Secondhand smoke may spark diabetes
In another smoking gun aiming at tobacco, researchers have reported for the first time that secondhand smoke may lead to glucose intolerance, a precursor of diabetes.
In a 15-year prospective study, about 17 percent of people exposed to passive tobacco, or secondhand smoke, became glucose intolerant, about midway between the 22 percent of smokers and less than 12 percent of non-smokers who developed the condition. Glucose intolerance means the body has trouble producing insulin to regulate blood sugar, which can bring on type 2 diabetes.
‘This is not a trivial (finding) for a disease that affects 1 in 10 Americans,’ he said. ‘This could have a huge impact on public health.’
Repaske said he was convinced of the study`s validity by the fact Houston and colleagues adjusted for other diabetes risk factors, such as alcohol intake and physical activity. Thus, even when taking other factors into account, smoking still raised a person`s risk for glucose intolerance.
So, this guy is “convinced of the validity of the study”. I’m not, as long as I have not read it. On validity of SHS studies have a look at http://www.davehitt.com/facts/
Well, I’m old smoker… Over 10 years… And I have diabetes :). But I reached it by candies etc… :)… What to say… There’s no reason for ppl to smoke…. This is just another one…. In million of others.
I don’t believe a single study about smoking from anyone ever. If the government or some whacko anti-smoking group sponsors it, smoking is the worst possible thing you can ever do and will kill you immediately after the first puff. If the tobacco industry supports the study, it ain’t so bad and actually helps you breathe better.
Ignore every single published study of smoking and do what you want. Smoke if you want, don’t smoke if you don’t.
And, BTW, there is NO such thing as “second hand smoke”. It was invented when it was needed.
Funny how trolls can’t give up cigarettes.
Ivor Biggun (3)
Another known consequence of smoking… it will turn your Biggun into a Littlegun.
Herbert
Nice try, but this is just another phony site. It presents no FACTS, only conjecture, supposition, and unsupported comments.
If you want to debunk a scientific study, then refute it with evidence.
Mr. Fusion
Why is it “phony” to discuss some basic facts of statistcs-based studies and the methods used by WHO and EPA?
There should be more awareness of the fact that such organizations are not necesserarily holder of the truth but are following their own special interests.
>>Ignore every single published study of smoking and do what you want.
>>Smoke if you want, don’t smoke if you don’t.
I agree. Smoke all you want. JUST DON’T DO IT AROUND ME.
I was in a novelty store the other day, and came across a section that sold cans of what was labeled as “Fart Spray”. Claimed to produce an overwhelming odor of farts. I was tempted to buy a couple of cans for spraying at those who don’t have the energy or good manners to take their obnoxious addiction outside. Hey, if I have to hang my clothes outside overnight to remove a foul odor after going to a restaurant, the smokers should be happy to shoulder the same burden.
Mister Mustard, you are 100% right, though actually doing that might escalate the discordance. In NYC the smoking ban has made people more aware of respecting other’s air. People in restaurants here go out for a fart as well as for a light up.
Herbert, it is not wrong to discuss basic facts, but to merely discount them by saying they are wrong is not a very convincing way to do it. If you disagree with the scientific studies, then show a study that contradicts it with evidence. Just because there may be errors in the study is an insufficient reason to discount the whole study.
Give me a peer reviewed study that discounts the known (alleged) effects of second hand tobacco smoke and I will read it, thoroughly.
The way to not have smelly clothes after being in a bar or restaurant is to not go there in the first place.
Entering a private business is a privilege granted by the property owner, so there is no right to either smoke or not smoke.
Mr. Fusion,
your statement that “just because there may be errors in the study is an unsufficient reason to discount the whole study” would be OK if this weren’t massive ones.
The WHO itself stated that
“The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant.”
So, we have estimated(!)! risks that are statistically insignificant (!).
There would be other ways to separate smokers from non-smokers. It seems, however, that nobody wants them to go.
For a peer reviewed study the type you suggested we will certainly have to wait for while. Nobody wants to work on politically incorrect topics, I’m afraid.