25 replies to this topic

[stocks]

More than a year has passed since U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona said, "The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard."

the largest and most credible study ever conducted on spouses of smokers, by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. The authors found:

"The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

Carmona mentions the Enstrom study just once, in an appendix listing studies too recent to include in the report. But Enstrom's study was published four years ago, and Carmona cites more recent studies. In fact, Carmona's principal "findings" were taken from a 2005 report--not a scientific study, merely another report--from California's Clean Air Resources Board, mostly citing the very studies the federal judge rejected in 1993.


Additional Confirmation

The Enstrom study isn't the odd exception among all the available studies on secondhand smoke. A 2002 analysis of 48 studies, also published in the British Medical Journal, found only seven showed a relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer, while 41 did not.

A 1998 World Health Organization (WHO) study covering seven countries over seven years actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers and no increase for spouses and coworkers of smokers.


False Findings

No one is saying being around smokers is good for kids' health. The WHO study simply shows the largest and longest studies on secondhand smoke are most likely to find no effects.

There is a reason for this. In an August 2005 essay in PloS Medicine, Tufts University epidemiologist John Ioannidis explains:

"There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false."

Ioannidis writes that when tens of thousands of researchers are conducting thousands of small and short-term epidemiological studies, all of them seeking to find evidence of a small or nonexistent effect, and when academic journals are predisposed to publish studies claiming positive correlations (no matter how small) that support the conventional wisdom, the result is that "most published research findings are false."


Who's Claiming Consensus?

Far from being the last word on the health effects of secondhand smoke, Carmona's report and its uncritical acceptance by frequent commentators on smoking raise questions about bias, error, and the deliberate orchestration of public opinion. The commentators who echo the Surgeon General's claim fall into one or more of five groups:

* Liberal advocacy groups such as the Center for Tobacco Free Kids, American Cancer Society, and American Legacy Foundation, which clearly profit from increased public attention to secondhand smoke.

* Government agencies, including the Office of the Surgeon General, the Department of Health and Human Services, and EPA, which exist largely for the purpose of discovering and publicizing health risks, even if they are backed by dubious research.

* Some corporations--notably Johnson & Johnson, which makes smoking-cessation aids--which give liberal advocacy groups hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize smoking and compel more consumers to use their products.

* The news media, which simply publish the news releases from the first three groups.

* Politicians, who read the newspaper stories and hear from the advocacy groups and rationally calculate their odds of being reelected improve if they proclaim deep concern over secondhand smoke and propose solutions that will cost taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars annually.


Heavy-Handed Government

The idea that smokers and nonsmokers might solve this problem voluntarily is dismissed out of hand by those who claim secondhand-smoke exposure is a public health crisis. The "solutions" they want all require bigger government: higher taxes on cigarettes, bans on smoking in public, restrictions on advertising and health claims, etc.

Oddly, these solutions all work to advance the self-interest and agendas of the five groups that repeat Carmona's claim of "consensus." What are the odds this correlation is coincidental?

http://www.heartland...cfm?artId=22150

[maineman]

tobacco is the most lethal "used" substance ever. More deaths than world wars, famine, whatever. It is the all time killer. Horrible deaths, shattered lives. Tragic. Deadly. Costly. Proven. Why would anyone in their right mind want to be anywhere near such a poison? How close is "safe"? How close would you want to be to ground zero of an atomic bomb? 10 feet? 50 feet? 1000 feet? Get my point? The drop in cancer noted in the latest survey is in no small part due to the drop in smoking. mm

[Rogerdodger]

"tobacco is the all time killer."
Don't forgot about alcohol and second hand drinking deaths!

Mix Booze and Smoke and you have a real...party err, problem

During 2005, 16,885 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths (NHTSA 2006).

Drinking by 18- to 24-year old college students contributes to an estimated 1,700 student deaths, 599,000 injuries and 97,000 cases of sexual assault or date rape each year.

Alcohol poisoning is linked with an estimated 5,000 deaths in people under age 21 each year-more than all illegal drugs combined.

[maineman]

Roger, 2 wrongs don't make a right and I don't want to minimize the sad effects of alchohol, but the numbers are a magnitude of difference. Here are the numbers from CDC (which are felt by many to be UNDER stated):

Fact Sheet
Cigarette Smoking-Related Mortality
(updated September 2006)
Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking. In fact, one in every five deaths in the United States is smoking related. Every year, smoking kills more than 276,000 men and 142,000 women.1

Between 1960 and 1990, deaths from lung cancer among women have increased by more than 400%—exceeding breast cancer deaths in the mid-1980s.2 The American Cancer Society estimated that in 1994, 64,300 women died from lung cancer and 44,300 died from breast cancer.3
Men who smoke increase their risk of death from lung cancer by more than 22 times and from bronchitis and emphysema by nearly 10 times. Women who smoke increase their risk of dying from lung cancer by nearly 12 times and the risk of dying from bronchitis and emphysema by more than 10 times. Smoking triples the risk of dying from heart disease among middle-aged men and women.1
Every year in the United States, premature deaths from smoking rob more than five million years from the potential lifespan of those who have died.1
Annually, exposure to secondhand smoke (or environmental tobacco smoke) causes an estimated 3,000 deaths from lung cancer among American adults.4 Scientific studies also link secondhand smoke with heart disease.

full link: http://www.cdc.gov/t...moking_mort.htm

mm

ps... these numbers don't include Heart and Stroke cigarette-related disease....

Edited by maineman, 17 October 2007 - 11:13 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

These darn Jack Hammers are bad for my baby!
Do you have a light?

[OEXCHAOS]

How close is "safe"? How close would you want to be to ground zero of an atomic bomb? 10 feet? 50 feet? 1000 feet? Get my point?

Evidently being married to one isn't too close. Get MY point?

I'm an ex-smoker. I hate it in my presence (at times, though I'm getting better). I blew a lot of money on cigarettes and almost as much quitting. I'm glad I did and I want everyone else to, too.

BUT, I'm not going to tolerate folks LYING to the public about non-existent risks in order to justify violating people's property rights (and other intrusions). It's wrong. Furthermore, it's going to create a bigger worse problem if they keep at it.

If you want folks to quit smoking, give them the patch or nicorette. Pay for it with the proceeds of all those cigarette taxes. In fact, when times were tough, and I was trying to quit, I had to make a decision about whether I could AFFORD to quit. Things are different now, thanks to punative taxes, but still.

M

[maineman]

http://www.cdc.gov/t...ndhandSmoke.htm

Well, to thine own self be true. There are some things worth fighting for. Spend a day working in the asthma clinic, treating the kids of smokers with recurrent bronchitis and asthma, for instance....

mm

[OEXCHAOS]

Any strong causal link there, MM, or are these just kids with asthma whose condition appears to be exacerbated by smoke? How much impact on the data does class have? How many other health risk are present in most of those households. Things like mold, lead, and other hazardous stuff? And, more to the point, how do you explain the results of the Enstrom and Kabat study? I've really no trust in the second hand smoke "conclusions". It has always seemed to be a major stretch, promoted by shrill hysterics. To be frank, they'd do better to focus on other REAL health hazards that need real, practical attention. Mark

[maineman]

Other than the link above? I'd be happy to dig out the references over the weekend. the incidence of asthma, respiratory infection, bronchitis and ear aches in the children of household smokers is huge. There are many studies of lung and bladder cancer in the non-smoking spouses of smokers. Look, I'm a true American and believe in civil liberties. But there is a common decency issue as well. It is not alright to expose others around you to poison, just because it is your "right" to poison yourself. I'll get you those reveiws... mm

[OEXCHAOS]

MM,

Follow the money. I note this is very interesting, too:

http://www.bmj.com/c...ll/327/7413/504

The attacks on the authors is reprehensible, while the study itself is somewhat compelling, at least with regard to lung cancer and coronary disease related to environmental smoke.

Note, I'm not pro-smoking. In fact, I'd even support no-smoking ordinances for OUT SIDE. It's the INSIDE ordinances for private property that I have a problem with.

Only mildly related, re: kids and lung problems. I've been doing some research on lead based paint hazards while I've been setting up to do a rehab in a 100-170 year old neighborhood. Most of the affordable housing stock within a mile is at least 100 years old. Probably with lead in it. Much of it rental. There's also a school just a block away. The schools scores are WAY below the average for the state, which is below the average for the nation. Now, this is a poorer school district, but the school has a Student:Teacher ratio of 13. That's pretty good.

Now, I know for a fact that there are a ton of lead (and mold and other) hazards in the homes with children in this area. An absolute ton. It's not hard for me to connect the dots. But I'm not so sure others are, or are taking it as seriously as they should. Sure, I know that these kids often come from poorer families, families that are less stable, families that might have drug, alcohol, or other issues. Heck there might even be a genetic or dietary component. And I bet a bunch of them smoke, too. What's the point? Well, there are a lot of factors in childhood health problems. I'm thinking that too often researchers don't use Occam's razor. They jump to the more interesting or better funded associations, than perhaps other factors where links are even clearer. I'd not be surprised, for instance, if a study were done of this school that a researcher might stress the "link" between smoking in the home with decreased academic performance, ignoring the proven link that lead poisoning has. Similarly, I wonder how many families with children and smokers are living in old housing stock, with potential mold or fungal problems/risks. I know that in two places over here, we've actually had MUSHROOMS growing in the bathrooms, and they weren't in bad shape at all. Just old places meeting with a short-term condensation issue or a frozen/broken pipe.

Mark