Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

[...]
And nobody denies you the right NOT to breathe in the smoke...[..]

That is fine, then, so what are we arguing about? Except you tell me that I am being hysterical for saying that I object to being forced to inhale a carcinogen. Please do not deny me the right to object, nor to state the reasons why I object.

We agreed early on on that point...
But you seem to feel the need to prove something about the dangers of second-hand smoke....

Keep your flithy, disgusting, gut-wrenching, foul, toxic, cancerogenic cigarette smoke away from me and I am happy. Do and believe as you wish.

I said that was hysterical...

That proves to me that you are a smoker. Non-smokers would not find that reaction to being forced to inhale other people's tobacco smoke hysterical.

You are wrong again....
Ask the following: -
Bubbles
GR
DT
Kafenes
CBBB
Niki
Among others that have actually met me...
I don't smoke and have never smoked. Fact!

Sorry Tim - Grump is a NON SMOKER - and as far as I am aware never has been. (I have no reason to disbelieve him)

Thanks you!

[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.

[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.

[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!

[cyprusgrump]

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...

[Get Real!]

Passive smoking: who cares about the facts?

In studies across Europe over the past decade, air quality experts at Covance Laboratories in England gave air monitors to thousands of people and measured their exposure to smoke. The startling results showed passive smokers are exposed to the equivalent of six cigarettes a year, an extra lung cancer risk of 2 per cent compared with non-smokers. The figure is 10 times lower than the BMJ studies claimed.

So small a risk is, however, in line with last week's negative findings. It also explains an awkward fact rarely mentioned by anti-smoking campaigners: more than 80 per cent of all studies of passive smoking have failed to find a statistically significant link to lung cancer. Only by subjecting them to abstruse statistical techniques can they deliver the goods.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 37934.html

I am a non-smoker. It is my right to chose to be a non-smoker, just as much as it is the right of others to smoke. I do not wish to smoke six cigarettes a year, thank you very much. It is too many for me. I do not consider a 2% extra risk to be small. Smoking - yes. Passive smoking - no.

Please send me € 0.87 p/annum for the 6 “freebies” thank you!

NB: € 2.90 / 20 = 0.145 x 6 = € 0.87

[cyprusgrump]

Passive smoking: who cares about the facts?

In studies across Europe over the past decade, air quality experts at Covance Laboratories in England gave air monitors to thousands of people and measured their exposure to smoke. The startling results showed passive smokers are exposed to the equivalent of six cigarettes a year, an extra lung cancer risk of 2 per cent compared with non-smokers. The figure is 10 times lower than the BMJ studies claimed.

So small a risk is, however, in line with last week's negative findings. It also explains an awkward fact rarely mentioned by anti-smoking campaigners: more than 80 per cent of all studies of passive smoking have failed to find a statistically significant link to lung cancer. Only by subjecting them to abstruse statistical techniques can they deliver the goods.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 37934.html

I am a non-smoker. It is my right to chose to be a non-smoker, just as much as it is the right of others to smoke. I do not wish to smoke six cigarettes a year, thank you very much. It is too many for me. I do not consider a 2% extra risk to be small. Smoking - yes. Passive smoking - no.

Please send me € 0.87 p/annum for the 6 “freebies” thank you!

NB: € 2.90 / 20 = 0.145 x 6 = € 0.87

[miltiades]

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...

SMOKERS SMOKE NOT OUT OF ENJOYMENT BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE JUNKIES!
Mate I did it for 38 years , I know all there is to know about this filthy habit !

[Get Real!]

Please send me € 0.87 p/annum for the 6 “freebies” thank you!

NB: € 2.90 / 20 = 0.145 x 6 = € 0.87

Actually, I forgot the interest accrued and back payments, but Timbo is a good guy so we’re being very lenient!

[cyprusgrump]

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...

SMOKERS SMOKE NOT OUT OF ENJOYMENT BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE JUNKIES!
Mate I did it for 38 years , I know all there is to know about this filthy habit !

Lets ask the other smokers here then... cos I know plenty that smoke because they enjoy it...

Nicotine doesn't addict you from the first puff... there is something other than addiction that keeps smokers smoking...