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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14 2015, @11:04PM (#145065)

    First, the reason it gets outlawed is because of the employees who have to be there every day.
    There are folks like musician Eddie Rabbitt who didn't smoke but died of lung cancer.

    3+ decades ago when I was going out dancing 4 and 5 nights a week, I would come home and cough up the nastiest looking shit.
    (I have never smoked.)
    Those of you who impose your nasty choices on others can go straight to Hell.

    Not soon enough, but eventually, California's legislature saw fit to ban this assault on others.
    There was an exemption for PRIVATE clubs.
    Some places declared themselves as such and made a low barrier to becoming a "member".
    Mostly those were small joints with limited clientèle anyway.

    -- gewg_

  • (Score: 1) by TheLink on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:15AM

    by TheLink (332) on Sunday February 15 2015, @11:15AM (#145246) Journal
    Nobody is forcing them to work there. Bans impose a choice on others. My proposal gives people a choice - crank the licence price up, or reduce the quantity available for auction and there'll be more nonsmoking places.

    Then smokers can go work in the smoking places if they want, or people who feel the risk is acceptable.

    p.s. who was forcing you to go dancing in places filled with smoke?