The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke

The Washington Post ^ | January 30, 2007 | Gio Batta Gori

[neverdem]

Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.

Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that...

--snip--

In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.

Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured."

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.

[neverdem]

This is in WaPO? Pigs must be flying.

[neverdem]

Incredible honesty in WaPo ping!

[BenLurkin]

Bump for later reading.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Many of us have known this for a long time. This is just one of many attempts to accustom us to government intrusion in our private lives "for our own good and the good of the children." With national healthcare they will be able to control nearly all we do because they are paying for it.

[fireforeffect]

Must be a last gasp to seem relevant.

The Surgeon General said second hand smoke is dangerous. He did not specify cigarette smoke, coal smoke, wood smoke, or car exhaust. Breathing smoke, whatever the source, is bad for you.

Ans remember, 2 out of 3 epidemiology studies are wrong. The other third have not had a contradictory report released yet.

[rock_lobsta]

Personally, I'd rather get my smoke first-hand.
It's a lot less dangerous than that DEADLY second-hand smoke.

You just don't know where it's been...

[markman46]

nump

[rock_lobsta]

I digress further...

I'm looking forward to the studies about third-hand smoke, which is so dangerous, it kills the breather - and their first-born male - on contact.

[Sicon]

This is just one of many attempts to accustom us to government intrusion in our private lives "for our own good and the good of the children." With national healthcare they will be able to control nearly all we do because they are paying for it.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!

[RS]

Are prisoners in the U.S. allowed to smoke inside ? ...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=be0babc1-14c8-4e3b-88d0-a45fcde34403&k=76473

[Gabz]

Nanny State Ping..........

Gori nails it, and I'm amazed the Compost printed it.

[Gabz]

Many members of this forum ae totally on board with the government intrusion you mention.

[RightWhale]

Sometimes when the woodstove is going there is an atmospheric inversion of some kind that causes the stove to emit a large quantity of woodsmoke into the room, then the stove continues to draw as if nothing had happened. Is that woodsmoke safer to breathe than second-hand tobacco smoke? It must be safer or the Gov't would tax it. It is amusing to note while shopping at the mall whose clothing smells like woodsmoke because those are the real Alaskans.

[DumpsterDiver]

Gori nails it,

Gori has an upcoming article ("The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion") that will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine. I don't know if it will be online, but I'll be on the lookout for it.

[metesky]

It depends on the state. There have been riots over the issue and they've had about as much success with it as it appears from your link that Canada has.

What are they gonna do jail 'em?
;O)

[anymouse]

Yes, that yellow/brown tar and heavy metals clogging up your a/c filter is a figment of your imagination and has no effect whatsoever on the lungs of anyone in the room breathing that same air. /sarc

[Just another Joe]

You must smoke a REALLY large amount of tobacco.
I smoek in my home and have never seen anything such as you describe on my filters.

[patton]

I am astounded that the Post printed it.

[hosepipe]

2nd hand smoke is UNtaxable.. it's FREE...
The gub'ment HATES THAT... The gub'ment wants to rent you your smoke..

Like they do with everything else you OWN.. like your vehicles and houses..

[Gabz]

Thanks for the heads up.