Is Second Hand Smoke Really Harmful?
Controversial research released recently, challenged the belief that secondary smoke can be a killer. This obviously contradicts previous research and opinions that have been fairly concrete for the last few decades. The study that involved more than one hundred thousand people failed to find any discernible link between so-called passive smoking and death resulting from either lung cancer or heart disease. These findings come in to direct conflict with most of the research that has preceded it.
The rather contentious research was officially reported in the British Medical Journal and it included more than thirty-five thousand people who were married to smokers for up to four decades but never touched, smoked or looked at tobacco themselves.
Unsurprisingly the results and publication of the study have caused widespread controversy across the United Kingdom, with anti-smoking campaigners huffing and puffing their dismay and pouring hot cups of scorn on the conclusions.
In addition, the British Medical Association also got involved with the decrying of the findings, claiming that the research involved an analysis of data which most experts regarded as inadequate, with too little information to come to the conclusions that have been made. Cancer Research UK stated that it did not change the overall picture that second hand smoke caused cancer.
The research comes from the University of California, Los Angeles, USA, and the team, led by James Enstrom said the people involved in the study had been followed for nearly forty years between 1959 to 1998. Conversely, the research did show that victims of passive smoking faced an increased risk of developing lung disease in later life.
Admitting the restrictions whilst trying to defend the study the University of California's team of researchers said that, 'despite some limitations, this large study has several important strengths.' However Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of Science and Ethics said. 'There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks. In children, passive smoking increases the risk of pneumonia, bronchitis, and reduces lung growth as well as causing and worsening asthma.'
These statements support the 2004 conclusions drawn up by the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer when they said there was sufficient evidence that second hand smoke caused cancer in human beings and animals. Similarly the majority of experts concluded that moderate, occasional exposure to passive smoke presents a modest but measurable cancer risk to non-smokers.
Detractors of the California University's research claim that it is irresponsible to feed this misleading information to the public who may put their health and even their lives in danger as a result of reading it. All the research conducted over the decades would certainly suggest that second hand smoke is harmful to those that inhale it and can result in lung cancer. So smoking may look cool, kids, but it is without a doubt bad for you health.
The rather contentious research was officially reported in the British Medical Journal and it included more than thirty-five thousand people who were married to smokers for up to four decades but never touched, smoked or looked at tobacco themselves.
Unsurprisingly the results and publication of the study have caused widespread controversy across the United Kingdom, with anti-smoking campaigners huffing and puffing their dismay and pouring hot cups of scorn on the conclusions.
In addition, the British Medical Association also got involved with the decrying of the findings, claiming that the research involved an analysis of data which most experts regarded as inadequate, with too little information to come to the conclusions that have been made. Cancer Research UK stated that it did not change the overall picture that second hand smoke caused cancer.
The research comes from the University of California, Los Angeles, USA, and the team, led by James Enstrom said the people involved in the study had been followed for nearly forty years between 1959 to 1998. Conversely, the research did show that victims of passive smoking faced an increased risk of developing lung disease in later life.
Admitting the restrictions whilst trying to defend the study the University of California's team of researchers said that, 'despite some limitations, this large study has several important strengths.' However Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of Science and Ethics said. 'There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks. In children, passive smoking increases the risk of pneumonia, bronchitis, and reduces lung growth as well as causing and worsening asthma.'
These statements support the 2004 conclusions drawn up by the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer when they said there was sufficient evidence that second hand smoke caused cancer in human beings and animals. Similarly the majority of experts concluded that moderate, occasional exposure to passive smoke presents a modest but measurable cancer risk to non-smokers.
Detractors of the California University's research claim that it is irresponsible to feed this misleading information to the public who may put their health and even their lives in danger as a result of reading it. All the research conducted over the decades would certainly suggest that second hand smoke is harmful to those that inhale it and can result in lung cancer. So smoking may look cool, kids, but it is without a doubt bad for you health.
Source...