Posted on 06/29/2006 7:34:44 AM PDT by ZGuy
Please post all details here...for those of us that never get off the farm, LOL!
Adult beverages, good food, good company, a bit of music, then we will return home at which time hubs will retire to our room and I will remain in an upright position at my desk until the ball game attenders arrive back at the farm :)
... showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. A fluke? I don't think so. In fact this study should be studied more and in great detail.
Why? One phrase or one word: "J Factor" or "Hormesis" - take your pick. I first read about the "J Factor" in an Analog-Science Fiction-Science Fact Alternate View article by Harry Stine in June 1984.
His article discussed how low level radiation exposure in nuclear workers and airline pilots & stewardesses led to statistically longer life spans and lower cancer rates.
Now this is known as Hormesis and may (emphasize may here) apply to a whole range of toxins. Where it was once thought the only safe level of toxins was 0.00000...1 onto something approaching infinity now we know better.
Well at least some of us do. Others have too much invested in the "Zero Risk" view for toxins to truly consider the possibility that low level (think micro or smaller) doses might be beneficial.
Two articles address that address this are
1) Longevity is the most appropriate measure of health effects of radiation in Radiology Oct 2003
2) An Access to Energy article on Chemical Hormesis
which has the added benefit of a fascinating story within the article on Linus Pauling and some Vitamin C research he didn't care for.
If you are interested, there are also plenty of articles attacking the J Factor or Hormesis.
Tokra replies to RicocheT in post #27 that the life expectancy was 45 years in olde Europe/England.
Because of the way 45 years was presented, I assume it meant the average life span was 45 years. Certainly true, but distorted by the high (very high) infant and child mortality rate in pre-industrial Europe/England.
Other distortions compared to today: lack of any real antibiotics, medical care, proper public/private waste disposal, clean water, and safety engineering was not even a gleam in anyone's eye at the time.
Those who lived to a healthy 45 often lived on to 55, 65, and 75 depending on lifestyle and genetics. Me, I'll take today's medical advantages to make it to 55 then 65 then 75 and maybe 85 ... oooops, already passed 55. Darn.
The article also stated having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges – the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour.
It's unclear if this was a constant source of second hand smoke or not. Still it was interesting to find out 0.004 cigarettes/hours amounts to one cigarette every 10 days and 10 hours. Surely something the average healthy body could deal with through its natural defenses.
I grew up in one of those homes, smoked off and on for 15 years and quit over 20 years ago.
Cheers!!
RileyD, nwJ
bookmarking that one - thank you!!!!
Did you have to register?
You're speaking sense........weren't you aware of the rules? No one on a smoking thread is permitted to speak/post sense unless they belong to the cultural elite anti-smoker nanny state regime.
If you missed that memo, consider yourself warned for the dire consequences.
I registered with BMJ so long ago, in order to oarticipate on the message boards and article critiques, I don't evn remember registeriing.
bttt
Yeah, but it shed absolutely no light on my question! ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.