PASSIVE SMOKING IS SAFE -- DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU

Journal shepd's Journal: PASSIVE SMOKING IS SAFE -- DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU 10

Journal by shepd on Monday March 31, 2003 @09:00PM

(Update: I've redone the numbers, by request, as my calculations of one NYCer dead from SHS were way off -- April 12, 2003)

Holy hell, Batman, I bet you are thinking. I must be a rabid insane smoker. I'm not.

Let me show you the statistics, and let you decide for yourself if there is a proven link between lung cancer / heart disease and smoking.

Before I do this, read Epidemiology 101. People in the Medical field do not believe a positive Relative Rate (RR) result of below 2.0 shows any medical correlation whatsoever. Zip, zero, nada. In fact, the preferred result is 3.0 or higher.

First off, the infamous EPA study. In this study the RR between smoking and lung cancer was 1.19 with a purposely fudged CI in an attempt to inflate the numbers. Also the EPA study used cherry picked data to inflate their numbers, according to judge Osteen (a known anti-Smoker), who threw the report out as nothing more than junk science.

Next, the equally infamous WHO study (note their title PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER -- DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU). In this study an RR of 1.16 was found (3% lower than the EPA study). This study was found to have been properly conducted, it was just the offensively misleading reporting that made it infamous.

56 of 100,000 deaths in America are due to lung cancer. That means that, by percentage, you have a 4.872% chance of dying from lung cancer if you die this year (using the statistic available below).

We also know, from the CIA world factbook, that the death rate in America is 87 persons per 10,000 living per year, or a 0.87% chance of death per year.

Using the WHOs own numbers, we find that in a city the size of New York, with 8 million people, that the amount of people dying from lung cancer is 20,000 per year in that city. Now, how many of them are due to ETS? Oh, this oughta be good. Assuming 25% of all people are regularly exposed to dangerous levels of Second Hand Smoke as non smokers, we find that this 25% comprises 5,000 deaths. Of those 5,000 deaths, 690 are due to second hand smoke.

Sounds horrible, doesn't it? Let's compare it to how many people die from sitting in a Car in America per year: 41,821. Or, in NYC, 1,116 people.

In other words, if you were to LIVE in a smoke filled environment, but not smoke (this doesn't include people who sit in a bar once a week), you still have a 61% greater chance of dying from sitting in a car. Do you expect to die each time you drive? Then why expect to die from sitting beside someone smoking!?!

It takes the wind out of the argument that SHS is a leading cause of death among non-smokers, doesn't it?

BTW: Want to watch the EPA squirm over the court case? You can!

For fun, I'll present you the numbers that Penn and Teller's experts calculated on their show on this topic (all numbers are based on the overstated EPA study), because hey, they show this to be even more outrageous than I ever could:

[Transcripted]

Penn: If you accept the EPA's own study, the anti-smoking fanatics will say your chances of dying of lung cancer increases by 25% if you are a non-smoker living and working around a smoker. But here's the bullshit way they calculate that 25%. The chances of dying from lung cancer for people exposed to second hand smoke is 1 in 80,000. For people not exposed to second hand smoke, 1 in 100,000. Okay, that may sound like a big difference. When you do the math the actual difference in these figures is 12.5 out of 1,000,000 people vs. 10 out of 1,000,000 people; which is statistically of no significance. And this data was thrown out by a Federal court.

But wait, there's more studies to back this up.

Here's the data:

Organisation / Relative risk (and 95% CI except from illegally fudged EPA results @ 90% CI)

IARC / 1.16
Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health / 1.20
California / 1.20
Environmental Protection Agency / 1.19
National Health and Medical Research Council / 1.32
National Research Council / 1.34
Surgeon General / 1.53

Not a single one breaks the 2.0 RR barrier. Not a single one.

So, there is no link between SHS and lung cancer. Let's move on to the other study I said I'd debunk.

According to Canada, 700 die per year from heart attacks caused by SHS. Let's examine where they got this bullshit from.

Well, first off I'm worried when I see this quote in an article produced after a US judge said the EPA results were illegal.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has officially labelled second -hand smoke as a "class A" cancer-causing substance. 2 Class A is considered the most dangerous of cancer agents and there is no known safe level of exposure.

But lets see the actual study.

Numbers, would you please, maestro....

Heart Disease related deaths in canada per year: 44,421
Heart Disease related deaths in canada attributable to passive smoking per year: 803

Percentage: 1.8.

What a hoot!

But let's see what the RR is, perhaps it was the magical over 2.0 RR we're looking for?

RR: 1.24.

Well, would you look at that. They support all the other studies as well.

There is no link between passive smoking and Lung Disease or Heart Disease. Do not let them fool you.

By the way, according to the WHO, SHS is a statistically relevant protector against lung cancer in children. (RR of 0.78). Who'd a thunk that by banning smoking in restaurants we'd be doing children a disservice?

That's your PSA for today. Please go back to your regularly scheduled government programming.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.