More Second Hand Smoke Scare Tactics....

[The_Dude 1,142]

Danno, why not post the actual study results mentioned in the article? That would be substantive, the blog post you left instead is not.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, why not post the actual study results mentioned in the article? That would be substantive, the blog post you left instead is not.

As if you would accept the findings in any form the were presented.

[The_Dude 1,142]

As if you would accept the findings in any form the were presented.

If it was an "Official Government Report" published on Worldnetdaily, no, I wouldn't. But if it is actually serious research, yes, I would.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

More to the subject, remember when this report caused so much trouble?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official

By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

Action for Smoking and Health

Passive Smoking: History Repeats Itself [18 Oct '97] - British Medical Journal

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021128202555/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html

The studies are a crock of shyt either way. Designed to inflict government where it is not needed.

Government should either ban bad things or decide we can kill ourselves with them and leave them alone. Taxing bad things does not make them good, and why does government want to make income from something that is bad for us? Seems really hypocritical (See Scandals post above for definition) that the government makes more money off cigarettes than the tobacco companies do but say how bad it is for us. We do not need laws banning smoking in private businesses or workplaces...the free market will take care of that. IF we let it.