Do we know all there is to know about second-hand smoking and its effects? I tried to search SDMB in vain for the latest findings published in the British Medical Journal. I am wondering whether the experts here in SDMB have some more in-depth knowledge about this latest study.
This has created a lot of furore. Critics pointed out that the original data were used in previous studies led by the tobacco industry. The current study also received industry money.
I would also speculate that since the study was done in CA, the effects were probaby less harmful because the milder whether would probably allow windows to be open for better ventilation.
Welcome to the dirty secret that the anti-smoking brigade doesn’t want you to know - nobody really has any credible evidence that second-hand smoke is bad for you, aside from the fact that it smells nasty.
Jeff
That’s not true. The Canadiens did a thorough study and found 2d hand smoke dangerous. Other studies are in agreement with that, altho you, of course, can find a study or two to the contrary.
The EPA said a few years back that those regularly exposed to it had a 1 in 30,000 risk of contracting lung cancer, which is what kicked off the anti-public smoking crusades in the US.
Personally, I find that a rather low figure to be invoking in the name of public health, but there you go.
The EPA announced the “results” before the study was finished.
The EPA’s study only works if one refuses to use the globally accepted scientific standard of statistical significance, which is p<0.05. The EPA moved it to p<0.10, which doubles the chance of erroneously coming to a false positive connection. Essentially, they moved the goalposts after finding out that good scientific practices did not confirm their pre-determined “results”.
The World Health Organization did a larger and more comprehensive study that did not agree with the EPA’s findings.
Right now, the real science says “inconclusive”. In any case, why does it matter? If people hate second hand smoke because they think it’s stinky and icky, why not just go after it on those bases? After all, a good deal of residential zoning is based on purely aesthetic premises. I do smoke, myself (pipe and cigars), but I also don’t inflict it on others. Why lie if one wishes to restrict smoking? Why not just tell the truth–that the science is inconclusive but a large number of people just don’t like the smoke?
“Foul odors” can be legally restricted, after all, and not because those odors necessarily have a provable health hazard. Why lie and promulgate junk science and pseudoscience? Why not just tell the truth and pass rules, ordinances, etc. on those bases?