Smoking - slow, self medicated suicide - on the decline - at last
Worldwide, people are remarkably resistant to the health benefits of quitting smoking, or not even starting smoking . Smoking is blamed for 400,000 deaths a year, making it the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In a study reported in September 2007 of 9 hospitals (covering 63% of all admissions for heart attacks) there was a drop of 17% in admisions for heart attacks. This included ;
• A 14% reduction in admissions for acute coronary syndrome among smokers.
• A 19% reduction among former smokers.
• A 21% reduction among people who had never smoked.
A University of Munster study reporting in December 2007 concluded that in Germany passive smoking (environmental tobacco smoke ETS) could be attributed to 1248 stroke deaths of women and 589 men - most in the 65-84 age range.
The Spanish Public Health Agency reported a study in 2002 concluded that ETS could be responsible for 1228-3237 deaths from lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease a year in Spain.
A French study in 1999 suggested how dangerous marriage was to non-smokers whose spouses smoked. They said that "Based on our best assumptions, we calculated that 1146 (839 females, 307 males) lung cancer deaths were attributable to exposure to spouse's ETS in the EU in 1990. "
Clare Frobisher, Ph.D., of the University of Birmingham, UK, has just published a study of 14,836 eligible survivors of childhood cancer in the National Registry of Childhood Tumors.Of the patients who replied , 20 % were current regular smokers and 29.8 % were regular smokers at some time in their life prior to the completion of the survey.
This confirmed a study by Karen Emmons, Ph.D., of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard School of Public Health in Boston as part of the U.S. Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, in which 17 % of adult survivors reported being current smokers and 28 % reported being heavy smokers.
...the good news is..
In Massachussets the The Department of Public Health commissioner John Auerbach, who is supervising the state's attempt to provide health insurance for nearly every resident, they concluded the primary-care doctor was at the top of the list of halping to make decisions about quitting smoking.
Now the state's medical program insures the poor to pay for smoking cessation counseling and nicotine replacement patches. A more potent factor in quitting has probably been an increase in State tobacco taxes of US$1 a 20 pack since the start of July.
Overall, the state also spent close to $13 million on tobacco control in the budget year that just ended.
Nearly 30 years ago, 4 in 10 men in Massachusetts smoked regularly now the figure is fewer than 2 in 10. Today the state report on an annual survey conducted by the state which shows that last year
Yesterday Joe Auerbach was able to report that nearly 8 % fewer Massachusetts adults smoked in 2007 than the year before, the steepest decline in cigarette use in more than a decade
Only California, Connecticut, and Utah have lower smoking rates.
There are of course other ways of people smoking, killing other people ..."In 2003 alone, there were over 4,000 smoking-related fires in the UK, as a result of which 123 people died, and over 1,400 were injured."
8 comments:
(Dragon) Duncan Bannatyne's recent report, suggested (at least in part) that smokers/ciggie consumers was merely shifting further afield like Malawi, Mauritius and Nigeria.
Living in this part of Asia I see smoking is prolific.
A drop in western smoking, is I feel, compensated for by an increase across the rest of the world.
Cheers.
Maybe they could make a slightly safer ciggie, they could call it the litvenenko
Lung cancer rates among men kept climbing from a rarity in 1930 (4/100,000 per year) to the No. 1 cancer killer in 1980 (72/100,000) in spite of an almost 20 percent reduction in smoking. But during the same period, the level of polonium -210 in American tobacco had tripled. This coincided with the increase in the use of phosphate fertilizers by tobacco growers - calcium phosphate ore accumulates uranium and slowly releases radon gas."
Paul - thanks for the link. Sounds highly plausible. Lord Patel's father had a theory that the carcinogenic component was to be found in the cigarette paper - cigars and pipe tobacco - of which he smoked immoderate amounts - do not appear to be related to lung cancers.
It would be worth examining if in cigarette paper manufufacture, handling, polonium was / is used as a dust attractant.
The safest route is of course simple - don't smoke.
In parts of US / Canada cigarette are not allowed to contain components which allow cigarettes to burn whilst not being smoked - unlike the UK - see link on household fires caused by smoking materials.
http://www.firesafercigarettes.org.uk/about
So called Reduced Ignition Propensity (RIP) or self extinguishing cigarettes.
There is an established standard for reduced ignition propensity cigarettes set by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM International) E2187-02b , which is in place in a number of US States and in Canada. This standard requires that cigarettes, when placed on a thickness of 10 layers of filter paper, burn down completely in only 25% of cases. This standard can reduce the risk of fires by up to two thirds. The standards were first introduced in New York in June 2004, and the statistics already show a significant fall in the number of fires and fire deaths.
David Milliband for Pope.
I find dr ernest sternglass and lleuren moret quite compelling on the subject of anthropogenic radioactive ionisation
Mindfully.org is good as well
Your Lordship,
It is very very rarely that I am inclined to disagree with any of your posts.
However, in this case I will. The entire passive smoking argument is based on BAD science. Statistics designed to sound bad but little or no science to back it up.
Look at the studies you have quoted and in every case the key words are:
Munster: 'could be attributed'
Spanish: 'could be responsible'
French: ''based on our best assumptions'
The drop in heart attack admissions is not tied in any way to reduced smoking.
May I draw your attention to 2 articles.
The first which shows that the level of carcinogens in cigarette smoke is so low that it is negligible, and most definitely way below H&s safe levels for each of the components.
http://tinyurl.com/ywwanf
and the second which shows that even the mighty EU dares not get into the debate because they know the science is bad.
http://tinyurl.com/6kdkfg
This constant stream of figures and statistics falls into the same realm of fantacy as Global Warming and Alcohol Units. All plucked out of thin air to suit a political agenda.
Having read your blog for so long now, I know that you are fully aware of the use of bad science and the way in which Government abuse it for propaganda purposes.
ianpj - Many thnx for comments and kind words - Admittedly Lord Patel's experience of a lifetime living with smokers may colour his judgement - however the thrust of your argument is that there is NO danger from proximal living , sharing a bed with a heavy smoker.
Naturally such epidemiological studies are full of caveats ec.,
Cause and effect have not been directly established but then neither has cause and effect been finally and unquestionably been established for smoking / lung cancer / coronary problems even thought the statistical correlation is overwhelming.
"The drop in heart attack admissions is not tied in any way to reduced smoking."
It appears that the drop in admissions is a fact - alternative explanations can be sent to the authors of the report.
"The drop in heart attack admissions is not tied in any way to reduced smoking."
It appears that the drop in admissions is a fact - alternative explanations can be sent to the authors of the report.
This included ;
• A 14% reduction in admissions for acute coronary syndrome among smokers.
• A 19% reduction among former smokers.
• A 21% reduction among people who had never smoked.
The uniformity of reductions amongst Smokers, former smokers and those who had never smoked would indicate that there is something other than cigarettes which is reducing such admissions.
I personally would surmise that the economic situation in the US coupled with the higher cost of health insurance may have a large part to play in this, but I doubt that it is anything to do with Government interference with smokers.
If any government department, agency or quango wants to put out statistics, then we should be offered the facts behind how those statistics were raised and analysed before we draw any conclusions.
Unfortunately governments know that most people are gullible and will believe everything they read in the press.
however the thrust of your argument is that there is NO danger from proximal living , sharing a bed with a heavy smoker.
I am not saying there is no danger, it is a question of keeping it in proportion to risk.
There is more risk involved from the same chemicals of living with someone who regularly uses hair spray, fly spray or household detergents.
By far a bigger risk is breathing in the fumes whilst filling your car with petrol.
It is all to do with proportionality. That is the thrust of my argument.
Post a Comment