The Myth of Secondhand Smoke Hazards

[funkedup]

Copyright 1998 THE WASHINGTON TIMES
"Pseudoscience Going Up in Smoke"
by Michael Fumento

It was the farce that launched a thousand bans. In 1993, the EPA released a study ranking passive smoking at the top of its carcinogen pecking order. It did so based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 American studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: "Passive Smoking Kills Thousands," and editorials demanding: "Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It's a Killer."

Suddenly, smokers found themselves ranked below child-molesting lepers. The crusade against smoking in public places assumed ludicrous dimensions, culminating with President Clinton trying to ban it not just in federal buildings but anywhere near them.

Yet since the EPA's hour of glory, it's been battling not just (predictably enough) the tobacco companies, but also the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and myriad scientists and science journalists. It ignored them all, but has now run into an unmoveable object in the form of a federal judge, who ruled that the agency's report ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices in making its risk assessment.

This has no direct effect on legislation, but may prompt repeals of some legislation and hold off the implementation of new anti-smoking laws. Although the EPA's report had more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese under assault by a ravenous mouse, its greatest weakness was its refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there are only 5 chances in 100 that the conlcusion came about simply by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.

Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw. Why would it do such a strange thing? Yup. Because its results weren't signficant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal post to the three-yard line because the football had fallen two yards short of a touchdown. There's a technical scientific term for this kind of action--dishonesty.

The EPA report was scientifically at or below the level of anything ever put out by the Tobacco Institute. It was also a harbinger of EPA games to come. For example, when it comes to radon, the agency has simply ignored the overwhelming number of household epidemiological studies showing no harm from the gas at low levels, instead choosing to extrapolate down from men exposed to massive amounts of radon each day for years in uranium mines.

In promulgating new air pollution regulations last year, again the EPA ignored the majority of epidemiological studies showing no connection between harm and the pollutants in question, instead relying on a few studies by "advocacy scientists" (one a former EPA employee).

As to passive smoking, two more meta-analyses have appeared since the EPA's. One was conducted on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO) in seven counties over seven years. When it appeared, the tobacco industry claimed it supported their position, and WHO squealed like a pig going to slaughter. "Passive smoking does cause lung cancer--Do not let them fool you.," blared its press release.

No, it was WHO trying to fool you. Its study also found no statistical significance at a 95 percent level. So the press release just ignored the whole issue of significance altogether.

The third meta-analysis, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found slight statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer, meaning 41 did not.

Further, the combined increased risk was merely 24 percent, also called a "relative risk" of 1.24.

Such tiny relative risks are generally considered meaningless, given the myriad pitfalls in epidemiological studies. "As a general rule of thumb," says the editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, "we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more" before accepting a paper for publication. "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it, says Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

Explains the National Cancer Institute: "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident."

The main exception to that rule comes when the study is extremely large, but such was not the case with the BMJ analysis. The studies showing excess disease comprised a mere 1,388 persons. By contrast, a recent study implicating obesity as a cause of early death contained more than 320,000 subjects.

So where does this leave us? Do we know passive smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? No. But we know that either it does not or that if it does the risk is so tiny as to be unmeasureable. Does this mean passive smoke poses no health risks? No. It makes sense it would aggravate athsma and other breathing problems, if nothing else. Does it mean that just because smokers aren't murdering other people, they're not still engaging in a nasty, expensive habit that greatly increases their own chance of sickness and premature death? Definitely not.

Ultimately, the EPA study tells us a lot less about passive smoking than it does about the basic dishonesty of the agency in charge of protecting our environmental health.

[ra]

Here's another:
2nd hand smoke is a scam

[Pongo]

Excellent. One of the most constructive examples of dishonesty in history then..
Sounds like they played the smoking lobbys games better then they did them selves..

[ra]

Excellent. One of the most constructive examples of dishonesty in history then..

With more constructive dishonesty, we may some day live in a perfect world.

[Vulcan]

wrap ur lips round my phat pipe funky and we'll see what second hand smoke does to ya!

[SaburoS]

Do not the smokers themselves breathe in that very same second hand smoke that the non-smokers breathe?
Not saying that that second hand smoke isn't dangerous, just that it seems its effects might be exagerated a bit.
How do we know that the lung cancer cases came only from the effects of tobacco smoke? Used to be that the organic brake linings (asbestos) used to not be sealed in drums (drum brakes) and the front organic pads used to be of an abestos compound. Everytime a vehicle would brake, a little bit of asbestos dust would be let loose in the air we breathe. How about the asbestos insulation used in buildings awhile back? How about fine fiberglass dust from insulation? Fiberglass is also a dangerous compound that could wreak havoc with your lung's linings. Tobacco smoke is not the only cause of lung cancer.

[Dinger]

Actually, asbestos is in the same boat as second-hand smoke and radon.

[koala]

As someone who had a long battle 8 years ago with people smoking in the office, I'm glad that's no longer the case.  Whether second-hand smoke is directly attributable to lung cancer or not, I shouldn't be forced to breathe it.  Pretty simple.

I'm all for smoker's rights and the EPA has pretty much sucked since Clinton took office (surprise surprise), but that's no reason for forcing someone to endure smoking someone else's cigarette, especially in a place such as work.

[trgtdron]

As a surviver I feel I have something to say about this subject.

I'm a smoker--- If I didnt smoke I still would have taken a dance with cancer.
  The  lie that is most fostered on the world has a backer that most people dont realize is out there.  Petrochemicals---thats right, our good old lifestyle. Almost anything we use or touch is made from petrochemicals. Guess where they come from--- you guessed it -- OIL--.  

Look at the warning label on a gas pump -- if you live in the US it must be posted.

Warning- breathing these vapors are harmful to your health and MAY cause cancer in lab animals. LOL

What the hell do you think comes out of the exhaust?

I was an ASC certified auto tech when my doctor found my cancer--I had less than 6 months to live an it was an accident that it was found at all --I was 32 years old-  I got a kidney stone and thats when they found it. Less than a week after they found it I was in surgery. My doctors were able to link it directly to my job. The chemicals and other petrochemicals that I absorbed through my skin caused it. Needless to say I no longer work in that field.

That was 8 years ago. A long time of researching the LIES about smoking and cancer. I have been banned off more boards than I can count because the anti-smoking organizations dont want the public to know the REAL cause of cancers.

Heres a good way to think about it -also a good aurgument--

I'll get in your walkin closet with a pack a cigs. (closet closed)
You get in your car in the garage (door down)
I'll light my cigarete you start your car
First one to die loses


ANY TAKERS?

[Puke]

If you want to smoke in public, then don't exhale.  If I want to chew my gum, I'm not sticking bits of my gum in your mouth.  If I want to eat a candy bar, I don't rub the scent into your clothing or force you to chew on some of it.  If you want to smoke in public, then do not exhale...or do not smoke.  Poor whiney smokers who are so mistreated.

[JBA]

We have a saying in research.
"If you torture the numbers long enough, they will talk."

[lazs2]

I am not in the least concerned or worried about the effects that second hand smoke may have on me... I believe that I am exposed to far more dangerous things on a daily basis plus... my family is not cancer prone...

I also believe that every danger that the friggin government makes us "aware" of is about 99% pure roadkill and simply a way for them to take more power and to limit our income and our freedom.   Everything they "save" us from costs money and builds their power base over us.   Never vote for anything that takes away someone elses freedom.... never vote to increase a governments power... It happens gradually anyway... don't help em.   No government program has ever saved us from anything including expense.  You can add seat belt and helmet laws to that.

What does bother me about second hand smoke is having my clothes smell like I've been in a trash fire until I get em washed or... having my eyes water because the room is so smokey.
lazs

[SaburoS]

trgtdron,
Congrats on being a survivor.
What work did you use to do on cars? Did it involve doing brake jobs and replacing clutch discs on manual transmissions? Brake cleaner chems are supposed to be real nasty as well as far as a cancer risk (so I've been told).
Some people are more prone to get cancer and some are not, just as some are more prone to get kidney stones than others. Comes down to our DNA.

Heres a good way to think about it -also a good aurgument--

I'll get in your walkin closet with a pack a cigs. (closet closed)
You get in your car in the garage (door down)
I'll light my cigarete you start your car
First one to die loses

I'll have to disagree about it being a good argument. LOL, it's the carbon monoxide that will kill you in about 10-60min in your comparison, not the exposure to the petroleum distillates.

You're right though, there are many things that can trigger cancer, petroleum distillates being among them. So is exposure to asbestos, tobacco smoke, etc.

[whgates3]

Originally posted by Puke
If you want to smoke in public, then don't exhale.  If I want to chew my gum, I'm not sticking bits of my gum in your mouth.  If I want to eat a candy bar, I don't rub the scent into your clothing or force you to chew on some of it.  If you want to smoke in public, then do not exhale...or do not smoke.  Poor whiney smokers who are so mistreated.

you've farted in public.
admit it.

[AKIron]

I could care less if second hand smoke isn't harmful to my health. I had to work around smokers for years. Always burned my eyes and stunk up my clothes. Did many of them give a damn, hell no. No more smoking in public, hooray!