• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Passive Smoking - Real?

GreyPilgrim said:
But thats not always possible surely? Not everyone has the abilities / experience to be able to drop a job and walk into another one straight away especially if the catering or bar sector is all they are really qualified for (and please don't think that was meant to be derogatory to bar workers...I would never offend the hundreds of people helped me get intoxicated in the past).

I've been lucky enough never to have to claim unemployment benefit so far but I'm wondering whether if I went to my local unemployment office, told them I had quit my bar job because of the risks of passive smoking, they would be sympathetic, or whether they would tell me I had made myself voluntarily unemployed and refuse to give me dole money?
Click to expand...

I can only give you the U.S. perspective. In the U.S. you have the right to a "smoke-free workplace" in many jurisdictions, so in those cases the employer would not only be at fault, but subject to legal action. In other cases you probably would be refused unemployment benefits, but the benefits in the U.S. are pretty poor to begin with.
 
ClusterBoy said:
You can't estimate the size. Almost all good research papers will have a discussion section where they talk about other potential (unmeasured) factors. As for unknowns, you have to think about biological plausability. If it is biological plausible, chances are someone somewhere has done some research on it, and will tell you what the effect is.

What do you mean by relative risk > 3 being reliably detected? Repeatedly? Accurately? Statistically significantly?
The numberwatch website is a man with an axe to grind who thinks he understands epidemiology and clearly doesn't.
Click to expand...

I didn't express that very well... what I meant was that, according to respectable sources quoted on the NumberWatch site, risk ratios of < 3 are generally considered not to indicate a strong / definite / interesting correlation. A large meta-analysis of passive smoking in 1992 found a risk ratio of 1.19 at the 90% confidence level - meaning (as I understand it) that there's a one in ten chance that the conclusion is wrong. See http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2003 April.htm. The full paper is here: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ets/etsindex.cfm.

I'm not a spokesman for NumberWatch - his views are his own and mine are mine. Perhaps I'm a latent conspiracy theorist, but I find it extremely plausible that political factors may have influenced the outcome and particularly the interpretation of this study.

The sceptical attitude is to question things, particularly accepted wisdoms. Many people may well agree that the world would be a nicer, sweeter-smelling place if cigarettes didn't exist, but that is not sufficient reason to make them, or their consumption, illegal. Sweeping statements and the self-diagnoses of window fitters should be given their due weight, of course. ChristineR is happy for me to continue flying, but Splossy would ban me from his back yard - one hopes that ChristineR's tolerance prevails.
 
Last edited:
Splossy's post reminds me of one of the worst abuses of stats I've ever heard. At a Conservative party conference some years ago, Anne Widdecombe argued in favour of maintaining the ban on cannabis because stats proved that 80% of heroin addicts started out on cannabis.

This proves exactly nothing. Anyone who unthinkingly agrees that this sounds reasonable is simply allowing their prejudices to blind them. If we found that 99% of heroin addicts drank milk, would we assume a connection? Of course not - because we know that the vast majority of people who drink milk do not go on to become heroin addicts.

The real statistic of interest would be the number of cannabis-takers who go on to become heroin addicts. This figure wasn't given, of course.

Splossy's window fitter who blamed passive smoking for his lung cancer makes the same mistake. One cannot make that judgement without knowing what proportion of people with lung cancer got it from smoking, and what proportion from other causes. This page: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427 gives 87% of lung cancers caused by smoking, and 12% caused by exposure to radon. The page isn't clear on whether the 87% includes passive smoking - let's be generous and say it's 81% actual smoking and 6% passive smoking. This still means that a non-smoker who gets lung cancer is twice as likely to have got it through exposure to radon than from passive smoking.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's important to question *all* results and conclusions, not just the ones that conflict with your world view.
 
Several of the lads that I work with smoke and they always stand outside during their breaks . I think it's pretty common now to ban smoking in factories , indeed in one local factory smoking is not allowed anywhere on site . I find smoke offensive and would avoid any environment where smoking was allowed . As to passive smoking , Roy Castle always blamed this for his illness . I could probably find another two if required so that argument fails .
My favorite quote ' Do you mind if I smoke? ' ' No , do you mind if I fart ?'
 
Here referenced claims for second hand smoke damage
http://www.lungusa.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=34706&ct=67116
It seems clear there is a risk. We just lack enough data to show exactly what it is. In addition whatever non smoke related risk factors people are exposed to it is thought that exposure to smoke will multiply the risk. So you can't really just look at people with no other risk factors because of that relationship.
 
ChristineR said:
I can only give you the U.S. perspective. In the U.S. you have the right to a "smoke-free workplace" in many jurisdictions, so in those cases the employer would not only be at fault, but subject to legal action. In other cases you probably would be refused unemployment benefits, but the benefits in the U.S. are pretty poor to begin with.
Click to expand...

To be honest, that may be the case here too Christine, but I'm not sure - should have researched that a bit. Certainly when the new legislation comes into effect in Summer 2007 it will be (obviously)

As to benefits being quite poor, I hear the same complaints. Although oddly enough, I live in an area with an extremely high unemployment rate, and I pass a number of pubs on the way home from work and in my lunch hour, and in summertime they're always packed full of people....but I guess thats a different grumble for a different forum (*sounds of axe touching grindstone*)
 
homer said:
As to passive smoking , Roy Castle always blamed this for his illness. I could probably find another two if required so that argument fails .
Click to expand...
Not to push the argument one way or the other, but Roy Castle, the tap-dancing and trumpet-playing entertainer was qualified to make this judgment how, exactly? He may have been right; there's no way now of telling. People certainly got lung cancer before tobacco. Either way, he should not have continually stated this as if it were fact, which is how I always understood his comments on the subject.

Cheers,
Rat.
 
Dave_46 said:
Please, where can I find a non-smokey pub?

Dave
Click to expand...
Many Wetherspoon's pubs round my way. I don't like the clientele, but the air is clean in some of them. (eta: in some of the pubs, not the clientele.)

Cheers,
Rat.
 
Do you have any evidence for the claim that lung cancer was around before tobacco smoke? Humans have been smoking tobacco for thousands of years, we didn't even know about cancer until just recently.
 
I do not have the evidence, as I did not believe it to be a particularly controversial claim. I'll have a look into it, as far as I can, but certainly cancer of most major organs is fairly common, and I'd be surprised if lungs were an exception.

Cheers,
Rat.
 
Well, I smoke. I light up a pipe of tobacco, about 2-3 times a week, on my front porch. Usually if no one is at the bus stop, one house away. If someone shows up, I usually stop, tamp it out, and go back in the house.

Smoking in the house is verbotten (six kids... you figure it out).

As long as I can smoke on my front porch in peace, you may feel free to ban smoking everywhere else.

I started to put it out once when the postman showed up, and he told me that pipe smoke couldn't be any worse for him than auto exhaust fumes coming off of the main road there... :D
 
Rat said:
I do not have the evidence, as I did not believe it to be a particularly controversial claim. I'll have a look into it, as far as I can, but certainly cancer of most major organs is fairly common, and I'd be surprised if lungs were an exception.

Cheers,
Rat.
Click to expand...
Yeah I would imagine prior to tobacco most people did not live long enough to get much cancer. I imagine prior to tobacco lung cancer was at least as low as prostate cancer or colon cancer mostly due to people dying before they get old enough to get those. There are still associations with lung cancer that would have been around (including high fat diets, radon and campfire smoke) that would still contribute to lung cancer if they lived long enough.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the episode of "Bullsh*t!" where Penn and Teller discuss this very issue. I think the basic point of the episode was that the number of non-smokers who die from second hand smoke were statistically insignificant (about 4 more people per million). Personally, I do very much believe that second hand smoke can cause many health issues. However, there isn't evidence yet to support the claim that it actually kills people.
 
zaayrdragon said:
I started to put it out once when the postman showed up, and he told me that pipe smoke couldn't be any worse for him than auto exhaust fumes coming off of the main road there... :D
Click to expand...
He is probably right, but adding two health risks on top of each other do not cancel each other out, and it is not the case that only one of them can be in effect at a time.
 
EatatJoes said:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the episode of "Bullsh*t!" where Penn and Teller discuss this very issue. I think the basic point of the episode was that the number of non-smokers who die from second hand smoke were statistically insignificant (about 4 more people per million). Personally, I do very much believe that second hand smoke can cause many health issues. However, there isn't evidence yet to support the claim that it actually kills people.
Click to expand...

This in itself would justify a ban IMHO.
 
My take -
First, a disclaimer:
I have had a lit cigarette at my lips. When I was 11. But (at the time) I didn't know that you were supposed to actually breath in the smoke :D. I would have told whoever told me that that they were an idiot (the F-word not being in my vocabulary at the time. I think...)

Having never actually managed to smoke a cigarette, and normally striving to avoid tobacco smoke in general, I find I feel very ill quite rapidly in the presence of tabocco smoke. Prolonged exposure (several hours) seems to be followed by coming down with a cold (or other upper respitory tract infection).

In NZ, we have smokefree workplaces, and have had smokefree "licensed premises" (pub, bars, taverns etc) and resturaunts for just over a year. I think its great, as I can actually enjoy being in those places. However, with the tabocco smoke no longer in the air, other odours have become noticeable...
 
steenkh said:
He is probably right, but adding two health risks on top of each other do not cancel each other out, and it is not the case that only one of them can be in effect at a time.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I put the pipe out anyway. Turns out our regular postperson is a smoker and doesn't care, but for some reason I still tamp it out if they come up the walkway.

The way I see it, not everyone appreciates pipe smoke. Not everyone appreciates eau de toilet or Brut or body odour. We all have to share the air we breath... maybe we should be more considerate of that air.

If it were my world, every home, office, business, and public location would have designated smoking cubicles, where the air is carefully filtered and recycled. Make 'em large or small, comfy or strict, whatever... Each door would have an airlock arrangement, and all interior surfaces would be treated to repel smoke.

Of course, then there's the matter of the post-smoke shower and laundry facility... or the option to smoke nekkid... :D
 
Crispy Duck said:
Splossy's post reminds me of one of the worst abuses of stats I've ever heard. At a Conservative party conference some years ago, Anne Widdecombe argued in favour of maintaining the ban on cannabis because stats proved that 80% of heroin addicts started out on cannabis.

This proves exactly nothing. Anyone who unthinkingly agrees that this sounds reasonable is simply allowing their prejudices to blind them. If we found that 99% of heroin addicts drank milk, would we assume a connection? Of course not - because we know that the vast majority of people who drink milk do not go on to become heroin addicts.

The real statistic of interest would be the number of cannabis-takers who go on to become heroin addicts. This figure wasn't given, of course.

Splossy's window fitter who blamed passive smoking for his lung cancer makes the same mistake. One cannot make that judgement without knowing what proportion of people with lung cancer got it from smoking, and what proportion from other causes. This page: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427 gives 87% of lung cancers caused by smoking, and 12% caused by exposure to radon. The page isn't clear on whether the 87% includes passive smoking - let's be generous and say it's 81% actual smoking and 6% passive smoking. This still means that a non-smoker who gets lung cancer is twice as likely to have got it through exposure to radon than from passive smoking.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's important to question *all* results and conclusions, not just the ones that conflict with your world view.
Click to expand...

I only mentioned the window fitter because you made the statement that you'd worked in pubs and not noticed any ill effects. I was pointing out that your experience is negated by just one example - a genuine one BTW. I totally agree that anecdotal evidence like this is of limited value. For all I know he might have lived in an asbestos house.

I think we are all aware of the importance of proving causality when making such links.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom