Secondhand Smoke Study Results Compiled: Surgeon General's Report

Leaving aside the debate over laws and rights, it scientifically clear that secondhand-smoke is a health hazard to non-smokers. When last I posted excerpts from the CDC and from the prior Surgeon General's Report of 1986, it was perhaps 6 years ago on the 2+2 forum. Now there is a new Surgeon General's Report. I may be ordering it from the source. However, the AP article summarizes a few things.

The new Surgeon General's Report compiles the best prior research on the effects of secondhand smoke.

A few excerpts from the AP article:

"Some 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke, what U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona repeatedly calls ``involuntary smoking'' that puts people at increased risk of death from lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

Moreover, there is no risk-free level of exposure to someone else's drifting smoke, declares the report issued Tuesday..."

"...Just over one in five children is exposed to secondhand smoke at home, where workplace bans don't reach. Those children are at increased risk of SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome; lung infections such as pneumonia; ear infections; and more severe asthma. "

"The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke, the most comprehensive federal probe since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers."

"``There is no longer a scientific controversy that secondhand smoke is a killer,...''"

"Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease. Don't ever smoke around a sick relative, Carmona advised."

"Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent. "

The debate over laws and rights related to this issue is far from over. Such debate does not belong on this forum anyway, and would be better suited to the Politics Forum, for those so minded.

The scientific debate regarding the physiological effects of secondhand smoke however should be considered over. The verdict is in, and secondhand smoke is a killer.
AP (http://channels.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1500&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20060627%2F1104348164.htm&sc=1500)

[Phil153]

It's not really a surprise. Smoke is full of carcinogens and mutagens, and there's no safe level for those. Great to see yet another authoritative report on the issue.

Here's another link from a year ago with similar conclusions:

http://www.in.gov/itpc/NewsDetail.asp?NewsID=52
[ QUOTE ]
Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, including more than 43 known carcinogens and hundreds of toxic chemicals, and it is a known cause of lung cancer, heart disease, bronchitis and asthma.(2) It is estimated that 53,000 non-smokers die in the U.S. each year as a result of breathing secondhand smoke.(3)

“It’s been known for some time now that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, and this report gives additional endorsement to the effectiveness of smoke-free workplace ordinances in protecting patrons and workers,”

[/ QUOTE ]

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
"Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent."

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is the core here. Nobody denies this. Whether a .3 increase at the high end merits calling second-hand smoke a "killer" or curtailing civil rights in response is the issue. Even if everyone were exposed, a 30% increase isn't that much. It means if 10 people would have died from lung cancer, now 13 people would have died.

This statistic is presented in a deceptive way, such that it seems to imply to a casual layman that 30% of people exposed to secondhand smoke will die. That's very far from the truth. Tell me this - how many years of life does constant exposure to secondhand smoke remove? And what does the increase in risk based on exposure look like? Is it arithmetic or geometric? Based on what I know about tobacco, it's probably geometric. Meaning if I get half as much secondhand smoke as the "up to 30%" person, I might increase my risk by only 10% rather than 15%.

Any way you punch it, this isn't as big a crisis as some are making it out to be.

[vhawk01]

Right, there is a reason they say 'increases risk up to 30%' and not 'increases risk from 5% to 6.5%.'

Disclaimer: I don't actually know what the average non-smokers risk of developing heart disease is and obviously there is no accurate number.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent."

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is the core here. Nobody denies this. Whether a .3 increase at the high end merits calling second-hand smoke a "killer" or curtailing civil rights in response is the issue. Even if everyone were exposed, a 30% increase isn't that much. It means if 10 people would have died from lung cancer, now 13 people would have died.

This statistic is presented in a deceptive way, such that it seems to imply to a casual layman that 30% of people exposed to secondhand smoke will die. That's very far from the truth. Tell me this - how many years of life does constant exposure to secondhand smoke remove? And what does the increase in risk based on exposure look like? Is it arithmetic or geometric? Based on what I know about tobacco, it's probably geometric. Meaning if I get half as much secondhand smoke as the "up to 30%" person, I might increase my risk by only 10% rather than 15%.

Any way you punch it, this isn't as big a crisis as some are making it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the above is presented in a deceptive manner in the least. If someone can't understand the import of those figures, that's his own deficiency.

The statistic as presented above does not imply, even to the casual layman, that 30% of the people exposed to secondhand smoke will die. Anyone who can comprehend what they read ought to know that that is not the case.

It might appear that way to the reading-comprehension-challenged, but that is a bit different than appearing that way "to the layman."

By the way, one reason I posted the AP article about the Report of the Surgeon General, is because some people do indeed deny that second-hand smoke is harmful to others. Some others think the issue might be uncertain. I just thought it was appropriate to establish that that issue is not undecided, from the scientific/medical standpoint.

There was a thread some months ago wherein a fairly new poster claimed that the jury was still out on second-hand smoke, or something to that effect. He posted some linked references to support his views. As I had addressed the issue many years ago on 2+2, I did not take the time to get involved in that much more recent thread at the time.

That poster was wrong. Perhaps 5 or 6 years ago, (or more?), I cited excerpts of the harm proved from secondhand smoke, from the Report of the Surgeon General, and perhaps from a study done by the CDC as well. Now the new Surgeon General's Report further buttresses this position, and flays any speculation to the contrary. It is a rigorous compilation and summation of the most important research studies done on the matter. It is probably fairly lengthy, with plenty of footnotes or references, as I recall the older Report being. Also, if I recall, it is extensively peer-reviewed with very careful procedures in place to help assure integrity, accuracy and lack of bias. The emphasis of the body of the Surgeon General's Report of 1986, as I recall, was the summation and interpretation of studies, as well as recommendations for action or proactive activity--it was not detailing everything about the individual studies themselves, though references were provided.

There also do exist negative physiological efffects caused by second-hand smoke that are far less dire than cancer or heart disease. These may or may not be mentioned in the new Report; I don't know yet. I just wanted to make it very clear that anyone claiming that secondhand smoke has not been proven to be harmful to others, is wrong.

Whether the degree of risk and harm to others merits laws restricting smoking is a tangential question probably better suited to discussion in a political venue.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent."

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is the core here. Nobody denies this. Whether a .3 increase at the high end merits calling second-hand smoke a "killer" or curtailing civil rights in response is the issue. Even if everyone were exposed, a 30% increase isn't that much. It means if 10 people would have died from lung cancer, now 13 people would have died.

This statistic is presented in a deceptive way, such that it seems to imply to a casual layman that 30% of people exposed to secondhand smoke will die. That's very far from the truth. Tell me this - how many years of life does constant exposure to secondhand smoke remove? And what does the increase in risk based on exposure look like? Is it arithmetic or geometric? Based on what I know about tobacco, it's probably geometric. Meaning if I get half as much secondhand smoke as the "up to 30%" person, I might increase my risk by only 10% rather than 15%.

Any way you punch it, this isn't as big a crisis as some are making it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's important to distinguish between different aspects in terms of civil rights (there has to be a better way to phrase that). If, as has been the trend recently, private businesses are being forced to ban smoking, I think that is far worse (even as a nonsmoker) than something addressing parents smoking around children, or smoking in public areas.

Also, I disagree that 30% isn't substantial. Of course it's going to get played up by those in favor (and downplayed by those opposed) of eliminating cigarettes, but 30% is pretty significant to me.

[vhawk01]

You cant say '30% is significant to me' without some context to what 30% is referring to. The study cites that there is 'up to a 30% increase in the risk.' Well, what does 'up to' mean? Anywhere from 0-30%?

To the person who said this was not written in a deceptive manner: Do you figure that a layperson has any idea what the average non-smoker's risk of developing lung cancer or heart disease is? I don't even really know offhand, and I'm a med student. So, if you don't know what the baseline risk is, how can you possibly have any concept of what 'up to a 30% increase' can mean? If there is a 50/50 chance of you developing these conditions, a 30% increase is pretty substantial. If your risk is 5%, that 30% increase would be completely ignored by most people. I don't see how you can say this is not described in a misleading way.

[ QUOTE ]
You cant say '30% is significant to me' without some context to what 30% is referring to. The study cites that there is 'up to a 30% increase in the risk.' Well, what does 'up to' mean? Anywhere from 0-30%?

To the person who said this was not written in a deceptive manner: Do you figure that a layperson has any idea what the average non-smoker's risk of developing lung cancer or heart disease is? I don't even really know offhand, and I'm a med student. So, if you don't know what the baseline risk is, how can you possibly have any concept of what 'up to a 30% increase' can mean? If there is a 50/50 chance of you developing these conditions, a 30% increase is pretty substantial. If your risk is 5%, that 30% increase would be completely ignored by most people. I don't see how you can say this is not described in a misleading way.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's plain English and I don't see what is misleading about that. Also, the Report itself likely contains elaboration and further explanation; the brief cited quotes were from the AP article about the Report of the Surgeon General, which article of course provides far less information than the Report itself. The Report itself may well make clear what is meant by "up to 30%" as well as a host of surrounding matters with regard to the phrase you are taking issue with. That phrase was not even in quotes in the AP article, by the way (edited: it was listed under "findings" in the AP article. Those quotes were my own to show it was another excerpt in the series of excerpts I chose from the AP article; sorry if this created any confusion; anyway it's a minor matter either way, quotes or no quotes. The main things is that the Report itself is probably a lot more explanatory than a brief AP article about the report).

For what it's worth, I found the 1986 Report of the Surgeon General to be clear and very readable. I would be surprised if the 2006 Report were to be vague or misleading.

[vhawk01]

Probably so. As a matter of fact, since the Surgeon General's Report is an actual scientific paper, I am almost positive that all results are presented in a very clear and understandable manner. There is probably also a lot of jargon that would be confusing, but that isn't my beef here at all. It is the AP report that is misleading...at least as highlighted in the OP. And again, most people aren't going to read the SG Report.

Do I feel pretty confident, as a scientist, that second-hand smoke is a health concern, and in fact a fairly significant contributor to lung cancer and heart disease in non-smokers? Sure. Does the AP article present the evidence in a way that dramatizes the effects and misleads its audience? In my opinion, it does.

[ QUOTE ]
Probably so. As a matter of fact, since the Surgeon General's Report is an actual scientific paper, I am almost positive that all results are presented in a very clear and understandable manner. There is probably also a lot of jargon that would be confusing, but that isn't my beef here at all. It is the AP report that is misleading...at least as highlighted in the OP. And again, most people aren't going to read the SG Report.

Do I feel pretty confident, as a scientist, that second-hand smoke is a health concern, and in fact a fairly significant contributor to lung cancer and heart disease in non-smokers? Sure. Does the AP article present the evidence in a way that dramatizes the effects and misleads its audience? In my opinion, it does.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that is fine. The AP article might present things too dramatically or unclearly or perhaps even a bit misleadingly; that is hard to say, as we haven't read the new Report yet for comparison.

I was responding as if you were taking issue with the wording of Report itself; sorry for misjudging your intent. It was not my intention to discuss the merits of the AP article (although that is not out of bounds of course) but rather to provide notice that the new Report of the Surgeon General is out, and to emphasize that there is a clear conclusion provided by the research it has compiled, analyzed, and summarized. As I mentioned before, the Report also does offer suggestions and recommendations.

[vhawk01]

And I wasn't attacking your position, either. I didn't mind your OP too much, I was just siding with whoever brought up that some of the quotes from the AP article were definitely worded in a way as to be as dramatic as possible. This isn't exactly rare in mainstream scientific news. But thanks for the OP, I will now look forward to reading the actual SG report.

[PokerAmateur4]

Didn't read the post, but there was a Penn & Teller show titled "Bul$sh#!t", in which they came to the conclusion that second hand smoke killing was in fact, just that. Part of it concerned deceptive statistics from some government association in which there was not a significant sample size.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't read the post, but there was a Penn & Teller show titled "Bul$sh#!t", in which they came to the conclusion that second hand smoke killing was in fact, just that. Part of it concerned deceptive statistics from some government association in which there was not a significant sample size.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw that episode. I used to be a big fan of Bulls$#t!, but the research that goes into their episodes really leaves something to be desired.

Common [censored] sense should tell you that second hand smoke in a bar or restaurant here and there isn't going to do anything, though.

[guesswest]

Knowing what cigarettes contain it'd be in keeping with expectation to think that second-hand smoke would be dangerous. I think the reason people say the jury is still out etc, is an inherent mistrust of these government studies based on all the misinformation and deception the government was spewing around the time of the CA smoking ban, based on one terribly designed and poorly interpreted study. If you remember the claim that second hand smokers are more likely to die from smoke exposure than smokers? Which doesn't even make sense, since obviously all smokers are second-hand smokers too. That law, at the time, was just about the fact that people didn't want to be in smoky bars etc - which is fine, but they should have just said that's what it was instead of manufacturing a scientific basis. Now nobody trusts these studies.

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing what cigarettes contain it'd be in keeping with expectation to think that second-hand smoke would be dangerous. I think the reason people say the jury is still out etc, is an inherent mistrust of these government studies based on all the misinformation and deception the government was spewing around the time of the CA smoking ban, based on one terribly designed and poorly interpreted study. If you remember the claim that second hand smokers are more likely to die from smoke exposure than smokers? Which doesn't even make sense, since obviously all smokers are second-hand smokers too. That law, at the time, was just about the fact that people didn't want to be in smoky bars etc - which is fine, but they should have just said that's what it was instead of manufacturing a scientific basis. Now nobody trusts these studies.

[/ QUOTE ]

A compilation of many important research studies, which is the basis of the Report of the Surgeon General on this matter, is far more valuable than merely one or two individual research studies which are questionable.

One can't rightly dismiss all research studies on the basis of one (or a few) bad research study.

One can't rightly dismiss the Report of the Surgeon General, which is based on a rigorous compilation of the results of many research studies, merely because there were isolated bad study(ies) done somewhere, sometime, by some branch of government.

If I recall, the prior (1986) Report of the Surgeon General on the Effects of Secondhand Smoke was based on many studies and reviewed extensively prior to publication, and not all the compiled studies were government studies nor were all the reviewers government employees. Heck, if I recall correctly, there was even a panel of doctors from outside the USA enlisted in the peer review process in an effort to reduce potential effects of bias.

Some people think the jury is still out because they haven't read the actual 1986 Report, and speak from ignorance; there are not good analytical reasons to mistrust the findings of this compilation of results of multiple quality research studies.

Now that the new Report is out, I hope it gets widely publicized and accurately cited. I would think that any open-minded and intelligent skeptic, after thoroughly reading the full Report, would very likely be convinced that there is no doubt that secondhand smoke does indeed harm others.

[guesswest]

Certainly, I wasn't arguing otherwise. But setting aside the fact that most people don't have the time or the inclination to read the actual science - a large percentage of the population wouldn't understand it anyway. And the consequence of government lying and/or 'sexing up' science is that people will be naturally skeptical of future pronouncements. Not a big problem for those with the knowledge and interest to pursue these studies themselves, but that's a minority, and if the remaining majority remain unconvinced that's only natural, and I can't blame them.

[madnak]

I'm criticizing the article you linked. The AP is full of [censored], as usual. This is actually a pattern with them (and others, but they are probably the most influential as many news outlets pretty much copy-paste from them). They'll take a study with some highly objective findings, or even a study that describes itself as inconclusive, and start talking about "proof" of (insert agenda here). There was a period of time where I actually dug up the abstracts on studies referenced in the news (even the studies themselves when they were easy to find), and in almost every case I was shocked at the difference between the conclusions of the study itself and the conclusions proposed in the articles.

However, the direct quotes in the article indicate the Surgeon General's Report is hardly beyond reproach. If quotes such as, "Nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces," "There is no longer a scientific controversy that secondhand smoke is a killer," and "[the report] eliminates any excuse from any state or city for taking halfway measures to restrict smoking, or permitting smoking in any indoor workplace" aren't taken out of context, then there's a very real problem here. Political statements have no place in scientific literature. If Carmona wanted to make a recommendation regarding political matters, that's fine, but this report wasn't the place to do it. And the language is way overblown: I guess I wasn't informed when "killer" became a medical term...

[ QUOTE ]
I'm criticizing the article you linked. The AP is full of [censored], as usual. This is actually a pattern with them (and others, but they are probably the most influential as many news outlets pretty much copy-paste from them). They'll take a study with some highly objective findings, or even a study that describes itself as inconclusive, and start talking about "proof" of (insert agenda here). There was a period of time where I actually dug up the abstracts on studies referenced in the news (even the studies themselves when they were easy to find), and in almost every case I was shocked at the difference between the conclusions of the study itself and the conclusions proposed in the articles.

However, the direct quotes in the article indicate the Surgeon General's Report is hardly beyond reproach. If quotes such as, "Nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces," "There is no longer a scientific controversy that secondhand smoke is a killer," and "[the report] eliminates any excuse from any state or city for taking halfway measures to restrict smoking, or permitting smoking in any indoor workplace" aren't taken out of context, then there's a very real problem here. Political statements have no place in scientific literature. If Carmona wanted to make a recommendation regarding political matters, that's fine, but this report wasn't the place to do it. And the language is way overblown: I guess I wasn't informed when "killer" became a medical term...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Report of the Surgeon General on the Effects of Secondhand Smoke (1986) does two things: presents compiled analysis of studies in summary form, or findings; and offers recommendations. The duties of the Surgeon General of the United States include both analysis, and coming up with specific recommendations which also includes policy recommendations, in the interests of the public health. That's why both are included in the Report. I would guess the new Report is similarly structured.

[madnak]

I didn't realize that. Regardless, I don't appreciate the political rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize that. Regardless, I don't appreciate the political rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I have mixed feelings about the political points.

[Prelude008]

I feel smoke is bad, 2nd hand is bad, and noone should have to breathe it.

Yea, but the three people you mention didn't choose to smoke but had to breathe all of the crap from someone else. I don't like smoke and I don't want to breathe it. I am glad I live in California where it is banned and I hope that this trend continues. People who choose to smoke and put all that crap into their lungs shouldn't also try to make others (2nd hand smoke breathers) breath it in too.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether a .3 increase at the high end merits calling second-hand smoke a "killer" or curtailing civil rights in response is the issue. Even if everyone were exposed, a 30% increase isn't that much. It means if 10 people would have died from lung cancer, now 13 people would have died.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that only about 3 people total are going to die from secondhand smoke, or 3 people per year?

A better estimate is that "3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke." (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS) (See: National Cancer Institute. Cancer Progress Report 2003. Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004.)

Although the phrase "30% increase" could be used in a misleading fashion, it was not misleading here. 3000 extra deaths from lung cancer is significant, as are the deaths and nonlethal disorders from secondhand smoke through other cancers, heart disease, etc. Your suggestion that this statistic is being used in a misleading fashion is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]

Any way you punch it, this isn't as big a crisis as some are making it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you say that? Wishful thinking? Willful ignorance? Or was that an intentionally misleading use of the word "some?"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether a .3 increase at the high end merits calling second-hand smoke a "killer" or curtailing civil rights in response is the issue. Even if everyone were exposed, a 30% increase isn't that much. It means if 10 people would have died from lung cancer, now 13 people would have died.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that only about 3 people total are going to die from secondhand smoke, or 3 people per year?

A better estimate is that "3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke." (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS) (See: National Cancer Institute. Cancer Progress Report 2003. Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004.)

Although the phrase "30% increase" could be used in a misleading fashion, it was not misleading here. 3000 extra deaths from lung cancer is significant, as are the deaths and nonlethal disorders from secondhand smoke through other cancers, heart disease, etc. Your suggestion that this statistic is being used in a misleading fashion is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]

Any way you punch it, this isn't as big a crisis as some are making it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes you say that? Wishful thinking? Willful ignorance? Or was that an intentionally misleading use of the word "some?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats an interesting statistic in itself. 3,000 seems like a big number. What is the number of lung cancer deaths, total, from non-smokers? I'd be curious to see how many non-smokers die from lung cancer total. I would also be curious to see how they determined that these people died specifically from lung cancer from second hand smoke. How do they determine this?

Edit: JESUS! Nevermind, I just went through your cited article trying to find the source of the "3,000 deaths per year" stat. Good freaking luck. The source it cites took it from the California ETS study from 1999. But that study didn't figure it either, but took it from an EPA report from 1992. This document is about a billion pages long, but here is an excerpt directly pertaining to this statistic.

Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year am ong nonsmokers (never-smokers and former smokers) of both sexes are esti mated to be attributable to ETS in the United Stat es. While there are statistical and modeling uncer tainties in this estimate, and the true number may be higher or lower, the assumptions used in this analysis would tend to underestimate the actual po pulation risk. The overall confidence in this esti mate is medium to high.

One of the main issues in the section of the report dealing with methodology is that they did not very clearly differentiate never-smokers from non-smokers. In other words, people who used to but no longer smoke.

Ok, sorry, this was awfully nitty. But the point is that people throw these statistics around all the time. That 3k/yr statistic is almost 15 years old. In fact since the 1992 report is a review and not original research, most of the studies it takes from are MORE than 15 years old. But that is still the exact statistic that is quoted in all of these papers, from 1992 up until present day. And we don't really know how close that can possibly be today. And we also don't have a good idea of what 3,000 deaths actually means. Lots of people die every year. Again, I do think second-hand smoke is dangerous. In fact, I think its almost as bad as smoking itself, which I think is about the most destructive thing you can do. But I do not like the way that people assert things in a deceptive manner. What this leads to is a population of laypeople conditioned to automatically distrust and disbelieve any type of scientific result.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that only about 3 people total are going to die from secondhand smoke, or 3 people per year?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. Not even close, actually. I'm suggesting that if everyone lived with constant secondhand smoke, according to the study, only 3 additional people would die from lung cancer for every 10 people who would have died otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
A better estimate is that "3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that this statistic is accurate. But if it is it's out of 2.5 million Americans who die every year. 3,000 out of 2.5 million, that's pretty small if you ask me.

For comparison:

About 30,000 people die from suicide every year in the US. About 40,000 die in transport accidents. God only knows how many die from air pollution (since we're using the "indirect" measure here). By what standard are you calling 3,000 deaths per year a major crisis?

[url="http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm"]Odds of Dying (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS)

I'll avoid getting too political given the forum, but I think it's absurd to suggest that this is the best place for our resources. And that's just a practical issue, it's to say nothing of curtailing liberties, manipulating the media, state moralizing, and all the other ethical issues.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
3,000 out of 2.5 million, that's pretty small if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]
That strongly suggests we should not ask you to make decisions on public policy.

[ QUOTE ]

By what standard are you calling 3,000 deaths per year a major crisis?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't call it a major crisis, but to me, an extra 3000 premature deaths per year is obviously a cause for serious concern, particularly when it is just one of many effects.

The average number of American deaths due to enemy action in Vietnam was about 5,000 per year from 1964 to 1973. Do you think this was unimportant, since you claim 3,000 deaths per year is unimportant in comparison with your ability to impose secondhand smoke on others?

The number of extra lung cancer deaths from secondhand smoke is comparable to the number of extra deaths from unsafe SUVs. It is far greater than the average number of deaths from plane crashes or asbestos-related lung cancer.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's absurd to suggest that this is the best place for our resources.

[/ QUOTE ]
The number of extra deaths from secondhand smoke is between the number of deaths from cystic fibrosis and Lou Gehrig's disease. It is far easier to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke than either of these diseases. If you think it isn't worth worrying about secondhand smoke, do you recommend that we stop studying cystic fibrosis and ALS? Actually, I don't care what your answer is, as you have thoroughly impeached your judgement.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3,000 out of 2.5 million, that's pretty small if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]
That strongly suggests we should not ask you to make decisions on public policy.

[ QUOTE ]

By what standard are you calling 3,000 deaths per year a major crisis?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't call it a major crisis, but to me, an extra 3000 premature deaths per year is obviously a cause for serious concern, particularly when it is just one of many effects.

The average number of American deaths due to enemy action in Vietnam was about 5,000 per year from 1964 to 1973. Do you think this was unimportant, since you claim 3,000 deaths per year is unimportant in comparison with your ability to impose secondhand smoke on others?

The number of extra lung cancer deaths from secondhand smoke is comparable to the number of extra deaths from unsafe SUVs. It is far greater than the average number of deaths from plane crashes or asbestos-related lung cancer.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's absurd to suggest that this is the best place for our resources.

[/ QUOTE ]
The number of extra deaths from secondhand smoke is between the number of deaths from cystic fibrosis and Lou Gehrig's disease. It is far easier to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke than either of these diseases. If you think it isn't worth worrying about secondhand smoke, do you recommend that we stop studying cystic fibrosis and ALS? Actually, I don't care what your answer is, as you have thoroughly impeached your judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like for you to address my skepticism of this 3k/yr number that you seem to like to keep bringing up and wielding like a weapon.

[junglewarfare]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if everyone were exposed, a 30% increase isn't that much. It means if 10 people would have died from lung cancer, now 13 people would have died.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just an absolutely insane statement.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if everyone were exposed, a 30% increase isn't that much. It means if 10 people would have died from lung cancer, now 13 people would have died.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just an absolutely insane statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please show me which post of mine that was taken from? I certainly dont remember saying anything like that, and I can't find it anywhere in this thread. Did you quote someone else and just reply to my post?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

By what standard are you calling 3,000 deaths per year a major crisis?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't call it a major crisis, but to me, an extra 3000 premature deaths per year is obviously a cause for serious concern, particularly when it is just one of many effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a major crisis, but it merits the violation of civil liberties? Maybe we just have different levels of respect for freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
The average number of American deaths due to enemy action in Vietnam was about 5,000 per year from 1964 to 1973. Do you think this was unimportant, since you claim 3,000 deaths per year is unimportant in comparison with your ability to impose secondhand smoke on others?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think attempts to curtail freedoms based on Vietnam were disgusting. In fact, I think all government involvement with Vietnam was unjustifiable. 'Nam is an excellent example of what happens when the government tries to "save" people through coercion and violence.

[ QUOTE ]
The number of extra lung cancer deaths from secondhand smoke is comparable to the number of extra deaths from unsafe SUVs. It is far greater than the average number of deaths from plane crashes or asbestos-related lung cancer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe in jailing people who drive unsafe SUVs. Or who choose to use asbestos on their private property, for that matter.

[ QUOTE ]
The number of extra deaths from secondhand smoke is between the number of deaths from cystic fibrosis and Lou Gehrig's disease. It is far easier to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke than either of these diseases.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored]. It's far harder to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke than to treat CF or Lou Gehrig's. Even if you don't take the "collateral damage" of liberty into account. We'll even leave out the incredible social costs of branding people criminals for choosing what to put into their own bodies.

[ QUOTE ]
If you think it isn't worth worrying about secondhand smoke, do you recommend that we stop studying cystic fibrosis and ALS? Actually, I don't care what your answer is, as you have thoroughly impeached your judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you shouldn't have asked the question. I fully support studies on secondhand smoke and how to reduce its influence. As well as those on CF and Lou Gehrig's. I don't recall mentioning research at all, I'm a big fan of research. I'm not such a fan of destroying civil liberties, telling people what they can do on their own property, and telling people what they can and can't put into their own bodies. Particularly if it's done by a central government using violent force. And particularly if it involves criminalizing actions based on those standards.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if everyone were exposed, a 30% increase isn't that much. It means if 10 people would have died from lung cancer, now 13 people would have died.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just an absolutely insane statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Last I checked it was a mathematical fact. Did you know that equestrianism increases the likelihood of horseback injuries by over 500%?

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
The scientific debate regarding the physiological effects of secondhand smoke however should be considered over. The verdict is in, and secondhand smoke is a killer.


[/ QUOTE ]

There can also be no debate that I take on the risk of killer lightning, worse when outside, here in Florida. THe key question is what level of risk is presented by SHSmoke? To label it a killer is gross retorical overstatement. All risks require quantification for comparison otherwise it's all empty gibberish. I fear that the agenda politics behind the SHS issue will foreclose honest quantification.

Note: I'm a nonsmoker and look at this as engineering, risk evauation. I hate SHS.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The scientific debate regarding the physiological effects of secondhand smoke however should be considered over. The verdict is in, and secondhand smoke is a killer.


[/ QUOTE ]

There can also be no debate that I take on the risk of killer lightning, worse when outside, here in Florida. THe key question is what level of risk is presented by SHSmoke? To label it a killer is gross retorical overstatement. All risks require quantification for comparison otherwise it's all empty gibberish. I fear that the agenda politics behind the SHS issue will foreclose honest quantification.

Note: I'm a nonsmoker and look at this as engineering, risk evauation. I hate SHS.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been quantified; if you'd like the exact figures and more detail, etc., maybe you should order for yourself a copy of the Surgeon General's report.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The scientific debate regarding the physiological effects of secondhand smoke however should be considered over. The verdict is in, and secondhand smoke is a killer.


[/ QUOTE ]

There can also be no debate that I take on the risk of killer lightning, worse when outside, here in Florida. THe key question is what level of risk is presented by SHSmoke? To label it a killer is gross retorical overstatement. All risks require quantification for comparison otherwise it's all empty gibberish. I fear that the agenda politics behind the SHS issue will foreclose honest quantification.

Note: I'm a nonsmoker and look at this as engineering, risk evauation. I hate SHS.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been quantified; if you'd like the exact figures and more detail, etc., maybe you should order for yourself a copy of the Surgeon General's report.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care either way. I avoid all lightning and SHS as best possible. I still doubt that the risk assesment is free of agenda politics. Have you seen the report?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The scientific debate regarding the physiological effects of secondhand smoke however should be considered over. The verdict is in, and secondhand smoke is a killer.


[/ QUOTE ]

There can also be no debate that I take on the risk of killer lightning, worse when outside, here in Florida. THe key question is what level of risk is presented by SHSmoke? To label it a killer is gross retorical overstatement. All risks require quantification for comparison otherwise it's all empty gibberish. I fear that the agenda politics behind the SHS issue will foreclose honest quantification.

Note: I'm a nonsmoker and look at this as engineering, risk evauation. I hate SHS.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been quantified; if you'd like the exact figures and more detail, etc., maybe you should order for yourself a copy of the Surgeon General's report.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care either way. I avoid all lightning and SHS as best possible. I still doubt that the risk assesment is free of agenda politics. Have you seen the report?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I haven't ordered the new report, though I may well do so. I did read the 1986 report some years ago, and was very impressed at the depth and care taken in peer-review procedures, etc. And yes, of course there is going to be some agenda politics in the Surgeon General's report, as it is also the duty of that office to assess and formulate policy recommendations in the interest of the public health of the nation. That aspect does not impugn the rigorous methodologies used in compiling results from research studies or the peer-reviewed process, which was designed so as to diminish chances of error or bias. I believe it is safe to say that the risk assessment itself is free of agenda politics.

You'd really have to read the report (or the 1986 report) to get an idea of how much is contained in it. You may disagree with the political suggestions therein, but I doubt you will find find room to disagree with or have reason to seriously doubt the validity of its scientific approach.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The scientific debate regarding the physiological effects of secondhand smoke however should be considered over. The verdict is in, and secondhand smoke is a killer.


[/ QUOTE ]

There can also be no debate that I take on the risk of killer lightning, worse when outside, here in Florida. THe key question is what level of risk is presented by SHSmoke? To label it a killer is gross retorical overstatement. All risks require quantification for comparison otherwise it's all empty gibberish. I fear that the agenda politics behind the SHS issue will foreclose honest quantification.

Note: I'm a nonsmoker and look at this as engineering, risk evauation. I hate SHS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got-damn and son of a bitch. I agree with FlFishOn on all points in this post. And thats including the genesis of my opinions on the matter, that I am a non-smoker, AND that I hate SHS. I feel dirty somehow....

How about you guys actually read the report itself before trying to argue about it, or against it. I have read it more than once in its entirety, though that was some years ago.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_1986/

I'll also post a link to the 2006 report if I can find it.