Killing the passive smoking debate

“Secondhand smoke debate ‘over.” That’s the message from the Surgeon General’s office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from others’ cigarettes can kill you. Actually, “debate over” simply means: “If you have your doubts, shut up!”

But you definitely should have doubts over the new Surgeon General’s report, a massive 727-page door stop. Like many massive reports on controversial issues, it’s probably designed that way so nobody (especially reporters on deadline) will want to or have time to read beyond the executive summary. That includes me; if I had that much time I’d reread War and Peace. Twice. But the report admits it contains no new science so we can evaluate it based on research already available.

First consider the 1993 EPA study that began the passive smoking crusade. It declared such smoke a carcinogen based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 mostly tiny studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: “Passive Smoking Kills Thousands” and editorials demanding: “Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It’s a Killer.”

But the EPA’s report had more holes than a spaghetti strainer. Its greatest weakness was the agency’s refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there are only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about just by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.

Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw.

Why would it do such a strange thing? You guessed it. Its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal posts back because the football had fallen short. In scientific terminology this is know as “dishonesty.”

Two much larger meta-analyses have appeared since the EPA’s. One was conducted on behalf of the World Health Organization and covered seven countries over seven years. Published in 1998, it actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. But it also showed no increase for spouses and co-workers of smokers.

The second meta-analysis, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2002, likewise found a statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer. Thus 41 did not.

Meta-analysis, though, suffer from such problems as different studies having been conducted in different ways – the apples and oranges conundrum. What was really needed was one study involving a huge number of participants over a long period of time using the same evaluation.

We got that in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003. Research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook presented results of a 39-year study of 35,561 Californians, which dwarfed in size everything that came before. It found no “causal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality,” adding, however “a small effect” can’t be ruled out.

The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while passive smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off.

A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 – when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges – the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. That’s not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?

But none of this has the least impact on the various federal, state, and city agencies and organizations like the American Lung Association for a very good reason. They already know they’re scientifically wrong. The purpose of the passive smoking campaign has never been to protect non-smokers, but rather to cow smokers into giving up the habit.

It’s easy to agree with the ultimate goal, but inventing scientific outcomes and shutting down scientific debate as a means is as intolerable as it was when Nazi Germany “proved” the validity of eugenics.

"Two much larger meta-analyses have appeared since the EPA’s. One was conducted on behalf of the World Health Organization and covered seven countries over seven years. Published in 1998, it actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. But it also showed no increase for spouses and co-workers of smokers."

... showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. A fluke? I don't think so. In fact this study should be studied more and in great detail.

Why? One phrase or one word: "J Factor" or "Hormesis" - take your pick. I first read about the "J Factor" in an Analog-Science Fiction-Science Fact Alternate View article by Harry Stine in June 1984.

His article discussed how low level radiation exposure in nuclear workers and airline pilots & stewardesses led to statistically longer life spans and lower cancer rates.

Now this is known as Hormesis and may (emphasize may here) apply to a whole range of toxins. Where it was once thought the only safe level of toxins was 0.00000...1 onto something approaching infinity now we know better.

Well at least some of us do. Others have too much invested in the "Zero Risk" view for toxins to truly consider the possibility that low level (think micro or smaller) doses might be beneficial.

Two articles address that address this are
1) Longevity is the most appropriate measure of health effects of radiation in Radiology Oct 2003
2) An Access to Energy article on Chemical Hormesis
which has the added benefit of a fascinating story within the article on Linus Pauling and some Vitamin C research he didn't care for.
If you are interested, there are also plenty of articles attacking the J Factor or Hormesis.

Tokra replies to RicocheT in post #27 that the life expectancy was 45 years in olde Europe/England.

Because of the way 45 years was presented, I assume it meant the average life span was 45 years. Certainly true, but distorted by the high (very high) infant and child mortality rate in pre-industrial Europe/England.

Other distortions compared to today: lack of any real antibiotics, medical care, proper public/private waste disposal, clean water, and safety engineering was not even a gleam in anyone's eye at the time.

Those who lived to a healthy 45 often lived on to 55, 65, and 75 depending on lifestyle and genetics. Me, I'll take today's medical advantages to make it to 55 then 65 then 75 and maybe 85 ... oooops, already passed 55. Darn.

The article also stated having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges – the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour.
It's unclear if this was a constant source of second hand smoke or not. Still it was interesting to find out 0.004 cigarettes/hours amounts to one cigarette every 10 days and 10 hours. Surely something the average healthy body could deal with through its natural defenses.
I grew up in one of those homes, smoked off and on for 15 years and quit over 20 years ago.

Cheers!!

RileyD, nwJ

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.