Up in smoke

1

Neil,

Glasgow 29/06/2008 13:21:36

Certainly there is political pressure to talk up every conceivable threat. There is no statisticaly reliable evidence that passive smoking kills - that was merely drummed up to give politicians something to ban.

Report Unsuitable

2

Colin, Glasgow,

29/06/2008 21:09:27

#1 And yet passive smoking poses more risk than a serious radiation incident such as Chernobyl. Deduce from that what you will.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/7/49

I think the risk from active smoking is decidedly more certain. It poses a mortality risk of about 50% (similar to being exposed to the radiation from 3 or 4 Hiroshima bombs). It is survivable but perhaps worth avoiding.

The reason why some smokers live to a ripe old age is because the causes of cancer are random monoclonal incidents. The more damage-events your cells are exposed to, the more chance of an irreparable and malignant event occurring. It is a matter of luck. But there is on average something like a 50% chance that smoking will kill you.

Report Unsuitable

3

mandyv,

cambs 30/06/2008 00:23:40

Just name one illness non-smokers do not get, that smokers do? not who get what %.
Even Micheal Siegel the antis once upon a time hero, want the antis to stop giving out misinformation.

I would like to know, if this man is sane or not. Remember the last smoke-hating fanatic? and the following of the brainwashed.
"Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf.PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF

freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike.
Prohibition did not work the first time around, it will not work again

Report Unsuitable

4

Spanners,

Channel Isles 30/06/2008 02:09:27

Colin in Glasgow, firstly you've the wrong end of the stick. The smoking ban is about 2nd hand smoke (not smoking) being a danger to non-smokers. It isn't. It is junk-science. The same junk-science behind the Govts CO2 climate and the WMD/Iraq dossier and 'Speed Kills' motoring campaign.

Secondly the risks of smoking are well documented but not as high as "50%" as a lifetime risk - 50% of what disease precisely Colin?

The oldest people in the world keep appearing to be smokers - Madame Jeane Claument lived to 121, the oldest person that ever lived who loved red wine, port and strong French cigarettes - so death (which kills non-smokers too!) comes in many ways to us all.

In PM McMillans' days it was reckoned smoking could reduce life expectancy from 78 to 77 (ie. just over 1% reduction in life expetancy). Lung cancer has more to do with your genetics and where you live (ie. location) than if you smoke or not. Do we ban living in parts of Scotland and the Midlands or being born to high-risk parents??

The smoking ban is a sham and a health fraud quite frankly. Ditto climate change who's advocates (the UN IPCC and Al Gore got Nobels). And the Iraq War (the JC of Staff got promoted by Blair for producing a dossier of cut-and-paste untruths and lies).

In short all this Govts crusades have been under tha banner of carrying flags for 'Junk Science' waving in the wind. Not surprised Laour can't mount anough to save even its deposit at a by-election. Nobody believes these losers have any integrity or credability left.

Report Unsuitable

5

Spanners,

Channel Isles 30/06/2008 02:10:09

Colin in Glasgow, firstly you've the wrong end of the stick. The smoking ban is about 2nd hand smoke (not smoking) being a danger to non-smokers. It isn't. It is junk-science. The same junk-science behind the Govts CO2 climate and the WMD/Iraq dossier and 'Speed Kills' motoring campaign.

Secondly the risks of smoking are well documented but not as high as "50%" as a lifetime risk - 50% of what disease precisely Colin?

The oldest people in the world keep appearing to be smokers - Madame Jeane Claument lived to 121, the oldest person that ever lived who loved red wine, port and strong French cigarettes - so death (which kills non-smokers too!) comes in many ways to us all.

In PM McMillans' days it was reckoned smoking could reduce life expectancy from 78 to 77 (ie. just over 1% reduction in life expetancy). Lung cancer has more to do with your genetics and where you live (ie. location) than if you smoke or not. Do we ban living in parts of Scotland and the Midlands or being born to high-risk parents??

The smoking ban is a sham and a health fraud quite frankly. Ditto climate change who's advocates (the UN IPCC and Al Gore got Nobels). And the Iraq War (the JC of Staff got promoted by Blair for producing a dossier of cut-and-paste untruths and lies).

In short all this Govts crusades have been under tha banner of carrying flags for 'Junk Science' waving in the wind. Not surprised Laour can't mount anough to save even its deposit at a by-election. Nobody believes these losers have any integrity or credability left.

Report Unsuitable

6

Spanners,

Channel Isles 30/06/2008 02:10:18

Colin in Glasgow, firstly you've the wrong end of the stick. The smoking ban is about 2nd hand smoke (not smoking) being a danger to non-smokers. It isn't. It is junk-science. The same junk-science behind the Govts CO2 climate and the WMD/Iraq dossier and 'Speed Kills' motoring campaign.

Secondly the risks of smoking are well documented but not as high as "50%" as a lifetime risk - 50% of what disease precisely Colin?

The oldest people in the world keep appearing to be smokers - Madame Jeane Claument lived to 121, the oldest person that ever lived who loved red wine, port and strong French cigarettes - so death (which kills non-smokers too!) comes in many ways to us all.

In PM McMillans' days it was reckoned smoking could reduce life expectancy from 78 to 77 (ie. just over 1% reduction in life expetancy). Lung cancer has more to do with your genetics and where you live (ie. location) than if you smoke or not. Do we ban living in parts of Scotland and the Midlands or being born to high-risk parents??

The smoking ban is a sham and a health fraud quite frankly. Ditto climate change who's advocates (the UN IPCC and Al Gore got Nobels). And the Iraq War (the JC of Staff got promoted by Blair for producing a dossier of cut-and-paste untruths and lies).

In short all this Govts crusades have been under tha banner of carrying flags for 'Junk Science' waving in the wind. Not surprised Laour can't mount anough to save even its deposit at a by-election. Nobody believes these losers have any integrity or credability left.

Report Unsuitable

7

Spanners,

Channel Isles 30/06/2008 02:20:31

Sorry for my 2 'extra' posts,said there was an error on page! Ed. pls remove if u can. Thanks :)

Report Unsuitable

8

Colin, Glasgow,

30/06/2008 09:48:03

Spanners #4, I’m basically acknowledging that it is virtually impossible to produce conclusive evidence of the sort of low risk that would be associated with passive smoking. That is why I compared it to low level radiation. There is an assumption that low level exposure will have an effect in proportion to high level exposure.

I also acknowledge your point about the risks from living in particular areas. After smoking, the biggest risk of lung cancer comes from radon gas i.e. natural background radiation. We don’t stop people living in Aberdeen or Cornwall despite the higher radon risk. But it is a higher stistical risk than passive smoking.

Regarding the risk from active smoking, I think the risk is 50% (from all causes). i.e. “about half of all regular cigarette smokers will eventually be killed by their habit”

http://www.heartstats.org/datapage.asp?id=3849

But of course, this means half won’t be killed from smoking. It is statistically perfectly understandable that some heavy smokers will survive to live a long life.

In fact it may be that the people who are resistant to death in general are also resistant to the effects of smoking. For example if they have a high level of antioxidants or have better cell-repair mechanisms for some reason. On the other hand, it might just be luck.

Given that high levels of smoke pose a risk, I would be genuinely interested to hear if you have any suggestions as to why low levels of the same smoke (i.e. passive smoking) would not present any risk.

Report Unsuitable

9

Spanners,

Channel Isles 30/06/2008 14:56:34

Colin, the 2 largest studies into passive smoking, the UN's World Health Org (WHO) study and the longest study ever conducted, the LA Uni study that ttook 35 years to correlate, looked at the short/medium/long term impacts of passive smoking and found no risk.

You ask why? I can only speculate that our airways, like all animals, have protective/defensive filtering and blocking systems. Humans have spent 99,800yrs of our existence huddled around and cooking over smokey fires and only the past 200yrs with electric and gas fires. Humans have developed defences for smoke.

Similarly direct smoke inhalation does clog the lungs with some nasty substances but that doesn't stop my body from being healthy (I'm 44, have smoked since I was 7 or 13 more full-on and have not suffered any sympton of smoking to date - still play sport and am fit).

You're quite right smoking carries higher risks but we're talking about margins. I've seen a European stomach cancer study of 380,000 people where your risk is 1 in 180,000 as a non-smoker and 1 in 40,000 as a smoker. Namely smoking increases the risk 4 times but as you know a 1 in 40,000 chance is statistically irrelevant in itself.

The anti-smokers case is based on extrapolating the extremist exception to make the rule. You really do need an electron microscope to see their point! It certainly doesn't justify the State dictating what people and Pubs and Clubs should and shouldn't do. Air quality is already regulated and a smokey room does not breech any Health or Safety concerns and presents no threat whatsoever to non-smokers. Period.

Report Unsuitable