An article appeared in the papers last week.
Could I let it pass?
So this means that the children brought up in the last century at all at high risk of heart attacks and strokes and must be dropping like flies by now? But how come they are the longest living generation yet? My generation and the generations before and after were all reared in a world where second hand smoke hadn't yet been invented and the air was thick with cigarette smoke. According to all the studies we should all be long dead but despite all their predictions, we are living longer.
The research, which lends weight to campaigns for smoking to be banned in private cars and homes
So here we have the probable aim of this "research". They don't give a damn about the cheeeldren – it's another step towards banning smoking in our own private homes.
Smoking causes lung cancer, which is often fatal, and is the world’s biggest cause of premature death from chronic conditions like heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure.
Damn! And here was I thinking that sugar, salt, carbohydrates and alcohol were all the biggest cause. I suppose it all depends on which trough the researcher's snout is in?
On top of the 6 million people a year killed by their own smoking, the World Health Organisation (WHO) says another 600,000 die a year as a result of exposure to other peoples’ smoke – so-called second-hand or passive smoking.
Yadda yadda yadda. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Someone should tell those 600,000 that "passive smoking" has never been proved to be a risk to anyone. They'll be very disappointed to discover they died for nothing.
Of the more than 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful and more than 50 are known to cause cancer, the WHO says – and creating 100 percent smoke-free environments is the only way to protect people fully.
I do wish they'd make their minds up. is it 4,000, or 5,000 or 6,000 or what? It keeps changing. Possibly the number depends on the accuracy of the measuring equipment which has to be extremely sensitive to detect those chemicals which are in barely traceable [and certainly harmless] quantities. Most of those chemicals can be found in just about everything we eat or in the water we drink anyway. As I have pointed out before, the anti-smokers great favorite – formaldehyde – is used in vaccinations. They don't like to talk about that though.
About 40 percent of all children are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke at home, and almost a third of the deaths attributable to second-hand smoke are in children.
Considering that the average smoking rate is generally around the 20% to 25% level, how come 40% of all children are "exposed"? Do smokers have disproportionately large families? And they tell us that smoking decreases fertility? And no death in any man woman or child has ever been attributable to second hand smoke.
Researchers from Finland and Australia looked at data from 2,401 people in Finland 1,375 people in Australia who were asked about their parents’ smoking habits.
And here we have the "scientific" method behind this research. People were asked a series of [probably very loaded] questions and the whole “research” hinges on the reliability of people’s responses. If I were asked about my parents smoking habits I wouldn’t be able to give anything more than a vague answer. My mother did smoke but quit [I don’t know at what age] and my father smoked all his life but I couldn't tell you the brand, or how many he smoked a day. At best I could give a very vague estimate but that is hardly scientific?
Since children of parents who smoke are also more likely to grow up to be smokers themselves, and more likely to be overweight, their heart health risks are often already raised, she said, and the second-hand smoke adds yet more risk.
I thought nicotine was an appetite suppressant? People quit smoking – they tend to gain weight. Get your facts right, woman.
I wonder who paid for this crap?