2nd Hand Smoke, the Myth

[Lullaby Chainer]

This is taken from another debate site.


The general public has been told for years, that 2nd hand smoke (SHS) is harmful, causes cancer, is a great concern for society, etc... It's propaganda. Nazi Germany's Paul Joseph Goebbles said it best...

"If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth."
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany

The problem we see with this lie, is that it has affected the legal system. It's absurd, based on lies and horrible research, and the general public is none-the-wiser. That SHS is harmful to warrant such attention and legal action, is the result of lies, misinformation, propaganda, and junk science.

"Mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it's the dose that makes the poison." - Basic principle of toxicology

"If you were to be strapped down on a surgical table while four guys exhaled smoke directly into your mouth and nostrils for thirty years, you might get lung cancer forty years after they stopped--but it's not likely. - from article linked below

Let's get started with the facts, shall we?

In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.

Is SHS really deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully.

Fact: In 1993 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.

Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.

Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.

Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.

Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably.

The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word "study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.

Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.

Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.

Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day."

Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)

Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report. The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and conclusions.

Fact: According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies." In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.

Fact: The CRS pointed out that "from a group of 30 studies, six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship."

Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study. The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat.

Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant." (p. 25)

Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed "no risk at all." (p.25)

Fact: The "scientists" who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years. Philip Morris recently won a lawsuit to gain access to it.

Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been published. Does Fontham's refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.

Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they doubled their margin of error. Let me repeat that, because it may seem hard to believe: After failing to achieve their pre-announced results by ignoring half of the data, they doubled their margin of error!

Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion?

Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means:

• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
• Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.

Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as and insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.

Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically significant

Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.

Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.

Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."

Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA's methodology. In his judgment he stated: "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."

Sources:
PASSIVE SMOKE - Junk Science
Second-Hand Smokescreens
The EPA Report - The Facts
Health Canada, Breast Cancer and Second-Hand Smoke
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
Junkscience.com - Second-Hand Science
Skepticism.net - Second Hand Smoke
NCPA - Up In Smoke
Washington Times: Second-hand science
Second-hand Smoke Screen
The WHO Scandal: WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative
The Facts

[Osborn F Enready]

Thank you for the in depth article, and links Lullaby.

I am sure the anti-smoking nazis won't have much to say except "we deny everything", stupid science is wrong anyway if you believe......

:rolleyes:

[Pooeypants]

Allow me to cite some scientific papers that support the case for harm from second hand smoke.
Source 1, Source 2.

[PatrickHenry]

Regardless of the science, there is no doubt that secondhand smoke is unpleasant to a non-smoker. Are we not allowed to pursue happiness? If your smoking pleasure denies me the pleasure of breathing pure air, may I not tell you to take it outside?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Pooeypants Allow me to cite some scientific papers that support the case for harm from second hand smoke. Source 1, Source 2.

Interesting finds! I'm going to post those sources in the original thread from the original site I stole the OP from.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Regardless of the science, there is no doubt that secondhand smoke is unpleasant to a non-smoker. Are we not allowed to pursue happiness? If your smoking pleasure denies me the pleasure of breathing pure air, may I not tell you to take it outside?

I think the issue is in regards to liberty. Smoking in public places has been set as ILLEGAL, which contradicts with the constitution. Does smoking infringe on your personal rights as described by the constitution? (assuming 2nd smoke is not harmful)

The government has forced PRIVATLEY owned businesses to disallow smoking. This, of course, does not mean a privately run business can't CHOOSE to not allow smoking.

[PatrickHenry]

As a libertarian non-smoker, I don't favor government intrusion into business affairs. But I have had enough of inconsiderate smokers blowing smoke in my face. Anyone who hasn't been a kid cooped up in a car with a puffing parent can't understand my position...

[zynner]

Quote by: PatrickHenry If your smoking pleasure denies me the pleasure of breathing pure air, may I not tell you to take it outside?

If you own the property, yes.

If you do not own the property, no. Then, the owner decides.

I am a non-smoker and I hate the smell of smoke. I hate how it gets in my clothes and my hair. It's disgusting.

Nevertheless, you either stand for everybody's rights or you do not. If not, then nobody has rights, and that includes you.

~ zynner

ps: I can relate to the car thing. When I was a kid, I went on a cross-country trip with my mother and grandmother. Granny was a chain smoker with emphysema. She could not handle the cold air rushing in with the windows down, nor not smoking nonstop. So, the car was filled with smoke. Talk about a nightmare! LOL.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am sure the anti-smoking nazis won't have much to say except "we deny everything", stupid science is wrong anyway if you believe......

So everyone who doesn't like getting someone else's poison puffed in their faces is now a nazi. Flacking for Big Tobacco now Os?

Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study

Recently, the largest European study, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), demonstrated a 16% increase in the point estimate of risk in lung cancer for nonsmokers, a result consistent with earlier studies. However, the study was described by newspapers and the tobacco industry as demonstrating no increase in risk. To understand the tobacco industry's strategy on the IARC study we analysed industry documents released in US litigation and interviewed IARC investigators. The Philip Morris tobacco company feared that the study (and a possible IARC monograph on second-hand smoke) would lead to increased restrictions in Europe so they spearheaded an inter-industry, three-prong strategy to subvert IARC's work. The scientific strategy attempted to undercut IARC's research and to develop industry-directed research to counter the anticipated findings. The communications strategy planned to shape opinion by manipulating the media and the public. The government strategy sought to prevent increased smoking restrictions. The IARC study cost $2 million over ten years; Philip Morris planned to spend $2 million in one year alone and up to $4 million on research. The documents and interviews suggest that the tobacco industry continues to conduct a sophisticated campaign against conclusions that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other diseases, subverting normal scientific processes.

Scotland Smoking Ban Quickly Improved Worker Health, Study Says

An indoor smoking ban in Scotland reduced health problems in bar workers in one month, showing the benefits of such laws appear quickly, according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

[madprophet]

What a crock of shit. There have been dozens of studies over the last twenty years, from the CDC, the DHHS, the Europeans and the Australians. This post is on par with Global Warming denying and the anti-Evolution crap and, of course, the anti-science response to the original studies that found direct cigarette smoke to cause cancer.

[Osborn F Enready]

Patrick Henry said: Regardless of the science, there is no doubt that secondhand smoke is unpleasant to a non-smoker. Are we not allowed to pursue happiness? If your smoking pleasure denies me the pleasure of breathing pure air, may I not tell you to take it outside?

I say:
Do you own the property you are asking me to vacate to smoke?

If so, yes, your property RIGHTS provide that you may ask, or FORCE me to leave if I refuse, in denial of your expressed demands or wishes.

If not, no, since I am as "entitled" to pursue happiness as you, and non-smokers rights do not trump smokers rights, since they are equal.

Patrick Henry said: Anyone who hasn't been a kid cooped up in a car with a puffing parent can't understand my position...

I say:
Yes, but also, too bad most kids don't understand RIGHTs, and that they don't have FULL CONTROL OF THEIR RIGHTS until they become adults, who can ALSO own property.

I was one of those kids, and now I am a smoker. Been on both sides.

The truth, or "right and wrong" lies in the rights issue over property.

The property owner has a right to do what he wishes on his own land, and second hand smoke poses no great health risk if he chooses to smoke on his land, as opposed to say, dumping toxic waste all over it.

Zynner said: If you own the property, yes. If you do not own the property, no. Then, the owner decides. I am a non-smoker and I hate the smell of smoke. I hate how it gets in my clothes and my hair. It's disgusting. Nevertheless, you either stand for everybody's rights or you do not. If not, then nobody has rights, and that includes you.

I say:
Well said, and thank you for being so clear in your post as to the actual point of the issue.

The issue is not about smoking being BAD or GOOD, it is about whether or not you have a right to say over your own body, and the property you are supposed to own.

Rick said: So everyone who doesn't like getting someone else's poison puffed in their faces is now a nazi. Flacking for Big Tobacco now Os?

I say:
Don't know how you get there from here, but NO!

Who OWNS the property Rick?

A public owned land is property of ALL the public.
A privately owned land, business or not, is still PRIVATE PROPERTY at the behest of the owner, and they still reserve all their rights to said property.

I don't give a damn about how people live, as long as they respect the rights of others.

YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO CLEAN AIR, and if you think you do, tell me how much luck you have putting every single polluter OUT of business?

Perhaps, you should be wondering why the anti-smokers are focusing on the weakest targets......... the individual smokers, instead of taking on the TRUE poison dealers, which are the manufacturing and chemical companies that exploit your and my resources for profit, with no clean-up, little reperations to the enviroment, and bushels of corporate lawyers and lobbyists writing the laws?

Thats it, gang up on the individual smokers, drain their income for that "PC" penalty too.....

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO CLEAN AIR, and if you think you do, tell me how much luck you have putting every single polluter OUT of business?.

Osborn, why should people have private property rights and not the right to clean air? Do you have an argument for this arrangment other than "that's the way it is"?

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: Osborn, why should people have private property rights and not the right to clean air? Do you have an argument for this arrangment other than "that's the way it is"?

I say:
Yes, its called the law of nature, and it is based on the same rights as property and individualism.

You can't sue a volcano, or a methane pockets that release harmful products into our air, can you? Of course not. Yet these things pollute the air more than we ever could, and did LONG before we ever walked the earth to know what "air" was.

There is no such thing as a "right" that is based on the goodness of others.

Rights are inherant.

For example:
I have a right to free speech, that happens to be enumerated by the Bill of Rights in our system of government.

That right does not exist DUE to the enumeration, instead, it exists because I am born with a mouth, a mind, free-will and have NO reason to bend to any threat as long as I am within my rights, and have the ABILITY to defend them.

You CAN'T have a right to clean air, since that is OUT of our control as humans. We don't create the air, we use it. All living things use and pollute the air. (cows, methane) How could any man, or government, assume some infitinte power to "regulate" the air? That is a first step in charging you for it.


Lets just say, you were going to "enumerate" some right of clean air....

What is clean air? Define it for me.

[madprophet]

We don't create the land, we use it, therefore, we do not have a right to private property. Your logic. My original question stands unanswered.

Your rhetorical gymnastics aside, clean air is defined as air devoid of human pollution. Volcanoes haven't depleted the Ozone Layer. And volcanoes are not extracting billions of tons of carbon from fossil fuels and releasing them into the atmosphere. And to suggest that we should do nothing about human pollution simply because natural pollution exists is nonsensical and, frankly, insane. Mercury exists in nature, but you don't want it in your water, do you? Would you be bothered if they simply dumped radioactive waste on the street?

In closing, I'd like to point out a misconception in your assumptions: No one is advocating the regulation of air, but of human pollution. It's a very subtle difference, I'm sure.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet Osborn, why should people have private property rights and not the right to clean air? Do you have an argument for this arrangment other than "that's the way it is"?

A private business should not be forced by the government to disallow smoking. They can choose to disallow, and many businesses do, but they shouldn't be FORCED to disallow.

So what if it makes you uncomfortable? Would a grandmother be uncomfortable in a strip bar? Probably. Should we FORCE the PRIVATELY owned strip bar to disallow women with little clothing?

If Applebees wants to arrange a smoking section at the bar of their own PRIVATE business, then just suck it up and stop bitching. There are plenty of restaurants that don't allow it, but NOW, because of intolerant pricks, the government is DICTATING what a PRIVATE business does. THAT is unconstitutional.

Tell me, what personal right described by the constitution is being step over when you choose to go to a business that allows smoking? Tell me, buddy, what right is being violated by this?

It's as simple as that, madprophet.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Why does everyone talk about second-hand smoke? What about first-hand smoke?

If second-hand smoke is so bad, then, as a smoker, shouldnt I be dead by now?

[madprophet]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Tell me, what personal right described by the constitution is being step over when you choose to go to a business that allows smoking? Tell me, buddy, what right is being violated by this? It's as simple as that, madprophet.

Why are you asking me? Escuse me, have I stated a fucking opinion about smoking in public places here? Have I once in my whole three posts even mentioned this? No, I have not.

I happen to be a smoker and I also happen to like smoking in bars. That is not cause to allow people to post ignorant propaganda about the "myth of second-hand smoke." Passive smoking increases your risk of developing lung cancer. Period. There is no factual, scientific argument against that statement.

Does this fact call for government intervention to stop people smoking in public places? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't really care. I'd be much more interested to see more government action to help people to quit smoking, which would help solve all the problems associated with cigarette smoke.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet Why are you asking me? Escuse me, have I stated a fucking opinion about smoking in public places here? Have I once in my whole three posts even mentioned this? No, I have not.

Yes.. yes you have, dear.

Quote by: madprophet Osborn, why should people have private property rights and not the right to clean air? Do you have an argument for this arrangment other than "that's the way it is"?

You asked a question, and I answered with my own. Suck it up and deal with it.

[madprophet]

Well, honey, how you see that as an endorsement of a public smoking ban is beyond me. I was asking a question about Osborn's argument, not stating an opinion of my own. If you can't tell the difference...well...

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet Well, honey, how you see that as an endorsement of a public smoking ban is beyond me. I was asking a question about Osborn's argument, not stating an opinion of my own. If you can't tell the difference...well...

No one is saying you did! Why are you being so paranoid?

You raised a question, and I answered it. If you ask another question, guess what, I'm going to answer. So please, quit your whining. Next time you ask a question, prepare yourself for someone to.. oh god.. answer?

[madprophet]

I'm not paranoid, you're just out to get me!!! Heh.

Seriously, first off, I didn't ask you a question, did I? That question was addressed to Osborn, and was specific to him. Now, unless you're his sock puppet and forgot to switch screen names, I don't see how you can clarify his argument for me.

Secondly, you didn't answer my question, you asked me a question. Go reread you're post, do you even once justify private property rights? Do you at all argue that people do not have a right to clean air? No, you piss and moan about the government "dictating what a private business does" (by-the-way, the government does regulate strip clubs, so that's a bad example,) and demand for me to prove constitutionally a position that I have not taken.

Finally, on your original question on the constitutionality of anti-public smoking laws: It seems to me that Congress makes laws that infringe on the "rights" of businesses all the time. To use a previous example, where does it say in the Constitution that Congress can make laws telling private water companies how much mercury can be in the drinking water? Or laws criminalizing fraud and insider trading? Or, to use your example, how about local government laws banning strip clubs? (And don't take this as an endorsement of smoking bans or a repudiation of your position. It's just an observation.)