Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

A few more peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in respected scientific journals that somehow seem not be present in Cyprus Grump's so-called comprehensive list of studies:

1. Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. (February 2010). "Atmospheric Chemistry Special Feature: Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America (PNAS). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf.
2. ^ Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00564.x. PMID 11494987.
3. ^ He J et al. (1999). "Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease—a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.". N Engl J Med 340: 920–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199903253401204. PMID 10089185.
4. ^ Svendsen KH, Kuller LH, Martin MJ, Ockene JK. (1987). "Effects of passive smoking in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.". Am J Epidemiol 126: 783–95. PMID 3661526.
5. ^ "1986 Surgeon General's report: the health consequences of involuntary smoking". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35 (50): 769–70. 1986. PMID 3097495.
6. ^ National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects, NRC, Washington, DC (1986).
7. ^ a b US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disordersPDF
8. ^ "Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency". Tob Control 6 (4): 346–53. 1997. doi:10.1136/tc.6.4.346. PMID 9583639.
9. ^ "Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health to the Chief Medical Officer, Part II". http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... part-2.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
10. ^ Hackshaw AK (1998). "Lung cancer and passive smoking". Stat Methods Med Res 7 (2): 119–36. doi:10.1191/096228098675091404. PMID 9654638.
11. ^ National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1997).
12. ^ Brennan P, Buffler P, Reynolds P, Wu A, Wichmann H, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel K, Benhamou S, Greenberg R, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham E, Kreuzer M, Darby S, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P (2004). "Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies". Int. J. Cancer 109 (1): 125–31. doi:10.1002/ijc.11682. PMID 14735478.
13. ^ Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2003). "Epidemiology of lung cancer". Chest 123 (1 Suppl): 21S–49S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21S. PMID 12527563.
14. ^ Theis RP, Dolwick Grieb SM, Burr D, Siddiqui T, Asal NR (2008). "Smoking, environmental tobacco smoke, and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study". BMC Cancer 8: 387. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-8-387. PMID 19108730.
15. ^ Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, et al. (2007). "Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study". Cancer 109 (12): 2547–56. doi:10.1002/cncr.22724. PMID 17492688.
16. ^ Mother's active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children FILIPPINI G. (1) ; FARINOTTI M. (1) ; LOVICU G. ; MAISONNEUVE P. ; BOYLE P. ; International journal of cancer ISSN 0020-7136 CODEN IJCNAW. 1994, vol. 57, no6, pp. 769-774 (31 ref.)

Nice list Tim!

I take it you haven't read any of the reports...?

The problem of downloading stuff from the Intermong is that you associate yourself with ridiculous concepts like third-hand-smoke...

If you believe in such fantasies, there really is no point discussing this with you - a belief in third-hand smoke would effectively bar you from ever venturing out into the real world...

See my earlier points about personal liberty. Don't get yourself worried about third-hand-smoke...

You are still missing the point. My point is that the list of studies which Christopher Snowdon has included in his book - which was specifically written from a pro-smoking point of view - is not, as a you seem to believe, comprehensive.

Have you read them all, or any of them?

I don't have the time to go through them... I'm sure you'd be able to suck lists of stuff off the Intermong significantly faster than I could refute them...

However...

The first one is on third-hand smoke... I think we can ignore that!

The second and third are cumulative meta-analysis - that means that they simply re-analyse the results of previous epidemiological studies...

So, you've hardly proved a point with the first three on your list have you...?

I think I have adequately proved the point that the list of studies in Christopher Snowdon's book is not comprehensive.

read some of them and see...

Having repeated the same point several times, you still do not get it. You obviously never will.

Nor do you...

You've dragged some list off the Internet, you haven't actually read any of them but believe that it proves some rather tenuous point...

If you can read through them and find some that are actually genuine scientific surveys on passive smoking, and not just statistical analysis of other reviews then you would indeed have proven something...

Off you go...

No, no, no ... that is not the point at all. My point has to do with the EXISTENCE and not the CONTENT of these reports. You claimed that Christopher Snowdon, in his book specifically written to oppose the anti-smoking lobby, has provided a list of ALL studies. The fact that I can easily quote the names of studies that are not listed in this book clearly shows that Snowdon's list is far from comperehensive, and most probably he has cherry-picked a number of studies that can easily be refuted.

But you haven't read ANY of them have you Tim?

Certainly the first three wouldn't appear in the book* for obvious reasons I've already explained...

Instead of plucking lists from the Intermong, why don't you do some real research and provide some facts?

When you come up with something that you can show should have been in the book but is not we'll put it to Chris Snowdon and ask him why shall we?

* Apart from anything else the 2010 study on third-hand smoke came out after the book was printed!

You still do not get it. I do not have to have read them because I am not taking about their CONTENT but simply that they EXIST, and their mere existence demonstrates the point I am trying to make.

[Tim Drayton]

Any of you non smokers drive? if so keep your cacogenic toxic belching f**king vehicles away from me and my children, the governments are only picking on the smoking fraternity, if its that bad then f**king ban tobacco but oh no they won’t do that the hypercritical Bas***ds, it works both ways you tossers lets see you twats walking or cycling every where if that is the case.

Actually, I don't drive and walk a great deal, but the point is that vehicles provide some benefit to people. Smokers are simply in a cycle of addiction and smoke to satisfy their craving without providing any benefit to themselves or others.

Helloooo????

SMOKERS ENJOY SMOKING!

And even if you don't drive you still inhale the fumes from vehicles but don't believe they should be banned because they provide some benefit to people????

Good grief...

This is just going off at a rediculous tangent. In fact I worry about all forms of pollution. In the short term, I strongly support measures to develop public transport and discourage car usership in Cyprus. In the long term I think that electric vehicles should be developed.

My sole point is that I have a right to chose to be a non-smoker. Being a non-smoker means smoking ZERO cigarettes per year, not six. Other people have a perfect right to smoke but not to force me to inhale their smoke. I am not being hysterical or capricious about this. There is a wealth of evidence to show that cigarette smoke is toxic and I do not wish to breathe it. Respect these points and I have no problem.

[miltiades]

Tim , you must realize that most Cypriot smokers , like their Greek and Turkish cousins , consider smoking , just as the Pakistanis , Bangladeshis and generally people from the undeveloped world , as cool and ...sexy !!!!
Its a disgusting filthy smelly junkies habit . As one who over 38 years must have smoked at least half a million cancer sticks , I find it odd that there are still people who consider smoking as anything else rather than an addiction to a drug.

[cyprusgrump]

A few more peer-reviewed studies that have appeared in respected scientific journals that somehow seem not be present in Cyprus Grump's so-called comprehensive list of studies:

1. Sleiman M, Gundel LA, Pankow JF, et al. (February 2010). "Atmospheric Chemistry Special Feature: Formation of carcinogens indoors by surface-mediated reactions of nicotine with nitrous acid, leading to potential thirdhand smoke hazards". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America (PNAS). doi:10.1073/pnas.0912820107. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.full.pdf.
2. ^ Taylor R et al. (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00564.x. PMID 11494987.
3. ^ He J et al. (1999). "Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease—a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.". N Engl J Med 340: 920–6. doi:10.1056/NEJM199903253401204. PMID 10089185.
4. ^ Svendsen KH, Kuller LH, Martin MJ, Ockene JK. (1987). "Effects of passive smoking in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial.". Am J Epidemiol 126: 783–95. PMID 3661526.
5. ^ "1986 Surgeon General's report: the health consequences of involuntary smoking". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 35 (50): 769–70. 1986. PMID 3097495.
6. ^ National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects, NRC, Washington, DC (1986).
7. ^ a b US Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disordersPDF
8. ^ "Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. California Environmental Protection Agency". Tob Control 6 (4): 346–53. 1997. doi:10.1136/tc.6.4.346. PMID 9583639.
9. ^ "Report of the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health to the Chief Medical Officer, Part II". http://www.archive.official-documents.c ... part-2.htm. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
10. ^ Hackshaw AK (1998). "Lung cancer and passive smoking". Stat Methods Med Res 7 (2): 119–36. doi:10.1191/096228098675091404. PMID 9654638.
11. ^ National Health and Medical Research Council. The health effects of passive smoking, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1997).
12. ^ Brennan P, Buffler P, Reynolds P, Wu A, Wichmann H, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jöckel K, Benhamou S, Greenberg R, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham E, Kreuzer M, Darby S, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P (2004). "Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies". Int. J. Cancer 109 (1): 125–31. doi:10.1002/ijc.11682. PMID 14735478.
13. ^ Alberg AJ, Samet JM (2003). "Epidemiology of lung cancer". Chest 123 (1 Suppl): 21S–49S. doi:10.1378/chest.123.1_suppl.21S. PMID 12527563.
14. ^ Theis RP, Dolwick Grieb SM, Burr D, Siddiqui T, Asal NR (2008). "Smoking, environmental tobacco smoke, and risk of renal cell cancer: a population-based case-control study". BMC Cancer 8: 387. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-8-387. PMID 19108730.
15. ^ Hassan MM, Abbruzzese JL, Bondy ML, et al. (2007). "Passive smoking and the use of noncigarette tobacco products in association with risk for pancreatic cancer: a case-control study". Cancer 109 (12): 2547–56. doi:10.1002/cncr.22724. PMID 17492688.
16. ^ Mother's active and passive smoking during pregnancy and risk of brain tumours in children FILIPPINI G. (1) ; FARINOTTI M. (1) ; LOVICU G. ; MAISONNEUVE P. ; BOYLE P. ; International journal of cancer ISSN 0020-7136 CODEN IJCNAW. 1994, vol. 57, no6, pp. 769-774 (31 ref.)

Nice list Tim!

I take it you haven't read any of the reports...?

The problem of downloading stuff from the Intermong is that you associate yourself with ridiculous concepts like third-hand-smoke...

If you believe in such fantasies, there really is no point discussing this with you - a belief in third-hand smoke would effectively bar you from ever venturing out into the real world...

See my earlier points about personal liberty. Don't get yourself worried about third-hand-smoke...

You are still missing the point. My point is that the list of studies which Christopher Snowdon has included in his book - which was specifically written from a pro-smoking point of view - is not, as a you seem to believe, comprehensive.

Have you read them all, or any of them?

I don't have the time to go through them... I'm sure you'd be able to suck lists of stuff off the Intermong significantly faster than I could refute them...

However...

The first one is on third-hand smoke... I think we can ignore that!

The second and third are cumulative meta-analysis - that means that they simply re-analyse the results of previous epidemiological studies...

So, you've hardly proved a point with the first three on your list have you...?

I think I have adequately proved the point that the list of studies in Christopher Snowdon's book is not comprehensive.

read some of them and see...

Having repeated the same point several times, you still do not get it. You obviously never will.

Nor do you...

You've dragged some list off the Internet, you haven't actually read any of them but believe that it proves some rather tenuous point...

If you can read through them and find some that are actually genuine scientific surveys on passive smoking, and not just statistical analysis of other reviews then you would indeed have proven something...

Off you go...

No, no, no ... that is not the point at all. My point has to do with the EXISTENCE and not the CONTENT of these reports. You claimed that Christopher Snowdon, in his book specifically written to oppose the anti-smoking lobby, has provided a list of ALL studies. The fact that I can easily quote the names of studies that are not listed in this book clearly shows that Snowdon's list is far from comperehensive, and most probably he has cherry-picked a number of studies that can easily be refuted.

But you haven't read ANY of them have you Tim?

Certainly the first three wouldn't appear in the book* for obvious reasons I've already explained...

Instead of plucking lists from the Intermong, why don't you do some real research and provide some facts?

When you come up with something that you can show should have been in the book but is not we'll put it to Chris Snowdon and ask him why shall we?

* Apart from anything else the 2010 study on third-hand smoke came out after the book was printed!

You still do not get it. I do not have to have read them because I am not taking about their CONTENT but simply that they EXIST, and their mere existence demonstrates the point I am trying to make.

No Tim,

All you've proven is that you can download a list from the Intermong...

At first glance I explained to you why the first three would not have appeared in the book. Not excluded from the book, just not relevant to it...

I could work through all the others (the nicorette one is another obvious one to exclude) but it would take all weekend...

All you would do then is download another list from the Intermong on Monday...ad infinitum....

What I am asking for is for you to do some research...

Find one peer reviewed scientific study that proves a link between second-hand smoke and lung cancer but has been 'excluded' from the book as you claim...

We'll then put that accusation to Chris Snowdon and post his reply on here...

OK?

[cyprusgrump]

My sole point is that I have a right to chose to be a non-smoker. Being a non-smoker means smoking ZERO cigarettes per year, not six. Other people have a perfect right to smoke but not to force me to inhale their smoke. I am not being hysterical or capricious about this. There is a wealth of evidence to show that cigarette smoke is toxic and I do not wish to breathe it. Respect these points and I have no problem.

Nobody is denying you that right... nobody forced you to enter a smoky bar...

All smokers are asking for is the same right. To enjoy smoke.

All smokers want is for there to be smoking and non-smoking establishments.

removal off that right will inevitably lead to other curbs on our civil liberties.

[frogeye]

Any of you non smokers drive? if so keep your cacogenic toxic belching f**king vehicles away from me and my children, the governments are only picking on the smoking fraternity, if its that bad then f**king ban tobacco but oh no they won’t do that the hypercritical Bas***ds, it works both ways you tossers lets see you twats walking or cycling every where if that is the case.

Actually, I don't drive and walk a great deal, but the point is that vehicles provide some benefit to people. Smokers are simply in a cycle of addiction and smoke to satisfy their craving without providing any benefit to themselves or others.

Do not the people who work on the plantations earn a living to raise their families? do not the tobacco companies employ people, do not the governments around the world make large financial gains from the tax
Levied against tobacco goods? so their for tobacco dose provide benefits to people unless you do not class the above as people/

so you do not drive, fair comment do you use public transport? do you get lifts of people who own cars? Then if the answer is yes then you also pollute and give people cancer with exhaust fumes.

So lets cut out the crap you are as bad as a smoker

[Tim Drayton]

My sole point is that I have a right to chose to be a non-smoker. Being a non-smoker means smoking ZERO cigarettes per year, not six. Other people have a perfect right to smoke but not to force me to inhale their smoke. I am not being hysterical or capricious about this. There is a wealth of evidence to show that cigarette smoke is toxic and I do not wish to breathe it. Respect these points and I have no problem.

Nobody is denying you that right... nobody forced you to enter a smoky bar...

All smokers are asking for is the same right. To enjoy smoke.

All smokers want is for there to be smoking and non-smoking establishments.

removal off that right will inevitably lead to other curbs on our civil liberties.

My problem is that you are granting me that right, but then telling me that I am irrational and hysterical in demanding it, which I see as being the start of the slippery slope towards depriving me of it.

I've got fed up with this discussion, anyway.

Would you agree with my initial point in this thread that it would be great if technology could come up with some was of making cigarettes burn without emitting smoke into the enviroment? Then everyone can be happy. Let's at least agree on that!

[Tim Drayton]

Tim , you must realize that most Cypriot smokers , like their Greek and Turkish cousins , consider smoking , just as the Pakistanis , Bangladeshis and generally people from the undeveloped world , as cool and ...sexy !!!!
Its a disgusting filthy smelly junkies habit . As one who over 38 years must have smoked at least half a million cancer sticks , I find it odd that there are still people who consider smoking as anything else rather than an addiction to a drug.

You speak from experience, mate, so it must carry weight.

[Tim Drayton]

Any of you non smokers drive? if so keep your cacogenic toxic belching f**king vehicles away from me and my children, the governments are only picking on the smoking fraternity, if its that bad then f**king ban tobacco but oh no they won’t do that the hypercritical Bas***ds, it works both ways you tossers lets see you twats walking or cycling every where if that is the case.

Actually, I don't drive and walk a great deal, but the point is that vehicles provide some benefit to people. Smokers are simply in a cycle of addiction and smoke to satisfy their craving without providing any benefit to themselves or others.

Do not the people who work on the plantations earn a living to raise their families? do not the tobacco companies employ people, do not the governments around the world make large financial gains from the tax
Levied against tobacco goods? so their for tobacco dose provide benefits to people unless you do not class the above as people/

so you do not drive, fair comment do you use public transport? do you get lifts of people who own cars? Then if the answer is yes then you also pollute and give people cancer with exhaust fumes.

So lets cut out the crap you are as bad as a smoker

Actually, carbon monoxide pollution probably worries me more than second-hand cigarette smoke, so you are right. Fair point.

[frogeye]

Any of you non smokers drive? if so keep your cacogenic toxic belching f**king vehicles away from me and my children, the governments are only picking on the smoking fraternity, if its that bad then f**king ban tobacco but oh no they won’t do that the hypercritical Bas***ds, it works both ways you tossers lets see you twats walking or cycling every where if that is the case.

Actually, I don't drive and walk a great deal, but the point is that vehicles provide some benefit to people. Smokers are simply in a cycle of addiction and smoke to satisfy their craving without providing any benefit to themselves or others.

Do not the people who work on the plantations earn a living to raise their families? do not the tobacco companies employ people, do not the governments around the world make large financial gains from the tax
Levied against tobacco goods? so their for tobacco dose provide benefits to people unless you do not class the above as people/

so you do not drive, fair comment do you use public transport? do you get lifts of people who own cars? Then if the answer is yes then you also pollute and give people cancer with exhaust fumes.

So lets cut out the crap you are as bad as a smoker

Actually, carbon monoxide pollution probably worries me more than second-hand cigarette smoke, so you are right. Fair point.

Thanks