| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front | |
| Study Disputes Secondhand-Smoke Risks, Prompting Furor | |
| 2003-05-16 | |
| Playboy was all over this about 2 years ago. Anyone who reads Playboy for the articles --like moi-- will have been privy to the junk science and statistic fudging that led to the Draconian anti-smoking movement in the US and other countries. For those who haven't: A new report suggests that secondhand smoke does not cause health problems for nonsmokers, but the study prompted an immediate backlash from critics who called it biased and inaccurate. The Los Angeles Times reported May 16 that the study led by a UCLA epidemiologist concluded that secondhand smoke does not up the risk for lung cancer and heart disease. Researchers James Enstrom and co-author Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York at Stony Brook looked at data on more than 35,000 California residents who had enrolled in a 1959 cancer-prevention study who did not smoke, but who had spouses who did. The researchers found no significant increase in the death rate from heart disease, lung cancer, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, all linked to smoking. Of course, since some of the funding for this study came from the tobacco industry, the science behind the study HAS to be faulty... But critics sharply challenged the findings, noting that the research was partially underwritten by the tobacco industry. "We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems it literally failed to get a government grant," said Michael Thun, national vice president of the American Cancer Society. "This study is neither reliable nor independent." Researchers questioned the study's methodology, saying it failed to take into account the fact that all study participants would have been exposed to secondhand smoke in public places during the early years of the study, which would have blurred the impact of smoking at home. Also, they said data on the spouses' smoking was incomplete, since it wasn't collected comprehensively until 1972. Of course, none of these critics were around when the EPA and the WHO combined studies, fudged numbers, and out and out lied to get the second-hand smoke numbers they needed to start the tempest in a teapot. The study contradicts other recent reports, notably by the World Health Organization, that found a link between secondhand smoke and health problems. The study was published in the May 17 issue of the British Medical Journal.
| |
| Posted by:Celissa (as seen on my blog) |
| #12 Everyone knows this blog has a focus. Yes it does, and it's spelled at the top, where it says "Civil, well-reasoned discourse". It doesn't say anywhere that the focus is solely terrorism, or WMDs, or any one particular place in the world exclusively. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-05-16 19:59:13 |
| #11 I say: all things in moderation, including moderation. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-05-16 14:26:33 |
| #10 And how about the europeans, going on and on about GM foods, when they all smoke?? How can we take them on if we have to avoid saying how dangerous and unhealthy smoking is? Ugh... jarring non sequiturs on a Friday. 1. We do say smoking is dangerous and unhealthy (gawd help us, we never stop). The study disputes the dire presumptions about the effects of second-hand smoke. 2. We can point to bovine spongiform encephalopathy if we need some evidence of eurobungling in food management. 3. We can challenge them to prove a single detriment to GM foods, rather than allowing them to challenge us to prove a negative. 4. Our tobacco products are not genetically modified. 5. We can point out that Europeans are genetically modified apes, through the old-fashioned process of natural selection (rather than more progressive gene-splicing), as originally theorized by Darwin and Mendel, themselves Europeans. They're all in it together, they all have bad teeth and haircuts, and they all wear ridiculous neckties. There's plenty of analogous ammo without banning outdoor smoking within 150 feet of children's playgrounds, which they are in fact doing in Kalifornia, if that helps your cause. Meanwhile, back in Peshawar.... |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-05-16 14:11:16 |
| #9 "Normally, I'd dump this, but I smoke. They'll pry my pipe from between my cold, dead, stained fingers, by Gawd. " Well my dad smoked, and he died (at 72) of heart disease. My mom didnt smoke, she died of cancer that apparently started in the lungs, at age 66. Maybe it wasnt second-hand smoke, but Id say that the second hand smoke issue is worth discussing in a place where it can get serious attention, not a place devoted to other things. And how about the europeans, going on and on about GM foods, when they all smoke?? How can we take them on if we have to avoid saying how dangerous and unhealthy smoking is? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-16 13:38:58 |
| #8 Not until every American is wearing a seat belt and motorcycle helmet in a non-smoking restaurant while eating low fat, low cal, and sodium free tofu and drinking mineral water can they rest. With safer Kalashnikovs, and safer bullets. The Wellness Taliban is SO alive and... well. |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-05-16 13:35:46 |
| #7 Actually, Dar, I believe that very low cholesterol levels are now associated with increased risk of stroke, so there's a chance that natural selection will weed out some of the folks who have your dander up. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-05-16 13:33:30 |
| #6 "Be careful of repressing Celissa's First Amendment rights.... " Im not repressing anybodys rights, just asking a question. Youre sounding alot like Tim Robbins and the Dixie Chicks. I dont dispute its news. I posted something about clean-up in the Chesapeake Bay last week and it got deleted. Can i post the latest Dow Jones quotes here? Or the weather? Everyone knows this blog has a focus. Regarding studies - despite accusations, its generally quite accepted that coffee is safe, and that alcohol can be beneficial (for most people) in moderation. For tobacco - this is just one study - i wouldnt go ranting and raving about it. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-16 13:33:01 |
| #5 If somebody did a totally independent study tomorrow and found out that secondhand smoke cured cancer, the bans still wouldn't lifted. We know what's best for you and don't you forget it! |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-05-16 13:20:57 |
| #4 No, this simply won't do. The Movement to Make Americans Safe at All Costs, Including Libery(TM) won't stand for this. Not until every American is wearing a seat belt and motorcycle helmet in a non-smoking restaurant while eating low fat, low cal, and sodium free tofu and drinking mineral water can they rest. Only Oreo smugglers from Mexico will be able to smoke between runs across the border. |
| Posted by: Dar 2003-05-16 13:02:02 |
| #3 A pack of American smokes can probably get you a Kalashnikov in Peshawar, and is arguably more conducive to a healthy environment (at least in that neighborhood). Suppression of scientific data is news. So is cooking stats to get a foregone, politically correct conclusion. Be careful of repressing Celissa's First Amendment rights.... |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-05-16 12:56:48 |
| #2 I thought it was intersting, hawk. You didn't have to read it. |
| Posted by: Celissa 2003-05-16 12:31:51 |
| #1 this has what to do with the price of kalishnikovs in Peshawar? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-05-16 12:21:37 |