Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maximusveritas
Good job of breaking down the main points raveneye.
If anyone is curious, Medline or BMJ are good places to search for some of the additional studies that point out the possible hazardous effects of second hand smoke.
Just be careful to look out for the tobacco industry's studies. We know from recently released internal memos that the tobacco industry has been waging a full scale misinformation campaign against research on passive smoke similar to the campaign they waged decades ago regarding active smoking. They've funded some bad research and funded organizations like Cato and Hudson in order to trash some good research. Unfortunately, this has created an environment where anyone who comes out on the side of the industry is labelled a stooge when that's not always the case.
In the meantime, you can check out this article about a recent study that was presented at the latest AHA meeting. |
You must consider the references used for your sources if you are use them to corroborate the findings of the 1993 EPA study. In a surprising number of cases you'll note the prime reference is the 1993 EPA study itself! - that would include opinions of the AHA, American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the U.S. Public Health Service. That's what makes it a big deal if one were to call the EPA report into question. The 1993 EPA report is a major the keystone for much of the opinion about ETS.
That is why you must check the references of whatever source you're using (including those of the AHA article mentioned above) - otherwise you could, unknowingly, end up in a circular argument. I have yet to thoroughly evaluate raveneye's post, though.
There's no question that tobbacco smoke is a carcinogen. The question remains if ETS exposure is enough to make a
significant impact on one's chances for developing CAD, COPD and/or Lung CA.
I'm still at a loss to explain the following item.
In 1998 the WHO issued the following press release:
PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU - where the WHO uses a study done by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
However if you look at the study itself it doesn't say that at all. Here's a link to the abstract of the IARC study:
Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.
Read the conclusion -"Our results indicate
no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure."
Though it does mention "weak evidence of a does-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS" the statement is clarified in the the body of the publication itself where it says that "There was also a
nonsignificant dose-response relationship with duration of exposure. We also found an association of similar strength with workplace exposure. Dose-response relationships were more consistent and risks were higher, although in most cases
they were not statistcally significant, with combined indicators of spousal and workplace ETS exposure."
Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. In other words, it has not reached statistical significance.
The WHO's press release paints a different picture when it infers from the study that "Passive smoking DOES cause lung cancer". That bothers me.
Again, I'm not trying to imply anything by calling to question common beliefs about ETS - my purpose is better described as being a "devil's advocate."