[elkfersupper]

Toxicology studies absent in smoking theories August 08, 2005

Re: Data Supports Ban, July 30.

What I find interesting is that the Canadian Cancer Society only references epidemiological studies as their proof that second-hand smoke is a health hazard.

Epidemiology can only show the relative strength of possible relationships. In order to show the cause of a disease, it is required that there be toxicology studies.

Using a simple survey given out to cancer patients asking them to recall exposure to a substance as they are being diagnosed isn't realistic science. This isn't proof, it is conjecture -- at best a biased guess, not proof of cause.

The statistics-based theory that second-hand smoke is a cause of cancer ignores the real science called toxicology.

Dose relationships recognizes safe levels of exposure to potentially hazardous substances. This well-established science allows uranium to be mined, cars to be painted and toll booth workers to survive high levels of exhaust thanks to adequate ventilation, monitoring and compliance to established limits of exposure.

There are only five unique chemicals released in tobacco smoke. All of the other substances in second-hand smoke cited as being of concern occur in far greater quantities and concentrations in everyday life. Sources like candles, cooking fumes, vehicle exhaust, welding fumes and most domestic and industrial processes cause the release into the air of formaldehyde, benzene, Benzo-a-pyrene and thousands of other chemicals in amounts measured in tons as compared to the micrograms released by burning tobacco.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says "in normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS."

The anti-tobacco campaign is all about fear-mongering, has no real scientific basis, and is just plain wrong. The real data and real science does not support the ban.

It should be the business owners' decision to allow smoking in his business, not a decision made by extremist tobacco control groups. It's better to be safe then sorry, but please, base regulations on real science.

The economy shouldn't suffer when there's no proof of danger.

Lynda Duguay

Allenford, Ont

http://www.canada.com/

References:

As an example of the overstated risks and how they create false phobias, a list of chemicals in tobacco smoke is listed below and how many cigarettes burning at the same time it would take to reach the lower threshold of danger in a room 20x20 with 9 foot ceilings at standard temperature and air pressure with no ventilation.

2-Toluidine................229,000 Benzene.......................1290 Acetone...................118,700 Benzo {a} Pyrene......222,000 Cadmium......................1430 Formic acid...................1790 Methylchloride.............11170 Phenol..........................7600

As you can see from this example, thousands to hundreds of thousands of cigarettes would have to be smoked at once to create a hazard, even in a un-ventilated room! This list was compiled by the Public and Health Policy Research group Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Texas in 1999 for OSHA.

Toxicology studies absent in smoking theories

[Cantiloper]

Someone wrote: "...secondhand smoke is now known to increase the risk of heart attack with as little as thirty minutes of exposure."

Ya gotta love the way the Antis are able to distort things. The assertion above is based upon a study by a fellow name Ryo Otsuka, and I've just put together a little criticism of it that I'll paste here. Comments welcome of course!

=========

Otsuka¡¦s 30 Minute Heart Attack Study (Otsuka, R. et al. Acute Effects of Passive Smoking¡K. JAMA. Vol 286. #4. 2001)



In July of 2001, Ryo Otsuka supposedly showed that simply sharing a room with a smoker for 30 minutes could kill you. The news flashed around the world with the same sort of hype that would later greet Helena, but once again the hype was fraud, not fact. Unless you actually read the study rather than just the news headlines you¡¦d never know that:

ƒæ The level of smoke of smoke exposure (CO = 6ppm) was more than four times the levels in smoking sections of pressurized airplanes. This was not simply ¡§a room with a smoker¡¨ or anything comparable to a well ventilated hospitality venue. And the subjects were moved into that room directly from a near zero CO environment.

ƒæ The nonsmokers chosen for the study were extreme nonsmokers who normally totally avoided contact with smoke. They were forced to sign a ¡§protocol¡¨ acknowledging potentially dangerous conditions and then stuck in a smoke-choked room for 30 minutes. The result? A small change in blood chemistry comparable to what¡¦s seen after a meal. The amazing thing is there were no heart attacks just from the stress!

ƒæ There was no control. Even a high school science project would have included a sham model and ¡§protocol signing¡¨ while subjecting control subjects to a room filled with harmless but eye-stinging levels of skunk scent and fog. The control results would probably have been identical.

ƒæ Why wasn¡¦t such a control set up? Could it be simply that the results would have negated the point of the study and the Antismoking grant money would have dried up? Perhaps¡K I actually can¡¦t think of any other reason. Otsuka¡¦s study didn¡¦t show a physical reaction to smoke: it showed a physical reaction to fear and stress¡K conditions promoted more by Antismokers than by smoke.

Otsuka is at fault for deliberately avoiding reasonable controls to balance extreme experimental conditions. The media is at fault in not acknowledging those conditions or the likely reaction of extreme nonsmokers. And Smoking Prohibitionists are at fault for using this study to frighten people with the idea that simply being near smokers for short periods causes heart attacks. This study and its use is an example of fear-mongering in its most classic sense.

==========

Michael J. McFadden

Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

http://cantiloper.tripod.com

Cantiloper@aol.com

[Garnet Dawn]

Great post about the relative (NON)toxicology of cigarette smoke! Too bad we haven't yet been able to find a way to promote Lynda's study to a larger audience.

By the way, I noticed the contact/author given for "Illinois is Only Second State to Restore Local Control for Smokefree Workplace Laws" is Bronson Frick of the ANR. He is the fanatical anti who wrote an almost hysterical and unfounded attack against the Chicago Hyatt Regency after the 2005 National Conference on Tobacco and Health last May. Far be it from him to let the truth get in the way, if there is a chance for him to grandstand!

I wrote an angry rebuttal to his letter back then (and cc'd him). It still should be on Smokers Club, Inc. and Forces...even published a Soapbox Alert about it on Congress.org. Still, I didn't not have access to a widely known anti-tobacco news website as my private publisher. His letter was printed on Tobacco.org with no URL reference!

He raved their lobby was full of smoke, including violent accusations that they had endangered the health of the conference attendees. However, the Hyatt had made their lobby smoke free out of consideration for the conference. I was there. I saw it! There were "no smoking" signs everywhere in the lobby....just like the Sheraton, but the Sheraton had also made all their restaurants smoke free for three days. The Hyatt stated that they had continued to allow smoking in their off-the-lobby restaurants (wish I'd known that, at the time...sigh!)

So, we need to "consider the source" for the biased tone of his gloating piece of anti-tobacco propaganda!