Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
Link1 Page 9 (World Health Organisation)
" meta-analyses have been conducted in which the relative risk estimates from the individual studies are pooled together. These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding. The excess risk increases with increasing exposure. Furthermore, other published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace have found a statistically significant increase in risk of 12–19%. This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never-smokers"
I have tried to avoid the usual suspect sites, like ASH, Forest, or any government websites.
Link2 (BMJ, re Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)) "Conclusion
High overall exposure to passive smoking seems to be associated with a greater excess risk of CHD than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers, suggesting that the effects of passive smoking may have been underestimated in earlier studies.
Further prospective studies of the association between cotinine (or similar biomarkers) and risk of CHD will help to assess the effects of passive smoking on cardiovascular disease with greater precision. In the meantime, our results add to the weight of evidence suggesting that exposure to passive smoking is a public health hazard and should be minimised."
Link3 (BMJ re Mortality amongst "never smokers" living with smokers)
" Adults who had never smoked and who lived with smokers had about 15% higher mortality than never smokers living in a smoke-free household
This study strengthens the case for a causal association between secondhand smoke and mortality"
Link4 - Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis (University of Queensland, Department of Health)
"CONCLUSION: Exposure at work might contribute up to one fifth of all deaths from passive smoking in the general population aged 20-64 years, and up to half of such deaths among employees of the hospitality industry"
|
Campaigners make claims which appear as persuasive about global warming too. I'm far from convinced about that either.
Quote:
Passive smoking: is there convincing evidence that it's harmful?
Last year, the Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt declared that a ban on smoking in public places "will save thousands of lives". Official estimates assert that 12,000 people a year die in Britain from the effects of passive smoking. In Scotland, a ban on smoking in all public places began in March, following a lead set by the Irish government. The Welsh Assembly is preparing to follow suit. In England, smoking will be banned in pubs, clubs and restaurants from the summer of 2007.
But none of these restrictions is based on convincing proof that passive smoking kills. It is an assertion that owes a great deal to the sanctimonious superstition that there can be no smoke without death. Reputable scientists admit this. On Desert Island Discs in 2001, Sir Richard Doll, the man who proved the incontrovertible causal link between active smoking and lung cancer, said: "The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
|
The rest of the report from the Independent is
here.
Non-smokers die from cancer, including lung cancer. Whether this is due to passive smoking is far from proven. There are other factors.
---------- Post added at 18:17 ---------- Previous post was at 18:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004
I prefer to use my own judgement having seen my dad gasping for breath when he was struck down with emphysema, he smoked from the age of about 12, until about 12 months before he died but it was too late by then.
|
That's your choice. No one is saying that anyone
should smoke.