Can anyone provide a source/study that conclusively proves secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) actually causes cancer in adults, without citing the fraudulent 1993 EPA study?

Occassionally, I come across sites touting the lethal aspects of secondhand smoke (EPA, AHA, truthout.org). Without exception, they all use the 1993 EPA study as their source. For anyone who doesn't already know this, a federal judge has disqualified the 1993 study, basically saying it failed to show cause and effect. It is an odious piece of junk science, and yet the general public accepts this piece of propaganda as gospel.

Coincidentally, there have been a number of major studies that showed any links (between secondhand smoke and cancer in adults) were statistically insignificant. In other words, based on the burden of proof generally accepted by the scientific communittee, there is no measurable connection. Oddly enough, these studies have received little notice in the media.

Let me be clear about this, I'm asking for proof that secondhand smoke causes cancer in adults. I concede that it stinks, it's very bad for children, it can cause respitory problems for adults and that tobacco companies are soulless beasts, so don't bring up these tangential (and irrelevant) issues to divert attention from the main issue.

Can anyone shed some light here?

I can't imagine anyone more qualified to validate a scientific study than a Federal Judge. Who needs all that time consuming scientific peer review when a political appointee lawyer can decide the merits of science?

ad hominum.

Ad Hominem, it´s Ad Hominem (sorry, I´m just sick of people getting this wrong).

1. "...Cal/EPA estimated that about 50,000 excess deaths result annually from exposure to secondhand smoke (Cal/EPA 2005). Estimated annual excess deaths for the total US population are about 3400 (a range or 3423 to 8866) from lung cancer..." pages 5-6.

2. "Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart diseas and lung cancer,"

1. More than 50 carcinogens have been identified in sidestream and secondhand smoke.

2. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and its condensates and tumors in laboratory animals.

The evidence is sufficient to infer that exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke causes a significant increase in urinary levels of metabolites of the tobacco-specific lung carcinogen 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK). The presence of these metabolites links exposure to secondhand smoke with an increased risk for lung cancer.

The mechanisms by which secondhand smoke causes lung cancer are probably similar to those observed in smokers.

Research reviewed in this report indicates that smoke-free policies are the most
economic and effective approach for providing protection from exposure to secondhand
smoke. But do they provide the greatest health impact. Separating smokers and nonsmokers
in the same airspace is not effective, nor is air cleaning or a greater exchange of indoor
with outdoor air. Additionally, having separately ventilated areas for smoking may not
offer a satisfactory solution to reducing workplace exposures. Policies prohibiting smoking
in the workplace have multiple benefits. Besides reducing exposure of nonsmokers
to secondhand smoke, these policies reduce tobacco use by smokers and change public
attitudes about tobacco use from acceptable to unacceptable.
Research indicates that the progressive restriction of smoking in the United States to
protect nonsmokers has had the additional health impact of reducing active smoking. In
November 2005, CDC’s Tobacco-Free Campus policy took full effect in all facilities owned
by CDC in the Atlanta area. As the Director of the nation’s leading health promotion and
disease prevention agency, I am proud to support this effort. With this commitment, CDC
continues to protect the health and safety of all of its employees and serves as a role model
for workplaces everywhere.

Ad Hominem, it´s Ad Hominem (sorry, I´m just sick of people getting this wrong).

This report stretches vague ideas and presents them as concrete proof in order to scare simple-minded fools.

Wow, so yuo're an amatuer epidemioligist too

you won't be able to assault innocent pedestrians with the waste of your addiction much longer.

I'm getting the feeling that some here think first-hand smoke isn't harmful- let alone second-hand smoke. Have simple-minded fools like me been fooled about that too?

I can't imagine anyone more qualified to validate a scientific study than a Federal Judge. Who needs all that time consuming scientific peer review when a political appointee lawyer can decide the merits of science?

while I can show mountains of evidence to support the assertion that, yes, it is harmful, you can't cite a single bit that points the other way.

f--- yeah! Keep your disgusting, smelly, and damaging smoke inside your bitter little ash filled houses.

I can't wait until it is banned in every public place. Breathing your waste smoke is an assault.

There's no such thing as evidence that a substance doesn't do anything.

I'd be interested to see some of this "mountain" of evidence in supprt of the assertion though. I've never seen anything of the sort, and I've been looking.

Perhaps you could tell us why the court's conclusion was flawed. Of course, this would require you to actually learn the facts of the case.

Tradman,
I, also, noticed the use of "inferred" throughout the findings. In everyday life, the term "inferred" is quite subjective. However, in scientific research, it may be much more compelling.

Any of you researchers out there care to shed some light on this?

I'm not any more qualified to reach a conclusion on that than a Federal Judge or even you.

There's a lot more than that in coffee, and in higher doses too.

Second hand smoke is nasty, period. It stinks, it makes people cough and makes their eyes water. People can smoke outside and have it be much less of a nuisance to everyone around them. Why should I be subjected to smoke that I don't need or want to to inhale just so others can have the freedom to light up and slowly kill themselves?

The crux of the matter. :lol:

Even if secondhand smoke is every bit as dangerous as the SG claims, should the government have the right to prohibit property owners (bar owners) from allowing smoking in their businesses?

Why not just make them put warning labels at the front door?

The EPA have already been exposed as liars and frauds.

Kudos to you for having the balls to cite them as a credible source though!


Curiously, no evidence of any kind is presented to suport this conclusion. This isn't science, it's a broad assumption.


There's a lot more than that in coffee, and in higher doses too.


Notice that the link is inferred, not observed. Nobody's ever seen this happen. Junk science again.


Again, notice that the link is made up because it's never been observed.


Probably? You'll have to do a little better than "because I say so" before this sort of garbage can be called science.

Every excerpt you posted is absolute nonsense. Imaginary links and no evidence presented by people who have a track record of lying through their teeth about this very subject?

This report stretches vague ideas and presents them as concrete proof in order to scare simple-minded fools.

Even if secondhand smoke is every bit as dangerous as the SG claims, should the government have the right to prohibit property owners (bar owners) from allowing smoking in their businesses?

You don't have to be an epidemiologist to see that there's no support for this paper's conclusions. Anyone who can read can see that it's not there.

Hellyeah!

Why should the government have the right to shut down meat packers who allow e-coli to get into the food supply? A warning label should suffice?

And jeeze, those clean water standards, who the f--- do they think they are? Just don't drink it and you'll be fine.

Bar owner leaves naked electrical live wires hanging all over the place what right does code enforecement have to make them fix it... its private property for christssakes!

Bar owner only promotes the waitresses who give him blowjobs... what business is that of law enforcement and eeoc?

Just put a f---ing sign on the door that reads.

"Cavet Emptor."

The United States Surgeon General states without equivocation that ALL 2ND HAND SMOKE IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH. Private property doesn't give a person leave to harm those who are invited onto that property. Simple as that.

The unequivocal causal association between tobacco smoking and lung cancer in humans with dose-response relationships extending down to the lowest exposure categories, as well as the corroborative evidence of the carcinogenicity of both [mainstream] and ETS provided by animal bioassays and in vitro studies and the chemical similarity between [mainstream] and ETS, clearly establish the plausibility that ETS is also a human lung carcinogen. In addition, biomarker studies verify that passive smoking results in detectable uptake of tobacco smoke constituents by nonsmokers, affirming that ETS exposure is a public health concern. In fact, these observations are sufficient in their own right to establish the carcinogenicity of ETS to humans.” (p. 4-28)

“Exposure to ETS is a cause of lung cancer among women who have never smoked.”

Significant associations
between various
sources of secondhand
smoke exposure and
risk (husband, work,
and paternal smoking)

Secondhand Smoke Exposure from Spouses:
An Update of the Literature
Of the published meta-analyses on secondhand smoke and lung cancer, only two recent comprehensive
meta-analyses are mentioned here, as their findings
subsume those of earlier reports. Hackshaw and colleagues (1997) pooled 37 published studies and obtained an estimated RR of 1.24 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.13–1.36) for nonsmokers who lived with a smoker. The results were remarkably consistent with analyses stratified by gender, geographic region, year of publication, and study design. Zhong and colleagues
(2000) reached similar conclusions when they updated that same pooled analysis to include 40 published
studies. They obtained a RR of 1.20 (95 percent CI, 1.12–1.29) for lung cancer risk among nonsmoking women with exposure to secondhand smoke from their husbands’ smoking. The increased RR was observed for case-control and cohort studies and separately by gender, study location, year of publication, and other
parameters.

Lung Cancer
1. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke expo-sure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.
2. The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.
Breast Cancer
3. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke and breast cancer.

Nasal Sinus Cavity and Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
4. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a risk of nasal sinus cancer among nonsmokers.
5. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma among nonsmokers.
Cervical Cancer
6. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and the risk of cervical cancer among lifetime nonsmokers.

Second hand smoke is nasty, period. It stinks, it makes people cough and makes their eyes water.

Okay, so you don't like it.

So what?

Other people do.

Do you really believe that we should be basing national legislation and on your arbitrary personal preferences?

Hellyeah!

Why should the government have the right to shut down meat packers who allow e-coli to get into the food supply? A warning label should suffice?

And jeeze, those clean water standards, who the f--- do they think they are? Just don't drink it and you'll be fine.

Bar owner leaves naked electrical live wires hanging all over the place what right does code enforecement have to make them fix it... its private property for christssakes!

Bar owner only promotes the waitresses who give him blowjobs... what business is that of law enforcement and eeoc?

Just put a f---ing sign on the door that reads.

"Cavet Emptor."

The United States Surgeon General states without equivocation that ALL 2ND HAND SMOKE IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH. Private property doesn't give a person leave to harm those who are invited onto that property. Simple as that.

DMT

Mmm-hmm.

That's what I thought.

As expected, what few causal links are mentioned are "associations", "inferred" or "suggestive", and even the specific figures are incomplete and the articles themselves unattributed.

That's not evidence.

Do you want to try again? I don't want to you to waste too much time, but I appreciate the effort you've put in so far.

What are you blathering about it being unattibuted?

if you bother to read it, or even the tiny amount I excerpted from the Adult Lung Cancer chapter, you'll see a lot more than "associations".

In the meantime, I suggest we aggresively prosecute smokers for littering. I have yet to see a smoker that picks up their own butts.

Does anyone actually know the mechanism through which smoking causes cancer?

You put Bob Beamon to shame.

You always have to go personal.

DMT

Okay, so you don't like it.

So what?

Other people do.

Do you really believe that we should be basing national legislation and on your arbitrary personal preferences?

I've yet to meet anyone who likes to breathe in second hand smoke, maybe you know some folks who do.

I most certainly feel that legislation should be passed based on health reasons

I just love the pro-smokers arguements in these things, like some God given inalienable right has been taken away if they can't light up their cancer stick in a restaurant next to a newborn baby who's at the next table over from them.

There's your problem: as has already been shown, there are no health reasons. Not liking the smell doesn't qualify as a health issue, and there doesn't seem to be other evidence to show that second hand smoke is harmful.

Smoke from motor vehicles on the other hand is VERY harmful, and has been shown to be so. Would you like to comment on whether you drive a car or not?

Yeah and I just love the anti-smokers arguments in these things, like they have a God-given inalienable right to walk into bars and restaurants where people have been smoking for decades and demand that they must stop RIGHT NOW just because they don't like the smell.

And this is where YOU are wrong. There are most certainly health reasons not too, as has been pointed out over and over, you just don't like it so you choose to say it's not enough evidence.

what I DON'T do is start it up in a garage full of people and make them breathe it in.

The arguement that 'we've been doing it for decades' is really a solid one as for why it should still be allowed.

the very fact that it COULD be harmful, as has been shown by many studies, suggests that it should not be allowed in those places

I know a great many people who now throughly enjoy going out to eat and to the bars since they have been made smoke free,

Most folks I know here (and I don't know many smokers, mostly non smokers) will pick a bar based on whether or not it allows smoking

If there is even the CHANCE that someone could get a form cancer or heart disease from it, why in God's name should it be allowed?!?!? It makes no sense to me!

Actually, when the smoking ban was introduced here, a lot of non-smokers were against it for exactly that reason - the smoky ambience of the pubs which they enjoyed was gone.

There's your problem: as has already been shown, there are no health reasons. Not liking the smell doesn't qualify as a health issue, and there doesn't seem to be other evidence to show that second hand smoke is harmful.

Yeah and I just love the anti-smokers arguments in these things, like they have a God-given inalienable right to walk into bars and restaurants where people have been smoking for decades and demand that they must stop RIGHT NOW just because they don't like the smell.

ARTHUR:
Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
BLACK KNIGHT:
'Tis but a scratch.
ARTHUR:
A scratch? Your arm's off!
BLACK KNIGHT:
No, it isn't.
ARTHUR:
Well, what's that, then?
BLACK KNIGHT:
I've had worse.

Many everyday products can cause cancer. Deodorant and peanut butter are just two examples. Should they be banned?

It's got nothing to do with liking it. As I said, I don't smoke. However, that fact is this: there is no evidence that second hand smoke causes physical harm.

If there is, post it. If there isn't, then why are you convinced that harm is caused?

What would happen if you started up your car in garage then someone who knew your car was in there and you were starting it up walked in and said that because they were now in the garage, you had to switch off the engine and go catch the bus?

Absolutely anything could be harmful. But until it's been proved that it is, what are your grounds for banning it? What you're suggesting would mean that everything should be banned unless its known to be safe!

Ah yes, the imaginary fun-loving non-smokers who all became full-time alcoholics the moment the smoking ban arrived. Yeah right. Newsflash: the kind of self-righteous arseholes who think that not only everybody's behaviour but the law itself should be based on their convenience don't go to bars, because they don't have fun. Oh sure, "I know how to have a good time, I love to go to bars and have fun". What do they know about enjoying themselves? They don't even smoke!!!!

And here's a good point: if so many people actually wanted smoking in public places banned, why did non-smokers have to go to the government to make it happen? If banning it was really that popular, why hadn't the bars and restaurants already done it?

The quick answer is no.

The extended answer is that there there's definitely an observed link and there seems to be a genetic component as well as a chemical one, but there are additional problems - in lab experiments, animals forced to inhale tobacco smoke almost never develop lung cancer, and lung cancer has increased from almost nil prior to the early 1940s to the epidemic we see now for no apparent reason.

It's not well understood, which is why I like to avoid sweeping assertions and hasty conclusions.

There's your problem: as has already been shown, there are no health reasons.

Because second-hand smoke burns at a lower temperature than inhaled smoke (mainstream) it contains:
* 2 times more tar
* 5 times more carbon monoxide, which reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood.

The confidence of your assertions is astounding in light of your ignorance. Scores, if not hundreds, of studies have shown that cigarette smokers are 10 to 20 times more likely to get lung cancer than non-smokers. There is absolutely zero scientific doubt that cigarette smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer.

Does anyone actually know the mechanism through which smoking causes cancer?

Someone who doesn't smoke CANNOT CHOOSE to not inhale second hand smoke if it's allowed in an enclosed area

You mean to tell me my cousin, who has extremely bad asthma, should just not be able to go to all these public places where folks smoke - so that people can get their nic fits taken care of whenever they want?

He converts all evidence to "assumptions," and they bounce right off him.

Significant associations between various sources of secondhand smoke exposure and risk

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship

So you saying that Tradman is rubber and everyone else is glue?

I like to think if him more like the Black Knight.


http://www.intriguing.com/...rge/HolyGrail017.jpg

There's no way second hand smoke is nearly as bad as directly smoking. This makes it seem like second hand smoke is worse then actually smoking a cigarette.

If you put two people in an 8'x8' room and only one smoking, the person who is smoking takes the "less tainted" smoke directly into their lungs, which have a volume of about a cubic foot. The second hand smoke is diffusing into a volume of 512 cubic feet. Even if the second hand smoke is more deadly the concentration is not nearly as great, even minimal.

Now that everyone's taking their "piling on" cheapshots at tradman, can someone produce a single medical case where a person died of a heart attack and the case of death was indisputably secondhand smoke.

According to the Surgeon General, there should be over one million since 1980.

Just one case???

Now that everyone's taking their "piling on" cheapshots at tradman, can someone produce a single medical case where a person died of a heart attack and the case of death was indisputably secondhand smoke.

According to the Surgeon General, there should be over one million since 1980.

Just one case???

The effects of even brief (minutes to hours) passive smoking are often nearly as large (averaging 80% to 90%) as chronic active smoking.

Exposure at work might contribute up to one fifth of all deaths from passive smoking in the general population aged 20-64 years, and up to half of such deaths among employees of the hospitality industry. Adoption of smoke free policies in all workplaces and reductions in the general prevalence of active smoking would lead to substantial reductions in these avoidable deaths.

There has not been one single shred of actual proof posted.

Meta-studies - studies of studies for goodness sake!

inference

assumption, extrapolation and plenty of name-calling and personal abuse, but no evidence.

Now that everyone's through taking their "piling on" cheapshots at tradman, can someone produce a single medical case where a person died of a heart attack and the case of death was indisputably secondhand smoke.

There has not been one single shred of actual proof posted. Meta-studies - studies of studies for goodness sake! - inference, assumption, extrapolation and plenty of name-calling and personal abuse, but no evidence.

There has not been one single shred of actual proof posted. Meta-studies - studies of studies for goodness sake! - inference, assumption, extrapolation and plenty of name-calling and personal abuse, but no evidence.

What a stupid f---ing question.

Jay

Yeah yeah, I'm a glutton for punishment, I know. But I prefer that to calling names and running away when I can't provide direct proof to support my position.

I just don't care to debate issues with people who are impervious to logic.

Oh well.

Stop posting to this thread then.

So....



is that a "no"? :?

Why hasn't the FDA stepped in and banned cigarettes?

Now that everyone's through taking their "piling on" cheapshots at tradman, can someone produce a single medical case where a person died of a heart attack and the case of death was indisputably secondhand smoke.

My response means what it says: it's a stupid f---ing question. If neither you nor Thorne have enough intelligence between you to figure out why, that's your problem.

Can someone give me another example of a cause of millions of deaths, where the proof of cause is only circumstancial?

There's an old saying - "A good defense is a good offense.”

Seems to apply here. :wink:

If secondhand smoke has killed millions of people, it seems reasonable that there would be actually examples.

BTW What did you mean by "If neither (me) nor Thorne have enough intelligence between you to figure out why, that's your problem"?

I will if you can produce one shred of evidence that anyone has actually been killed because of a car accident and not because of inattetive driving.

A man driving on U.S. 68 in Jessamine County was killed today when a large tree blew down on top of his sport utility vehicle.

The man's identity was not immediately released, pending notification of family.

Jessamine County Sheriff's Capt. Kevin Corman said the tree fell from the west side of the road onto a southbound late-model GMC Yukon Denali.

"We had a real quick burst of wind. And it appears that just as he was driving by, the tree just fell across the driver's compartment," Corman said.

How's that not circumstancial evidence thorne?

If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die.

Feel free to argue.

How's that not circumstancial evidence thorne?

If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die.

Feel free to argue.

I will if you can produce one shred of evidence that anyone has actually been killed because of a car accident and not because of inattetive driving.

If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die.

Do you have anything more than your opinion to back this up?

If so. Let's hear it.



Jred,
Go back and read the OP. :roll:

What are you saying here? That all traffic fatalities are due to inattentive driving?

I'd love to hear how the deaths tied to the Cyprus Street Viaduct collapse could have been avoided.

You can construct several causal networks which can explain the correlation between smoking and cancer (same for second hand smoke and cancer) which can explain the findings of a study indicating correlation between the two which rely on survey techniques. The problem is you can only prove correlations with a controled experiment, which is unethical and illegal in this situation. A survey study can only prove correlation given that certain assumptions of your causal model are correct.

But anyway, I think you would be hard pressed to construct a reasonable causal network which can explain a correlation between cancer and second hand smoke exposure without including a causal link. I could be wrong, and am certainly open to hearing ideas on non-causal explainations.

How's that not circumstancial evidence thorne?

If that guy had been paying more attention to his surroundings he could have stoped or swerved or done a number of things. I think it mostly his inattentive driving that caused him to die.

Feel free to argue.