Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A STUDY OF more than one million women has found that giving up smoking gave them a high chance of extending their life by ten years – as long as they gave up early enough.
The study which looked at 1.3 million women over the course of five years and was published today in The Lancet found that female smokers are likely to die at least ten years earlier than non-smokers – but stopping before the age of 40 means this likelihood is cut by more than 90 per cent.
Women who stopped before the age of 30 saw the liklihood cut by a massive 97 per cent, the study found.
This is one of the biggest studies so far to find that both the hazards of smoking and also the benefits of stopping are far bigger than previous studies have suggested.
The women recruited for the study, all aged between 50 and 65, were asked questions about their lifestyle, medical and social factors and resurveyed over the course of around twelve years. Around 66,000 of the women died over the course of the study.
The women who were smokers when they were resurveyed after the first three years were almost three times as likely as non-smokers to die over the following 9 years
Of the 20 per cent of women in the group who were smokers, two thirds of the deaths were found to have been caused by smoking.
The report did not give details on whether the women who had given up smoking suffered from an increased risk of non-fatal illnesses.
“If women smoke like men, they die like men – but whether they are men or women, smokers who stop before reaching middle age will on average gain about an extra ten years of life,” said Professor Richard Peto from the University of Oxford, a co-author of the study.
Both in the UK and in the USA, women born around 1940 were the first generation in which many smoked substantial numbers of cigarettes throughout adult life. Hence, only in the 21st century could we observe directly the full effects of prolonged smoking, and of prolonged cessation, on premature mortality among women.
The study was published in The Lancet today to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of Richard Doll, a physiologist who was one of the first people to identify the link between lung cancer and smoking.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Ireland is too small to make any difference to the weather.
@common sense: Climate, not weather. Nowhere is too small. We’re part of the EU: is the EU too small?
@common sense: Your name is ironic.
@common sense: Still worth doing our bit though.
@common sense: I take it you also don’t vote
@Brendan O’Brien: yes
@Brendan O’Brien: 0.04% percent of the atmosphere is co2 of that 0.04% humans are responsible for 2-3% globally so ya Europe is too small to change it.
@Damien Leahy: ‘About 99 percent of the atmosphere is made of oxygen and nitrogen, which cannot absorb the infrared radiation the Earth emits. Of the remaining 1 percent, the main molecules that can absorb infrared radiation are CO2 and water vapor, because their atoms are able to vibrate in just the right way to absorb the energy that the Earth gives off. After these gases absorb the energy, they emit half of it back to Earth and half of it into space, trapping some of the heat within the atmosphere. This trapping of heat is what we call the greenhouse effect. Because of the greenhouse effect created by these trace gases, the average temperature of the Earth is around 15˚C, or 59˚F, which allows for life to exist.
‘CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and water vapor can vary from 0 to 4%. But while water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it has “windows” that allow some of the infrared energy to escape without being absorbed. In addition, water vapor is concentrated lower in the atmosphere, whereas CO2 mixes well all the way to about 50 kilometers up. The higher the greenhouse gas, the more effective it is at trapping heat from the Earth’s surface.’
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
@common sense: You can say that about anywhere. Devon is too small. Crete is too small. Hong Kong is too small. Rhode Island is too small. But the EU? UK? Greece? USA? Every small place is part of a bigger large place. You are just looking for a cop out.
@Damien Leahy: Humans are responsible for at least 1/3rd of atmospheric CO2.
That is an enormous amount.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: Yes: it has increased from 288 to 414 ppm since the Industrial Revolution.
@Darren Byrne: *That* should be the refrain to all those climate change denialists.
@Brendan O’Brien: think he meant Ireland can’t do it on its own, as we are the one applying most effort and making the most sacrifice. Gimmicks like EVs and blaming cattle are certainly not helping either. Oh and climate taxes. (Eyeroll)
@Fintan Stack: Except we are hardly making the most effort.
Not when we give free rein to Data Centres.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: 3% of 0.04% I’d 1/3?
@Brendan O’Brien: So carbon emissions from airlines travelling high up in the atmosphere would do more harm than a car exhaust close to the ground?
@Brendan O’Brien: can we do better ya absolutely can we reverse climate change absolutely not.
@Damien Leahy: 270ppm to 415ppm.
That is an increase of 53%.
Or about 1/3rd of atmospheric CO2 has been added by humans in the last couple of hundred years.
It might seem like a small percentage of the atmosphere, but that small percentage has an enormous effect on the heat retained by the planet, and on the resulting planet climates.
Just as a small amount of cyanide will have a very significant effect on your health and well being.
@Brendan O’Brien: While the name is no doubt ironic, it’s not wrong.
@Brendan O’Brien: So the weather has nothing to do with climate?
@Brendan O’Brien: You didn’t write that, like everything else you pipe on about.
Ireland has one of lowest forest areas in Europe. If climate change is real why don’t they plant more trees. Saudi Arabia is planting billions of trees same with China.
@Artur Filip: Yes, as in the article: “We really need to invest in and support the rollout of forests … The government needs to have a dialogue with foresters, with farmers and with communities about the rollout of forestry, how best to do it, where to do it, and support people in that endeavour.”
@Artur Filip: 2nd last along with UK. Irelands trees were cut down to build British ships and to make way for sheep and cattle. Farming for export is such a big business so this won’t change. It would take a couple of generations as well and the Irish dont do ‘longterm’.
@Brendan O’Brien: yes, it will be talked about and then … nothing :-(
@offside again: Talking to yourself again I see.
@offside again: Also, many trees were destroyed for the tanning industry, which used their bark: so much so that laws against tree felling were passed in the 18th-century Irish parliament. The country was almost bare of trees by then.
@offside again: We were clearing our forests long before the British decided our trees looked perfect. It’s discussed in detail in a book called An Irish Atlantic Rainforest. Well worth a read.
@honey badger: thanks for the tip ! I’ll look it up.
@Artur Filip: the people who want to sow new Forrests can’t get licenses from the dept of agriculture. Those responsible for the mess are the fine gael, FF, green party reps in government.
@offside again:
Who can we blame for the distruction of our Bogs.
A. The gombean men.
or
B. The nasty Brits.
@Brendan O’Brien:
Can you eat a tree?
With all this impending doom that’s a coming. Surely as a country that has no impact on the world’s climate we should be ramping up food production by whatever means to cash in on the suposed world food shortage.
@offside again: ” the Irish dont do long term”.We did 800 years with the British.
@H Woo: It’s not either or. We can have both.
@Willie Marty: and ? We’ve been 100y without them. No wonder we are where we are, living in the present whilst being stuck in the past. No forward thinking for future generations.
@H Woo: Trees can flourish on land that would not support crops.
Amazing how the planet flourished for millennia without any government interference.
@087 bed: Up to the human interference that was the Industrial Revolution.
@087 bed: Amazing how the planet flourished for billions of years without humans.
@Brendan O’Brien: You may want to explain to the younger generation what you meant by tanning….it had a different meaning back then to what the majority believe it means now!
@Pat Barry: That’s true! Tanning back then was leather production (maybe it still is, in a way!).
@Brendan O’Brien: And the phrase “tanning your hide” had special meaning to those of us subject to an environment of indoctrination.
Good auld Lauren believes what she is told no need for checks
@K O: It’s a report on the Climate Change Advisory Council’s latest progress report: what’s your beef?
@Brendan O’Brien: Good morning factor 50.
@IzwvqAph: nowadays they’re commonly known as the “TRINITY”…… Brendan, offside & the sick one,kevvy ker….. They really to EXPOSED, like blown wide open yesterday, lol
@Buster Lawless: Hmmm! You cannot dispute the report, so you chose to make childish comments about those who publish it, or merely point out that the person who published it is not the author.
Each time you lot comment, you confirm your level of intellect.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: You’re getting your panties in a bunch hon. Is it blanky time or do you need your sippy cup first?
@IzwvqAph: Damn, your son is as u. gly as you.
I think people don’t understand that the agriculture sector is also the only sector that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. People would do well to look at the new carbon sequestration study from the govts own Johnstown Castle in wexford
@Washpenrebel: You would do well to share a link to it so…
@Washpenrebel: I’m not sure if it’s the study you’re referring to, but the EPA has said that ‘Ireland’s land sector is a large net emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) owing to large areas of drained organic soils and low afforestation rates relative to forest harvest rates.’
@Washpenrebel: Ceptin that agriculture is responsible for over 34% of our Greenhouse Gasses, according to the article above, and is our largest single source of emissions.
@Brendan O’Brien: the EPA know sweet f a. Keep the dublin airport quota, that’ll keep emissions down going forward
@honey badger: here you go. https://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/arid-41424190.html
“Irish mineral soils sequester nearly 4.5 times more carbon than is allowed for in the current measurement of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to preliminary findings of the National Agricultural Soil Carbon Observatory (NASCO).”
I see Simon Harris is giving 100 bike sheds to Ukraine….
Brendan O’Brien in his element here. Your ma would be ashamed of you Brendan.
@IzwvqAph: at least his ma sent him to school, unlike most here.
Maybe it’s time for another great tree planting scheme!!!
The first one that I remember was in the middle 1990s, said we were going to plant 25,000ha per year….
We never got even remotely close to the target.
Next one was 2014, target was 16,000ha, nope, nowhere close either except in a few counties like Leitrim .
After much delay Minister Pippa Hackett announced a new scheme with a target of I believe 8,000ha
Most recent figures
1,651ha last year with an expected significant fall off this year..
@P. J.: I’m in a suburb of one of the largest cities in France. Out of my windows, on my road alone, I can count about 40 houses (admitedly, fairly close together). Nearly all of them have trees and high hedgerows which is great for both the environment and for privacy !
@Brendan O’Brien: As usual on here you are talking through your rear end, the whole world and it’s mother know at this stage that Irish agriculture is the only business sector working off a gross carbon footprint that all it’s offsets, grasslands, hedgerows and any forestry were taken without permission I might add and handed to FDI companies to offset their carbon footprint by our govt. Also the carbon footprint for cattle is also erroneously calculated by a factor of 10 as the methane from cattle breaks down over a ten year cycle and not the 100 years that it’s being calculated over, i.e part of the natural biogenic cycle. I hasten to add here that the intensive farming that you are all giving out about was encouraged by our govt not that long ago who also encouraged farmers away from tillage to dairying.Farmers are an easy target just like car drivers which is why when they are quoting emissions they dont separate cer driving from transport because it’s only a fraction of that and they dont mention that agriculture when given its actual rightful offsets is virtually carbon nuetral
@Michael McGrath: ‘international accounting rules state that we can only include the additional sequestration that occurs due to management changes’ … You may not think that’s fair, but you must admit that agriculture is an area where there is a lot of scope for reducing GHG emissions. Surely it makes sense to do this?
@Brendan O’Brien: the international accounting rules are why there will never be a significant improvement. It ensures that only those who have been reckless and destroyed carbon sinks up to now can benifit from incentives to improve. Anyone who has developed forests or hedgerows or high carbon soils needs to be careful because they’ve set there own bar to high. This means there is an incentive to destroy carbon sinks just so you can point to restoring them as an improvement at a future date if it becomes a rule. Rewarding those who have always done things right would be a more logical approach as they’ll continue to do so.
@david kenny: That makes sense to me.
@david kenny: international carbon rules are the reason the world is screwed, farming gets hammered and the world’s military gets off Scot free
Organic farming is not better for the environment, they still use pesticides and end up with a third less yield per acre, that’s a lot of extra waste for a lot more money, can you imagine how expensive everything would get if every farmer lost a third more of their crops each year? Plus there is no evidence of it being any healthier whatsoever over conventional farming. No farmers, no food
@Stephen Allen: ‘Artificial fertilisers, fungicides, pesticides and insecticides which conventional farmers generally depend on, are not permitted under organic standards.’
https://www.teagasc.ie/rural-economy/organics/frequently-asked-questions/
@Stephen Allen: The quality of the produce should be far higher though.
The amounts of vitamins and minerals in produce has fallen off a cliff since the widespread use of fertilisers. These force crops to grow at accelerated rates, creating a higher proportion of carbs to other nutrients.
Frowing crops like this also sucks nutrients from the soil without replacing them.
This might also be a factor in the growing obesity problem.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: The Farming for Nature website is worth checking out: lots of good insights from Irish farmers.
@Brendan O’Brien: this is true, but organic farms use pesticides that are “Natural”as opposed to “Synthetic”, which has no bearing on how toxic they are to humans whatsoever, as for the nutritional value there has shown to be no difference between organic versus conventional https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/02/04/myth-busting-on-pesticides-despite-demonization-organic-farmers-widely-use-them/
@Stephen Allen: That’s a US link, as you know. Substances permitted in organic farming in Ireland are listed on p. 135 onwards in ‘Organic Food and Farming Standards in Ireland’, available here (I don’t know to what extent they are actually used):
The dail bike shelter will offset this to a certain degree by the people who use the bicycles who originally drove to work(they can still claim the expenses you dont need receipts)it will help to decrease emissions and have an overall positive environmental impact.
@Paddy C: You should submit that to Waterford Whispers.
You have to feed the soil to get a yield. If you starve the soil it becomes barren so no crop no emissions, job done, but also no food. There has to be a balance
@Paul1st:
Thanks to two of humanities greatest discoveries insecticide and fertiliser.
There is enough food yealds to feed the planet.
My diet is perfect thanks! No doubt you’ll make it harder for me to maintain, exactly like the reuse bottle scheme, there’s no point trying to get ahead of these ways of life yourself, following logic and reason when these ‘leaders’ are going to inevitably take their ‘franchise’ approach.
Dirty christian brothers
Will it ever go away.
@Hector turtlehead: They are merely a symptom.
A symptom of the Evil that are the Abrahmic Religions.
All have their basis in the worship of an Evil Entity.
With the results we all see, and far too many have experienced.
Klaus Schwab’s comment was “You will own nothing, and be happy.”
But people missed the silent part at the end, “As long as you do what you’re told.”
And this is part of it.
Convince everyone that the farming sector, which has been the husband of nature for millenia, is now her most dangerous enemy.
But what it seems more to be is a land grab, use propaganda like this to convince people in Ireland, most of whom a litle more than a generation removed from a farming background themselves, that if farmers are enemies of nature, then they are your enemies as well.
So that when the time comes to confiscate their land, you’ll think the farmers deserve it.
And if someone says, hang on,is this right, they will quickly be told, “know your place, don’t upset anyone”.
This is from a recent Teagasc study. “Irish mineral soils sequester nearly 4.5 times more carbon than is allowed for in the current measurement of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to preliminary findings of the National Agricultural Soil Carbon Observatory (NASCO).” this group are working under Teagasc and the dept of agriculture. This was an actual study done.
Why does anything about climate get commentators in Ireland all riled up?
have your say