Second hand smoke may stink, but yet another study debunks the cancer issue

Courtesy of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute:
“A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.

“The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” said Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study at the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of
Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers, and the relationship for both current and former smokers depended on level of exposure. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive
smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk.

rest: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract

About these ads

6 responses to “Second hand smoke may stink, but yet another study debunks the cancer issue

  1. The pro-pot crowd will welcome this news, although they believe that smoking weed is not dangerous at all.
    Then again, many of them are rabidly anti-tobacco so they will not be happy.

  2. This is not about passive smoking per se (as you and others have emphasised). There are already over a hundred studies where, taken together, it is clear that SHS is as good as harmless, even beneficial. The SHS deception has already served its purpose and can now be carefully dropped. This is about bolstering old primary smoking propaganda. It is about trying to support the original claim than smoking is harmful as per 1950s Doll, using similar tactics.

    “Look, we are now telling the truth and being realistic about SHS, so trust us, we must be telling the truth about primary smoking”

    Richard Doll was the scientist, employed by an asbestos company to prove that asbestos was not dangerous to health, but he found that it was indeed dangerous. He is more famous for pioneering epidemiology research, carried out almost simultaneously with the asbestos study, that ‘proved beyond doubt’ that smoking was the cause of lung cancer, but it was allegedly a much greater risk than asbestos.

    Tobacco CONTROL know that only the gullible and those who are paid to believe are now the only people left who fully believe the SHS con and they have seen that the ‘smoking kills’ propaganda is now being seriously questioned.

    They know that the public are becoming aware, in greater numbers, that most cancers and other so-called smoking related illness are continuing to increase despite the reduction in smoking over recent decades. eg USA lung cancers increased by over 30% between 2000 and 2008 (ACS 2010) and 80% of new lung cancers are now being diagnosed in NON smokers (Dr L Eldridge etc. 2012) OR that heavier smoking nations have LESS cancers than those countries where the smoking prohibition agenda is the most advanced (Burden of cancer in Asia 2008) OR that there is less smoking in urban areas compared to rural areas (ALA 2012), but we have known for years that cancers are more prevalent in urban areas.

    Science can confuse the layman, but common sense is all that is needed to understand the implication of these facts.

    I’m sure you are aware that tobacco CONTROL, to put it mildly, are pretty devious – this new revelation about SHS harmlessness is no exception!

  3. This is not about passive smoking per se (as you and others have emphasised). There are already over a hundred studies where, taken together, it is clear that SHS is as good as harmless, even beneficial. The SHS deception has already served its purpose and can now be carefully dropped. This is about bolstering old primary smoking propaganda. It is about trying to support the original claim than smoking is harmful as per 1950s Doll, using similar tactics.

    “Look, we are now telling the truth and being realistic about SHS, so trust us, we must be telling the truth about primary smoking”

    Richard Doll was the scientist, employed by an asbestos company to prove that asbestos was not dangerous to health, but he found that it was indeed dangerous. He is more famous for pioneering epidemiology research, carried out almost simultaneously with the asbestos study, that ‘proved beyond doubt’ that smoking was the cause of lung cancer, and allegedly a much greater risk than asbestos.

    Tobacco CONTROL know that only the gullible and those who are paid to believe are now the only people left who fully believe the SHS con and they have seen that the ‘smoking kills’ propaganda is now being seriously questioned.

    They know that the public are becoming aware, in greater numbers, that most cancers and other so-called smoking related illness are continuing to increase despite the reduction in smoking over recent decades. eg USA lung cancers increased by over 30% between 2000 and 2008 (ACS 2010) and 80% of new lung cancers are now being diagnosed in NON smokers (Dr L Eldridge etc. 2012) OR that heavier smoking nations have LESS cancers than those countries where the smoking prohibition agenda is the most advanced (Burden of cancer in Asia 2008) OR that there is less smoking in urban areas compared to rural areas (ALA 2012), but we have known for years that cancers are more prevalent in urban areas.

    Science can confuse the layman, but common sense is all that is needed to understand the implication of these facts.

    I’m sure you are aware that tobacco CONTROL, to put it mildly, are pretty devious – this new revelation about SHS harmlessness is no exception!

  4. They could never have established a strong correlation with first hand smoke if second hand smoke were as strongly correlated as the claim (nearly equally). You didn’t so much as attend a college class or any party or even go to work without significant second hand smoke exposure in the 60s and 70s.

  5. Living with a smoker (or several) turns out to be far less dangerous than riding with a drunk driver.

  6. I don’t like SHS and don’t let people to smoke in my house. I have no fear of it’s health effects. It just smells bad.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s