Replies

However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?

No, but the level of exposure is the key. If we tried to eliminate all toxin and carcinogen exposure then we would have to ban candlelight dinners, and the dinner.

However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?

No "mysterious filtering process" is required. It is obvious that some filtering takes place, perhaps quite a bit, or there would be no effect on smokers. It is also clear that people breathing "second hand smoke" are subjected to far lower concentrations of smoke {and presumably carcinogens) simply because the primary source of the smoke is directed directly to the smokers lungs, not to other people.

If you just consider the amount of air that "second hand smoke" is mixed with in comparison with the direct exposure to the smokers lungs, it is obvious that the effects on non smokers must be much, much lower than on smokers. Add to this the limited effects of smoke on smokers, and it is easy to see why no significant effects of second hand smoke on mortality have been found in serious studies on the subject, dispite the numerous junk science efforts to imply that they exist.

smoke is purified

Of course the second hand smoke is cleaner. Can you envision a better filter than a lung?

There is a very strong link between diabetes and death by heart failure with abundant etiological evidence; there is a strong statistical link between heart attacks and active smoking with weak etiological evidence; there is virtually no strong link between ETS and heart attacks or heart failure (despite the noise) and no etiological evidence at all.

Further, heart attacks are seasonal: extremes in temperature bring on bodily stress such as heat waves and poor body-temperature regulation in summer and cold weather and snow (which leads to over-exertion) in winter.

The best advice is to not smoke and stay away from those who do.

It is absurd to think that a six-month slowdown in the exposure to ETS would result in a statistically significant reduction in hospital admissions.

The ban only applied to public places and could have had no direct effect on residential exposure which is assumedly higher than that found publically; therefor, if the "study" was not adjusted for relatives and guests of smokers in their homes the results are meaningless unless we were to assume that the already-weakened victims more regularly frequented establishments where smoking was allowed prior to the ban.

Thought it might be interesting to actully post the article that is being referenced.
Not that it will matter to some.

The Secondhand Smoking Gun

October 15, 2003
By ROSEMARY ELLIS

Six months into New York City's smoke-free ordinance, there has been a spate of criticism about the wisdom of sticking
by such a ban. The most notable came in a roundabout swipe
from none other than former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who declared during a trip to Ireland last month that Irish
citizens should have the choice to smoke in public places.
(Mr. Giuliani later tried to distance himself from his
comments.)

But if New York - as well as other cities and
municipalities - is ever tempted to rescind its smoking
ban, it should look at the goings-on in Helena, Mont. The
citizens of Helena voted in June 2002 to ban smoking in all
public buildings - including restaurants, bars and casinos.
Soon after, doctors at the local hospital noticed that
heart-attack admissions were dropping. So they, in
conjunction with the University of California, San
Francisco, did a study to measure the potential short-term
effects of a smoking ban.

Helena is a perfect place for such a study: relatively
isolated, with enough people in the region (66,000) for a
meaningful population sample, and only one cardiac-care
hospital within a 60-mile radius. So it was easy to control
the study sample and methodology: if you get a heart attack
in Helena, there's only one place to go for treatment.

The study showed two trends. First, there was no change in
heart attack rates for patients who lived outside city
limits. But for city residents, the rates plummeted by 58
percent in only six months.

"We know from longer-term studies that the effects of
secondhand smoke occur within minutes, and that long-term
exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with a 30
percent increased risk in heart attack rates," says Stanton
Glantz, a professor of medicine who conducted the study's
statistical analysis. "But it was quite stunning to
document this large an effect so quickly."

It was also stunning to witness what happened next. The
Montana State Legislature, under pressure from the Montana
Tavern Association and tobacco lobbyists, rescinded the ban
in December. The result: heart-attack rates bounced back up
almost as quickly as they dropped.

The bottom line of Helena's plummeting, then soaring, heart
attack rate is painfully obvious: secondhand smoke kills.
Only 30 minutes of exposure to it causes platelets in the
bloodstream to become stickier. When that happens, blood
clots form more easily, which can block arteries and cause
heart attacks.

Dr. Richard Sargent, one of the study's authors, points out
that eight hours of working in a smoky bar is equivalent to
smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. In such an environment,
other studies have shown, workers more than double their
chances of developing cancer and asthma, and pregnant
workers put themselves at risk for miscarriage and
premature delivery.

clip . . . .

rest of article at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/opinion/15ELLI.html?ex=1067214074&ei=1&en=e01a598f2c9a097b

However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?

That may, in part, be true. However, the minuscule amount of smoke that most people encounter in environmental smoke is so small as to be statistically meaningless. Those smoking below five or ten cigarettes per day show a relative risk ratio that is no different from that of non-smokers. This doesn't mean that there cannot be an effect, but that the effect is too small to be statistically apparent. And this is for a number of cigarettes actually smoked every day. The total amount of smoke inhaled by most who encounter environmental smoke is on the level of a couple of cigarettes per year. For that matter, most studies attempting to uncover increased health risk to people who live with smokers have not found an increase in lung cancer among them (one of them that did find a slight increase was later discovered to have failed to control for "non-smoking" spouses who lied about their own smoking). Some of these studies have actually shown a reduction in relative risk, indicating a protective effect of exposure. This is not surprising since this has been found to be true of exposure to radiation as well as to other toxic substances.

Does that mean they'll stop taxing them soo much?

"are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke? "

Well they obviously believe it. Why else would they subject you and me to their second hand smoke. Surely they aren't so inconsiderate and selfish as to intentionally harm us.

And obviously we are at fault for not telling them how bad it stinks and how obnoxious it is. The few that do tell them, are obviously the exception, because most people like the smell of smoke especially when they are eating.

And if that doesn't convince you how safe and pleasant second hand smoke is, just consider how many of them smoke with the children in the car. And there kids aren't dropping dead of heart attacks. It must be safe.

However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?

No, we're to KNOW that an easily understandable (non-mysterious) fact is "the dose makes the poison" and environmental tobacco smoke is diluted 100,000 times or more and the twenty or so "carcinogens" that occur in measurable amounts are still well below the acceptable limit according to osha, the NTP AND EPA.