Study finds no clear link between lung cancer and second-hand smoke

[23536]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...lung-cancer-and-secondhand-smoke-9004077.html

There is "no clear link" between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, a study led by researchers at Stanford University has found.

After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke.

Published in the latest Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study found that among current smokers, lung cancer was 13 times more common than in non-smokers, and four times more common among former smokers. But for women who had never smoked, it found that exposure to secondhand smoke did not significantly increase the risk of lung cancer.

Among the group of women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more, however, the study concluded that there was a relationship of "borderline statistical significance" between exposure to passive smoke and lung cancer.

Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study in June at this year's meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, said: "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 non-smokers]."

The findings of the study will likely be questioned by Cancer Research UK however, who state on their website that "second-hand smoke can increase a non-smoker's risk of getting lung cancer by a quarter, and may also increase the risk of cancers of the larynx (voice box) and pharynx (upper throat)."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...lung-cancer-and-secondhand-smoke-9004077.html

 

[TheRapperGoneBad]

Hmmm

Its hard to know what studies to take serious but it seems to me the government puts out a lot of false reports to aid in banning and demonizing things they don't see fit.

If accurate this is good news to people who have to put up with second hand smoke on a daily basis.

If you are a daily smoker or just enjoy nicotine on occasion I'd reccomend you switch over to vaporizers/e-liquids.
Even tho there is little research on them I'd imagine its much better for you then the smoke coming off of burning paper, tobacco, and whatever else is in cigarettes. Its also much more accepted by the public and doesn't have you stinking like an ash tray. Lol

 

[angeleyes]

This is great!

Honestly, Melbourne's local government was making plans to introduce our entire CBD as a no-smoking zone, (would have failed fucking miserably, at least 1 in 4 people in the CBD here smoke and that isn't some stupid statistic) but this was one of the main arguments that they had to support the ban.

Haven't heard about it in a few months, makes me think I should check their progress on that now...

 

[my3rdeye]

I don't mind indoor banning as it stinks but there have been some crazy outdoor bans in parks and outside buildings that were clearly not based on health. It seemed punative the outdoor bans. And no one ever stops the engine exhaust which has to be at least as bad, probably worse. I always thought 2nd hand smoke dangers were probably overblown.
Anyway next time someone says no Amsterdam style coffee shops in your legal state because of no smoking laws meant to protect workers, point them to this.

 

[Black]

the results sound perfectly believable, but i'm missing a link to the paper itself before i can judge it. but there's hope that this one's not as dodgy as those alarmist studies i've read that find a "clear link" (if you play around with the P value or exclude half of the study population for unspecified reasons).

 

[JunkieDays]

Hmmm

Its hard to know what studies to take serious but it seems to me the government puts out a lot of false reports to aid in banning and demonizing things they don't see fit.

If accurate this is good news to people who have to put up with second hand smoke on a daily basis.

If you are a daily smoker or just enjoy nicotine on occasion I'd reccomend you switch over to vaporizers/e-liquids.
Even tho there is little research on them I'd imagine its much better for you then the smoke coming off of burning paper, tobacco, and whatever else is in cigarettes. Its also much more accepted by the public and doesn't have you stinking like an ash tray. Lol

I don't understand the whole e-cig thing.
Might as well quit smoking altogether if you've reduced yourself to smoking water vapor. The fuck?

 

[opi8]

^ What's the issue? It's a healthier way to ingest nicotine, and many use it as a stepping stone to quitting. Why so negative about vaping? I was considering giving it a try which is one reason I ask.

 

[!_MDMA_!]

I don't understand the whole e-cig thing.
Might as well quit smoking altogether if you've reduced yourself to smoking water vapor. The fuck?

Some people just like the act of smoking. Just like some junkies enjoy the needle, even sticking themselves without drugs.

With ecigs you can smoke indoors, blow rings, do tricks, whatever.

 

[JunkieDays]

I never understood the needle thing, so I guess that's why I don't understand the e-cig thing.

 

[Mysterie]

^ just so you know ecigs contain nicotine the main addictive component of a tailor cigarette, not just water ... its kind of analogous of an addict going from shooting dope, to taking a suboxone dose sublingually, so you kind of picked the wrong end of the stick there 8(

it makes sense to me that cigarettes are cancerous, and if you believe that we are all interconnected, then some of us are going to get cancer from a huge numbers of people that follow deathsticks

it sounds like they either monitored the results in a time span that was too short, or were too tunnel visioned in their approach. or they are being bankrolled by phillip morris

i dont really want to make a guess at which is more likely to be happening, probably all 3 because i have almost no scientific background and can smell the bullshit from a mile away (the thread title) did they get a commercial, capitalist companies criminal defence lawyer to write that because thats what it looks like

 

[slimvictor]

I don't mind indoor banning as it stinks but there have been some crazy outdoor bans in parks and outside buildings that were clearly not based on health. It seemed punative the outdoor bans. And no one ever stops the engine exhaust which has to be at least as bad, probably worse. I always thought 2nd hand smoke dangers were probably overblown.
Anyway next time someone says no Amsterdam style coffee shops in your legal state because of no smoking laws meant to protect workers, point them to this.

I am with you on happily banning smoking in indoor public places, because I hate smoke.
But banning smoking in parks and outdoors doesn't make much sense.

I really don't get the questions about e-cigs here. They seem wonderful to me. I can be in a room with a nicotine addict, and he can satisfy his addiction, and I can avoid being exposed to his smoke.

 

[bit_pattern]

\I can be in a room with a nicotine addict, and he can satisfy his addiction, and I can avoid being exposed to his smoke.

I've recently become more addicted to nicotine mints than I am smoking. It's great, can get a fix without fucking with anyone, can get a fix while drinking without waking up feeling like shit from all the toxins. I'm all for addicts changing their ROI for the greater good.

 

[tweex]

I really don't get the questions about e-cigs here. They seem wonderful to me. I can be in a room with a nicotine addict, and he can satisfy his addiction, and I can avoid being exposed to his smoke.

e-cigs are also a lot less addictive. No harman or norharman in e-liquid, so no monoamine oxidase A inhibition, which potentiates how addictive nicotine is. I've smoked e-cigs all the time on MAO-B inhibitors, and found them not the least bit addictive. And I haven't smoked one in a good three weeks, come to think of it...