Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Breast Cancer / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Secondary smoke in the news today

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Eva - 10 Mar 2005 00:56 GMT
How can secondary smoke cause breast cancer when smoking itself doesn't?  Or
are we sure that smoking doesn't?

Eva
Guess Who - 10 Mar 2005 02:02 GMT
Good question, I saw the news tonight and  they reported this study. One
commentator stated it was sound.

> How can secondary smoke cause breast cancer when smoking itself doesn't?
> Or
> are we sure that smoking doesn't?
>
> Eva
nospam@pacbell.net - 11 Mar 2005 22:15 GMT
Another commentator said that the studies were done on animals, not people.

I wish they would do a study to determine whether cancer rates are higher/lower
for people who wash their hands frequently, especially before eating, going to
the bathroom, touching their own or someone else's breasts, skin, faces,
genitals, mouth, etc. etc.  

Smoke residue sticks to surfaces and it is possible that all those lab animals
got their cancers by touching lab surfaces and then licking their paws and other
body parts.  

Ora

>Good question, I saw the news tonight and  they reported this study. One
>commentator stated it was sound.
Sandy L - 10 Mar 2005 12:03 GMT
> How can secondary smoke cause breast cancer when smoking itself doesn't?
> Or
> are we sure that smoking doesn't?
>
> Eva

It may be interesting to watch this.  The EPAs second-hand smoke regulation
of a few years back suffered badly when it got to court.  A judge who had
previously issued opinions deemed unfriendly to tobacco voided the
regulation and scolded the EPA rather harshly for the quality of their
science.  Smoking is decidedly unhealthy, but not quite the omnipotent demon
some would have us believe.
Mary Fisher - 10 Mar 2005 12:19 GMT
> How can secondary smoke cause breast cancer when smoking itself doesn't?
> Or
> are we sure that smoking doesn't?

I'm not. I thought that smoking was implicated as a contributory - er -
influence.

Mary

> Eva
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.