Air pollution detrimental to cardiovascular system

http://tinyurl.com/2th8t5

Air pollution detrimental to cardiovascular system

`INVISIBLE KILLER': Air-borne pollutants have become the new silent
threat to people's hearts, and one that people in polluted cities are
subjected to day after day
By Wei Yi-chia
STAFF REPORTER
Sunday, Jul 08, 2007, Page 2
A recent report has added to the body of evidence that air pollution
damages health. The report suggests that ozone and sulfates in the
air can cause an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, or
cardiovascular inflammation.

Such pollution has already become the new silent threat to people's
cardiovascular health, playing the role of an "invisible killer" that
people in polluted cities are subjected to day after day, the report
said.

The report, titled Urban Air Pollution on Inflammation, Oxidative
Stress, Coagulation and Autonomic Dysfunction, was prepared by a
medical research team at the Graduate Institute of Occupational
Medicine and Industrial Hygiene at National Taiwan University.

The report will soon be published in the authoritative American
Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Chan Chang-chuan (

No votes yet

I wonder how many pro smoking ban people have laid blame for disease on shs, that in reality, was caused by air pollutants. Awfully quiet.........................
Not really trying to stir the pot yet again, but felt it was an interesting (and telling) article.

My point is, shs is not nearly as dangerous as the air pollution this article refers to. And shs is not nearly as dangerous as the micro pollutants of Ohio, or car exhaust, etc. Ohio is one of the worst in the county for micro pollutants - they don't do shit about it, but shit bricks over shs. Like comparing the flicker of a candle to the sun. Also, shs is not nearly as cancer causing AS the sun, or the thousands of carcinagens you ingest daily in food, shampoos, cosmetics, household cleansers, etc.. Howsehold cleansers are FAR more dangerous than shs, and that's been proven.

This isn't rocket science. Sucking smoke and other pollutants into your lungs is not good for you, wether you're doing it voluntarily sucking on a cigarette or if its involuntary through SHS or other pollutants in the air.
Both side can and do wave studys at each other claiming to the the one true thing.
It still comes down to smoke and other pollutants don't belong in our lungs. Its a bad thing. It causes disease.
Its also not like there hasn't been a movement to clean up air pollution for years.

heyhey - I (and others) have posted numerous articles, studies & links on toledotalks, that I'm sure you can dig up in the archives. I don't recall the thread titles - but one was "Follow The Money", which I believe, contained many such links, articles, etc. I don't have the time & patience to sift through it all again, to try to prove to somebody who is intent on believing the shs propaganda - you can dig yourself. Jimavolt had posted a facinating OSHA study that pretty much said it all. (even OSHA said there weren't levels of danger).

For the sake of arguement though, I will post the few I could easily find - the links they came from are loaded with a wealth of information - to anybody who's mind is not closed already.

************************************************************
http://www.pbs
ARLES BLIXT: It's not our position that second-hand smoke is not harmful to health. It's our position that the science doesn't support any finding or any conclusion that second-hand smoke causes cancer or heart disease or any of these other diseases that were listed. In fact, if it were proved, why would the World Health Organization be currently conducting the largest single study of this kind, spending millions of dollars, a study that's been going on for several years and the preliminary report of which says that the risk of cancer from second-hand smoke has not been established......
*********************************************************
Michael Crichton on the Unproven Dangers of Secondhand Smoke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGoZ-b1OaW4
********************************************************
If spin were science, Hecht would win a Nobel Prize.

Biochemistry aside, Hecht's grossly misrepresented the state of the science on secondhand smoke and lung cancer. A credible link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer remains elusive despite more than 40 published studies.

The largest-ever study on secondhand smoke and lung cancer, published in 1998 by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, reported no statistically significant increase in lung cancer risk associated with exposure to secondhand smoke.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1897,00.html
********************************************************
September 20, 2006

Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research

James E. Enstrom, Ph.D., M.P.H.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAA11.htm

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html
***********************************************************
Loaded with information
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/207.html
*********************************************************
Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html
**********************************************************
The Antismokers Are LYING To You !
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/images/bff.htm
*********************************************************
Last week, in North Carolina, the federal judge in the case sided with the industry, saying the EPA made serious mistakes five years ago in evaluating the risk of second-hand smoke. In his ruling, Federal District Judge William Osteen said the "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" and the "EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information."

Smoking Sign That, the judge said, put into question the agency's 1993 decision to designate secondhand smoke a Class A carcinogen or a proven cause of cancer in humans. Only 15 other highly reactive substances, including asbestos and radon, are ranked Class A carcinogens...........
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec98/smoking_7-21.html
*************************************************************
Standard Interpretations
02/24/2003 - Reiteration of Existing OSHA Policy on Indoor Air Quality: Office Temperature/Humidity and Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETA...
**************************************************************
informed the panel that the study that began the crusade, published in 1992 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), had, despite EPA's insistence, found no statistically significant link to lung cancer. If EPA's researchers had used the normal standard for statistical significance--a measure of the probability that the outcome resulted from sheer chance--they would have found no relationship.

Since the football fell short, they used a more lax standard to move the goalposts closer.

Strong Evidence Against

I told them EPA also found a mere 17 percent increased risk, yet the National Cancer Institute has said even a 100 percent increase is "considered small" and is "usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." (The exception is with very large studies, but EPA's was not.)

I noted that the other "authoritative" study linking passive smoke to lung cancer, commissioned by the World Health Organization, actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers and no increase for spouses and coworkers of smokers. For spouses and coworkers of smokers, it found neither increased nor decreased risk.

And I told them that the largest of the passive smoking studies (35,000 participants) and longest (39 years) found no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (passive smoking) and tobacco-related mortality."

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16818
***********************************************************
NEW, ENORMOUS STUDY UNMASKS THE ANTISMOKING FRAUD: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 - May 19th, 2003 - "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
ID YOU KNOW?... - Enormous German study on passive smoke, cancer and cardiovascular disease says: >NO CONNECTION< - April, 2003 -- Dating back one year, this milestone study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention! The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt that says it all:

"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women)."

condhand smoke have ever demonstrated the epidemiological existence of a risk. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE STUDY
REVISITING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER RISK

April, 2003 -- Dating back one year, this milestone study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention! The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt that says it all:

"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women)."

condhand smoke have ever demonstrated the epidemiological existence of a risk. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE STUDY
REVISITING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER RISK

I wonder how many smokers aren't smart enough to realize that secondhand smoke IS air pollution.

Where is your proof that SHS isn't as bad as air pollution? Or is that just your opinion?

Even if it wasn't as bad does that mean it's still acceptable? If air pollution causes a 3x increased risk for cancer or heart disease and SHS causes a 2x increased risk, does that serve as an endorsement that SHS shouldn't be monitored? Of course not. All of these risk factors are cumulative, and each risk factor should be dealt with individually. Also, at least air pollution generally results in something good for society in addition to something bad (pollution typically follows economic development).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.