Washington, Aug 21 (ANI): In a discovery that supports public smoking bans, researchers have found that an infrequent smoke, or being exposed to secondhand smoke, may be doing more harm than people may think.
New research from physician-scientists at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, revealed that being exposed to even low-levels of cigarette smoke may put people at risk for future lung disease, such as lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Epidemiological studies have long shown that secondhand smoke is dangerous, but there have never been conclusive biological tests demonstrating what it does to the body at a gene function level, until now.
"Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we found direct effects on the functioning of genes within the cells lining the airways," said Dr. Ronald Crystal, senior author of the study.
Crystal explains that genes, commonly activated in the cells of heavy smokers, are also turned on or off in those with very low-level exposure.
"The genetic effect is much lower than those who are regular smokers, but this does not mean that there are no health consequences," said Crystal.
"Certain genes within the cells lining the airways are very sensitive to tobacco smoke, and changes in the function of these genes are the first evidence of ‘biological disease’ in the lungs or individuals," he added.
For the study, the researchers tested 121 people from three different categories: "nonsmokers," "active smokers" and "low exposure smokers."
The researchers tested urine levels of nicotine and cotinine-markers of cigarette smoking within the body-to determine each participant’s category.
The research team then scanned each person’s entire genome to determine which genes were either activated or deactivated in cells lining the airways.
They found that there was no level of nicotine or cotinine that did not also correlate with genetic abnormalities.
"This means that no level of smoking, or exposure to secondhand smoke, is safe," said Crystal.
He further said that these genetic changes are like a "canary in a coal mine," warning of potential life-threatening disease, "but the canary is chirping for low-level exposure patients, and screaming for active smokers."
Crystal said that this is further evidence supporting the banning of smoking in public places, where non-smokers, and employees of businesses that allow smoking, are put at risk for future lung disease.
The study is published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. (ANI)
Your article begins: “In a discovery that supports public smoking bans, researchers have found that an infrequent smoke, or being exposed to secondhand smoke, may be doing more harm than people may think.”
Really? Just being EXPOSED to smoke? Journalists have become truly lazy. Even spending five minutes looking over the actual study with a critical eye would have revealed that the way its results are being presented is little better than outright fraud.
The study used 3 subgroups:”Healthy nonsmokers, healthy smokers, and healthy individuals exposed to low levels of tobacco smoke.” Now most reasonable people would think that the third category was composed of nonsmokers exposed to smoke, right?
Wrong. Buried on page 6 the study makes a single mention of an overwhelmingly important fact: “The low level exposure group included self-reported never smokers (8/36) and those who reported some smoking (28/36).”
In case you missed it, that means that 28 of the 36 “individuals exposed to low levels of tobacco smoke” were actually SMOKERS! Only 8 were actually true nonsmokers with ETS exposure. Figure 2B at the study’s end shows it even more clearly with the nonsmoking group all clustered up in one little area, and right next to them showing almost exactly the same lack of “effect” are the 8 little nonsmokers in the “low exposure group.”
Despite the public presentation the reality of the data does NOT seem to support smoking bans. Any “risk” worthy of the term seems to begin only with light smokers, not ETS-exposed nonsmokers.
Why did the study lump ETS-exposed individuals in with light smokers? The only reason I can think of is in order to produce a result that would allow them to confuse the two and thereby add to the scare and support smoking bans.
Hey, it worked: Just read the lead paragraph of the current news story!
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
May I ask why my comment is still “awaiting moderation over 50 hours after I posted it? If you are going to have a comments area it is clear that you have both a legal and a moral responsibility to publish comments that meet your Terms Of Service and help to correct misleading and possibly harmful medical advice.
My original post should still be on your system. In case it is not, I reproduce it below.
====
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Posted August 26, 2010 at 6:47 AM
Your article begins: “In a discovery that supports public smoking bans, researchers have found that an infrequent smoke, or being exposed to secondhand smoke, may be doing more harm than people may think.”
Really? Just being EXPOSED to smoke? Journalists have become truly lazy. Even spending five minutes looking over the actual study with a critical eye would have revealed that the way its results are being presented is little better than outright fraud.
The study used 3 subgroups:”Healthy nonsmokers, healthy smokers, and healthy individuals exposed to low levels of tobacco smoke.” Now most reasonable people would think that the third category was composed of nonsmokers exposed to smoke, right?
Wrong. Buried on page 6 the study makes a single mention of an overwhelmingly important fact: “The low level exposure group included self-reported never smokers (8/36) and those who reported some smoking (28/36).”
In case you missed it, that means that 28 of the 36 “individuals exposed to low levels of tobacco smoke” were actually SMOKERS! Only 8 were actually true nonsmokers with ETS exposure. Figure 2B at the study’s end shows it even more clearly with the nonsmoking group all clustered up in one little area, and right next to them showing almost exactly the same lack of “effect” are the 8 little nonsmokers in the “low exposure group.”
Despite the public presentation the reality of the data does NOT seem to support smoking bans. Any “risk” worthy of the term seems to begin only with light smokers, not ETS-exposed nonsmokers.
Why did the study lump ETS-exposed individuals in with light smokers? The only reason I can think of is in order to produce a result that would allow them to confuse the two and thereby add to the scare and support smoking bans.
Hey, it worked: Just read the lead paragraph of the current news story!
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Over a hundred hours at this point with my posting still “in moderation.” Nice to see Hamara Health is so dedicated to ensuring that their readers get all the facts surrounding their stories. Do treat all your articles in the same fashion?
- MJM
200 hours and my proper, informative, and educational posting contradicting the primary article and providing helpful information to health consumers who might read Hamara Health is still being censored.
Hamara, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the legal concept of fraud, however when you supposedly offer a news/health site with commenting sections for knowledgeable health consumers and providers to comment on what your writers provide I believe you have a legal responsibility to print such information as long as it does not contravene standard “Terms Of Service” guidelines dealing with propriety, profanity, libel, copyright, and such things.
My record of these postings seem to show a clear and deliberate action on your part.
I believe that before I proceed further I should offer you a clear opportunity to respond to my concerns. You may contact me if you wish at Cantiloper@aol.com
Thank you.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Director, The International Coalition Against Prohibition
Mid-Atlantic Coordinator, The Citizens Freedom Alliance
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network
Those who bought the bans with grants, grant money elsewhere too, all designed to sell their no-smoke products. It would be nice to see the media print some truth for a change. Following the money tells a lot and following ALL research tells it also. One day nicotine will be in shot form for the illnesses it does help. Until then, if you live with a ban, it is also in potato, tomato, cauliflower, green pepper, chili’s and other foods. …. Beware when the ban maker gets into the razor blade and wig business.
Thank you for removing my posts from “moderated” invisibility. I would like to add one more short note: Hamara Health should NEVER take a press release or a story based on a press release from antismoking sources and assume that it is factual. Today’s Antismokers tell more lies than the tobacco companies did back in the 1950s and 60s and they generally get away with it unless you get hold of their original studies and analyze them carefully. Note for example how they hid the fact that 80% of their “low exposure” group was actually smokers unless you noticed the sentence buried on page six of the original study.
Be warned for the future: antismoking researchers and organizations have a religious belief that what they are doing is “for the greater good” and in order to get that good they tell an awful lot of lies along the way.
- MJM