PDA

View Full Version : Second-Hand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer



PQQLK9
06-19-2002, 12:48 PM
Health Experts: Second-Hand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10033-2002Jun19.html

06-19-2002, 01:14 PM
In Other Breaking News

In the movie Citizen Kane
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Rosebud was a sled.

06-19-2002, 01:22 PM
In Other Breaking News

Scientists have just completed a five year study and have concluded. Gunshot wounds to the heart, CAN cause death. The study, led by noted scientist, Dr. I. WasteTaxMoney, used living subjects to find out it's results. Over 200 subjects were used, condolences go out to all their families. The study concluded that guns of varying degrees of calibre will penetrate the heart, and as the good Dr. told us, " Then bad *#&^ starts to happen." Police forces hope to use this report to educate children on the dangers of shotguns.

AP

Ken
06-19-2002, 07:54 PM
This newspaper article is an example of journalism at it absolute worst. They start out with a headline designed to grab and then they present no evidence to back it up. All they really have to say is that tobacco smoke contains carcinogenic compounds. Sure "passive smokers are breathing in the same carcinogens as smokers". What evidence shows that it causes cancer??? "They are being absorbed into the body". So what. Are the doses sufficient to cause cancer? I guess they don't know.

They then go on to describe the effects of SMOKING, NOT passive smoke. Oh, the people from ASH jump all over this to claim they were right all along about passive smoke. That's not what the article is about; it's about SMOKERS. If they want to kill themselves they have that personal freedom. The government has not taken that away, yet.

Read the article carefully; it's crap. It's sad to see what journalism schools put out. Don't believe anything you read from these secondary or tertiary sources. If they had real evidence it would be in the article.
KenCT

MikeM
06-20-2002, 10:28 AM
"Involuntary smoking - breathing in second-hand smoke - is carcinogenic to humans," said Professor Jonathan Samet, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and a member of the IARC group.

"IARC, an extension of the World Health Organisation (WHO), is based in Lyons, France. Its findings on smoking are based on an independent analysis of more than 50 medical studies by 29 experts from 12 countries."

Ken,

This was a wire service story. It is merely a reporter covering a news conference and is stated as such. The headline is more than backed up by the first quote above. The doctor clearly states that second hand smoke causes cancer in humans. The second quote from the article shows that this conclusion is culled from a significant body of research. In a news wire piece covering a press conference you should not expect anything more in depth. A by-lined article by a Post staff writer would be a different story. Before you condemn all journalism school products, you should become more aware of how news is presented in a paper. You may also want to contact the Post's ombudsman Michael Getler to express your concerns over the Reuters piece. He can be reached at (202) 334-7582 or by e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com, or c/o The Washington Post, 1150 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20071.

MM...journalism school dropout

Ken
06-20-2002, 08:26 PM
Tobacco smoke contains carcinogens.

Smokers get cancer from the smoke.

Therefore, non-smokers who breath in some smoke get cancer.

That's the extent of Professor Samet's argument. It took 50 studies to determine if someone smokes near you and you breathe then you will breathe in some smoke. "To my knowledge it is the first time an organisation with global sweep has reached that conclusion," he added. OH, the elegance!

I guess I was wrong about Patricia's journalistic skills. I should have said that her skills are far better than Professor Samet's science. I could have told him all he knows about passive smoking 50 years ago.

Two thirds of that article are about the effects of smoking on smokers. The headline is a sham because there is no useful information in there about passive smoking. Classic bait and switch.
KenCT