Talk:Passive smoking

Unresolved as of 02/24/2011

All Sections Below Are Unresolved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.72.181 (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Holy Crap

This is the most jaw-droppingly strident, one-sided, biased article I have ever seen on Wikipedia.130.76.32.144 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. It frequently frames the "tobacco industry" as the enemy. While I don't smoke myself, I still can't abide by bad science. There are many peer-reviewed articles that disagree with the gist of this entry. Here's a quick summary: http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.PDF.

Without meaning to tarnish the reputation of that hard-hitting, peer reviewed journal magazine Skeptic or the website hosting it ("Citizens Against Smoker Harassment"), in comparing them to the organizations that disagree with them (The World Health Organization, the Surgeon General of the United States, California Environmental Protection Agency, European Respiratory Society and L'Institut National du Cancer, the National Research Council, US Environmental Protection Agency, etc.) and the journals their reports are published in (Nature, Journal of the American Medical Association, MMWR, American Journal of Public Health, Cancer, Int J Epidemiol, European Heart Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, etc.), it seems that the "bad science" is kinda like when Mrs. Jones went to see her son in the marching band: "Oh look!" she screamed with pride, "everyone's out of step, except for my little Johnny!" - SummerPhD (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you have suggestions based on reliable sources to improve the article, or did you just need to vent? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I previously posted this in an archive, but since you ask...[note: edited for format and author attribution]

- ...Those that have actually sat down and composed the body of this article should be commended for the effort. I was just adding that--in my opinion--the advocacy of this piece would be evident to any disinterested, somewhat-trained scientist. The article would be improved by eschewing this advocacy. Similar opinions have been expressed by several people in this discussion. ... This exact same type of discussion has been going on in the climate change debate. The various IPCC reports were forwarded to the public with an air of unimpeachable scientific authority, but systematic analysis by folks with more time on their hands than me has uncovered that the science was often sloppy. At first criticism was dismissed as being the product of oil company shills, however it turns out that the science was often sloppy and that, more importantly, the sloppiness was tilted one way--it was consistently biased towards showing effects of anthropogenic climate change to be more severe. This, in my opinion, is the danger of "advocacy science."

- I had pointed out what I see as the more egregious errors in the past, a few pages ago, as have others. The folks (the ones whom I assume took the time to actually write this piece) disagreed, and, as stated earlier, as much as I'd like to I don't have the time to tackle the issue. But I'll recap here briefly.

- Funding of studies is immaterial to the science argument (though certainly germaine to the overall policy discussion); the science stands on its merits or it doesn't. If the writers insist upon identifying who funded various studies, they should be consistent and identify the funders for all studies cited.

- Studies that find that effects of ETS are less severe than the consensus view are, in the wiki article, subject to much more critique and rebuttal than studies that show that ETS effects are more severe than the consensus view. This is the primary issue with the objectivity of this piece.

- Studies that find that ETS effects are less severe are put under the title of "Industry Funded Studies and Critiques," even when the study in question was not "industry funded" (namely the 1998 IARC report of the 1993 EPA report). Studies not funded by the tobacco industry chould not be included under the heading "Industry Funded Studies." Also, some industry funded studies are included (the constuents of "sidestream" smoke for example) and these should be moved under the heading of "Industry Funded Studies" to be consistent.

- It should be indicated if "studies" are peer-reviewed (Steven Milloy studies, in my experience, are not peer reviewed and are not very rigorous).

- There is a section on the use of animals for experiments by tobacco companies, but no discussion of use of animals by other researchers involved in ETS. I'm not even sure that there's a point in having this topic discussed in this article.

- The section on animal nicotine poisoning is not relevant to the article. It also contains many uncited claims, some of which stretch credulity (e.g. the idea that 30% of the world's cigarette litter ends up on US shorelines).

- The section entitled "Risk Level" was very instructive and should be moved to the top of the piece, since it contains a qualitative analysis of teh risk of exposure (as opposed to the less instructive and artificial "risk/no risk" dichotomy)

- The statement "Preliminary research suggests that byproducts of thirdhand smoke may pose a health risk, though the magnitude of risk, if any, remains unknown" should be rewritten. Given current models of carcinogenesis, exposure to even a single molecule of a carcinogen can cause cancer, so it's not very instructive to say that third hand smoke may cause a risk; of course it causes a risk, given that a single molecule presents a risk. The question is the magnitude of that risk, which is unknown. Therefore the statement should read "The magnitude of the risk from third-hand smoke is presently unknown."

- Ventilation is not just "posed" as an alternative, it often is actually used as one. Ventilation is actually quite a common method of control of carcinogens in industrial environments. The statement that "The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that engineering approaches, such as ventilation, are ineffective and do not protect against secondhand smoke exposure" is misleading. Since the WHO holds that the only acceptable risk is zero, any method of engineering control, even in principle, would be ineffective. In fact ventilation can be quite protective of health but it can't reduce the risk to zero; so it's misleading to say that ventialtion is "ineffective."

- In the Epidemiological Studies section, some of the studies cited are 20 or 30 years old. There are more recent studies available, and they should be cited as well.

That's just based on a cursory review. But again, the issue goes a little deeper than these specific instances. The issue is the overall tone of advocacy in the piece. As I've stated earlier, advocacy is great, especially for a serious public health issue like ETS. But advcoacy is not science and it is not objective. Zipperfish (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: Break down your concerns into managable chunks: Partialize. Then, rather than presenting a long, drawn-out discussion of those concerns, begin to correct what you see as short-comings: Pick one well-bounded concern and edit appropriately. Wait a couple of days for reactions. Lather, rinse, repeat. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are good suggestions. That said, I've been thinking about whether it's worth restructuring this article a bit. It's gotten bloated and repetitive, and the effect of repeating over and over the conclusions about the tobacco industry etc can get a little heavy-handed. I don't think there's any need to water down the facts - ventilation has generally been dismissed as an inadequate solution by independent public-health bodies, and has been pushed largely by the tobacco industry as an alternative to smoking bans, for example. The funding of studies is clearly relevant - that's why every respectable journal on Earth requires authors to inform the reader of their funding. Industry-funded articles are orders of magnitude more likely to "exonerate" second-hand smoke, and thanks to the declassification of internal industry memoranda, we have a much clearer picture of exactly how the tobacco industry used its money and weight to produce misleading research.

We should probably lessen the emphasis on "third-hand smoke" even further - it's pretty speculative at this point, and dilutes the focus of the article. Likewise, we should prioritize and de-bloat the article - much of what's in here is trivial, or perhaps better off in other articles or spin-offs. MastCell ^Talk 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest spinning off most of the material relating to animals into a new article.JQ (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've now done thisJQ (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the poor formatting. I'm still new to this. I've (hopefully) corrected my previous entry to be more readable.Zipperfish (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Spread The Knowledge

In addition to the existing evidence that there are positive effects of smoking bans, I have added some more, needed information. The information included demonstrates another positive outcome that smoking bans entail. The evidence from recently published articles illustrates that there is a correlation between smoke-free policies and a reduced prevalence of tobacco use. Reduced tobacco use has major positive impacts on a population. If tobacco use is being reduced then the risk of being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke will follow in declination, thus improving the health of our communities. I am new to using Wikipedia, so bare with me while I improve my techniques. Mbarbero12 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Under Casual Mechanisms I have added some more information that is important. I have discussed a few statistics corresponding to lung cancer mortalities of nonsmokers. A highlight of the information that I have added is that lung cancer in nonsmokers should be considered one of the most common cancer mortalities in the United States. Many individuals link lung cancer to smokers, but it is important for people to understand how common lung cancer is among nonsmokers and that one of the most attributable exposures is second-hand smoke. Mbarbero12 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

While researching review articles in Pubmed, I came upon a new long term risk factor not previously mentioned. A case-control study analysis correlated early childhood exposure of ETS with the development of adult-onset Atopic Dermatitis. AD is a skin disorder that is commonly referred to as Eczema. Mbarbero12 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco recently examined surveys regarding the public’s attitudes towards smoke-free policies in outdoor settings. Majority of those that completed the survey were supportive of the bans, with varying reasons. The public acknowledges the negative effects that smoking in public places has on our communities. It is important for the public to be aware of these problems and to support change for our communities. The more individuals that support change will increase the likelihood for policy change. Mbarbero12 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is known that active smoking is associated to hearing loss, but before this study there was no prior research on the effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke on hearing loss. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was examined to look at the possible correlation. Hearing loss was found to be associated with Environmental Tobacco Smoke and nonsmokers; potential confounders were controlled. This is another important long term risk of Environmental Tobacco Smoke that should be included for the populations understanding. [User:Mbarbero12|Mbarbero12]] (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There was only a small amount of information regarding the effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke exposure on a newborn. I felt it was neccessary to incorportate this information. The effects were found by a systematic review and meta-analysis.Mbarbero12 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cotinine measurements in the body are reliable measurements of exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. It is important to include the current biomarkers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and the attributions they result in the study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Mbarbero12 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The data included shows that some cases of environmental tobacco smoke exposure can be as nicotine-inducing as active smoking. Using biomarkers of nicotine, this information was concluded. The levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be so high that the individuals engage in behavior changes due to the nicotine in their body.Mbarbero12 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is important to explain how biomarkers are used and the special attributions of each biomarker. Continine levels were my main focus area of the current biomarkers. Also, the variability between continine levels found in different body functions is examined.Mbarbero12 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Likely verses possibly

The ref says "An April 3, 1970 report from a United Kingdom tobacco manufacturer, Gallahers, circulated among Defendants, concluded that “we believe the Auerbach work proves beyond a reasonable doubt that fresh whole cigarette smoke is carcinogenic to dog lungs and therefore it is highly likely that it is carcinogenic to human lungs.”"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It has already been proven without a doubt that fresh whole cigarette smoke is carcinogenic to human lungs. That is not the issue at hand.

The study you reference refers to "fresh, whole cigarette smoke", not secondhand smoke. I am also of the opinion that secondhand smoke does cause cancer, but to say there was a "likely early awareness" of the harms of secondhand smoke goes beyond an early awareness of "firsthand smoke". Dietcherrycola (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We also have from page 1242 "From the early 1980s onward, INBIFO ETS studies began generating results “strongly suggesting” increased harm incurred from passive smoke." This seems to mean likely. Thus changed the wording to match. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Review

We have a great new review here in the Lancet [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WHO

Removed the WHO reference, seeing as it (along with the sentence posted) specifically related to first hand effects and not passive smoking. Along with the small little problem that the WHO has repeatedly established that the effects of second-hand smoke is negligible to human health in most existing hospitality establishments.

If you wish to include the WHO link in relation to organisations that state anything about passive smoking, you better damn well show where it relates to passive (second-hand) smoking instead of smokers (first-hand) themselves. It's two different subjects. It's flat out against the rules to include information not related to this article as a HEADING reference to organisations against second-hand smoke. 58.7.214.181 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane