London pollution warning.

Matt B wrote:
On 26/03/2011 18:09, Tony Raven wrote:
wrote:

Drivers can be exposed to even higher levels of health-damaging pollutants
than those experienced by cyclists and pedestrians.

so cyclists do not need to whinge about it as they have less of it to
breathe than car drivers suffer.

That's a bit like saying that passive smokers have no need to complain
because they breathe less smoke than smokers.

IIRC, there was a 40-year study carried out in America that followed the
lives of 100,000, or more, couples - where one smoked and one didn't,
comparing them with couples where neither smoked, and that it showed that
the non-smokers living with smokers showed an insignificant increased
risk of developing a serious smoke-related illness over non-smokers who
lived with non-smokers for the same period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Evidence

In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the
World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence
related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:

"These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and
consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and
exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess
risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after
controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding."


--
Tony

On 27/03/2011 15:45, Matt B wrote:
On 26/03/2011 18:09, Tony Raven wrote:
wrote:

Drivers can be exposed to even higher levels of health-damaging
pollutants
than those experienced by cyclists and pedestrians.

so cyclists do not need to whinge about it as they have less of it to
breathe than car drivers suffer.

That's a bit like saying that passive smokers have no need to complain
because they breathe less smoke than smokers.

IIRC, there was a 40-year study carried out in America that followed the
lives of 100,000, or more, couples - where one smoked and one didn't,
comparing them with couples where neither smoked, and that it showed
that the non-smokers living with smokers showed an insignificant
increased risk of developing a serious smoke-related illness over
non-smokers who lived with non-smokers for the same period.

There have been similar studies where the non smokers showed a lesser risk.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 27/03/2011 17:03, Tony Raven wrote:
Matt wrote:
On 26/03/2011 18:09, Tony Raven wrote:
wrote:

Drivers can be exposed to even higher levels of health-damaging pollutants
than those experienced by cyclists and pedestrians.

so cyclists do not need to whinge about it as they have less of it to
breathe than car drivers suffer.

That's a bit like saying that passive smokers have no need to complain
because they breathe less smoke than smokers.

IIRC, there was a 40-year study carried out in America that followed the
lives of 100,000, or more, couples - where one smoked and one didn't,
comparing them with couples where neither smoked, and that it showed that
the non-smokers living with smokers showed an insignificant increased
risk of developing a serious smoke-related illness over non-smokers who
lived with non-smokers for the same period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Evidence

In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the
World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence
related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:

"These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and
consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and
exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess
risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after
controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding."


In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study that
seriously questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on
health. According to the study, the link between environmental tobacco
smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably
weaker than generally believed. The analysis, by James Enstrom of the
University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New
Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the
American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were
followed until 1998. The authors found that exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly
associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any
time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors,
suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30%
increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed,
although a small effect cannot be ruled out.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study that seriously
questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health. According
to the study, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary
heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally
believed. The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California,
Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved
118,094 California adults enrolled in the American Cancer Society cancer
prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. The authors found
that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in
spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart
disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These
findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could
not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is
generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.



You missed a bit out:

A 2003 study by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the British Medical
Journal, argued that the harms of passive smoking had been overstated.[102]
Their analysis reported no statistically significant relationship between
passive smoking and lung cancer, though the accompanying editorial noted
that "they may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings."[103]
This paper was widely promoted by the tobacco industry as evidence that the
harms of passive smoking were unproven.[104][105] The American Cancer
Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data,
criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that
scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom
and Kabat's methodology prior to publication.[106] Notably, the study had
failed to identify a comparison group of "unexposed" persons.[107]
Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter
to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment...
in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of
epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health
effects of ETS and active smoking."[108] In a US racketeering lawsuit
against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US
District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in
criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke."[109]
The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center
for Indoor Air Research,[110] a tobacco industry front group tasked with
"offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip
Morris[111] who stated that Ernstrom's work was "clearly
litigation-oriented."[112] Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study
against what he terms "illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted
to suppress and discredit it."[113]

--
Tony

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 17:57:58 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 27/03/2011 15:45, Matt B wrote:
On 26/03/2011 18:09, Tony Raven wrote:
wrote:

Drivers can be exposed to even higher levels of health-damaging
pollutants
than those experienced by cyclists and pedestrians.

so cyclists do not need to whinge about it as they have less of it to
breathe than car drivers suffer.

That's a bit like saying that passive smokers have no need to complain
because they breathe less smoke than smokers.

IIRC, there was a 40-year study carried out in America that followed
the lives of 100,000, or more, couples - where one smoked and one
didn't, comparing them with couples where neither smoked, and that it
showed that the non-smokers living with smokers showed an insignificant
increased risk of developing a serious smoke-related illness over
non-smokers who lived with non-smokers for the same period.

There have been similar studies where the non smokers showed a lesser
risk.

I also am not in favour of restricting people's freedoms to live life and
be happy, providing those people do not interfere with other people's
similar rights.



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

Peter Keller wrote:

I also am not in favour of restricting people's freedoms to live life and
be happy, providing those people do not interfere with other people's
similar rights.



"If I'm in a restaurant and I'm eating and somebody says, 'Hey, mind if I
smoke,' I always ask, "No, mind if I fart?"
- Steve Martin

--
Tony

On 27/03/2011 18:45, Tony Raven wrote:
The Medway wrote:

In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study that seriously
questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health. According
to the study, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary
heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally
believed. The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California,
Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved
118,094 California adults enrolled in the American Cancer Society cancer
prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. The authors found
that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in
spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart
disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These
findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could
not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is
generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.



You missed a bit out:

A 2003 study by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the British Medical
Journal, argued that the harms of passive smoking had been overstated.[102]
Their analysis reported no statistically significant relationship between
passive smoking and lung cancer, though the accompanying editorial noted
that "they may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings."[103]
This paper was widely promoted by the tobacco industry as evidence that the
harms of passive smoking were unproven.[104][105] The American Cancer
Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data,
criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that
scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom
and Kabat's methodology prior to publication.[106] Notably, the study had
failed to identify a comparison group of "unexposed" persons.[107]
Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter
to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment...
in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of
epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health
effects of ETS and active smoking."[108] In a US racketeering lawsuit
against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US
District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in
criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke."[109]
The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center
for Indoor Air Research,[110] a tobacco industry front group tasked with
"offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip
Morris[111] who stated that Ernstrom's work was "clearly
litigation-oriented."[112] Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study
against what he terms "illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted
to suppress and discredit it."[113]

So a study allegedly influenced by the tobacco industry is 'bad' but an
alleged 'charity' ASH which is 90% funded by Pfizer ( makers of nicotine
patches & gum) is 'good'?



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 27/03/2011 23:24, Tony Raven wrote:
Peter wrote:

I also am not in favour of restricting people's freedoms to live life and
be happy, providing those people do not interfere with other people's
similar rights.



"If I'm in a restaurant and I'm eating and somebody says, 'Hey, mind if I
smoke,' I always ask, "No, mind if I fart?"
- Steve Martin


We could of course have had 'choice'. But that wasn't the point of the
legislation.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:48:17 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 27/03/2011 23:24, Tony Raven wrote:
Peter wrote:

I also am not in favour of restricting people's freedoms to live life
and be happy, providing those people do not interfere with other
people's similar rights.



"If I'm in a restaurant and I'm eating and somebody says, 'Hey, mind if
I smoke,' I always ask, "No, mind if I fart?" - Steve Martin


We could of course have had 'choice'. But that wasn't the point of the
legislation.

That is his choice, though by such an action he seems to show that he
does mind if that person smokes. So why not be honest and say so?
Rather than a retaliatory measure of farting ...



--
67.4% of statistics are made up.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 27/03/2011 18:45, Tony Raven wrote:
The Medway wrote:

In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study that seriously
questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health. According
to the study, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary
heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally
believed. The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California,
Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved
118,094 California adults enrolled in the American Cancer Society cancer
prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. The authors found
that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in
spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart
disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These
findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could
not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is
generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.



You missed a bit out:

A 2003 study by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the British Medical
Journal, argued that the harms of passive smoking had been overstated.[102]
Their analysis reported no statistically significant relationship between
passive smoking and lung cancer, though the accompanying editorial noted
that "they may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings."[103]
This paper was widely promoted by the tobacco industry as evidence that the
harms of passive smoking were unproven.[104][105] The American Cancer
Society (ACS), whose database Enstrom and Kabat used to compile their data,
criticized the paper as "neither reliable nor independent", stating that
scientists at the ACS had repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in Enstrom
and Kabat's methodology prior to publication.[106] Notably, the study had
failed to identify a comparison group of "unexposed" persons.[107]
Enstrom's ties to the tobacco industry also drew scrutiny; in a 1997 letter
to Philip Morris, Enstrom requested a "substantial research commitment...
in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of
epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health
effects of ETS and active smoking."[108] In a US racketeering lawsuit
against tobacco companies, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the US
District Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in
criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke."[109]
The Court found that the study had been funded and managed by the Center
for Indoor Air Research,[110] a tobacco industry front group tasked with
"offsetting" damaging studies on passive smoking, as well as by Phillip
Morris[111] who stated that Ernstrom's work was "clearly
litigation-oriented."[112] Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study
against what he terms "illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted
to suppress and discredit it."[113]

So a study allegedly influenced by the tobacco industry is 'bad' but an
alleged 'charity' ASH which is 90% funded by Pfizer ( makers of nicotine
patches & gum) is 'good'?



If ASH is funding research where their role is not disclosed then it would
be as bad and against Article 30 of the Declaration of Helsinki that
governs all medical research. I am not aware of that being the case for
the research showing a strong link between passive smoking and health
problems. Are you?

--
Tony