Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By garyh Recall the gusto with which some people trumpeted the "reduction" in heart attacks since the smoking ban in Scotland? Remember how some on this forum got really overexcited by it? Read this article by the BBC which shows that er, that wasn't true. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stmI am a non smoker but I intensely dislike the way the smoking ban has been conceived and implemented. Any criticism in this area is always shouted down (wait for the rants on this thread). Let's have a balanced, truthful approach to this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
It is always the problem with studies that do not publish their methodology and data when the headline conclusions are trumpeted around the world.
I am finding this is increasingly the case where either general health or H&S are concerned. The recent study on hands free phone use demonstrated a very distorted methodology that forced subjects to respond to questions even should they wish not to in order to concentrate. Most drivers select when to answer and whether a subject is too complex to evaluate.
Yes it has to increase the scepticism that we hold with regard to any major claim concerning this or that. I am not going to go into the long list of such matters as all practitioners need, and have, their own list of suspects.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Shyer
That's very interesting.
The last time I posted with regards this issue and suggested a possible reason for the reduction of heart attacks. I was alleged to be feeding the press and bringing H&S into disrepute.
Well it now seems that my original explanation may in actual fact be more feasible especially now that the original survey that has now been proved as flawed.
The real lesson to learn is check everything out and look at all angles before spouting in support of surveys.
Regards
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
Its a bit rich of the Beeb to publish this when their own news website made much fuss with some of the uncritical journalism complained about!. So, from the BBC news pages just two months ago:
"The Scottish smoking ban has led to a significant advance in public health, the most detailed scientific study of the measure so far..." and "....based on scientific evidence collected from routine health data, as well as research projects undertaken by government scientists and Scottish universities."
Yet now the Beeb is admitting "The first study was presented ... by a research group called StopIt (Study Of Public Place Intervention on Tobacco Exposure)." - so not 'government scientists and Scottish Universities' then? Why wasn't 'stopit' identified in the initial fanfare? Could it have something to do with the obvious bias demonstrated by the choice of name for the group? And "..because the data on which the StopIt study was based has never been published, and nor has the study itself, it is impossible to say exactly how it was done. "
So, a little truth leaked to an unread part of their site - against a major porkie perpetrated on their main news pages. No significant attempt to correct (or to apologise for) the misinformation placed in the public eye.
Why am I not surprised? And why is the press complaints commission unable to deal with such blatant mishandling of 'science'. (If we knew the answer to that one - we may be able to effectively counter some of the elfin say 'phtee' rubbish these idiots publish.)
Sorry, having a bad day.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
It's a bit odd. I've tried to Google stopit so as to find the source but there seems to be nothing out there.
There must at least have been a press release. Can anyone trace it (one of our journalist readers perhaps) ?
Question : just supposing that the whole "passive smoking" thingy is PROVED scientifically to be a myth. Will the smoking bans be rescinded ?
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Steve A
The PCC do not deal with internet sites I think it is the new Ofcom that does - but I could be way off beam.
Whatever, the issue is that bad news stories stick and are almost impossible to reverse. Only hitting the story hard on the day of issue is the only way of defeating it. This is actually the reason why so many of the elf and safety stories cannot be overcome - the response is always reactive and lags the original - everything has moved on by the next day.
It is time the regulator hit the broadcasters though as they cause much of the misinformation storm.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
Gary
Having just read the report its still an 8% drop. Better than nothing even if its not all down to the smoking ban.
If posters want to be taken seriously and have a proper debate when discussing alternative reasons for the drop in heart attack admissions in Scotland I would suggest they make their alternative reasons slightly more believable.
I for one think its the best piece of legislation any Government has come out with for years. Even if its proved one day that passive smoking does not cause cancer, at least I can go for a pint of the black stuff and not come home stinking of that foul stench.
As Winston Churchill once said "Never was so much owed by so many to so few"
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
Steve
Did you smoke in the past ???
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Shyer Just when you think you have heard it all along comes another study? http://www.abdn.ac.uk/me...ases/release.php?id=1134going to get a pint of some "black stuff" thankfully wont get home stinking of foul smoke but absolutely stink of stale ale. As the famous shy talk once said " Don't believe a word you are told and only half of what you read" Regards Ted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Cartwright
Colin
Yes started at 14 and gave up when I was 23. Best thing I ever did.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bramall
Garyh
Congratulations - you have managed to have people respond to this thread without suggesting you are mad or something.
I suggested something similar a little while ago and was blown out of the water for suggesting such a thing.
Well done
DrB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
Steve
Suspected so. Smoking is such a contentious subject. Many (but not all) of us who have never smoked tend to be a little more relaxed than those who have given up.
It is difficult to get truly impartial views on smoking!!
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GARRY WIZZ
Common sense does prevail in the fullness of time. Some observations.
Some of my none smoking friends think that the ban has not had a completely wonderful effect.
Never for one minute believe anything said by screaming fanitical non smokers.
One of the pubs I visited is now off the drinking list as the smell that has replaced smoke is to muchhhhhhhh.
Some of the pubs, ( 2 actually )lock the doors and you can have a ciggy after midnight.
Waiting with interest for the next thing to be banned.
garry, smoker, binge drinker, eats wrong food and havin a good time. May all my bad traits have no impact on your life. Friday preacher..........ops, ops
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
My mothers second cousin lived to 107. At 100 he was asked the secret - ciggies, whiskey and the www was his reply. At 104 he gave up all but the ciggies:-)
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.