About

Earl Aagaard’s opinions about everything that interests him. Og also enjoys gardening, travel, reading, woodbutchery, and lots of other stuff.

Monthly Archives

Join Og's Mailing List

OgBlog.net

FEELING CONCERNED ABOUT SECOND-HAND SMOKE? GET OVER IT…..

If you’ve ever really thought about it, the idea that breathing in a bit of smoke in a restaurant, or on a bus, or at the auction, or even in a bar, could give you lung cancer is kind of ludicrous…...considering that MOST smokers who breathe in great lungfuls of the smoke directly from the business end of the cigarette don’t die of lung cancer.

That little bit of common sense has just been supported by some actual data.

Someone has begun a systematic check on the “studies” that are constantly cited to back up the nanny-state’s efforts to regulate the lives of anyone doing something that is not on the “approved list”—are you listening, Mayor Bloomberg?

Typically, the studies asked 60—70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures….More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. Thus, the claimed risks are doubly deceptive because of interferences that could not be calculated and corrected.

Again, this only makes sense if one knows anything about human nature….plus, a non-smoker with lung cancer is highly likely to overestimate smoke exposure, having been inundated with the “information” that second-hand smoke is a tremendous risk factor.

The truth does leak out on occasion, of course. Recently,

...prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what “the science” does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto (a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade) replied, “I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers…, but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured.”

If the hazards cannot be directly measured, why are private businesses being forced to ban smoking in their establishments all over the U.S.? Admittedly, I prefer a smoke-free atmosphere when I’m eating dinner out, but I can accomplish that on my own—by not patronizing restaurants that choose to allow smoking! Notice that hotels and motels are not required to have non-smoking rooms, but they certainly do—because they lost business if they didn’t provide for their customers who refuse to sleep in a room that’s been polluted by prior smoking.

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of “the science” on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming “the science is settled” will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking.

Where have we heard THAT one before—“the science is settled”? That is the constant refrain in another political favorite with very little actual evidence to back it up—“human-induced global warming” .

This really should be the last word on these sorts of issues…..but I’m afraid it probably won’t be:

Presumably, we are grown-up people, with a civilized sense of fair play, and dedicated to disciplined and rational discourse. We are fortunate enough to live in a free country that is respectful of individual choices and rights, including the right to honest public policies. Still, while much is voiced about the merits of forceful advocacy, not enough is said about the fundamental requisite of advancing public health with sustainable evidence, rather than by dangerous, wanton conjectures.

READ THE WHOLE THING

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/17 at 10:36 PM

Comments and reactions