So, I am reading up on tobacco legislation and came across an interesting article from the Journal of The National Cancer Institute which states that they have found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. What are the chances of this fact playing a role in overturning decades of anti-smoking crusades?
No Clear Link Between Secondhand Smoke and Lung Cancer
- Thread starter finnian3
- Start date
- Status
One article in one journal? Not much.
You're playing to a tough room. Most pipe smokers smoke outside, because it is obviously visible that second-hand smoke is dangerous. I'm not even sure I could read something that said likewise without laughing out loud at the absurdity of it.
If you're in a room, and you can see the smoke it the room, how can someone deny that they aren't breathing that smoke in? It's like saying that because the asbestos is just in the attic that there is no way it can be breathed in. Stupidity!
How can right before your eyes evidence be denied?
No, I'm not sure I could take an article like that seriously.
If you're in a room, and you can see the smoke it the room, how can someone deny that they aren't breathing that smoke in? It's like saying that because the asbestos is just in the attic that there is no way it can be breathed in. Stupidity!
How can right before your eyes evidence be denied?
No, I'm not sure I could take an article like that seriously.
Agreed. And even if there was no link to cancer no one can reasonably say there are no health impacts. The residues are found all over the room and therefor to some degree in those that breathe it. We can make that choice for ourselves but I’m not comfortable making it for others. Outside it’s another matter but I would still work to avoid others having to breathe my smoke.
Please post a link to the article. I'm on the site, there are about 813 articles, and nothing I'm looking at so far that states what you just wrote.
At one point in history, it was unfathomable for people to buy in to the fact that earth was round.
Not saying I agree/disagree with the article, but with advancements in science technology, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of these long-time, generally accepted principles overturned.
Also, think about the confidence in data that a researcher must have to publish something so contradictory to commonly accepted ideas.
Again, not agreeing or disagreeing, just saying that it’s tough to navigate a forest without opening your eyes.
Not saying I agree/disagree with the article, but with advancements in science technology, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of these long-time, generally accepted principles overturned.
Also, think about the confidence in data that a researcher must have to publish something so contradictory to commonly accepted ideas.
Again, not agreeing or disagreeing, just saying that it’s tough to navigate a forest without opening your eyes.
No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer
A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link betwe
academic.oup.com
Perhaps this one. I’m admittedly an amateur at Boolean queries but it was fairly straightforward with a search of “secondhand.”
For all the Flat-Earthers,
If the Earth ? was Flat, then Cats would’ve knocked everything off the edges by now.
From the article:
“The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” said Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study at the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago."
Since it was seven years ago, not much effect I'd guess.
Since it was seven years ago, not much effect I'd guess.
Meh, we live in a completely toxic environment anyway, a little 2nd hand tobacco smoke is really the least of our worries. Here's but one example. PFAS is a known carcinogen and can be found in the blood of basically every human being on the planet.
Basic Information on PFAS | US EPA - https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas#:~:text=adverse%20health%20effects.-,Studies%20indicate%20that%20PFOA%20and%20PFOS%20can%20cause%20reproductive%20and,caused%20tumors%20in%20animal%20studies
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Teflon, and Related Chemicals - https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html#:~:text=Studies%20have%20found%20that%20it,have%20levels%20many%20times%20higher
They are used in everything, from your cook wear, to your clothing, to cosmetics, to the carpet & upholstery in your home & car.
Here's something else to chew on, you know that weird film that collects on the inside of your car's windshield. Well that's a chemical soup that left behind by the components of your car's interior off-gassing... Is the "New Car Smell" Bad for You? - https://molekule.science/is-the-new-car-smell-bad-for-you/#:~:text=Throughout%20the%20lifetime%20of%20a,a%20process%20called%20off%2Dgassing.&text=Car%20off%2Dgassing%20is%20of,levels%20of%20off%2Dgassed%20VOCs
Every time you sit in your car you're breathing that crap in. Oh, and BTW, it's not limited to your car; nearly every item in your home and office is also doing this, as well as the interior of every building you visit.
2nd hand tobacco smoke is child's play.
Basic Information on PFAS | US EPA - https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas#:~:text=adverse%20health%20effects.-,Studies%20indicate%20that%20PFOA%20and%20PFOS%20can%20cause%20reproductive%20and,caused%20tumors%20in%20animal%20studies
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Teflon, and Related Chemicals - https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html#:~:text=Studies%20have%20found%20that%20it,have%20levels%20many%20times%20higher
They are used in everything, from your cook wear, to your clothing, to cosmetics, to the carpet & upholstery in your home & car.
Here's something else to chew on, you know that weird film that collects on the inside of your car's windshield. Well that's a chemical soup that left behind by the components of your car's interior off-gassing... Is the "New Car Smell" Bad for You? - https://molekule.science/is-the-new-car-smell-bad-for-you/#:~:text=Throughout%20the%20lifetime%20of%20a,a%20process%20called%20off%2Dgassing.&text=Car%20off%2Dgassing%20is%20of,levels%20of%20off%2Dgassed%20VOCs
Every time you sit in your car you're breathing that crap in. Oh, and BTW, it's not limited to your car; nearly every item in your home and office is also doing this, as well as the interior of every building you visit.
2nd hand tobacco smoke is child's play.
As a one-time thing, I once did demonstrations of metalsmithing to a high school class in a room that was also used for ceramics. As I was demo'ing, I saw an 18 year old kid grind up some dried clay and snort it like it was cocaine. I stopped and explained that he needed to remember this moment... sometime in the not too distant future he would be diagnosed with silicosis, because what he just intentionally just snorted right into his lungs was a mix of talc, silica, and oxides. I then explained that silica was very finely ground glass. and if you looked at it under a microscope, it would look like jagged broken glass shards. And, there is no known way that it will ever leave your lungs once it's there, and the diagnosis is a death sentence.
He ran out of the room in a panic, and I had a conversation with the person in charge of the program. Apparently, I wasn't subtle enough in telling an idiot how stupid he is being.
He ran out of the room in a panic, and I had a conversation with the person in charge of the program. Apparently, I wasn't subtle enough in telling an idiot how stupid he is being.
Yeah, a burning cultivated plant seems trivial and insignificant compared to some of the fine chemicals Dupont (and others, but mainly Dupont) invented and sold as coatings, and pesticides....
The usual observational study design for this sort of thing is pretty unconvincing. Generally no one has their mind changed.
Almost no one decided their position based on studies, and so almost no one will change their position based on studies.
So I wouldn’t expect policy change, no.
Almost no one decided their position based on studies, and so almost no one will change their position based on studies.
So I wouldn’t expect policy change, no.
as interesting as this is - Smoking is 100% a harmful hobby - how harmful depends - worth the harms - also depends - if you smoke, doesn't pay to think about it.
Smoke, wherever it comes from, is going to be damaging to your lungs if inhaled. By nature it's particulate matter that hasn't turned into a gas, so any smoke isn't going to be good for you in one way or another.
As a fire investigator I’m more concerned with mercury being reintroduced through compact fluorescent lights than any residual smoke.
I fully understand structure fires are different from pipe smoking, unless you’re smoking Latakia blends, due to man made materials and such, but..... this is just an example of visual vs invisible particulates.
To determine whether we wore respirators in a scene when I was first while training we would take a flash picture and look for “floaties”. I we saw floaties (air born particulates) we masked up. Yes, that’s ridiculous.
I wear a respirator in every scene now, not because of lung cancer, but bladder cancer from the accumulation of heavy metals.
FWIW, science advances one death at a time. Take that for what it’s worth.
I fully understand structure fires are different from pipe smoking, unless you’re smoking Latakia blends, due to man made materials and such, but..... this is just an example of visual vs invisible particulates.
To determine whether we wore respirators in a scene when I was first while training we would take a flash picture and look for “floaties”. I we saw floaties (air born particulates) we masked up. Yes, that’s ridiculous.
I wear a respirator in every scene now, not because of lung cancer, but bladder cancer from the accumulation of heavy metals.
FWIW, science advances one death at a time. Take that for what it’s worth.
yeah but what is that fact? No clear link doesn't mean it's in the clear. Also doesn't mean there isn't a clear link between second hand smoke and other health problems especially with children in a household, you know something there is a clear link with.
I'm actually more interested in whether there's a clear link between aliens and bigfoot...I'm still waiting on those studies to come out.
It's pretty well determined that, there is nothing efficacious about smoking. So, that being settled, society has decided bars shouldn't stink, wait staff shouldn't reek and smoke, old, stale smoke reeks so, why put up with smoking in any public area? And, to that ... we smokers have no defense other than ... wait for it ... most of you know what follows ... "I like to smoke and really do not care about any inconvenience to others on the area. Suck it, non-smokers! Just suck it!" It's our rather childish and selfish response.
Politicians love us as we pay the extra taxes with a minimum of complaint. So, there is that.
Last edited:
- Status