What the hell would I know; I've never been to London in my life!
Jeeze, don't tell me you guys have been taking anything I've been saying seriously........................!!
0 Replies
BoGoWo
1
Reply
Sat 14 Jun, 2003 02:39 pm
Must admit I wouldn't mind a bit of "company" on my bike, "used" or other"wise"!!
0 Replies
Smitty
1
Reply
Sun 15 Jun, 2003 09:32 am
I to am an owner gun. I am the 'advanced h/gun instructor' at our Club. I have changed one basement room into work benches to hold four reloading presses, primers, powders, bullets, case trimmers, etc., plus to large gun safes to hold basically h/guns, but also long bbl guns YET this is Canada with all the f/arms restrictions & red tape to send most up & down the wall.
Tobacco smoke is the real killer. My parents were very heavy smokers almost till the day of the death. I do not know, but I never smoked, touched liquor or illegal drugs. I know for I nursed them till their last few days & it was cancer of the lungs for both.
Strange thing is from childhood I had these nagging headaches, so medication, even glasses but none worked. I found out fresh air was the answer so rode my m/c, climbed the mtns, or skiing & no headaches till I came onto others that were smoking, but still to dumb to realize I was allergic to second hand tobacco smoke, but then who in the 'ell heard these two words till some 15 yrs ago?
Fortunately parts of Canada have tried to halt smoking with NO SMOKING signs & it being illegal in many buildings or businesses. Thankfully I no longer have the nagging headaches. Still little wonder when I ended up in a hospital they use to ask me how many cigarettes I smoked a day!!!!
Smokers you can say all you want, but do not say that you are not poisoning others with your filthy habit.
The alleged dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke, also known as Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or ETS for short, represents junk science's biggest success story. Ever since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided 10 years ago that ETS caused cancer in nonsmokers, the ETS junk science juggernaut has been unstoppable. Most of us now believe that ETS is dangerous and virtually all of us live out our public lives -- working, shopping, eating, in smoke-free environments.
But the ETS junk science crusade encountered a major and unanticipated setback a few weeks ago when the British Medical Journal published a study by two U.S. researchers that found no statistically significant association between not only ETS and lung cancer but also between ETS and heart disease.
The study focused on 35,561 Californians who never smoked but had smoking spouses. The participants were all part of the massive American Cancer Society cancer prevention Study (CPS 1) and their lives and deaths were followed from 1960-1998. The relative risks for never-smokers married to smokers was 0.94 for coronary heart disease and 0.75 for lung cancer. Unlike the government reports cited by junk scientists as proof that ETS causes lung cancer and heart disease, this study is not a meta-analysis -- a combination of individual studies to create a pooled result) -- or a so-called "consensus statement" by hand-picked experts. It is an original, primary study of ETS. As the authors note "none of the other cohort studies ... has more strengths, and none has presented as many detailed results."
To anyone who has followed the scientific literature on ETS, as opposed to the anti-smoking movements, statements and government pronouncements, this study should come as no surprise. For one thing, the pattern of study results has been unchanged since the first studies in the 1980s. Over the 20-odd years of ETS studies, some 60 studies have reported results similar to this one, finding no statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer. Of the 11 studies that have found a statistically significant association, none has reported an overall strong relative risk. This is particularly telling since epidemiological studies of real as opposed to phantom risks are usually weak at first but gain strength and clarity with time. The ETS studies have continued to be equivocal.
The only way in which the "case" against second-hand smoke has been made is through the highly controversial use of meta analysis in which individually inconclusive studies have been pooled to produce statistically significant relative risks. This is the way in which every major government report on the alleged dangers of ETS has been created. The logic here is that if you put 10 leaking buckets together, they might just hold water. Unfortunately, this hasn't worked, for however hard you pound the data the relative risk for ETS and lung cancer and heart disease just won't rise beyond about 1.50, a relatively insignificant level.
Ironically, this study should come as no surprise because it confirms the WHO's own large 1998 ETS study spanning 10 years and involving 12 cities in seven European countries. The WHO study found no statistically significant increase in lung cancer risk for nonsmokers exposed to ETS in childhood settings, workplace environments and homes. Of particular interest for the ongoing Canadian debate about smoking in restaurants and bars is the fact that WHO found such smoking did not result in a statistically significant risk of lung cancer for non-smokers.
...
(bold mine)
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 03:23 pm
Well, I see Scrat is up to its usual pasttime, throwing something out in the hope of stirring up an argument. At such time as this occurs, it will scurry off to enjoy the "fun" while not actually participating. Please note the absence of an attribution here; and, there is, of course, no link provided. I was also greatly amused by "the British Medical Journal"--oh, is that to be taken as the title of a hitherto unknown publication? Now if the article were quoting Lancet, one could, of course verify whether or not such an article had in fact been published. The lack, however, of a title for "the British Medical Journal" coupled with the lack of an attribution for the entire passage, makes all of this suspect.
I am a smoker, for nearly 40 years now. Whether or not i had reason to believe that "second hand smoke" were a serious health risk to others, it would not be my place, as a willing participant in the social contract which binds us all (whether willing or not), to subject anyone to that smoke needlessly. When i am visiting my Lovey, and i smoke one in the bathroom in the middle of the night, because i can't be bothered to put on some pants and go outside--i experience a twinge of guilt at this display of a lack of consideration on my part--the addiction is a powerful one, however, and i occassionally succumb. Simple courtesy should lead one to take a thought of the desires of others, and their right not to be exposed to noxious gases needlessly. I said as much at the beginning of this thread. I strongly suspect that as far as Scrat's contribution here goes, it's just up to its old trick of throwing out some provocation in the hope of amusing itself with some strife. Whether or not, absent any attribution from which one can make a reasonable judgment as to the accuracy of what is here presented, it is pointless to consider it a worthwhile addition to this thread.
0 Replies
mamajuana
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 03:24 pm
I am an ex-smoker, quit cold, don't miss them. But if others want to smoke around me, it's ok. My mother smoked until she died - not of lung cancer. I think the evidence against it is strong - but not certain. My husband smoked gauloise when he could get them, and a terrible brand called gitanos. But he quit, too.
I believe in certain gun regulations, but I also have a junior marksman medal from way back when. However, I live in an area where guns can and do kill people, so I have a certain prejudice that way.
My father smoked camels. We used to collect the empty packs, flatten them out, and paste them onto schoolbook covers. Now there was a hobby.
0 Replies
mamajuana
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 03:34 pm
Gee, setanta, I didn't really notice scrat's entry till you mentioned it.
You really have to look this up to appreciate its full value. It's an online journal intended for a US audience - kind of mostly junk medicine and advertising.
0 Replies
oldandknew
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 03:40 pm
Smoking. OK, here's how I see it.
#1 It's a discusting habit. Every moring when I get up, the first thing I do is light a ciggie. A strong, non filter, hand rolled Pall Mall tobaco these days
#2 It's a disgusting habit. My computer desk and the floor around it is a repository for shreds of baccy and ash.
#3 It's a disgusting habit. I changed my car a few weeks ago and the first question my wife asked was, "where is the ashtray ?". My first question was "where is the ciggie lighter ?". You tried lighting a ciggie with a Zippo when driving ?
#4 It's a disgusting habit. I've been smoking for over 40 years.
#5 It's a disgusting habit. Will I quit ? Strewth. Will I bollox.
#6 It's only Rock and Roll, but I love it.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 03:55 pm
Thanks, Ma. The association of BMJ, Ltd. with Stanford University leands some credence to what they publish--although i revert to my original statement about not subjecting others to my smoke if they do not wish it. What is typical of Scrat here, is that it has provided this quote without attribution. Given its behavior in these fora in the past, i find anything it posts to be suspect at the outset, and it is the more so without attribution. I went to the BMJ Ltd site, and there is no information on methodology or a peer review process, which is crucial to the reliability of such a contention. Were it referring to Lancet, i would have less problem, as i know that journal has standards of methodological review, and a peer review process--and that these are published, and available for consideration. This is not the case here, because "the British Medical Journal" is not a print publication, it is simply an on-line resource.
0 Replies
Letty
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 04:16 pm
Good grief. I'll probably quit smokin and then get run over by a train.
Hey, Bo. Got a bicycle built for two? Don't smoke in my Caddy, and I need two hands to hold on to the handlebars, sooooooooooooooooo.
0 Replies
Eva
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 04:58 pm
My parents were both two-pack-a-day smokers, and they always had me clean out the ashtrays. That's a pretty good way to ensure that your child won't smoke. I never wanted to, after that.
I married a smoker, but after I went through a couple of extended rounds of bronchitis in a closed house in the winters with all the smoke, I asked him to take it outside. Which he did, thank you. (Yes, in case you're wondering, I made him clean his own ashtrays.)
However, he developed throat cancer after we were married for 10 years. We could never get the doctors to say outright that smoking caused it, but the most trusted of the docs did say they never see that form of cancer in non-smokers. My husband went through a very risky surgery and aggressive radiation therapy. They emphasized to him that smoking would no longer be a risk factor, it would most certainly kill him to put toxins right back on the cancer site. So he quit immediately, which also gave him greatly increased odds of success with his radiation therapy. When asked if quitting was difficult, he told people it was really easy when you're on heavy duty painkillers for the first three weeks.
He was given a 50-50 chance of surviving for three years. It has been ten years now, and we are both breathing easier.
0 Replies
littlek
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 05:15 pm
Phew! Glad to hear he's a'right!
0 Replies
Scrat
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 09:29 pm
Setanta wrote:
Well, I see Scrat is up to its usual pasttime, throwing something out in the hope of stirring up an argument.
Actually, I simply thought the article tied in well with the discussion. If you really want to know (and I don't think you do) I am against the government banning smoking and against them banning guns.
Oh, and the TITLE of the quoted section is a LINK to the article at the source ("National Post" -- appears to be a Canadian gig). (I always provide a link when possible, and assumed everyone recognized that A2K links are blue by default.)
0 Replies
mamajuana
1
Reply
Mon 16 Jun, 2003 10:29 pm
Setanta - when digging further into that British Medical Journal, it's really nothing much. The Stanford U press puts it out, but there's no endorsement.
So I would be a little leery of that kind of information. Both the Lancet and the New England Journal are the ones that carry the methods, new treatments, etc., all backed up by source.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Tue 17 Jun, 2003 03:57 am
Yeah, Ma, i was rather impressed by how unimpressive the site appeared. Absent methodological standards and any evidence of peer review, i wouldn't lend much credence to "the British Medical Journal."
0 Replies
oldandknew
1
Reply
Tue 17 Jun, 2003 04:00 am
Nicotine 'reduces Alzheimer's symptoms'
Research under way. There is more in tobaco than meets the eye.
Scrat, i acknowledge that you've provided a link and that i missed it--i would also note the six and one half hours between your having posted the material and your return. Whether or not you intend it, that sort of thing makes it appear as if you want to throw a "stink bomb" in the discussion, and then return later to watch the fun. As a printed newspaper, I couldn't comment on the nature of the National Post--Lovey doesn't seem to think much of it, but then, she tends to vote New Democrat, so you'd consider her a dangerous left-wing fanatic.
Personally, when i provide a link, i generally put the word link in what i've formulated. On my screen, the title is little differentiated from the rest of the bold-faced text you provided, and is easily overlooked as a link. Whether or not, i stand by my original statement (see the beginning of this thread) about having a regard for non-smokers.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Tue 17 Jun, 2003 04:04 am
LOL, OAK -- i'll die in excrutiating pain, long before my time, but clearheaded . . .
Just talked to my Lovey, who describes the National Post as a right-wing newspaper. She commented that the editorial staff have a reputation for writing about their friends (i.e., in politics and elsewhere in public life), and that several reporters and some editors have recently resigned as a result. She prefers The Globe and Mail . . .
