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.
Thanks for the ping!
We rely on our woodstove for a major part of our heat, but we've never exprienced anything like you describe. I wonder if it has to do with continual use.
To me smoke is smoke, regardless of the source.............apparently there are MANY who disagree with me.
You and me both.
Unfortunately Gori was unable to come to Richmond for us as planned, a last minute conflict came up.
It's a common experience in Fairbanks. Might have to do with atmospheric conditions at this latitude. Usually nobody mentions it, but when when somebody does mention it others say yeah but they don't know either.
Having succeeded on that basis with Secondhand Smoke, the enviroweenies are trying to do the same thing today with Global Warming.
I didn't even think of that idea.
My comment regarding continual use was just a first reaction because I know that heating issues are far different in Alaska than in Virginia :)
Thanks for the ping!!!
And the Science (political type anyway) was settled on DDT 35 years ago when it was made taboo, and only 100 million people died as a result.
Wow. Never thought I'd see the day, LOL!
And guess what? One of the Moonbats on our County Board is calling for an increase on the beer tax, ala an increase on a pack of smokes. And that "tax" will fund programs to help drunks, EXACTLY as every increased penny of tax on smokes have gone for 'stop smoking' programs. *SMIRK*
It'll be interesting to see how far she gets in THIS state with that. Wisconsin MEANS Beer. They haven't raised taxes on a keg of beer since 1954 or something...but as the screwing over of Smokers has shown us, it's the wave of the future to increase any and all Sin Taxes that they can think of from the local level on up.
It's 'for the children,' don't you know? *SNORT*
Science no longer needs facts...the pols will tell you all you need to know!
You remind me of an intersting rhetorical somebody on here asked one time. Which would you rather be locked in a garage with for an hour: 100 smokers or 1 running automobile?
Might be the location of the house and/or woodstove. My cousin, who lives in the basement of my Aunts house, has a fireplace in the main "settin" area. I asked him why he doesn't use it. Well, my Aunt's house is built into the side of a hill and he said for some reason when the wind is right it blows the smoke right back down the chimney and fills the house up with smoke.
Well, they're making it sound like secondhand smoke is worse than firsthand. With GW they're making it sould like CO2 is a worse pollutant than CO.
My (pregnant) wife and I moved out of an apartment because the woman downstairs smoked. We may not have been affected medically by her smoking, but it was nearly unbearable when it would drift up through the vents and through the windows.
That said, I have no problem with people smoking as long as it doesn't directly affect the reasonable comfort of me or my loved ones.
The same is true of asbestos and DDT as it is with second hand smoke and gel in implants. Lefties and their brown shirt enforcers, the personal injury lawyers, deprive us of many useful products as well as restrict our freedom.
I used to like the cameras on airliners that showed the takeoffs and landings. Seeing what the pilot was seeing was much better IMO than watching ground or buildings whiz by. They were removed when some lawyers got extra millions for a crash by saying how horrible it must have been for the passengers to see what was going on.
Thanks a lot you wretched parasites!
And there are many here at FR that belong in that category because they support all this junk science nonsense.
Attorney's suffer more. ; )
Now I get the big picture.
Abort a child and save them from the torments of life's fruits.
No wonder there has been such a promotion of abortion in the recent past by "progressives".
It's for the children....
"Years later all studies proved that the Surgeon General had based his decision on phony science and that the original implants were safe."
I have it!!! We need to make phoney science illegal. Yeh, that's it. /sarc
Seriously, there has got to be a way of fighting this propaganda. Just the other night, I saw a PSA (public service announcement) claiming that we all, every single one of us, are responsible for global warming. And global warming is real and it will destroy our planet..SOON!!!
They are using our very own tax monies against us and it seems we cannot stop them.
Claire!!! Is it time yet?
And all this time I have been hearing that there is good smoke, bad smoke, and ugly smoke.
Your just not "picky" enough in your tastes Gabz. ; )
God gave us eye lid's and attorneys finished God's work for him.
They are disciples....
I guess I'm not.
"Yes, that yellow/brown tar and heavy metals clogging up your a/c filter is a figment of your imagination "
I was thinking that very thing as I walked past the baby's crib a blew some cigarette smoke into her little face. What could it hurt?
¿ astoundingly ¿
You'll never get out of it alive. May as well end it before you begin it! *SHIVER*
I've been taking care of a friend's 4 month old baby boy this past week. How anyone in their right mind cannot understand what the end result of a pregnancy is just amazes me to no end!
Thanks again, NOW Hags! Thanks again, "Planned Abortionhood!"
Right mind is the key focus.
In 1998 The World Health Organization toted up the results of a ten year multicountry study on second-hand smoke and cancer. For both the workplace and the home, it found that there was no statistical connection between the two. No evidence that secondhand smoke raises the risk of cancer. WHO published an initial summary then denied it, and has buried the report itself. This is not an urban legend. See the article at: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28274.html