Skip to main content

View Diary: SCHIP: The GOP Campaign Against Children (312 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  more nonsense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    you sound like a climate change denier. Second hand smoke is established risk, not theoretical, and it's not just cancer.

    Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

    *Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2

    *Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3

    *Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4

    *Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects.  Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5

    *Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9

    *Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10  Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11

    *In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12   Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13
    *New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14

    *The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.15

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 10:38:15 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'll Call Your Bluff and Raise You.... (0+ / 0-)

      From these articles, I learned that most of the second hand smoke studies, put the Relative Risk (RR) of second hand smoke at between 0.78 and 1.3. This means that there could be up to a 30% greater chance of getting cancer if you are exposed to secondhand smoke. ( If normal occurance of cancer is 100 cases, then a 30% increase in risk would yield 130 cancer cases). However, there is also a statistical chance that exposure to second hand smoke lowers the risk of cancer by 22% (in children), since the RR range includes 0.78. ( Again, the risk result in the study commissioned by the World Health Organization, is Linked here).

      The Confidence Level (CI) is also important when determining statistical significance. If the CI includes a 1.00, then the Relative Risk (RR) is statistically insignificant regardless of the upper level of RR. This is because the confidence level (usually a 95% standard) puts the actual risk between the upper and lower bounds of the CI. There is just as likely a chance of being NO risk at all, if the Confidence Level range includes 1.0 or less. (See, Egger, et al, Meta-analysis Principles and Procedures).

      Dr. Eugenia Calle, director of analytic epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, said in 1995, that Relative Risks below 1.3 cannot be reliably identified. When a study showed an RR of 1.5 (50% increase in probability) between abortion and breast cancer, Dr. Calle stated that an RR of 1.5 is too low to call abortion a risk factor for breast cancer. So how can RR’s below 1.5 be called significant for secondhand smoke, but not for the abortion link to breast cancer? Proponents of smoking bans don’t often discuss the risk ratios, preferring to simply claim that ETS is " dangerous", or that the scientific debate is "over". Generally, the Relative Risk (RR) must be at least 3 to 4 before most researchers accept that there is a causal relationship established in health studies.

      Here is a Link, which includes quotes from several prominent scientists: "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine" "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

      In contrast, mainstream smoking has an RR of 40. This means that your chance of getting cancer is 40 times greater than average if you smoke. That’s quite a difference from 0.3 times greater if you breathe second hand smoke.

      The reliability and credibility of the 1992 EPA study was litigated in a North Carolina Federal District court in 1998. The decision can be reviewed at this link: Flue Cured Tobacco Coop vs. US Environmental Protection Agency . (Note the court’s conclusion beginning on page 87).

      •  as I have already pointed out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Cancer is controversial, but other aspects of ETS are not. You can have the tree. You are missing the forest.


        The 2006 US Surgeon General's report reached several important conclusions:

        • Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke.
        • Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
        • Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
        • The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
        • Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
        • Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

        This is established science. oh, by the way, this may be relevant.

        Changing Conclusions on Secondhand Smoke in a Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Review Funded by the Tobacco Industry
        Elisa K. Tong, MD*,{ddagger}, Lucinda England, MD§ and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD,

        Prenatal and postnatal exposure to tobacco smoke adversely affects maternal and child health. Secondhand smoke (SHS) has been linked causally with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in major health reports. In 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first noted an association between SHS and SIDS, and both prenatal exposure and postnatal SHS exposure were listed as independent risk factors for SIDS in a 1997 California EPA report (republished in 1999 by the National Cancer Institute) and a 2004 US Surgeon General report.

        The tobacco industry has used scientific consultants to attack the evidence that SHS causes disease, most often lung cancer. Little is known about the industry’s strategies to contest the evidence on maternal and child health. In 2001, a review was published on SIDS that acknowledged funding from the Philip Morris (PM) tobacco company. Tobacco industry documents related to this review were examined to identify the company’s influence on the content and conclusions of this review.

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Sat Sep 22, 2007 at 11:05:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site