Reply to: Why only smoking? Let's ban drinking in public places

[sasguru]

Well I have some experience in the epidemiological (study of the causes of diseases) area.

In the links above you can ignore the first 2 links. They have an axe to grind and make assertions without evidence.

Only the WHO link mentions meta analyses - which are studies of studies. These conclude that spouses of smokers face up to 30% increased risk (of what in particular?) after controlling for SOME confounding variables. And workers in smoky environments increased risks just under 20%. If true, the workers figure is hardly massive is it? I bet the risk of living in a city like London (car fumes, smog etc) is greater.

The whole issue has been blown up by the fascist anti-smoking industry. Why is the Japanese lung cancer rate a quarter of here, even though more people smoke there?

[zathras]

Actually no. Please point me to a scientific study that shows this. There is no doubt about the link between primary smoking and cancer, COPD, heart disease etc.
But passsive smoking, no.

Well you asked for it

http://www.greenfacts.org/tobacco/ca...-tobacco-1.htm

6.1. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for people who have never smoked but who have been exposed to tobacco smoke, e.g. spouses of smokers and non-smokers exposed at the workplace. However, the risk is much smaller than for active smokers. More...
.
.
.
6.3. Studies on laboratory animals support the evidence that passive smoking can cause cancer in humans and there is some data suggesting that dogs living in smoking households also have an increased risk for certain cancers.
.
.
.
7.1. Passive smoking can cause coronary heart disease and chronic respiratory symptoms. More...

7.2. Though passive smoking does not seem to affect body weight, fertility and age at menopause of women, the birth weight of babies born to passive smokers may be lower than those born to non-smokers. More...

7.3. Similar to active smokers, passive smokers have harmful substances and breakdown products of tobacco smoke in their body, which can cause cell damage and lung cancer. More...

7.4. Test animals exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke show a range of adverse effects, including DNA damage, altered metabolism, reduced birth weight, as well as diseases of the arteries and the respiratory system.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

How does this affect the passive smoker?

Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. [3]



In the longer term, passive smokers suffer an increased risk of a range of smoking-related diseases. Non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, have a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. [4] A major review by the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children. [5] A more recent review of the evidence by SCOTH found that the conclusions of its initial report still stand i.e. that there is a “causal effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on the risks of lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and a strong link to adverse effects in children”. [6] A review of the risks of cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) noted that “the evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers”. [7] A study published in the British Medical Journal suggests that previous studies of the effects of passive smoking on the risk of heart disease may have been under-estimated. The researchers found that blood cotinine levels among non-smokers were associated with a 50-60% increased risk of heart disease. [8]

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER

IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans

http://www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/indexes/vol83index.html

Involuntary (or passive) smoking is exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, which is a mixture of exhaled mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke released from the smouldering cigarette or other smoking device (cigar, pipe, bidi, etc.) and diluted with ambient air. Involuntary smoking involves inhaling carcinogens, as well as other toxic components, that are present in secondhand tobacco smoke. Secondhand tobacco smoke is sometimes referred to as ‘environmental’ tobacco smoke. Carcinogens that occur in secondhand tobacco smoke include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, benzo[a]pyrene, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and many others.

Secondhand tobacco smoke consists of a gas phase and a particulate phase; it changes during its dilution and distribution in the environment and upon ageing. The concentrations of respirable particles may be elevated substantially in enclosed spaces containing secondhand tobacco smoke. The composition of tobacco smoke inhaled involuntarily is variable quantitatively and depends on the smoking patterns of the smokers who are producing the smoke as well as the composition and design of the cigarettes or other smoking devices. The secondhand tobacco smoke produced by smoking cigarettes has been most intensively studied.

Secondhand tobacco smoke contains nicotine as well as carcinogens and toxins. Nicotine concentrations in the air in homes of smokers and in workplaces where smoking is permitted typically range on average from 2 to 10 micrograms/m3.

5.2 Human carcinogenicity data

Lung cancer

Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer. As noted in the previous IARC Monograph on tobacco smoking, this implies that there will be some risk of lung cancer from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

More than 50 studies of involuntary smoking and lung cancer risk in never-smokers, especially spouses of smokers, have been published during the last 25 years. These studies have been carried out in many countries. Most showed an increased risk, especially for persons with higher exposures. To evaluate the information collectively, in particular from those studies with a limited number of cases, meta-analyses have been conducted in which the relative risk estimates from the individual studies are pooled together. These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding. The excess risk increases with increasing exposure. Furthermore, other published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace have found a statistically significant increase in risk of 12–19%. This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never-smokers. The magnitudes of the observed risks are reasonably consistent with predictions based on studies of active smoking in many populations.

Breast cancer

The collective evidence on breast cancer risk associated with involuntary exposure of never-smokers to tobacco smoke is inconsistent. Although four of the 10 case–control studies found statistically significant increases in risks, prospective cohort studies as a whole and, particularly, the two large cohort studies in the USA of nurses and of volunteers in the Cancer Prevention Study II provided no support for a causal relation between involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and breast cancer in never-smokers. The lack of a positive dose–response also argues against a causal interpretation of these findings. Finally, the lack of an association of breast cancer with active smoking weighs heavily against the possibility that involuntary smoking increases the risk for breast cancer, as no data are available to establish that different mechanisms of carcinogenic action operate at the different dose levels of active and of involuntary smoking.

[sasguru]

Well, several studies have pretty much conclusively explained the link between secondary smoking and cancer.... or related respitory diseases.

Actually no. Please point me to a scientific study that shows this. There is no doubt about the link between primary smoking and cancer, COPD, heart disease etc.
But passsive smoking, no.

[The Lone Gunman]

None smokers have a choice.
Whether they be bar staff or customers they can choose to drink or work in non smoking establishments, if there arent any then they are at liberty to open one.
By entering a smoking establishment they are making a choice and putting themselves in harms way much the same as the smoker.

The people who get beaten to death or assaulted by drunks have very rarely made a similar choice.

Check Mate.

[expat]

Timothy 5:23

Be no longer a drinker of water only, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities.

Sorry Alfie, the reason behind that was not a divine instruction to get drunk, but rather the antiseptic effects of alcohol.

[mcquiggd]

Well, several studies have pretty much conclusively explained the link between secondary smoking and cancer.... or related respitory diseases.

In my case its severe pancreatitis which will lead to a pretty rapid demise should it become full blown pancreatatic cancer - survival rates are negligible (in fact non existant - its just that old 5 year in remission figure thats quoted), and its usually from 2 weeks to 3 months before you are dead.

My family history is that men all smoked 40+ a day... on the female side of my family none of them smoked, and none of them have died of cancer. My great grandmother was 103 when she passed away. My dads brother comitted suicide with morphine after contracting bowel and spinal cancer.

Emphysemia and Throat Cancer are directly linked to smoking. I dont think weve even begun to establish just how badly it affects your body...

[OwlHoot]

No, a cigarette spends 95% of its time being flailed about by the 'owner', dripping out of their mouth, and left giving off its carconogenic gases on the edge of an ashtray. Actually smoking it and exhaling it is only a minor part of the trail of carnage smoking causes.

Just broke your serve, I guess...

And as I have early stages of cancer, my smoker father had a heart attack, my smoker uncle died from throat cancer, and my smoker grandad had bits of his body amputated over time to poor blood flow / emphysemia related to smoking, Im afraid youll really have to come up with a better arguement to convince me otherwise.

Sorry McQuiiggd, but you, or to be more precise your family genes, must be a throwback to c. 1,000,000 BC when humans first learned to make fire. After a over a million years hunched round smokey fires your ancestors and you really should have built up more resistance by now.

I firmly believe that young people, especially babies and infants, need to be exposed to _more_ smoke not less, and the current massive increase in asthma is due to coal fires and smokey chimneys no longer being around, and the current neurosis and hysteria concerning smoking will only make things worse!

[mcquiggd]

No, a cigarette spends 95% of its time being flailed about by the 'owner', dripping out of their mouth, and left giving off its carconogenic gases on the edge of an ashtray. Actually smoking it and exhaling it is only a minor part of the trail of carnage smoking causes.

Just broke your serve, I guess...

And as I have early stages of cancer, my smoker father had a heart attack, my smoker uncle died from throat cancer, and my smoker grandad had bits of his body amputated over time to poor blood flow / emphysemia related to smoking, Im afraid youll really have to come up with a better arguement to convince me otherwise.

[stackpole]

It is not the fault of the beer that the person who drinks it cannot do so without going to excess.

It is not the fault of the fag that the person who smokes it cannot do so without breathing out.

Game, set and match.

[zathras]

The difference between alcohol and smoking is that if I drink I am not poisoning the person next to me,.

Very popular misconception.

You are not doing any damage directly to persons next to you, but after drinking to exces you are more likely to beat your wife / attack people / get into punch-ups / have accidents if driving / clog up already-struggling A&E depts - so you are doing damage to others. The only difference is in the directness of the damage.

Or by the same token, why are drugs illegal? Not doing any damage to anyone if I pop a few pills, am I?

I was very specific in talking about moderation. Violence against anybody should be described thus. It is not the fault of the beer that the person who drinks it cannot do so without going to excess.

[ratewhore]

and now for another completely unbiased opinion....

http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page159.asp

[MrsGoof]

cant be bothered to read it but loads of link from the URL

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html

I would post the text but its too long

[sasguru]

Can anyone point me to some evidence that shows that passive smoking increases your risk of anything at all? and I'm talking about a properly designed scientific study, not mere hearsay.

[Francko]

The difference between alcohol and smoking is that if I drink I am not poisoning the person next to me,.

Very popular misconception.
[CUT]

Well, to be fair I feel very sorry for the people who have to work at the bar. They have no choice and 12 hours a day spent in a smoky room are certainly dangerous.*

*however, I don't feel sorry for the overreactions of people going there for a couple of hours, that isn't a lot more harmful than just being half an hour on a busy road.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Or by the same token, why are drugs illegal? Not doing any damage to anyone if I pop a few pills, am I?

Yes you are guilty of tax evasion as you are not contributing to Mr Browns coffers as the drinkers and smokers do !