Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Passive smoking is 'twice as dangerous as believed'

Options
  • 30-06-2004 9:13am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 605 ✭✭✭


    Recently on some ISS thread someone challanged the smoking ban on the basis that there was no evidence that second hand smoking was harmful. It is.

    UK Indo 30-06-04

    Passive smoking may be twice as dangerous to health as previously thought, researchers say today.

    Non-smokers exposed to other people's smoke have a 50 to 60 per cent increased risk of heart disease compared with those who live and work in a smoke-free environment, according to a new study. Previous research had put the risk of heart disease caused by passive smoking at only 25 to 30 per cent higher.

    The finding, described by the British Heart Foundation as "potentially pivotal", is published in the online version of the British Medical Journal. Today, representatives of the British Medical Association meeting in Llandudno are expected to back a call for the Government to follow the lead of the Irish by banning smoking in pubs, restaurants and other workplaces.


    full article here

    Do you support the ban? 7 votes

    Yes - I think it's great
    0% 0 votes
    No - bring back smokey pubs
    100% 7 votes


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭dogs


    Originally posted by williamgrogan
    ... there was no evidence that second hand smoking was harmful. It is.

    If an EPA report (and I'm going on Penn & Teller's excellent 'Bullsh*t' here, but I'm sure I could find the actual reports with a little time) comes to a conclusion that ETS is harmful and that conclusion is shown to be statistically insignificant all it takes is another report to prove that it is dangerous ? My own position would be somewhere in the middle, that further (demonstratably unbiased) research is required but that's irrelevant.

    You've said "It is." and have formed solid, unequivical opinions on the subject. What makes you more confident about this report ?

    From the same article:
    In May, research published by Imperial College, London, suggested passive smoking may cause 700 premature deaths in the UK each year, three times more than are caused by industrial accidents.

    700 deaths annually ? and the best they can compare it to is industrial accidents ? Occupational safety standards are easily higher now than any time in history, we're not comparing like with like -- shouldn't this be a big warning sign for any skeptic ? I'm sure road deaths in this country alone exceed 700 annually.

    What about this report makes you confident it's undeniably correct ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,352 ✭✭✭funky penguin


    It may not be twice as harmfull, but it is harmful.


Advertisement