Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 13 2015, @11:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-never-good-news dept.

"Who still smokes?" as Denise Grady reports at the NYT that however bad you thought smoking was, it’s even worse. A new study has found that in addition to the well-known hazards of lung cancer, artery disease, heart attacks, chronic lung disease and stroke, researchers found that smoking was linked to significantly increased risks of infection, kidney disease, intestinal disease caused by inadequate blood flow, and heart and lung ailments not previously attributed to tobacco. “The smoking epidemic is still ongoing, and there is a need to evaluate how smoking is hurting us as a society, to support clinicians and policy making in public health,” says Brian D. Carter, an author of the study. “It’s not a done story.” Carter says he was inspired to dig deeper into the causes of death in smokers after taking an initial look at data from five large health surveys being conducted by other researchers. As expected, death rates were higher among the smokers but diseases known to be caused by tobacco accounted for only 83 percent of the excess deaths in people who smoked. “I thought, ‘Wow, that’s really low,’ ” Mr. Carter said. “We have this huge cohort. Let’s get into the weeds, cast a wide net and see what is killing smokers that we don’t already know.” The researchers found that, compared with people who had never smoked, smokers were about twice as likely to die from infections, kidney disease, respiratory ailments not previously linked to tobacco, and hypertensive heart disease, in which high blood pressure leads to heart failure. "The Surgeon General's report claims 480,000 deaths directly caused by smoking, but we think that is really quite a bit off," concludes Carter adding that the figure may be closer to 540,000.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by GungnirSniper on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:42AM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Saturday February 14 2015, @12:42AM (#144817) Journal

    If I don't smoke, I won't get free ten minute breaks every two hours to go outside.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Informative=1, Touché=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1) by dime on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:14PM

    by dime (1163) on Saturday February 14 2015, @07:14PM (#144998)

    Work at a decent company. I can't think of a reason why a company wouldn't allow a worker to get up and walk 5 minutes an hour. Studies have shown this:
    http://science.slashdot.org/story/14/09/09/2018204/3-short-walking-breaks-can-reverse-harm-from-3-hours-of-sitting [slashdot.org]

    It seems logical that companies being invested in their workers' health (to the tune of a thousand a month from health insurance) would happily sacrifice 5 minutes an hour to have workers feel better from taking 5 minute walks. I notice more productivity coming from myself as well as my fellow employees after a brisk walk. I think any management that would be against this is living in the past.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 15 2015, @12:28AM (#145099)

      No smokers really take 5 or 10 minute breaks though. The time between getting up and sitting back down at your desk is more like 20-25 minutes.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:44AM

    by tathra (3367) on Sunday February 15 2015, @03:44AM (#145153)

    If I don't smoke, I won't get free ten minute breaks every two hours to go outside.

    if smokers take a break, i always take that break too, i just don't smoke on it.