SubscribeAll Ong and Glantz say may be true. But a curious downside of the industry's strategy was that it made it harder for fair criticism to be made of the IARC study by truly independent scientists. Yet the IARC study was underpowered to detect reliably relative risks smaller than 1·3, and the tobacco industry was quick to exploit this methodological weakness. Moreover, good epidemiological practice is a sensible goal. The fact that it has partly originated from tobacco manufacturers may taint and therefore slow its successful attainment.in other words, the study was flawed and the tobacco companies exploited this. to what degree? this is from the paper (my emphasis):
To understand the tobacco industry's strategy on the IARC study we analysed industry documents released in US litigation and interviewed IARC investigators. The Philip Morris tobacco company feared that the study (and a possible IARC monograph on second-hand smoke) would lead to increased restrictions in Europe so they spearheaded an inter-industry, three-prong strategy to subvert IARC's work. The scientific strategy attempted to undercut IARC's research and to develop industry-directed research to counter the anticipated findings. The communications strategy planned to shape opinion by manipulating the media and the public. The government strategy sought to prevent increased smoking restrictions. The IARC study cost $2 million over ten years; Philip Morris planned to spend $2 million in one year alone and up to $4 million on research. The documents and interviews suggest that the tobacco industry continues to conduct a sophisticated campaign against conclusions that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer and other diseases, subverting normal scientific processes.
A six-month ban on smoking in all public places slashed the number of heart attacks in a US town by almost a half, a new study has revealed.</cough>
The researchers attribute the dramatic drop to the "near elimination" of harmful effects of "second-hand" smoke - passive smoking. A smoke-free environment also encourages smokers to reduce smoking or quit altogether, the team adds.
"This striking finding suggests that protecting people from toxins in second-hand smoke not only makes life more pleasant, it immediately starts saving lives," Glantz says. The researchers claim the study is the first to show that smoke-free policies rapidly reduce heart attacks, as well as having long-term benefits.
"This clearly shows the great need for controls on smoking in public places," says Amanda Sandford of UK pressure group Action on Smoking and Health. "Passive smoking is a killer. The public certainly underestimates the impact of passive smoking on the heart."
The study suggests that although second-hand smoke delivers only a small dose of harmful chemicals, it appears to have a very heavy impact on health. This paradox has puzzled scientists before, says Robert West, an expert on smoking cessation at St George's Medical School, London, "but there are now plausible mechanisms for this".
The risk of lung cancer rises steadily with the amount of tobacco a person smokes, he notes, but the risk of heart attack shows a non-linear relationship. Recent studies have shown "there is an immediate and acute effect of passive smoke exposure as a particulate pollutant," West told New Scientist.
« Older Hey Jude, what does that song mean?... | "Pray that the President and h... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also, too bad second hand smoking improves the health of young children.
posted by shepd at 4:07 PM on March 30, 2003