Skip to comments.The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated
Posted on 11/26/2002 4:58:07 AM PST by SheLion
Too much is made of the 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. We're told these chemicals are so harmful that they are responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide. Untold in this "war on tobacco" is that each of the plants we consume consists of an equally daunting thousands of chemicals many of which are recognized poisons or suspected cancer-causing agents.
Cayenne peppers, carrots and strawberries each contain six suspected carcinogens; onions, grapefruit and tomato each contain five -- some the same as the seven suspected carcinogens found in tobacco.
High-heat cooking creates yet more dietary carcinogens from otherwise harmless chemical constituents.
Sure, these plant chemicals are measured in infinitesimal amounts. An independent study calculated 222,000 smoking cigarettes would be needed to reach unacceptable levels of benzo(a)pyrene. One million smoking cigarettes would be needed to produce unacceptable levels of toluene. To reach these estimated danger levels, the cigarettes must be smoked simultaneously and completely in a sealed 20-square-foot room with a nine-foot ceiling.
Many other chemicals in tobacco smoke can also be found in normal diets. Smoking 3,000 packages of cigarettes would supply the same amount of arsenic as a nutritious 200 gram serving of sole.
Half a bottle of now healthy wine can supply 32 times the amount of lead as one pack of cigarettes. The same amount of cadmium obtained from smoking eight packs of cigarettes can be enjoyed in half a pound of crab.
That's one problem with the anti-smoking crusade. The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated. So are the costs.
An in-depth analysis of 400,000 U.S. smoking-related deaths by National Institute of Health mathematician Rosalind Marimont and senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute Robert Levy identified a disturbing number of flaws in the methodology used to estimate these deaths. Incorrectly classifying some diseases as smoking-related and choosing the wrong standard of comparison each overstated deaths by more than 65 per cent.
Failure to control for confounding variables such as diet and exercise turned estimates more into a computerized shell game than reliable estimates of deaths.
Marimont and Levy also found no adjustments were made to the costs of smoking resulting from the benefits of smoking -- reduced Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, less obesity, depression and breast cancer.
If it were possible to estimate 45,000 smoking-related Canadian deaths as some health activists imagine -- and Marimont, Levy and other respected researchers think it is not -- then applying an identical methodology to other lifestyle choices would yield 57,000 Canadian deaths due to lack of exercise and 73,000 Canadian deaths blamed on poor diets.
If both the chemical constituents of tobacco smoke and the numbers of smoking-related deaths are overstated -- and clearly they are -- how can we trust the claim that tobacco smoke is harmful to non-smokers?
The 1993 bellwether study by the Environmental Protection Agency that selectively combined the results of a number of previous studies and found a small increase in lung cancer risk in those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke has been roundly criticized as severely flawed by fellow researchers and ultimately found invalid in a court of law.
In 1998, the World Health Organization reported a small, but not statistically significant, increase in the risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women married to smokers.
Despite these invalidating deficiencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and World Health Organization both concluded tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers.
One wonders whether the same conclusions would have been announced if scientific fraud were a criminal offence.
When confronted with the scientific uncertainty, the inconsistency of results and the incredible misrepresentation of present-day knowledge, those seeking to abolish tobacco invoke a radical interpretation of the Precautionary Principle: "Where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activity should not proceed."
This unreasonable exploitation of the ever-present risks of living infiltrates our schools to indoctrinate trusting and eager minds with the irrational fears of today. Instead of opening minds to the wondrous complexities of living, it opens the door to peer ridicule and intolerance while cultivating the trendy cynics of tomorrow.
If we continue down this dangerous path of control and prohibition based on an unreliable or remote chance of harm, how many personal freedoms will remain seven generations from now?
Eric Boyd of Waterloo has management experience across a wide range of sectors.
I'm glad I don't travel in your circles, what with the constant inconvenience of stepping over the bodies of the destroyed.
How does one come back from destruction, by the by? Or were you using hyperbole to make a point?
My mother died of lung cancer after almost 70 years of smoking
three to four packs per day. She started when she was in her teens.
My father (still alive) smoked the same amount [nearly] as long, plus
inhaled her "second hand smoke for their entire marriage (and until her
death). He suffers from no lung ailments.
People "are destroyed" from their own neglect; from inherited
deficiencies and weaknesses, or diseases. Banning smoking in a public
place to thwart a nuisance situation should be left to the proprietor
of the business, not the legislative body.
If 4000 chemicals are present in cigarette smoke, how many are present in the baseline air used? How many chemicals are present in the air while sitting at your computer?
I am no great fan of smoking. The only dog I have in this fight is the one that demands sound science. If I were a cigarette company, I would be suing these advocacy groups for false claims. What do they have to lose? They are already the villain in the first place.
This all started when Crest claimed "Three out of four dentists recommend Crest" back in the 60's. Well, three out of four lousy journalists who can kiss my A$$ would prefer I use Charmin(over using no toilet paper at all).
The problem with the majority of scientific studies (on smoking and any other currently PC taboo topic) is: the people conducting them start with their findings in mind prior to conducting their research. Once you know what you want to prove...the rest is easy!
Totally mind-boggling! My goodness. With talk like this, who needs the anti's! They have pulled the wool over more eyes then we thought.
And "they" told us that if we stop smoking, within two years, our lungs will be a pink and shiny. Yes, right!
My Grandmother smoked three packs of unfiltered Camels and lived to be 86 year's old. Died from old age.
I always ask: if smoking is SO dangerous, why is it still a legal commodity? But we all know the answer to that one. MONEY! It's no worse then alcohol! Except to the prissy noses that can't stand the smell!
Your so right. If a person is an avid couch potato, that alone will take him to an early grave. Then you add obesity, and a drinker, and we can even throw "a smoker" into this mix, and what do you have: a VERY unhealthy person.
We have sports professional's who smoke. It doesn't stop them! It's like anything else: if you exercise and eat right, being a smoker is not going to kill you.
I smoked for 10 years. I know what cigarettes can do. I love cigars and I love pipes. But a cigarette is a nasty little instrument used merely to deliver death and disease to its user.
Tobacco is not only dangerous in it basic form, but the delivery vector, setting it on fire and inhaling the fumes, is dangerous in its own right.
You certainly have the right to smoke and I fondly wish you well. Personally, I've spent too much time with my wife in oncology facilities in the last five years to willingly engage in any activity that increased my risk even slightly.
I'm going to assume you're too grown up to be offended or impressed by scare stories but unless you've been there, you wouldn't believe how bad it can be.
I often wonder this myself. But Big Tobacco fell to their knees in front of the Attorney Generals and now there isn't much Big T can do to defend themselves.
But the junk science put forth by the anti-smoking health groups is getting way out of hand, and the general public believes it.
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.