Old News Re: Second Hand Smoking and a New Study,too…

[Guest]

Just found this old webpage by stumbling across the title of the article…
Woo wooo!

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

[El Jefe]

That was me…thought I was logged in!
Here’s the first article…

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200305\FOR20030516d.html

I smoke an occassional seegar…no inhaling and much better choice of aromas. I hate cheap cigars! Never had a Habana,though.

When I smoke It’s always outside or in a “smoking room” (not too many of those around here.) If others are around I ask If they mind and usually give them lots of space anyway…unless they light up, too!

A LITTLE OFF TOPIC…
I know some of you are “too young to smoke.”
I don’t advise starting using cigarettes or chewin’ 'baccy(I knew guys that did each.)
Chewing(and SPITTTING) is just NASTY! I’ve seen guys aciddentally drink from a can of spit. YUCK!
I remember going out with friends/family years ago and coming home smelling like an ashtray. Be it restaurant, bar, or church…

[Jazz]

I don’t smoke but it doesn’t bother me in the least if someone around me does. On occasion I enjoy the smell.

[cystic crypt]

1. “Forces” is funded entirely by the Tobacco Industry. This is a propaganda machine generated by the industry, run by people with the time and the money-motive to convince other people to kill themselves with smoking.
2. An unpublished study would have to be EXTREMELY good with high numbers and low “p” values in order to refute the British Medical Journal (IMO a better medical journal than The New England Journal of Medicine from a science perspective).
3. Too many other studies document that children of smokers have predisposition to allergies and asthma.

Forces tries to put out these kinds of “findings” all the time. They also use terrible logic to refute good science. I have tried to consider honestly what they have to say in the past, but it all flies in the face of everything else i have read and seen.

(of course this may appear incredibly biased as my father made their “jackass” page, however i had realized the “Forces” shortcomings long before this happened)

[El Jefe]

The results of the study seem to be a mixed bag. See the BJM editorial…

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1048

The fact that the study was authorized and sponsored by proponents of California Proposition 99(Anti-Smoking group)and then dropped because of the apparent survey outcome seems to balance the equation for me.

That’s akin to a district attorney gathering evidence that contradicts the outcome s/he wishes in a case. Then not turning the results of the investigation over to the defense attorney. The facts are hiden from the jury…

For a BJM overview and acces to a BJM abridged version of the survey, see…

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057?ijkey=b97477b07669c0f43c8888f729d87cbc49a54ab2&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha