Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (20105)	4/11/1998 7:30:00 PM
From: Intrepid1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, here is the original article on Passive Smoking published in the Daily Telegraph on March 8, 1998. There is a huge cover-up being undertaken by the anti-smoking Nazis...............Now the World Health Organization has egg all over its face....hahahahahahahahaha BTW, I used PureSearch to find it. International News Electronic Telegraph Sunday 8 March 1998 Issue 1017 Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent External Links Smoking and Cancer - CancerNet THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set. The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs. A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants. The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking. c Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1998. Terms & Conditions of reading. Information about Telegraph Group Limited and Electronic Telegraph. "Electronic Telegraph" and "The Daily Telegraph" are trademarks of Telegraph Group Limited. These marks may not be copied or used without permission. Information for webmasters linking to Electronic Telegraph. Email Electronic Telegraph.

To: greenspirit who wrote (20105)	4/11/1998 11:20:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, I would need to read the study, and some opinions from credible research doctors, before I decide if it has much merit, or is accurate at all. However, there is a difference between these two statements: <that the dangers of second hand smoke are statistically insignificant?> <I nor IBD ever said the study reported NO health problems.> Obviously, statistically insignificant dangers are great if you are part of the population that isn't harmed by them. However, if you are one of those harmed, or someone in your family is, it is no longer insignificant to you!!

To: greenspirit who wrote (20105)	4/13/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: Tinman	Respond to of 108807

Michael: I don't really want to split hairs here, but I don't think the study said that "the dangers of second hand smoke are statistically insignificant", rather only that the dangers found in their particular study could not be considered statistically significant, due to the parameters of their study. This is not particularly remarkable, and does not contradict any other studies. It merely reflects on the integrity of the people who conducted and published the study. This is in marked contrast to those who seize on a statement, out of its full context, and use it to promote a particular agenda. I don't think either wing of any particular bird (flightless or otherwise) has a monopoly on this kind of dishonesty, but it behooves all of us to keep our chosen sources of info diverse and our minds open. "You'll get over it" was just a smart-ass remark for which I apologize. Didn't mean to imply that you were unclean. Cheers, Tinman