Who has died from passive smoking?

Who has provably died from passive smoking? What are their names, and wheres the proof?

Ill start. Roy Castle, no proof as far as im aware.

Next.

Heather Crowe, not sure how you could dispute passive smoking was the cause since she had a typical type of lung tumour mostly suffered by smokers and the air was blue with smoke where she worked for 40 yrs.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/fact-fait/fs-if/tv-tele-heather-eng.php


Abid Hanson, the airline lost the case, so it was proved, again passive smoke the cause.

http://www.tobacco.org/articles/lawsuit/hanson/


Dana Reeve, widow of Christopher Reeve, due to singing in smoky clubs, very likely passive smoking related death.

http://www.in.gov/itpc/2393.htm


Jane Dorey has beaten passive smoking related cancers twice,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-377742/Passive-smoking-killed--twice.html


There's just a few to begin with, but of course you will deny the smoke had anything to do with it. Why not just give up arguing stuff like this? Even most smokers now accept their habit harms others.

The first link is a very brief video which doesnt really prove anything. Its just her talking. She may or may not have been affected by tobacco smoke, what we do know is that if she was, she is rare. Perhaps we should hear from people who have smoked or been around cig smoke for years and years who have not become ill (ie the majority).

In the second one, im sure that person did die as a result of being around tobacco smoke. Obviously that person is extremely sensitive or has a very specific and extreme and rare condition, which is certainly not representative of most, or anywhere near most people, as we can see by the very fact itself that this made it onto the news.

The third one is about a person who died and who also spent lots of time over many years around cig smoke. Many people also spend lots of time either around cig smoke or actually smoking themselves, and they dont become ill due to it (ie the majority).

The fourth one, again, same type of thing. Theres not much difference there at all.


The pattern that i see here is that someone dies or becomes ill who also spent lots of time around smoke, and the given reason for their illness or death is smoke. Another pattern is the fact that this is even in the news at all. Theyre certainly newsworthy, as they are unusual. Hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people spark up every day, many have being doing so for decades. Lots of others have spent a lot of time around smokers. They are still with us. They arent in the news. Theres a reason for that. It is because the majority of people (ie those who dont physically suffer due to smoke) have no reason to be in the news.

And by the way, heres some news : I dont fully believe that tobacco smoke or smoking is completely free of health risks. What i asked for was strong evidence that it is a major killer. I havent seen that in your links. If you want to comment, i would strongly suggest that you do some real investigating, and that involves following both sides of a debate to see how strong each side is. A good starting point would be to go to the f2c forum and read what some people have dug up. Only then will you be equipped with the balance necessary to make an informed decision. If you dont do that, all youll be stuck with is your own bias. Checking out all sides will make you more informed than you are, because all youre trying to do is find things which fit your view. And you know it.

Im still not sure myself, hamster, but unlike you i like to keep an open mind. What i do know is that people arent dropping dead around me. If everyone was so sensitive, they would, but they dont. Agreed? Or are you blind to that?

Your "evidence" is really poor, and thats coming from someone who is open to all evidence. Honestly, its really bad.

leafar wrote:

Who has provably died from passive smoking? What are their names, and wheres the proof?

Ill start. Roy Castle, no proof as far as im aware.

Next.

Your question does not make sense. It is unscientific. Guess you are not a scientist. I am, so I'll explain:

What you ask for is an identified case where death of a person can be claimed clearly as being caused by passive smoking. We call such a prove "etiological". For such small figures as related to ETS and for the high number of possible confounders and bias factors this is not possible.

There is another method. We call it "epidemiology". With a set of mathematical methods scientists can clearly say if a certain behaviour is hazardous to individual health or not. Describing the methods would be complicated for this discussion board. I refer to a lot of articles in the web.

Don't pay any attention to this "scientist". Youtube is a place where any idiot can come along and post any old crap without having to worry about being banned. This is why our "scientist" anti here feels able to make comments like these :

"Happy dyin', smoker!"

"The difference between you and me? You're gonna die younger!"

"So enjoy your remaining time on earth. It will be shorter than you think, damned smoker!"

"YOUR earth is flat. But this will change one day. The day when they tell you that you have abt. 6 months left to live. Dumb ass!"

"I'm a real humanitarian. You wanna know why? I fight those bastards (like you, asshole!) who try to convince others that consuming fatal drags is a cool thing. If you wanna die, it's your mere problem. But don't you take others with you down into your grave!"

"Smokers are idiots. Only idiots kill themselves!"

"What do you want? You've chosen sickness, suffering an death. Congratulations!"


I know everyone is different, but seriously, are we expected to believe that the above comments, particularly the following...

"dyin' "
"gonna"
"wanna"
"it's your mere problem" (I love that one)
"an death"

...as well as the foul language in general...is coming from a scientist? Do scientists talk like that these days?

But this isn't Youtube. This is a forum where ultimately you're at the mercy of whoever runs it (and therefore has the power to regulate what you can say). This "scientist" anti has all of a sudden changed its tune. Look at how nice and polite he or she or it is on here, and how the language and spelling has suddenly been tidied up...


Your question does not make sense. It is unscientific. Guess you are not a scientist. I am, so I'll explain:

What you ask for is an identified case where death of a person can be claimed clearly as being caused by passive smoking. We call such a prove "etiological". For such small figures as related to ETS and for the high number of possible confounders and bias factors this is not possible.

There is another method. We call it "epidemiology". With a set of mathematical methods scientists can clearly say if a certain behaviour is hazardous to individual health or not. Describing the methods would be complicated for this discussion board. I refer to a lot of articles in the web.




Watch this chamaeleon change over time. Oh, and I see that their post sidesteps the question so nicely. You can avoid the question any way you want, anti, the bottom line is that you have sidestepped it, just like all antis. I don't care how you dress it up.

Watch out for this fake, who is not what they make themselves out to be.

Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

Lungenkrebs, please check your inbox. Where it says "PM" at the top of the screen, it should currently be flashing.

Thank you.

I'm in favour of a smoking ban, although I must admit, I personally haven't seen any evidence that anyone has died specifically because of smoking, or passive smoking. I don't think people should lie about this, they should just say that they're in favour of the smoking ban even though they've not seen any evidence that it has killed anyone. Let's face it, most of us haven't seen any evidence, not even doctors or scientists, and there is a lot of controversy about this anyway, so who can be sure?

satin88 wrote:

I'm in favour of a smoking ban, although I must admit, I personally haven't seen any evidence that anyone has died specifically because of smoking, or passive smoking. I don't think people should lie about this, they should just say that they're in favour of the smoking ban even though they've not seen any evidence that it has killed anyone. Let's face it, most of us haven't seen any evidence, not even doctors or scientists, and there is a lot of controversy about this anyway, so who can be sure?

I agree. Why should it be neccessary to prove that passive smoking kills? Do we have to go so far? Tobacco smoke stinks and when you get home from a night out you have to wash your clothes, your hair and so on. And if you've got health problems like people who suffer from asthma or allergy being in a smoky pub causes you acute health problems.

So I say: If they wanna smoke they should smoke outside!

Well, actually, I don't agree with that at all. I think that it is wrong to lie about passive smoking. If you don't know the facts, you should just be honest and say "I don't know if smoking kills people, I have not seen the evidence, and I'm aware that different experts have very different opinions". I don't know about you but I do not have an agenda of lying to people to control them. I think it's about time that smoking ban supporters stopped lying and pretending to know about passive smoking when at the end of the day they're only doing it because they want their way, no matter what lies they have to tell. I'm in favour of a smoking ban but not for selfish reasons. If you say that smoking kills, then yes you really should prove it or present some strong evidence (not forgetting that there is strong evidence on both sides), otherwise you have no credibility and you look foolish, and it destroys your entire argument. Worse than that, is when you say one moment that smoking kills, and the next minute you say it doesn't matter anyway if it does or if it doesn't. That gives the rest of us smoking ban supporters a really bad name, and it makes us all look stupid. No wonder people are starting to rethink the smoking ban. And to be honest, I can't blame them.

What id like to know is why doctors dont put "passive smoking" on death certificates. Its 2009, surely medical science has advanced far enough for them to know if passive smoking causes death.

And as many people know, the opinion that passive smoking even causes death is not unanimous among doctors or scientists. Lets not forget that.

No one can escape the fact that there is a lot of disagreement, as well as a lot of messing around with figures.

It either does kill or it doesnt, and the fact that it doesnt appear on death certicifates says a lot about doctors confidence that it does.

Also, many of the worlds oldest people smoke.

For all those reasons, the idea that smoking or passive smoking kills is extremely weak. Its more propaganda and fiddling with figures than anything else.

And no amount of sidestepping can change that.

Everyone please stay on topic.

The topic of this thread is : Who (and presumably, how many people) has died of PASSIVE smoking.

The topic is perfectly clear.

Thank you.

Could we please get rid of fakes like lugenkrebs? This person is not a scientist, he or she is a plant, a fake, paid by the pharmaceutical industry. I've seen them in action on other forums, under many different names, and they have been ridiculed, embarassed and exposed many times. Pathetic.

Admin wrote:

Everyone please stay on topic.

The topic of this thread is : Who (and presumably, how many people) has died of PASSIVE smoking.

The topic is perfectly clear.

Thank you.

Yesterday I posted a long answer on this topic. Someone of you smoking NAZIS has erased ist. That's what you SMOKERS think of democracy and freedom of speech.

NAZIS and FASCISTS you are. Nothing more. Bloody damned NAZIS!

So I'm out here. No need to "discuss" with deaf, dumb and blind smokinge kretins who do not even manage to handle the basic rules of culture!

Roy Castle is the only name I ever hear in relation to someone dying of passive smoking. And whenever I've read figures of the number of deaths, they vary so much it's hard to know who is lying or who is manipulating the numbers. You really need to know as much about the person telling you the figures as you do about how they came up with them.

Lenise, I keep coming across someone on another forum who sounds just like this "lugenkrebs", but with a different name. Their method is always to be rude to everyone and then play the victim, it may be the same person. I've sent you a pm, tell me what you make of it.

Its not uncommon for antis to pose as different characters on the discussion boards.

hi ,
i liked your post and in my opinion proper health is very important for each and every person to enjoy its happy life..
for a healthy life one should take proper diet and do regular exercise which makes ones mind and soul fit and healthy

regards

hi ,
i n my opinion smoking is injerious to health so it should be left off.. the ways to quit smoking can be get by consulting the doctors and taking alternative medical chews..

Buy prescriptions