle put his own lung cancer down to year's of inhaling second hand smoke.  The fact he was a trumpet player meant he was taking perhaps deeper breaths than the general population.
Rose

This one seems to be on the improvements felt since bar staff don't have to work in smoky conditions.

http://www.cieh.org/uploadedFiles...aces/impact_of_NI_smoking_ban.pdf

Julie
Rose

Quote:
SCOTH concluded that the increased risk of contracting lung cancer for those exposed to SHS was 24% and for heart disease was 25%.

Even if these numbers are accepted, they are utterly trivial compared to the risks we are willing to accept – or expose others to - in many other areas of our lives.

For example, according to Cancer Research UK, the increased risk of contracting lung cancer if you work in a profession that regularly exposes you to diesel fumes is 47% - twice that of exposure to SHS assumed in SCOTH.

Those living in areas with high levels of nitrogen oxide (usually caused by vehicle emissions) have an increased chance of about 33% of contracting lung cancer.

Workers in the ship-building or construction industry have been estimated to have an increased chance of contracting lung cancer of up to 50% - twice that assumed for workers exposed to SHS by SCOTH.

One study even suggests that women who don’t smoke, but have a wood-burning fire at home, may have an increased risk of lung disease in excess of 300%.

A French study in 2003 suggested a typical barbecue in one’s garden releases the same number of dioxins that would be emitted from 220,000 cigarettes.

So, even if one accepts the SCOTH report’s numbers on the increased risk suffered by those working in smoke-filled pubs and clubs, these risks pale into utter insignificance compared to risks we readily and unquestionably accept elsewhere.

Furthermore, any presumed risk - to those working in environments with SHS - needs to be compared to the alternative. In a deteriorating economy, the alternative for many of those who no longer work in pubs and clubs is measurably less income as a result of unemployment.

http://www.amendthesmokingban.com/our_case/



I'm doomed then!

I don't smoke, but I do like a good barbecue!

From now on I shall have this picture of me covered in 220,000 cigarettes ..... Like one of those jokes about post it notelets........



Julie
bnabernard

 I've been using one of them electronic nicotine delivery devices for about a year now, yes an e-cigarette, the ward sister (or the one in charge whatever that is since they done away with matrons) unplugged me battery and said 'their' use was not allowed on the ward, despite me cardiologist and others telling me it was ok.
There's a brainwashing gone on that exceeds the reality/realities.

Fair anough using hospital lecy to charge up is a point but same goes for mobiles and when it comes to donating for leccy then I is up for it.

bernie (hug)
Ketty

I think your consultant and 'er in charge need to have a discussion.

Hope you're okay Bernie.  
MikeRan

It has never been established that Roy Castle's lung cancer was related to passive smoking although that is generally believed to be the cause.There is more than one type of lung cancer and we don't know which type Mr. Castle had.
Shaker

MikeRan wrote:
It has never been established that Roy Castle's lung cancer was related to passive smoking although that is generally believed to be the cause.


It's certainly the case that that's what Roy Castle himself believed, but I'm afraid I don't entirely trust the late Mr Castle's ability to draw accurate conclusions from dubious premisses. I am sorry he died prematurely. He was a superb musician and entertained many of my young hours on Record Breakers. But an oncologist and/or statistician and/or epidemiologist he was not.

Quote:
There is more than one type of lung cancer and we don't know which type Mr. Castle had.


First part absolutely true. Second part I've no idea - I don't know if Roy Castle's specific type of cancer was unknown.

The Lynda Bellingham thread, to which I last contributed earlier today, essentially states that cancer is a migraine-inducingly complicated family of various conditions which almost never admits of the simple, straightforward, easy answers that people want.

Sorry, it's not like that. People who've never smoked in their lives get lung cancer. People who've never touched a drop of alcohol get liver cirrhosis. People who smoke like a chimney live to extremely advanced ages and so do people who drink enormous quantities on a daily basis.

This ought to be telling you two things. One is that there is absolutely and certainly a statistically significant basis between smoking tobacco/heavy drinking/overeating/lack of exercise and premature death. The second is that there are a whole range of complicated lifestyle and genetic factors which override these factors.

What the Americans call the take-home message from all this is that the universe operates on certain laws which admit of random variations.
MikeRan

People who have never smoked in their life get a different type of cancer to smokers. There is also a similar cancer induced by inhaling toxic substances. Mesothelioma is one example but there are others.

Lung cancer is a common type of secondary cancer (which will no doubt have a name of its own, they all do), the primary being any one of many types.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Health
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum