Anti-smoking lobby steams over report

The Vancouver Sun ^ | Monday, June 30, 2003 | Peter McKnight

[Just another Joe]

Anti-smoking lobby steams over report

Peter McKnight

Vancouver Sun

Monday, June 30, 2003

What if I told you there's a group of people who have been blamed for countless thousands of deaths, yet there's precious little evidence of their guilt?

"Demand an inquiry," you'd say, "Overhaul the system that implicated them!"

But what if I then told you the people are smokers and the thousands of dead were alleged victims of second-hand smoke?

"Oh," you'd say, "you're in bed with the cloven-hoofed cabal running the tobacco companies aren't you?"

That's precisely the reaction researchers James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat received after they published a study on the effects of second-smoke in a recent issue of the British Medical Journal.

Using data gathered by the American Cancer Society, the authors followed more than 35,500 non-smoking spouses of smokers for 40 years. I'm sure the long suffering non-smokers had a lot of cigarette burns on their clothing, but the study discovered they weren't at a significantly increased risk of death.

The rest of the article

[Just another Joe]

Our children's playgrounds are covered with soft fluffy wood chips to prevent injuries.

I can remember when the playgrounds at SCHOOL were covered with the big river gravel.
Talk about road rash!

[Gabz]

the reason it wasn't released is that it doesn't confomr to the anti-mantra that "if you can see or smell it, it is killing you."

[Just another Joe]

I remember seeing that.
The antis countered with, "Testing equipment in the 70's was not sensitive enough to measure that."
But of course nowadays it is so when the Oak Ridge National Labratorys did a study of the same type and came up with a similar answer, what did the antis say then?
"NO amount of smoke is safe!"

[Gabz]

JaJ, another reason for the antis turning against the ORNL study, which was commissioned by the Federal Government, was that at somewhere along the lines one of the researchers/authors had testified against the dangers of SHS on behalf of a tobacco company. And had also done some research for one of them.

As you know that automatically means nothing he says about the subject will be accepted by the anti cartel.

[Publius6961]

BUMP

[Sunshine Sister]

The fact that they unfunded the study is a glaring indication of the real agenda of the anti's and I'm delighted that they were to dumb to see what they were doing to themselves.

[Gabz]

I agree.

Unfortunately they have the media clout to get that part of the situation buried at the end of a story, if not totally ignored.

By refusing to own up to not only the fact they unfunded it, but the reason, what they say about the tobacco funding is the only thing that is being heard about this study.

It's nauseating how even more sheeplike the media is when it comes to the antis than the sheeple themselves.

[Sunshine Sister]

I wouldn't feel to bad about the media bias. The word in getting out through this forum and maybe through Rush and Shawn. We are every where and we can't be stopped any more.
That makes me grin!