Passive smoking causes 1 in 100 deaths

gsxr1

Passive smoking causes 1% of all deaths globally – 603,000 a year, of which about 165,000 are in children, according to an article published online first today in The Lancet . The study, from the World Health Organization’s Tobacco-Free Initiative in Geneva, is the first assessment made of passive smoking’s impact worldwide.

The authors analysed 2004 data from 192 countries studied to estimate deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs – years lost of life in good health).

They found that worldwide, 40% of children, 33% of male non-smokers and 35% of female non-smokers were subjected to passive smoking. They estimated that in 2004 this caused:

379,000 deaths from ischaemic heart disease
165,000 deaths from lower respiratory infections
36,900 deaths from asthma
21,400 deaths from lung cancer
They calculated that a total 603,000 deaths were caused by second-hand smoke in 2004, or about 1.0% of worldwide mortality. Almost half (48%) of all passive smoking deaths were in women and more than a quarter (28%) in children, with only 26% in men – because men are more likely to be active smokers themselves.

Passive smoking also caused huge morbidity, the authors say. They found in 2004 it was responsible for 10.9m DALYs, or 0.7% of the total burden globally, and 61% of DALYs were borne by children. A high proportion of DALYs were from lower respiratory tract infections in the under-5s (54%), ischaemic heart disease in adults (26%) and asthma in adults (11%) and in children (6%).

Most deaths in children caused by passive smoking occurred in low- or middle-income countries – only 71 occurred in the wealthier countries of Europe. But adult deaths from passive smoking were fairly evenly spread across all countries, irrespective of income.
The authors point out that children suffer heavier exposure to second-hand smoke than any other age-group, and are also the group for which there is strongest evidence of harm from passive smoking.

They argue that previous research has shown that comprehensive smoke-free laws cut passive smoking in places such as bars and restaurants by 90%, and overall by 60%, as well as raising the likelihood that would-be quitters are successful. They recommend immediate enforcement of WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which includes strategies such as higher tax on tobacco products, plain packaging and advertising bans.

Authors of a Comment on the study say: “There can be no question that the 1.2 billion smokers in the world are exposing billions of non-smokers to second-hand smoke, a disease-causing indoor-air pollutant. Few sources of indoor-air pollution can be completely eliminated. However, smoking indoors can be eliminated – with substantial benefits, as shown by this new set of estimates.”

Betty McBride, policy & communications director at the British Heart Foundation, said: “Breathing in other people’s tobacco smoke has deadly consequences. This study is ample proof that we were right to introduce the ban on smoking in public places in this country.

“These figures should make smokers stop and think about the impact they’re having on other people’s health, particularly children’s. They should also serve as encouragement to government to go further and promote smoke-free homes and cars.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhfNQp1-dL0

link here
http://www.onmedica.com/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=c91a9848-b7b7-4030-91bd-731899145a01

Fight_Night

inb4 smokers don't care

gsxr1

Fight_Night wrote: »

inb4 smokers don't care

Sorry . Is that English you are typing?

chin_grin

Passive smoking. Keeping overpopulation in check.

Fight_Night

gsxr1 wrote: »

Sorry . Is that English you are typing?

Yes, it clearly is.

Gran Hermano

I am pretty sure numerous non smokers, passive or otherwise, die each day.

chin_grin

Gran Hermano wrote: »

I am pretty sure numerous non smokers, passive or otherwise, die each day.

Bill Hicks "Drumroll, brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr non-smokers die every day.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHA sleep tight!"

Also trying to remember a quote from him about all the gadgets he has waiting for him as a result of smoking (oxygen tents, iron lungs). "Shee-it it's you folks dying from nothing........" or something.

Rothmans

gsxr1 wrote: »

World Health Organization’s Tobacco-Free Initiative

Tobacco Free initiative finds that tobacco smoke is bad.
I.am.shocked.:eek:

RMD

What I want to know is how much of these passive smoke related deaths are occurring as a percentage per capita in a country like here, with a Smoking ban. Being exposed to it in places like a bar, club etc, where there's a heavy level of smoke would obviously increase it. But what I want to know is how many of these deaths were made up of people exposed to it in a public place such as a street or park and nowhere else.

That child figure is disgusting, I could never smoke in front of a child, they don't know the damage, wont ask you to put it out and it's been proven children with smoking parents are much more likely to smoke. When I see a parent smoking in front of their kid all I think is "there's a parent who doesn't give a **** about their child's health", and this is from a smokers point of view.

Tellox

Seeing as the majority of the population are cúnts, I'll consider this as community service on my part.

scientific1982

Its an epidemiological study. Correlation does not imply causation. Its also just an estimate.

gsxr1

I pitty the person who is dieing a horrible painful cancer death as a result of a resident smoker who refuses to take his or her habit out doors.

I would not put up with it. I don't understand those who do.

But to be fair. I dont know any smokers who has that much lack of manners, not to take it out doors.

Maybe im just lucky.

I really don't think this is a joking matter. It is quite clearly killing people.

Yet another reason to make them 10 euros a pack TBH

Cookie_Monster

so only 60m people die a year, that's less than 1% of the population
Mental :eek:

starbelgrade

Well, they only have themselves to blame.

No-one should ever take up passive smoking.

It's a filthy habit.

whatdoicare

Most people in their 50s upwards don't think passive smoking exists. I was recently involved in a conversation about it with my mom and her friends - who all smoke.
They also come up with this weird anecdote of some friend who smoked for 30 years or whatever and gave it up - only then did said friend get lung disease and die. So, according to them, giving up smoking kills you faster than passive smoking and directly smoking combined. This seems to be the general attitude amongst that age group - in laws confimed it for me recently. Everyone seems to know this "friend".

gsxr1

whatdoicare wrote: »

Most people in their 50s upwards don't think passive smoking exists. I was recently involved in a conversation about it with my mom and her friends - who all smoke.
They also come up with this weird anecdote of some friend who smoked for 30 years or whatever and gave it up - only then did said friend get lung disease and die. So, according to them, giving up smoking kills you faster than passive smoking and directly smoking combined. This seems to be the general attitude amongst that age group - in laws confimed it for me recently. Everyone seems to know this "friend".

Thats so true.

My Mother smokes, and has all her life. She has the same stories . She really cant understand why I remove her grandchild from the room as she lites another fag up. She also has stories of people in her past who have died from non smoking related diseases.
Its really quite foolish TBH

jd007

*lights cigarette*

rossie1977

like this is a surprise, if there is one good thing this FF government did, it was implementing the smoking ban in public places

Son Of A Vidic

When I worked in the Emergency Department environment, I would gladly take the odd smoking related Respiratory admission as opposed to an alcohol related admission. Why? Because alcohol was our worst enemy. Below is an example of the work alcohol brought our way.

General assaults related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Serious assaults (stabbings) related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Road traffic accidents (minor, serious and fatal) related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Sexual assaults related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Spousal abuse/assault related to alcohol/associated with alcohol

and of course ungrateful drunken 8astards assaulting colleagues who were trying to help them. So ya we would gladly take the odd smoker coming through our doors. I can assure you a lot more die in this country for drink related reasons, than passive smokers do.:rolleyes:

gsxr1

medicman2009 wrote: »

When I worked in the Emergency Department environment, I would gladly take the odd smoking related Respiratory admission as opposed to an alcohol related admission. Why? Because alcohol was our worst enemy. Below is an example of the work alcohol brought our way.

General assaults related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Serious assaults (stabbings) related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Road traffic accidents (minor, serious and fatal) related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Sexual assaults related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Spousal abuse/assault related to alcohol/associated with alcohol

and of course ungrateful drunken 8astards assaulting colleagues who were trying to help them. So ya we would gladly take the odd smoker coming through our doors. I can assure you a lot more die in this country for drink related reasons, than passive smokers do.:rolleyes:

What does all these horrible things of which you talk about, have to do with the subject.

Given a choice , I myself would rather be exposed to passive smoking, than a gang of rapists or being stabbed in the eye by a nut case.

What is your point in relation to the suggestion by study's that 1 in 100 people are dieing because of passive smoking? :rolleyes:

Son Of A Vidic

gsxr1 wrote: »

What does all these horrible things of which you talk about, have to do with the subject.

Given a choice , I myself would rather be exposed to passive smoking, than a gang of rapists or being stabbed in the eye by a nut case.

What is your point in relation to the suggestion by study's that 1 in 100 people are dieing because of passive smoking? :rolleyes:

If your not able to understand my original post and the point I was clearly making, well then I really can't help you there I'm afraid.
But here's a try anyway:

1) Alcohol is a much destructive force than passive smoking is/ever will be. If you look at my original list, now add the following - marriage/relationship/family break-ups. Economic costs including millions lost yearly due to excess alcohol consumption (hang overs,sickies ect).

2) I was also highlighting that Emergency Departments can be full to breaking point at night, due to a variety of alcohol related problems. I can never remember the Emergency Department being full of passive smokers.

Is that anyway clearer for you now? For the first time since I joined boards I'm going to do it, I've come close a few times but now it's time. I like to give you a well deserved :rolleyes:.

TeddyTedson

This statistic is absolute bullsh1t.

WindSock

Stingey passive smokers, dying off our fumes for free :mad:

cafecolour

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1332310/Is-Wi-Fi-killing-trees-Dutch-study-shows-leaves-dying-exposure-Wi-Fi-radiation.html

WIFI is clearly worse than either these! How many trees has smoking or alcohol killed? Quick, get off the internet now! NOW I tell you!

Busi_Girl08

jd007 wrote: »

*lights cigarette*

*Coughs loudly and obnoxiously and throws a dirty look*

Venom

I remember a few years back the BBC's Panorama did a special about Wifi being 5 or 50 times worse (cant remember which) that Cell phones tower output at it highest point radiation wise.

Spunge

chin_grin wrote: »

Passive smoking. Keeping overpopulation in check.

Quick Ned, thin out their numbers !

gsxr1

medicman2009 wrote: »

If your not able to understand my original post and the point I was clearly making, well then I really can't help you there I'm afraid.
But here's a try anyway:

1) Alcohol is a much destructive force than passive smoking is/ever will be. If you look at my original list, now add the following - marriage/relationship/family break-ups. Economic costs including millions lost yearly due to excess alcohol consumption (hang overs,sickies ect).

2) I was also highlighting that Emergency Departments can be full to breaking point at night, due to a variety of alcohol related problems. I can never remember the Emergency Department being full of passive smokers.

Is that anyway clearer for you now? For the first time since I joined boards I'm going to do it, I've come close a few times but now it's time. I like to give you a well deserved :rolleyes:.

yes yes yes. :rolleyes: I dont disagree with anything you are saying. Why would I ?

But again. What does it have anything to do with the fact that people are suffering from passive smoking.

Are you denning the validity of the results of the study, using your^ statements as an argument?.
Im sure I could drag up some heart sobbing story about some lad who broke his leg on the way to work last week. Or some drunk who crashed his car. BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF THAT! Your argument is empty.

You are the one who seem to be a little unclear .

Because you smoke and work in a hospital does not mean anything really.

Can you produce any studies to refute the study that 1 in 100 losing there life due to passive smoking?

nlgbbbblth

It means 99% aren't dying from passive smoking.

Therefore passive smoking = not that bad.

Happy now?

desaparecidos

Confirmation that smokers are filthy scumbags.

AnneElizabeth

This is why I hate smokers.

Mr. Presentable

medicman2009 wrote: »

When I worked in the Emergency Department environment, I would gladly take the odd smoking related Respiratory admission as opposed to an alcohol related admission. Why? Because alcohol was our worst enemy. Below is an example of the work alcohol brought our way.

General assaults related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Serious assaults (stabbings) related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Road traffic accidents (minor, serious and fatal) related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Sexual assaults related to alcohol/associated with alcohol.

Spousal abuse/assault related to alcohol/associated with alcohol

and of course ungrateful drunken 8astards assaulting colleagues who were trying to help them. So ya we would gladly take the odd smoker coming through our doors. I can assure you a lot more die in this country for drink related reasons, than passive smokers do.:rolleyes:

So, the essence of your post is that most people die of natural causes therefore we shouldn't bother to apply ourselves to, say, road safety?

It's funny how pro-smokers have the same basic logic as those who regard speed limits as a personal affront.

Just because more people are harmed by another thing doesn't mean we shouldn't address something that's plainly harmful.

Mr. Presentable

Venom wrote: »

I remember a few years back the BBC's Panorama did a special about Wifi being 5 or 50 times worse (cant remember which) that Cell phones tower output at it highest point radiation wise.

That'll be the alcy-hol

Son Of A Vidic

gsxr1 wrote: »

Because you smoke and work in a hospital does not mean anything really.

Assumptions, assumptions, I actually do not smoke nor am I a former smoker. I also no longer work in a hospital

gsxr1 wrote: »

Can you produce any studies to refute the study that 1 in 100 losing there life due to passive smoking?

Where in any of my posts did I question, or refute claims made about passive smoking? Nowhere if I'm correct! I only merely highlighted the fact that alcohol does far greater damage on a much wider social/economic/health scale.

Again the point I was making is - before people get their knickers in a twist about passive smoking. Consider the greater damage caused on all levels by excess alcohol consumption.

Son Of A Vidic

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

So, the essence of your post is that most people die of natural causes therefore we shouldn't bother to apply ourselves to, say, road safety?

Since I was contrasting the effects of excess alcohol consumption against the effects of passive smoking, how can you conclude that I was talking about mortality/morbidity in any of my posts?

The list I posted was a sample of what staff can encounter especially on a Thursday/Friday/Saturday night.This was to illustrate how a hospital Emergency Department can frequently be full of drink related problems, as opposed to passive smoking related problems.

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

..It's funny how pro-smokers have the same basic logic as those who regard speed limits as a personal affront.

Just because more people are harmed by another thing doesn't mean we shouldn't address something that's plainly harmful.

How am I pro-smoking? I don't even smoke. When did I make a pro-smoking statement? I'm basically saying that alcohol dumped more sh1t on my lap than smoking ever did - so how is that pro-smoking?

loike

serves them right for not buying their own smokes

bluecatmorgana

IMO I hate smoking not smokers. When I used to be in a pub with smokers smoking I would get really bad headaches from inhaling the smoke. The smoking ban was one of the best things ever.
I cant stand people smoking around me or anyone else especially children. Apart from the passive smoking bit it smells bad and gives me headaches.
I think smokers think its a personal attack on them, its not its an attack on the action of smoking.

loike

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

IMO I hate smoking not smokers. When I used to be in a pub with smokers smoking I would get really bad headaches from inhaling the smoke. The smoking ban was one of the best things ever.
I cant stand people smoking around me or anyone else especially children. Apart from the passive smoking bit it smells bad and gives me headaches.
I think smokers think its a personal attack on them, its not its an attack on the action of smoking.

some people are actually attacking the smokers tho....
someone called smokers scumbags on the page before

bluecatmorgana

well thats just rude...

Worztron

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/passive-smoking-causes-irreversible-damage-to-children-s-arteries-1.1713268

darkpagandeath

Worztron wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/passive-smoking-causes-irreversible-damage-to-children-s-arteries-1.1713268

Soooooo No information taken about diet then.... Think I heard somewhere an unhealthy diet with fat and sugar does not do your arteries any good... And smoking makes you fat now ?

Since children of parents who smoke are also more likely to grow up to be smokers themselves, and more likely to be overweight, their heart health risks are often already raised, she said, and the second-hand smoke adds yet more risk.

So if they grew up to be overweight smokers that would have a severe impact on the data. But lets just say it’s definitely the SHS.

Worztron

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Soooooo No information taken about diet then.... Think I heard somewhere an unhealthy diet with fat and sugar does not do your arteries any good... And smoking makes you fat now ?

So if they grew up to be overweight smokers that would have a severe impact on the data. But lets just say it’s definitely the SHS.

You and Wibbs should gets jobs as spokes people for your pals, the tobacco companies - the lovely crowd that makes billions off of addiction and death.

The article is about passive smoking. People can choose what to eat, not the air they breath if self centered smokers decide to poison everyone else in the house. The article never said smoking makes you fat.

Do you even read the warnings on the cig packs?

Didn't take long for the smokers to deflect attention to alcohol

Worztron

http://www.thejournal.ie/smoking-ban-ireland-tenth-anniversary-health-benefits-1378119-Mar2014/

darkpagandeath

Worztron wrote: »

You and Wibbs should gets jobs as spokes people for your pals, the tobacco companies - the lovely crowd that makes billions off of addiction and death.

The article is about passive smoking. People can choose what to eat, not the air they breath if self centered smokers decide to poison everyone else in the house. The article never said smoking makes you fat.

Do you even read the warnings on the cig packs?

Do you feel the same outrage when a large car goes past a school belching out toxic fumes ? And that's a laugh children get to choose what they eat. Can we clarify how much fat/sugar is in food targeted at children.

wendell borton

Breathing is air responsible for most deaths, its oxidising and all that.

Worztron

wendell borton wrote: »

Breathing is air responsible for most deaths, its oxidising and all that.

You should be a stand up comedian. :rolleyes:

Worztron

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Do you feel the same outrage when a large car goes past a school belching out toxic fumes ? And that's a laugh children get to choose what they eat. Can we clarify how much fat/sugar is in food targeted at children.

Just for the 'large' cars? The pollution level is not as concentrated and also briefer - a selfish smoker can poison children indoors all day long. Sure, electric cars would be far better but what do you suggest the cars drivers do right now?

Read properly what I posted. I said "People can choose what to eat", not children.

You seemed determined to change the subject in order to defend the rotten tobacco industry. Are you their shill?

Festy

Passive religion causes more though

Adamantium

In other startling news it has been conformed 100% of all people must eventually die 100% of the time.

And now the weather.........

Cloudy at first in parts of Munster and south Leinster, with outbreaks of rain and drizzle, clearing this morning, with bright or sunny spells everywhere today. However, some scattered showers will occur also. Maximum temperatures 8 to 11 Celsius, with mostly moderate northwesterly winds developing.

Dravokivich

Worztron wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/passive-smoking-causes-irreversible-damage-to-children-s-arteries-1.1713268

So why are their parents leaving them around people who are smoking?