If you go back and read the linked analysis in the SG’s report, you’ll find that numerous studies on secondhand smoke and SIDS (39 of which were examined in a 1997 meta-analysis) controlled for such factors, and the result was a consistent finding of significantly elevated risk of SIDS due to secondhand smoke. Example - if you look solely at postnatal paternal smoking in the household and control for mom’s smoking during pregnancy, you find elevated risk of SIDS.
Quite right. Which is why I’d expect you to be impressed by the finding of a dose-response relationship between the level of secondhand smoking and the incidence of SIDS.
It’s in the linked analysis by the SG. With references.
If you want to get beyond vague feelings that the dangers of secondhand smoke aren’t sufficiently compelling for you, study the science.
This seems to be saying that they are not sure of causality.
The “evaluate the relationship between maternal smoking and infant sleeping positions and bed sharing” sounds like they are not sure of the relationship. and the “(f)uture research should also focus on better assessments of actual exposures of infants to secondhand smoke using biochemical assessments and/or more detailed interviews” part makes it sound like the research did not make sure that a dose relationship existed. Since they aren’t sure of what dosages the infants were exposed to.
It still seems that the bold assertion that 430 infants died of SIDS because their mothers smoked around them is going a bit beyond the evidence.
Not so. Stating that further data should be acquired to understand the relationship between secondhand smoking and SIDS is not synonomous with saying that the relationship is not established. If we can elucidate the mechanism in detail, for example, we might develop greater understanding of SIDS in general and learn how to better prevent its occurrence in other settings.
On the contrary. While it is good to determine independent risk factors for SIDS (like secondhand smoke) it also makes sense to develop more information about the interrelationship between risk factors, again with the goal of preventing as many SIDS cases as possible.
I previously mentioned the research showing a dose-response relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and SIDS risk.
It is more and more evident that you haven’t read the SG’s analysis or the studies themselves, or you would not be making these assertions. Try again when you’ve done your homework on this issue (for example, analyze some of the major studies yourself, see if their methodology appears fair or flawed, and raise specific discussion points). What you’ve been doing instead is misinterpreting conclusions and overlooking data.
Emphasis added. No bold assertions. Just estimates. (Shodan may have been referring to somebody else’s assertion: I just want to keep the original source in mind.)
I make no assertions regarding the quality of such estimates, other than to allege that junk science does not make it into executive summaries of Surgeon General’s reports.
That aside, I am a little puzzled that we’re glomming on to 430 SIDS deaths, as opposed to 46,000 coronary heart attacks or 3000 cases of lung cancer. Not that it isn’t interesting: I think Shodon is making a decent point when he notes that the SIDS is sufficiently mysterious that alleging casuality is problematic.
Disclaimer: I can’t recall ever reading an article about SIDS.
Smoking is addictive. Smoking kills people, both users and second hand users. Smoking seems to be more annoying then an just about any other legal activity.
Question. Which was the first country to make the smoking of tobacco illegal?
[sound of silence]
Why are so many dangerous drugs illegal in many countries yet smoking is not?
The beef most non smokers should have is with their govts NOT smokers. Why don’t govts stand up and make smoking illegal? MONEY!
It is a clear and simple fact that smoking kills. It kills smokers mostly and they pay a premium price for their death. It has the unfortunate side affect of killing non smokers. Yet it is legal everywhere.
Marajuana is illegal in most countries but did it ever kill even the teeniest proportion of people that smoking did? Cocaine? Heroin?
Why have the world’s govts decided that smoking is an acceptable way to obtain a very generous income and an acceptable way for many to die (directly or indirectly)?
It is fine to sneer at the closest smoker but try to remember your govt depends on someone smoking. If smoking was outlawed everywhere overnight there would be dramatic economic implications.
I am sad that I add to that state-approved-cash-cow-dependency but I do. I wish the govt had the balls to make it illegal.
It is interesting to note that alcohol is a bigger killer in much of the world and (other then strictly Muslim countries) govts are not racing to make it illegal.
Why should it baffle you that people who sustain perceivable harm from another person’s voluntary act should gripe about that act?
It’s slowly–incredibly slowly–changing here. Depending on where you are, smoking a cigarette in a “no smoking” zone can get you noticed. One such place, of course, is inside a government building. Another is inside a school. And yet another is inside a hospital. That last is what gives rise to the spectacle of people dressed in hospital pajamas, holding onto their IV bag support, and smoking on the sidewalk in front of the hospital.
Perhaps it’s because, as proven, that they are the victims of the smokers?
Pulled that one right out of your tush, didn’t you?
What possible difference does the attitude in another country make on the facts of the matter?
Just because the smokers in other countries are inconsiderate does not excuse the same attitude in smokers in America.
You mean like pulling stuff out of your tush?
Apparently you’re completely unfamiliar with the concept of a scientific study.
Monty,
I just feel that the American attitude towards smoking is an incredibly petty and self-righteous one. This is just my opinion. If you want to shit your pants out of anger everytime someone involuntarily offends your sensitive soul, then good for you. Watch your blood pressure though. That might kill you before secondhand smoke.
So it is definitely true that exposure to SHS causes SIDS? This is proven? I am not disputing a correlation; I said that. I am talking about the strength of the evidence that shows that SIDS is sometimes caused by exposure to SHS.
But this conclusion seems to be saying that the research isn’t as good as it might be, insofar as it depends on subjective reporting rather than objective biochemical measures. The parents might be under-reporting their smoking, IOW, or over-reporting it, or whatever.
I’m a layman and I am trying to understand the report.
No, that is the one I am talking about. I am trying to figure out what this estimate is based on. It seems that the estimate is stating rather clearly that SIDS is definitely caused by exposure to SHS.
If the estimate is restated as “in 2005, the number of newborns who died of SIDS caused by exposure is probably somewhere between zero and 430, inclusive, but we can’t be sure”, would that be more accurate?
As I said earlier, for me at least it is a way to determine how strong the evidence is overall. If the evidence is strong that SHS causes SIDS, then I am more willing to believe that it causes thousands of cases of cancer and heart disease too. But, if the case for SHS causing SIDS is overstated, then that tells us something about the report writers’ willingness to overstate their case.
No, that’s clearly not the case. What you’re trying to do (by ignoring the evidence presented in dozens of studies, reviewed in a rigorous manner on prior occasions in peer-reviewed journals and analyzed yet again with specific references to key data in the Surgeon General’s report) is cast doubt on one section with the goal of dismissing the report entirely. You basically admit this.
One can be a “layman” and still recognize that this is nonsense. The research done on the links between secondhand smoke exposure and cancer (or heart disease) is separate from the research done on SIDS. Even if you could refute the SIDS evidence (which you have not done), that would do nothing to refute the evidence on other secondhand smoke risks.
To present this absurd position of yours in a context you might better understand, try this statement: “The Bush Administration LIED to get us into war in Iraq. Therefore nothing that the Administration says on any aspect of foreign policy should be believed. We don’t have to consider each case in turn - if they deceived us on one thing, everything else is a lie too.”
Does that make sense to you, or is it (like your statement) a handy way to avoid having to use logic and facts to make an argument??
Yes, the SIDS section in the SG’s report (which once again it is obvious you have not read or are ignoring) states that the scientific evidence is sufficiently strong to conclude that secondhand smoke exposure is a major preventable risk factor for SIDS. It’s hard to find anything much clearer than that.
Once again - what specific studies do you find fault with? Do you acknowledge that potential confounding factors (i.e. other causes of SIDS) have been controlled for? Do you disagree with specific means of statistical analysis? Were the study populations set up satisfactorily? Were sufficient autopsy studies done? Was SIDS defined in a sufficiently rigorous manner? Does the Surgeon General’s analysis make sense, given the many studies’ consistent findings of elevated SIDS risk due to SHS exposure?
Sorry Shodan, “it seems to me” just isn’t good enough.
Firstly, you are reading it rather differently than I am. Secondly, I think you’re wrong.
There’s a chance that the correlation between SIDS and secondhand smoke is spurious. A halfway decent study will address this issue, though it’s unlikely to resolve it. Heck, at sufficiently high standards of evidence one could doubt the link between cigarette smoking and cancer.
More generally, epidemiologists typically weigh various types of evidence. These include: 1) Clinical studies (where the scientist controls the dosage and is able to administer a control). 2) Statistical studies, which work with population datasets (and where a control cannot be administered), 3) animal studies, and 4) theoretic evidence, whereby the precise metabolic pathways involved are detailed.
Incidentally, for cigarette smoking, #4 has not been completely worked out: we simply don’t understand cancer at a sufficiently advanced level (though work continues). Nonetheless, that does not imply that an estimate cannot be formed on the basis of #1-#3.
So, no, “Estimate” does not imply that causality has been established. Again, the casual mechanism for smoking and cancer has not been entirely worked out. Professionals and laymen can and do form conclusions based upon the preponderance of the evidence. When one says that “Correlation does not prove causality”, that is the start of the discussion (see Jackmannii) not the end of it.
Since we’ve moved on to a new page, I’ll reprint the section of Jackmannii’s post that I was alluding to:
And at the end of the day, when faced with imperfect evidence, one will have to make a determination of the effect of secondhand smoke of SIDS.
Admittedly, the best estimate would incorporate the probability that all the associations are spurious. Though I doubt whether such an adjustment has been made, I would argue that this amounts to a disagreement over the magnitude of the probability-adjusted effect and not whether it’s reasonable to attach some level of SIDS related harms to secondhand smoke.
See Table 5.5 in Jackmannii’s link to Chapter 5. To control for this confounding factor, many of the studies investigated paternal smoking or smoking by the mother after pregnancy.
Of the 13 studies, only 2 did not consider potential confounders. Three did not adjust for maternal smoking during pregnancy, a big problem in my view. But that’s 3/13.
I see that the body of the report used stronger causal language: “The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and sudden infant death syndrome.” p. 194.
Yeah, by masterfully claiming every statement was ‘pulled out of my tush’. I was simply stating an observation that relative to most other countries I’ve been in (Korea, Japan, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Trinidad & Tobago, etc), Americans seem to overreact to smoking. I never claimed secondhand smoke wasn’t bad for you. I feel for family members of smokers that smoke in the house or people that work in bars or other smokey places. But those that bitch about passing smokers couple of times a day and think they’re polluting your precious air need to get a life.
If 1 person out of 50 gets coronary heart disease in the general population, a one third increase is 1.35 out of 50 in the second hand smokers population. It is amazing how they managed to isolate all other factors affecting the risk of CHD like heredity, diet, fitness and attribute such a minor increase just to SHS.
No, that wouldn’t be the American attitude. That would be the American smoker’s attitude.
It’s been said before on this board and yet it obviously bears repeating: Just because you have the right to an opinion does not mean you have the right to have an inane opinion treated as though it’s of any worth.
No, it would be the attitude of the persons who, not content with ensuring that they will in general never be exposed to the slightest amount of second-hand smoke by banning smoking in the overwhelming majority of places, then take it on themselves to decide that nobody has the right to smoke anywhere, regardless of any precautions and courtesy towards others, because in their minds (and with documented if sometimes estimated statistics backing them) it’s an unhealthy and unclean habit.
In short, you’re arrogating to yourself the right to decide what choices other people will make in their lives, affecting only themselves and those who choose to associate with them, out of a sense of moral superiority backed by a set of statistics.
Not: “Don’t smoke anywhere where it will bother me” but “Don’t smoke. Period. In case I might someday want to go where you’re smoking.”
If you and Jackmaniii are saying anything other than that, amply backed by citations from the Surgeon General’s Report to be sure, you’ve done a remarkably poor job of getting it across IMHO.
I am fully aware that smoking is bad for me, very bad. I am fully aware that people do not enjoy inhaling smoke, and do the absolute best job I can of avoiding smoking where it will bother another person. I am aware that there are obnoxious smokers who don’t give a shit about others, out there.
But the bottom line is, you have allied yourself with the Family Research Council and the WCTU in touting the idea that your moral opinions about someone else’s bad habits gives you the right to restrict them by law from exercising those bad habits. Anywhere. Under any circumstances.
Do I have to explain to you what’s wrong with that scenario?
Virtually no one in this thread (or in general) has said this. This is so bereft of reality that it hardly even qualifies as a strawman argument.
So whereas previously in this thread Poly acknowledged that there’s a health hazard associated with even light exposure to secondhand smoke, now he’s dismissing the risk as “a set of statistics”. This is what I referred to as a mixed message.
I’m still waiting for Poly to explain why secondhand smoke exposure is unique in the annals of public health, so that laws to control it constitute “arrogant” coercion. whereas he apparently has no problem with government measures to lower other public health risks (i.e. mandatory vaccinations for communicable diseases). Is there something radically different about secondhand smoke, other than the fact that you’re a smoker who doesn’t like being inconvenienced?
I am on record in this thread as having said that smokers have a right to practice a habit that carries health risks, but not to inflict those risks on the non-smoking population. If you interpret that as “Don’t smoke. Period.”, then your command of the English language is extremely poor.** Monty** has said no such thing either.
We are long past “not enjoying inhaling smoke”, to the point of “not willing to endure heightened risks of cancer, heart disease and other serious health problems for the convenience of one-fifth of the adult population”.
This analogy was demolished earlier in this thread (direct health threats being very different from disputable general societal impacts). And yet you keep dredging this nonsense back up. Similarly calm kiwi keeps harping on the supposed horrific hypcorisy of governments in not banning smoking outright, while not addressing the obvious answer - that Prohibition does not work, and that taxes can a) raise funds to mitigate some of the societal costs incurred via smoking, b) pay for anti-smoking education and smoking cessation programs, and c) due to high costs of tobacco products, discourage some, especially young people from smoking.
Fellas, if you keep spouting gibberish, we’ll have to wonder about smoking’s effect on your cerebral cortices.