Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization. The logistics of the effects of secondhand smoking are staggering.

The epa report for which this claim was made was tossed as junk science by a federal judge and 2 congressional comittees………90% water and ordinary atmospheric air dont harm anyone…..start naming the names of these thousands of dead to shs………as we figured their are NONE.

Flag for moderation

Bunk?

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

adults:

ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. ETS has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA’s carcinogen assessment guidelines. This classification is reserved for those compounds or mixtures which have been shown to cause cancer in humans, based on studies in human populations.

Flag for moderation

I am glad that this law is in effect. It has always disgusted me when I’ve had to smell cigarette smoke when I eat at restaurants. It is a disgusting habit and if you are going to slowly kill yourself, I don’t want to be a part of it. Also, when smokers start getting diagnosed with lung cancer, I don’t want my tax dollars paying for smokers and their smoking-related ailments. They made the choice to smoke that first cigarette. Now they can deal with the consequences on their own. I shouldn’t have to suffer on their behalf. Maybe with this new health bill in place, we can make it a requirement for smokers to quit or not be covered. That way, we keep the premiums down for people who live healthy lifestyles.

Flag for moderation

I am a non-smoker and in opposition to this bill. The entire point of Obamacare, which I will add that I’m not in favor of, was to give health coverage to everyone regardless of such factors. To suggest that we ought to make such requirements or the smoker will risk losing coverage is tantamount to the very issues people had when insurance companies would drop peoples coverage for similar actions. The bill was passed in opposition of such practices. I argue that the law ought not be applied to bars as the establishments will see a drop in business. I would also point out that such laws are a slippery slope, as we are currently seeing in new york city, where the government wishes to outlaw sodium addition to prepared foods prior to consumption. I’m not in favor of smoking, I’m in favor of not allowing the government dictate how “we the people,” live our lives.

Flag for moderation

Im a non-smoker but I think these bans are ridiculous! Its just more government in our lives and them trying to tell us how to live…I have seen those Crown7 electric cigarettes all over the place and I think those are great to beat the bans…So if smokers want to smoke they should get those!

Flag for moderation

The nationwide spammer harleyrider, who despoils message boards around the world—at least the ones that haven’t banned him—sez: “The epa report for which this claim was made was tossed as junk science by a federal judge and 2 congressional comittees”

1. that North Carolina ex-tobacco-lobbyist judge’s decision was itself tossed as a junk decision and has no standing whatsoever. The case should never have been tried in the first place, and I’m sure he and Philip Morris knew it. But it provided PR fodder for harleyrider types to spew nonsense.

In fact, in 2005, after hearing 6 years of the best Tobacco could muster, Federal Judge, Gladys Kessler, found, in a decision recently upheld by the conservative DC Circuit:

“Evidence of the health risks of passive smoking is derived from many sources. It comes from knowledge of the health risks of active smoking, the carcinogenicity and toxicity of the components in mainstream and sidestream smoke, the evidence that nonsmokers absorb the disease-causing components of tobacco smoke, and epidemiological studies that have assessed the association of passive exposure to tobacco smoke with disease outcomes.”

http://coop.dcd.uscourts.gov/99-2496-082006a.pdf

Gee, why didn’t those legions of Tobacco lawyers from every major tobacco co. in the nation bring in harley’s vaunted decision? Because it’s worthless.

2. Name the committees. The official 1995 CRS report most definitely did NOT dispute the findings of the EPA Report. In fact, it affirms the damage of SHS to children.
http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/9511crsepa.html

Flag for moderation

Yes…the 1992/93 EPA report was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge’s ruling doesn’t stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.

Here’s some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:

2006 Surgeon General’s Report (excerpts)

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally…..

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh…

Flag for moderation

More ill informed smoker bashing. I do not think the authors would argue with me that smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

http://www.medwire-news.md/…/…gic_sensitization…

This is a Swedish study.

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156

In conclusion let’s have a balanced debate and not characterise smokers as race akin to the devil.

Flag for moderation

The new Tobacco Prohibition I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled. This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts. We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters. Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition. Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

Now onto the falsehood……

We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED’S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth…… A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA’S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion : JUNK SCIENCE

‘‘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.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[cherry picked] 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 [a 1.19rr] 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.’‘

So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA’S stand that global warming was real. The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe. Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its: About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth. 4 % is carbon monoxide. 6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms…… (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public. The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff. Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with. Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them….Osha has whats called PEL’S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments…[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare. The actual standard to use is OSHA’S

The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air…..now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison: According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke…….. They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire. They concluded that: All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets : Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997 WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule. Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ‘‘EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen’‘……milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren’t determined to be a carcinogen….The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0….Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease. But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim…..thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree’s claim about shs/ets.

Oh! have you heard the one about ‘‘laugh’‘ thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking. Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commonsence.

The next time you see a healthscare claim consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency! Flag for moderation

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.

Note: Although the official date of this report is December, 1992, it is commonly referred to as the EPA ‘93 study, probably because it became widely available in ‘93.

This was, and remains, a powerful weapon in the anti-smokers arsenal. If a smoker is only hurting himself, he can argue that it’s no one else’s business. But if he is hurting everyone around him, all kinds of restrictive legislation can be justified.

Did this study show SHS is deadly? Let’s examine the facts carefully.

Fact: In 1992 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.

After reading each of the following facts, ask yourself “Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible?

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, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies.”

Questionnaires can be notoriously inaccurate, as discussed in Statistics 102, but in this case some of them were not even filled out by the people being studied, but by “surrogates.” In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.

Fact: On page 23 of the study, paragraph 3, the CRS noted that out of 30 studies, only five found a statistically significant risk at the 95% confidence level, and one showed a statistically significant negative risk (a protective effect). The remaining 24 studies showed no statistically significant increase or decrease in risk.

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. They were finally forced to when Philip Morris 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 changed the CI to 90%, which, in effect, doubled their margin of error.

Fact Worth Repeating: Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades, the EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre-announced results.

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 an unimportant result. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Statistics 101 for more details.)

This rule is routinely ignored when the subject is second hand smoke.

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.

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.”

Fact: The following is another direct quote from Judge Osteen’s decision: “In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA’s conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA’s demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen.”

Most of the media ignored the judge’s decision.

When confronted with this decision, many anti-tobacco activists and organizations harp on the fact that Judge Osteen lives in South Carolina. The obvious implication is that he’s influenced by the tobacco industry in his state. It may also be an appeal to the “stupid southerner” stereotype.

Fact: Judge Osteen has a history of siding with the government on tobacco cases.

Fact: In 1997 Judge Osteen ruled the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco.

So much for his alleged bias.

Fact: Although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate.

Fact: Anyone referring to EPA classifying ETS as a Class A carcinogen is referring to this study.

Opinion: You should seriously question the credibility of anyone who refers to this study, or any of the conclusions that it reached, as if they were facts. That includes everyone who refers to the EPA’s ruling that ETS is a Class A Carcinogen. Once they do, every subsequent statement they make should be considered highly suspicious until it is thoroughly verified.

Fact: Most of the information on this page was gleaned from Judge Osteen’s 92 page decision, the CRS report, and the EPA’s study.

Fact: The EPA fought to have Osteen’s decision overturned on technical grounds. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen’s court did not have jurisdiction.

Fact: In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism on the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

You are strongly encouraged to read these documents yourself. You can find the judge’s entire decision here. The CRS report is available here. The EPA report over six hundred pages long, and we recommend you order a hard copy. It is available to US citizens at no charge. Call (800) 438-4318 and ask for document EPA/600/6-90/006F. The title of the report is “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.” It is also available as on line as a pdf file. Note: this is a four megabyte file.

Fact: Carol Browner, the former head of the EPA, still insists that this study is valid!

Flag for moderation

Is passive smoking dangerous?

Thursday June 03, 2004 by Bjørn Stærk

One of the world’s strictest anti-smoking laws came into force in Norway this week. Inspired by similar laws in Ireland, New York and California, all smoking in pubs and restaurants is now banned. It would be an exaggeration to say that there’s dancing and celebration in the streets, but the reception is warm. The intention is to protect employees and guests against lung cancer, heart problems and other dreadful diseases, and who’d be against that? 54% of people asked in a poll support the ban, (including 40% of smokers), against 28% who oppose it.

81% believes that passive smoking in the work place increases the risk of cancer and other diseases. Well, that’s the question. Does it?

I don’t have a personal stake in this. I don’t smoke. Even if I wanted to, and I don’t, my apartment lease explicitly forbids me from doing it at home. I do have a political bias here, though: I’m skeptical to the idea that government should protect people from their own bad habits. But if passive smoking is dangerous, a ban would be justified. We know that smoking is very dangerous to yourself – so it’s not farfetched to guess that there could be comparable risks to bystanders. No whining about government nannies can ever justify a non-beneficial habit that makes people around you mortally ill.

But I don’t like bad laws based on bad science, and there is at least enough disagreement about the effect of passive smoking to ask questions about the evidence. So I did some research. Let’s start with the opposition. Here’s a good site which claims to tell the facts about second hand smoke. The author, Dave Hitt, takes time to explain the basics of epidemiology – the branch of medicine that uses statistics to calculate health risks – and that’s a plus in my book. No government anti-tobacco campaign have ever bothered to explain to me how it knows what it claims to know, only that it knows. Whatever you think of second hand smoking, I hope I’m not alone in being hesitant about taking the government on trust about what’s good or bad for me.

The site continues with a detailed look at two reports on second hand smoking. The first was made by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1993, and is referred to by almost every anti-smoking report or website I’ve been able to find. According to Dave Hitt it was based on very dodgy science:

In 1993 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year. .. The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished. .. 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. The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30. ..
In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report. .. 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.” ..

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. 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! ..

After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. .. 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. .. 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.

A lot of research has been done into passive smoking since 1993, but the EPA report played an important role in giving attention to the issue, and the fact that it is still referred to by anti-tobacco activists is a disturbing sign. This does not prove that all other research on second hand smoking is bogus, but what does it tell us about the scientific standards of anti-smokers that they refer to a report where the sources were cherry picked and the confidence interval increased to get the right numbers?

Also interesting is the claim that relative risks of less than 2.0 are generally considered meaningless in epidemiological research. That is, unless there’s more than a 100% increase in risk associated with a substance, the result is too unreliable to take seriously. I’m not an epidemiologist. I don’t know if that’s true, and if this limit is based on sound science. But if it is, it doesn’t matter how the EPA’s relative risk for lung cancer of 1.19 ( 19%) was calculated – it’s still too small to be meaningful. (The EPA’s response to critics is here. While it answers many of the accusations, it curiously ignores the risk ratio argument.)

You can also read about this 1998 WHO study which didn’t use dodgy statistics, and which found no a significant relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer.

Fine. So much for the opposition. For all I know, Dave Hitt is a crank, and himself a cherry picker of reports that are either obviously bogus or agree with his own point of view, ignoring a mountain of sound research on the dangers of passive smoking.

I don’t have time and I’m not qualified to read all the research on passive smoking that is available out there. But if anyone has an incentive to collect evidence on the dangers of second hand smoking, it is the Norwegian health authorities. So I went to their tobacco information website. They offer three links: A report by the Health & Tobacco authorities in Ireland which summarizes the scientific consensus on passive smoking, a report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the website of the British Medical Association. Here’s what they have to say:

Epidemological studies have shown that ETS has effects on health similar to those seen from active smoking albeit at lower levels, namely (a) an increased risk of lung cancer (possibly increased by 20-30%), (b) an increased risk of heart disease (estimated at 25-30%), © an increased risk of stroke (possibly as high as 82%), (d) a reduction in birth weight of infants born to mothers exposed to ETS and (e) an increased frequency of chronic respiratory symptoms such as cough, phlegm production, shortness of breath and chest colds. – http://www.otc.ie/article.asp?article=29
The excess risk [of lung cancer] is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding. The excess risk increases with increasing exposure. Furthermore, other published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace have found a statistically significant increase in risk of 12–19%. .. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke is causally associated with coronary heart disease. From the available meta-analyses, it has been estimated that involuntary smoking increases the risk of an acute coronary heart disease event by 25–35%. – http://www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/monogr..

In adults, second-hand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer by some 20-30 per cent and the risk of coronary heart disease by 25-35 per cent. – http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Smokefree

Notice a pattern here? 1) There is broad agreement that passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer and heart disease by about 30%. Many other diseases are mentioned, but these are among the few numbers mentioned. (What “possibly as high as 82%” means is beyond me, but it’s only mentioned on the first site.) 2) 30% is much lower than the 100% (2.0) increase in risk supposedly demanded by epidemiological research, and thus a meaningless increase in risk.

What is going on here? I’m not a scientist, or an epidemiologist. For all I know the 2.0 limit is arbitrary, irrational, obsolete, or has been made irrelevant by the methods used in these particular reports. I really don’t have a stake here, I want to know the truth. If you know that it is bogus to demand a 100 % increase in risk before you take a epidemiological result seriously, let me know.

And then there’s this, from the Irish report, surveying (and rejecting) other ways than smoking bans to solve the passive smoking problem:

Air cleaning is similarly problematic. Of proposed new technology, displacement ventilation is viewed as having the potential for a 90% reduction in ETS levels but even this would still leave exposure levels 1500 to 2500 times the acceptable risk level for hazardous air pollutants.
So there may be technology available that would reduce exposure by 90%, and .. this was rejected? Because it doesn’t catch the final 10%? The connection between passive smoking and health problems appears small enough as it is. At one tenth the amount, what would be left? This is unproven technology, but why hasn’t this option been explored, why is it so quickly dismissed? Why didn’t we wait a few years, see if it works, then decide whether to ban all public smoking, or force all pubs and restaurants to update their ventilation systems?

I’m not saying that second hand smoking is harmless – I’m not qualified. But if it is true that a 30% increase in health risk is meaningless, if it is true that anti-tobacco activists and politicians apply lax standards to the research they quote, it is a reasonable conclusion that Norway’s smoking ban is based on bogus science.

And then we have to ask why. Why do that? Why lower your scientific standards, why ignore non-ban solutions? The reason is clear: Fighting passive smoking is an effective way to fight smoking. It raises the incentive for people to quit, which is good for their health. If you can’t smoke anywhere else but at home, and if you’re made to feel guilty for inflicting health problems on your family and friends, that’s a pretty strong argument for giving up smoking entirely. If that is the intention, I have no doubt that it will work.

And so we’re back at whining about the nanny state. Which is appropriate – when the government lies to you so it can protect you from a habit that harms noone but yourself. There’s no excuse for that.

There are other arguments for a ban on smoking in public places: Many non-smokers don’t like it when people smoke around them. It smells bad, and the smell sticks to your clothes. Some are allergic to it. But there’s a reason no government has tried to sell a public smoking ban on politeness and allergy – it’s not enough. Without a health risk, without the anger and the guilt, there’s no ban. With that health risk, I would – and everyone else should – support it.

So, which is it? Bogus or good science?

Flag for moderation

people that are that offended by the smell of cigarettes are some chumps….grow some hair on your balls pansy…they would murder you for sissy talk like this 50 years ago lol and the guy who says i would report any law being broken is more of a dweeb than anyone

Flag for moderation