Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.
Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.
Federal Government Reports
A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.
A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.
In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).
The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.
Flawed Assumptions
EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.
Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.
For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.
But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."
Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.
Low Statistical Association
Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.
One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk. Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.
For example, the studies linking direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence in smokers of 20 to around 40 times that in nonsmokers, an association of 2000 percent to 4000 percent, or an RR of 20.0 to 40.0.
Scientific Principles Ignored
An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.
Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.
This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.
EPA Study Soundly Rejected
In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.
Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."
The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."
In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.
Propaganda Trumps Science
The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.
In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.
The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.
Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr. (jerry.arnett@gmail.com) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.
For more information ...
James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98," British Medical Journal, May 2003: Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Tobacco Related Mortality in a Prospective Study of Californians, 1960-98 - by James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat - The Heartland Institute.
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins
Town can't ban smoking, attorney says
By Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, June 26, 2008 http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jun/26/to... LINK TO THIS STORY WAS DELETED we wonder why but I have retained the original story.
COLUMBIA — An attorney for Bert's Bar argued Wednesday before the state Supreme Court that the town of Sullivan's Island does not have the authority to ban smoking in the workplace.
Bert's Bar attorney Paul Dominick said that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, through the state Department of Labor, regulates workplace smoking.
Justice Donald Beatty questioned Dominick's assertion.
"I don't tend to agree that what you say is the case," Beatty told Dominick. "So you're saying we were wrong when we ruled on the Greenville issue?"
Justice James Moore noted there is no state or OSHA regulation that relates to smoking.
"What you're wanting is for this court to be the first court to implement this as far as OSHA is concerned," Moore said. "If we were to agree with you, then we would have to overturn Foothills (the Greenville case)."
Frances Cantwell, representing the town, said a Supreme Court ruling in March that upheld Greenville's smoking ban validates the Sullivan's Island ordinance. Cantwell said the ordinance does not conflict with the state's Clean Indoor Air Act and compared the town ordinance with Charleston's 2 a.m. closing time for bars. Cantwell said all the issues were decided when the court issued its ruling upholding the Greenville smoking ban.
"Sullivan's Island does not punish any conduct that the state regulates," Cantwell said.
The court will issue a written opinion but has not said when it will do so.
Bert's Bar is closed. The owners said part of the reason for closing the longtime island establishment was lost business because of the smoking ban.
The attorney's claim actually has more validity than you know:
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN.
US Supreme court decision 1992 NEVER OVERTURNED...
A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.
So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.
Listen and listen good, these bans were never about health. That story about health has been used for well over 100 years. The last time prohibition came down was 1919. The last forty years prior 1919 saw the same lambasted health studies back then on alchohol and tobacco. There is nothing new here going on except the date is changed and the nannies promoting it. The cause is still in effect of the prohibitionists arm. People will always have a certain amount of the ”I WANT TO CONTROL YOU” attitude.
We here in america have become seduced by the constant barrage of daily doses of health study propaganda just like it was dished out in the 40 years running up to 1919…..Our great granparents were seduced by the propaganda artists back then either thru church meetings on sunday morning or thru the newspaper in the evening. Its just today we get it 24-7 from cable networks and newspapers and internet…..It takes the strongest of will of mind and body to OVERCOME such seducing propaganda……They have created a mindset in the public perception that tobacco is evil and peopel using it are the scum of the earth…….
the liberal progressives are the ones who are behind the bans and the psudo-science that pushes it…..the craddle to grave crowd.They are also responsible for the global warming hoax being shoved down every memeber of societies throats……..If you dont pull the string to their nanny mentality your bad motuthed and astrocized as a nay sayer a non-believer……..well I am here to tell you keeping your mind in a world full of propaganda day in and day out has its effects on the population…….
we can call it politically correct hatred towards smokers, people of obesity or just being poor….Trust me when I tell you this crowd of antis is the worse lot of folks to come along in a hundred years.there worse that the VICTORIANS…….the hatred these people hold for a smoker is DEATH……….they dont care about law or rights or freedom when it comes to their AGENDA……..nobody is safe from their hatred………Anyway the outdoor bans and everything else from global warming to second hand smoke are all made-up moral dilemmas to scare people into voting for these fools…….
Remember in the public perception it takes only 6 weeks of drilled propaganda to make a lie the truth and these folks have had 40 years to do it. The last time this group used 40 years to brainwash society we got a constitutional amendment that started prohibition and it wasnt just alchohol, it was tobacco being prohibitied too……..14 states outlawed or prohibitied tobacco use during the volstead act…..prohibition.
There's nothing out there that can convince me that secondhand smoke is a good thing. Smoke makes you cough....that is a sign that it is bad and your body is rejecting it.
No matter what junk science is being thrown around, smoke is a bad thing and we are better off without it. I don't care what the politicians' motives are for banning smoking, whether its health or something more underhanded...we're better off without secondhand smoke.
P.S. Again, The Heartland Institute is a tobacco-industry funded organization. It's not independent and therefore it's inherently untrustworthy. Show me something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I'll change my mind. But you won't find that, because the overwhelming consensus among scientists is that second-hand smoke *is* in fact harmful.
Show me something published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I'll change my mind.
Change it then because there was already a few that I posted in the smoking thread. The one was even commissioned by the WHO. If you search any of those journal sites you'll come across numerous conflicting studies.
Edit: Here I looked it up for you:
Quote:
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
