Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Smoking And Heart Attack Rates

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-truth-about-social-smoking-2345824.html

Heart disease is different – the risk is not proportional to the amount smoked. It is much higher, proportionally, for the first one or two cigarettes – hence the risk from passive smoking.

There is some fascinating evidence that demonstrates this. Helena, a small city in Montana, banned smoking in public in June 2002, only to have the ban rescinded six months later. During the ban, heart attack admissions to the local hospital fell by a staggering 40 per cent. After the ban was lifted, the heart attack rate increased to its former level.

Following publication of this research, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta warned that even 30 minutes of exposure to other people's smoke might be enough to trigger a fatal heart attack in people at risk of heart disease.

Scientists have been puzzled by this disproportionate risk. A non-smoker who lives with a person who smokes 20 a day has one-third of the risk of their partner, even though they are actually exposed to only 1 per cent of the smoke.

Laboratory evidence suggests this is because toxins in tobacco smoke peak at low levels of exposure, increasing the stickiness of the blood (the tendency of the platelets to aggregate) and inflaming the arteries, increasing the risk of thrombosis – a blood clot that can trigger a heart attack. What applies to passive smokers, of course, also applies to occasional smokers.

Is this statistic accurate? It seems an incredible drop in such a short space of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't kow if the stats are accurate, but I knew several people who died because of cigarettes ... lung cancer, throat cancer, COPD ... :(. One of my twenty year friends has got an awful chesty cough .... she smokes :(. It has also aged her about ten years!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-truth-about-social-smoking-2345824.html

Is this statistic accurate? It seems an incredible drop in such a short space of time.

Who knows. Need explicit data to make a judgment. 40% of 10 is not significant. 40% of 100,000 is. It also depends how many other cities have performed the same "experiment" and whether their results were similar or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They keep coming up with this sort of 'research'. I saw one recently which said that people that lived in a different building had higher risks due to their neighbour smoking.

I wish to prove that I can throw six 'tails' in a row. Now I can't do this every time, but I only have to do it once. I then publish that study showing that I once threw six 'tails' and imply that I always can.

You get this drop in heart attacks in one place and state that it must be due to smoking. How about it was due to it being summer and people exercise more in summer. It could be anything, but they are not interested in that. This is agenda science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They keep coming up with this sort of 'research'. I saw one recently which said that people that lived in a different building had higher risks due to their neighbour smoking.

I wish to prove that I can throw six 'tails' in a row. Now I can't do this every time, but I only have to do it once. I then publish that study showing that I once threw six 'tails' and imply that I always can.

You get this drop in heart attacks in one place and state that it must be due to smoking. How about it was due to it being summer and people exercise more in summer. It could be anything, but they are not interested in that. This is agenda science.

It sort of makes statistical sense.If you are susceptible the first couple of fags are more likely to do you in than the extra ten between 30 and 40..I think we have the balance of smoking legislation about right.Smokers have no right to kipper me in a restaurant,on the othere hand I have no desire to stop them altogether because by pegging it early they are going to ensure my pension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They keep coming up with this sort of 'research'. I saw one recently which said that people that lived in a different building had higher risks due to their neighbour smoking.

I wish to prove that I can throw six 'tails' in a row. Now I can't do this every time, but I only have to do it once. I then publish that study showing that I once threw six 'tails' and imply that I always can.

You get this drop in heart attacks in one place and state that it must be due to smoking. How about it was due to it being summer and people exercise more in summer. It could be anything, but they are not interested in that. This is agenda science.

Not really. Its just science. Findings published in journal, paper critically reviewed, new research undertaken on basis of review testing out hypothesis. Without a link to the original paper (which is always a criticism of science reporting) can't assess the follow up from the original paper, the criticism of the method, or the validity of the journalists conclusions ( which probably vary greatly from the scientists )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/HelenaStudyFreedomtoBreathe.pdf

What the Opposition Will Say

Recently, opposition to the Freedom to Breathe Act in Minnesota has undertaken a concerned effort in legislative committees, meetings with legislators, and in public blogs to undermine the results of this landmark study. In particular, they have reported that:

The number of heart attacks in Helena dropped from seven to four, which is a statistically insignificant number, and that

• Helena experienced the same decline four years ago—long before it implemented a smoking.

The Truth

The opposition is very mistaken on both counts, and by being so, works to undermine the important message of this study: all Minnesotans risk their cardiovascular health when they are exposed to secondhand smoke.

http://www.airarticles.com/health/quit-smoking/smoking-bans-linked-to-fewer-heart-attacks.html

BMJ link

Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study

The city of Helena, Montana, saw a decline of 40 percent in heart attack incidence after implementing a smoking ban in June 2002. In the surrounding area which had no smoking ban, heart attacks increased by 46 percent. The smoking ban was suspended in December 2002. Heart attack rates in Helena increased to pre-ban rates six months after the ban was suspended.

Heart attacks decreased by 27 percent in the city of Pueblo, Colorado, 18 months after enacting a ban on smoking. The surrounding Pueblo County area experienced a 15 percent decline. Adjacent El Paso County, which had no smoking ban, experienced a four percent decrease in heart attacks. Pueblo City noted a further 19 percent reduction in heart attacks after an additional 18 months for an overall three-year reduction of 41 percent. Neither Pueblo County nor El Paso County noted further reductions.

New York State saw an eight percent decline in heart attacks a year after its smoking ban. In 2002-2004, smoking prevalence in New York City decreased from 21.5 percent to 18.5 percent.

Heart attacks decreased by 50 percent in Monroe County, Indiana, 18 months after implementing a smoke-free policy. Neighboring Delaware County, which had no smoking ban, experienced a 20 percent decline in heart attacks. The ban went into effect in 2003 but excluded bars until 2005.

Some more stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this has me fancying a ciggie!

I smoke about three a week, not exactly an addict. I've read that living in London is equivalent to smoking four fags a day versus a country-dweller. So I'm twenty five in credit every week!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. Its just science

Science can be agenda based too. Just look at all the science that comes out of right wing American politics.

The problem is there is no proof there is any such thing as passive smoking. Thus they need to find 'science' to prove it. Anything that shows no effect is not interesting. They fall for the classic correlation is not causation error

Our ancestors and much of the world still cooks on open fires inhaling vast quantities of smoke. Tobacco is just a leaf, it is not special. They do not get cancer, thus the experiment is already done with a sample of millions. Yet this will be ignored because the agenda is to get tobacco banned. The primary reason for this is therapy for ex-smokers. I was hooked on tobacco, so now I will get hurt it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sort of makes statistical sense.If you are susceptible the first couple of fags are more likely to do you in than the extra ten between 30 and 40..I think we have the balance of smoking legislation about right.Smokers have no right to kipper me in a restaurant,on the othere hand I have no desire to stop them altogether because by pegging it early they are going to ensure my pension.

My theory is that the smoker has their lungs coated with a layer of protective tar. That tar stops more tar getting onto the surface of the lung. The cancer risk is from the tar in contact with the lung. So to me it makes no difference if you smoke 20 or 30, but the first few that build up the tar layer make the difference.

Same for heart attack/beer drinking etc. The danger to me is the bit at the beginning. The rest your body can to some degree adapt to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science can be agenda based too. Just look at all the science that comes out of right wing American politics.

The problem is there is no proof there is any such thing as passive smoking. Thus they need to find 'science' to prove it. Anything that shows no effect is not interesting. They fall for the classic correlation is not causation error

Our ancestors and much of the world still cooks on open fires inhaling vast quantities of smoke. Tobacco is just a leaf, it is not special. They do not get cancer, thus the experiment is already done with a sample of millions. Yet this will be ignored because the agenda is to get tobacco banned. The primary reason for this is therapy for ex-smokers. I was hooked on tobacco, so now I will get hurt it back.

Errr - yes it does cause lung cancer

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/287/9/1132.full

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My theory is that the smoker has their lungs coated with a layer of protective tar. That tar stops more tar getting onto the surface of the lung. The cancer risk is from the tar in contact with the lung. So to me it makes no difference if you smoke 20 or 30, but the first few that build up the tar layer make the difference.

Same for heart attack/beer drinking etc. The danger to me is the bit at the beginning. The rest your body can to some degree adapt to.

One flaw in that theory is that the tar layer might interfere with oxygen exchange. Suffocation gets you long before the cancer takes hold. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't kow if the stats are accurate, but I knew several people who died because of cigarettes ... lung cancer, throat cancer, COPD ... :(. One of my twenty year friends has got an awful chesty cough .... she smokes :(. It has also aged her about ten years!

Smoking is not good for health...but I have known people die one from lung cancer one from throat cancer...none of them had smoked a ciggy in their life. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad had a stroke (barely turned 50!) and smoked. He had to get the gunge scraped out of the main artery in his neck. We were bricking it. Now he's still smoking, which is ridiculous. :(

Same thing with my grandad. He cut the smoking but still drinks.

:s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 12 months following the smoking in workplaces ban admissions for Heart attacks fell 17% in Scotland I seem to recall.

Yes, I remember that one. At the time my thought was that it smelled funny as I would expect any damage that passive smoking might do would be long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it have been from other life factors, genes, working conditions etc though.

Smoking is the prevalent cause of lung cancer - 85-90% are clearly associated with smoking. Other causes contributing are air pollution, radon gas, and possibly genetic seceptability although personal I think casual factors in cancer are more environmental than genetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 276 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.