Study torches belief that second-hand smoke is dangerous
At the risk of not being “politically correct,” I would like to make available to you, anti-smokers and proponents of the proposed smoking ban, a study that was published recently in the highly respected British Medical Journal (BMJ).
I find it totally amazing that the American media didn’t pick up this story when it broke in the spring. Actually, no, I don’t find it amazing because the study’s findings don’t pigeon hole or fall in lock step with the liberal media thinking and agenda.
The study, conducted by two research professors, one from University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) and the other from the University of New York at Stony Brook was 39 years in the making and involved 35,561 Californians who had never smoked a cigarette. They found “No casual relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (i.e. second-hand smoke) and tobacco related mortality.” They added, however, “a small effect” can’t be ruled out.
Opponents argue “why take seriously a study that contradicts what everyone knows?” But what if “what everyone knows” is wrong? It’s the UCLA study that’s very much in the majority. To review the complete study you can find it at http://www.bmj.com.
In the past, numerous studies have been conducted on this subject matter. A 1999 Environmental Health Perspectives survey of 17 environmental tobacco smoke-heart disease studies found only five that were statistically significantly positive.
Likewise, a 2002 analysis of 48 studies regarding a possible environmental tobacco smoke link to lung cancer found 10 that were significantly positive, one that was significantly negative and 37 that were insignificant either way.
The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while second-hand smoke may cause no deaths, lies in the dictum “the dose makes the poison.” We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts and the body usually fends them off.
The above is a scientific approach to debunking the second-hand smoke myths. I further my argument against the anti-smoking movement by simply stating two things: 1) I am sick and tired of big government “nannyism” interfering with my life, and 2) This is a subject of choice – choice of the business owner to make the decision of being smoking or not and the choice of patrons to choose whether or not to patronize a business that offers a smoking atmosphere.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.
Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.
Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User