TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Heart attacks decline after smoking ban

Heart attacks decline after smoking ban

quote:

Heart attacks decline after smoking ban Tue Sep 26, 7:58 AM ET DALLAS (Reuters) - A Colorado city ban on smoking at workplaces and in public buildings may have sparked a steep decline in heart attacks, researchers reported on Monday. In the 18 months after a no-smoking ordinance took effect in Pueblo in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks for city residents dropped 27 percent, according to the study led by Dr. Carl Bartecchi, a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver. "Heart attack hospitalizations did not change significantly for residents of surrounding Pueblo County or in the comparison city of Colorado Springs, neither of which have non-smoking ordinances," said the American Heart Association, which published the study in its journal Circulation. The association said this was further evidence of the damage wrought by secondhand smoke. "The decline in the number of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year and a half after the non-smoking ban that was observed in this study is most likely due to a decrease in the effect of secondhand smoke as a triggering factor for heart attacks," it said. It said the researchers had taken into account other variables such as air pollution and community-wide changes in preventive care and concluded that they did not have an impact on their findings. The American Heart Association estimates that more than 35,000 nonsmokers die each year in the United States from coronary heart disease because they inhale secondhand smoke. Working-class Pueblo has a higher percentage of smokers -- 22.6 percent -- than the statewide average of 18.6 percent. "Adopting a non-smoking ordinance has the potential to rapidly improve the cardiovascular health of a community," Bartecchi said in a statement. Pueblo forbids smoking in indoor workplaces and all public buildings, including restaurants, bars and recreational facilities such as bowling alleys. "You can save lives with drugs and expensive, sophisticated devices, but this single community action led to 108 fewer heart attacks in an 18-month period," Bartecchi said. "Each hospital admission for a heart attack costs an average of $20,000 here in Pueblo," he said. "So in addition to saving lives, non-smoking ordinances also save a lot of money."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060926...HNlYwNtZW5ld3M-

I love the reasoning here. I wonder if they looked at any other possible factors that could have been involved at the time?

"My neighbour didnt cut his lawn today and i passed my test. Therefore my neighbour cutting his lawn is detrimental to my test scores"

And if the number of heart attacks really are down from this law (which i doubt), what about the health of all the people who lost jobs who now cannot afford healthcare?

As for the "cheaper" arguement. That is completely moot when you factor in cigarette taxes (In canada they cover the costs of smoking and then some)

Seems a little suspicious that 18 months would have a whopping 27% decline.

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur Seems a little suspicious that 18 months would have a whopping 27% decline.

Took the words right outta my mouth.

They didn't have heart attacks... they all murdered each other instead cos they couldn't get their nicotine fix.

Heart attacks down 27%

Murders up 4000000%

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel They didn't have heart attacks... they all murdered each other instead cos they couldn't get their nicotine fix. Heart attacks down 27% Murders up 4000000%

LOL

Anybody think that maybe people stopped eating out because of the ban and therefore werent eating as many fatty foods? Its amazing the kind of stuff that can be said in the media these days without much questioning.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Anybody think that maybe people stopped eating out because of the ban and therefore werent eating as many fatty foods? Its amazing the kind of stuff that can be said in the media these days without much questioning.

No I don't agree with that...that's just as bad as making the association you've made before...

quote:

"My neighbour didnt cut his lawn today and i passed my test. Therefore my neighbour cutting his lawn is detrimental to my test scores"

quote:

Originally posted by starsearcher No I don't agree with that...that's just as bad as making the association you've made before...

exactly my point... what im trying to say is that it looks like no other mitigating factors were investigated. Im not saying my theory is valid either. But its just as valid or invalid as the one reported.

This is why im weary of secondhand smoke claims. Because most of them are not based on any real fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Cosmic Fur Seems a little suspicious that 18 months would have a whopping 27% decline.

Stats rise and dip over short term. We could be at the lowest part of the dip. What I would like to see is "Heart attacks increase by 35%" in the next 18 months as this normal statistical curves back to its original spot.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie Stats rise and dip over short term. We could be at the lowest part of the dip. What I would like to see is "Heart attacks increase by 35%" in the next 18 months as this normal statistical curves back to its original spot.

Exactly... heart attacks also have seasons too. I suspect they are lowest in the summer. I know for a fact they are highest during chirstmas and right after heavy snowfalls.

Something tells me these stats are bogus.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I love the reasoning here. I wonder if they looked at any other possible factors that could have been involved at the time? ...

do you even read entire articles before you critique them? In another thread (the idling bylaw blitz), you're first issue was your desire to be able to idle your car in the winter, yet didn't bother to note that extreme temps are not impacted by the bylaw, now this.

quote:

...It said the researchers had taken into account other variables such as air pollution and community-wide changes in preventive care and concluded that they did not have an impact on their findings....

While I too find that stat *highly* dubious...they did say that other factors were considered. So don't paint them to be *that* naive or biased so as to look at only the variable of the ban introduction...but it's valid to ask exactly WHAT other variables they did consider (in addition to pollution) and what they mean by "changes in preventative care".

I would be surprised (and dismayed) if they didn't have the sense to examine diet, since a rapid intake of fat apparently can trigger a heart attack in at-risk groups...so if they ate out less, that *could* be a factor.

no doubts stats are *easily* skewed...but keep in mind that these people are staking their professional reputation on publishing such studies, so they're unlikely to be as naive or biased as you might think.

Looks like a classic case of causation ≠ correlation to me...

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT do you even read entire articles before you critique them? In another thread (the idling bylaw blitz), you're first issue was your desire to be able to idle your car in the winter, yet didn't bother to note that extreme temps are not impacted by the bylaw, now this. While I too find that stat *highly* dubious...they did say that other factors were considered. So don't paint them to be *that* naive or biased so as to look at only the variable of the ban introduction...but it's valid to ask exactly WHAT other variables they did consider (in addition to pollution) and what they mean by "changes in preventative care". I would be surprised (and dismayed) if they didn't have the sense to examine diet, since a rapid intake of fat apparently can trigger a heart attack in at-risk groups...so if they ate out less, that *could* be a factor. no doubts stats are *easily* skewed...but keep in mind that these people are staking their professional reputation on publishing such studies, so they're unlikely to be as naive or biased as you might think.

id like to see the whole study. Id also be interested in seeing of the results have been repeated elsewhere. In the meantime i stick to my critique

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Looks like a classic case of causation ≠ correlation to me...

you win.

this article loses.

gotta love when the Post Hoc fallacy is invoked.

Although the study itself may seem too good to be true, the causes behind the results are well researched.

I just did some reading on the net, and it seems as if smoking does contribute to heart disease and damage. Just google it for your self and see. Government sites, medical sites, research papers, and news articles. Nobody should be questing the link between heart disease and smoking, if you do, please do some reading before hand.

There is one other case of this type of results from a town in Montanna in 2003. They also experienced a small decline in patients admitted to their hospital after a 6 month ban on smoking. I do agree that the 6month study period is too small, as was the drop from 7 to 4 cases per month.

If some of you want to read more on the subject:

Public smoking ban slashes heart attacks in 2003, Helena, Montana

Effect of public smoking ban in Helena, Montana - When results look too good to be true, they probably are

How acute and reversible are the cardiovascular risks of secondhand smoke?
(I am in the process of reading this particular article myself)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.