P & T and Secondhand Smoke

[ReFLeX]

I have just seen the episode of Penn & Teller's B.S. where they rail against a guy in New York fighting for smoking bans. I'm not in total agreement with them, and they aired smokers using fallacies to argue against the bans, which seems foolish, but I know where they're coming from. For this thread however, I don't care about the bans or the reasoning behind them. What I want to know is,
What the crunk is the truth about secondhand smoke?

I've heard all my life that secondhand smoke is bad for your health. Now, I'm not so attached to that belief that I didn't doubt it immediately while watching the episode. So what I understand is that the EPA did a very questionable study that concluded secondhand smoke caused lung cancer. And that major anti-smoking or cancer-related organizations cite that study to support their claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous. But is that the bottom line?

I mean obviously, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but is there really no other credible study that concludes secondhand smoke is dangerous? If not, then why would tobacco companies allow the government of Ontario to print labels on their packages extolling the effects of secondhand smoke? If there's no strong evidence, then wouldn't they fight that all the way?

Now, looking at the anti-smoking essays, I do see some curious side-stepping, such as in this factsheet where the actual statement about secondhand smoke being dangerous is in a little block that's unsourced.

...an estimated 3,500 men and 2,900 women died from the disease.

* Source: Canadian Cancer Statistics 2004

* A non-smoker exposed to second-hand smoke has a 25% increased chance of lung cancer. Increased chances of cancer of the sinuses, brain, breast, uterine, cervix, thyroid, as well as leukemia and lymphoma are also noted. Health Canada estimates that more than 300 non-smokers die from lung cancer each year because of exposure to second-hand smoke.
* Several studies and significant medical experience show that those who chew tobacco have an increased risk of cancer of the oral cavity. Snuff increases the risk of cancer of the oral cavity and larynx.
* Smoking is also a contributory factor for the development of cancer of the throat, mouth, bladder, kidney, cervix and pancreas.

The encouraging news

* Tobacco use is the single most important preventable cause of death in the world...

Emphasis mine. And I do remember Penn explaining how they came up with the 25% figure, and how they estimate how many die of lung cancer from exposure.

But what about the Paediatrician-in-Chief at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children

We know that second-hand smoke contributes to disease and death in childhood and later life:

*
When a pregnant woman breathes second-hand smoke, the growing fetus is also exposed to nicotine and carbon monoxide. This decreases blood flow, deprives the baby of oxygen, and can lead to low birth weight. Nicotine also reaches the fetus and affects the heart, blood vessels, digestive system, and central nervous system.
*
Several recent studies have shown that children whose mothers were exposed to second-hand smoke during pregnancy have poorer attention, cognition, and behaviour.
*
Babies whose mothers smoke before or after birth may also be more likely to develop colic during the first six months of life.
*
Second-hand smoke is a risk factor for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Babies are more likely to die of SIDS if any person in the home smokes.
*
Children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to develop asthma, ear infections, and lung infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Children with asthma make more emergency room visits if there is second-hand smoke in their home.
*
The effects of second-hand smoke continue into later life — new evidence suggests that adults who were exposed to it as children are at higher risk for heart disease and some forms of cancer.

Yes? No?

This Ontario Medical Association position paper does cite the EPA study, and also one from 1964(!), but also has a number of others such as

1. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease: Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry. Circulation , 1991:83;1-12.

5. National Research Council. Environmental tobacco smoke: Measuring Exposure and Assessing Health Effects. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1986.

Is this all misdirection? The WHO apparently found "weak" evidence for connecting secondhand smoke and cancer. Penn says the risk is "not statistically significant". Are we talking the kind of odds such that it is possible to die in a plane crash, but statistically unlikely... to the point of statistical insignificance? Or more likely than that? Less?

 

[kmortis]

I've heard all my life that secondhand smoke is bad for your health. Now, I'm not so attached to that belief that I didn't doubt it immediately while watching the episode. So what I understand is that the EPA did a very questionable study that concluded secondhand smoke caused lung cancer. And that major anti-smoking or cancer-related organizations cite that study to support their claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous. But is that the bottom line?

THe problem is that the much-touted EPA study was fraudulant. They cherry picked the data for the meta-analysis, ignored 2/3rds of THAT data, doubled their margin of error, doubled the number of deaths, and then proceeded to inflate the number every subsequent time it was quoted.

Dave Hitt did a good job summarizing all the issues with this report. Take away the report, you take away the "evidence" for lethal "second hand smoke".

 

[IllegalArgument]

At TAM3, someone questioned P&T on the second hand smoke show. Apparently, the questioner had send info P&T about the dangers of second hand smoke.

Penn said he had looked at the information agreed that second hand smoke did actually pose a real threat. Unfortuately, B*llsh!it doesn't have the budget to redo shows, or spend time correcting them in new shows. I haven't seen the details, Penn and the questioner didn't go into it, since it was a Q&A session.

 

[roger]

To be honest, I don't look to Penn to evaluate scientific findings such as these. I don't think he can do it any better than I can. Give me six months of concerted effort in the field, and maybe I can evaluate the scientific merit, but other than that, no. Certainly as sceptics we can point out flawed methodology when it occurs, but otherwise we are left to seeing what the conclusions are of the majority of the experts.

With that said, it seems logical that second hand smoke can be somewhat harmful. The dangers of inhaling organics and particulates are well known. My hobby is woodworking, and there are many dangers associated with prolonged exposure to particulates down to 1 micron, solvents, etc. So in the absense of evidence in regards to second hand smoke, I'd prefer caution rather than a libertarian free for all in this matter.

 

[strathmeyer]

Yeah, the whole problem that that particular episode was that they were debunking one story and acting like it solved the whole issue.

The issue isn't "does second hand smoke cause cancer," the issue is "do bartenders who can't be around second hand smoke deserve to be gaurenteed a working environment".

 

[Loon]

Two other issues with that particular show:

1) They conflated scientific and legal proof (a la Victor Zammit), harping on the fact that a court didn't really like the study

2) They assumed (or spoke as if) the only concieveable reason to avoid secondhand smoke was the risk of lung cancer, ignoring heart disease, other lung diseases, smell and sensitivity.

 

[casebro]

I thought there were ground rules for cancer studies. Like exposure must double the rates, elimination/treatment must halve the rates, otherwise statistics/clusters can overly influence a study. Look at the 2,000,000 deaths in this country every year, 2,500 hundred extra from hand-me-down smoke is a pretty small risk.

 

[Brown]

That particular episode of BULL*** was bull****. The boys made a number of factual errors, and their conclusions did not logically follow from their presentation. At best, the episode was sloppy.

I've written about this episode before, and I won't go into gory details. Basically, the boys messed up (1) by citing a lower federal court decision as a scientific finding; (2) by falsely suggesting that a person's right to put substances into his own body (assuming that such a right exists) can encompass putting the same substances in the body of another who would not put them in his own body voluntarily; and (3) by suggesting that if second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, those exposed to second-hand smoke don't have a beef (which is incorrect from both a factual and legal standpoint).

There was an incident at TAM3 that showed that even Penn Jillette didn't really buy into the message he was trying to sell. During a panel discussion, Penn was sitting next to Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens, without so much as a "Do you mind," decided to light one up. Oh, the faces that Penn made when he was involuntarily exposed to someone else's smoke in quantity.

 

[Ohmer]

(3) by suggesting that if second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, those exposed to second-hand smoke don't have a beef (which is incorrect from both a factual and legal standpoint).

Yes. To me, this is like farting in someone's face and then saying they shouldn't be upset because it won't harm their health.

I really didn't like that episode.

 

[KingMerv00]

HOW MUCH second hand smoke do you need to be exposed to for it to be harmful?

Live with a smoker?

Work with smokers?

 

[Dogdoctor]

If you are a cat second hand smoke might be bad also.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-07/tu-nss072902.php

 

[Jorghnassen]

HOW MUCH second hand smoke do you need to be exposed to for it to be harmful?

Live with a smoker?

Work with smokers?

Depends on your health status prior to exposure. If you have asthma, for example, it's no fun...

 

[Melendwyr]

Yes. To me, this is like farting in someone's face and then saying they shouldn't be upset because it won't harm their health.

I really didn't like that episode.

If I remember correctly flatulence has been shown to spread bacteria. So it's entirely possible it could harm their health.

 

[egslim]

It's anecdotal, but http://rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_abuse.shtml

A friend of mine asked me to take a look at her computer. She said the computer was unusually "quiet" and would reboot itself on occasion. I surmised correctly that the fan on her power supply was faulty. She was a chain smoker and apparently smoked a lot while working on the computer; not only was the power supply fan gummed up with revolting tar and nicotine, but the CPU's cooling fan was clogged beyond use, and the cdrom drive drawer would not open. This is the only computer I have ever worked on that died from smoking.

And

I've seen a computer die from smoking, too.

A customer came in with a dead computer, claimed it was under warranty, and asked if we could fix it. We had look at it, and before we even laid eyes on it, we could smell it. Imagine the stench of an overused ashtray times ten.

We looked at the yellow case (it was supposed to be beige) and the date of purchase (3-4 months previous) and goggled in disbelief that she actually had any lungs left.

"What are you doing with this computer?" I asked in total disbelief.

It was at a taxi service. She smoked, the cabbies smoked, and the room was apparently only about eight by twelve. Smoking took place 24/7 in this place, and her fingers and the computer bore witness. We opened the case, and there were visible deposits of brown tar everywhere. The whole thing was gummy and slimy inside.

We had to tell her she was on her own. Naturally, she countered with the "it's under warranty" argument, but the computer was well beyond that. She left quite mad. We insisted she take her computer with her when she left.

If that's what can happen to a computer...

 

[SquishyDave]

There was an incident at TAM3 that showed that even Penn Jillette didn't really buy into the message he was trying to sell. During a panel discussion, Penn was sitting next to Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens, without so much as a "Do you mind," decided to light one up. Oh, the faces that Penn made when he was involuntarily exposed to someone else's smoke in quantity.

I'm pretty sure he said in the episode he doesn't like second hand smoke any more than any other non smoker, I believe the skit with the loud annoying musicians was illistrating this. But that wasn't the point, I have to put up with a lot of things I don't like because the skeptical tools I use come up with an answer that opposes my preferences. That's part of being a skeptic. You can still hate second hand smoke but support peoples right to blow it in your face if it's not harmful. (You get my meaning, just exagerating the point.)

Apart from that, I really don't know if second hand smoke is harmful, I looked into for a bit but got so much contradictory info that I gave up. Don't know if it hurts, don't care enough to find out.

 

[Rockin' Rick]

Basically, the boys messed up (1) by citing a lower federal court decision as a scientific finding;

That court found that the EPA testing methods were seriously flawed, thus the results were in question, and the report discounted. That court's decision had nothing to do with the science in particular.

(2) by falsely suggesting that a person's right to put substances into his own body (assuming that such a right exists)

There is no law that indicates otherwise, therefore the right does exist. There are laws that regulate the sale, distribution, and possesion of certain substances, but not their use.

can encompass putting the same substances in the body of another who would not put them in his own body voluntarily;

No such claim was made.

and (3) by suggesting that if second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, those exposed to second-hand smoke don't have a beef (which is incorrect from both a factual and legal standpoint).

They did not say that second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer. What they said was that the smoke haters and the EPA are using false information to drive the issue.

During a panel discussion, Penn was sitting next to Christopher Hitchens, and Hitchens, without so much as a "Do you mind," decided to light one up. Oh, the faces that Penn made when he was involuntarily exposed to someone else's smoke in quantity.

Penn being a non-smoker I would assume doesn't like the smell. Perhaps it's an eye irritant to him as it is to many others. And I have the impression that Penn is a polite person and was probably offended by the action of Hitchens.

I'm a casual cigar smoker, and I am always polite about it. I find out if an establishment or person's home is cigar friendly. I ask people around me if they mind if I smoke. I expect the same. I do not smoke in my home.

I've spent some time reading through reports on the issue of second-hand smoke. While most of these reports do not suggest that it is harmless, they do suggest that it is not particularly dangerous. Do you know what epidemiology and relative risk are? The majority of the tests find that air filled with tobbacco smoke isn't particularly more dangerous than ordinary air. Most score a relative risk of around 1. Is it healthy? no. Is it killing 3000 people per year? no.

 

[Rockin' Rick]

With regard to asthma and other respiratory issues...
tobbacco smoke is not the danger, smoke is. Leaves, lumber, tires, tobbacco, a casserole left in the oven, methane, etc. are all bad.
I just saw an ad for an air freshener (which uses feng shui also) and the claim is that it is good for asthmatics. It's not an air filter, it just adds parfume to cover up other odors. So it's actually worse for asthma by displacing even more oxygen.

 

[Ducky]

To the OP:

The truth about second hand smoke is that it contains vitamin C. Kevin trudeau told me so. It's not the smoke but the cigarette filter that causes cancer.

 

[Loon]

There is no law that indicates otherwise, therefore the right does exist. There are laws that regulate the sale, distribution, and possesion of certain substances, but not their use.

Hmm. I know not, but I suspect that there are laws regarding use beyond underage laws (i.e., heroin use is illegal)

I've spent some time reading through reports on the issue of second-hand smoke. While most of these reports do not suggest that it is harmless, they do suggest that it is not particularly dangerous.

If I spend the night among cigarette smoke, I wake up wheezy and congested the next day. There are issues beyond the epidemiological here. One is that tobacco is a drug and it can affect people in the vicinity (the tobacco in the smoke I mean, not some sort of magical tobacco radiation). There's also the smell and the irritant factor.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.cancersa.org.au/i-cms?page=1.6.36.368.188

[FONT=Arial, Times, Times New Roman, Serif]Conclusions of the 1997 NHMRC report The health effects of passive smoking[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, Serif]
This extensive Australian review of the scientific evidence linking passive smoking to many diseases, including asthma in children, lower respiratory tract illness, lung cancer, and major coronary conditions and other illnesses. As very little Australian data exists describing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke outside the home, it estimates the risk of illness from exposure to ETS at home for people who have never smoked.

This report concludes that:


[/FONT]

• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, Serif]An estimated 13% of lower respiratory illness in children under 18 months (about 16,300 cases per year) is due to passive smoking[/FONT]
• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, Serif]Children exposed to ETS are about 40% more likely to suffer from asthmatic symptoms than those not exposed[/FONT]
• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, Serif]About 8% of new cases of childhood asthma is attributable to passive smoking (about 46,500 children per year)[/FONT]
• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, Serif]It is estimated that the risk of heart attack or death from coronary heart disease is about 24% higher in people who never smoke but who live with a smoker, compared to unexposed people who never smoke[/FONT]
• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, Serif]It is estimated that people who never smoke and live with a smoker have a 30% increase in the risk of developing lung cancer compared to people who never smoke and live with a non-smoker (leading to about 12 new cases of lung cancer and 11 deaths from lung cancer per year in people who never smoke)[/FONT]
• [FONT=Georgia, Times, Times New Roman, Serif]Passive smoking contributes significantly to the risk of sudden infant death syndrome.[/FONT]

There are plenty of studies on this issue.