Watched an episode of Bullshit the other day where they vehemently opposed the relatively new Non-smoking law that was passed in New York (though I’m sure it’s spread to other states as well). Their argument was based on the fact that there is NO scientific evidence that links passive smoke with lung cancer which directly contradicts an EPA study that was done a few years back. They (though they aren’t the only ones) accused the EPA of cherry-picking their data to support their hypothesis. Other agencies/organizations have apparently taken the study as gospel and run with it, the end result being the banning of smoking in restaurants and such. This is what I got out of the 28 minute segment, but I might have missed a valid point. If so, please enlighten me. Otherwise, please share your thoughts about Penn&Tellers arguments.
“Bullshit” is a good response to this. Even better is this summary from the 2006 Surgeon General’s report.
The report as a whole not only cites numerous studies on the increased risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers due to secondhand smoke (SHS), but also covers additional health problems caused by SHS, including exacerbation of other lung diseases, coronary artery disease and sudden infant death syndrome.
Current and proposed antismoking laws are based on far more than a supposedly debunked EPA study.
There are numerous SHS-related threads you can search for on the Dope that go over the scientific evidence (interspersed with assorted non-evidence based rants one way or the other).
This is a very politicized issue. You are unlikely to find mutually-deemed noncontroversial data.
As for my take, based on my scanning of the studies cited in the latest Surgeon General’s report on SHS, I’d say that if you are exposed to a SHS stream daily for a number of years, then there’s a moderately elevated risk of getting various life-threatening diseases (25-60%). I use ‘moderately’ to distinguish from the dramatic increase expected if you’re a daily long-term smoker yourself. It should be noted that if you consider your baseline absolute risk low, then your increased risk is still ‘low’, albeit somewhat increased. However, the notion that you will appreciably increase your risk of life-threatening illnesses if all your SHS exposure is limited to occasional patron visits of bars and restaurants, is nonsense and unsupported. Michael Siegel is a preventive medicine physician specializing in tobacco control research and although he is assuredly anti-smoking, he scrutinizes the sensationalist and misleading claims by the anti-smoking lobby at his blog. Worth a look.
I agree with the Anti-smoke lobby that SHS is a problem, but the premise that it is a major health risk seems shaky at best.
I can not understand why they need/use that (false/exaggerated) argument. There are already plenty good arguments against smoking in the presence of others. (smells foul, your clothes smell, the room becomes filthy, some people get irritated eyes etc.)
But still, not smoking in bars ?
I realize that the argument here is more about the actual level of risk associated with second hand smoke, but can anyone assert with a straight face that SHS isn’t harmful at all? If smoking is harmful, then why wouldn’t SHS be harmful? Does going through a pair of lungs remove all harmful substances from cigarette smoke? That seems highly unlikely. The only arguments against the harmfulness of SHS I’ve ever seen have come from strongly biased sources: addicts and the companies who make ungodly amounts of money catering to them. It reminds me of (sorry to Godwinize here) holocaust denial.
On the subject of Penn & Teller, they later decided there was evidence to support the dangers of passive smoking after seeing some new research. I’ll try and dig up a link to the interview.
Found it:
here
Actually it is a health issue that has become politicized by economic forces (tobacco companies and the bar and restaurant industry).
The Surgeon General’s Office (on the basis of the myriad studies on this issue) concluded otherwise. According to the American Lung Association:
“Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.”
You don’t have to be exposed to lots of SHS on a daily basis for years in order to have associated health problems (although the risks are deemed higher in bar and restaurant workers).
So the question for the doubters who’ve reached conclusions based on skimming part of the SG’s report (or because the evidence just doesn’t sound compelling to them): How does “politics” explain the findings of all those researchers and health agencies?
Well, there are a lot of things that are harmful at large doses that are benign or even essential at smaller doses (vitamins. table salt, water, arsenic, etc.) and that *could *be the case with SHS.
But there is convincing evidence to the contrary in the case of SHS.
Thanks for your contributions, guys!
Sure. I was only commenting on the line of reasoning.
I watch Penn and Teller, and I enjoy Penn and Teller, yet I find that the more I know about any subject they bring up the more likely I am to disagree with them. This worries me sometimes. Does anyone else find this to be so? Not the worrisome part, the part where knowing about an issue makes you more likely to disagree with them.
I’m sure it is. I just can’t understand why people aren’t just as vocal about the quality of their water, soil and air instead of just focusing on SHS? Get your water & soil analyzed. Check out some of the mercury levels in some of the fish you eat. What’s the air quality where you live? What are the cancer rates and autism rates in your town?
Until we start taking probelms with our environment seriously, I can’t get too worked up about SHS.
Sorry! I didn’t realize this was in GQ until after I posted.
Bill Door, I couldn’t agree with you more. I enjoy the series as much as the next guy. It’s good for several laughs, but somewhere in the show I start thinking about what they’re actually saying and I think “huh?”. SHS was one that I came up with off the bat. Another one is their “exposé” of hypnosis.