The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated

TheRecord.com ^ | 20 November 2002 | ERIC BOYD

[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.

[Publius6961]

I thought all those people in my family died as a result of smoking but thanks to SheLion I now know they died from eating too much sole. (I'm series!) ;9/

And I am so relieved to learn that you and the people in your family are the center of the universe, and the criterion around which public policy should be woven.

Forgive us for not realizing this is all about you.

[engrpat]

Thank you for posting. I hope that some will read and take to heart what you have said. It is hard, each day is hard and you stated the case so well.

[Bogey]

Where I disagree with you is not mentioning the rate of lung cancer in non smokers. There are plenty. Autopsies aren't even performed for lung cancer unless your a smoker.
My mother in laws would have never been even looked for if other complications hadn't arisen.
She was as furious as we were. This is shoddy medicine, and I'm sure there are thousands of undiagnoised lung cancer cases in non smokers.
Last but not least, lock yourself in your garage with your car started for about 60 minutes.
You honestly think auto emmissions play no effect on lungs.
As I said before, my mother in law was an avid runner with lung cancer. Her doctor said she's not the first runner he's seen it in. Where do you think they got it?
Sadly, more will die like her. Why? Because blaming lung cancer solely on cigarettes doesn't inconvience the masses into parking their cars.

[SheLion]

my Dad would still be here and that is what is maddening. That said, he chose to smoke and I have to live with that decision, or more to the point, live without him.

Are you talking about my Grandmother? Well, life killed her. And life kills everyone, no matter what we do or where we go. When our number is up, that's it.

She didn't smoke and she STILL died. Right?

[SheLion]

You can wash off the smell of smoke.

Not really. Your fingers still stink even after washing.

How would YOU know! And you know what? Your one of the most ignorant people in here! If smokers bother you so much, why do you even bother coming into our threads. Just to rile up us? Well, your just showing your a$$.

[SheLion]

Numbers aren't everything.

[SheLion]

Based on the recent press, don't expect this tobacco to continue to go taxed as low as it has been.

Haven't seen ANY press about bags of tobacco. Can you produce the URL please?

And by the time they get a 6 OUNCE bag of tobacco that cost $5.75 up to $50 dollars a bag, I will be dead. It's going to take that long. It will take a long time to get a 6 oz bag up THAT high.

Not only that, but our bags of tobacco are imported from overseas.

[Bogey]

My wife, who is a chemist, is damn tired of BS science being used by advocacy groups and an enabling media who asks for no relevant facts, data, or sources to the table, just scary claims, shocking accusations, and WAG'd numbers.

---

The New England Journal of Medicine said the same thing about 3 months ago. They felt even the reports they publish
were not verified nearly enough.
If the health cartels don't have at least 5 scare of the day
articles, they have no purpose anymore.

[SheLion]

I would advise you against participating in threads like this one - delusional people who spout nonsense like "The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated" are not interested in discourse...

Delusional? I beg your pardon!

My hubby reads your posts and he said "Thank God we aren't paying health care from HIM! We'd sure find another DOCTOR real quick!"

[tutstar]

bump

[Demidog]

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.

The WHO also claims to have erradicated small pox. Yet they are chasing around monkey pox (small pox) while pretending it isn't small pox. I should trust the WHO or the CDC why?

Certainly though, there is no excuse for taking away liberties based upon science, good or bad.

[Leisler]

When I was in the Army they sent me to a private climbing school in the Cascades. Anyways the instructors were all hippies, no money, climbing addicts. They only instructed to keep on climbing. Kind of like surf bums. Nice guys by the way. Anyways they all talked of the addiction of climbing. Of how they were hooked to greater and riskier climbs. While out there, there was a article in the paper of PARENTS who just had their second child die from climbing accidents. From my little experience I knew that climbing was a matter of time before the risks caught up to you. So, if I take my cues from you, and since there is no social need for climbing, and climbers are always needing medi-vacs at government expense, and even put others at risk, it should be outlawed. Right?

[Leisler]

"OK, so I'm practicing engineering without a license."

We have your post, your confession. If you turn yourself in, we won't have to have the "burning tear gas through the windows" problem. If you really beg, I think you could be out in 7 to 10 years. 12 tops. Think of your children.

[Leisler]

Hey, quit with the high school “this could happen to you” crap. You are posting to computer literate adults. Did you ever hear of “know your audience”? If you want to sell you can’t insult your targets intelligence. I know, I know, it makes YOU feel good, you really FEEL you have a live one, “this will make’m sit-up, bla, bla….”. Well, it doesn’t.

It’s not that I agree with you, I don’t. It’s just that you are so bad, it is depressing, pathetic, weak and stale.

Lastly, emphysema isn’t a disease, it is a condition and depending on how accurate you want to measure, every adult after the mid-twenties has it. Think of it as skin wrinkles of the lungs.

[SheLion]

It’s not that I agree with you, I don’t. It’s just that you are so bad, it is depressing, pathetic, weak and stale.

Thak you, Leisler!

It's so bad that I am afraid to tell him what I REALLY think without being banned from FR!

[Ditter]

I'll forgive you this one time, but don't let it happen again. ;9]

[Leisler]

It's like change your shirt, fer crying out loud. This is America, enough already. Say something new.

Oh well.

[Ditter]

I can't imagine what backwater you live in that lets people get sick & die without even knowing that they have lung cancer. I never said that smoking was the only thing that causes lung disease. My daughter-in-law's mother died of lung cancer & was a non smoker. The cancer spread from another area but she was listed as dying from lung cancer because that is what killed her.

[Ditter]

I could easily give you 10 from my family & another 10 from my husbands family but you would just call me a liar again. They did not all die from lung cancer, some throat cancer, emphysema, strokes & heart attacks aggravated by smoking. Smoking was the primary cause in most & secondary in the rest. All were of the WW2 generation. Uncle Charlie lived to be 90 chain smoking & Aunt Sarah lived almost that long smoking. The rest died 20+ years younger & had suffered terribly by the time they died. That is what I remember most clearly, the strokes & emphysama & how awful it was for them. But hey, it was their choice.

[Becki]

Homosexual life style shortens live much more than cigarette smoking

I am still waiting for the insurance commercial that says, " If you are under 50 and don't engange in unsafe sex...."

Becki