Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Assignment America: Smoke screens/One of the best articles I have read!
United Press International ^ | 22 August 2002 | John Bloom

Posted on 08/23/2002 5:39:18 PM PDT by SheLion

NEW YORK, Aug. 22 (UPI) -- If you were to be strapped down on a surgical table while four guys exhaled smoke directly into your mouth and nostrils for 30 years, you MIGHT get lung cancer 40 years after they stopped -- but it's not likely.

I'm using this absurd example, because ALL of the other examples in the available scientific literature are equally absurd.

The second-hand smoke scare is a political farce. It was invented in the mid-1990s by the Clinton administration -- it has Hillary's hands all over it -- because anti-smoking radicals, who tend to be like anti-abortion radicals in their zealous devotion to the cause, actually convinced the Environmental Protection Agency to change its "conventional standard for statistical significance" so that second-hand smoke could be proven to be a killer.

Normally nobody but specialists would care -- substandard scientific reports get released all the time -- except that it's now being used to justify anti-smoking legislation that, in the case of New York City, could result in smokers not even being able to light up in their own clubs, their own bars, and, in one case, their own apartment buildings -- even if the place is clearly marked as a smoking establishment.

If Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets his way, they won't even be able to smoke in smoking lounges, cigar bars or tobacco shops.

Wouldn't the American way be to put a big sign on the front of your restaurant? "People Smoke In Here -- Don't Come In If It Bugs You." And then let everyone act like grownups?

The simple fact of the matter is that by about 1990 everyone had reached a compromise on this issue. Smokers would sit in smoking sections.

Ventilation systems would be installed in public buildings. Everyone would live and let live.

Not good enough for the smoke-haters. They knew that arguing against a legal substance on the basis that it was hurting the people who LIKED IT was a losing battle, and un-American besides. But if they could somehow prove that innocent people were dying ...

And so they proved it with "junk science." The Bush administration recently rejected a scientific report, 30 years in the making, signed by some of the top researchers in the world that said fossil fuels were the principle cause of global warming in the form of air pollution. The reason Bush rejected the findings: it was "junk science" from "the bureaucracy."

If that was junk science, then the second-hand smoke research comes from a junkyard infested with giant rats and scavenging stray dogs. Most of the available studies have "confidence intervals" right around 1.0 -- which means no confidence at all. And almost all of them fail to take into account the other sources of air pollution. It's as though our polluted air were made up of 140 parts car exhaust, 70 parts smoke from fossil-fuel-burning factories, 40 parts methane, and .0000001 parts smoke from that guy on the corner sneaking a cigarette on his lunch hour. So what do we do?

KILL THE SMOKER. HE'S DESTROYING THE AIR.

The fact is, there have been 40 epidemiological studies of second-hand smoke, almost all of them based on the experience of non-smokers married to smokers. Thirty-two of them found no evidence of second-hand smoke causing any disease at all. The other eight showed "weak association" -- but in some of the studies there was actually a NEGATIVE result, indicating that non-smoking spouses of smokers are LESS likely to get a serious disease.

Of course, the ones that showed a negative result were thrown out as wacky, but the others are equally wacky. For one thing, they're all infected with what science calls "recall bias." People interviewed are asked to reconstruct smoking patterns over their entire lifetimes, and it's been shown time and again that their memories are faulty, and in many cases, designed to mislead. The non-smoker frequently turns out to be a smoker for a portion of those years; he changes his story for insurance reasons or because of pending litigation. And the non-smoker with lung cancer tends to seek external causes and fasten on the most convenient one, even when we know that a person living in an urban area is subject to multiple possible causes of lung cancer, most of them far more potent than cigarette smoke.

Complicating the issue is the media treatment of second-hand smoke. If you say something often enough, it acquires the patina of truth even if the original basis for it is phony. I could use dozens of examples, but I'll just use the most recent one that I know of. Here's the lead paragraph from a July 12 article in the Globe and Mail, the Canadian newspaper:

"People who are routinely exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke, such as workers in bars and restaurants, can see their risk of lung cancer triple, a new study says. The Canadian study provides some of the most compelling scientific evidence yet for a total ban on workplace smoking, including bars and restaurants."

Okay, now let's look at the study the article was based on. It was published in the International Journal of Cancer and signed by a lead researcher for Health Canada -- a government agency with a vested interest. (Public health agency research tends to be uniformly alarmist.) Even so, the Globe and Mail's report leaves out the most important conclusion in the study:

"Although more years of and more intense residential passive smoke exposure tended to be associated with higher risk estimates, no clear dose-response relationship was evident."

Any particular reason this would be left out? Other than that it's inconvenient? Of course, to report the data without any agency spin on it, you would need to study the tables, evaluate the "confidence intervals," allow for "recall bias," and do all the other things scientists normally do, and journalists SHOULD do.

Apparently Australian journalists are a little more diligent. When the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council released a second-hand smoke report in 1997, the authors decided to omit the statistical tables entirely because they feared the press might study them.

An outraged judge eventually censured the government agency for what he called lying by omission -- the same thing that happened in a North Carolina court case, when a judge said the Environmental Protection Agency's report was rife with "cherry picking" of statistics, and had excluded half the available studies for no good reason. Later the Congressional Research Service issued a blistering report of its own, essentially calling the EPA study irresponsible and alarmist.

The reason the issue of second-hand smoke is such a raging issue right now is that it's being used as the rationale for additional anti-smoking laws. Waiters, bartenders and cooks need to be protected. This is what Bloomberg is basing his whole campaign on.

People might not LIKE smoke. They might find it unpleasant. But it's a huge jump to say it's actually harming their bodies, as though they were coal miners, soon to be diagnosed with Black Lung Disease. In fact, we have two studies that measured Environmental Tobacco Smoke -- the scientific name for it -- and came to the conclusion that, first of all, the smoke inhaled from the air is chemically and physically different from the smoke inhaled from the end of the cigarette, and, secondly, people who work eight hours a day in heavy-smoking environments had the following CE's (Cigarette Equivalents):

Sydney: 0.2

Prague: 1.4

Barcelona: 4.3

That's cigarettes PER YEAR. The worst case they could find had the bartender adding to his cancer risk at the rate of 4.3 cigarettes per year, which is, of course, like saying somebody who eats six Lifesavers is a candidate for heart disease.

Even more to the point, scientists computed what would happen if a 20-by-20-foot room with a 9-foot ceiling were filled with smoke, and then compared that exposure to the EPA's lowest published "danger" doses. Here are the results:

For the lowest level of danger for benzopyrene, you would need to have 222,000 cigarettes burning in the room. For the lowest level of acetone, you would need to burn 118,000 cigarettes. For the lowest level of hydrazine, you would need 14,000 cigarettes. And for toluene, you would need a cool million smokes, all burning at the same time. Unless, of course, you opened the door or window -- then you would need more.

John C. Bailar, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine recently, said that, if you sum up all the available evidence, the MOST alarming case you can make for second-hand smoke being related to disease is "We don't know." (He was primarily writing about heart disease, but the conclusions on lung cancer are similar.)

Bailar was being polite. We know. Get a ventilation fan. Put up a sign. Go to separate rooms. But let's not start a whole new era of Prohibition in which people have to open speakeasies and private clubs just to enjoy a meal or a drink. We can't all afford to go to Paris to smoke.

--

(John Bloom, a smoker, writes a number of columns for UPI and may be contacted at joebob@upi.com or through his Web site at joebobbriggs.com. Snail mail: P.O. Box 2002, Dallas, Texas 75221.)


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: antismokers; butts; cigarettes; individualliberty; michaeldobbs; niconazis; prohibitionists; pufflist; smokingbans; taxes; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-368 next last
To: pittsburgh gop guy
Not only obtuse:

It does nothing to you if I eat all of the things you describe. UNLIKE second hand smoke, which you create and those around you inhale.

But narcissistic, to boot:

Oh - 10 mile run went well. Negative split on a 5 mile course. Averaged 7:40 a mile. Guess all that non-smoking is really hurting me.

People with attitudes like yours make me want to grease my hair up and stick lit cigarettes in it, BlackBeard-style, to ensure you never wander into hearing distance.

341 posted on 08/25/2002 6:43:32 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Jaidyn
And while some people believe that fast-food restaurants are to blame -- last week a New York lawyer filed a class action suit against four fast-food companies claiming his clients didn't know their fast food contains a lot of fat -- lawmakers are trying to legislate the country out of its epidemic-sized problem.

Lawmakers Consider Bill to Curb Obesity

The war on fat has already started........

342 posted on 08/25/2002 6:46:42 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
People with attitudes like yours make me want to grease my hair up and stick lit cigarettes in it, BlackBeard-style, to ensure you never wander into hearing distance.

OH my God! LOL! That is really funny. I can just picture that, Madame Dufarge. hehe!

343 posted on 08/25/2002 6:48:25 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Welcome back, Joe!
344 posted on 08/25/2002 6:50:54 PM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
"People with attitudes like yours make me want to grease my hair up and stick lit cigarettes in it, BlackBeard-style, to ensure you never wander into hearing distance."

That sounds real attractive, just like smoking.

And yet another reason for me to dislike smokers:
As I finished my bike ride today I pulled into the parking lot and coasted around it to my car. At the far end there was a SUV that was stopped but its engine was running. I guess the driver thought no one was around, or maybe just figured it was his right as a smoker, but as I came around the back I noticed that the driver's window came down just a crack and a lit cigarette was dropped out of it. What the hell I thought - as the guy pulled away. I went over to it - it was about half a cig - still lit! This is about 10 feet from the end of the parking lot - where there are woods. I smashed it with my foot and made sure it was out, and then rode back to my car about 75 feet away - and counted all of the other cigarette butts on the ground: 37! Who the hell do smokers think they are that they can use the world as their ashtray?

345 posted on 08/25/2002 7:14:13 PM PDT by pittsburgh gop guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
"...how many fatal jobs can one guy have?"

A "job" is firefighter jargon for a fire or a call. I thought the term had entered wide usage this past year from the many FDNY interviews post 9/11. Guess I was wrong.
346 posted on 08/25/2002 7:20:40 PM PDT by pittsburgh gop guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
I can't be around raw shrimp for health reasons, does that mean I should be allowed to dictate that NO place be able to have raw shrimp on their premises?

Does the shrimp crawl over and invade your space like smoke does? Probably not.

Just because your parents waded in the shallow end of the gene pool - why should the rest of us have to swim in it?????

Gratuitous insults don't do much to support your postion.

347 posted on 08/25/2002 7:46:54 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX
It's all they have. Get ready to be called all sorts of names.
348 posted on 08/25/2002 7:54:55 PM PDT by pittsburgh gop guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy; Pining_4_TX
When have called you a name?
When can you find that I have EVER called anyone a name that I have not been MAJORLY provoked?

I have been reasoned and calm and practically NO ONE has answered a post that I have put on this thread.
Are you just coming on this thread to get into a flame war or do you actually want reasoned deliberate discourse?

349 posted on 08/25/2002 8:10:26 PM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Thanks, She.
Didn't go well. My Grandpa pass on this morning.
I'll be gone from Tuesday night to Thursday night for the funeral.
350 posted on 08/25/2002 8:11:52 PM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX
Gratuitous insults don't do much to support your postion.

Tell that to Dawgs of War and pittsburgh gop guy. They've been throwing as well as catching.

351 posted on 08/25/2002 8:18:06 PM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Sorry about the mistypings folks. It's been a rough couple of days.
352 posted on 08/25/2002 8:22:35 PM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
Well, now see? You've just blown whatever credibility you might have had by stating this piece of tripe as if it were true. The "nonsmoking majority" doesn't give a flip if people smoke, and the anti-smokers are not the majority. They're just loud and unpleasant so they seem to be more numerous than they are.

Then you shouldn't mind if we put this issue on the ballet just to see how it goes.

353 posted on 08/25/2002 9:21:43 PM PDT by Lester Moore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
You genes are not fit to pass on anyway, evidently.

I'm a very sensitive, caring person and you have hurt my feelings.

354 posted on 08/25/2002 9:25:23 PM PDT by Lester Moore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Dang, Joe, sure am sorry to hear about your grampa. Blessings.
355 posted on 08/25/2002 10:13:22 PM PDT by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Lester Moore
Then you shouldn't mind if we put this issue on the ballet just to see how it goes.

Wouldn't mind at all if there was a "level playing field." IOW, Big Anti-Tobacco not allowed to lobby for your side with shoddy science, scare mongering and propaganda.

356 posted on 08/25/2002 10:16:45 PM PDT by Max McGarrity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Bump to read later ...
357 posted on 08/25/2002 10:21:56 PM PDT by Bill Rice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
Double header, huh? An SUV and a smoker!

How you must have suffered.

358 posted on 08/26/2002 2:28:03 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
A fine article (dare I say "A breath of fresh air"? :))...and I don't smoke.
359 posted on 08/26/2002 2:43:41 AM PDT by jejones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
Thanks, Max. I appreciate the sentiment.
360 posted on 08/26/2002 3:33:43 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-368 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson