3000 die every year from second hand smoke

[Dave D]

When will congress step up and ban cigarettes and cigars? How many non smokers have to die before the media will address this issue?




It's slow here today.....

[dan18]

When will congress step up and ban cigarettes and cigars? How many non smokers have to die before the media will address this issue?




It's slow here today.....

even more live in poverty and have no food yet we feed other countries provide aid but we take care of our people last even more are homeless...get in line with the issues we face and have faced for years and nothing gets done..

[LMV]

only bums and bearded hustlers go for second hand smoke, cheap mofo's

[robcguns]

That’s it?would have figured a lot more

[ratherbebig]

sounds like that would be hard to prove

[Dave D]

sounds like that would be hard to prove

Nope. Medical science makes it VERY easy to determine this cause of death.

That’s it?would have figured a lot more

Agreed

[Pray_4_War]

Ban cigarettes.  Door to door confiscation.

[Dave D]

Guns dont kill people.
but in the USA in 2015 11000 people were killed by other people using guns

Ban people who use guns?

[NarcissisticDeity]

Doctors kill more than ALL gun combined. Ban doctors !!

Through their analysis of four other studies examining death rate information, the doctors estimate there are at least 251,454 deaths due to medical errors annually in the United States. The authors believe the number is actually much higher, as home and nursing home deaths are not counted in that total.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/03/health/medical-error-a-leading-cause-of-death/index.html

[Dave D]

Has anyone suggested making bullets harder to get?

If there were tougher restrictions on ammunition madmen wouldn't be so liberal to shoot so often.

[ratherbebig]

Nope. Medical science makes it VERY easy to determine this cause of death.

no it doesnt.

[Dave D]

no it doesnt.

VERY EASY.

like a ballistic test for your lungs.

Smoke inhaled directly from a cigarette is distinctly different from second hand smoke.

[ratherbebig]

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 105, Issue 24, 18 December 2013, Pages 1844–1846

"A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke."

[Dave D]

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 105, Issue 24, 18 December 2013, Pages 1844–1846

"A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke."

A study from 2013 is the best you can do?

I have something a little more recent.



https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140130190453.htm


Date:January 30, 2014

Source:University of California - Riverside

Summary:Do not smoke and do not allow yourself to be exposed to smoke because second-hand smoke and third-hand smoke are just as deadly as first-hand smoke, say scientists who conducted the first animal study of the effects of third-hand smoke.

[ratherbebig]

your more recent study was from the month after, and on mice compared to a study on 76,000 women

[Dave D]

your more recent study was from the month after, and on mice compared to a study on 76,000 women

And?

[oldtimer1]

More than half of all lung cancers are people who don't smoke. How can you prove second hand smoke is the reason?

[Dave D]

More than half of all lung cancers are people who don't smoke. How can you prove second hand smoke is the reason?

Research.

No one said second hand smoke causes half of all lung cancers, it causes 3000 deaths a year.


Or are you saying scientists don't know what causes lung cancer?

[ratherbebig]

Another problem is that measuring exposure to passive smoke is hard. “Living with a husband who smokes a lot with the windows closed is reported the same as living with one who smokes a little, mostly on the porch

However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding of only borderline statistical significance.

[cart@@n]

Second hand smoke is not the only cause for lung cancer.
Just an example:

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radon.html

[Dave D]

Another problem is that measuring exposure to passive smoke is hard. “Living with a husband who smokes a lot with the windows closed is reported the same as living with one who smokes a little, mostly on the porch

However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding of only borderline statistical significance.

Oh.

Did the national cancer institute obtain these results via scientific testing or did they rely on the accounts of these women, which as we know via getbig women cannot be trusted.

It's strange that a study that used mice in a controlled environment with measured variables would yield different results.


Maybe the cancer institute should use children next time so they can provide more conclusive results.

[ratherbebig]

from your study in mice it doesnt follow that 3000 people die of lung cancer due to second hand smoke.

[Dave D]

from your study in mice it doesnt follow that 3000 people die of lung cancer due to second hand smoke.

And your study doesn't say that 0 people die from second hand smoke.

[ratherbebig]

And your study doesn't say that 0 people die from second hand smoke.

i never claimed it did.

you on the other hand is claiming 3000 deaths and then goes on to post studies of mice as evidence.

or maybe thats what you meant, that 3000 mice died?

[Dave D]

The numbers are worse than I initially  reported.

https://betobaccofree.hhs.gov/health-effects/secondhand-smoke/index.html

Exposure to secondhand smoke can also cause coronary heart disease and have negative effects on your blood and blood vessels, increasing your risk of a heart attack. Heart disease caused by secondhand smoke kills approximately 46,000 nonsmokers every year.

i never claimed it did.

you on the other hand is claiming 3000 deaths and then goes on to post studies of mice as evidence.

or maybe thats what you meant, that 3000 mice died?

Nope.

Science makes the claims. I only report brother.