The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke

[ChristinaM 0]

One has to accept that ANY source is funded somewhere, and that generally there is bias. That's what I'm asking you to realise, Steven. I'm not denying that it's a biased source. But I love the way that the inherent bias is always made obvious when a study is performed by someone who is paid by the tobacco industries, but completely ignored when studies are funded by groups known to be little more than anti-smoking facists.

It's an emotional issue because people often cannot look beyond their own personal experiences and consider the pure science. Take the case that has been presented that using a cell phone gives off radiowaves which can cause brain tumours. This information is largely ignored, yet the risk of second-hand smoke could be compared with the risk of sitting next to someone (on a train, let's say, where you're in close proximity) who spends thirty minutes on their cell phone. I don't see the outcry there....

A teacher of mine got lung cancer without ever having smoked a cigarette in her life. She attributed it to growing up in a house with parents who smoked so much the formerly white walls were yellow.

She attributed it to that. Not her doctor, not a research scientist, but a teacher. Where's the science in what Alex said? There is none. It's an emotional response. "My mother died from lung cancer" is an emotional response - it is a response that shows and inherent and non-scientific bias. Yet it's somehow more valid that others. (And I do offer my condolences to people who lost loved ones through cancer - I've seen it and I know it's not pleasant.)

This is why I try not to fight this battle too often - you can't fight emotion with reason. I am, however, happy to agree to disagree.

[KarenCee 3]

There's nothing "bogus" about the science that shows secondhand smoke is linked with SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome)

This is true, but you'll not be convincing the smokers out there about this. Most of them...notice I said MOST...do not believe their smoke is dangerous to those that breathe it. Nor to children...born or unborn.

[garya505 2]

One has to accept that ANY source is funded somewhere, and that generally there is bias. That's what I'm asking you to realise, Steven. I'm not denying that it's a biased source. But I love the way that the inherent bias is always made obvious when a study is performed by someone who is paid by the tobacco industries, but completely ignored when studies are funded by groups known to be little more than anti-smoking facists.

It's an emotional issue because people often cannot look beyond their own personal experiences and consider the pure science. Take the case that has been presented that using a cell phone gives off radiowaves which can cause brain tumours. This information is largely ignored, yet the risk of second-hand smoke could be compared with the risk of sitting next to someone (on a train, let's say, where you're in close proximity) who spends thirty minutes on their cell phone. I don't see the outcry there....

A teacher of mine got lung cancer without ever having smoked a cigarette in her life. She attributed it to growing up in a house with parents who smoked so much the formerly white walls were yellow.

She attributed it to that. Not her doctor, not a research scientist, but a teacher. Where's the science in what Alex said? There is none. It's an emotional response. "My mother died from lung cancer" is an emotional response - it is a response that shows and inherent and non-scientific bias. Yet it's somehow more valid that others. (And I do offer my condolences to people who lost loved ones through cancer - I've seen it and I know it's not pleasant.)

This is why I try not to fight this battle too often - you can't fight emotion with reason. I am, however, happy to agree to disagree.

You obviously don't know anything about RF radiation from cell phones.

I don't care about emotion. I don't know anyone personally who has died from smoking. The toxins a smoker breathes gives them all sorts of health problems. If I breathe their smoke I am subject to having those health problems as well. Smokers have a right to smoke, but they don't have a right to force me to breathe it too.

[ChristinaM 0]

I know a little about radiation of varying kinds; I majored in physics. So thank you for being so condescending, Gary.

I'm out of this one; it's not worth my time to deal with people who want to pick personal fights.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

One has to accept that ANY source is funded somewhere, and that generally there is bias. That's what I'm asking you to realise, Steven. I'm not denying that it's a biased source. But I love the way that the inherent bias is always made obvious when a study is performed by someone who is paid by the tobacco industries, but completely ignored when studies are funded by groups known to be little more than anti-smoking facists.

It's an emotional issue because people often cannot look beyond their own personal experiences and consider the pure science. Take the case that has been presented that using a cell phone gives off radiowaves which can cause brain tumours. This information is largely ignored, yet the risk of second-hand smoke could be compared with the risk of sitting next to someone (on a train, let's say, where you're in close proximity) who spends thirty minutes on their cell phone. I don't see the outcry there....

Actually, traditional funding for research was designed in such a way that those funding the research had no connection to the research. Federal Funding for independent research in this country has been gutted, thanks to the Bush Administration and those who believe that the bulk of that funding come from the private sector. That is when you run into trouble.

Here's a worthwhile and short article on who pays for science if you're interested...

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF5/527.html

Here's an excerpt...

Most research at U.S. universities is funded through a process of competitive bidding. Investigators wishing to conduct research on a given topic submit unsolicited proposals to appropriate agencies such as the National Science Foundation or, in Alaska, to the Alaska Council on Science and Technology. Or they may respond to an "announcement of opportunity" by mission agencies such as NASA or an Alaskan state agency. In most agencies, proposals are reviewed by a group of peers, who remain anonymous to the investigator, and who judge the scientific value of the proposal, the reputation of the investigator and his/her institution, and the soundness of the budget. If the proposal is accepted, the investigator usually receives funds that pay for his/her time devoted to the project (thus releasing salary funds that the university can use for other purposes), graduate student stipends (one of the greatest benefits of sponsored research to a university), scientific equipment (which then usually remains at the university), attendance at conferences (another bonus to universities perennially short of travel funds), other personnel involved in the project, and overhead to the university for costs of administration, library, utilities, etc.

Very few countries have such an elaborate, fair and accountable system of research funding. In fact, our research institutes operate like non-profit private enterprises. Even individual investigators should be considered entrepreneurs, expected to excel not only in science but also in the art of grantsmanship, who must compete with scientists from other institutions and often with those of their own. Not all scholars agree with our system of research funding, but I firmly believe that it embodies the very essence of free enterprise spirit of our country and that this is precisely the reason why our country has produced the best science and the best universities in the world.

[KarenCee 3]

It's an emotional issue because people often cannot look beyond their own personal experiences and consider the pure science.

I wonder....if it's proven that smoking is dangerous to your health, and to the health of one's unborn child, then why would one argue that second hand smoke is NOT dangerous? For some reason that doesn't make sense to me.

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

my thoughts from the what it's worth department: i smoke, but - why on earth subject a child to second hand smoke?

i understand that people have a right not to breath in second hand smoke, but i do believe people have a right to smoke in their own home or car as long as those within said enclosed area are consenting adults.

yes, during my first marriage, when i had the urge to smoke, i went outside primarily because of my daughter and also because of a parrot that we had.

why second hand smoke is just too difficult for some to grasp is beyond me. even today i dislike cigarette smoke in my own eyes!

[Alex+R 0]

One has to accept that ANY source is funded somewhere, and that generally there is bias. That's what I'm asking you to realise, Steven. I'm not denying that it's a biased source. But I love the way that the inherent bias is always made obvious when a study is performed by someone who is paid by the tobacco industries, but completely ignored when studies are funded by groups known to be little more than anti-smoking facists.

It's an emotional issue because people often cannot look beyond their own personal experiences and consider the pure science. Take the case that has been presented that using a cell phone gives off radiowaves which can cause brain tumours. This information is largely ignored, yet the risk of second-hand smoke could be compared with the risk of sitting next to someone (on a train, let's say, where you're in close proximity) who spends thirty minutes on their cell phone. I don't see the outcry there....

A teacher of mine got lung cancer without ever having smoked a cigarette in her life. She attributed it to growing up in a house with parents who smoked so much the formerly white walls were yellow.

She attributed it to that. Not her doctor, not a research scientist, but a teacher. Where's the science in what Alex said? There is none. It's an emotional response. "My mother died from lung cancer" is an emotional response - it is a response that shows and inherent and non-scientific bias. Yet it's somehow more valid that others. (And I do offer my condolences to people who lost loved ones through cancer - I've seen it and I know it's not pleasant.)

This is why I try not to fight this battle too often - you can't fight emotion with reason. I am, however, happy to agree to disagree.

Of course my response was emotional. Her doctors said she got it from being in a smoky house but I don't think they can know that for sure. My point was, try telling people who suffer real consequences that it's ok to ignore the real science that SHS does hurt people. I'm saying that challenging concrete science, cited earlier by Peezey and I think others, is insulting to people who have most likely suffered real consequences.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When the chemicals contained in second hand smoke include substances that are both carcinogenic and highly toxic, denying the dangerousness of high concentrations of those chemicals and the health risks (I say "risks") that they pose is simply ridiculous.

[ChristinaM 0]

Please note - at no point have I said it's not harmful in any way. Just that maybe there's a little overexaggeration on the part of the anti-smoking fanatacists about the impact of non-concentrated secondhand smoke.

[Augustajim 0]

dangerous or not, there are many establishments and activities I won't do because the skoke is so thick. Seems the smoke doesn't know how to stay in the smoking section.

You're a riot, Gary.

Just because he works for someone that has a vested interest in the subject does not discredit him. He is a doctor and his points are correct. I am not saying that second hand smoke is good for you and it very well may be as dangerous as everyone thinks but lets not base our actions on hysteria and personal bias and use instead real science.

Pot, meet kettle.

Gary, his affiliations make ALL the difference. I can't believe you're defending this man...he's a tobacco lobbyist who sold his soul to the tobacco industry. Do you have a short memory or do you recall that it was tobacco industry scientists who for years reported to the public that smoking was not dangerous to your health. When making a professional scientific opinion about something, conflict of interest DOES make a difference, regardless of whether you want to fess up to that or not.

p.s. What I find oddly peculiar here, Gary - is with the case of Global Warming, you've got thousands of scientists unanimously agreeing and you've dismissed them. You have a strange approach towards science. May I ask - did you ever take any science courses in college?

[Augustajim 0]

dangerous or not, there are many establishments and activities I won't do because the skoke is so thick. Seems the smoke doesn't know how to stay in the smoking section.

You're a riot, Gary.

Just because he works for someone that has a vested interest in the subject does not discredit him. He is a doctor and his points are correct. I am not saying that second hand smoke is good for you and it very well may be as dangerous as everyone thinks but lets not base our actions on hysteria and personal bias and use instead real science.

Pot, meet kettle.

Gary, his affiliations make ALL the difference. I can't believe you're defending this man...he's a tobacco lobbyist who sold his soul to the tobacco industry. Do you have a short memory or do you recall that it was tobacco industry scientists who for years reported to the public that smoking was not dangerous to your health. When making a professional scientific opinion about something, conflict of interest DOES make a difference, regardless of whether you want to fess up to that or not.

p.s. What I find oddly peculiar here, Gary - is with the case of Global Warming, you've got thousands of scientists unanimously agreeing and you've dismissed them. You have a strange approach towards science. May I ask - did you ever take any science courses in college?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

My new workplace has an interesting culture. When I walk out during lunch, there's no fewer than 40-50 people outside smoking. There is a cloud of secondhand smoke that I have to walk for atleast 3-4 minutes before I can get out of. It's disgusting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Please note - at no point have I said it's not harmful in any way. Just that maybe there's a little overexaggeration on the part of the anti-smoking fanatacists about the impact of non-concentrated secondhand smoke.

Well the fact is that while those chemicals are not guaranteed to make you sick (again much depends on concentration, length of exposure etc) you might as well say the same about lead pipes carrying public water, the presence of heavy metals in tuna fish, trans fats.

None of these will make you sick by themselves, but the chemical agents are toxic and are in no ways beneficial the human body. They increase the risk of ill health, and its that risk that is there regardless.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Secondhand smoke should be illegal for the same reason it's illegal to litter. It's dirty.

ETA: And by that, of course, I mean it should be illegal to smoke, anywhere, anytime. If you want to feel a rush, snort coke or chew tobacco. At least you're not polluting someone elses air.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Gupt