Cigarette Butt-heads
- Thread starter MDindef
- Start date
Otter
Nothing to see here
Passive smoking risks in doubt, study says
Times OnLine ^ | 5/16/03 | Nigel Hawkes
INHALING other people’s tobacco smoke has no effect on heart disease or lung cancer risks, according to a new study.
The results cast doubt on moves to ban smoking in public places and suggest that much of the fuss about passive smoking may have been misplaced.
Two American scientists reviewed evidence from a long-term study in California that enrolled nearly 120,000 adults and monitored their health for nearly 40 years.
The study began in 1959, when the risks of smoking were less well understood.
James Enstrom, of the University of California in Los Angeles, and Geoffrey Kabat, of the University of New York, compared the risks of lung cancer and heart disease between non-smokers married to smokers, and non-smokers married to non-smokers.
They found no difference, suggesting that being married to a smoker and hence exposed to second-hand smoke on a daily basis did not increase the risk of either disease.
This conclusion is in conflict with many authoritative bodies, including the US Environmental Protection Agency and the American Heart Association. But the studies underlying those claims have long been disputed, for a number of reasons. People who say they are non-smokers may in fact be ex-smokers; the actual exposure to smoke is hard to measure; and negative studies — those that find no effect — often go unpublished.
When many studies are pooled to increase their statistical power, only the positive studies go into the pool and create a false impression. The results, say the authors, “do not support a causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect”.
The British Medical Journal said that Mr Enstrom had received funds from the tobacco industry for research because it was impossible to get the money from other sources. Mr Kabat said he had not received money from the industry until last year, when he conducted a review for a law firm that has several tobacco companies as clients. Both are lifelong non-smokers, the journal says.
Amanda Sandford, from the anti-smoking group Ash, said: “The authors appear to be deliberately downplaying the findings to suit their tobacco paymasters.”
The British Medical Association said that the study was flawed because it did not collect detailed data on passive smoking.
Tim Lord, the chief executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, said: “This is a large and very important study . . . taking the evidence as a whole, the inevitable conclusion is that claims made about the potentially harmful effects of passive smoking have indeed been overstated.”
Simon Clark, of the smokers’ lobbying group Forest, said: “We have consistently argued that the jury is still out on the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. This latest study proves our point.”
DEBATE
Should smoking restrictions be relaxed?
E-mail your views to debate@thetimes.co.uk
New York smokers take a defiant puff
THE medical study that suggests that passive smoking is harmless has come too late for the smokers of New York, who are used to being banished outside (Nicholas Wapshott and Sam Gustin write).
Terrell Miller, from Queens, who was smoking outside a bank at the bottom of Broadway, said: “I have an uncle who smokes; his wife didn’t. She is the one who died of lung cancer. Where does that leave us?” Barry Kelleher, 25, a stockbroker, does not believe the study. “It is no major thing to step outside and it should help me stop.”
Katharine Bollinger, from Connecticut, heard the report on the radio. “I thought, ‘See? It does you no harm’,” she said. “But don’t get me started. The whole thing makes me so grumpy.”
Al Francis, outside the Financial District Post Office, said: “It is not just the health, but the smell. In a restaurant if someone smokes it bothers me.”
Ray Rodriguez, 44, a recruiter, does not believe secondhand smoke causes illness unless “you are blowing smoke into someone’s face”.
Times OnLine ^ | 5/16/03 | Nigel Hawkes
INHALING other people’s tobacco smoke has no effect on heart disease or lung cancer risks, according to a new study.
The results cast doubt on moves to ban smoking in public places and suggest that much of the fuss about passive smoking may have been misplaced.
Two American scientists reviewed evidence from a long-term study in California that enrolled nearly 120,000 adults and monitored their health for nearly 40 years.
The study began in 1959, when the risks of smoking were less well understood.
James Enstrom, of the University of California in Los Angeles, and Geoffrey Kabat, of the University of New York, compared the risks of lung cancer and heart disease between non-smokers married to smokers, and non-smokers married to non-smokers.
They found no difference, suggesting that being married to a smoker and hence exposed to second-hand smoke on a daily basis did not increase the risk of either disease.
This conclusion is in conflict with many authoritative bodies, including the US Environmental Protection Agency and the American Heart Association. But the studies underlying those claims have long been disputed, for a number of reasons. People who say they are non-smokers may in fact be ex-smokers; the actual exposure to smoke is hard to measure; and negative studies — those that find no effect — often go unpublished.
When many studies are pooled to increase their statistical power, only the positive studies go into the pool and create a false impression. The results, say the authors, “do not support a causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect”.
The British Medical Journal said that Mr Enstrom had received funds from the tobacco industry for research because it was impossible to get the money from other sources. Mr Kabat said he had not received money from the industry until last year, when he conducted a review for a law firm that has several tobacco companies as clients. Both are lifelong non-smokers, the journal says.
Amanda Sandford, from the anti-smoking group Ash, said: “The authors appear to be deliberately downplaying the findings to suit their tobacco paymasters.”
The British Medical Association said that the study was flawed because it did not collect detailed data on passive smoking.
Tim Lord, the chief executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, said: “This is a large and very important study . . . taking the evidence as a whole, the inevitable conclusion is that claims made about the potentially harmful effects of passive smoking have indeed been overstated.”
Simon Clark, of the smokers’ lobbying group Forest, said: “We have consistently argued that the jury is still out on the effects of environmental tobacco smoke. This latest study proves our point.”
DEBATE
Should smoking restrictions be relaxed?
E-mail your views to debate@thetimes.co.uk
New York smokers take a defiant puff
THE medical study that suggests that passive smoking is harmless has come too late for the smokers of New York, who are used to being banished outside (Nicholas Wapshott and Sam Gustin write).
Terrell Miller, from Queens, who was smoking outside a bank at the bottom of Broadway, said: “I have an uncle who smokes; his wife didn’t. She is the one who died of lung cancer. Where does that leave us?” Barry Kelleher, 25, a stockbroker, does not believe the study. “It is no major thing to step outside and it should help me stop.”
Katharine Bollinger, from Connecticut, heard the report on the radio. “I thought, ‘See? It does you no harm’,” she said. “But don’t get me started. The whole thing makes me so grumpy.”
Al Francis, outside the Financial District Post Office, said: “It is not just the health, but the smell. In a restaurant if someone smokes it bothers me.”
Ray Rodriguez, 44, a recruiter, does not believe secondhand smoke causes illness unless “you are blowing smoke into someone’s face”.
This really BURNS me up...
Yes, I consider throwing cigarettes out the window littering.
And here's why: If you want to smoke and kill yourself, go right ahead, but keep the butts in your car! Most smokers don't want to dirty up their ashtrays with their used butts (they must be too lazy to clean them out), but they make no hesitation in throwing them out their windows and littering.
I say, if you want to smoke, go ahead, but deal with both your health being threatened and the litter that comes with it.
Yes, I consider throwing cigarettes out the window littering.
And here's why: If you want to smoke and kill yourself, go right ahead, but keep the butts in your car! Most smokers don't want to dirty up their ashtrays with their used butts (they must be too lazy to clean them out), but they make no hesitation in throwing them out their windows and littering.
I say, if you want to smoke, go ahead, but deal with both your health being threatened and the litter that comes with it.