# New research shows second-hand smoke does NOT cause cancer. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 19, 2013, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721 "2013-12-19T14:23:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/41 "2013-12-19T23:09:41Z")
BTW, has anyone actually read the study, I’m not paying $35 to read the entire article. Surely it must be floating around on the internet somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/42 "2013-12-20T00:55:12Z")
**Joey P** - it turns out I couldn’t access the article behind the paywall either. It does appear to be in the [news section of JNCI](http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.short) rather than a scientific paper though. However, it may be important to note that the author of the article cited in the OP is an Alex Jones-syle crank: [here’s his rationalwiki entry](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Delingpole). (Biased cite, no apologies offered because I have no faith in Mr. Delingpole - use your own judgement here.) Those two things are enough to set off alarm bells, especially in conjunction with other studies that do show a relationship between secondhand smoke and cancer… [Study of 91,000+ Japanese non-smoking wives that claims risk of passive smoking is around 1/3 to 1/2 that of smokers for lung cancer.](http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862000000700013&script=sci_arttext&tlng=enNon-smoking) [Study of lung cancer in non-smoking women claiming 40 pack-years of exposure results in approx. 30% increase in lung cancer risk.](http://search.proquest.com/docview/215119392?accountid=25281) ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why_Bother)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/43 "2013-12-20T01:13:34Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > What if the study says that all the chemicals that cause cancer (in whatever manner that they cause it) are filtered out by the smokers lungs and the smoke that exits the smokers lungs is free of those chemicals? The thing that I don’t get is that the smoke which comes off the tip of the cigarette must contain the same poisons as the smoke which is sucked through the filter, except if you’re sitting next to a smoker you’re breathing it in unfiltered. Of course, it’s also diluted by the air, but what if you’re in a poorly ventilated room? If you’re married to a smoker and sit in front of the TV with them while they smoke, and if you happen to be more susceptible to smoke related injury (as some people are), how could you _not_ get cancer. Surely it’s only a matter of time. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/44 "2013-12-20T01:39:04Z")
> [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](#): > > If you’re married to a smoker and sit in front of the TV with them while they smoke,\*\* and if you happen to be more susceptible to smoke related injury\*\* (as some people are), how could you _not_ get cancer. Surely it’s only a matter of time. Bolding mine. That’s not fair and you know it. It’s not very scientific to say to say "We’re going to take one group of people that have never been exposed to smoke and another group of people that have been exposed to second hand smoke most of their lives AND are prone to lung issues (family history of cancer/several bouts of pneumonia/already have debilitating asthma) and see which ones do better. I’m not sure how you define ‘susceptible to smoke related injury’ but I’ll bet if you take a thousand of those people and a thousand people that aren’t 'susceptible to smoke related injury and subject none of them to any second hand smoke at all for the better part of their lives (don’t work or live with smokers, don’t spend significant time in smoke filled areas etc) the people that are ‘susceptible to smoke related injury’ are still going to have more issues. IOW, you moved the goal posts, you no longer have a control group, this isn’t scientific anymore, but of course, neither is saying “How can you NOT get cancer”. ---
**Author:** ![Cerealbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ab992/32.png) [@Cerealbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerealbox)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/45 "2013-12-20T03:08:33Z")
One study means nothing, but researchers have already known that initial reports of second hand smoke were slightly overblown. Smoking is bad, but it really is the habitual inhilation of it, not just once in a while being near a smoker. Second hand smoke should only be a concern if you’re around it constantly (bartender in certain states). Anti-smoking laws are more there for courtesy anyway and will remain there for that reason. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/46 "2013-12-20T03:23:56Z")
> [@Cerealbox](#): > > Second hand smoke should only be a concern if you’re around it constantly (bartender in certain states). The whole point of this study is that they’re saying it’s not a concern or at least not as much as we thought. > [@](#): > > Anti-smoking laws are more there for courtesy anyway and will remain there for that reason. I don’t like rude behavior anymore then the next person but I’m not sure I’m okay with the government telling us what is or isn’t rude and setting laws against it. You know what else isn’t courteous, farting right in someone’s face, should the government make that illegal? Okay, that was overkill, lets go back to the perfume thing. I think it’s rude when someone comes in reeking of perfume, especially when it’s so bad it makes me cough or makes my eyes sting. In fact I’m pretty sure I’m ‘allergic’ to it. Would you feel that it’s okay for a cop to come in and write the her AND the business owner a ticket because she was wearing too much perfume…I mean, as long as we get to have laws based on things that bother other people, I can deal with being forced outside to smoke (when I smoked), but I have a whole laundry list of patrons I’d like to see not allowed in the bar as well. People that wear strong perfume, people that put crappy music on the jukebox (they can go listen to that song in their car and come back in), people that are talking so loudly I can’t hear my friends (they can go outside if they want to yell and scream), people that are drunk and bumping into me all night (they can go out to the patio where they won’t bump into everyone), etc etc etc… No, the g’ment didn’t make indoor smoking illegal because it wasn’t courteous. They made it illegal because they’re trying to make the state healthier. On the assumption that second hand smoke is actually bad for you, I can agree that forcing everyone outside is probably better for the state as a whole, but I still don’t like that they did it. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/47 "2013-12-20T03:34:53Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > Many places are banning peanuts for exactly that reason. The elementary school in my town is a peanut free zone. No, the elementary school in your town is a peanut free zone because young kids share things like sandwiches, and actual _ingestion_ of other people’s peanuts can cause allergic reactions. As others have pointed out, “secondhand peanuting” is mythical. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/48 "2013-12-20T04:01:16Z")
Seems to me the evidence is still overwhelmingly in the It Causes Cancer and is Generally Bad camp. > **[Secondhand Smoke and Cancer](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/tobacco/second-hand-smoke-fact-sheet)** > > A fact sheet that summarizes the studies on the health effects of exposure to environmental (secondhand) tobacco smoke. > **[Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke](https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects/secondhand-smoke)** > > Secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard causing more than 41,000 deaths per year. It can cause or make worse a wide range of damaging health effects in children and adults, including lung cancer, [http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data\_statistics/fact\_sheets/secondhand\_smoke/general\_facts/index.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm) [http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html](http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html) [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023/NSECTIONGROUP=2](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023/NSECTIONGROUP=2) ---
**Author:** ![Cerealbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7ab992/32.png) [@Cerealbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cerealbox)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/49 "2013-12-20T05:13:31Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > The whole point of this study is that they’re saying it’s not a concern or at least not as much as we thought. > I don’t like rude behavior anymore then the next person but I’m not sure I’m okay with the government telling us what is or isn’t rude and setting laws against it. > > You know what else isn’t courteous, farting right in someone’s face, should the government make that illegal? > > Okay, that was overkill, lets go back to the perfume thing. I think it’s rude when someone comes in reeking of perfume, especially when it’s so bad it makes me cough or makes my eyes sting. In fact I’m pretty sure I’m ‘allergic’ to it. Would you feel that it’s okay for a cop to come in and write the her AND the business owner a ticket because she was wearing too much perfume…I mean, as long as we get to have laws based on things that bother other people, I can deal with being forced outside to smoke (when I smoked), but I have a whole laundry list of patrons I’d like to see not allowed in the bar as well. People that wear strong perfume, people that put crappy music on the jukebox (they can go listen to that song in their car and come back in), people that are talking so loudly I can’t hear my friends (they can go outside if they want to yell and scream), people that are drunk and bumping into me all night (they can go out to the patio where they won’t bump into everyone), etc etc etc… > > No, the g’ment didn’t make indoor smoking illegal because it wasn’t courteous. They made it illegal because they’re trying to make the state healthier. On the assumption that second hand smoke is actually bad for you, I can agree that forcing everyone outside is probably better for the state as a whole, but I still don’t like that they did it. It is illegal to fart in someone’s face as it should be. And its not smoking that’s outlawed, its doing it in public where your actions have a great effect on others. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/50 "2013-12-20T05:22:30Z")
As most people here probably already know, I am _strongly_ anti-tobacco. But even setting that aside, I think it’s clear to see that the trend in smoking not being allowed in public places is just too heavy with inertia to resist. I doubt we’ll ever go back to a world portrayed in, say, the film _JFK_, where everyone smokes any- and everywhere, and I mean everyone. It’s similar to gay marriage – a decade ago it looked in danger, but now it’s snowballing. The anti-smoking trend had some some fits and starts, but now it’s snowballing too. And anyway, this is one report. Researchers know that one report rarely is definitive. You have to see if the results can be replicated or if there were any flaws in the original study in question. It’s never the end. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/51 "2013-12-20T05:31:08Z")
> [@Cerealbox](#): > > It is illegal to fart in someone’s face as it should be. And its not smoking that’s outlawed, its doing it in public where your actions have a great effect on others. A)I didn’t know farting in someone’s face was illegal, gotta cite? B)Smoking in public is NOT illegal, what’s illegal is smoking in privately owned businesses. People tend to forget that a business that’s open to the public is not a “public place” but actually private property. When the state banned smoking in bars/restaurants etc, they weren’t banning people from smoking in public (you can still go stand out on the sidewalk and smoke), they told people that they could no longer smoke in their own buildings and businesses. However, smoking in a bar may have an effect on others, I’ll give you that, but no one is forcing others to be there. Said others may leave if they don’t like the smokey atmosphere. There’s non-smoking bars, restaurants and coffee shops all over the place (at least around here) that they are welcome to go to. On preview I see what Siam Sam said. To add to that, I think even if were proven totally true that second hand smoke caused ZERO harm, we wouldn’t go backwards. I think the only way to go backwards and allow smoking indoors again would be to prove that cigarettes weren’t harmful at all, and that’s not happening anytime soon. About a year ago I had to go to a meeting in a casino in Milwaukee that still allows smoking. I forgot what it was like to open a door and get hit in the face by a cloud of smoke. Again even as a (former) smoker, I’m glad I don’t have to remember to leave my coat in the car in 0 degree weather just so it doesn’t smell like smoke for the next three days. But it would still be nice to have the choice. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why_Bother)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/52 "2013-12-20T06:10:13Z")
> [@Joey P](#): > > It’s not very scientific to say to say "We’re going to take one group of people that have never been exposed to smoke and another group of people that have been exposed to second hand smoke most of their lives AND are prone to lung issues (family history of cancer/several bouts of pneumonia/already have debilitating asthma) and see which ones do better. I don’t mean to say the study is definitely wrong. All I’m saying is that if it’s right, it raises some interesting questions about just how passive smokers avoid lung cancer and other ailments. We know that what they’re breathing causes cancer, we know that some of them breathe it in enormous quantities over the course of a lifetime, and we know that, of those people, some will inevitably be highly susceptible to its effects. Also, given the sheer number of passive smokers in the world, it stands to reason that that statement would hold true for nearly any definition of “susceptible”. If the study is correct, it makes what seems to be (to my decidedly inexpert eye at least) an impossible conclusion. Now, I 'm not going to fork out $35.00 to read the full study, so for all I know they have an explanation for this. I’m just wondering if anyone else can hazard a guess as to what it might be. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/53 "2013-12-20T06:25:04Z")
> [@Doctor\_Why\_Bother](#): > > I don’t mean to say the study is definitely wrong. All I’m saying is that if it’s right, it raises some interesting questions about just how passive smokers avoid lung cancer and other ailments. We know that what they’re breathing causes cancer, we know that some of them breathe it in enormous quantities over the course of a lifetime, and we know that, of those people, some will inevitably be highly susceptible to its effects. Also, given the sheer number of passive smokers in the world, it stands to reason that that statement would hold true for nearly any definition of “susceptible”. If the study is correct, it makes what seems to be (to my decidedly inexpert eye at least) an impossible conclusion. > > Now, I 'm not going to fork out $35.00 to read the full study, so for all I know they have an explanation for this. I’m just wondering if anyone else can hazard a guess as to what it might be. My guess would be that they remove people with a personal or family history of lung problems. I mean, if three people in someone’s family died of lung cancer or emphysema, it wouldn’t be fair to include them in the study unless they had similar people in the control group. OR they make sure to look at similar people that didn’t spend time around second hand smoke to see if they developed cancer at a similar rate. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/54 "2013-12-20T13:52:00Z")
> [@JoeyP](#): > > I don’t have an issue with that. That’s the same as a bar telling it’s customers they can’t smoke on their property. It’s different the the government saying that no one is allowed to smoke in any bar anywhere in the entire state. Here in the United States, we elect legislators who are given the authority to pass laws impacting both individuals and businesses in their respective states. It doesn’t matter if you, Joey P, have an issue with any of them; by virtue of the authority vested in them, they can, indeed, “say” that no one is allowed to smoke in any bar anywhere in the entire state. > [@JoeyP](#): > > B)Smoking in public is NOT illegal, what’s illegal is smoking in privately owned businesses. It is, in fact, illegal to smoke in many public places including airports, bus/subway terminals, beaches, courthouses, state universities, libraries, governmental office buildings, local, state and federal parks, and even open-air ampitheatres and ballparks. > [@JoeyP](#): > > People tend to forget that a business that’s open to the public is not a “public place” but actually private property. When the state banned smoking in bars/restaurants etc, they weren’t banning people from smoking in public (you can still go stand out on the sidewalk and smoke), they told people that they could no longer smoke in their own buildings and businesses. Where did you get the idea that the government doesn’t have authority over private institutions? Housing laws prohibit private homeowners from discriminating when they sell their own property. Environmental laws prohibit private companies from polluting the ground that they own. Zoning laws prohibit what type of fence I can build on my own property. ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/55 "2013-12-20T14:03:55Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > IOW, you moved the goal posts, you no longer have a control group, this isn’t scientific anymore, but of course, neither is saying “How can you NOT get cancer”. All great points, but especially this last one. No matter how much we put into extending the human lifespan, virtually \*everyone \*is guaranteed to get some kind of cancer eventually. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/56 "2013-12-20T15:43:19Z")
> [@PunditLisa](#): > > It is, in fact, illegal to smoke in many public places including airports, bus/subway terminals, beaches, courthouses, state universities, libraries, governmental office buildings, local, state and federal parks, and even open-air ampitheatres and ballparks. Those are all ‘public places’. I was responding to the comment that it was illegal to smoke ‘in public’. In public would be, like, out on the sidewalk or standing out in my driveway where other people can see me. For example, it’s illegal (in most places) to have sex in public. > [@](#): > > Where did you get the idea that the government doesn’t have authority over private institutions? Housing laws prohibit private homeowners from discriminating when they sell their own property. Environmental laws prohibit private companies from polluting the ground that they own. Zoning laws prohibit what type of fence I can build on my own property. I didn’t say that they didn’t, I just said that I don’t like that they can tell a bar or restaurant owner that they can’t let customers smoke in their bar. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/57 "2013-12-20T18:07:05Z")
> [@Cerealbox](#): > > Second hand smoke should only be a concern if you’re around it constantly (bartender in certain states). Anti-smoking laws are more there for courtesy anyway and will remain there for that reason. > [@Joey\_P](#): > > The whole point of this study is that they’re saying it’s not a concern or at least not as much as we thought. If you look back at the [JNCI article](http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract) that inspired Delingpole’s article rather than just at the Delingpole article, the last paragraph that’s publicly available and not behind a paywall (everything after the word “In” below is behind the paywall) says: > [@Judy Peres in JNCI](#): > > However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In … It does say that long and continuous (30 yrs +) exposure to secondhand smoke increased lung cancer risk. ETA: So I guess the question remaining is do shorter exposures to secondhand smoke increase risk, but not enough to be detected in the study, or do shorter exposures to secondhand smoke not increase risk at all? ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/58 "2013-12-20T18:24:21Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I think the point of this study was that any differences between the active and passively smoking groups were for the most part not statistically significant. In that study. But hasn’t it been found to be significant in other studies? Is their methodology better or worse than those? > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Your argument also gets uncomfortably close to the “TOXIN!” illogic that gets sprayed about concerning vaccines and other claimed hazards (ignoring the fact that toxicity of any substance is related to dose). One could propose a scenario in which carcinogenic particles in secondhand smoke are present at too low a level to cause cancer. But that’s not my understanding of carcenogenesis. We’re talking a piece of DNA being damaged in a single cell in a way that (by random bad luck) turns it into a cancer cell (basically, a human cell that does not respond to the chemical signals that limit and control cell growth). It’s not all the particles you’re exposed to that start the cancer, it’s the specific one(s) that damage that cell’s DNA. More exposure just increases the chance of running into that one, but you still might not have it happen. One could propose a scenario in which a single particle of smoke damages one single cell. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/59 "2013-12-20T18:27:34Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > What if the study says that all the chemicals that cause cancer (in whatever manner that they cause it) are filtered out by the smokers lungs and the smoke that exits the smokers lungs is free of those chemicals? Well, that would seal the deal, proving the study is false, because anyone who spends a moment observing a smoker knows only _some_ of the smoke even enters the smoker’s body. You, for example. You could have observed a smoker before posting that. ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2013, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721/60 "2013-12-20T18:52:48Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > ETA: So I guess the question remaining is do shorter exposures to secondhand smoke increase risk, but not enough to be detected in the study, or do shorter exposures to secondhand smoke not increase risk at all? Your question is already answered in the part you quoted. If there was an increase, it was not statistically significant. In scientific terms, this means: “There may or may not have been a slightly increased cancer risk for some participants in the study’s experimental group. This increase, if it exists, cannot be accounted for scientifically based on the variable we are studying. Therefore, any increase was due to other variables, such as random chance or genetics, and \*\*not \*\*attributable to exposure to secondhand smoke.” [Further reading.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-research-shows-second-hand-smoke-does-not-cause-cancer/676721.md?page=4)