PDA

View Full Version : Science Spinoff: Second Hand Smoke Risks: Fact or Fiction?


AustinChief
06-01-2012, 01:42 AM
I know we have had this debate before but I feel like getting a fresh perspective on this.

I would like to hear people's beliefs on the subject BUT I won't accept a simple "well the CDC says this or Penn and Teller say that"... as support. You have to actually presents FACTS.

I personally don't think a legit study has been done to prove a statistically significant health risk to second hand smoke. That doesn't mean that risks don't exist.. that means that there is no hard science backing up the idea.

HAIL SCIENCE!

Ok, I'll start with my facts backing up this up in the next post....

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 01:42 AM
OK, so let's start with a huge study done by the American Cancer Society.. not exactly the most PRO-Tobacco group...
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Anyone want to tell me why a study with over 100,000 participants done over 39 years found NO significant risks yet they somehow got it wrong?


NOW before someone tries to quote the 1993 EPA study (the most often quoted nonsense) let me point out that it was completely debunked by scientists and even thrown out by a court of law. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf They cherry picked studies for meta-analysis and never showed more then a 1.19 relative risk.
"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute I can go on and on.. but unless someone wants to challenge me on this, let's all consider the EPA study worthless.

Pushead2
06-01-2012, 01:53 AM
secondhand smoke & smoking in general are fucking gross.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 02:04 AM
secondhand smoke & smoking in general are fucking gross.

Ok, you are welcome to your opinion. Now, because you believe that.. does it A) make it a scientific fact that it is a health risk and B) give a valid justification for curtailing a property owner's right to chose a smoking or non-smoking environment for his business?

Clearly no. Just because something is gross doesn't make it harmful nor should it be a legal justification.

Next...

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 02:21 AM
Ok, if anyone wants to go out and debunk the CPS-I data in my first post there is a new not yet complete CPS-II study being done by the ACS. Here is what they have to say so far...

Dose-response analyses were restricted to 92,222 women whose husbands provided complete information on cigarette smoking and date of marriage. Lung cancer death rates, adjusted for other factors, were 20 percent higher among women whose husbands ever smoked during the current marriage than among those married to never-smokers (relative risk [RR]=1.2, 95 percent confidence interval [CI]=0.8-1.6). For never-smoking men whose wives smoked, the RR was 1.1 (CI=0.6-1.8). Risk among women was similar or higher when the husband continued to smoke (RR=1.2, CI=0.8-1.8), or smoked 40 or more cigarettes per day (RR=1.9, CI=1.0-3.6), but did not increase with years of marriage to a smoker. Most CIs included the null. Although generally not statistically significant, these results agree with the EPA summary estimate that spousal smoking increases lung cancer risk by about 20 percent in never-smoking women. Even large prospective studies have limited statistical power to measure precisely the risk from ETS.

The important part is bolded. They admit that the study shows NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT RISK INCREASE.. yet then flat out ignore that and claim a 20% increase. It's fucking amazing they get away with this nonsense.

Just to clear it up for you...

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"

"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist

Pushead2
06-01-2012, 02:58 AM
Ok, you are welcome to your opinion. Now, because you believe that.. does it A) make it a scientific fact that it is a health risk and B) give a valid justification for curtailing a property owner's right to chose a smoking or non-smoking environment for his business?

Clearly no. Just because something is gross doesn't make it harmful nor should it be a legal justification.

Next...

I hope the business owner would consider it as more of a courtesy.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 03:03 AM
I hope the business owner would consider it as more of a courtesy.

I'm completely on board with you there. If I owned a bar in a town that allowed smoking, I'd probably designate a smoking area and install a completely separate air filtration system. If done properly (although at a pretty hefty expense) you can almost entirely eliminate even the odor of smoke if you know what you are doing. Or I'd just restrict smoking to an outdoor patio... but those choices should be mine to make.

Anyong Bluth
06-01-2012, 03:06 AM
I hope the business owner would consider it as more of a courtesy.

Unless his business does better off of customer's that smoke versus those that don't - which is almost always the case with establishments like bars.




-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums (http://developer.palm.com/appredirect/?packageid=com.newnessdevelopments.forums)

Anyong Bluth
06-01-2012, 03:13 AM
I'm completely on board with you there. If I owned a bar in a town that allowed smoking, I'd probably designate a smoking area and install a completely separate air filtration system. If done properly (although at a pretty hefty expense) you can almost entirely eliminate even the odor of smoke if you know what you are doing. Or I'd just restrict smoking to an outdoor patio... but those choices should be mine to make.

Exactly,

They have systems to do so, and you could make the law tailored to air quality - in terms of smell and people complaining- that's up to the owner to decide how he wants to and how much he wants to separate the areas or not. You still have a choice to support other bars & if it becomes a problem for the owner losing business / money, you can believe he'll rethink things & improve on it.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums (http://developer.palm.com/appredirect/?packageid=com.newnessdevelopments.forums)

Anyong Bluth
06-01-2012, 03:15 AM
I'm completely on board with you there. If I owned a bar in a town that allowed smoking, I'd probably designate a smoking area and install a completely separate air filtration system. If done properly (although at a pretty hefty expense) you can almost entirely eliminate even the odor of smoke if you know what you are doing. Or I'd just restrict smoking to an outdoor patio... but those choices should be mine to make.

Like at Casinos- or at least most of the big ones. People smoke & it rarely ever smells- unless there's that 1 guy that always insists on his cigar.

-- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums (http://developer.palm.com/appredirect/?packageid=com.newnessdevelopments.forums)

crazycoffey
06-01-2012, 03:46 AM
secondhand smoke & smoking in general are fucking gross.


some girls think giving BJs are gross. I'm glad some don't though....

Fritz88
06-01-2012, 04:02 AM
I know we have had this debate before but I feel like getting a fresh perspective on this.

I would like to hear people's beliefs on the subject BUT I won't accept a simple "well the CDC says this or Penn and Teller say that"... as support. You have to actually presents FACTS.

I personally don't think a legit study has been done to prove a statistically significant health risk to second hand smoke. That doesn't mean that risks don't exist.. that means that there is no hard science backing up the idea.

HAIL SCIENCE!

Ok, I'll start with my facts backing up this up in the next post....

It is a murky subject to be honest. Anyone can cherry pick data to support his/her opinion. I know very smart guys whose job is to make sure that good and pro-tobacco data are out there.

There have been a lot of talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing#Controversy) about the use of statistical testing. I need to do more reading to make up my mind. Frankly, I was under the impression that second hand smoke was indeed bad for one's health but now I am reconsidering it.

Good stuff AC.

DBOSHO
06-01-2012, 04:09 AM
Health risks aside, i dont want to smell your fucking cigarette smoke.

Kyle DeLexus
06-01-2012, 04:22 AM
Health risks aside, i dont want to smell your fucking cigarette smoke.

That has been established and agreed upon, but is not the point of this thread.

NewChief
06-01-2012, 04:40 AM
I'd like to find the original paper, but here's something I found. I'm sure you'll "debunk" it though. I, personally, find some of the claims a little over the top and extreme, but I'm still of the opinion that smoking with your kids in the car and windows rolled up isn't a great idea.

http://lancaster.unl.edu/home/IndoorAir/SecondhandSmoke.htm

A recent article in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine reviewed all research on children’s health and tobacco smoking from 1980 to 1996. This article concluded that parental smoking is a major health risk for children and results in annual direct medical expenses of $4.6 billion in their children -- 8% of all pediatric medical spending. This includes 5.4 million excess cases of disease and 6,200 excess childhood deaths.

The Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine article also showed that as a group, children of smokers who are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke experience:

Higher rates of bronchitis and pneumonia, especially in the first 2 years
Impaired lung function as they get older
Asthma episodes aggravated or triggered by secondhand smoke
Increased likelihood to develop asthma
Increased numbers of acute respiratory illnesses
More ear infections and hearing problems
Longer recovery from colds and other illnesses
More days of school missed due to illnes
Living with secondhand smoke can mean that children suffer from recurrent coughs, wheezing, stuffy noses, headaches, sore throats, eye irritation, ear infections, hoarseness, dizziness, nausea, loss of appetite, lack of energy, and fussiness.

In addition, the same article reviewed medical research that strongly suggests infants of women smokers have an increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

A 1997 California EPA study on children’s health reinforced many of the findings in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine article, and uncovered some additional, definitive results as well. The California EPA study found that secondhand smoke exposure to children also causes lung and nasal sinus cancer and heart disease.

Another study links secondhand smoke exposure and children with asthma. U.S. EPA’s 1992 Risk Assessment on secondhand smoke found that exposure:

Caused additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma
Worsened physical conditions in an estimated 400,000 to 1 million children with asthma

Ace Gunner
06-01-2012, 05:43 AM
I have smoked. I quit. twice. I have asthma and it effects my condition.

the tobacco most ppl smoke is altered, it's much worse imo than real tobacco.

2nd hand smoke occasionally triggers my asthma, other than this, eh.

it's a political ploy to open a new book of dictatorship.

is it disgusting? ya, to some. so is a plumber's job, to some.

imo cigar smoking is nasty shit and it seems to effect my asthma much more. but I deal with it leaving the area.

I think some regs are good, but ya, some regs are just tardo demonization designed to polarize & give the whiny faction leverage they don't deserve.

penchief
06-01-2012, 05:53 AM
Seriously?

The data that shows children who are exposed to second hand smoke are more apt to suffer from asthma isn't enough to tell you that second hand smoke effects you?

All the data that shows increased incidents of heart disease and lung disease in non-smokers who have long term exposrue to second hand smoke isn't made up.

You don't have to be a scientist to recognize how potent cigarette smoke is. All you have to do is be around it one time after not being around it for a while. It permeates everything.

Have you ever seen the apartment of a two pack a day smoker who has lived in the same place for several years? When they move out, the tar and nicotine residue is so thick in the apartment that it requires calling in professionals like Service Master to get rid of it. It seriously permeates everything.

That shit is no joke.

Baconeater
06-01-2012, 06:08 AM
Have you ever seen the apartment of a two pack a day smoker who has lived in the same place for several years? When they move out, the tar and nicotine residue is so thick in the apartment that it requires calling in professionals like Service Master to get rid of it. It seriously permeates everything.
I have spent a very large part of my life working in multifamily housing and I can assure you that is not true.

pr_capone
06-01-2012, 06:24 AM
Have you ever seen the apartment of a two pack a day smoker who has lived in the same place for several years? When they move out, the tar and nicotine residue is so thick in the apartment that it requires calling in professionals like Service Master to get rid of it. It seriously permeates everything.

That shit is no joke.

I have spent a very large part of my life working in multifamily housing and I can assure you that is not true.

Hey pen... you just got Bugeatered.

http://i.imgur.com/MvZFD.gif

Kyle DeLexus
06-01-2012, 06:25 AM
I have smoked. I quit. twice. I have asthma and it effects my condition.

the tobacco most ppl smoke is altered, it's much worse imo than real tobacco.

2nd hand smoke occasionally triggers my asthma, other than this, eh.

it's a political ploy to open a new book of dictatorship.

is it disgusting? ya, to some. so is a plumber's job, to some.

imo cigar smoking is nasty shit and it seems to effect my asthma much more. but I deal with it leaving the area.

I think some regs are good, but ya, some regs are just tardo demonization designed to polarize & give the whiny faction leverage they don't deserve.

But a plumber isn't working at the table next to me while I'm eating.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 06:25 AM
Cigarette smoke is filthy and disgusting. I am 33 years old and have literally never smoked a cigarette in my life. I love non-smoking bars.

That said, the studies I have read don't support second hand smoke being more than a nuisance. Loud music at a bar is more dangerous than smoke. Let the property owner decide what to allow, and the customers can decide where to go.

Ace Gunner
06-01-2012, 06:32 AM
Seriously?

The data that shows children who are exposed to second hand smoke are more apt to suffer from asthma isn't enough to tell you that second hand smoke effects you?

All the data that shows increased incidents of heart disease and lung disease in non-smokers who have long term exposrue to second hand smoke isn't made up.

You don't have to be a scientist to recognize how potent cigarette smoke is. All you have to do is be around it one time after not being around it for a while. It permeates everything.

Have you ever seen the apartment of a two pack a day smoker who has lived in the same place for several years? When they move out, the tar and nicotine residue is so thick in the apartment that it requires calling in professionals like Service Master to get rid of it. It seriously permeates everything.

That shit is no joke.

whiny person alert :D

asthma is directly linked to pollen count & mold spore rates. states such as Hawaii, missouri & New York have the highest asthma rates.

http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/Asthma/#StateInfo

DaKCMan AP
06-01-2012, 06:40 AM
Even if it doesn't pose a significant health risk (which I believe it does), second-hand smoke smells bad, makes it difficult for me to breath, and leaves my clothes smelling like crap. That alone is enough for me to support non-smoking regulations and environments.

Baconeater
06-01-2012, 06:40 AM
whiny person alert :D

asthma is directly linked to pollen count & mold spore rates. states such as Hawaii, missouri & New York have the highest asthma rates.

http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/Asthma/#StateInfo
Secondhand smoke may not "cause" asthma, but the smell can certainly trigger an asthma attack.

J Diddy
06-01-2012, 06:43 AM
But a plumber isn't working at the table next to me while I'm eating.

I don't know where you are eating, but most restaurants have different sections for that. A lot of restaurants don't allow it in the first place.

Kyle DeLexus
06-01-2012, 06:48 AM
I don't know where you are eating, but most restaurants have different sections for that. A lot of restaurants don't allow it in the first place.

Oh I know. I've only been to two places in the past few years where it was a problem. One of them was a sports bar for lunch. It was so bad that we had to leave before we ordered.

jspchief
06-01-2012, 06:53 AM
Even if it doesn't pose a significant health risk (which I believe it does), second-hand smoke smells bad, makes it difficult for me to breath, and leaves my clothes smelling like crap. That alone is enough for me to support non-smoking regulations and environments.Pretty much.

KC Tattoo
06-01-2012, 07:20 AM
Has any one here tried the electronic cigarettes? I've had a friend who uses one and she likes it and there is no second hand smoke from it. I guess they work pretty good and you get the same hit effect as if your were smoking a real cigarette.

I like to smoke & know the health hazzards, I'm in no hurry to quit but I want to quit someday. I think the electronic cigarette could be a good alternative to actual smoking.?.

KCUnited
06-01-2012, 07:21 AM
It is a lot easier for my son to enjoy his chili cheese burger and mozzarella sticks without someone's second hand smoke blowing in his face. Plus, I feel better about it.

jspchief
06-01-2012, 07:23 AM
Second hand smoke is perfectly fine.

That's why smokers always hold a smoldering cigarette right in front of their face instead of off to the side.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 07:26 AM
It is a lot easier for my son to enjoy his chili cheese burger and mozzarella sticks without someone's second hand smoke blowing in his face. Plus, I feel better about it.

It's a lot easier for me to hold a conversation when music isn't blaring. That's why loud music should be outlawed in public.

Kyle DeLexus
06-01-2012, 07:29 AM
It's a lot easier for me to hold a conversation when music isn't blaring blaring. That's why loud music should be outlawed in public.

Amen. Let's also ban the morbidly obese and kids from flying.

stevieray
06-01-2012, 07:30 AM
...this crap again?

LMAO

my clothes! my clothes!

KCUnited
06-01-2012, 07:31 AM
It's a lot easier for me to hold a conversation when music isn't blaring. That's why loud music should be outlawed in public.

Agreed, especially if it's post 1994.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 07:34 AM
Sad movies can lead to depression. Let's outlaw them. Attractive models can lead to negative body images. Let's ban them.

In fact, let's ban everything, then everyone will be happy. Nobody gets any rights.

luv
06-01-2012, 07:38 AM
Cigarette smoke is filthy and disgusting. I am 33 years old and have literally never smoked a cigarette in my life. I love non-smoking bars.

That said, the studies I have read don't support second hand smoke being more than a nuisance. Loud music at a bar is more dangerous than smoke. Let the property owner decide what to allow, and the customers can decide where to go.

I know we're off topic with the point of the thread, but I agree with this 100%. We passed a smoking ban in Springfield a year ago. It's up on the ballot again this year.

Even as a non-smoker, I believe it should be up to the business owner whether or not to allow it in their place of business. I frequent restaurants that have bars, and I usually sit at the bar or in the bar section. Smoke never really bothered me, and people sitting around me were usually courteous about it. Now, people have to go outside to smoke. I don't know about those people who always bitch about "leaving smelling like an ash tray" (I never did, and I said at the ****ing bar), but I think this is much worse. They smoke out by the front door, so it hits you like a ton of bricks when you first walk out the door, or before you ever even go in.

If you don't like smoking establishments, then you have the right to go somewhere else. If you don't like it, then don't go someplace you know allows smoking in the first place. It's not rocket science.

However, the issue up for a vote here is for an amendment to the issue that passed last year. It would allow smoking in private clubs, businesses that sell tobacco products, etc.

Zebedee DuBois
06-01-2012, 07:40 AM
Do we all agree that smoking increases chances of disease? I hope we can agree on that.

After that, it is just a matter of degree/exposure. What dosage is required to reach the tripping point of increased health risk?

I don't think it is a huge leap of logic to say a bar worker exposed to a 40 hour work week of second hand smoke would be risking their health by showing up to work.

OSHA has limits on the level of exposure a worker is subjected over an 8 hour work day. For identified chemicals (formaldehyde, for instance) these are ppm levels. I am guessing that, even though known carcinogens are present in smoke, that levels have not been established for second hand smoke exposure. Politics?

x

KCUnited
06-01-2012, 07:41 AM
My karaoke voice is much crisper now that the Red Balloon is smoke free.

Ace Gunner
06-01-2012, 07:42 AM
women should smoke starting at an early age because it increases their fellatio skills 10 fold imo. just throwing that out there since we're on the subject.
http://www.independent.co.uk/migration_catalog/article5201824.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/pg-28-french-smoking.jpeg

Kyle DeLexus
06-01-2012, 07:46 AM
My karaoke voice is much crisper now that the Red Balloon is smoke free.

I drive by that place all the time. There are always 3 or so cars outside. Never been in.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 07:54 AM
Do we all agree that smoking increases chances of disease? I hope we can agree on that.

After that, it is just a matter of degree/exposure. What dosage is required to reach the tripping point of increased health risk?

I don't think it is a huge leap of logic to say a bar worker exposed to a 40 hour work week of second hand smoke would be risking their health by showing up to work.

OSHA has limits on the level of exposure a worker is subjected over an 8 hour work day. For identified chemicals (formaldehyde, for instance) these are ppm levels. I am guessing that, even though known carcinogens are present in smoke, that levels have not been established for second hand smoke exposure. Politics?

x

Smoking? Yes

Second hand smoke? Not unless you've got a study showing that it does.

KCUnited
06-01-2012, 07:54 AM
I drive by that place all the time. There are always 3 or so cars outside. Never been in.

It's a decent enough place if you're looking for a self esteem boost. No doubt the smokiest place I've ever been in back in the day.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 07:58 AM
It's a decent enough place if you're looking for a self esteem boost. No doubt the smokiest place I've ever been in back in the day.

That award goes to the old Jilly's downtown. The Balloon is badass, though.

KCUnited
06-01-2012, 08:02 AM
That award goes to the old Jilly's downtown. The Balloon is badass, though.

From my experiences I'd give the edge to the Balloon. I was in there once when it got raided and the cops had the door propped open to get everyone out and it literally looked like the place was on fire.

Dave Lane
06-01-2012, 08:03 AM
I have spent a very large part of my life working in multifamily housing and I can assure you that is not true.

Then you havent had tenants that stay for several years. Its gross, nicotine drips off of everything during cleaning

DaKCMan AP
06-01-2012, 08:20 AM
...this crap again?

LMAO

my clothes! my clothes!

You're such a tough guy! :hail:

Ace Gunner
06-01-2012, 09:28 AM
after more thought on this subject, I would take a woman that gives good head but has smoke scent over a woman that does not give good head and smells like downey. of course, I'm open to other opinions however retarded they may be.

qabbaan
06-01-2012, 09:31 AM
If you waitressed in one of those diners where everyone was smoking for 30 years I might believe it, but there aren't really any places like that anymore. Certainly, breathing environment smoke is nowhere close to actually smoking yourself.

I think "secondhand smoke" is mostly just a legal basis for people to ban smoking because they find it distasteful. That's fine, but call it what it is.

Iowanian
06-01-2012, 09:36 AM
I'm pretty sure this is the topics that made the Frazfields and McCoy's start shooting up family reunions and voting day events.

Buehler445
06-01-2012, 09:36 AM
Here is my take. Second hand smoke absolutely carries health risks at least for my mostly dead ass. I can say that because everytime I have a lot of exposure, I feel like hell. I was sick as hell after Christmas when I spent all of Christmas at my grandmas while she was smoking. And it isn't her. It's a bar or anything that has high smoke exposure.

That being said, I'm not in favor of widespread bans. I don't go where there is smoke. Period. And I'm not naive enough to think that my patronage is any more important than anyone else's. Accordingly the business should decide. If he gets more business from smokers than he loses from non-smokers, so be it. But I am rarely ever in favor of government inhibiting the business from doing what it needs to to make money. And at this point, people aren't dropping dead like flies so I'm not sure there is any huge societal risk.

I'm not sure how I feel about smoking bans on a local level. That is a pretty small representation so the representation should be more accurate. I'm torn on local bans.

lcarus
06-01-2012, 09:51 AM
I'm a smoker now, but before I was a smoker, second hand smoke didn't bother me. The smell didn't bother me that much, and unless I was in a small closed room with a smoker I didn't ever feel like the cigarette smoke had any effect on me whatsoever. Some people are seriously just bitches.

HemiEd
06-01-2012, 09:53 AM
Like anything, it would be the extent of the smoke. A little bit of smoke is going to make little to no difference IMO.

But, if you have the amount we used to have in our pool hall, or a Led Zep concert on a regular basis, it is going to kill you, just as much as if you smoked a couple packs a day.

I took a glass of Ice Tea home from the pool hall one night, and sat it down. When I woke up the next morning, the stink from it was despicable.

(former 45 year smoker)

Baconeater
06-01-2012, 10:45 AM
Then you havent had tenants that stay for several years. Its gross, nicotine drips off of everything during cleaning
Yes, I have. Yes, it's gross. Yes, it creates extra work for the painters and cleaners. No, we have never called ServiceMaster to handle the job.

Lzen
06-01-2012, 11:21 AM
...Let the property owner decide what to allow, and the customers can decide where to go.

I tend to agree with this. That being said, this is one gov't regulation that I can live with.

whoman69
06-01-2012, 01:45 PM
The same smoke that goes into the lungs is the same smoke that goes in the air. Its proven cigarette smoke is deadly. Does it really take a team of scientists to figure out this could be deadly too?

NewChief
06-01-2012, 01:52 PM
The same smoke that goes into the lungs is the same smoke that goes in the air. Its proven cigarette smoke is deadly. Does it really take a team of scientists to figure out this could be deadly too?

He's going to bring up the potency argument in direct vs. sidestream smoke. I've been down this path with AustinChief before. If his whole IT thing doesn't pan out, he might have a future as an apologist for the tobacco industry.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 01:52 PM
The same smoke that goes into the lungs is the same smoke that goes in the air. Its proven cigarette smoke is deadly. Does it really take a team of scientists to figure out this could be deadly too?

I don't know. Why don't you show us the results of a scientific study?

HemiEd
06-01-2012, 01:57 PM
Smoke is smoke, whether it has been in someone else's lungs previously, or not.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 02:01 PM
Smoke is smoke, whether it has been in someone else's lungs previously, or not.

Actually, no. The air that leaves a persons lungs is not the same as when it entered. This is primary school-level science.

WhiteWhale
06-01-2012, 04:14 PM
I smoke.

First of all, fuck you. I think fat people are gross. I think ugly people are gross. Looking at people with idiotic hair cuts annoys me. "It affects my mood and such"

Quit whining.

Second of all I cannot STAND smokey rooms. It hurts my eyes. I remember being in a room with like 8 people smoking and there was a fucking baby there. I got up to walk outside and the baby's mother asks me where I was going. I told her I was going to smoke outside. She said "Why?"

I told her I thought her baby had enough to smoke.

She got fucking PISSED. Yelled at me and threw me out. 3 months later the baby was diagnosed with a lung condition. Gee... I wonder what happened?

Smoke... ANY KIND of smoke in large volumes is bad for you. Especially if you are a child and many parents, like her, are irresponsible retards.

A grown adult being exposed to 2nd hand smoke from one cigarette in a room is NOT hurting them. Volume matters people.

whoman69
06-01-2012, 04:39 PM
Actually, no. The air that leaves a persons lungs is not the same as when it entered. This is primary school-level science.

Yeah, the carcinogens have more carbon dioxide mixed in.

Do the 80% of people who don't smoke really have to just breath it all in and not give a shit? Let's just weigh the inconvenience a bit.

CrazyPhuD
06-01-2012, 05:26 PM
For the record....second had pot smoke just makes you hungry.....hmmm...come to think of it....if they allow public smoking again I think I'll open a grocery store and just pump it full of weed smoke all day.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 05:32 PM
Yeah, the carcinogens have more carbon dioxide mixed in.

Do the 80% of people who don't smoke really have to just breath it all in and not give a shit? Let's just weigh the inconvenience a bit.

So the smoker doesn't absorb any of them? Austin posted a pretty exhaustive study refuting your take. Your move.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 05:52 PM
I'd like to find the original paper, but here's something I found. I'm sure you'll "debunk" it though. I, personally, find some of the claims a little over the top and extreme, but I'm still of the opinion that smoking with your kids in the car and windows rolled up isn't a great idea.

http://lancaster.unl.edu/home/IndoorAir/SecondhandSmoke.htm

Ok, the problem here is that there is nothing to debunk. These are baseless assertions without backing. There is no actual study or data here but I'll play along as best I can with the limited info provided.

What you have quoted is a meta-analysis which is based on the 1997 Cal study which based it's findings on the 1992/93 EPA study which has been PROVEN(see my first post) to be bogus, cherry picked data which even then shows no significant risk.

Brainiac
06-01-2012, 05:56 PM
I can't believe nobody has bothered to point out that there are plenty of legitimate studies that have proven the effects of second hand smoke. They're not hard to find.

The following article is a pretty interesting read. It describes what happened in Pueblo, Colorado after that city banned smoking. It also describes how the Philip Morris company went to great lengths to hide the health dangers of second hand smoke.

http://www.prwatch.org/node/8115

Deadly Deception: The Tobacco Industry's Secondhand Smoke Cover Up

by Anne Landman — January 7, 2009 - 4:46pm
Topics: International, Public Relations, Tobacco

Many of the of the tobacco industry's underhanded strategies and tactics have been exposed, thanks to landmark legal cases and the hard work of public health advocates. But we are still uncovering the shocking lengths to which the industry has gone to protect itself from public health measures like smoking bans. Now we can thank the city of Pueblo, Colorado, for an opportunity to look a little bit deeper into how the industry managed the deadly deceptions around secondhand smoke.

A new study, now the ninth of its type and the most comprehensive one yet, has shown a major reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks after a smoke-free law was put into effect.

On July 1, 2003, the relatively isolated city of Pueblo, Colorado enacted an ordinance that prohibited smoking in workplaces and indoor public areas, including bars and restaurants. For the study, researchers reviewed hospital admissions for heart attacks among area residents for one year prior to, and three years after the ban, and compared the data to two other nearby areas that didn't have bans (the part of Pueblo County outside city limits, and El Paso County, which includes Colorado Springs). Researchers found that during the three years after the ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 41 percent inside the city of Pueblo, but found no significant change in admissions for heart attacks in the other two control areas.

Eight studies done prior to this one in other locales used similar techniques and yielded similar results, but covered shorter periods of time -- usually about one year after the smoking ban went into effect. The results of this longer, more comprehensive study support the view that not only does secondhand smoke have a significant short-term impact on heart function, but that lives, and money, are probably being saved by new laws proliferating around the world in recent years that minimize public exposure to secondhand smoke.

Tobacco Smoke and the Heart

When most people think "cigarette smoke," they immediately think "lung cancer," but far less public attention has been paid to how secondhand smoke effects heart function. In a memo dated 1980 that I first discovered in 1999, a Philip Morris scientist points out that nicotine lowers the heart's threshold to ventricular fibrillation -- an inefficient heart pumping pattern -- which increases people's susceptibility to heart attacks.

A 1991 report sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that secondhand smoke kills approximately 53,000 Americans year, mostly from heart disease. A public health study published in 2001 showed that exposure to secondhand smoke for even short periods of time, as little as 30 minutes, causes changes in platelets and cardiac epithelium. Lung cancer takes many years to develop, but heart function is impacted more rapidly upon exposure to secondhand smoke.

Tobacco Companies Have Long Been Aware of Secondhand Smoke Hazards

Tobacco companies knew much more about the health hazards of secondhand smoke, and knew it longer ago, than most people realize.

Recognizing the need to do more biological research on its own products, but also understanding the need to distance itself from this research for legal reasons, in 1971 Philip Morris purchased a biological lab in Germany called Institut Fur Biologische Forschung ("INBIFO"), or Institute for Biological Research. PM then created a complex routing system to ensure that work done at INBIFO could not be linked back to Philip Morris. INBIFO routed its study results through a PM research and development facility in Switzerland called Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, and documents created at INBIFO were often in French or German language.

Between 1981 and 1989, Philip Morris (PM) conducted at least 115 different inhalation studies on secondhand smoke at INBIFO in which they compared the toxicity of mainstream smoke (the smoke the smoker himself inhales) to that of secondhand smoke. PM discovered that secondhand smoke is 2-6 times more toxic and carcinogenic per gram than mainstream smoke. The company never published the results of these in-house studies or alerted public health authorities to their findings. Rather, they kept this information strictly to themselves -- even most Philip Morris employees were unaware of these studies.

Strategies to Deceive the Public

But Philip Morris did much worse than hide this crucial information from the public. Spurred by a 1993 EPA Risk Assessment that declared secondhand smoke a known human carcinogen, and recognizing the danger the secondhand smoke issue held for the cigarette industry, Philip Morris masterminded a massive global effort to confuse and deceive the public about the health hazards of secondhand smoke and to delay laws restricting smoking in indoor public places.

A 1993 internal Philip Morris (PM) strategy paper titled "ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) World Conference" shows PM organizing a wide range of strategies to shape public views on secondhand smoke and fight smoking restrictions worldwide. PM pursued tactics to "shift concern over ETS to slippery slope argumentation and/or tolerance"; liken secondhand smoke to perceived risks from other items of public concern, such as cellular phones and chlorinated water; "shift concern over ETS in the workplace from the health issue to one of annoyance;" "shift the concern over ETS in restaurants from bans to accommodation where bans are imminent;" "develop an 'ETS Task Force,' with global PM representation to develop strategies to combat smoking restrictions;" "... package comprehensive improvements in ventilation to forestall tobacco specific bans and ... shift the debate from ETS to IAQ [indoor air quality]." Another strategy was the "development of a global coalition against "junk science" to complement a similar coalition PM was already forming in the United States.

At the same time, PM implemented Project Brass, a secret action plan conceived by the Leo Burnett Company, to create a "controversy" over secondhand smoke where there really was none. Project Brass strove to "forestall further public smoking restrictions/bans," "create a decided change in public opinion," and "develop an atmosphere more conducive to smokers" in the general public.

Project Brass was just the tip of the iceberg. The tobacco industry implemented many projects over the decades to shape public perception about secondhand smoke and to delay laws regulating it. Many of these projects are listed under TobaccoWiki's "Projects and Operations" page: Project Mayfly, the INFOTAB ETS Project, PM and British American Tobacco's Latin American ETS Consultants Program, PM's ETS (Environmental tobacco smoke) Media Strategy, Philip Morris' Science Action Plan, and PM's ICD-9 Project to impede the creation of a medical billing code that would indicate illnesses that are attributable to secondhand tobacco smoke exposure.

These are just some of the projects we've learned of by combing through industry documents. Any one of these projects taken individually would be stunning in scope and ambition in its own right, but all of them taken together -- and the as-yet undiscovered efforts -- probably constitute the single most coordinated, widespread, expensive, under-the-radar PR campaign ever waged.

These extensive, expensive and hidden deceptions significantly undermined public understanding of the hazards of secondhand smoke and killed thousands and thousands of non-smokers and smokers alike.

The Final Chapter?

The Pueblo study was only made possible because the people of Pueblo courageously enacted a smoke-free law before the rest of the state did. Pueblo's law predated Colorado's statewide smoking law by three years. This is how it usually happens: a slew of cities and towns enact their own smoking bans until finally a measure is passed at the state level. Attaining smoke-free places has been a true grassroots activity. Once people experience air clean of cigarette smoke in bars, restaurants and other public places, they love it and don't want to go back to allowing smoking. There are many people alive today who could never conceive of encountering cigarette smoke on buses or airplanes, in hospitals, theaters or universities or other places where once smoking was the norm. Once upon a time, most people believed it was impossible to get bars to go smoke-free, but today this commonsense life-saving law that is the norm in many states and countries.

Time and society are marching on, and as more people are protected from secondhand smoke, we are only starting to learn the true scope of its health effects -- from studies like the one done in Pueblo.

HemiEd
06-01-2012, 05:56 PM
Actually, no. The air that leaves a persons lungs is not the same as when it entered. This is primary school-level science.

I said smoke, not air, but whatever.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 06:03 PM
Seriously?

The data that shows children who are exposed to second hand smoke are more apt to suffer from asthma isn't enough to tell you that second hand smoke effects you?

All the data that shows increased incidents of heart disease and lung disease in non-smokers who have long term exposrue to second hand smoke isn't made up.


Baseless assertions. Show me the data. I showed you some of my data... did you even bother to read it? This is the part that bothers me so damn much. I'm guessing that you have never actually read a study on this or done any of the research yet you are cocksure that there is a massive health risk.

How about the 1998 WHO study? In that study the children raised in smoking households showed a Relative Risk of .78 (CI of .64-.96) You know what that means? That means that of all the results in the study the ONLY CLOSE TO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ONE shows that it's 22% LESS likely for a child of a smoker to get lung cancer! Here are the actual results...

ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

I implore you to DO THE RESEARCH instead of just accepting baseless conclusions promoted by the media.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 06:08 PM
He's going to bring up the potency argument in direct vs. sidestream smoke. I've been down this path with AustinChief before. If his whole IT thing doesn't pan out, he might have a future as an apologist for the tobacco industry.

I'll bring it up because it's something everyone should know. It's amazing that we as a people are so piss ignorant when it comes to simple toxicology. The dose makes the poison. Period. AND when people claim the whole second hand smoke can be a heavy dose nonsense.. they are flat out wrong. Look at the figures for PPM and you'll realize all this anecdotal bullshit doesn't hold up.

My god, it's like some of you believe in witches and fairies. What the fuck happened to critical thinking?

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 06:21 PM
I can't believe nobody has bothered to point out that there are plenty of legitimate studies that have proven the effects of second hand smoke. They're not hard to find.



I'll take the time to read your article as soon as I can.. but you do realize once again this is not hard science.. this is someone's comments on the science. I need to see the actual studies. After just skimming the article it appears they only quote the EPA studies (debunked already) and internal studies by Phillip Morris(which I'll post more on later). Oh and the "study" about heart attacks is completely bogus as well. It was reduced by 60%.. oops, we got that wrong.. 40%... ahh, sorry no it was really 27%... Of course the real problem with a "study" like the Pueblo one is that it can only show correlation not causation.

Seriously, is basic science not taught in school anymore?

Brainiac
06-01-2012, 06:24 PM
And now for some anecdotal evidence:

My ex-wife has asthma. So does my daughter. We divorced 20 years ago, and a couple of years later she married a smoker.

Her health declined considerably after she started living with a smoker. She has regular checkups with her doctor. After she'd been married about a year, she went back for another checkup. Her lung capacity was greatly reduced and her asthma was much worse. Her doctor said (and this is pretty much verbatim) "What's going on here? You're living with a smoker, aren't you?".

Her second husband was a gigantic douchebag who smoked constantly in the house, despite having a wife and stepdaughter with asthma. My ex-wife's asthma got much worse the entire time she was married to him. My daughter also had a very difficult time with her asthma back in those days.

My ex-wife finally decided she'd had enough of his shit and divorced him. (It wasn't because he was a smoker. It was because he was control-freak and a total prick.) Guess what? Her health and my daughter's health IMMEDIATELY improved when they got away from douchebag and his secondhand smoke. They still carry rescue inhalers, but they rarely use them any more.

So you can say whatever you want about smokers' rights, and you can quote whatever "scientific studies" have been trotted out by the tobacco industry, but the fact is that secondhand smoke IS harmful, and it eventually kills a hell of a lot nonsmokers. That's why so many cities have banned it, and that's why the American Heart Association estimates that approximately 38,000 people die each year from heart and blood vessel disease caused by secondhand smoke. That's also why the World Health Organization estimates that 600,000 people die every year from secondhand smoke.

All of the health organizations say secondhand smoke is extremely harmful. The tobacco industry says it isn't. I find the health organizations (the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization, the American Heart Association, the Environmental Protection Agency, and NUMEROUS others) to be far more credible than the shills for the tobacco industry.

By the way, there is a happy and appropriate ending to my anecdotal story. The rat bastard who married my ex-wife and forced her and my daughter to inhale his secondhand smoke is now dead. He died of lung cancer.

Brainiac
06-01-2012, 06:27 PM
Just curious, AustinChief. You appear to have an agenda here.

You wouldn't happen to be a smoker, would you?

Frazod
06-01-2012, 06:31 PM
I had enough of this shit last time around. You guys can battle the anti-smoking Nazis without me. Have fun! :thumb:

themanwithnoname
06-01-2012, 06:35 PM
I'll take the time to read your article as soon as I can.. but you do realize once again this is not hard science.. this is someone's comments on the science. I need to see the actual studies. After just skimming the article it appears they only quote the EPA studies (debunked already) and internal studies by Phillip Morris(which I'll post more on later). Oh and the "study" about heart attacks is completely bogus as well. It was reduced by 60%.. oops, we got that wrong.. 40%... ahh, sorry no it was really 27%... Of course the real problem with a "study" like the Pueblo one is that it can only show correlation not causation.

Seriously, is basic science not taught in school anymore?

Bingo. They really don't, and its only getting worse. People actively are being taught to distrust and refuse scientific reasoning.

penchief
06-01-2012, 06:36 PM
I have spent a very large part of my life working in multifamily housing and I can assure you that is not true.

So have I and I can assure you it is.

Brainiac
06-01-2012, 06:36 PM
I had enough of this shit last time around. You guys can battle the anti-smoking Nazis without me. Have fun! :thumb:
That didn't take long.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/039/090/godwins-law1.png?1265674291

penchief
06-01-2012, 06:37 PM
Hey pen... you just got Bugeatered.

http://i.imgur.com/MvZFD.gif

No I didn't. I have a great deal of experience in multi-family housing and I know for a fact what I say is true.

penchief
06-01-2012, 06:38 PM
whiny person alert :D

asthma is directly linked to pollen count & mold spore rates. states such as Hawaii, missouri & New York have the highest asthma rates.

http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/Asthma/#StateInfo

So medical science is wrong? Holy shit. I can't believe how many people will actually resort to undermining data in order to justify what they believe or don't want to believe.

Brainiac
06-01-2012, 06:41 PM
Smokers get offended and feel persecuted when they are told they can't blow their smoke in everybody else's faces.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 06:45 PM
Smokers get offended and feel persecuted when they are told they can't blow their smoke in everybody else's faces.

This has nothing to do with smokers rights. (If anything it's about property owners rights) This is simply about BAD SCIENCE and why you are willing to swallow it without doing your own critical thinking and without even LOOKING at the studies I have posted so far.

bishop_74
06-01-2012, 06:50 PM
C'mon. This is silly. It is what it is. You can second guess results all you want, but the fact remains that exposure increases risk of cancer.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP00D20101126?irpc=932

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

Baconeater
06-01-2012, 06:59 PM
So have I and I can assure you it is.
I can assure you that you were wasting your money if you called in ServiceMaster.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 07:03 PM
C'mon. This is silly. It is what it is. You can second guess results all you want, but the fact remains that exposure increases risk of cancer.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP00D20101126?irpc=932

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

And yet again we get opinion with NO FACTS to back it up. Your first link is just a bunch of projections based on cherry picked data sets that show statistically insignificant relative risks. Let me try to explain this again. If you have a relative risk of say 1.16, that means that you are looking at a possible 16% increase in risk. Now, if your CI in that instance is .92-1.46 then your finding is not significant because it could just as easily TRULY be .92 (meaning 8% LOWER risk) Now, if we decide to IGNORE the ACCEPTED practice and make the bogus claim that there simply is a 16% increase in risk.. then we run the numbers against number of people exposed, incidence of lung cancer, etc etc... you end up with the complete spurious "facts" that you seem so ready to accept at face value.

OH, and your second link is to data that has already been debunked thoroughly and thrown out IN COURT. Guys, the early 90's EPA study is worthless.. please quit quoting it unless you can prove otherwise. (hint, you can't.. I can't show page after page of bias and blatant lies that went in to it.)

I'm still waiting for anyone to show facts instead of just regurgitating false conclusions.

Easy 6
06-01-2012, 07:15 PM
Man, you're throwing out a bunch of pure gobbledygook, AC.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 07:38 PM
Man, you're throwing out a bunch of pure gobbledygook, AC.

Those crazy science wizards with their strange incantations!!! :D

If anyone wants to read up on RR and CI... here ya go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

And here is a non wiki article to explain further...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1706071/
Where I will quote...

It is important to calculate a confidence interval for each odds ratio. A confidence interval that includes 1.0 means that the association between the exposure and outcome could have been found by chance alone and that the association is not statistically significant. An odds ratio without a confidence interval is not very meaningful.

SOOOO... for each "study" you find that backs up the assertion that ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) is a significant health risk... please check the CI and if it include 1.0... toss that study and move on. These are not my rules... they are THE rules.

OH, and here is another paper which can shed light on OR, RR and CI...
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/what_are_conf_inter.pdf
and a quote...(just to be clear "no effect" is a 1.0 value when dealing with RR)
If the confidence interval captures the
value reflecting ‘no effect’, this represents
a difference that is statistically nonsignificant
(for a 95% confidence interval,
this is non-significance at the 5% level

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 08:07 PM
And now for some anecdotal evidence:

My ex-wife has asthma. So does my daughter. We divorced 20 years ago, and a couple of years later she married a smoker.

Her health declined considerably after she started living with a smoker. She has regular checkups with her doctor. After she'd been married about a year, she went back for another checkup. Her lung capacity was greatly reduced and her asthma was much worse. Her doctor said (and this is pretty much verbatim) "What's going on here? You're living with a smoker, aren't you?".

Her second husband was a gigantic douchebag who smoked constantly in the house, despite having a wife and stepdaughter with asthma. My ex-wife's asthma got much worse the entire time she was married to him. My daughter also had a very difficult time with her asthma back in those days.

My ex-wife finally decided she'd had enough of his shit and divorced him. (It wasn't because he was a smoker. It was because he was control-freak and a total prick.) Guess what? Her health and my daughter's health IMMEDIATELY improved when they got away from douchebag and his secondhand smoke. They still carry rescue inhalers, but they rarely use them any more.

So you can say whatever you want about smokers' rights, and you can quote whatever "scientific studies" have been trotted out by the tobacco industry, but the fact is that secondhand smoke IS harmful, and it eventually kills a hell of a lot nonsmokers. That's why so many cities have banned it, and that's why the American Heart Association estimates that approximately 38,000 people die each year from heart and blood vessel disease caused by secondhand smoke. That's also why the World Health Organization estimates that 600,000 people die every year from secondhand smoke.

All of the health organizations say secondhand smoke is extremely harmful. The tobacco industry says it isn't. I find the health organizations (the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization, the American Heart Association, the Environmental Protection Agency, and NUMEROUS others) to be far more credible than the shills for the tobacco industry.

By the way, there is a happy and appropriate ending to my anecdotal story. The rat bastard who married my ex-wife and forced her and my daughter to inhale his secondhand smoke is now dead. He died of lung cancer.

Again.. it's crap like this that infuriates me. You seem to have absolutely no regard for science and objective methodologies.

#1 you admit that the guy she married was a control freak and an all around dick head. You ever consider that this would cause a remarkable increase in STRESS for both the woman and her child? You do realize there are more studies showing a relationship with STRESS and asthma right? I have no clue what happened in this case, but you see how using faulty logic and assumption can get you in trouble.

#2 Don't even begin with the whole "big tobacco" is making up all these studies nonsense. I can show you an assload of "studies" funded by big pharma.. you know, the guys who make all the stop smoking aids. So that ridiculous argument cuts both ways.

Why don't you stop asserting something as fact before you take the time to read up on the topic and realize that the "proof" you keep espousing, just isn't there.

KC Tattoo
06-01-2012, 08:08 PM
Is my smoking bothering any of you?

Brock
06-01-2012, 08:21 PM
...this crap again?

LMAO

my clothes! my clothes!

You stink and your breath is bad.

NewChief
06-01-2012, 08:21 PM
Here's one for you:

The fact that second hand smoke is bad for you is just accepted this day in age, thus there is no reason for a study. If you're so interested, fund a study. The rest of us will just go along pretty much going with common sense: blowing smoke in your kids' face probably isn't a good idea.

Baconeater
06-01-2012, 08:26 PM
Here's one for you:

The fact that second hand smoke is bad for you is just accepted this day in age, thus there is no reason for a study. If you're so interested, fund a study. The rest of us will just go along pretty much going with common sense: blowing smoke in your kids' face probably isn't a good idea.
Hyperbole much?

NewChief
06-01-2012, 08:28 PM
Hyperbole much?

Okay. Go light one up and blow it in a kids' face in public. See how that goes over for you. Perception is reality, and smokers lost this battle. Keep fighting the good fight. Maybe in 100 years people will recognize that smokers were like the Jews of this millenia.

Baconeater
06-01-2012, 08:30 PM
Who the hell is saying it's ok to go blow smoke in anyone's face? JFC

NewChief
06-01-2012, 08:30 PM
Who the hell is saying it's ok to go blow smoke in anyone's face? JFC

Well if it's safe and doesn't hurt anyone.. then what's the problem with blowing it in their face? It's like breathing regular old air... only with flavor (methol if you're lucky).

Baconeater
06-01-2012, 08:31 PM
You're being a fucktard about this.

Easy 6
06-01-2012, 08:33 PM
I'm a smoker & even i have to LMAO at this.

.92 this, eleventythousand parts per million that... c'mon being in a room full of smoke is bad for anyone in it./.

side rant - but bars should be sacrosanct, its not a health club its a !BAR! dont like the icky smoke? DONT SHOW UP STAY YOUR ASS HOME.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 08:38 PM
Here's one for you:

The fact that second hand smoke is bad for you is just accepted this day in age, thus there is no reason for a study. If you're so interested, fund a study. The rest of us will just go along pretty much going with common sense: blowing smoke in your kids' face probably isn't a good idea.

And here we have a problem... I have SHOWN you studies that show there is no significant risk... I have explained how epidemiology works.. yet you and others refuse to believe it or hell, even READ the links.

So... please tell me... since the SCIENCE does NOT SUPPORT this so called "fact" what do you base you opinion on? You are perfectly willing to go with the whole "well most people believe it now, so that's good enough for me" reason? That seems like a pretty damn poor excuse for a reason to believe something.

How many studies do I need to quote that show that there is no statistically significant linkage? 5? 10? 20? Or are you too stubborn to even entertain that you could be wrong on this?

I am perfectly willing to be wrong.. and I'll even give what it would take to convince me. Show me actual studies (where I can look at raw data, methodology, etc etc) that show a CI of 1.1-xx and show me MORE of these then studies that show a CI containing 1.0. and no, meta-analysis won't do. A common practice in a meta-analysis is to look at xx number of studies and then TOSS all the studies that show no statistical significance and use the ones that do. That's not the way it's supposed to be done.. at all.

So, I've given my criteria.. what is yours? I have yet to see ONE of the ETS health riskers comment on the studies I have posted. Do you think the numbers have been doctored? Do you think it's ok to ignore them simply because you don;t like the results? Is anyone willing to address the SCIENCE directly?

NewChief
06-01-2012, 08:39 PM
You're being a ****tard about this.

I could say the same about you all. Seriously. I understand the detached "scientific" perspective that you all are trying to take on this, but common sense tells most of us: second hand smoke sucks. It's a nuisance. It makes people sick and feel like shit. I understand the desire to protect property rights and all that shit, but I'm trying to point out that it's common sense that second hand smoke isn't good for people.

NewChief
06-01-2012, 08:40 PM
And here we have a problem... I have SHOWN you studies that show there is no significant risk... I have explained how epidemiology works.. yet you and others refuse to believe it or hell, even READ the links.

So... please tell me... since the SCIENCE does NOT SUPPORT this so called "fact" what do you base you opinion on? You are perfectly willing to go with the whole "well most people believe it now, so that's good enough for me" reason? That seems like a pretty damn poor excuse for a reason to believe something.

How many studies do I need to quote that show that there is no statistically significant linkage? 5? 10? 20? Or are you too stubborn to even entertain that you could be wrong on this?

I am perfectly willing to be wrong.. and I'll even give what it would take to convince me. Show me actual studies (where I can look at raw data, methodology, etc etc) that show a CI of 1.1-xx and show me MORE of these then studies that show a CI containing 1.0. and no, meta-analysis won't do. A common practice in a meta-analysis is to look at xx number of studies and then TOSS all the studies that show no statistical significance and use the ones that do. That's not the way it's supposed to be done.. at all.

So, I've given my criteria.. what is yours? I have yet to see ONE of the ETS health riskers comment on the studies I have posted. Do you think the numbers have been doctored? Do you think it's ok to ignore them simply because you don;t like the results? Is anyone willing to address the SCIENCE directly?

My criteria is common sense. If it's not cool to blow it in your kid's face, why should it be cool to fill a public space with it? This all being said: I have no problem with private establishments wanting to allow smoking. Don't care. Knock yourselves out. I honestly don't even have a problem with towns that don't have smoking bans. I will say that I enjoy the hell out of the fact that my town has one, though. Never gone out and come home with so few hangovers since that happened.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 08:41 PM
I'm a smoker & even i have to LMAO at this.

.92 this, eleventythousand parts per million that... c'mon being in a room full of smoke is bad for anyone in it./.

side rant - but bars should be sacrosanct, its not a health club its a !BAR! dont like the icky smoke? DONT SHOW UP STAY YOUR ASS HOME.

ok, so you FIRMLY believe that second hand smoke is a significant health risk. Even though scientific studies don't show that at all. What informs your opinion on this? Is it simply a willingness to go along with the media?

NewChief
06-01-2012, 08:43 PM
ok, so you FIRMLY believe that second hand smoke is a significant health risk. Even though scientific studies don't show that at all. What informs your opinion on this? Is it simply a willingness to go along with the media?

Common sense. And yes, I realize that "common sense" once told us the earth was flat.

Kyle DeLexus
06-01-2012, 08:44 PM
I'm a smoker & even i have to LMAO at this.

.92 this, eleventythousand parts per million that... c'mon being in a room full of smoke is bad for anyone in it./.

side rant - but bars should be sacrosanct, its not a health club its a !BAR! dont like the icky smoke? DONT SHOW UP STAY YOUR ASS HOME.

I really don't get the It's a bar argument. Back in the old days didn't they have ashtrays in boardrooms and basically everywhere else. Then they started slowly removing them and telling people not to smoke around others. Why is a drinking establishment any different? None smokers want to drink and pick up slutty chicks too.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 08:50 PM
My criteria is common sense. If it's not cool to blow it in your kid's face, why should it be cool to fill a public space with it?

Gotcha. so IGNORANCE is your criteria. You refuse to look at the data, you refuse to look at the methodologies, you refuse to look at what the hard science tells you... that leaves you with pig-headed ignorance on the subject.

Let's go with some other "common sense" things you might believe and the media is willing to feed you on...

Meteorites? When they strike the earth they are always HOT right?

Glass is really a liquid. Right? That's why old stained glass windows are thicker at the bottom. Right?

How about an easy one...Alcohol kills brain cells. Everyone knows this.. and the media sure as hell tells us this. So it's true, right?

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 08:51 PM
Common sense. And yes, I realize that "common sense" once told us the earth was flat.

see my last post.. I gave you some modern day examples.. I didn't want to go back to the tired old Flat Earth argument. Besides.. it is flat! :D

NewChief
06-01-2012, 08:52 PM
Gotcha. so IGNORANCE is your criteria. You refuse to look at the data, you refuse to look at the methodologies, you refuse to look at what the hard science tells you... that leaves you with pig-headed ignorance on the subject.

Let's go with some other "common sense" things you might believe and the media is willing to feed you on...

Meteorites? When they strike the earth they are always HOT right?

Glass is really a liquid. Right? That's why old stained glass windows are thicker at the bottom. Right?

How about an easy one...Alcohol kills brain cells. Everyone knows this.. and the media sure as hell tells us this. So it's true, right?

See Post #99. Once again. Have kids. Blow it in their faces. How's that feel? No guilt? Great! You're scientific, bro.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 09:12 PM
See Post #99. Once again. Have kids. Blow it in their faces. How's that feel? No guilt? Great! You're scientific, bro.

That's just silly. OF COURSE I wouldn't blow smoke in ANYONE'S face, much less a little kid. It's just rude. I also wouldn't put my ass in someone's face and fart on them.

What does that have to do with the HEALTH issue we are meant to be discussing?

If you want to say that ETS is annoying or disgusting or gross... fine.. I'll concede those points for the sake of moving on. Now, please explain to me why you INSIST that it's also HARMFUL. Are you willing to concede that it may not be harmful, you just "think" it is.. mainly because you want an excuse to make something you find objectionable illegal?

NewChief
06-01-2012, 09:15 PM
That's just silly. OF COURSE I wouldn't blow smoke in ANYONE'S face, much less a little kid. It's just rude. I also wouldn't put my ass in someone's face and fart on them.

What does that have to do with the HEALTH issue we are meant to be discussing?

If you want to say that ETS is annoying or disgusting or gross... fine.. I'll concede those points for the sake of moving on. Now, please explain to me why you INSIST that it's also HARMFUL. Are you willing to concede that it may not be harmful, you just "think" it is.. mainly because you want an excuse to make something you find objectionable illegal?

See other post. I'm not a big pusher of smoking bans, but damn do I enjoy the one in place in my city. Our entertainment district is as good as ever, too, despite the complaints of the smokers that it would kill the district (Austin's really suffering too, I hear).

The one business that I know died as a result was a guy who owned a really high end restaurant, but was really vocal in his opposition. His didn't go out as a result of the smoking band but as a result of the low class image he developed for his "high end" restaurant through his support of smoking. Sucks to be a smoker in this day and age, seriously. Glad I quit in my 20s.

KS Smitty
06-01-2012, 09:19 PM
Second-hand smoke is an irritant. Hell first-hand smoke is too.

Much like many other airborne material cigarette smoke can cause reactions to individuals. Pollen, dust, dander, and smog can exacerbate health problems in individuals, it would be naive to say cigarette smoke doesn't.

That being said, as a smoker of over 35 years and a resident of Kansas I love the smoking ban. I hate cigarette smoke when I'm eating, now I can eat anywhere without worrying about that. Manhattan's ban is 20' from any entrance but the rest of KS is 10'. So you have a crowd of smokers to walk through going in or out but it's not that bad. I'm also the kind of smoker that only likes my cigarette.

I've been at more than one Bash where on Sunday the air quality in the game room was awful! Of course I've usually had a fat head and fuzzy brain from the previous nights alcohol consumption but man, the smoke got to me.

So no, I have nothing scientific to add. :p

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 09:23 PM
See other post. I'm not a big pusher of smoking bans, but damn do I enjoy the one in place in my city. Our entertainment district is as good as ever, too, despite the complaints of the smokers that it would kill the district.

The one business that I know died as a result was a guy who owned a really high end restaurant, but was really vocal in his opposition. His didn't go out as a result of the smoking band but as a result of the low class image he developed for his "high end" restaurant through his support of smoking. Sucks to be a smoker in this day and age, seriously. Glad I quit in my 20s.

I can show studies that show massive negative impacts from bans.. but I simply don't care about that. If it's truly a health hazard then the economic impact shouldn't be our first concern. My problem is with the acceptance of bad science as FACT.

I'm actually pretty flexible on smoking bans. If you push an all out ban on tobacco smoke and base it on junk science, I will fight it tooth and nail. If instead you make "air quality" the issue, I would be much more likely to go along. At least that way, a property owner can install filtration systems and maintain whatever level of air quality is being mandated. It's an expense, but so are things like fire sprinklers, emergency exit lighting, etc. Much more reasonable.

BUT that is not at all on topic... I'm REALLY concerned with the tendency for the public to accept all this junk science.

NewChief
06-01-2012, 09:35 PM
I can show studies that show massive negative impacts from bans.. but I simply don't care about that. If it's truly a health hazard then the economic impact shouldn't be our first concern. My problem is with the acceptance of bad science as FACT.

I'm actually pretty flexible on smoking bans. If you push an all out ban on tobacco smoke and base it on junk science, I will fight it tooth and nail. If instead you make "air quality" the issue, I would be much more likely to go along. At least that way, a property owner can install filtration systems and maintain whatever level of air quality is being mandated. It's an expense, but so are things like fire sprinklers, emergency exit lighting, etc. Much more reasonable.

BUT that is not at all on topic... I'm REALLY concerned with the tendency for the public to accept all this junk science.

Once again: I don't think there is a push for science to come out proving it's dangerous because the public perception battle is already won. People believe it is dangerous. If, at some point, people start disbelieving it, then I expect to see 10 jillion studies come out showing that it's a fact.

That's science (since you love science) these days: it's all agenda driven, and most of it seems to be by hired guns. I realize that runs counter to the entire nature of science, but it's pretty clear to see that it's the case. Look at the major hot button scientific issues. There should be a clear consensus, because it's science. Yet there's tons of debate and obfuscation on issues that are political hot buttons.

Brainiac
06-01-2012, 09:53 PM
BUT that is not at all on topic... I'm REALLY concerned with the tendency for the public to accept all this junk science.
It's nice that your only concern here is the tendency of the public to accept all of the junk science.

By the way, I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread that it appears you have an agenda, and I asked if you just might happen to be a smoker. I noticed that you never answered that question.

Now go ahead and tell me that it's none of my damn business whether or not you're a smoker, and that it's irrelevant anyway, because your only interest is that the public stop accepting this junk science. :rolleyes:

Brainiac
06-01-2012, 09:57 PM
I can show studies that show massive negative impacts from bans.. but I simply don't care about that.
I'd be interested in seeing one of these case studies that show massive negative impacts from smoking bans. Forgive me, but I'm a bit skeptical about that.

Saul Good
06-01-2012, 10:12 PM
I would love nothing more than to see a study proving that second hand smoke is dangerous. I hate it with every fiber of my being. Bars being smoke free is fucking fantastic. Truth is, as far as every study I've seen, it's a nuisance and not a legitimate health problem.

That said, my righteous indignation only goes so far on this issue because smokers are generally pricks, and smoky clothes suck.

Also, people who throw cigarette butts on the ground should be fined, and people who throw lit cigarette butts out of car windows should be stabbed.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 10:30 PM
I'd be interested in seeing one of these case studies that show massive negative impacts from smoking bans. Forgive me, but I'm a bit skeptical about that.

I'd have to find them.. but I don't put much merit behind them. (they do exist though) My point is that it's a non-issue. The "smoking bans hurt business" argument is one I could care less about.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 10:34 PM
It's nice that your only concern here is the tendency of the public to accept all of the junk science.

By the way, I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread that it appears you have an agenda, and I asked if you just might happen to be a smoker. I noticed that you never answered that question.

Now go ahead and tell me that it's none of my damn business whether or not you're a smoker, and that it's irrelevant anyway, because your only interest is that the public stop accepting this junk science. :rolleyes:

Yes I am a smoker. No the Austin smoking ban doesn't bother me on a convenience level. As a matter of fact I have met more women outside while smoking then I ever would in the bar. As I stated, if you want an "air quality" ordinance, I wouldn't have a problem so long as it was somewhat objective and not just a thinly veiled smoking ban. The only aspect of this that actually ANGERS me is when people throw out junk science as an excuse to DICTATE to private property owners a policy that clearly is about not inconveniencing those who simply don't like smoke. If enough people have a problem, let the MARKET decide. If a person has a problem with smoke but won't go to the trouble of avoiding smoky bars and instead frequenting smoke-free establishments.. then they really don't care that much, do they?

Mr. Laz
06-01-2012, 10:40 PM
yea, i'm sure that all the bad shit just disappears after it leaves your lungs.

it still smells the same
it still stains the ceiling
it still stains the furniture

but nope ... all the bad stuff in the air is just *poof* hepa filter clean


Harry Potter would be amazed by that magic process

KS Smitty
06-01-2012, 10:42 PM
Yes I am a smoker. No the Austin smoking ban doesn't bother me on a convenience level. As a matter of fact I have met more women outside while smoking then I ever would in the bar. As I stated, if you want an "air quality" ordinance, I wouldn't have a problem so long as it was somewhat objective and not just a thinly veiled smoking ban. The only aspect of this that actually ANGERS me is when people throw out junk science as an excuse to DICTATE to private property owners a policy that clearly is about not inconveniencing those who simply don't like smoke. If enough people have a problem, let the MARKET decide. If a person has a problem with smoke but won't go to the trouble of avoiding smoky bars and instead frequenting smoke-free establishments.. then they really don't care that much, do they?

I think it would be interesting to see how businesses would be affected if smoking bans were voluntary after being mandatory. Again science or no, if I'm eating it will be in a nonsmoking environment, if it limits my choices so be it.

Mr. Laz
06-01-2012, 10:50 PM
what about 1st hand smoke?

when people are smoking and just holding it between puffs or set it in an ashtray?


i would think all the chemicals would still be floating around in that smoke.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 10:58 PM
yea, i'm sure that all the bad shit just disappears after it leaves your lungs.

it still smells the same
it still stains the ceiling
it still stains the furniture

but nope ... all the bad stuff in the air is just *poof* hepa filter clean


Harry Potter would be amazed by that magic process

Gotcha. So a glass of wine is the same as drinking 10 bottles in a night?

Salt leaves a residue, doesn't just "poof" disappear.. yet your body NEEDS small doses... large doses cause long term health issues.

Garlic smells... and leaves an oily residue... and if you eat enough you can die. It's toxic.

The dose makes the poison. The dose makes the poison.. Say it with me... THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON.

ETS has such infinitesimal amounts of "toxins" that it doesn't come anywhere close to OSHA thresholds on ANY of them. Let's look at three for example...
Let's imagine a 20 foot by 20 foot room with a 9 foot ceiling and ZERO VENTILATION. Now, let's put see how many cigarettes need to be smoked to hit OSHA thresholds for the following chemicals.

Benzene - 1,290
Phenol - 7,600
Toluene - 1,000,000

Now do you see the problems?

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 11:02 PM
what about 1st hand smoke?

when people are smoking and just holding it between puffs or set it in an ashtray?


i would think all the chemicals would still be floating around in that smoke.

You are talking about "sidestream" smoke. It also is far too diluted to matter... and is calculated with ETS. Maybe if you stood over the cigarette constantly sucking it in a few centimeters from the lit tip... but I think we call that... smoking.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 11:03 PM
I think it would be interesting to see how businesses would be affected if smoking bans were voluntary after being mandatory. Again science or no, if I'm eating it will be in a nonsmoking environment, if it limits my choices so be it.

I think a few studies are out there on this... but again, not something I ever really cared much about.

AustinChief
06-01-2012, 11:13 PM
ok.. I know this is completely off topic.. but it's a fun read by one of America's greatest writers...

I don't want any of your statistics. I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it. I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc., etc., etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc., etc., etc. You never see but one side of the question. You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime, (and which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone,) nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all these little vicious enjoyments for fifty years, but then what can you do with it? -what use can you put it to? Money can't save your infinitesimal soul; all the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life -therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment, where is the use in accumulating cash? It won't do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees when the contribution box comes around; and you always pay your debts in greenbacks, and never give the revenue officers a true statement of your income. Now you know all these things yourself, don't you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don't you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as "ornery" and unloveable as you are yourselves, by your ceaseless and villainous "moral statistics?" Now I don't approve of dissipation, and I don't indulge in it, either, but I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices whatever, and so I don't want to hear from you any more. I think you are the very same man who read me a long lecture, last week, about the degrading vice of smoking cigars, and then came back, in my absence, with your vile, reprehensible fire-proof gloves on, and carried off my beautiful parlor stove.

-Mark Twain

tiptap
06-02-2012, 05:55 AM
Nicotine is an additive drug. Can we agree upon that? It has direct physiological effects and crosses the blood brain barrier to have its addictive operation. It is a particularly 'powerful' addictive drug. There are many studies that show that nicotine is carried to non smokers by second hand smoke. Therefore second hand smoke can strongly be considered a form of involuntary entrapment to introduction of the additive drug. It is the gateway process.

ct
06-02-2012, 06:50 AM
secondhand smoke & smoking in general are ****ing gross.

this, and I'm a former smoker

Ok, you are welcome to your opinion. Now, because you believe that.. does it A) make it a scientific fact that it is a health risk and B) give a valid justification for curtailing a property owner's right to chose a smoking or non-smoking environment for his business?

Clearly no. Just because something is gross doesn't make it harmful nor should it be a legal justification.

Next...

A) Irrelavent, from an individual preference point only

B) Absolutely NOT! Business owner can do as he wishes and patrons can do as they wish, including not patroning said business. Get gov't out of our business.

Brock
06-02-2012, 07:29 AM
Nicotine is an additive drug. Can we agree upon that? It has direct physiological effects and crosses the blood brain barrier to have its addictive operation. It is a particularly 'powerful' addictive drug. There are many studies that show that nicotine is carried to non smokers by second hand smoke. Therefore second hand smoke can strongly be considered a form of involuntary entrapment to introduction of the additive drug. It is the gateway process.

Nicotine's power as an addictive drug is grossly overstated. You stop using it for a couple of days and the physical need for it is over. After that, it's just a mental thing. It isn't heroin.

Secondly, I doubt you can point to a single example of a person becoming addicted to secondhand smoke.

tiptap
06-02-2012, 08:48 AM
Nicotine's power as an addictive drug is grossly overstated. You stop using it for a couple of days and the physical need for it is over. After that, it's just a mental thing. It isn't heroin.

Secondly, I doubt you can point to a single example of a person becoming addicted to secondhand smoke.

And you have grossly simplified the overall effect. There are a wide range of genetically response to nicotine. But the majority of people can become addicted within weeks of use of nicotine. What this means is that the receptor sites are MULTIPLIED in number. This is a permanent effect. It does decrease but very slowly compared to the production. It is true that the sites do not show the withdrawl effect for most people after your comment of 2 days. But it can be along as a year for some. It doesn't change the uptake receptor sites. And for that trigger effects can elicit all those sites. Maybe like second hand smoke.

penchief
06-02-2012, 09:11 AM
I'd be interested in seeing one of these case studies that show massive negative impacts from smoking bans. Forgive me, but I'm a bit skeptical about that.

You should be skeptical. I did my internship on this subject and all of the evidence shows that businesses haven't lost a dime. In fact, the opposite is true.

I'm all for skepticism. But it's been turned on its head. We live in a time where money tries to undermine anything that stands in its way. And when you have propaganda campaigns designed to undermine science, it's incredible to me that those who jump on board with that propaganda don't exercise the same level of skepticsim aimed at those campaigns as they do science, itself.

It really is a sorry state of affairs these days. Ideology and greed rule the roost while common sense takes a beating.

penchief
06-02-2012, 09:16 AM
I'd have to find them.. but I don't put much merit behind them. (they do exist though) My point is that it's a non-issue. The "smoking bans hurt business" argument is one I could care less about.

It would be a hell of a lot easier to find studies that disprove your claim. What you're saying isn't backed up by the data. Bar and restaurant owners in New York will tell you that their businesses have benefited from the bans. Once instituted everyone is okay with it. Nobody wants to go back. Even those who thought they were going to lose money because it just didn't turn out to be the case.

AustinChief
06-02-2012, 11:36 AM
It would be a hell of a lot easier to find studies that disprove your claim. What you're saying isn't backed up by the data. Bar and restaurant owners in New York will tell you that their businesses have benefited from the bans. Once instituted everyone is okay with it. Nobody wants to go back. Even those who thought they were going to lose money because it just didn't turn out to be the case.

I have seen studies that have shown significant negative impacts. Although as I stated, I simply don't care about that side of the argument, so I never dug into them to see if they were legitimate or not. They could be as bogus as the EPA studies on health risks. If you have spent the time on this side of things and have vetted the studies and know the opposite to be true.. then I'll be happy to concede that point. As I said, it's a stupid argument either way.

AustinChief
06-02-2012, 11:50 AM
I'm all for skepticism. But it's been turned on its head. We live in a time where money tries to undermine anything that stands in its way. And when you have propaganda campaigns designed to undermine science, it's incredible to me that those who jump on board with that propaganda don't exercise the same level of skepticsim aimed at those campaigns as they do science, itself.

It really is a sorry state of affairs these days. Ideology and greed rule the roost while common sense takes a beating.

I assume you are saying that the tobacco industry is the big bad guy undermining science? What about the Robert Wood Johnson foundation? They've spent over 400 million dollars on anti-tobacco programs and studies. Guess who they are? Ever heard of Johnson & Johnson? You know, the makers of Nicorette? Nicoderm? ok.. did you see the number? FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS.

So it appears YOU are the victim of propaganda, whereas I am ACTUALLY looking at the science itself. Have you taken the time to actually look at the studies like I have? Did you even bother trying to understand RR and CI? This isn;t hard to understand. There is no MAGIC involved. Just take a second to LOOK at the actually studies. Even the ones that are used to support the ETS health risk argument show a CI that contains 1.0. Meaning they are NOT statistically significant.

Why is this so fucking hard to understand?

AustinChief
06-02-2012, 11:56 AM
Nicotine is an additive drug. Can we agree upon that? It has direct physiological effects and crosses the blood brain barrier to have its addictive operation. It is a particularly 'powerful' addictive drug. There are many studies that show that nicotine is carried to non smokers by second hand smoke. Therefore second hand smoke can strongly be considered a form of involuntary entrapment to introduction of the additive drug. It is the gateway process.

That makes a ton of assumptions. You know as well as I do that you can't just make huge leaps in the process like that. BUT that's not even the argument. Can you address the argument that exposure to ETS has been proven to cause long term health risks? Will you admit that the studies don't show a statistically significant risk?

philfree
06-02-2012, 12:16 PM
ok.. I know this is completely off topic.. but it's a fun read by one of America's greatest writers...

I don't want any of your statistics. I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it. I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man's health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years' indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc., etc., etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc., etc., etc. You never see but one side of the question. You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime, (and which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone,) nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all these little vicious enjoyments for fifty years, but then what can you do with it? -what use can you put it to? Money can't save your infinitesimal soul; all the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life -therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment, where is the use in accumulating cash? It won't do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees when the contribution box comes around; and you always pay your debts in greenbacks, and never give the revenue officers a true statement of your income. Now you know all these things yourself, don't you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don't you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as "ornery" and unloveable as you are yourselves, by your ceaseless and villainous "moral statistics?" Now I don't approve of dissipation, and I don't indulge in it, either, but I haven't a particle of confidence in a man who has no redeeming petty vices whatever, and so I don't want to hear from you any more. I think you are the very same man who read me a long lecture, last week, about the degrading vice of smoking cigars, and then came back, in my absence, with your vile, reprehensible fire-proof gloves on, and carried off my beautiful parlor stove.

-Mark Twain

That's good stuff and it reminds me of the 80some year old man living in the old folks home. They took away his whiskey because it was bad for him. Perhaps the folks who took it away should drink it so they might live to be 80some years old.

Brock
06-02-2012, 12:25 PM
And you have grossly simplified the overall effect. There are a wide range of genetically response to nicotine. But the majority of people can become addicted within weeks of use of nicotine. What this means is that the receptor sites are MULTIPLIED in number. This is a permanent effect. It does decrease but very slowly compared to the production. It is true that the sites do not show the withdrawl effect for most people after your comment of 2 days. But it can be along as a year for some. It doesn't change the uptake receptor sites. And for that trigger effects can elicit all those sites. Maybe like second hand smoke.

This is a bunch of nonsense. A year? That's poppycock.

Baconeater
06-02-2012, 01:06 PM
Nicotine is an additive drug. Can we agree upon that? It has direct physiological effects and crosses the blood brain barrier to have its addictive operation. It is a particularly 'powerful' addictive drug. There are many studies that show that nicotine is carried to non smokers by second hand smoke. Therefore second hand smoke can strongly be considered a form of involuntary entrapment to introduction of the additive drug. It is the gateway process.
I don't know whether to ROFL or :facepalm: at this.

whoman69
06-02-2012, 02:08 PM
This whole thread is worthless. We are going back between studies from health organizations and studies by the tobacco companies refuting them. From personal experience, tobacco smoke bothers me. I'm not the only one that feels that way. Smokers make up 20% of adults in the US. Why should the 80% have to live in discomfort for the 20%?

Setsuna
06-02-2012, 02:11 PM
I got childhood asthma because of second hand smoke. Both neighbors' houses I went into to play with their children had smoking parents in the house. I inhaled a lot.

Baconeater
06-02-2012, 02:15 PM
This whole thread is worthless. We are going back between studies from health organizations and studies by the tobacco companies refuting them. From personal experience, tobacco smoke bothers me. I'm not the only one that feels that way. Smokers make up 20% of adults in the US. Why should the 80% have to live in discomfort for the 20%?
No one is saying you should. Just admit the real reason you don't like being around smokers is because you don't like the smell, not because we're some major threat to your life.

And once again, no one forced you to go into those smoke-filled bars. You did that out of your own free will.

NewChief
06-02-2012, 02:17 PM
The smoker's rights movement. It's like the civil rights movement of this era.

Let's have a smoke-in.

NewChief
06-02-2012, 02:21 PM
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the smokers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a smoker.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Baconeater
06-02-2012, 02:22 PM
I got childhood asthma because of second hand smoke. Both neighbors' houses I went into to play with their children had smoking parents in the house. I inhaled a lot.
You didn't get it from the cigarette smoke, that simply triggered it.

What Causes Asthma
Since asthma has a genetic origin and is a disease you are born with, passed down from generation to generation, the question isn’t really “what causes asthma,” but rather “what causes asthma symptoms to appear?” People with asthma have inflamed airways which are super-sensitive to things which do not bother other people. These things are called "triggers."


http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&cont=6

NewChief
06-02-2012, 02:22 PM
I did just have a serious thought:

Does anyone know if smoker status figures into adoption rights?

Setsuna
06-02-2012, 02:23 PM
You didn't get it from the cigarette smoke, that simply triggered it.



http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&cont=6

Well it's gone now. I grew out of it, if that's possible. And if it triggered it, fuck second-hand smoke.

Brainiac
06-02-2012, 02:35 PM
You didn't get it from the cigarette smoke, that simply triggered it.

It doesn't matter whether secondhand smoke is the root cause of an asthma attack or if it's simply the immediate cause (i.e., the trigger). Either way, it caused the attack.

Baconeater
06-02-2012, 03:37 PM
It doesn't matter whether secondhand smoke is the root cause of an asthma attack or if it's simply the immediate cause (i.e., the trigger). Either way, it caused the attack.
In the context of the conversation it does.

whoman69
06-02-2012, 07:10 PM
No one is saying you should. Just admit the real reason you don't like being around smokers is because you don't like the smell, not because we're some major threat to your life.

And once again, no one forced you to go into those smoke-filled bars. You did that out of your own free will.

I don't drink so my time in bars has been limited. My mother smoked for over 35 years before she quit. I don't concede your points as you won't concede mine. I won't believe your sources coming from the tobacco companies, you won't believe mine. Smoke makes me physically ill to be around and it has gotten worse as I have gotten older. Despite the fact that I was a runner in high school and ran during my time in the military, my lung capacity has gotten very poor and I have a version of asthma that results in heavy coughing. Additionally I am very succeptible to respiratory ailments having caught pneumonia twice. When I get a cold my coughs are legendary.

AustinChief
06-02-2012, 07:18 PM
I don't concede your points as you won't concede mine. I won't believe your sources coming from the tobacco companies, you won't believe mine.

I am discussing DATA, I don't care the source because I don't bother with the opinions.. I drill down and look at the raw figures themselves. I'll accept any study with data .. not some bullshit meta-analysis.. let's see the studies that show an RR over 2 and a CI that doesn't contain 1.0. So far NO ONE has produced one in this thread. Not only that, but no one seems to have taken the time to look at the SCIENCE and try to understand it.

So far you have yet to MAKE a point with anything except pure opinion with no backing. I simply don't understand how you can have such a strong opinion about something you know absolutely nothing about (from a scientific standpoint)... and when confronted.. continue to espouse and ignorant view without even bothering to educate yourself.

AustinChief
06-02-2012, 07:24 PM
This whole thread is worthless. We are going back between studies from health organizations and studies by the tobacco companies refuting them. From personal experience, tobacco smoke bothers me. I'm not the only one that feels that way. Smokers make up 20% of adults in the US. Why should the 80% have to live in discomfort for the 20%?

This thread is worthless to YOU because you have made up your mind and no amount of hard data will change it. The world is flat and no matter how much evidence I show otherwise.. you ignore it and tell me "it's obvious the world is flat... just look!"

Brainiac
06-02-2012, 07:36 PM
You can't tell the person who has asthma that they should just stop having asthma and shut the f*ck up. (Well, technically I guess you can, but it's not the right thing to do.)

You CAN tell the smoker that he can't smoke around the person who has asthma.

Smoking is a choice. Having asthma isn't. That's the difference.

That's why it's so ridiculous and arrogant for a smoker to say "Nobody is forcing any nonsmoker to go into establishments that allow smoking". Until the smoking bans started going into effect, 99.99% of all businesses allowed smoking because they were scared to death that the 20% of the population who smoke would leave. The result was that there really wasn't any place for the nonsmokers to go to. The people with actual medical conditions suffered. The people without medical conditions who just don't like having to breathe in all of the secondhand smoke had to put up with it.

AustinChief and other smokers can get irritated by smoking bans, but the fact is that 59% of the American people support smoking bans in ALL public places. That's the statistic that really matters.

AustinChief
06-02-2012, 07:41 PM
You can't tell the person who has asthma that they should just stop having asthma and shut the f*ck up. (Well, technically I guess you can, but it's not the right thing to do.)

You CAN tell the smoker that he can't smoke around the person who has asthma.

Smoking is a choice. Having asthma isn't. That's the difference.

That's why it's so ridiculous and arrogant for a smoker to say "Nobody is forcing any nonsmoker to go into establishments that allow smoking". Until the smoking bans started going into effect, 99.99% of all businesses allowed smoking because they were scared to death that the 20% of the population who smoke would leave. The result was that there really wasn't any place for the nonsmokers to go to. The people with actual medical conditions suffered. The people without medical conditions who just don't like having to breathe in all of the secondhand smoke had to put up with it.

AustinChief and other smokers can get irritated by smoking bans, but the fact is that 59% of the American people support smoking bans in ALL public places. That's the statistic that really matters.

I'm not irritated by smoking bans .. I'm irritated by ignorance and lies. That's the topic. So far NO ONE has addressed the health concerns with anything CLOSE to proof. Leave the anecdotal bullshit for the playground... let's have a big boy conversation about FACTS.

Brainiac
06-02-2012, 07:55 PM
I'm not irritated by smoking bans
Yeah, right.

AustinChief
06-02-2012, 08:08 PM
Yeah, right.

I'm not. Watch who you start to accuse of lying. I am bothered by the lies used to enforce them. Let me be specific... the actual bans bother me as a citizen and an advocate of property rights but they don't affect me on a PERSONAL level (I have never liked smoking indoors... of course I don't live where it ever gets cold.). The acceptance and use of junk science is my biggest pet peeve ... I argue against it on a ton of fronts... this is just the easiest one to get people engaged in a conversation on.

I also argue against the misconceptions regarding DDT. (but no one cares on that one)

tk13
06-02-2012, 08:18 PM
I don't even want to touch the smoking ban issue. That's a whole can of worms that'll never be solved because everyone's looking out for their own self-interests.

But as for the smoke itself... you'd have to provide me some pretty solid evidence that breathing any kind of smoke is okay for you, regardless of its origin.

AustinChief
06-02-2012, 08:30 PM
I don't even want to touch the smoking ban issue. That's a whole can of worms that'll never be solved because everyone's looking out for their own self-interests.

But as for the smoke itself... you'd have to provide me some pretty solid evidence that breathing any kind of smoke is okay for you, regardless of its origin.

I don't want to debate smoking bans in this thread either.. this thread is about long term health risks and what scientific proof there is (or in reality isn't).

Now, on to your second statement. That isn't how it works. I don't have a burden to prove to you that smoke is healthy. Nor do I need to prove to you that it doesn't contain microscopic witches. Nor is it my job to show conclusively that every time a cigarette is lit it doesn't kill a unicorn. The CLAIM is that it is unhealthy. The SCIENCE doesn't show a statistically significant relative risk. That doesn't mean it is healthy.. it just means that SO FAR no legit study has shown that ETS causes long term health risks.

Now why is this important? because you and many others have convinced yourselves that a risk is there... but you have done so based on either anecdotal claptrap or on media nonsense. I can't see how that wouldn't bother you? It seems like you'd want to be honest and say... "I have never seen any proof that there is a health risk...BUT I do think someday one will be found (purely just a guess or feeling) AND I also HATE second hand smoke and would like to see it go away".

tk13
06-02-2012, 08:52 PM
I don't know what to tell you. I don't think breathing any kind of smoke is healthy. That's why more people die in fires from smoke inhalation than burns. The origin of it doesn't matter to me, I find it very difficult to believe anyone and logically argue that inhaling any kind of smoke is good for you.

There's no point in even arguing it because people stick their feet in the mud to defend their personal lifestyle choices. I'd be more than willing to see a scientific experiment where people are locked in separate rooms where one room was completely clear and the others were filled with smoke from various origins. I'm guessing the people in the smoky rooms are generally not going to breathe as well. But everyone's health is different, maybe I'm wrong. In reality though I think it's just common sense and people argue these things to be difficult.

AustinChief
06-02-2012, 09:31 PM
I don't know what to tell you. I don't think breathing any kind of smoke is healthy. That's why more people die in fires from smoke inhalation than burns. The origin of it doesn't matter to me, I find it very difficult to believe anyone and logically argue that inhaling any kind of smoke is good for you.

There's no point in even arguing it because people stick their feet in the mud to defend their personal lifestyle choices. I'd be more than willing to see a scientific experiment where people are locked in separate rooms where one room was completely clear and the others were filled with smoke from various origins. I'm guessing the people in the smoky rooms are generally not going to breathe as well. But everyone's health is different, maybe I'm wrong. In reality though I think it's just common sense and people argue these things to be difficult.

#1 no one is claiming that inhaling smoke is HEALTHY.. the claim here is that there is no proof of long term health effects from ETS

#2 unfortunately we can't do destructive testing like that on humans.. so that "experiment" will never happen

#3 the "common sense" argument just doesn't work when it comes to SCIENCE. As I said, common sense will tell you that the Earth is flat. Common sense tells you that since garlic in small doses can be a little benefit for your health... in LARGE doses it most be a LARGE benefit. In fact, it will kill you. This is why I keep stressing one of the basic tenets of toxicology. The dose makes the poison. The "dose" from ETS is minuscule. Let's stick with your "smoke is always bad" premise. So, do you think that having a campfire and roasting weenies and marshmallows is unhealthy? You are inhaling smoke! What about people who warm their homes using a fireplace? Most of the smoke goes up the chimney... but not all of it! Starting to see now?

Baconeater
06-02-2012, 09:36 PM
OMG SMOKE! WE MUST BAN THESE!

http://s4.hubimg.com/u/54279_f520.jpg

tk13
06-02-2012, 09:53 PM
This is why I don't even bother with these discussions. People just get defensive and overreact, on both sides. There's no point in arguing about it.

Because I totally agree, there are plenty of instances where people are breathing unhealthy smoke and are seemingly okay with it because it fits within their personal preferences... just like the people who smoke throw a fit and act like the entire world is going to end because someone suggested it's unhealthy. People have no consideration for others and are just going to argue and tilt the evidence to fit whatever your personal preference is on the matter.

Sorter
06-02-2012, 09:59 PM
This is why I don't even bother with these discussions. People just get defensive and overreact, on both sides. There's no point in arguing about it. .

^This.

KC Tattoo
06-03-2012, 07:27 AM
The longer I go with out a cigarette the more hazard it is to others around me health. I'm ready to kill :#:reaper:

Baconeater
06-03-2012, 07:54 AM
This is why I don't even bother with these discussions. People just get defensive and overreact, on both sides. There's no point in arguing about it.

Because I totally agree, there are plenty of instances where people are breathing unhealthy smoke and are seemingly okay with it because it fits within their personal preferences... just like the people who smoke throw a fit and act like the entire world is going to end because someone suggested it's unhealthy. People have no consideration for others and are just going to argue and tilt the evidence to fit whatever your personal preference is on the matter.
Pretty much. I do try to take others into consideration when I smoke and I know many smokers don't, and I wasn't always that way myself either. But there are certain situations where we simply can't get far enough away where no one else will smell it.

A good example is at Arrowhead, they won't let people go out and smoke on the circular ramps anymore...why? There's hardly anyone on them during the games. Instead they shuttle us all the way up to the middle of the upper concourse, and depending on where you're sitting you can't get all the way up there, huff down a cig and get back to your seat in a 12 min halftime. Not to mention when you concentrate us like that, while it makes most of the stadium better, it makes it exponentially worse for those who are trying to use the concessions and restrooms in that area.

And they have gone similarly overboard at Memorial Stadium in Lincoln. It used to be that you had to go outside any gate to smoke. I didn't have a problem with that. But some non-smokers that happened to be around obviously couldn't deal with a wisp of cigarette smoke here and there, so now they only allow it at two of the gates. Yes, it makes the rest of the gates more pleasant, but the people that are using the smoking gates are getting fucking obliterated with smoke. It's stupid.

And I know smokers will always be on the losing end of the argument. We know it's unhealthy. We know it's gross and disgusting. But we do it anyway.

But I think we've gone far enough with the bans...non-smokers need to understand that we're always going to be around, and that yes, they are going to occasionally smell cigarette smoke.

Baconeater
06-03-2012, 08:03 AM
Oh, and I think the grill comment was fair. If a non-smoker was walking through the parking lot at Arrowhead, and walked by a person smoking, and then 50 ft later walked by a smoky grill, are they as equally offended and fearful of their health of both situations? I think we all know the answer to that.

Iowanian
06-03-2012, 08:36 AM
Does breathing coal dust cause health issues for miners? What causes mesothelioma? Radon is just 2nd hand smoke of the earth. Who gives a shit about a little extra asbestos particles floating in the air.


Anyone who doesn't think 2nd hand smoke is harmful sound like a drunken Ron Burgandy.

You're just a woman with a small brain...it's science.

DanT
06-03-2012, 01:45 PM
OK, so let's start with a huge study done by the American Cancer Society.. not exactly the most PRO-Tobacco group...
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full



Anyone want to tell me why a study with over 100,000 participants done over 39 years found NO significant risks yet they somehow got it wrong?


NOW before someone tries to quote the 1993 EPA study (the most often quoted nonsense) let me point out that it was completely debunked by scientists and even thrown out by a court of law. http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf They cherry picked studies for meta-analysis and never showed more then a 1.19 relative risk.
I can go on and on.. but unless someone wants to challenge me on this, let's all consider the EPA study worthless.

For the first question, why would a study with over 100,000 participants done over 39 years find no (statistically) significant risks and yet somehow get it wrong, that study has an important limitation that exposure to secondhand smoke is not measured directly. Instead, it uses respondent self-report of the smoking history of the respondent and the spouse as a basis for estimating the association of secondhand smoke exposure with outcomes. Not only are such reports prone to misclassification error, but even if they were accurate, they don't account for the secondhand smoke exposures that occur in places where the spouse isn't present (e.g. the workplace). The methodological challenges in measuring secondhand smoke exposures in observational epidemiological studies in humans are significant, which is not to say that such studies are to be ignored, but only to say that one should interpret the findings in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies that were used. Many of these issues are discussed in the 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's Report, "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke", available online at (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44324/ ). Note that although randomized clinical trials would provide the methodologically strongest possible evidence from individual studies for assessing whether secondhand smoke does or doesn't lead to adverse health outcomes, such studies are not feasible for a variety of ethical, administrative and financial reasons, so observational studies are about the best we can get in humans and we have to synthesize the evidence from those with evidence from other types of studies. (Of course, there's room for scientifically legitimate disputes about how best to go about such syntheses.)

The Surgeon General's report synthesizes evidence from cellular, animal and human studies whose abstracts are available to the public at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco and http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sgri/ . As has been discussed already in this thread by some users, there's a very plausible basis for thinking that secondhand smoke exposure can impact the respiratory health of children. There are also studies that provide support for such a link, leading to some of the major conclusions in this report.

By the way, AustinChief, the link you cited to support the claim that the "1993 EPA" study was thrown out by a court of law was to the December, 2002, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That decision threw out the lawsuit by the tobacco companies. Prior to getting to the Appeals court, a Federal District Court had, in 1998, ruled in favor of the tobacco companies and criticized the EPA's meta-analysis (which was published in 1992, actually, not 1993, although many commentators refer to it as the 1993 study ;) ). The methodologies used for meta-analyses are getting stronger, but it's still an approach that has important limitations, so the results from them have to be interpreted in light of that.

DanT
06-03-2012, 03:35 PM
I am discussing DATA, I don't care the source because I don't bother with the opinions.. I drill down and look at the raw figures themselves. I'll accept any study with data .. not some bullshit meta-analysis.. let's see the studies that show an RR over 2 and a CI that doesn't contain 1.0. So far NO ONE has produced one in this thread. Not only that, but no one seems to have taken the time to look at the SCIENCE and try to understand it.

So far you have yet to MAKE a point with anything except pure opinion with no backing. I simply don't understand how you can have such a strong opinion about something you know absolutely nothing about (from a scientific standpoint)... and when confronted.. continue to espouse and ignorant view without even bothering to educate yourself.

Here's a study with an estimated RR over 2 (just barely ;) ) and a 95% CI that doesn't contain 1.0 :
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sgri/result.aspx?ResultID=1118

This is from the CDC database associated with the 2006 US Surgeon General report, which I mentioned in my earlier post.

By the way, your criteria for what you'd consider to be convincing evidence are not ones that everyone would agree with. The 95% CI for a RR contains all of the values for the RR that the study data would be consistent with in the sense that the data would not provide statistically significant evidence against that value. So, for example, if the 95% CI includes 1, then there wouldn't be statistically significant evidence that the RR is not 1. But you could have a study that produces a 95% CI for the RR that runs from 1.4 to 1.6 and that study could provide pretty damn convincing evidence for an elevated risk that is both statistically and clinically significant. After all, an elevated risk from exposure that is between 40% to 60% bigger than the risk for the unexposed is pretty damn big.

In settings like epidemiology where there's a lot of sources of potential biases (especially from unmeasured confounders), there are reasonable grounds for some decisionmakers to require a sufficiently large relative risk estimate before that decisionmaker would feel comfortable that the estimate is too large to be completely due to some unmeasured confounders and other sources of bias, but that's based more on the particular circumstances. The requirement that the 95% CI not only exclude 1 but that the point estimate for the RR be so far to the right of 1.0 that the elevated risk amount to a doubling or even a tripling of the estimated risk in the unexposed group makes sense when the study design has methodological weaknesses that do not allow it to account for confounders and you want to be sure that those confounders are very unlikely to completely account for the elevated risk, but those circumstances don't always apply. Interestingly, the requirement for a big elevated RR goes back to the great epidemiologist Jerome Cornfield, who argued in a very important paper back in the 1950s that the observed association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was so strong as to be unlikely to be explained by some other factor (like an unmeasured genetic trait that simultaneously increased the propensity to smoke and to get lung cancer in the absence of a causal connection). In a circumstance where exposures are prone to a high degree of measurement error (which tends to bias the RR estimates toward 1), where there's a fairly strong biological basis for believing that most of the important confounders are being well controlled (by design or with statistical adjustments), then many scientists would consider the requirement to show a RR as high as 2.0 to be very stringent.

Chiefburger
06-03-2012, 04:11 PM
Oh, and I think the grill comment was fair. If a non-smoker was walking through the parking lot at Arrowhead, and walked by a person smoking, and then 50 ft later walked by a smoky grill, are they as equally offended and fearful of their health of both situations? I think we all know the answer to that.

it's fair if you're grilling with rat poison, tar, ammonia and tobacco.

DanT
06-03-2012, 05:04 PM
Here's a link to a 2010 report published by the "Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events" at the Institute of Medicine (a very prestigious collection of scientists): http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12649


The results of case–control and cohort studies carried out in multiple populations consistently indicate exposure to secondhand smoke poses about a 25–30% increase in risk of coronary heart disease.

A few epidemiologic studies using serum cotinine concentration, an objective measure of individual exposure to secondhand smoke, indicated that the RR of coronary heart disease associated with secondhand smoke was even greater than those estimates based on self-reported secondhand-smoke exposure.

The excess risk is unlikely to be explained by misclassification bias, uncontrolled confounding effects, or publication bias.

Although few studies have addressed coronary heart disease risk posed by exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace, there is no reason to suppose that the effect of exposure at work differs from the effect of exposure in the home environment.

NewChief
06-03-2012, 05:16 PM
DanT is bringing it.

DanT
06-03-2012, 05:33 PM
Hey Austin Chief, with regard to Jerome Cornfield's insight into the value of setting a minimum required magnitude for a relative risk, here's a readable account from the Italian Philosophy journal Humana Mente that you might find interesting, "Epidemiological Causation: Jerome Cornfield's Argument for a Causal Connection between Smoking and Lung Cancer":
http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Paper_EpidemiologiccCausation_issue%209.pdf

It reviews the controversy back in the 1950's about whether smoking causes lung cancer and the methodological contributions that Cornfield made to that debate, taking on some of the giants of the day. I think you'll find it interesting for its relevance to the current controversies about secondhand smoke.

AustinChief
06-03-2012, 06:08 PM
For the first question, why would a study with over 100,000 participants done over 39 years find no (statistically) significant risks and yet somehow get it wrong, that study has an important limitation that exposure to secondhand smoke is not measured directly. Instead, it uses respondent self-report of the smoking history of the respondent and the spouse as a basis for estimating the association of secondhand smoke exposure with outcomes. Not only are such reports prone to misclassification error, but even if they were accurate, they don't account for the secondhand smoke exposures that occur in places where the spouse isn't present (e.g. the workplace). The methodological challenges in measuring secondhand smoke exposures in observational epidemiological studies in humans are significant, which is not to say that such studies are to be ignored, but only to say that one should interpret the findings in light of the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies that were used. Many of these issues are discussed in the 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's Report, "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke", available online at (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44324/ ). Note that although randomized clinical trials would provide the methodologically strongest possible evidence from individual studies for assessing whether secondhand smoke does or doesn't lead to adverse health outcomes, such studies are not feasible for a variety of ethical, administrative and financial reasons, so observational studies are about the best we can get in humans and we have to synthesize the evidence from those with evidence from other types of studies. (Of course, there's room for scientifically legitimate disputes about how best to go about such syntheses.)


OK nothing new here. I agree with most of what you are saying. At no point have I stated that the studies showing a lack of proof mean that there is no health risk. My point has simply been the lack of proof that there IS one.



The Surgeon General's report synthesizes evidence from cellular, animal and human studies whose abstracts are available to the public at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco and http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sgri/ . As has been discussed already in this thread by some users, there's a very plausible basis for thinking that secondhand smoke exposure can impact the respiratory health of children. There are also studies that provide support for such a link, leading to some of the major conclusions in this report.


A plausible basis does not a factual conclusion make. I am not at all saying it is an insane or unreasonable idea to think ETS may pose long term health risks. I am simply stating that most (if not all) of the studies used to "prove" this "fact" do NOT actually do just that. If it weren't a popular position to say "ETS is harmful!" ... none of the studies would be considered to say anything of the sort. (back to the RR <2 and CI containing 1.0)


By the way, AustinChief, the link you cited to support the claim that the "1993 EPA" study was thrown out by a court of law was to the December, 2002, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision. That decision threw out the lawsuit by the tobacco companies. Prior to getting to the Appeals court, a Federal District Court had, in 1998, ruled in favor of the tobacco companies and criticized the EPA's meta-analysis (which was published in 1992, actually, not 1993, although many commentators refer to it as the 1993 study ;) ). The methodologies used for meta-analyses are getting stronger, but it's still an approach that has important limitations, so the results from them have to be interpreted in light of that.

Yeah I noticed that later. The Appeals court threw it out not on merit but on lack of jurisdiction. The 1992/93/94 EPA study was correctly thrown out for some fairly serious "shenanigans"

AustinChief
06-03-2012, 06:29 PM
Here's a study with an estimated RR over 2 (just barely ;) ) and a 95% CI that doesn't contain 1.0 :
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sgri/result.aspx?ResultID=1118

This is from the CDC database associated with the 2006 US Surgeon General report, which I mentioned in my earlier post.


OK FINALLY! THANK YOU! Here we have something new. Someone posting actual data to support their point! OK, let's start with the study you posted. yes there is a RR of 2.1 and a CI of 1.21 to 3.35. So here is the FIRST bit of evidence in this thread that has validity. Now, you did leave a few things off. That study was very very small. Only 8000 participants for the ETS portion. The study also was geographically limited.. two neighboring cities in rural Scotland. And lastly they measure SIX categories of health risks... All-Cause Mortality, Cardiovascular Disease, Respiratory Infections, Lung Cancer , Respiratory Symptoms and Coronary Heart Disease. Only ONE of those show a BARELY statistically significant risk. Coronary Heart Disease.


By the way, your criteria for what you'd consider to be convincing evidence are not ones that everyone would agree with. The 95% CI for a RR contains all of the values for the RR that the study data would be consistent with in the sense that the data would not provide statistically significant evidence against that value. So, for example, if the 95% CI includes 1, then there wouldn't be statistically significant evidence that the RR is not 1. But you could have a study that produces a 95% CI for the RR that runs from 1.4 to 1.6 and that study could provide pretty damn convincing evidence for an elevated risk that is both statistically and clinically significant. After all, an elevated risk from exposure that is between 40% to 60% bigger than the risk for the unexposed is pretty damn big.

In settings like epidemiology where there's a lot of sources of potential biases (especially from unmeasured confounders), there are reasonable grounds for some decisionmakers to require a sufficiently large relative risk estimate before that decisionmaker would feel comfortable that the estimate is too large to be completely due to some unmeasured confounders and other sources of bias, but that's based more on the particular circumstances. The requirement that the 95% CI not only exclude 1 but that the point estimate for the RR be so far to the right of 1.0 that the elevated risk amount to a doubling or even a tripling of the estimated risk in the unexposed group makes sense when the study design has methodological weaknesses that do not allow it to account for confounders and you want to be sure that those confounders are very unlikely to completely account for the elevated risk, but those circumstances don't always apply. Interestingly, the requirement for a big elevated RR goes back to the great epidemiologist Jerome Cornfield, who argued in a very important paper back in the 1950s that the observed association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer was so strong as to be unlikely to be explained by some other factor (like an unmeasured genetic trait that simultaneously increased the propensity to smoke and to get lung cancer in the absence of a causal connection). In a circumstance where exposures are prone to a high degree of measurement error (which tends to bias the RR estimates toward 1), where there's a fairly strong biological basis for believing that most of the important confounders are being well controlled (by design or with statistical adjustments), then many scientists would consider the requirement to show a RR as high as 2.0 to be very stringent.

Ok, I can see your point if you have a CI of 1.5-1.6 and the RR is 1.55 then it very well may be accurate to say you have a 55% increase in risk. An argument can definitely be made there... but as you pointed out, there are plenty of valid reasons to require a higher RR. My requirement of a 2.0 or higher RR is not AT ALL a strict one. If anything it is extremely lenient. Many people won't take anything less than a 3.0 seriously.

OK, so you seem to agree that without a CI that doesn't include 1.0 the study shouldn't be used as PROOF of.. well anything. Until your 8000 rural Scotsmen... I have yet to find a study that meets even THAT requirement. BUT I am by no means conceding that a RR less than 2.0 is acceptable either... very few epidemiologists would disagree with me on that either... I could make a solid argument for holding to a standard of 3.0.

NewChief
06-03-2012, 06:32 PM
This so reminds me of AC arguing droid vs iOS.

AustinChief
06-03-2012, 06:57 PM
Here's a link to a 2010 report published by the "Committee on Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Acute Coronary Events" at the Institute of Medicine (a very prestigious collection of scientists): http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12649

OK, I hope you haven't actually read that entire report. I'm assuming that if you had, you wouldn't have posted it.. because it is laughable. One of the studies used as a basis for their "findings" was the Helena smoking ban report. (just one of many reports they used that is easily shown to have massive flaws)

Let's look at the Helena report...
There was a 6 month long smoking ban in Helena, Montana.
The "report" supposedly shows a drop in heart attacks during that span.
In REALITY, there was a slight drop during the first 3 months of the ban, the last three months has normal heart attack rates.
The city of Helena did NOT ENFORCE the ban during the first two months that saw the drop.
Now.. for some comments from experts...
Smoke-free workplace legislation protects workers and the public from cardiac, respiratory, and cancer risks associated with second-hand smoke and facilitates cessation among smokers. However, unrealistic expectations can hinder efforts to expand smoke-free workplace laws. The 40% decline in acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) associated with a smoke-free ordinance in Montana is neither biologically nor epidemiologically plausible.

- Farzad Mostashari, MD MSPH,
Assistant Commissioner
NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

The attempt to make claims about the effects of smoking bans based on this very weak ecologic study raises disturbing questions about our ability to distinguish between sound science and wishful thinking.

- Geoffrey C Kabat
Epidemiologist

If a report is willing to ignore the validity of it's sources for data then it's completely worthless. This is armchair meta-analysis of the worst kind.

AustinChief
06-03-2012, 07:04 PM
This so reminds me of AC arguing droid vs iOS.

Hmmm.. Android's total smartphone market share at 51%... Or, if you want to look at last quarter alone... 61% vs 29%

BOOM! :D

Unfortunately, this debate won't have a market to prove me right. As a matter of fact, the likelihood of me being wrong increases over time. Just the nature of my position here. I don't hold that ETS is definitely not a health risk... I only state that the science does not (as of yet) have anything close to PROOF that it IS. My issue is with the blanket sheep-like acceptance that it IS a proven health risk despite the lack of evidence.

DanT
06-03-2012, 09:53 PM
OK FINALLY! THANK YOU! Here we have something new. Someone posting actual data to support their point! OK, let's start with the study you posted. yes there is a RR of 2.1 and a CI of 1.21 to 3.35. So here is the FIRST bit of evidence in this thread that has validity. Now, you did leave a few things off. That study was very very small. Only 8000 participants for the ETS portion. The study also was geographically limited.. two neighboring cities in rural Scotland. And lastly they measure SIX categories of health risks... All-Cause Mortality, Cardiovascular Disease, Respiratory Infections, Lung Cancer , Respiratory Symptoms and Coronary Heart Disease. Only ONE of those show a BARELY statistically significant risk. Coronary Heart Disease.



Ok, I can see your point if you have a CI of 1.5-1.6 and the RR is 1.55 then it very well may be accurate to say you have a 55% increase in risk. An argument can definitely be made there... but as you pointed out, there are plenty of valid reasons to require a higher RR. My requirement of a 2.0 or higher RR is not AT ALL a strict one. If anything it is extremely lenient. Many people won't take anything less than a 3.0 seriously.

OK, so you seem to agree that without a CI that doesn't include 1.0 the study shouldn't be used as PROOF of.. well anything. Until your 8000 rural Scotsmen... I have yet to find a study that meets even THAT requirement. BUT I am by no means conceding that a RR less than 2.0 is acceptable either... very few epidemiologists would disagree with me on that either... I could make a solid argument for holding to a standard of 3.0.

Note that your initial requirements for a study to count were that it had a statistically significant RR and that the point estimate be higher than 2.0 . The additional requirements that you added in this email are reasonable on their face, except they were added after the fact. That's exactly the problem that plagues "nonsystematic" approaches to selecting the studies used for a meta-analysis, the very thing that Judge Osteen used to criticize what he called "cherry picking" when he criticized the 1992 FDA study. ;) It's not that there aren't good reasons for excluding a study, it's that one has to guard against pre-ordained conclusions by forcing the meta-analysts to state upfront the criteria they will use to include and exclude studies.

It depends on the context whether a CI that doesn't include 1.0 should be used as proof of anything. For example, when we medical statisticians want to show that, say, a cheaper therapy is non-inferior to another, more-established therapy, we'll often require only that the 90% CI lie strictly to the left of some tolerance margin, say a RR of 1.2. Such a 90% CI would offer proof that the study data offer statistically significant proof that the cheaper therapy is no worse than 20% as bad as the standard. Confidence intervals are nice because they allow the reader to make up their own mind about how they want to interpret the evidence. There's plenty of folks out there who place the burden of proof on environmental tobacco smoke to prove that it's not associated with an elevated risk of adverse health outcomes. Virtually every 95% CI that I've seen in the last couple of days includes values of 1.2 or above, which would mean that the study data do not provide statistically significant support to disprove the claim that the elevated risk associated with involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke is at least 20%.

I'm not saying that the FDA does not have the burden to prove that the 95% CI excludes 1; I'm saying that not every decision maker has to address the same null hypothesis. If someone feels that the burden of proof should be placed on the tobacco companies to prove that the elevated risk is no more than 20%, they can use the 95% CIs just as easily as someone who feels that the burden proof on the FDA to prove that there is a positive elevation in risk.

Also and by the way, a CI should not be used to exclude an individual study from being included in a meta-analysis. It could easily be the case that a bunch of systematically selected studies have results that are consistent but not statistically significant (i.e. all of the studies have 95% CIs for the RR parameter that include 1) but that the pooled analysis yields a 95% CI that does not include 1.

By the way, criticizing a study with a statistically significant result for being too small could be a ill-founded criticism, especially if by small you mean "8,000" people. The problem with small studies is that they are usually underpowered--that is the 95% CI are so wide that even if there were a truly elevated risk associated with the exposure of interest, the 95% CI would include 1. If the study produces a 95% CI that is narrow enough not to include 1, then it has avoided making what frequentist statisticians call a "Type 2" error.

AustinChief
06-03-2012, 10:27 PM
Note that your initial requirements for a study to count were that it had a statistically significant RR and that the point estimate be higher than 2.0 . The additional requirements that you added in this email are reasonable on their face, except they were added after the fact. That's exactly the problem that plagues "nonsystematic" approaches to selecting the studies used for a meta-analysis, the very thing that Judge Osteen used to criticize what he called "cherry picking" when he criticized the 1992 FDA study. ;) It's not that there aren't good reasons for excluding a study, it's that one has to guard against pre-ordained conclusions by forcing the meta-analysts to state upfront the criteria they will use to include and exclude studies.

It depends on the context whether a CI that doesn't include 1.0 should be used as proof of anything. For example, when we medical statisticians want to show that, say, a cheaper therapy is non-inferior to another, more-established therapy, we'll often require only that the 90% CI lie strictly to the right of some tolerance margin, say a RR of 1.2. Such a 90% CI would offer proof that the study data offer statistically significant proof that the cheaper therapy is no worse than 20% as bad as the standard. Confidence intervals are nice because they allow the reader to make up their own mind about how they want to interpret the evidence. There's plenty of folks out there who place the burden of proof on environmental tobacco smoke to prove that it's not associated with an elevated risk of adverse health outcomes. Virtually every 95% CI that I've seen in the last couple of days includes values of 1.2 or above, which would mean that the study data do not provide statistically significant support to disprove the claim that the elevated risk associated with involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke is at least 20%.

I'm not saying that the FDA does not have the burden to prove that the 95% CI excludes 1; I'm saying that not every decision maker has to address the same null hypothesis. If someone feels that the burden of proof should be placed on the tobacco companies to prove that the elevated risk is no more than 20%, they can use the 95% CIs just as easily as someone who feels that the burden proof on the FDA to prove that there is a positive elevation in risk.

Also and by the way, a CI should not be used to exclude an individual study from being included in a meta-analysis. It could easily be the case that a bunch of systematically selected studies have results that are consistent but not statistically significant (i.e. all of the studies have 95% CIs for the RR parameter that include 1) but that the pooled analysis yields a 95% CI that does not include 1.

By the way, criticizing a study with a statistically significant result for being too small could be a ill-founded criticism, especially if by small you mean "8,000" people. The problem with small studies is that they are usually underpowered--that is the 95% CI are so wide that even if there were a truly elevated risk associated with the exposure of interest, the 95% CI would include 1. If the study produces a 95% CI that is narrow enough not to include 1, then it has avoided making what frequentist statisticians call a "Type 2" error.

Wonderful post!

I am not changing my criteria, I was just pointing out criticisms that could be made. I am sticking with my (very lenient) 2.0/1.0 criteria and in doing so, admit that you have provided at least ONE study that shows a health risk... but let's be clear... out of 6 possibles it showed such in only 1 - Coronary Heart Disease. I do however, count that study in the "proven risk" column. (show me a dozen more and I may start to change my tune :D)

I also can see your point about flipping the argument around concerning the burden of proof. The problem there is that the very premise is unsound. You can't prove that ETS is NOT unhealthy. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) Which is why my only point is that we currently lack proof that it IS unhealthy.

DanT
06-03-2012, 10:39 PM
OK, I hope you haven't actually read that entire report. I'm assuming that if you had, you wouldn't have posted it.. because it is laughable. One of the studies used as a basis for their "findings" was the Helena smoking ban report. (just one of many reports they used that is easily shown to have massive flaws)

Let's look at the Helena report...
There was a 6 month long smoking ban in Helena, Montana.
The "report" supposedly shows a drop in heart attacks during that span.
In REALITY, there was a slight drop during the first 3 months of the ban, the last three months has normal heart attack rates.
The city of Helena did NOT ENFORCE the ban during the first two months that saw the drop.
Now.. for some comments from experts...




If a report is willing to ignore the validity of it's sources for data then it's completely worthless. This is armchair meta-analysis of the worst kind.

The Helena study was cited in Chapter 6 of the report I cited, not Chapter 4, the one that I cited for summarizing the findings of the IOM group on the effects of secondhand smoke exposure on cardiovascular health outcomes. Chapter 6 concerns the impact of smoking bans.

It is true that meta analysis should account for the validity of the studies screened for inclusion into the analysis. The criteria used for assessing the validity of the studies should be stated up front.

I don't know what to make of your criticism that a 3-month drop and a 3-month non drop show that there was an average drop during those 6-months. Regardless, operationalizing a process for excluding studies that takes into account the sort of "explanations" for the decline that you described would be fairly tricky for a systematic review in which the inclusion/exclusion criteria have to be stated up front. Typically, there's a grading process for which specific criteria are evaluated, with the criteria selected both for their validity as markers of study quality and for their relative objectivity and reliability (to ensure that different judges would come to similar grades).

In my opinion, the fact that a study included in a report can be criticized doesn't necessarily imply that a report is laughable. There are good reasons why "ecological" studies are not considered to provide the strongest evidence in support of a claim, which is why their results are supposed to be heavily discounted during the evidence weighing process.

DanT
06-03-2012, 10:43 PM
Wonderful post!

I am not changing my criteria, I was just pointing out criticisms that could be made. I am sticking with my (very lenient) 2.0/1.0 criteria and in doing so, admit that you have provided at least ONE study that shows a health risk... but let's be clear... out of 6 possibles it showed such in only 1 - Coronary Heart Disease. I do however, count that study in the "proven risk" column. (show me a dozen more and I may start to change my tune :D)

I also can see your point about flipping the argument around concerning the burden of proof. The problem there is that the very premise is unsound. You can't prove that ETS is NOT unhealthy. (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence) Which is why my only point is that we currently lack proof that it IS unhealthy.

Hey, AustinChief, I screwed up in my original post when describing where a 90% CI for non inferiority would lie. I should have said that it would be strictly to the "left" of the tolerance margin, not to the "right". ;)

AustinChief
06-03-2012, 10:58 PM
The Helena study was cited in Chapter 6 of the report I cited, not Chapter 4, the one that I cited for summarizing the findings of the IOM group on the effects of secondhand smoke exposure on cardiovascular health outcomes. Chapter 6 concerns the impact of smoking bans.

It is true that meta analysis should account for the validity of the studies screened for inclusion into the analysis. The criteria used for assessing the validity of the studies should be stated up front.

I don't know what to make of your criticism that a 3-month drop and a 3-month non drop show that there was an average drop during those 6-months. Regardless, operationalizing a process for excluding studies that takes into account the sort of "explanations" for the decline that you described would be fairly tricky for a systematic review in which the inclusion/exclusion criteria have to be stated up front. Typically, there's a grading process for which specific criteria are evaluated, with the criteria selected both for their validity as markers of study quality and for their relative objectivity and reliability (to ensure that different judges would come to similar grades).

In my opinion, the fact that a study included in a report can be criticized doesn't necessarily imply that a report is laughable. There are good reasons why "ecological" studies are not considered to provide the strongest evidence in support of a claim, which is why their results are supposed to be heavily discounted during the evidence weighing process.

The reason that meta-analysis is laughable to me is that the Helena study is known to be completely unusable. I just can't get my head around including their data and expecting your analysis to be taken seriously. And yes, I threw out the study based on the inclusion of that one piece. It called in to question the validity of the entire piece if they were willing to include such garbage. If I had the time, I should go through and make sure that wasn't a single outlier... but I chose not to because it was enough of an egregious mistake in my opinion.

Let me be perfectly clear. The Helena study is garbage and no serious epidemiologist wouldn't see that immediately.

I don't know what to make of your criticism that a 3-month drop and a 3-month non drop show that there was an average drop during those 6-months.

I don't understand what you are saying here. To clarify what I was saying... The Helena study showed 6 months of data during the time a smoking ban was on the books. During that time period the ban was enforced during the LAST 4 months. The data in the study shows that the "drop" occurred only during the first 3 month. Do you see why this is nonsense? They also fail to explain a similar drop from a few years earlier.

regardless... this is why meta-analysis (regardless of outcomes that help my argument) are mostly garbage. They almost always start with a bias and that bias effects the outcome. Yes, bias exists everywhere, but it's much harder to manipulate the outcome on a true study.

DanT
06-03-2012, 11:46 PM
The reason that meta-analysis is laughable to me is that the Helena study is known to be completely unusable. I just can't get my head around including their data and expecting your analysis to be taken seriously. And yes, I threw out the study based on the inclusion of that one piece. It called in to question the validity of the entire piece if they were willing to include such garbage. If I had the time, I should go through and make sure that wasn't a single outlier... but I chose not to because it was enough of an egregious mistake in my opinion.

Let me be perfectly clear. The Helena study is garbage and no serious epidemiologist wouldn't see that immediately.



I don't understand what you are saying here. To clarify what I was saying... The Helena study showed 6 months of data during the time a smoking ban was on the books. During that time period the ban was enforced during the LAST 4 months. The data in the study shows that the "drop" occurred only during the first 3 month. Do you see why this is nonsense? They also fail to explain a similar drop from a few years earlier.

regardless... this is why meta-analysis (regardless of outcomes that help my argument) are mostly garbage. They almost always start with a bias and that bias effects the outcome. Yes, bias exists everywhere, but it's much harder to manipulate the outcome on a true study.

Sorry about the lack of clarity in my post. I meant to say that if a 6-month period includes periods with no decrease from a baseline rate and other periods with a decrease but no periods with an increase, then on average it amounts to a decrease. The study by Sargent et al is based on comparing outcomes in the 6-month period in 2002 that had the study ban with the same 6-months in the five years before (1997-2001) and the one year after (2003). Here, quoted from their abstract are their results and the very limited conclusion they draw:

Results During the six months the law was enforced the number of admissions fell significantly (− 16 admissions, 95% confidence interval - 31.7 to - 0.3), from an average of 40 admissions during the same months in the years before and after the law to a total of 24 admissions during the six months the law was effect. There was a non-significant increase of 5.6 (− 5.2 to 16.4) in the number of admissions from outside Helena during the same period, from 12.4 in the years before and after the law to 18 while the law was in effect.

Conclusions Laws to enforce smoke-free workplaces and public places may be associated with an effect on morbidity from heart disease.


I do not see how the intensity of the enforcement of the smoking ordinance has to do with whether the very basic and weak ecological study that was conducted here should be considered. What actually matters for the purpose of assessing whether a secondhand smoking ban reduces exposure to secondhand smoke would be actual measures of secondhand smoke exposure, a fact that is not a mystery to anyone. (See the last paragraph in the "Weaknesses of study" subsection of the study report.) But this study isn't designed to make a causal claim and it is not being interpreted by anyone in a peer review publication (so far as I'm aware) as providing convincing evidence that, in isolation, can support a causal claim. It's not a garbage study, though. It's a solid example of a type of study that is considered fairly low on the strength of evidence hierarchy. If you look at the discussion in the IOM report of the Helena, MT, study, you'll find that those authors take due account of many of the strengths and weaknesses of the study.

BillSelfsTrophycase
06-04-2012, 05:02 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GHIT2or-F9o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Omaha
06-04-2012, 01:43 PM
A quick google search found this: http://voices.yahoo.com/study-shows-secondhand-smoke-dangerous-to-523528.html

Since nobody really asked for my opinion on this, here it is. I'm with NewChief. If we all know that smoking causes problems, I think it's common sense that sitting in a room full of the smoke is not a very healthy thing to do. I understand that it's more diluted than actually smoking, but it's still not good.

I also hate the idea of smoking bans. I'd much rather see business owners make their own decisions & let their customers decide what is best.

Omaha
06-04-2012, 01:45 PM
This one is probably a little more to the point: http://tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/secondhand/secondhand_lid.cfm

Omaha
06-04-2012, 01:47 PM
Another one:

http://www.tco.gov.hk/english/infostation/infostation_ssy.html

Brainiac
06-04-2012, 01:50 PM
I'm wondering what AustinChief is hoping to accomplish with this thread.

Smoking bans aren't going away, and this isn't even a controversial topic (except in the minds of disgruntled smokers).

DanT
06-04-2012, 02:13 PM
I'm wondering what AustinChief is hoping to accomplish with this thread.

Smoking bans aren't going away, and this isn't even a controversial topic (except in the minds of disgruntled smokers).


AustinChief has raised some important points about the weaknesses in some of the studies used to justify these bans. Plus it's always a good thing when citizens are skeptical about any policies that limit their freedom. I hadn't known too much about these studies until this thread made me want to look into them. I think the scientific evidence all and all is pretty solid, but as part of the research establishment, I tend to be a little more forgiving about the limitations in clinical research studies. I know how tough it is to find a balance between rigor and practicality. On the other hand, I also know that some shoddy stuff makes it into print and sometimes has a bigger impact than it ought to have. It's good to have to debate the merit of these studies with smart skeptics like AustinChief. It keeps folks on their toes!