World Health Organization: Second hand smoking kills 600,000 a year. - Polidicks

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP00D20101126[/url] [quote](Reuters) - Around one in a hundred deaths worldwide is due to passive smoking, which kills an estimated 600,000 people a year, World Health Organization (WHO) researchers said on Friday. In the first study to assess the global impact of second-hand smoke, WHO experts found that children are more heavily exposed to second-hand smoke than any other age-group, and around 165,000 of them a year die because of it. "Two-thirds of these deaths occur in Africa and south Asia," the researchers, led by Annette Pruss-Ustun of the WHO in Geneva, wrote in their study. Children's exposure to second-hand smoke is most likely to happen at home, and the double blow of infectious diseases and tobacco "seems to be a deadly combination for children in these regions," they said. Commenting on the findings in the Lancet journal, Heather Wipfli and Jonathan Samet from the University of Southern California said policymakers try to motivate families to stop smoking in the home.[/quote] cough

Jesus, that's a big number.

That can't [I]only[/I] be from second hand smoke.

And I [b]just[/b] got done smoking. [editline]25th November 2010[/editline] I'm killing innocent people everyday. Wonderful.

[quote]"Two-thirds of these deaths occur in Africa and south Asia,"[/quote] So sure it's just second hand smoking? I mean, you've seen the video of some kid smoking in somewhere, i bet it's even worse in Africa and shit. There's a lot of people and all the wrongness affects everybody there i wouldn't be surprised if it were the kids just smoking now and then getting addicted, or even offered tobacco, drugs like crack or.. jesus, maybe the hell is on earth

I don't believe second hand smoke kills.

[QUOTE=Pepin;26301317]I don't believe second hand smoke kills.[/QUOTE] [I]why[/I]

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;26300532]So sure it's just second hand smoking? I mean, you've seen the video of some kid smoking in somewhere, i bet it's even worse in Africa and shit. There's a lot of people and all the wrongness affects everybody there i wouldn't be surprised if it were the kids just smoking now and then getting addicted, or even offered tobacco, drugs like crack or.. jesus, maybe the hell is on earth[/QUOTE] Jesus Cripes you've really opened my eyes! :wth:

[QUOTE=IceTea;26300462]And I [b]just[/b] got done smoking. [editline]25th November 2010[/editline] I'm killing innocent people everyday. Wonderful.[/QUOTE] No you're fucking not. No one apparently has read the fucking article. This smoke was around children, and was mostly found in south asia and africa. Why would this be? Well, take a look at the difference in smoking in those areas compared to the area you live in. Not only that, think about the societal differences. We have laws keeping us from smoking inside, or around doorways/windows. I'm fairly certain, the impact is [b]totally fucking different[/b]. Yes smoking is bad, no you're not killing 1/100 people by smoking. And hell, most kids in those countries fucking smoke. Know what a pack of smokes in china/philipines costs? Less than a dollar US. As bad as smoking is, this article isn't telling you everything. [editline]25th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Micr0;26300396]That can't [I]only[/I] be from second hand smoke.[/QUOTE] This, a thousand fucking times this. How plausible is it really that they found kids who were entirely healthy besides the complications second hand smoke may cause, in those countries? Not very.

sbnip

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;26301521]No you're fucking not. No one apparently has read the fucking article. This smoke was around children, and was mostly found in south asia and africa. Why would this be? Well, take a look at the difference in smoking in those areas compared to the area you live in. Not only that, think about the societal differences. We have laws keeping us from smoking inside, or around doorways/windows. I'm fairly certain, the impact is [b]totally fucking different[/b]. Yes smoking is bad, no you're not killing 1/100 people by smoking. And hell, most kids in those countries fucking smoke. Know what a pack of smokes in china/philipines costs? Less than a dollar US. As bad as smoking is, this article isn't telling you everything. [editline]25th November 2010[/editline] This, a thousand fucking times this. How plausible is it really that they found kids who were entirely healthy besides the complications second hand smoke may cause, in those countries? Not very.[/QUOTE] Every time you make a thread about drugs, humanabyss will unleash his wrath of profanity amongst us. why can't you accept smoking can kill people by second hand smoking? im all up for civil rights, but you cant deny that. you should be a spokesperson for marlboro.

Im sorry :smith:

And to think second hand weed smoke won't hurt you.

Sweet, now I'm a fucking murderer. [editline]25th November 2010[/editline] I've killed 600 000 people I'm a fucking monster :smithicide:

I'll be that statistic someday.

P. sure the WHO knows how to control variables and adjust for individual elements, so it's likely this is mostly from second hand smoke

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;26302389]Every time you make a thread about drugs, humanabyss will unleash his wrath of profanity amongst us. why can't you accept smoking can kill people by second hand smoking? im all up for civil rights, but you cant deny that. you should be a spokesperson for marlboro.[/QUOTE] Yeah, every time I smoke a cigarette, I'm totally fucking killing someone. Oh, and I "unleash profanity" on you when you people make drug threads from complete points of ignorance. On this one, i'm not saying cigs are the least bit not bad for you, they're fucking terrible, I just think people will take this evidence without thinking about it. Even if it's the WHO, the simple fact that so many of the cases were found in south asia and africa where smoking is literally everywhere, and the number of children that smoke, and the entire situation being [b]totally different to the one we have over here in the west.[/b] Don't just glaze over that fact because you hate smoking so much.

Smoking doesn't need to occur in restaurants and other indoor public places any more than smearing shit all over the walls needs to occur there. If you want to smear shit around your house or step outside and smear shit around then go ahead

[QUOTE=Zeke129;26304003]Smoking doesn't need to occur in restaurants and other indoor public places any more than smearing shit all over the walls needs to occur there. If you want to smear shit around your house or step outside and smear shit around then go ahead[/QUOTE] I'm not advocating for it, it should very much be an outdoor thing.

[QUOTE=wheresmyfish;26301394][I]why[/I][/QUOTE] You don't it at all strange that the claim is that indirect inhalation from tobacco smoke kills? That by just walking by a person smoking some tobacco that it could cause major damage to your health? So many of the claims made are so ridiculously far fetched. Actually pay attention to some of the claims. [quote]Glantz and other activists now say just 20 or 30 minutes of smoke puts you on the road to a deadly heart attack.[/quote] How on earth is that considered reasonable? There are so many ridiculous claims made by these anti-smoking advocates that get spewed out so often that just aren't true. 40% of second hand smoke studies find that there are no effects. Regardless if it does cause any harm, it's very easy to reason that if almost half of the studies on the issue are finding second hand smoke does nothing, then how can anyone even think about making such an extreme claim that "second hand smoke kills". Where does that 40% statistic come from. [url=http://www.leparisien.fr/abo-faitdujour/on-a-cree-une-peur-qui-ne-repose-sur-rien-31-05-2010-943934.php]This interview.[/url] [quote]World renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us to be convinced of the lack of harmful effects of passive smoking. An interview with shock. What do the studies on passive smoking? PHILIPPE EVEN. There are hundreds of studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. [b]The remaining 60% felt that cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the best, and 0.15 for the cons[/b] ... more pessimistic risk multiplied by 10 or 20 active smoking! So ridiculous. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.[/quote] Seriously, think for a second and look at the opposing side. Ridiculous claims need overwhelming amounts of evidence and absolutely no credible evidence against them. I recommend looking some more up on it. [url]http://psyed.org/r/crit/crd/second_smoke.html[/url] [url]http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2224[/url] [url]http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/[/url]

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26302596]And to think second hand weed smoke won't hurt you.[/QUOTE] Why did you have to bring that up

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;26303965]Yeah, every time I smoke a cigarette, I'm totally fucking killing someone. Oh, and I "unleash profanity" on you when you people make drug threads from complete points of ignorance. On this one, i'm not saying cigs are the least bit not bad for you, they're fucking terrible, I just think people will take this evidence without thinking about it. Even if it's the WHO, the simple fact that so many of the cases were found in south asia and africa where smoking is literally everywhere, and the number of children that smoke, and the entire situation being [b]totally different to the one we have over here in the west.[/b] Don't just glaze over that fact because you hate smoking so much.[/QUOTE] So do you think there's not validity to this study, and even disregarding 90%, 60k people isn't that much? Of course they take into consideration the situation, and i'm pretty sure they would account for kids that smoke themselves. It's not like this is a shoddily done study or the situation isn't applicable at all, there are still thousands of parents that smoke inside their houses, thus exposing their kids to the smoke. It's not like the entire nation smokes outdoors. also, why would you even need to try and point out something like "because you hate smoking so much". That's pretty much the default position, unless one smokes, and not even for sure then, they dislike smoking.

I have real doubts on this.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;26304499]also, why would you even need to try and point out something like "because you hate smoking so much". That's pretty much the default position, unless one smokes, and not even for sure then, they dislike smoking.[/QUOTE] I suggest you read my post and some alternate sources of information as well. You seem pretty extreme in your opinion. Try approaching the issue from a stance where you are more unbiased against smokers, smoking, drugs, and everything else related. Being in the mindset where you are just looking for evidence that supports your opinion isn't going to do you any good.

W.H.O. are they to say these statistics?

[QUOTE=Makuuta;26305775]W.H.O. are they to say these statistics?[/QUOTE] The world health organization.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;26304725]I have real doubts on this.[/QUOTE] I have no doubt that it is a steaming pile of crap. Where is the evidence that second hand smoke can even kill? There isn't much to support it. The main piece of research that gets quoted for this whole "second hand smoke is harmful" type stuff got totally discredited by a federal court. It has been the only study to show any kind of substantial results. There is some evidence to show there can be some potential dangers (which are still quite unlikely), but there is nothing to show that it can be credited for a death. If 40% of studies show that there is no harm caused from second hand smoke and the rest of the studies provide only very small results none of them citing death as probable, then there is no way you can say that second hand smoke kills which means there is no way you can say that 600,000 people a year die from it.

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;26305809]The world health organization.[/QUOTE] ._. The joke ___________(WOOSH) your head

[QUOTE=Pepin;26305825]I have no doubt that it is a steaming pile of crap. Where is the evidence that second hand smoke can even kill? There isn't much to support it. The main piece of research that gets quoted for this whole "second hand smoke is harmful" type stuff got totally discredited by a federal court. It has been the only study to show any kind of substantial results. There is some evidence to show there can be some potential dangers (which are still quite unlikely), but there is nothing to show that it can be credited for a death. If 40% of studies show that there is no harm caused from second hand smoke and the rest of the studies provide only very small results none of them citing death as probable, then there is no way you can say that second hand smoke kills which means there is no way you can say that 600,000 people a year die from it.[/QUOTE] Africa and South Asia being big players in this seems off, and what constitutes as death from second hand smoke? [QUOTE=Makuuta;26305831] The joke ___________(WOOSH) your head[/QUOTE] The joke hit the ground.

Oh here's a nice quote. [quote]At the behest of Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Ca), the Congressional Research Service (CRS) spent two years examining reports and came up with the following conclusions regarding second hand smoke and lung cancer (Redhead and Rowberg, 1995): (a) The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking. (b) It is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to second hand smoke. (c) If there are any lung cancer deaths from second hand smoke, they are likely to be concentrated among those subjected to the highest exposure levels (e.g., spouses). (d) The absolute risk, even to those with the greatest exposure levels, is uncertain. [/quote] [QUOTE=Carbon Knight;26305879]Africa and South Asia being big players in this seems off, and what constitutes as death from second hand smoke?[/QUOTE] It is very sketchy, especially considering how disease ridden Africa is. As for the question, a death caused by a disease that is caused by smoking tobacco. For example: if a someone gets lung cancer and dies of it, and that person was a moderate smoker, that death would be attributed to the tobacco because it is the likely cause of the cancer. There is a bit of an ambiguity here because there is some chance that smoking tobacco didn't cause the cancer, but let us should just assume that it did. How they come up with these numbers for second hand smoke is likely the same or similar, but there is a big uncertainty as to how they do actually come up with the numbers, how reliable they are, and how accurate they can possibly be. The critics of these studies have a field day pointing out all the fatal flaws in their methodology.