Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Environmental tobacco smoke

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:00 PM
Original message
Environmental tobacco smoke
Abstract

Objective: To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

Design Prospective: cohort study covering 39 years.
Non-smoking spouses of smokers

Setting: Adult population of California, United States.

Conclusion:

The results of the California CPS I cohort do not support a causal relation between exposure to environental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect.

Given the limitations of the underlying data in this and the other studies of environmental tobacco smoke and the small size of the risk, it seems premature to conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes death from coronary heart disease and lung cancer.

Science, not hysterics.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/10...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Odd that they forgot to mention what it does to asthmatics.
Set fire to those things outside, willya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. They were studying the link to heart disease & lung cancer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. They didn't mention dwarves or hobbits either... Wait a minute...
BILBO, YOU BASTARD! Get that pipe outta my house!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. I know full well what it does to my feline asthma patients. Oh, and BTW,
it has been conclusively implicated in feline intestinal lymphoma and feline renal lymphoma.

That would be SECONDHAND smoke. 'Cause the kitties ain't doin' any firsthand smoking (it's that opposable thumb thing, you know).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I beg to differ... Smoking Cats are rampant...






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. ROFLMAO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Shhhh.... We must be serious to assure the venom continues. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
survivor999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. For those serious about this.
LONG list of serious rebuttals.

HERE: -----> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057

Rapid Responses published:

Need for clarification on competing interest
Martin McKee (15 May 2003)

Flawed study from the outset
Jayant S Vaidya (16 May 2003)

Risks for passive smoking are likely to be underestimated.
Trevor LP Watts (16 May 2003)

Re: Second-hand smokescreens
Brian David Porter, Healthy Communities, LN5 7JH (16 May 2003)

Irresponsible journalism
Dominic C Horne (16 May 2003)

Agreeing the limits of conflict of interest
richard horton (17 May 2003)

Editorial responsibility to publish sound science
Trish A Fraser (17 May 2003)

Evidence Based Medicine?
Stephen Novick (17 May 2003)

The letter BMJ failed to write
Pascal A. Diethelm (17 May 2003)

ETS - Interpretation of the wider evidence
Julia A Critchley (17 May 2003)

Seondhand Smoke Study is Seriously Flawed
Marty Eckrem (17 May 2003)

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics
Richard EK Russell (17 May 2003)

Timing of publication
Jephat Chifamba (17 May 2003)

Irresponsible public health message
Sabina Fatima Hussain (17 May 2003)

Give them enough rope
Daniel F. Hass (17 May 2003)

Re: Irresponsible journalism
Ellen C G Grant (17 May 2003)

what does this add?
Paul M Jones (17 May 2003)

Swimming with sharks
Paul S McDonald (17 May 2003)

Unproven health impact of environmental smoke: A study with low statistical power
Parthasarathy K S (17 May 2003)

Biggest impact on developing countries
Judith M Mackay (17 May 2003)

some thoughts
martin heilweil, PhD (17 May 2003)

Study Objective Flawed--Fatally
Stephen J. Jay (17 May 2003)

Re: Need for clarification on competing interest
Geoffrey C Kabat (17 May 2003)

Nothing new from the antismoking front
Wiel M Maessen (17 May 2003)

Re: Agreeing the limits of conflict of interest
Clive D Bates (17 May 2003)

Reply to Bates
Tony Delamothe (17 May 2003)

From hero to pariah in one easy jump
Richard Smith (18 May 2003)

Children are not exposed to parental smoke??!!
Andrew J Fall (18 May 2003)

What in the world were you thinking?
Sera Kirk (18 May 2003)

Re: Nothing new from the antismoking front
David F. Copeland (18 May 2003)

FINALLY !! Truth Comes Out of the Closet.
Stephen Hartwell (18 May 2003)

Funding by EPA,, CDC, WHO equally "tainted"
Natalie P.R. Sirkin (18 May 2003)

When conflict of interest becomes unacceptable
Deborah Arnott (18 May 2003)

Did non-smokers REALLY avoid
Simon Chapman (18 May 2003)

Whither epidemiologic reporting?
Gio B. Gori (18 May 2003)

Consistency - science for sale?
John R. Polito (18 May 2003)

Tobacco Toxicity
Ken B. Jones (18 May 2003)

BMJ-comic or respectable journal?
Raj Thakkar (18 May 2003)

WHAT THE HELL HAVE THESE PEOPLE BEEN SMOKIN'?
Errol E. POVAH (19 May 2003)

4 Questions, 2 comments
tOM Trottier, None (19 May 2003)

RESPONSE TO PAPER ON PASSIVE SMOKING
Christopher W IDE (19 May 2003)

A "passive smoke" observation
Robert I. Rudolph, M.D., FACP (19 May 2003)

Remember "Frank Statement to Smokers"?
Joanne L. Addison (19 May 2003)

Bully for the BMJ
Bryce C. Peterson, M.D. (19 May 2003)

Six Key Issues
Ronald M. Davis (19 May 2003)

The bottom line
Andrew S Furber (19 May 2003)

What killer? Lets call things with their name.
Gian L. Turci (19 May 2003)

environmental tobacco smoke paper requires further benefits from critical appraisal
Rosemary Fox, Gwendolyn L. Lowe, Hugo van Woerden (19 May 2003)

BMJ, Impact Factor and Irresponsible Journalism: A 'nasty' nexus?
Zubair Kabir (19 May 2003)

Adequacy of age-adjustment?
Eugene Milne (19 May 2003)

Response to Simon Chapman
Michael J Thun (19 May 2003)

Why The Double Standard?
Dave Hitt (19 May 2003)

Pots calling kettles black
GH Hall (19 May 2003)

SARS causes no harm
Jonathan P. Krueger (20 May 2003)

Reply to ASH - please be more careful in future
James A Delphi (20 May 2003)

Inverse effect can be explained
Wiel Maessen (20 May 2003)

Freedom
Crystal L Pherson (20 May 2003)

A very interesting coincidence
ELIF DAGLI (20 May 2003)

Confirmation: Secondhand smoke does cause respiratory disease
Anthony J Hedley, Tai-Hing Lam, Sarah M. McGhee, Gabriel M. Leung, and Megan Pow (20 May 2003)

Re: Adequacy of age-adjustment - a hypothesis
Eugene Milne (20 May 2003)

BMA Turns Tabloid
Dale Jackaman (20 May 2003)

California-smoky offices, windows open at home most of the year ....
HS Roberts (20 May 2003)

Re: Re: Nothing new from the antismoking front
Wiel M Maessen (20 May 2003)

Another "competing interest" of James Enstrom
Robert S. Broughton (20 May 2003)

More details on competing interests
Martin McKee, Pascal Diethelm (20 May 2003)

Tobacco cartel wants to create a "controversy"
Joseph Cherner (20 May 2003)

An American Cancer Society Perspective
Michael J. Thun (20 May 2003)

Defining a set of difficult issues
richard horton (20 May 2003)

Science as PR
Gene Borio (20 May 2003)

Read peer review comments
Kamran Abbasi (20 May 2003)

The Correlation of Smoking and Deep Breathing
Bernard X. Bovasso, none (21 May 2003)

Reviewers' comments
Martin McKee (21 May 2003)

Apology Requested
William T Godshall (21 May 2003)

Jumping out of a 3rd storey window "may not kill" either...
Peter J Flegg (21 May 2003)

Re: Read peer review comments
Kamran Abbasi (21 May 2003)

Re: Defining a set of difficult issues
Zubair Kabir (21 May 2003)

Old habits new diseases?
Teresa Ramos (22 May 2003)

Re: Science as PR....Bravo, Gene!
Errol E. POVAH (22 May 2003)

Re: Inverse effect can be explained
Adam Jacobs (22 May 2003)

Why am I dying from lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke?
Heather S. Crowe (22 May 2003)

Flawed Study on Passive Smoking
Michael J. Martin (22 May 2003)

PUT YOUR LUNGS WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS
Emanuel Goldman (22 May 2003)

Re: Why The Double Standard?
M. L. Herrin (22 May 2003)

"Serious misclassification of exposure"
Pascal A. Diethelm (22 May 2003)

It's not always easy
James W Austin (22 May 2003)

Judging Research
freda lee nason (22 May 2003)

Re: Six Key Issues
Emma L Dickinson (23 May 2003)

Lost Credibility
Christopher Lovelidge, http://www.you-are-the-target.com / (23 May 2003)

Response to McKee and Diethelm
Geoffrey C Kabat (23 May 2003)

The 'overwhelming evidence' for the links between ETS and lung cancer and heart disease
Wiel M Maessen (23 May 2003)

Re: Why am I dying from lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke?
Wiel Maessen (23 May 2003)

Re: Judging Research
Nigel R Winterbottom (23 May 2003)

Re: Re: Inverse effect can be explained
Wiel M Maessen (23 May 2003)

What are the tobacco manufacturers saying?
Andrew S Furber (23 May 2003)

Response to James Austin
Simon Chapman (23 May 2003)

Smoke: Cancer ingredients or not
George F Sedlacek (24 May 2003)

The Confounding Urban Factor
David W. Kuneman (24 May 2003)

Misleading the public about secondhand smoke ... Again
Lisa A Bero, Michael Cummings, Stanton Glantz (24 May 2003)

Response to Simon Chapman
James W Austin (25 May 2003)

Re: Misleading the public about secondhand smoke ... Again
B.J. Allen (25 May 2003)

Wrong conclusion
William Carey (25 May 2003)

Do any of the "non-smokers" smoke?
John H. Glaser (26 May 2003)

Research Bias and Science
Michael J. McFadden (26 May 2003)

Re: Misleading the public about secondhand smoke ... Again
Wiel M Maessen (27 May 2003)

Re: Response to McKee and Diethelm
Malcolm X. McGarrity (27 May 2003)

Re: An American Cancer Society Perspective
Daniel Forrest (29 May 2003)

Re: Do any of the "non-smokers" smoke?
John H. Glaser (29 May 2003)

Re: Re: Re: Inverse effect can be explained
Adam Jacobs (29 May 2003)

Re: Defining a set of difficult issues
Beverly A. HARRIS (29 May 2003)

Cohort bias in the analysis of Californian passive smoking
Eugene Milne (29 May 2003)

Why the study?
Joshua E. Muscat (30 May 2003)

Passive smoking: Why all the fuss?
Jeffrey J Johnstone (30 May 2003)

Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer
Allan Hackshaw, Please see the end of the letter (30 May 2003)

CONTEXT & COMMON SENSE--or: "2nd-HAND POISON'S OK. REALLY!..."
Rick Bernardo (30 May 2003)

'Fac Ut Gaudeam' : By Dr Joseph Obi
Joseph .C. Obi (1 June 2003)

On the objectivism of science
Kurt J. Zuckermann (2 June 2003)

Re: On the objectivism of science
John H. Glaser (3 June 2003)

health as a confounding factor?
Elliot S Jerud (3 June 2003)

Anachronism
Matti A Keski-Korpela (4 June 2003)

Congratulations!
Ken S. Honbo (5 June 2003)

Article Response and Response to Comments
Scott J. Leischow (5 June 2003)

Lung Cancer Without Secondhand Smoke Exposure
Sheldon B. Ungar (5 June 2003)

Science: Talking the talk, or walking the walk?
Rick Bernardo (10 June 2003)

Editorial U-Turn on Secondhand Smoke "Controversy"?
Gene Gene (11 June 2003)

Re: Science: Talking the talk, or walking the walk?
Stuart Goldbarg (12 June 2003)

The anti-smokers lie about smoking and health
Carol AS Thompson (12 June 2003)

A final thought....
Michael J. McFadden (16 June 2003)

Publication in BMJ of Tobacco-funded "research"
Stan R Blecher (20 June 2003)

What do we learn from this research?
Ralf Krumkamp (21 June 2003)

Gori replies to Leishow about Enstrom, Kabat, and beyond
Gio B. Gori (25 June 2003)

Requesting Media Information from Interested Readers
Sheldon Ungar, Dennis Bray, Sociologist, GKSS Research Center (25 June 2003)

Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Disease: No Doubt Remains
Terry F. Pechacek, Stephen Babb (10 July 2003)

Tobacco : what about Belgium
Christophe De Brouwer, Raphael Lagasse. (11 July 2003)

The Case of the Footnote Wagging the Article
Phillip S. Gardiner, Charles L. Gruder, Francisco Buchting (19 August 2003)

Thank you
Mark W. Volovar (9 September 2003)

Second-Hand Smokescreen
Hugh McGrath Jr. (16 September 2003)

Family history?
yogi sehgal (25 September 2003)

Smoking and lung cancer: dose-response and combined exposure i.e. asbestos
John H. Lange (29 September 2003)

Re: Re: Re: Inverse effect can be explained
Wiel Maessen (30 November 2003)

Public Health Advocacy and its Five Ps
Niyi Awofeso (3 December 2003)

A question...
C.A. Caldwell (11 December 2003)

Re: A question...
Adam Jacobs (13 December 2003)

Re: Re: A question...
Pete Petrakis, Ph.D., M.P.H. (14 December 2003)

Re: Re: Re: A question...
Adam Jacobs (15 December 2003)

Re: Re: Re: Re: A question...
Pete Petrakis, Ph.D., M.P.H. (16 December 2003)

Re: Re: Re: Re: A question...
C.A. Caldwell (16 December 2003)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question...
Pete Petrakis, Ph.D., M.P.H. (17 December 2003)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question...
C.A. Caldwell (24 December 2003)

Re: Re: Re: Re: A question...
Wiel M Maessen (15 January 2004)

Re. Re. Re. Re.....
Gio B. Gori (21 January 2004)

Re: Why am I dying from lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke?
lynda duguay (3 July 2004)

A Sociological Study of the Responses to Enstrom & Kabat
Sheldon B. Ungar, Dennis Bray, GKSS, Geesthacht, Germany (17 December 2004)

Environmental tobacco smoke: formulating public health policy for environmental carcinogens
Morris Greenberg (30 August 2005)

Re: Six Key Issues
Belinda Cunnison (5 December 2005)

Updated Meta-Analysis on ETS and CHD Mortality in the US
James E Enstrom, Geoffrey C Kabat, New Rochelle, NY 10804 (24 January 2006)

Enstrom & Kabat's Exposure Assessment Flawed
James L. Repace (25 January 2006)

Re: Enstrom & Kabat's Exposure Assessment Flawed
Walt Cody (18 March 2006)

Is the goal of TC to reduce mortality, or to protect the consensus view
Kevin M. Mulvina (15 August 2006)

Professor Sir Richard Peto and the House of Lords
James E Enstrom (26 August 2006)

Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research
James E. Enstrom (27 September 2006)

Risk and Cotinine: A reply to Mr. Cody
James L. Repace (29 September 2006)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. Have to agree
My father, a non-smoker, lived with my mother, a smoker, for many many years. His autopsy after his death showed a cardiovascular system of a man twenty years younger.

Environmental tobacco smoke not doubt creates problems for some but it is also being used to obsfucate the other environmental dangers that are much more seriou. Among these are pesticides, neurotoxins in scented products, formaldehyde in just about everything etc.

Another problem is that there is lots of grant money for tobacco research and there is an expected outcome to much of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. In my family
we had my mother's side (8 kids, 2 parents) no smoking ever. My dad's mother smoked like the proverbial chimney as did my dad and his five siblings. We lived with my dad's family for at least 14 years. Of a cast of about 45 closely-related people, my mother was the one person who developed lung cancer. Both my grandmothers lived to be 90 and I have a couple of 95 year old aunts and cousins.


It's antedotal I know - but it also proves (to me) that we're being fed a lot of paid for 'facts' which are, as you said, tailored to fit the grant money.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Found a Swedish study
that examined the chemical bis chloromethyl ether (BCME)
This is a very toxic chemical that is created when chloride ions mix with formaldehyde in the air. It has one of the shortest latency periods for cancer. It is a problem and must be controlled in textile factories and fertilizer factories. Europe allow zero exposure for workers and the US allows one part per billion.
The researcher noted that the chemical can form and disappear and form again. It is difficult to read it in the environment for that reason. She warns of the potential for exposure to that chemical from many daily sources.

I posit that many women get lung cancer from this exposure. Formaldehyde is everywhere in the home and they are usually the ones using chlorine products in the home.

BCME causes small cell lung cancer.
Women usually get small cell lung cancer.

Just an idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. "It seems premature to conclude..."
Just smoke outside, please. Is it so hard? It works in most of this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC