Viewpoint: Antismoking Advocates Have Misused Science

Evidence that smoking in public places endangers the health of others is weak, even while the argument against smoking is strong

  • Share
  • Read Later
Daniel Barry / Getty Images

A cigarette butt in Times Square, May 23, 2011 in New York City.

Nothing drives academics crazier than when the right wing ignores, undermines or misuses scientific evidence to achieve ideological public-policy goals that they favor, whether the issue in question is global warming or abortion. But as a new paper by tobacco-control proponents Ronald Bayer and Kathleen E. Bachynski of Columbia’s School of Public Health, in the respected journal Health Affairs, shows, the left can play games with science too. And when it does, it needs to be called out for doing so since shaping science to fit moral goals, even laudable ones, weakens the trust and credibility of the most respected source we have for facts in public policy debates — science.

(MORE: Talking Cigarette Packs Try to Get Smokers to Quit)

Bayer and Bachynski examined bans on smoking in public. These bans began to take off in the late 1970s and now include more than 840 parks and 150 beaches across the U.S. alone, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. California has bans in 155 parks and on 46 beaches; Minnesota, 118 parks and 25 beaches; and New Jersey, 83 parks and 18 beaches. France, Australia and New Zealand have enacted bans as well.

In getting these bans enacted three justifications were used: Smoking on beaches and in parks posed a health hazard to nonsmokers, especially children; cigarette butts were toxic to humans and animals and constituted an unacceptable form of litter; and public smoking by adults provided a dangerous model that threatened the future well-being of children and adolescents.

The problem is that the scientific evidence supporting each of these arguments is exceedingly weak. Consider the comments of some of the toughest antismoking groups in the nation about the best rationale for bans — the hazards to others of smoking in public. An official of the American Lung Association, concerned that efforts to ban smoking on beaches and in parks might deflect attention from more effective public-health interventions, told Bayer and Bachynski in an interview, “I don’t think we should be making claims that are not supported by the data. If you try to tie it [banning smoking on beaches and in parks] to a health outcome, that’s where you get in trouble.”  A representative of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids was even more direct in another interview: “There is not a lot of science around outdoor-smoking bans … There is some science, but you have to be very close to the smoke in an outdoor setting … The last thing we want to do is put our credibility on the line with regard to the science.”

(MORE: Caplan: New Availability of Plan B Makes Philadelphia Abortion Doc an Anachronism)

There is nothing wrong with making an argument that smoking is a filthy, costly, lethal habit that ought to be discouraged. There is everything wrong with saying that smoking cannot be tolerated in parks, on beaches and in other public places because science shows it is dangerous to others if the available science does not convincingly show that. By hiding their motives for banning smoking in public places behind statements like “there is evidence,” the antismoking crowd advances its short-term goals at the cost of a loss in trust for others.

Politicians and policymakers have shown often enough that they will do just fine without science in making important policy decisions. Many already use it when it serves their cause and otherwise mock it and its practitioners. Anything that erodes trust must therefore be quickly identified and corrected. This is especially important when you consider that people don’t think of physicists, doctors, sociologists, geologists and biologists as different but rather as part of a single community: science. The erosion of trust in one field affects all members of that community.

Science is nearly all we have to bridge the ideological divides that are paralyzing our politics. No one should be allowed to get away with grounding policy on weak, bad or fringe science, even when their overall aim is worth achieving.

MORE: FDA Approves New Cigarettes in First Use of New Regulatory Power Over Tobacco

245 comments
JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

The following are excerpts from the anti-smoker's manual on how to implement outdoor smoking bans in Canada. Which leads one to believe that most of those that are cheering on absurd policy based on thoroughly ridiculous studies are simply plants of the anti-smoker industry.

.....write (or sign ghost written) letters to the editor, etc. (pages 31 & 33)

.....submit at least two letters to the editor each month during the campaign, under the names of different authors". (page 33)

...."Whether they are funded by the industry or not, to stay on top of any organized opposition sign up for their mailing lists, preferably using an alias. You can also search online for organizations that oppose your campaign and sign up to receive email alerts, preferably at a home email address or some other location that doesn't link you to your position in the coalition.

....Your job is to make politicians continue to believe that they did the right thing. It is not unheard of for councillors to backtrack on their decision and water down legislation. (page 48)

..... Plant stories in the media about non-smokers politely asking smokers to move to a designated smoking area or outside the smoke-free area and smokers complying. Create the impression that the bylaw is working and it will! (page 48)

cagecanada.blogspot.ca/2011/02/inside-tobacco-control-industry-and.html

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

If you’re afraid of second-hand smoke, you should also avoid cars, restaurants…and don’t even think of barbecuing.

here are just some of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke and what else contains them:

Arsenic, Benzine, Formaldehyde.

Arsenic- 8 glasses of water = 200 cigarettes worth of arsenic

Benzine- Grilling of one burger = 250 cigarettes

Formaldehyde – cooking a vegetarian meal = 100 cigarettes

When you drink your 8 glasses of tap water (64 ounces) a day, you're safely drinking up to 18,000 ng of arsenic by government safety standards of 10 nanograms/gram (10 ng/gm = 18,000ng/64oz) for daily consumption.

Am I "poisoning" you with the arsenic from my cigarette smoke? Actually, with the average cigarette putting out 32 ng of arsenic into the air which is then diluted by normal room ventilation for an individual exposure of .032 ng/hour, you would have to hang out in a smoky bar for literally 660,000 hours every day (yeah, a bit hard, right?) to get the same dose of arsenic that the government tells you is safe to drink.

So you can see why claims that smokers are "poisoning" people are simply silly.


 You can stay at home all day long if you don’t want all those “deadly” chemicals around you, but in fact, those alleged 4000-7000 theorized chemicals in cigarettes are present in many foods, paints etc. in much larger quantities. And as they are present in cigarettes in very small doses, they are harmless. Sorry, no matter how much you like the notion of harmful ETS, it’s a myth.

jon.krueger215
jon.krueger215

"No one should be allowed to get away with grounding policy on weak, bad or fringe science, even when their overall aim is worth achieving"

Absolutely!

That includes Bayer and Bachynski. They got it badly wrong. No one should formulate policy based on that.

When you look at their background, it's not surprising they go it wrong. Bayer's Ph.D. is in political science (University of Chicago, 1976). Not biology, not medicine, not epidemiology, nor anything health related. His qualifications to evaluate epidemiology are exactly the same as his fellow political science grads: not much. Bachynski's Ph.D. is in, oh wait, she doesn't have one yet. In anything.

Their paper is evaluating quality of research outside their field. And pretending to come to conclusions about that. Perhaps next they would like to review quality of research in particle physics, or linguistics, or computational theory. Why stop here?

JohnHewes
JohnHewes

What an outrageous claim that 2nd hand smoke does no harm! We know what's in tobacco smoke. Now can anyone explain to me how it can be so dangerous for the smoker, and yet does nothing to the lungs of those around who also breath it in? Come on!! Common sense will tell you this author is up in the night. I'm sure Big Tobacco loves him (remember they are the ones who insisted there wasn't any evidence that tobacco smoke hurts anyone). I'd love to dig into this guy's financial records and see who's paying him off!

One other thing that hasn't even been considered here. Non-smokers have a right to clean air. Many of us are fighting against polluters, fighting against industrial pollutants, now why would we EVER want to add even more poisons to the air we breath? It is our right to go about in public places without the fear of having to share someone else's smoking habit!

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn't one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

http://patnurseblog.blogspot.com/2012/04/foi-shows-no-tobacco-related-deaths.html

If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer.

Remember this story from last year:

B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

http://grendelreport.posterous.com/bs-study-600000-people-die-worldwide-from-sec

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

US Bureau of Labor Statistics Shows Zero Deaths From 2nd Hand Smoke
Where are the deaths?
If people who work in bars die from secondhand smoke, why does the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last 4 years show ZERO DEATHS from exposure to harmful substances or environments?
http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0259.pdf This data is for 2011. (pg38 of 53). Notice that 31 people died while working in a "drinking place"(which my bar is classified as). 27 deaths were by violent injuries by persons or animals(?). 2 died by fires or explosions. I don't know where the other 2 deaths are listed however, there are 0 deaths from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
So where are these deaths from SHS?
Notice 2010 under this below. In 2010, there were 28 total deaths, 25 from violence and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb
0250.pdf (pg 18).
In 2009, 32 deaths of bar workers. 31 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0241.pdf (pg 18)
In 2008, 35 deaths of bar workers. 32 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.
http://stats.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0232.pdf (pg 18).
They aren't crawling out and dying in the parking lots either. We would have noticed 'em."
Sheila Martin
http://stjtelegraph.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/stjtelegraph-24-30-16_page-5.pdf stjtelegraph.org

jon.krueger215
jon.krueger215

Bayer's Ph.D. is in political science. Not biology, not medicine, not epidemiology, nor anything health related. His qualifications to evaluate the science are exactly the same as his fellow political science grads.

The other author's Ph.D. is in, oh wait, she doesn't have one yet.  In anything.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

Today nobody can believe anything anyone has to say from any scientific or public health or government run agency. The scientific process is officially NULL and Void!

TroyOwen
TroyOwen

@JohnDavidson I've always known it was myth.

I've never been able to stand next to a smoker and get a buzz.

People push the laws through because they don't like the smell or they don't want their kids asking about what that man is doing. 

The science behind it is very questionable.

Openminded1
Openminded1

@JohnDavidson BS 20 minutes in your double wide trailer you live in will cause death within 2 years to anyone other then an alligator.

Ben_P
Ben_P

@JohnHewes Try spending the afternoon in your garage with your car running. Please. Then tell me how a smoke filled bar is going to kill you. Oh wait, if you stay in the garage with your car running you'll die in a few hours, but if you work in a smoke filled bar for your entire career, you might increase your chances of getting lung cancer by 20%.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@jon.krueger215 John would you like to discuss The Mechanical Engineer Stanton Glantz credentials in medical background! ....................Naa I didnt think ya would!

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

After a review, FDA eyeing action on menthol cigarettes

The Food and Drug Administration inched closer to taking action against menthol cigarettes Tuesday, after a years-long review of whether they should be singled out for special restrictions.

Congress outlawed most flavored tobacco products in the Tobacco Control Act of 2009 because they appeal to children, but lawmakers exempted menthol, instead referring the question to the FDA for review.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/after-a-review-fda-eyeing-action-on-menthol-cigarettes-94638.html#ixzz2Zy51GGDT

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Ben_P@JohnHewes Not even 20%.........more like nothing rwad the following

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!


OSHA ON SECOND HAND SMOKE.................

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.



A recent study of LC in the high stress Veteran population.
Campling BG, Collins BN, Algazy KM, et al.
Spontaneous smoking cessation before lung cancer diagnosis.
J Thorac Oncol. 2011 Mar;6(3):517-24
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

They found that lung cancer diagnosis was related to spontaneous quitting. The tobacco control interests just fall over themselves trying to explain it away.

But it does suggest a self medication rather than causative effect.


jon.krueger215
jon.krueger215

Once again, you're wrong. I'm happy to. He teaches the mechanics of the heart at a medical school. Couldn't be more relevant.

Of course, irrelevant anyway; Bayer's lack of qualifications here doesn't get redeemed by others'. This confuses fifth graders, but most of us get it some time after that.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

Prohibition isnt a thing of the past,its here today everywhere we look!

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Openminded1 @JohnDavidson@TroyOwen Colleges being forced to go smokefree by Obama Administration

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010.

Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_f8068f12-0efe-11e2-8b41-001a4bcf6878.html?success=1

Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/obama ... z29zJ2V2TV

Openminded1
Openminded1

@JohnDavidson @Openminded1 @TroyOwen Hey smelly your back you never give up he when you are bitch slapped., good for you. I just read ASU in Tempe az banned smoking all over there campus and most staff and students love it. I wonder why. Maybe because they are educated with the truth and not your bs science made up data from hard core smokers, and the cancer causing industry that makes billions off causing bad health and smelly people like you and troy boy. you get those chest ex- rays yet? And did you help troy move in with you and mom, dad and the poor cats 

Openminded1
Openminded1

@TroyOwen hey if you and smelly john are out there, look what smoking did for that poor woman in NY all because she had to have a smoke.

Openminded1
Openminded1

@TroyOwen @Openminded1 Ps: This is an open forum, so its everyones business, if you and pig sty can not take the fact or have the intelligence to know smoking is no dam good for anyone including your dummy selves then you deserve each other i am sure you would be good roommates along with his parents and cancer filled cats.

Openminded1
Openminded1

@TroyOwen @Openminded1 Not really just say it like it is, And troy if you saw me you would not call me a troll an ass hole maybe but not a troll. Then again a dummy like you who not say that to my face , from your picture it is best you stay low.

TroyOwen
TroyOwen

@Openminded1

I've been reading some of your posts, vicious little troll, aren't you?

BTW who asked you?

Mind your business.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Openminded1 @JohnDavidson The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem.  A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose.  Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem

Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem

Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem

Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

Average Annual Total
 361 mrem/year
 

Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)
 

Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!

or

Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!



http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/factsheets/factsheets-htm/fs10bkvsman.htm

http://www.doh.wa.gov/portals/1/Documents/Pubs/320-063_bkvsman_fs.pdf

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Openminded1 @JohnDavidson Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn't one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

Openminded1
Openminded1

@JohnDavidson @Openminded1 and you smelly john live in a pigs sty and are delusional. You try to justify with all your bs science projects that smoking is fine and hurts no one what a moron. you and troy butt should have a chest x-ray together.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@Openminded1 @JohnDavidson  We asked for proof of disease causation to your junk science claims you provide nothing,then you claim 50 thousand deaths a year and you cant provide 50,000 death certificates with names can ya..........You live in a world of make believe my dear deluded court jesture!

Openminded1
Openminded1

@JohnDavidson @Openminded1 By who dummy you , you are the biggest joke on this post clean up your trailer and move out of your parents pig sty. You ever wonder why you live and work with mommy and daddy because you all smoke and a normal company would not let you work with them. Forget the part that you smell of smoke and teeth must look nice too.

nisakiman
nisakiman

@jon.krueger215  

Looks like you've run out of arguments, jon. That's what happens when you try to pit propaganda against fact. 

Wake up and smell the coffee, mate. You, and millions of others have been conned. It's well past time that the charlatans were called to account. They have driven a wedge through society, trashed the economy and legitimised bigotry, all in pursuit of their warped ideology (and of course the fat taxpayer funded salaries they pocket). They are naught but deranged control freaks, and the sooner you realise that the sooner you will be able to start thinking for yourself.

 

jon.krueger215
jon.krueger215

You're absolutely right, no one ever died from smoking!

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@jon.krueger215 @JohnDavidson  Start naming the names of the dead then my informed propagandist.......studies using inflated relative risk factors dumped into the governments SAMMEC computer and spitz out FAKE DEATHS! Those are your 50k deaths my deluded smokefree idiot!

nisakiman
nisakiman

@jon.krueger215  

On the contrary, there are many deaths that can be attributed to a specific cause. Radiation, Typhoid, Malaria, malnutrition, alcohol poisoning; the list is almost endless. 

But not smoking. All 'smoking related' deaths are multifactorial, and there is absolutely no certainty as to whether smoking was a contributory factor or not. So when people talk about 'smoking related' deaths, what they are really saying is that there is a vague possibility that smoking MAY have contributed to it. And of course, the vast majority of these 'smoking related' deaths occur in people who are anyway over the age of seventy, and if they happen to have smoked 100 cigarettes (or equivalent in pipe / cigar) in their lifetimes, theirs will be a 'smoking related' death, whatever the cause. You can't run a propaganda machine without big numbers.

My father died recently. He was 96 years old. As a young man, he smoked the occasional pipe. He gave up in 1939. He will be added to the roster of 'smoking related' deaths. "Yet another unnecessary death caused by smoking", they will say. Pah! Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Now if you REALLY want to know what is the leading preventable cause of death, check out iatrogenesis. You'll have to dig pretty deep, because they'd rather blame everything on smoking, so info is hard to come by, but it's there if you care to look. Even the 'official' 'smoking related' death toll pales by comparison. Now that really IS something to worry about.

jon.krueger215
jon.krueger215

Oh I get your point: there are no facts, no death ever resulted from anything in particular, nothing can be proved, etc. etc. A cozy position that avoids actual work.

Have a nice life!

nisakiman
nisakiman

@jon.krueger215 @nisakiman  

Your source is irrelevant. 

The point I'm making is that if you have an agenda then you can 'prove' anything, just as I could 'prove' that there is a very strong link between drinking milk and having traffic accidents. Of course, if you went to the trouble of examining other factors that might have come into play in the situation, then my  statement linking milk to accidents starts to look a bit shaky. Likewise, if you start to look at 'smoking related' deaths, and start factoring in things like diet, stress levels, genetic disposition etc etc, those figures will start evaporating into thin air, too. Because you will find few, if any, pathologists / coroners who will declare of any death "This person died solely as a result of smoking". The furthest they will go is to say that smoking MAY have been a contributory factor. That's not much in the way of proof, is it?

So basically, the 'smoking related' deaths figure from your 'cited source' is as reliable as my 'milk related' accidents figure.

jon.krueger215
jon.krueger215

@JohnDavidson  EPA estimated 3000 deaths, CDC 46,000. EPA included only cancer deaths, CDC added heart disease. EPA had only the science as of 1994, CDC almost 20 more years, which turns out to be dozens more published studies.

No, you really couldn't be more wrong.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@jon.krueger215 Lets see its the epa study that claimed 49,000 dead CDC simply parroted that lie! If we call them and ask for a list of those nearly 50,000 dead ya think they can send us the list! ROFLMAO!

geneb
geneb

@JohnDavidson @geneb @jon.krueger215 >>normally get in any decently ventilated bar or restaurant.


Right. Now we have to institute an oversight program to make sure all bars and restaurants go through the expense of being "decently ventilated," ie, massively ventilated (which won't work anyway) just so you can smoke. Again, the whole world has to turn itself upside down, expensively, just to accommodate your addiction, an addiction so fierce you can't even sit still in a restaurant for an hour without indulging.


I"m sure you've never been in a bar where the air patterns are such that _all_ the smoke from the ashtrays go straight to the bartender. No one wants that harsh smoke, and the one thing a bar will do is make sure it doesn't hang around even the smokers. Try being a bartender. Try even just a half hour breathing that SHS, constantly streaming from a couple of ashtrays even 4 feet away. Your throat will be raw.



nisakiman
nisakiman

@jon.krueger215  

You are assuming, of course, that that 49,000 figure is real and accurate. I think if you actually looked at how the figure was arrived at and removed all the questionable inclusions (like where there are other possible factors that could have caused death), you would arrive at a figure pretty close to zero. 

I could probably prove to you, for instance, that just about every traffic accident victim was a regular consumer of milk; ergo, drinking milk 'may be' (a favourite couplet of words in the world of junk science) strongly linked to traffic accidents. The numbers would add up, the correlation would be strong, all that would be missing is the empirical proof of causation, just as with 'smoking related' deaths.

jon.krueger215
jon.krueger215

Your arguments are just too strong for me, John; you've convinced me. I can see now that a pollutant that kills 49,000 Americans every year (CDC numbers) is somehow perfectly innocent and no harm to anyone when it's outdoors.

Yeah. You just keep telling yourself that.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

Gene Peer review as in by his own group of anti-tobacco funded so called researchers........They are the ones who took science and made it JUNK SCIENCE! Taking a candle and creating propaganda to get people to believe its as BRIGHT AS THE SUN!...................Its called Fraud Gene outright FRAUD!

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@geneb@JohnDavidson@jon.krueger215 

Low levels of exposure, including exposures to secondhand tobacco smoke, lead to a rapid and sharp increase in endothelial dysfunction and inflammation, which are implicated in acute cardiovascular
events and thrombosis."

And when we move beyond fear mongering by half truths, we realize that a hearty thanksgiving dinner, results in identical effects almost universally.

A big mac, walking from the heat into the cold and a number of other physical activities that require that body to regulate blood flow and heart rate, will also fall into this same category. It is simply your body's natural defense mechanism working splendidly as it should.

And that is the health risk?

Junk Science is what its called! Normal reactions by the body to natural occurring events is what the smokefree insanity has been using to claim second hand smoke causes! Its all pure make believe!

Mental Stress Induces Transient Endothelial Dysfunction in Humans

Conclusions—These findings suggest that brief episodes of mental stress, similar to those encountered in everyday life, may cause transient (up to 4 hours) endothelial dysfunction in healthy young individuals. This might represent a mechanistic link between mental stress and atherogenesis.”
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/102/20/2473.full

Put anyone who is sufficiently scared by any substance, gas, animal, insect or whatever, in a sealed box with the subject of their distress and you have the result you want.

Suddenly shouting Boo! behind the researcher will have a similar effect.

 

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@geneb@JohnDavidson@jon.krueger215 

The "30 minute" experiments that the statement is based on have nothing at all to do with the exposures one might get on a park bench sitting next to a smoker or even with what one would normally get in any decently ventilated bar or restaurant.

The exposures in the supportive experiments involve smoke concentrations at levels of 400% to 2,000% as high as what used to be measured in the middle of the smoking sections of pressurized airplanes!! (Which used to be held up as one of the worst smoking environments.)

The experiments take nonsmokers who avoid smoke in all their daily home, social, and working life, force them to sign papers

acknowledging the "danger" they are about to be put in, and then sealing them in smoke-choked chambers that nonsmokers would run screaming from if they weren't being paid $100 to endure 30 minutes for science. . . . When the poor souls come stumbling out blood test measurement show small changes that could theoretically relate to heart disease.

The changes are like ones other experimenters find when they feed subjects a bowl of corn flakes and milk.... but in the kooky world of antismoking research those results get twisted into representing an unusual and deadly threat.

And remember: they only get those results in EXTREME conditions, nothing like normal restaurant/park or even decent bar/casino exposures. . . . The Antismokers today are lying!

Cornflakes, White Bread Could Boost Heart Risk
'High-glycemic' carbs like these hamper blood vessel function, study shows.

THURSDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- Eating a diet rich in carbohydrates that boost blood sugar levels -- foods such as cornflakes or white bread -- may hamper the functioning of your blood vessels and raise your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, a new study suggests.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/news....
...

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@geneb @JohnDavidson @jon.krueger215  

Gene of course you would as the man has no spine,no medical training at all and he creates JunkScience ad naseum accepted only by other anti-tobacco groups or those politically affilliated with those groups! He is for all intent and purposes a MAGICIAN OF BLACK MAGIC! His heart studies were so blantantly absurd and unscientific they have been used by the opposition as the standard second ahnd smoek junk science! Even Dr Siegel screams JUNK SCIENCE on glantz B.S.!

geneb
geneb

@JohnDavidson @jon.krueger215 Since he has published over a hundred peer-reviewed articles in his field, and since he has been accepted by $1,000/hour tobacco lawyers as a medical and scientific expert in numerous trials, and he has also been accepted as a medical expert by numerous legislative bodies, and since he doesn't seem to feel he has to spam message boards ad infinitum spewing hogwash that can't get printed anywhere else-- I'll take his word over yours.

JohnDavidson
JohnDavidson

@jon.krueger215Dr”Stanton Glantz.”Dr”Glantz, who apparently has a PHD in engineering was given a ceremonial appointment to a California medical school to enhance his credentials, and credibility................No medical training there ehh! It appears Herr Glantz is a plastic DR!