I am sure smoking can increase your risk for some lung related disease, but they have so over blown the research that you never hear these stories
Passive smoking not so bad?
A study concludes that inhaling passive smoke may not be as bad for you as was previously believed; though some have questioned the findings.
21 05 2003
Have we all been duped into believing that passive smoking, inhaling other people’s smoke, is bad for us? There’s an international row over a study published in the British Medical Journal.
In a paper that many people in public health wish had never seen the light of day, Californian researchers found no increased risk from what’s called 'environmental tobacco smoke'.
They analysed information from 118,000 people followed for about 40 years, focusing on people who never smoked who were married to someone with known smoking habits.
If someone lived with a heavy smoker it was assumed they had heavy passive exposure to tobacco smoke.
But the results found no link with heart disease or lung cancer and maybe a small risk of chronic obstructive lung disease.
The findings don’t necessarily turn a decade of passive smoking legislation on its head though. The study has been criticised on a number of fronts: there was no objective measure of smoke exposure, the group of people was not typical of the normal population, they were wealthier than average (which could mean a bigger house and less exposure to smoke. Others have pointed out the study was partly funded by the tobacco industry.
Even so it will open up past data to re-examination.
Another story you don’t hear is about the Professor at Irvine University that completed a long term study that concluded that not only second hand smoke but smoking itself may not have as strong a link to Asthma and Cancer. Part of his findings were based on statistic related to increase Asthma and Lung Cancer while the number of smokers has dropped in the last 25 years over 50%, Asthma has gone up in children over 100% and Lung Cancer rates has doubled, there was not only a lack of a correlated drop in these diseases, but staggering increases. The Professor would not retract his paper as asked to by the University which is a leader in anti-smoking research (and funding) and had Tenure removed and fired. This was a huge story when I was working in LA in 2010, but I never saw it reported nationally.
Another story you don’t here much that was on 60 minutes concerned Detectives at a Police Department that smoked were let go, they had to bring them back because it turned out the ones that smoked were better at solving crimes.
They have most people brainwashed that everything is linked to smoking and smoke, yet all those people who were alive in the 40's, 50's, and 60's that were in smoked filled rooms, cars, halls, restaurants, stadiums…these people are living longer in greater numbers than any generation before, where are the effects?
They are scaring the shit out of people in California with commercials showing other peoples smoke coming through your heat and air system and through the walls, what the fuck, if smoke is getting through a closed ventilation system and walls in an apartment, the smoker next door is not the problem the fucking building is!
They don’t want you to know that all this bad health stuff is not the smoking bogyman, but it could very well be your water, your food, electricity…hell how well will that go over “TV causes cancer news at eleven.”
As for studies, if you had a bus crash with 30 people on board and 2 of them smoked (not on the bus), somehow the headline would be “bus crashes linked to smoking”. Hell I saw a News line that said men who smoke were stupider (the word they used) than their counter parts, come on man, give me a fucking break.
