Skip to comments.The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke
Posted on 01/30/2007 11:38:44 AM PST by 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...
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Incredible honesty in WaPo ping!
Bump for later reading.
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.
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...
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.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
Are prisoners in the U.S. allowed to smoke inside ? ...
Nanny State Ping..........
Gori nails it, and I'm amazed the Compost printed it.
Many members of this forum ae totally on board with the government intrusion you mention.
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.
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.
What are they gonna do jail 'em?
I am astounded that the Post printed it.
Like they do with everything else you OWN.. like your vehicles and houses..
Thanks for the heads up.
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.