Reply With Quote
Right, can't dispute the information so go after the agenda/funding angle.
I'm not surprised as it's a common theme from the anti-smoking front.
who the heck is "dave hitt" and why should I believe you and him over the Surgeon General of the United States, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and some other world health agencies?
Believe what you want.
You should, however, read the actual reports that these agencies get there information from.
Right, can't dispute the information so go after the agenda/funding angle.
I'm not surprised as it's a common theme from the anti-smoking front.
Ok, let's try this angle.
I'll take a quote from one of your sources, being the WHO (World Health Organization):
"Online Q&A
31 May 2007
Why is smoking an issue for non-smokers?
Question and answer archives
Q: Why is smoking an issue for non-smokers?
A: There are some 4000 known chemicals in tobacco smoke; more than 50 of them are known to cause cancer in humans. Tobacco smoke in enclosed spaces is breathed in by everyone, exposing smokers and non-smokers alike to its harmful effects.
According to the International Labour Organization, 200 000 workers die every year due to exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke at work. WHO estimates that around 700 million children, or almost half of the world's children, breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke.
Neither ventilation nor filtration, even in combination, can reduce tobacco smoke exposure indoors to levels that are considered acceptable. Only 100% smoke-free environments provide effective protection. Contrary to common belief, smoke-free environments are widely supported by both smokers and non-smokers.
Having a smoke-free environment often saves money for bars and restaurant owners, reducing their risks of fire and consequently their insurance costs. It often results in lower renovation, cleaning and maintenance costs too.
Article 8 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, recognizes that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability, and asks countries to adopt and implement legislation that provides protection from second-hand smoke.
Many countries around the world have already introduced laws to protect people from exposure to tobacco smoke in public places. Celebrations around the globe on World No Tobacco Day (31 May) encourage more people and more countries to go smoke-free.
Join the trend by claiming your right to public places that are 100% smoke-free inside."
http://www.who.int/features/qa/60/en/index.html
I don't see anything here talking about the EPA, do you?
Funny how the guts of these studies are never reported.
I'll help you out: it's yet another survey where exposure is estimated.
I was gonna post study after study, but then I realized that I'm pretty much talking to one of the few that still are arguing that the world is flat.
here is a link that provides page after page after page of studies done of secondhand smoke:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=4&gl=us
grant it, it is "no-smoke.org", however, there is no opinion given here.......it is all just links and intros to these studies.
Do you even read the links they provide?
Sampling of information from those links on the first two pages:
The data available were insufficient to establish conclusive relationships between ETS and these eye diseases.
650 is too small but this is relevant to you: We studied 29 control babies ...
No significant association was observed between perinatal tobacco smoke exposure and the development of asthma and atopic eczema. Our findings suggest that postnatal maternal smoking might be associated with an increased risk of wheeze in Japanese infants.
Among 361 021 rural and urban families in Indonesia, paternal smoking was associated with increased infant mortality. Paternal smoking diverts money from basic necessities to cigarettes and adversely affects child health; tobacco control should therefore be considered among strategies to improve child survival.
And I hope Big Pharma doesn't have a hand in any of those studies. By your logic, that automatically eliminates the validity of the study.
pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffft.
sincerely,
the Surgeon General
Brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause blood vessel, stem cell damage in 30 minutes
Email this articleDate: 2008-05-02
Contact: Kirsten Michener
Phone: (415) 476-2557
Email: [email protected]
Exposure to secondhand smoke even for a brief period is injurious to health, a new study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco has found.
According to the study, a 30-minute exposure to the level of secondhand smoke that one might normally inhale in an average bar setting was enough to result in blood vessel injury in young and otherwise healthy lifelong nonsmokers. Compounding the injury to the blood vessels themselves, the exposure to smoke impedes the function of the body's natural repair mechanisms that are activated in the face of the blood vessels' injury, the researchers report. Many of these effects persisted 24 hours later.
Study findings are reported in the online edition of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and will appear in the journal's May 6 print issue.
The results showed that brief exposure to real-world levels of passive smoke has strong and persistent consequences on the body's vascular system, the researchers conclude.
For the study, subjects were exposed to carefully controlled levels of secondhand smoke in a research setting. The smoke was equivalent to being in a bar where smoking is allowed -- as it still is for 51 percent of the U.S. population and in other countries, such as Germany -- for 30 minutes. As a control, the same subjects were exposed to clean air on a different day.
In both settings, the researchers evaluated the subjects' blood vessel health through ultrasound to measure blood flow and analysis of blood samples. In the exposure environment, this was done before exposure to establish baseline measures, immediately after exposure, and then 1 hour, 2.5 hours and 24 hours after exposure. The study involved 10 young adult subjects between the ages of 29 and 31.
The study is the first of its kind to link injury to blood vessels with the decreased efficacy of the body's own repair mechanism, namely the endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). EPCs are circulating stem cells in the blood that play a key role in the repair mechanism of injured blood vessels.
The researchers examined three effects of secondhand smoke exposure:
the effect of smoke on the mechanical function of blood vessels
whether they could detect particles in the blood that are known to be increased in the blood due to blood vessel injury
whether there was any effect on the stem cells (EPCs) that comprise the body's blood vessel repair mechanisms
"We wanted to study whether even a brief 30 minutes of exposure to second hand smoke in otherwise healthy subjects would result in blood vessel injury and how the body's own repair mechanisms-the EPCs-would be affected by such an exposure," says Yerem Yeghiazarians, MD, director of the Translational Cardiac Stem Cell Program at UCSF.
The secondhand smoke's effect on all measures was profound, he says. "Even brief secondhand smoke exposure not only resulted in blood vessel injury, but it also interfered with the body's ability to repair itself by making the EPCs dysfunctional. It is quite amazing that only 30 minutes of exposure could cause such demonstrable effects." The study also showed that the deleterious effects of the exposure remain in the body for at least 24 hours, much longer than previously thought.
Study results showed that smoke exposure made EPCs less functional. "So it's a double hit: not only does a person develop blood vessel injury, but the cells that are supposed to help repair this damage are themselves also dysfunctional, compounding the injury," he says.
The public health implications of the study findings are significant, according to Yeghiazarians. "Our study helps explain why there is about a 20 percent drop in hospital admissions for heart attacks when cities and states pass laws mandating smokefree workplaces, restaurants and bars."
The study suggests that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, he says.
The study was supported by awards from the Flight Attendant Medical Research Ins ute, the American Heart Association, the Wayne and Gladys Valley Foundation, and the UCSF Cardiac Stem Cell Foundation. In addition to Yeghiazarians, other lead investigators on the study are Christian Heiss, MD, and Nicolas Amabile, MD, who contributed to the work as fellows in the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, at UCSF.
Other investigators in the study are Andrew C. Lee, MD; Wendy May Real, BS; Suzaynn F. Schick, PhD; David Lao, MD; Maelene L. Wong, BS; Sarah Jahn, MB; Franca S. Angeli, MD; Petros Minasi, BA; Matthew L. Springer, PhD; Stanton Glantz, PhD, FACC; William Grossman, MD, FACC; and John Balmes, MD, FACC; all of the Department of Medicine at UCSF. S. Katharine Hammond, PhD, of the Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, UC Berkeley, also contributed to the study.
UCSF is a leading university dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care. For more information on UCSF, visit www.ucsf.edu.
tell you what......
post a study done this decade by a university or a group of researchers with no apparent agendas and I might start taking your posts with a grain of salt.
Otherwise, you are nothing more than disgruntled smoking fan #54,927
And I'd advise you to do the same. I suggest you look up Stanton Glantz's, who was a lead researcher in the UCSF study, track record in these studies. Or look up Helena.
You also realize his PHD is in mechanical engineering, right?
Or who the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation really is...
Next you'll tell that James Repace is credible.
good Lord.
Find a reputable source that discredits Glantz's findings over the years and I'll listen.
Still waiting for some studies done this decade that show nothing's wrong with second hand smoke.
Passive smoking hinders healing, study explains why
Main Category: Biology / Biochemistry
Article Date: 05 Apr 2004 - 0:00 PDT
email to a friend printer friendly view / write opinions rate article
Ads by Google
Current Article Ratings:
Patient / Public: 5 (1 votes)
Health Professional:
Article Opinions: 0 posts
Find other articles on: "manuela martins green wikipedia"Being exposed to high levels of 'second-hand' smoke can reduce the speed at which wounds heal, leading to a lack of healing or greater levels of scarring. A study published in the journal BMC Cell Biology this week may begin to explain why: when cells are exposed to smoke, their ability to migrate towards the site of damage is compromised.
The study, carried out by researchers from University of California, Riverside, examined the effects of 'second-hand' smoke on fibroblasts, cells that play a major role in wound healing. They found that, among other things, exposure to smoke altered the arrangement of the cells' cytoskeleton - increasing the cells' adhesive properties and thus reducing their motility.
The researchers write: "These effects can contribute to abnormal healing and may explain why people who are consistently exposed to 'second-hand' smoke suffer from slow healing and excessive scarring of wounds, much like smokers themselves."
The research team, led by Professor Manuela Martins-Green, bubbled smoke from the lit end of cigarettes through cell culture media to form a solution containing the major components of 'second-hand' smoke. They then diluted the 'smoky media' until the smoke components reached the levels found in the tissues of passive smokers.
When they added this media to fibroblast cells cultured in vitro, the researchers saw that the cells became more elongated and that they separated from one another. By studying components of the cytoskeleton in more detail the researchers saw that exposure to smoke increased the level of one particular cytoskeletal component, actin, inside the cell. It also increased the number of points at which the cell stuck to the Petri dish, sites that could be identified by the presence of 'focal adhesion plaques'.
In a separate experiment, the researchers showed that fibroblasts that had been cultured in the 'smoky medium' were less mobile than control cells.
During normal wound healing, fibroblasts migrate into the area of damaged tissue and secrete growth factors, cytokines and extra-cellular matrix components. If the cells are unable to migrate, they will remain concentrated at the edge of the wound, preventing the wound from closing properly. If, in addition, the fibroblasts deposit excess extra-cellular matrix components at the edge of the wound, abnormal scars are likely to form.
"These findings have led us to further our studies in a system that more closely mimics the in vivo environment. We are currently using a mouse model system and special chambers, where the mice smoke, to attempt to correlate our in vitro findings with in vivo results," write the researchers.
Preliminary results suggest that mice that have been exposed to smoke for 6 months are indeed slower at healing wounds. Seven days after mice were wounded using a 5mm diameter hole-punch, wounds of 'non-smoking' mice were 95% closed, whereas wounds of 'smokers' were only 85% closed.
In 'second-hand' smoke, many components are more concentrated than in first-hand smoke. For example, the concentrations of nicotine, tar, nitric oxide and carbon monoxide levels are at least twice as high. The researchers hope that their work will: "lead eventually to the realization that 'second-hand' smoke exposure can be very damaging."
---------------------------------
This press release is based on the following article: Effects of 'second-hand' smoke on structure and function of fibroblasts - cells that are critical for tissue repair and remodelling
Lina Wong, Harry Miguel Green, Jo Ellen Feugate, Madhav Yadav, Eugene A Nothnagel and Manuela Martins-Green BMC Cell Biology 2004, 5:12 To be published 5 April 2004
Upon publication this article will be available free of charge according to BMC Cell Biology's Open Access policy at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2121/5/12/
Please mention the journal in any story you write, and link to the article if you are writing for the web.
-----------------------------------
For further information about this research contact Professor Manuela Martins-Green by email at [email protected]r by phone on 909-787-2585.
Alternatively, or for further information about BMC Cell Biology or Open Access publishing, contact Gemma Bradley, by phone on 44-207-323-0323 or email at [email protected].
Scottish study shows smoking ban reduces hospital admissions for heart attacks
31 July 2008
NHS Health Scotland, the national health improvement agency, has found a 17% fall in admissions for heart attacks just one year after a national smoking ban[1] came into force.
Undertaken by the University of Glasgow, this study is one of the most robust of its kind, and was commissioned as part of a national evaluation of the impact of Scotland's smoke-free legislation. Published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine, the results from a study of nine Scottish hospitals[2[ demonstrate the positive impact going smoke-free can have on the health of the population.
The evaluation of Scotland’s smoke-free law found that after the legislation came into force there was:
a 17% reduction in heart attack admissions to nine Scottish hospitals. This compares with an annual reduction in Scottish admissions for heart attack of 3% per year in the decade before the ban;
an 86% reduction in second-hand smoke in bars;
a 39% reduction in second-hand smoke exposure in 11-year-olds and in adult non-smokers;
an increase in the proportion of homes with smoking restrictions;
no evidence of smoking shifting from public places into the home; and
considerable public support for the legislation even among smokers, whose support increased once the legislation was in place.
Professor Jill Pell, University of Glasgow who conducted the study said: “Previous analyses of routine hospital admission data from the US and Italy have reported reductions in heart attacks following the introduction of smoking bans. However, our Scottish study, is the first to examine the impact of the legislation on smokers and non-smokers separately.
"We have been able to demonstrate that two-thirds of the observed reduction in heart attack has occurred in non-smokers and the results of the blood tests confirmed a reduction in exposure to second-hand smoke among non-smokers. We believe that most of the reduction can be attributed to the introduction of the Scottish smoking ban.”
Sally Haw, Principal Public Health Adviser at NHS Health Scotland, co-ordinated the research programme: "This evaluation of impact of smoke-free legislation is the most comprehensive yet conducted and the findings have exceeded our greatest expectations. As well as the dramatic 17% reduction in heart attacks, we found clear evidence of: improvements in the respiratory health of bar workers; reductions in second-hand exposure in bar workers, and adults and children the general population; and changing socio-cultural norms about smoking and the acceptability of exposing others to SHS.
“The findings from the Scottish study of heart attacks are of worldwide importance and the combined results from the evaluation provide a compelling case for other countries to implement a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places as soon as possible, thereby reducing the harm caused by second-hand smoke. However, it is essential that smoke-free legislation is set within the context of wider tobacco control activity as outlined in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control — an international treaty designed to reduce both the demand for and the supply of tobacco products." [3"]
Deputy Chief Medical Officer Professor Peter Donnelly said: "This raft of research demonstrates the significant public health benefits that the smoking ban is already having in Scotland. It provides evidence that the legislation is improving the health of everyone in Scotland — including smokers, non-smokers, children and barworkers. One of the most important findings is the reduction in heart attacks. We believe that the smoking ban was a large contributory factor to this drop and I am confident that we will continue to see the positive effects of the ban in years to come."
The publication of this study comes together with other good news internationally; Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates announced in New York last week a further $375 million investment ($250 million from the Bloomberg Family Foundation and $125 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) in tobacco control activity in developing countries; while China has made the forthcoming Olympics a smoke-free event when it takes the world stage in August.
Notes
1. The Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act came into force in Scotland on 26th March 2006 and prohibits smoking in virtually all enclosed public places including bars restaurants and cafes.
2. The heart attack admissions to the nine study hospitals account for 63% of all Scottish admissions for heart attack.
3. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control : www.who.int/fctc/en/
ok now I really mean it.....I'm done with arguing with lion fan.....it's like proving water is wet to a 3 year old.
Regarding Helena, where Glantz initially released press releases claiming a 60% decrease but backtracked to 40% a year later:
That's from Michael Siegel who:These analyses demonstrate that on a state-wide level, there is no suggestion of any large-scale effect on heart attack admissions associated with the implementation of statewide bans on smoking in child-friendly restaurants, all restaurants, bars, or bars and restaurants.
If there were a true 27% or 40% decrease in heart attack admissions due to smoking bans that occurred almost immediately (within six months, as claimed), one would have expected to see a demonstrable decline in such admissions in states that implemented such bans.
is a physician who completed his residency in Preventive Medicine at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health and trained in epidemiology for two years at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta before coming to Boston. His primary research interest is in the area of tobacco control, focusing on secondhand smoke health effects, exposure, and policies, cigarette advertising and marketing practices and their effects on youths, and evaluation of tobacco control policies and their impact on youth and adult smoking behavior.
BTW, the claims of that study are impossible mathematically. Not to mention none of the people were ever asked of any SHS exposure, anything about their age or diets, if they were smokers/non-smokers/ex-smokers, etc.
And what is Glantz doing in Helena anyway? Why doesn't he study the numbers in his home state of California? Oh, that's right, larger numbers kill the whole premise of these overinflated numbers. Or maybe because collecting the data as Glantz and co. did, hospitals in California had a 6% increase in the year following their statewide ban.
But that's OK, right?
And for the Scottish claims, here are the real numbers. Does this mean the smoking ban actually increased heart attacks?
http://www.pr-inside.com/official-sc...in-r941241.htmHowever, official statistics show that the decline in hospitals admissions for acute coronary syndrome has been greatly exaggerated. The real decline in the first year of the smoking ban was just 7.2% - not 17% - and the rate then rose by 7.8% in the second year, cancelling out the earlier drop
See what happens when you cherry pick data?
And you say it's so obvious but I've handled almost every propaganda link you've given.
you're trying to go all in on a pair of twos...
done.
No, I pretty much just kicked your ass on Scotland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stm
Here's a story of a study that was funded by the ACS for a majority of the time the data was being collected. When the ACS found out where the study was headed, they pulled their funding. Kabat and Enstrom then turned to Philip Morris. The criticisms of the paper mainly revolve around the funding. It's the longest study every done:
Comments can be found here, where the funding angle gets 90% of the love:The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057
after looking it up, it appears there might be something to that one particular study.
Congrats, you just debunked one link out of the dozens I've given while you have given nothing but links run by smokers and obscure studies dated back in the 90s.
The EPA and the Surgeon General both say it's dangerous. You've got absolutely nothing but a few debunkers and a site called FORCES which the acronym stands for "freedom to smoke" or something along those lines.
Bottom line, true or false: Is second hand smoke dangerous?
Not on the level of the current hysteria, no.
There are many other things that people should be worried about: carcinogens in their food and water, biochemical plants close to where they live, etc. etc.
Bottom line: Do you think changing the parameters of a study to reach a preconceived outcome makes it more or less credible?
Are any of the studies either of us posted done at 90% CI besides the EPA report?
And not to debunk an earlier link of yours but this is the logic at play:
30 minutes exposure increases chance of heart attack.
Which falls in line with:
30 minutes of sun exposure increases risk of skin cancer
Eating a one Big Mac a month increases your chances of a heart attack
Flying in a plane increases risk of cosmic radiation
The next 30 minutes of your life increases your chance of dying
They've successfully made SHS just as deadly as smoking itself. And not by science, but by press releases.
Nobody is saying food, water, and biochemical plants shouldn't be looked at as well.
bottom line: is second hand smoke dangerous? simple yes or no.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions