Passive smoking 'kills 600,000' worldwide

Mark Latimour · #1 11-26-2010, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC

Passive smoking 'kills 600,000' worldwide

The first global study into the effects of passive smoking has found it causes 600,000 deaths every year.

One-third of those killed are children, often exposed to smoke at home, the World Health Organization (WHO) found.

The study, in 192 countries, found that passive smoking is particularly dangerous for children, said to be at higher risk of sudden infant death syndrome, pneumonia and asthma.

Passive smoking causes heart disease, respiratory illness and lung cancer.

"This helps us understand the real toll of tobacco," said Armando Peruga, of the WHO's Tobacco-Free Initiative, who led the study.

The study used estimates of the incidence of specific diseases and of the number of people exposed to second-hand smoke in particular areas.

The global health body said it was particularly concerned about the estimated 165,000 children who die of smoke-related respiratory infections, mostly in South East Asia and in Africa.

It said that this group was more exposed to passive smoking than any other group, principally in their own homes.

"The mix of infectious diseases and second-hand smoke is a deadly combination," Mr Peruga said.

As well as being at increased risk of a series of respiratory conditions, the lungs of children who breathe in passive smoke may also develop more slowly than children who grow up in smoke-free homes.

Worldwide, as many as 40% of children, 33% of non-smoking men and 35% non-smoking women were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004, researchers found.

This exposure was estimated to have caused 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 from lower respiratory infections, 36,900 from asthma and 21,400 from lung cancer.

According to the study, the highest numbers of people exposed to second-hand smoke are in Europe and Asia and the lowest rates of exposure were in the Americas, the Eastern Mediterranean and Africa.

The research also revealed that passive smoking had a large impact on women, killing about 281,000 worldwide. This is due to the fact that in many parts of the world, the study suggests, women are at least 50% more likely to be exposed to second-hand smoke than men.

However, the researchers said were limitations to the study, including uncertainties about the underlying health data and gaps in the data relating to exposure to second-hand smoke.

Writing in the Lancet, Dr Heather Wipfli of the University of Southern California and colleagues, said: "There are well acknowledged uncertainties in estimates of disease burden.

"However, there can be no question that the 1.2bn smokers in the world are exposing billions of non-smokers to second-hand smoke, a disease-causing indoor air pollutant."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11844169

warwick.hoy · #2 11-26-2010, 07:50 AM

Does this mean there will finally be a worldwide ban on tobacco?

Didn't think so.

HollowBassman · #3 11-26-2010, 07:54 AM

Tonight at 11: Researchers pull large, meaningless numbers out of their behinds and attach them to their study.

warwick.hoy · #4 11-26-2010, 08:13 AM

Yeah,...I hate to come off as the cynical smoker, I find this article a little alarmist. We are all very aware of the effects of 2nd hand smoke, thanks for the reminder.

With a world population of around ~6 billion and growing,....600,000 is hardly a dent.

Quote:

"However, there can be no question that the 1.2bn smokers in the world are exposing billions of non-smokers to second-hand smoke, a disease-causing indoor air pollutant."

Hyperbole much? 1.2bn (billion?) exposing "billions" of non-smokers and only 600,000 have died? A paltry attempt. Change "billions" to millions and then we are on to something newsworthy. 600,000 is a lot of dead people,...but here is a news flash,...no one lives forever.

Quote:

However, the researchers said were limitations to the study, including uncertainties about the underlying health data and gaps in the data relating to exposure to second-hand smoke.

Nice little caveat that means that all your data amounts to bupkis.

FWIW,...I take my habit outside, but that's only cause smoking indoors is nasty. I don't even smoke when I drive,...because I don't want my car reeking.

Yes we know how dangerous 2nd hand smoke is,...that's why when I want to light up indoors; I give everyone in the room a cigarette to smoke,...so they can get that oh so much better for you 1st hand smoke.

blendermassacre · #5 11-26-2010, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warwick.hoy

Yeah,...I hate to come off as the cynical smoker, I find this article a little alarmist. We are all very aware of the effects of 2nd hand smoke, thanks for the reminder.

With a world population of around ~6 billion and growing,....600,000 is hardly a dent.

Hyperbole much? 1.2bn (billion?) exposing "billions" of non-smokers and only 600,000 have died? A paltry attempt. Change "billions" to millions and then we are on to something newsworthy. 600,000 is a lot of dead people,...but here is a news flash,...no one lives forever.

Nice little caveat that means that all your data amounts to bupkis.

FWIW,...I take my habit outside, but that's only cause smoking indoors is nasty. I don't even smoke when I drive,...because I don't want my car reeking.

Yes we know how dangerous 2nd hand smoke is,...that's why when I want to light up indoors; I give everyone in the room a cigarette to smoke,...so they can get that oh so much better for you 1st hand smoke.

I'm going to +1 this, as well as say, that there is no real way to measure the effects of second hand smoke, as there could be no control group. we would have to keep someone in a plastic bubble away from any sort of second hand smoke just for the sake of running tests on them, if we were going to be able to run a real scientific test.

i_got_a_mohawk · #6 11-26-2010, 08:32 AM

The estimate is 600,000, per year, not total.

Wouldn't say alarmist, just trying to quantify a known problem.

Statistically it isn't a big number, but 600,000 lives a year is a lot. People aren't just statistics

.

It's like suggesting September 11th, the war in Iraq or even murders on your own doorstep, aren't important, hardly a dent, because it wasn't a statistically large number who were affected.

JulienJeff · #7 11-26-2010, 08:36 AM

second hand smoking is a truth. As a smoker, I'm really ware of that try not to smoke in closed space where I could expose other people. But this is stupid to try to give a number of death per year. It's already really complicated/impossible to know how many people die from smoking

TheBass · #8 11-26-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by warwick.hoy

Yeah,...I hate to come off as ...With a world population of around ~6 billion and growing,....600,000 is hardly a dent.
....

Agreed.

And now imagine:

one of them might be your child.

warwick.hoy · #9 11-26-2010, 08:58 AM

I don't mean to take away from the gravity of the problem and I realize that these are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters we are talking about,...but the one thing about life that is certain is that it isn't forever. If second hand smoke doesn't get you (1 in 10,000 according to my simple math [dividing 600,000 into 6bil]),...old age will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBass

Agreed.

And now imagine:

one of them might be your child.

What child? I'm getting the snip as soon as I get the balls to do it.

Joe Nerve · #10 11-26-2010, 09:04 AM

I'm an ex smoker. I hate second hand smoke. I'm happy for all the current laws banning smoke.

I think that article is an alarmist bunch of BS, even though I didn't read it.

If the title of the OP is true, then in 1970 second hand smoke must have killed all of america. Twice over. We here are probaly inhaling less than 1% of the second hand smoke we did 30 and 40 years ago. Restaurants, airplanes, just about all public place... not to mention that just about everyone smoked back then too.

L-A · #11 11-26-2010, 09:05 AM

The old "You gotta die from something" argument never cut it with me, personally. I might as well choose not to die of something that turns my pink insides grey.

Thunderscreech · #12 11-26-2010, 09:21 AM

As opposed to active smoking? What, does one have higher output impedance than the other? does one behave better with Fuzz Face-style circuits?

Schlyder · #13 11-26-2010, 09:24 AM

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

L-A · #14 11-26-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderscreech

As opposed to active smoking? What, does one have higher output impedance than the other? does one behave better with Fuzz Face-style circuits?

Really, it's just that active smoking allows you to have more than the natural amounts of tar, whereas passive smoking only lets you dial *down* certain substances over the whole spectrum.

syciprider · #15 11-26-2010, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-A

The old "You gotta die from something" argument never cut it with me, personally. I might as well choose not to die of something that turns my pink insides grey.

Lookie here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/728562.stm

The Dutch found a correlation between pollen pollution and how it may increase the chances of heart attacks on heavy pollen days.

Napalm works great on plants.

It seems that you could die of anything.

L-A · #16 11-26-2010, 09:38 AM

That's kind of my point. You can die of a bazillion things. Why add one that's not extremely exciting or socially awesome to the mix?

Of course, that's an argument for younger generations, raised while smoking wasn't cool anymore.

sandmangeck · #17 11-26-2010, 09:42 AM

http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm Cars cause cancer too. Your food causes cancer. Your cell phone causes cancer.

T40Chump · #18 11-26-2010, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunderscreech

As opposed to active smoking? What, does one have higher output impedance than the other? does one behave better with Fuzz Face-style circuits?

But which smoke is best for metal???

warwick.hoy · #19 11-26-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-A

That's kind of my point. You can die of a bazillion things. Why add one that's not extremely exciting or socially awesome to the mix?

Of course, that's an argument for younger generations, raised while smoking wasn't cool anymore.

I think the point I was trying to make is not,..."don't add smoking to the list of things that will kill you",...but more,..."non-smokers die every day".

jp58 · #20 11-26-2010, 10:12 AM

It seems to m that they just threw numbers on a study to quantify it. And as warwick said, we already knew it was bad.

Unless a better designed study comes along (perhaps with the mice I helped clone this semester), or unless more smoking bans are coming from the study, then it seems like they just added numbers to "second hand smoke is bad, mkay?"