=) SHS Triples Risk of Lung Cancer ....!

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by => Vox Populi ©, Feb 16, 2004.

  1. Workers in bars and restaurants most vulnerable to lung cancer, Canadian study says

    ANDRÉ PICARD PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER

    People who are routinely exposed to a lot of second-hand smoke, such as workers in bars and
    restaurants, can see their risk of lung cancer triple, a new study says.

    The Canadian study provides some of the most compelling scientific evidence yet for a total ban on
    workplace smoking, including bars and restaurants.

    The research, published in the International Journal of Cancer, found that the more people smoke in
    a workplace, the greater the risks to non-smokers.

    "These data absolutely back a smoking ban in bars," said Dr. Kenneth Johnson, senior epidemiologist
    at the surveillance and risk-assessment division of Health Canada and the lead researcher.

    Dr. Roberta Ferrence, director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, said "What's important
    about this research is it demonstrates a dose-response: The more exposure you have, the
    higher your risk.

    "While this may seem obvious, it has long been contested by industry."

    Ds. Ferrence said she hopes that this "strong new evidence will prompt strong new action" to expand
    workplace smoking bans.

    The study also looked at the risk of second-hand smoke in the home.

    Dt. Johnson and a team at Health Canada analyzed a lifetime of information from 761 women who had
    never smoked, and 71 others with lung cancer.

    They found that a non-smoking woman who lives with a smoker has a 21-per-cent higher risk of
    developing lung cancer over her adult lifetime. But if the woman lived with a smoking parent as a
    child, her risk jumps 63 per cent, above that of someone who has always lived in a smoke-free home.

    A woman who has always lived in a smoke-free home but works where smoking is permitted sees her risk
    of developing lung cancer jump by 27 per cent. That risk climbs steadily over time, and increases
    based on the number of smokers in the workplace.

    "There's an underlying [belief] that second-hand smoke increases your risk of developing lung cancer
    by 20-25 per cent, and maybe that can be explained away by publication bias,"
    Du. Johnson said.

    "But when you see the risk rising by 75 per cent right up to a tripling of the risk, it's hard to
    argue that nothing is going on."

    The new research found that when the number of "occupational smoker years" (the number of smokers
    in the workplace multiplied by the worker's years of service) reaches 26, the risk of lung cancer
    has doubled.

    (That could mean two smoking co-workers over 13 years or five smoking co-workers over five years. It
    could also mean 26 customers daily for a year in a bar.)

    When researchers looked at the upper third of workers -- those exposed to the most second-hand smoke
    -- they found the lung cancer risk was more than tripled.

    Since the early 1980s, more than three dozen studies have examined the impact of secondhand smoke on
    non-smokers, but the Health Canada research is the first original Canadian data.

    In the International Journal of Cancer, Dr. Johnson wrote that it is not surprising to see higher
    risks associated with workplace exposure because studies have consistently demonstrated that the
    intensity of exposure is higher on the job than at home. The level of nicotine in the air of bars is
    up to 15 times higher than in the home of a smoker.

    He said the new research suggests that earlier studies on the impact of secondhand smoke in the home
    were flawed because they failed to take into account workplace exposure. Similarly, previous
    research on childhood exposure has tended to look at the impact during childhood only, while the new
    data demonstrate that the risks are cumulative if exposure continues through adulthood.

    The Health Canada researchers collected data on the women from the cancer registries of eight
    provinces.

    Women are usually the focus of research on secondhand smoke because, historically, they have been
    far less likely than men to smoke and far more likely to live and work with smokers.

    Twenty-four per cent of Canadians over the age of 15 now smoke, the lowest rate since Health Canada
    began collecting data in the 1960s. Then, fully half the population smoked.

    Lung cancer is the biggest cancer killer in both women and men. It killed an estimated
    17,700 Canadians last year. Smoking is also a leading contributor to heart disease, Canada's
    biggest killer.
     
    Tags:


  2. Forgot to include the bottom line on this "study" - Hooey!!

    > Workers in bars and restaurants most vulnerable to lung cancer, Canadian study says
    >
    > ANDRÉ PICARD PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER
    >
    >
    > People who are routinely exposed to a lot of second-hand smoke, such as workers in bars and
    > restaurants, can see their risk of lung cancer triple, a new study says.
    >
    > The Canadian study provides some of the most compelling scientific evidence yet for a total ban on
    > workplace smoking, including bars and restaurants.
    >
    > The research, published in the International Journal of Cancer, found that the more people smoke
    > in a workplace, the greater the risks to non-smokers.
    >
    > "These data absolutely back a smoking ban in bars," said Dr. Kenneth Johnson, senior
    > epidemiologist at the surveillance and risk-assessment division of Health Canada and the lead
    > researcher.
    >
    > Dr. Roberta Ferrence, director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, said "What's important about
    > this research is it demonstrates a dose-response: The more exposure you have, the higher your
    > risk.
    >
    > "While this may seem obvious, it has long been contested by industry."
    >
    > Dr. Ferrence said she hopes that this "strong new evidence will prompt strong new action" to
    > expand workplace smoking bans.
    >
    > The study also looked at the risk of second-hand smoke in the home.
    >
    > Dr. Johnson and a team at Health Canada analyzed a lifetime of information from 761 women who had
    > never smoked, and 71 others with lung cancer.
    >
    > They found that a non-smoking woman who lives with a smoker has a 21-per-cent higher risk of
    > developing lung cancer over her adult lifetime. But if the woman lived with a smoking parent
    > as a child, her risk jumps 63 per cent, above that of someone who has always lived in a smoke-
    > free home.
    >
    > A woman who has always lived in a smoke-free home but works where smoking is permitted sees her
    > risk of developing lung cancer jump by 27 per cent. That risk climbs steadily over time, and
    > increases based on the number of smokers in the workplace.
    >
    > "There's an underlying [belief] that second-hand smoke increases your risk of developing lung
    > cancer by 20-25 per cent, and maybe that can be explained away by publication bias,"
    > Dr. Johnson said.
    >
    > "But when you see the risk rising by 75 per cent right up to a tripling of the risk, it's hard to
    > argue that nothing is going on."
    >
    > The new research found that when the number of "occupational smoker years" (the number of smokers
    > in the workplace multiplied by the worker's years of service) reaches 26, the risk of lung cancer
    > has doubled.
    >
    > (That could mean two smoking co-workers over 13 years or five smoking co-workers over five years.
    > It could also mean 26 customers daily for a year in a bar.)
    >
    > When researchers looked at the upper third of workers -- those exposed to the most second-hand
    > smoke -- they found the lung cancer risk was more than tripled.
    >
    > Since the early 1980s, more than three dozen studies have examined the impact of secondhand smoke
    > on non-smokers, but the Health Canada research is the first original Canadian data.
    >
    > In the International Journal of Cancer, Dr. Johnson wrote that it is not surprising to see higher
    > risks associated with workplace exposure because studies have consistently demonstrated that the
    > intensity of exposure is higher on the job than at home. The level of nicotine in the air of bars
    > is up to 15 times higher than in the home of a smoker.
    >
    > He said the new research suggests that earlier studies on the impact of secondhand smoke in the
    > home were flawed because they failed to take into account workplace exposure. Similarly, previous
    > research on childhood exposure has tended to look at the impact during childhood only, while the
    > new data demonstrate that the risks are cumulative if exposure continues through adulthood.
    >
    > The Health Canada researchers collected data on the women from the cancer registries of eight
    > provinces.
    >
    > Women are usually the focus of research on secondhand smoke because, historically, they have been
    > far less likely than men to smoke and far more likely to live and work with smokers.
    >
    > Twenty-four per cent of Canadians over the age of 15 now smoke, the lowest rate since Health
    > Canada began collecting data in the 1960s. Then, fully half the population smoked.
    >
    > Lung cancer is the biggest cancer killer in both women and men. It killed an estimated
    > 17,700 Canadians last year. Smoking is also a leading contributor to heart disease, Canada's
    > biggest killer.
    >
     
  3. Magnulus

    Magnulus Guest

    "=> Vox Populi ©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Dr. Johnson and a team at Health Canada analyzed a lifetime of information
    from
    > 761 women who had never smoked, and 71 others with lung cancer.
    >

    That's a rather small number of people for a study like this, that makes such a sweeping
    statement. I would like to know what the p value for the confidence interval was. If it's not less
    than 5 percent, I wouldn't believe it. If a study has a p-value greater than 5 percent, usually it
    can be assumed that the study is not statisticly significant, ie, lacking statistical power. Anti-
    tobacco advocates have been known to mislead before, such as with the EPA and WHO studies, where
    the p value was less than 5 percent, ie, the results were not statisticly significant.
     
  4. magnulus wrote:

    >
    > "=> Vox Populi ©" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> Dr. Johnson and a team at Health Canada analyzed a lifetime of information
    > from
    >> 761 women who had never smoked, and 71 others with lung cancer.
    >>
    >
    > That's a rather small number of people for a study like this, that makes such a sweeping
    > statement.

    Most human beings regard 71 lung cancer victims as 71 too many.

    > I would like to know what the p value for the confidence interval was.

    No, you wouldn't.

    > Anti-tobacco advocates have been known to mislead before,

    I asked one of your fellow asswipes for an example a few months ago. He came up empty-handed. You
    will, too.

    --
    Bob Broughton http://broughton.ca/ Vancouver, BC, Canada "Watch your mouth, if you ever want to
    cross the border. Bad things can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
    mailto:[email protected] , Nov. 30, 2003
     
  5. Magnulus

    Magnulus Guest

    "Robert Broughton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > I asked one of your fellow asswipes for an example a few months ago. He
    came
    > up empty-handed. You will, too.
    >

    An example? The US EPA report. The conclusions are based on bad statistics. Intentionally bad
    statistics.

    > --
    > Bob Broughton http://broughton.ca/ Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Figures. Your country is full of pussies and cowards, all too unfamiliar with skills like critical
    thought. Especially British Columbia.
     
  6. Magnulus

    Magnulus Guest

    Hypothesis: some of the women lied about their smoking status. Maybe some of them were former
    smokers. Whatever. There are dozens of explanations. Also, again, without knowing the p-value, there
    is no way to know if this study has statistical power.
     
  7. Prsmith

    Prsmith Guest

    > Hypothesis: some of the women lied about their smoking status. Maybe some of them were former
    > smokers. Whatever. There are dozens of explanations.

    Yeah and if horses had wings we could all fly too.

    > Also, again, without knowing the p-value, there is no way to know if this study has
    > statistical power.

    If the p-value if of such great importance to you. Go find the study and get the info. I do not
    believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy against tobacco and the myriad of evidence from all of
    the corners of the globe is enough to convince me that tobacco is a serious threat and problem (it
    also appears to be enough for the voters, lawmakers and courts.)
     
  8. PRSmith wrote:
    >> Hypothesis: some of the women lied about their smoking status. Maybe some of them were former
    >> smokers. Whatever. There are dozens of explanations.
    >
    >
    > Yeah and if horses had wings we could all fly too.
    >
    >> Also, again, without knowing the p-value, there is no way to know if this study has
    >> statistical power.
    >
    > If the p-value if of such great importance to you. Go find the study and get the info. I do not
    > believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy against tobacco and the myriad of evidence from all
    > of the corners of the globe is enough to convince me that tobacco is a serious threat and problem
    > (it also appears to be enough for the voters, lawmakers and courts.)

    And of course Magnanus needs to remember that no one cares about the health of smokers, not one
    iota, it doesn't matter if in some alternate universe, SHS was acutally shown to be healthful and
    curative, the laws and restrictions against PUBLIC smoking will continue because it's the obnoxious
    repugnant stench that most people object to being forced to suffer.
     
  9. magnulus wrote:

    >
    > "Robert Broughton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> I asked one of your fellow asswipes for an example a few months ago. He
    > came
    >> up empty-handed. You will, too.
    >>
    >
    > An example? The US EPA report. The conclusions are based on bad statistics. Intentionally bad
    > statistics.
    >

    Hey, I'm capable of typing "US EPA report". See, I just did it. It does nothing to prove your claim
    that the authors of it were misleading anyone. The likelihood that you read some claim about the US
    EPA report on some website somewhere doesn't prove anything, either.

    --
    Bob Broughton http://broughton.ca/ Vancouver, BC, Canada "Watch your mouth, if you ever want to
    cross the border. Bad things can happen to Canadians who use foul language in the US."
    mailto:[email protected] , Nov. 30, 2003
     
  10. > magnulus wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Robert Broughton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>> I asked one of your fellow asswipes for an example a few months ago. He
    >> came
    >>> up empty-handed. You will, too.
    >>>
    >>
    >> An example? The US EPA report. The conclusions are based on bad statistics. Intentionally bad
    >> statistics.
    >>
    Said Barbi Broughton:
    > Hey, I'm capable of typing "US EPA report". See, I just did it. It does nothing to prove your
    > claim that the authors of it were misleading anyone. The likelihood that you read some claim about
    > the US EPA report on some website somewhere doesn't prove anything, either.

    Hey this is great news. None of these reports conclusively prove anything!!

    I'm gonna fire one up and celebrate!
     
  11. [email protected] wrote:
    >> magnulus wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Robert Broughton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>>
    >>>> I asked one of your fellow asswipes for an example a few months ago. He came up empty-handed.
    >>>> You will, too.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> An example? The US EPA report. The conclusions are based on bad statistics. Intentionally bad
    >>> statistics.
    >>>
    > Said Barbi Broughton:
    >> Hey, I'm capable of typing "US EPA report". See, I just did it. It does nothing to prove your
    >> claim that the authors of it were misleading anyone. The likelihood that you read some claim
    >> about the US EPA report on some website somewhere doesn't prove anything, either.
    >
    > Hey this is great news. None of these reports conclusively prove anything!!

    No report conclusively proves the theory of gravity, so do us a favor and take a step off a tall
    building sometime ...

    >
    > I'm gonna fire one up and celebrate!

    Have 2 you simpering junkie ...and remember, society doesn't give

    --

    "Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor
    for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who
    determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
    democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice,
    the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
    tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
    country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
     
  12. > [email protected] wrote:
    >>> magnulus wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Robert Broughton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I asked one of your fellow asswipes for an example a few months ago. He came up empty-handed.
    >>>>> You will, too.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> An example? The US EPA report. The conclusions are based on bad statistics. Intentionally bad
    >>>> statistics.
    >>>>
    >> Said Barbi Broughton:
    >>> Hey, I'm capable of typing "US EPA report". See, I just did it. It does nothing to prove your
    >>> claim that the authors of it were misleading anyone. The likelihood that you read some claim
    >>> about the US EPA report on some website somewhere doesn't prove anything, either.
    >>
    >> Hey this is great news. None of these reports conclusively prove anything!!
    >
    > No report conclusively proves the theory of gravity, so do us a favor and take a step off a tall
    > building sometime ...
    >
    >>
    >> I'm gonna fire one up and celebrate!
    >
    > Have 2 you simpering junkie ...and remember, society doesn't give

    >
    Aw, don't be sore, Poops. Like's too short, even for you non-smokin' goobers.

    Here's firein' two for you. poopster!!

    Yours in a cloud of smoke, One, happy-ass, smokin' son-of-a-bitch
     
  13. [email protected] wrote:
    >> [email protected] wrote:
    >>>> magnulus wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Robert Broughton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I asked one of your fellow asswipes for an example a few months ago. He came up empty-handed.
    >>>>>> You will, too.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> An example? The US EPA report. The conclusions are based on bad statistics. Intentionally bad
    >>>>> statistics.
    >>>>>
    >>> Said Barbi Broughton:
    >>>> Hey, I'm capable of typing "US EPA report". See, I just did it. It does nothing to prove your
    >>>> claim that the authors of it were misleading anyone. The likelihood that you read some claim
    >>>> about the US EPA report on some website somewhere doesn't prove anything, either.
    >>>
    >>> Hey this is great news. None of these reports conclusively prove anything!!
    >>
    >> No report conclusively proves the theory of gravity, so do us a favor and take a step off a tall
    >> building sometime ...
    >>
    >>>
    >>> I'm gonna fire one up and celebrate!
    >>
    >> Have 2 you simpering junkie ...and remember, society doesn't give

    >> never will.
    >>
    > Aw, don't be sore, Poops. Like's too short, even for you non-smokin' goobers.
    >
    > Here's firein' two for you. poopster!!
    >
    > Yours in a cloud of smoke, One, happy-ass, smokin' son-of-a-bitch

    Excellent! 16 more minutes off your miserable life. Now suck harder and faster addict, as the places
    you are permitted to smoke are becoming few and far between.
     
  14. > [email protected] wrote:
    >>> [email protected] wrote:
    >>>>> magnulus wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Robert Broughton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I asked one of your fellow asswipes for an example a few months ago. He came up empty-
    >>>>>>> handed. You will, too.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> An example? The US EPA report. The conclusions are based on bad statistics. Intentionally bad
    >>>>>> statistics.
    >>>>>>
    >>>> Said Barbi Broughton:
    >>>>> Hey, I'm capable of typing "US EPA report". See, I just did it. It does nothing to prove your
    >>>>> claim that the authors of it were misleading anyone. The likelihood that you read some claim
    >>>>> about the US EPA report on some website somewhere doesn't prove anything, either.
    >>>>
    >>>> Hey this is great news. None of these reports conclusively prove anything!!
    >>>
    >>> No report conclusively proves the theory of gravity, so do us a favor and take a step off a tall
    >>> building sometime ...
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm gonna fire one up and celebrate!
    >>>
    >>> Have 2 you simpering junkie ...and remember, society doesn't give

    >>> never will.
    >>>
    >> Aw, don't be sore, Poops. Like's too short, even for you non-smokin' goobers.
    >>
    >> Here's firein' two for you. poopster!!
    >>
    >> Yours in a cloud of smoke, One, happy-ass, smokin' son-of-a-bitch

    Vox Poop-Off angrily responded:
    > Excellent! 16 more minutes off your miserable life. Now suck harder and faster addict, as the
    > places you are permitted to smoke are becoming few and far between.
    >
    Not for me are they far and few between, Poops!

    Enshrouded in a cloud of heavy, and heavenly, smoke while puffing my ass of for the Poopster
     
Loading...