• 🔥 Light Up Your CigarPass Experience! 🔥

    Get the CigarPass web app up and running in under a minute!

    Dive in and unlock the full experience of the CigarPass community today!

    📱 Follow the simple steps to install the app and join the community on the go!

    📲 Get the App Now!

    Stay connected, share your passion, and never miss a puff! 💨

Ahh, those crazy Brits

mmburtch

Sleep deprived and cranky
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
4,882
Location
Denver, Colorado
[font="Arial][color="#333333"][font="Georgia][size="2"] [/size][/font][/color]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]LONDON — Second-hand smoke kills more than 600,000 people worldwide every year, according to a new study.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]In the first look at the global impact of second-hand smoking, researchers analyzed data from 2004 for 192 countries. They found 40 percent of children and more than 30 percent of non-smoking men and women regularly breathe in second-hand smoke.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Scientists then estimated that passive smoking causes about 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 deaths from lower respiratory disease, 36,900 deaths from asthma and 21,400 deaths from lung cancer a year.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Altogether, those account for about 1 percent of the world's deaths. The study was paid for by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and Bloomberg Philanthropies. It was published Friday in the British medical journal Lancet.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]"This helps us understand the real toll of tobacco," said Armando Peruga, a program manager at the World Health Organization's Tobacco-Free Initiative, who led the study. He said the approximately 603,000 deaths from second-hand smoking should be added to the 5.1 million deaths that smoking itself causes every year.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Peruga said WHO was particularly concerned about the 165,000 children who die of smoke-related respiratory infections, mostly in Southeast Asia and Africa.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]"The mix of infectious diseases and second-hand smoke is a deadly combination," Peruga said. Children whose parents smoke have a higher risk of sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections, pneumonia, bronchitis and asthma. Their lungs may also grow more slowly than kids whose parents don't smoke.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Second-hand smoke had its biggest impact on women, killing about 281,000. In many parts of the world, women are at least 50 percent more likely to be exposed to second-hand smoke than men.Peruga and colleagues found the highest numbers of people exposed to second-hand smokeare in Europe and Asia. The lowest rates of exposure were in the Americas, the Eastern Mediterranean and Africa.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]While many Western countries have introduced smoking bans in public places, experts said it would be difficult to legislate further.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]"I don't think it is likely we will see strong regulations reaching into homes," said Heather Wipfli of the Institute for Global Health at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who was not connected to the study. She said more public smoking bans and education might persuade people to quit smoking at home.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]In the U.K., the British Lung Foundation is petitioning the government to outlaw smoking in cars.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]Helena Shovelton, the foundation's chief executive, said smoking parents frequently underestimate the danger their habit is doing to their children.[/size][/font]

[font="Georgia][size="2"]"It's almost as if people are in denial," she said. "They absolutely would not do something dangerous like leaving their child in the middle of the road but somehow, smoking in front of them is fine."[/size][/font]
[font="Georgia] [/font][/color]

[/font]
[font="Arial]
[/font]
[font="Arial]Ahh.... More bad science. I [/font][color="#FF0000"]estimate
[font="Arial] that this will be used as evidence as if it were facts, not estimates. I'm really thankful on this day of thanksgiving to have been able as a tax payer to help fund this kind of valuable research.[/font]
 
It's sad when "studies" like these provide "estimates" that are taken as hard fact. Then policy makers who feel it's in the best interest of the public to impose restrictions based on garbage information.

Thanks for sharing.
 
A few months ago the government in the state that I live ( Victoria ) Passed a law that made it illegal to smoke in cars when a child under 16 was present ( which may no be a bad idea ).
Thats on top of no smoking in buildings, which includes cigar bars,and a local government Mayor in Melbourne wants to outlaw smoking in certain streets.
The Health Police ( QUIT ) want to ruin all of our lives. Next they will say scotch is bad and outlaw that too. :(
 
I have estimated that 85% of that is pure bunk. I would add the approximately 20% of what I don't believe when I read to that total as well. At least 50% of it sounds made up on the spot and reading bunk like this may cause paralysis of the brain. I think I recognize Mr. Peruga, as I also went to the Hollywood Upstairs Medical College. "Hi everybody!"
 
"Altogether, those account for about 1 percent of the world's deaths"

I can live with those odds. :)
 
Never mind all the contributing toxins in the same air that come from factories, vehicles, mining, refining, electricity generating plants, volcanoes, burning oil fields, and so on... It's the cigarette and cigar smoke killing everyone, not the heavy metal laced coal plant air..

Maybe smoking contributes, but they make it sound like it's the perfect scapegoat for every physical ailment on earth. Which it is.. The perfect scapegoat that is.

I did a study of my own. I estimate 99% of the crappy things about the air, water, and the stresses on nature come from the laziness or general disregard of the average person or worker combined with the total irresponsibility of greed and the world corporate machine in production.
 
Never mind all the contributing toxins in the same air that come from factories, vehicles, mining, refining, electricity generating plants, volcanoes, burning oil fields, and so on... It's the cigarette and cigar smoke killing everyone, not the heavy metal laced coal plant air..

Maybe smoking contributes, but they make it sound like it's the perfect scapegoat for every physical ailment on earth. Which it is.. The perfect scapegoat that is.

I did a study of my own. I estimate 99% of the crappy things about the air, water, and the stresses on nature come from the laziness or general disregard of the average person or worker combined with the total irresponsibility of greed and the world corporate machine in production.

You can't blame volcanoes! They're nature!
 
Never mind all the contributing toxins in the same air that come from factories, vehicles, mining, refining, electricity generating plants, volcanoes, burning oil fields, and so on... It's the cigarette and cigar smoke killing everyone, not the heavy metal laced coal plant air..

Maybe smoking contributes, but they make it sound like it's the perfect scapegoat for every physical ailment on earth. Which it is.. The perfect scapegoat that is.

I did a study of my own. I estimate 99% of the crappy things about the air, water, and the stresses on nature come from the laziness or general disregard of the average person or worker combined with the total irresponsibility of greed and the world corporate machine in production.


Could not agree more , government departments will do and say anything to keep us under their control.
 
How are they directly relating these deaths to second hand smoke?

Couldnt be all the pollution in the world, nah...

Get rid of tobacco, save the planet lol
 
Can anyone find a link to the actual study?

HERE is the link to the full article, although you need to register to get it. Not sure if it's simply a sign up deal or subscription.

Thanks. It's a free registration and you get access to the complete writeup with sources. Time to do some reading, since it looks like Nevada isn't going to pull out a win. :)
 
lol... No, I didn't! Thatcwas a great game.

The study wasn't that interesting. I couldn't follow their numbers or math, even though it's pretty simple. I'm guessing that they figure there's a percent of kids/adults are exposed to SHS and then say a percent of respitory, asthma, etc. deaths are directly attributable to SHS.
 
I have estimated that 85% of that is pure bunk. I would add the approximately 20% of what I don't believe when I read to that total as well. At least 50% of it sounds made up on the spot and reading bunk like this may cause paralysis of the brain. I think I recognize Mr. Peruga, as I also went to the Hollywood Upstairs Medical College. "Hi everybody!"

Hi Dr Clint.
 
The biggest issue I have with all these studies are the controls. Here is a link to a UC Berkeley prof lecture on someone who took a study finding carcinogens in pesticide treated foods, but did the controls with organic foods. It is amazing what doing controls does for your study and the conclusions you arrive at.
 
[quote name='Smokin'Sims' timestamp='1290961165' post='1009142']
The biggest issue I have with all these studies are the controls. Here is a link to a UC Berkeley prof lecture on someone who took a study finding carcinogens in pesticide treated foods, but did the controls with organic foods. It is amazing what doing controls does for your study and the conclusions you arrive at.
[/quote]

Oh absolutely yes. Since when can any science be relied upon when it is so easily influenced by those who support it financially, and since it can be so easily spun into whatever you want it to be, just like politics can be.

The scientific controls these days are A. in every experiment, money rules. B. whatever you are reading is most definitely skewed in some direction based on the personal whims of those involved.

Those are the scientific standard.

Has anyone done a study of how much money is poured into studies, and the percentage of that which is spent in order to establish a study so that any given faction can more easily accomplish their personal agenda?
"Scientific studies" must be a very high dollar business, I'm more curious about how much money is spent a year on establishing these studies you always hear about...
 
Top