More than 600,000 people killed by 2nd-hand smoke

[xg4bx]

LONDON – Secondhand smoke kills more than 600,000 people worldwide every year, according to a new study.

In the first look at the global impact of secondhand smoking, researchers analyzed data from 2004 for 192 countries. They found 40 percent of children and more than 30 percent of non-smoking men and women regularly breathe in secondhand smoke.
Scientists then estimated that passive smoking causes about 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 deaths from lower respiratory disease, 36,900 deaths from asthma and 21,400 deaths from lung cancer a year.

Altogether, those account for about 1 percent of the world's deaths. The study was paid for by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and Bloomberg Philanthropies. It was published Friday in the British medical journal Lancet.

More than 600,000 people killed by 2nd-hand smoke - Yahoo! News

and the junk science marches on...

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

So. Um.
They just tallied up how many people died from "heart disease", "lower respiratory disease", "asthma", and "lung cancer", multiplied adult deaths by .4 and child deaths by .3 and said this is how many people second-hand smoke kills? That's... interesting.
I would be curious to see what method they used to arrive at the 40 and 30 percent figures. I also would be curious to see what other factors in these peoples' lives could have caused their heart/lung disease.
If I eat nothing but bacon for 50 years, and in that span inhale 10 liters of second-hand smoke, do I become one of the "approximately 603,000 deaths"?
I also find this interesting:

Scientists then estimated that passive smoking causes about 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 deaths from lower respiratory disease, 36,900 deaths from asthma and 21,400 deaths from lung cancer a year.

Peruga said WHO was particularly concerned about the 165,000 children who die of smoke-related respiratory infections, mostly in Southeast Asia and Africa.

So virtually ALL of the "lower respiratory disease" deaths are (presumably) children in impoverished countries who live in unsanitary conditions with limited access to health care AND who may have been exposed to second-hand smoke. Not being a doctor, I couldn't tell you if there were, say, a plethora of other diseases that these children may have had that had little to nothing to do with the smoke they were exposed to. I can only speculate.

 

[jamie]

Hmmm. I wonder how that squares with:
India: Indoor air pollution behind COPD, not smoking: study

 

[maxx]

I love when "experts" throw around numbers and statistics to prove a pre-determined point. Reminds of the old statistical joke about drinking and driving...

Studies show that 30% of all automobile accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That means that 70% are caused by sober drivers....therefore, statistically-speaking, drunk drivers are safer than sober ones.

Or similar nonsense....

 

[Petrodus]

Statistics prove the FDA is responsible
for over 600,000 deaths worldwide last year.

Source

 

[Vocalek]

Notice who WHO led the study.

"This helps us understand the real toll of tobacco," said Armando Peruga, a program manager at the World Health Organization's Tobacco-Free Initiative, who led the study.

 

[Mister]

79.3% of statistics are made up.

 

[rothenbj]

Over 32 pages of google search returns on this one study which where the India study didn't reach a page and no serious news source. WHO sure knows how to sell an agenda.

 

[xg4bx]

this is why i don't trust most "scientists". when you go in with an agenda you usually find what you want to find. just like studies that "prove" global warming run by organizations who stand to directly profit from selling green technology. it wouldn't shock me if they tried to link the 2 one day...

it's not hard to follow the money but unfortunately this will be another big lie swallowed by the brainless public.

 

[Vocalek]

Something is very strange about these statistics. Either the folks who estimated the global impact greatly underestimated the rates of death, or the U.S. government has been greatly overestimating the death rates from smoking in our country. I give you these numbers to work with:

In 2004, the U.S. had 44,500,000 smokers.
The U.S. government tells us there was a total of 443,000 deaths, of which 49,400 were due to second-hand smoke (SHS). That would leave 393,000 killed by first-hand smoke, correct?

393000/44500000 = .008845
49400/44500000 = .001101

After a lot of digging, I finally found a statistic for the number of smokers world-wide in 2004:
1.3 Billion or 1,300,000,000

If I apply the U.S. percentages to the global number I come up with the following

Number of deaths due to 1st hand smoke: 11,498,500
Number of deaths due to 2nd hand smoke: 1,431,300

But the article is telling us that 600,000 globally died of 2nd hand smoke. Applying the U.S. percentage gives me more than double that number.

If I work the numbers in the other direction (globally), I get the following
600000 / 1,300,000,000 = .000046

Applying that to the U.S. # smokers gives me

20,538 deaths due to 2nd hand smoke which is less than half the number the U.S. government is citing.

 

[rothenbj]

Elaine, you're wasting your time trying to figure out how they arrive at their numbers. These aren't science numbers, they're political science numbers. The entire study is available at the Lancet link, but you need to be registered to access.

Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries : The Lancet

 

[Petrodus]

There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics
Using statistics you can prove anything

Bread Kills! Click Here

The Internet is a fantastic source of information but it's important
to know who you are listening to before believing some of the
information you find on-line.

 

[sherid]

They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
InterviewWithPrEven

 

[Petrodus]

I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

My primary focus is Archeology and Paleontology.

Claims made with out valid "References" have little to no scientific value.

 

[lkim65]

That statistic is kinda funny since, from the get go, there has never, ever been a legitimate study about second hand smoke in the first place. When all this anti-smoking started here in the U.S., it was all propaganda, and the intellectually lazy populous fell for it.

 

[CJsKee]

Here's ACSH's take on the "myth of the 600,000": Study’s secondhand smoke estimates overblown > Facts & Fears > ACSH

 

[D103]

I posted a comment on Dr. Seigel's site last week about possible projections re: Tobacco control strategies. What I see is that it is now really becoming a "numbers game" in addition to all the other pathology. The trend is shifting towards more focus on obesity and States are reducing funds to Anti-smoking programs and research and shifting funding towards obesity - one of the major claims being that obesity is more serious in that it affects more people. So the TC movement is going to have to drum up some pretty "impressive numbers" in order to compete and I imagine this is just one of many "studies?!?!?" to come touting unbelievable numbers of "victims". This, of course, will be in combination with increased "research(pay-offs)" re: 3rd and even 4th hand smoke dangers. The true question for me is, will we ever have sufficient numbers of people who will back up from all of this lunacy long enough to see just how sick it is to lie, cheat, mislead and abandon all credibility, legitimacy and integrity, all in a pathetic and cruel attempt to "out-scare" the general public - all for money?