Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

So, cigarette smoke is toxic when it enters the throat of the chump who choses to smoke it, but some chemical reaction takes place in that chump's lungs that makes the same smoke safe after that chump exhales it for the poor b*stards around him who are forced to inhale it in the simple act of attempting to breathe in fresh air and continue to live!

I think we still don't understand the masochisms that cause lung cancer, although smokers undeniably increase their risk of getting it.

However, studies on hundreds of thousands of non-smoking lung cancer patients around the world can prove no link between 'passive smoking' and cancer.

the only definitive proof we have is Roy Castle's word on it!

My dear friend, if we accept that the smoke from burning tobacco is cancerogenic, then it is irrelevant whether it is first or second hand - it is all toxic. Even if it could be shown that some sort of reaction is taking place in smokers' lungs that renders the smoke harmless when exhaled, there is still the smoke emitted that is not inhaled by the smoker but instead spreads directly into the enivironment. I am all for people being able to smoke but I will absolutely not tolerate the concept that I have to inhale any of this smoke simply because I have a biological need to breathe.

If that were just the case then everybody that smoked would get cancer.

However, millions of people smoke all their lives without getting it.

Clearly, there are other factors involved.

The problem is that all of the research into smoking relating diseases from Hitler onwards (he was a vehement anti-smoker) have been funded 'to find the link between smoking and lung cancer' rather than to find the true cause of lung cancer.

I don't deny that smoking increases the risk of getting cancer but it is not the only factor involved...

That is why tests on non-smokers exposed to second hand smoke consistently show no link between cancer and second hand smoke.

[cyprusgrump]

My late sister , passed away 4 years ago , she did not smoke , my brother in law did and all through her life was a passive smoker .
My late wife passed away 3 months ago , she did not smoke , I did for 38 years she was a passive smoker.
I wonder if my brother in laws smoking and mine might have been contributory factors ...

I sympathise with you and feel you carry a terrible burden.

However, scientific studies consistently show no link between passive smoking and cancer.

It is difficult to see why passive smoking killed your wife while you, a regular smoker for 38 years have escaped death from it...

[paliometoxo]

what studies are these? from 100 years ago when they thought smoking was good for you?lol

[SSBubbles]

(hello stranger - how are you today?)

I'm fine my dear although Mrs. Cyprusgrump has broken her leg and ankle... well, fractured really...

Do you think this nurses uniform makes my bum look big...? Depends.....how big is the nurse?

Poor Mrs CG; I hope she has a speedy recovery and that you are attending to her every need!

[cyprusgrump]

what studies are these? from 100 years ago when they thought smoking was good for you?lol

How about a study in 2006?

Wen (2006)

294 subjects: RR = 0.89 (negative)

This Chinese cohort study had a sample group of 64,881 nonsmoking, married women who were interviewed between 1997 and 2004. In direct contrast to Stockwell (1992), it found some evidence that secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace was a risk factor for lung cancer but found no risk when that exposure was in the home. Like Stockwell, the author wrote at length about the positive associations while skimming over the more plentiful evidence that showed no link between passive smoking and lung cancer. The relative risk to a woman exposed to smoke by her husband was 0.89 (0.42-1.92) and the risk from exposure in childhood was 0.21 (0.03-1.61). This very low latter association was compensated by a higher, positive association with workplace exposure of 2.25 (0.95-5.27), although none of these results were statistically significant. When all three sources of exposure were taken together, the RR in this sizeable study was effectively zero: 1.03 (0.57-1.87). As is often the case in these studies, there was scant evidence of a dose-response relationship between length or intensity of exposure and risk. Indeed, the wives who had the most exposure had the lowest risk (0.79 (0.48-1.31))

[The paper does not make it clear exactly how many of the subjects succumbed to lung cancer. However, the author showed that 106 of the lung cancer cases were married to smokers, and that 36% of the wives were married to smokers. The above figure is a calculation based on these two figures.]

Source

[cyprusgrump]

The only issue that I have is with passive smoking. As one who has never smoked a single cigarette in my life, I object to having to inhale the foul-smelling, toxic fumes emitted by smokers. Is modern technology incapable of devising a cigarette that does not emit smoke when consumed? Then smokers can poison themselves to their hearts' content without casuing any annoyance or danger to non-smokers.

There is no evidence WHATSOEVER that passive smoking is dangerous to your health - only lies and spin from those we can supposedly trust...

And as Gasman points out, the same chemicals that are supposedly deadly in second-hand smoke are also in all sorts of other fire, BBQs, bonfires, etc. yet nobody complains about them...

Lastly, you should consider why the anti-smoking lobby wants to BAN 'electronic cigarettes', devices which emit only steam and can not possibly cause any 'annoyance or danger to non-smokers' while promoting the use of nicotine patches and gum.

Could it be that nicotine patches and gum are produced by Big Pharma - the paymasters of anti-smokers and e-fags are not...?

Cyprusgrump , dont talk shit .
PASSIVE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS.
You will soon be telling us that driving at 100 miles per hour on a byke is safe !!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 34025.html

The truth is that big tobacco has for years used the muscle that its big bucks give it to supress this kind of information.

Actually the reverse is true...

The anti-smoking lobby skims billions from cigarette taxes to fund their activities and propaganda.

The article you quote is interesting, the BMJ itself stressed that "cotinine is not associated with lung cancer or other diseases" and that "previous studies have stressed limitations of cotinine as a biomarker of exposure" but here is is in the newspapers used as proof...

[Tim Drayton]

Exhibit 1. A non-smoker's lung:



Exhibit 2. A smoker's lung:



I want to have the top one, so I do not wish any tobacco smoke, whether first-hand or second-hand, in my lungs thank you. Apart from that people are at liberty to do and believe as they please.

[Tim Drayton]

The only issue that I have is with passive smoking. As one who has never smoked a single cigarette in my life, I object to having to inhale the foul-smelling, toxic fumes emitted by smokers. Is modern technology incapable of devising a cigarette that does not emit smoke when consumed? Then smokers can poison themselves to their hearts' content without casuing any annoyance or danger to non-smokers.

There is no evidence WHATSOEVER that passive smoking is dangerous to your health - only lies and spin from those we can supposedly trust...

And as Gasman points out, the same chemicals that are supposedly deadly in second-hand smoke are also in all sorts of other fire, BBQs, bonfires, etc. yet nobody complains about them...

Lastly, you should consider why the anti-smoking lobby wants to BAN 'electronic cigarettes', devices which emit only steam and can not possibly cause any 'annoyance or danger to non-smokers' while promoting the use of nicotine patches and gum.

Could it be that nicotine patches and gum are produced by Big Pharma - the paymasters of anti-smokers and e-fags are not...?

Cyprusgrump , dont talk shit .
PASSIVE SMOKING IS DANGEROUS.
You will soon be telling us that driving at 100 miles per hour on a byke is safe !!
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 34025.html

The truth is that big tobacco has for years used the muscle that its big bucks give it to supress this kind of information.

Actually the reverse is true...

The anti-smoking lobby skims billions from cigarette taxes to fund their activities and propaganda.

The article you quote is interesting, the BMJ itself stressed that "cotinine is not associated with lung cancer or other diseases" and that "previous studies have stressed limitations of cotinine as a biomarker of exposure" but here is is in the newspapers used as proof...

You must be joking. In the 1950's big tobacco mounted a massive campaign to supress scientific evidence showing the harmful effects of smoking.

[cyprusgrump]

Exhibit 1. A non-smoker's lung:



Exhibit 2. A smoker's lung:



I want to have the top one, so I do not wish any tobacco smoke, whether first-hand or second-hand, in my lungs thank you. Apart from that people are at liberty to do and believe as they please.

The old non-smokers lung picture...

Both the lung owners are dead Tim, had you thought of that?

I have no wish to see any of my internal organs thanks. Stupid comparison pictures like that prove nothing and have no place in serious debate...

To be valid you'd also have to include lungs from people that had wood fires at home, regularly BBQd, spent lots of time in traffic, etc. Many of the passive smoking studies found a much higher correlation between cooking fumes than smoking in relation to cancer.

As I mentioned, there is no scientific evidence that second-hand smoke affects your health. End of.

[Tim Drayton]

As I mentioned, there is no scientific evidence that second-hand smoke affects your health.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to show this - Miltiades has provided a link to one such study. You are in denial. Keep your flithy, disgusting, gut-wrenching, foul, toxic, cancerogenic cigarette smoke away from me and I am happy. Do and believe as you wish.