Some truth about second hand smoke

Taken from:

A lecture by Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung
cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of
hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based
its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand
smoke a risk factor of
1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication
in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no
statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They
then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen. This was openly fraudulent science,
but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California
banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science
Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of
death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand
smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent. In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA
had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had
"disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol
Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American
people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health
problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even
a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO
study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my
knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer.
At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke. As with
nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I
certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against
banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A
big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the
grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the
future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed. As the twentieth century drew to
a close, the connection between hard scientific fact and public policy became increasingly
elastic. In part this was possible because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in
part because of the lack of good science education among the public; in part, because of the
rise of specialized advocacy groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity
and shaping policy; and in great part because of the decline of the media as an independent
assessor of fact. The deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When
distinguished institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual
content and editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will
hold anyone to a higher standard?

"_PT_" <ZfulanoZ@x-mail.net> wrote in message
news:6lvfvvckled28ltf1vhianrh8sai29s25e@4ax.com...
> Taken from:
>
> A lecture by Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
>
>
>
> In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung
> cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of
> hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based
> its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand
> smoke a risk factor of
> 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for
> publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there
> was no statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to
> 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen. This was openly
> fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and
> airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998,
> the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-
> leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000
> people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent. In
> 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion
> before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective
> information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our
> science..there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to
> second hand smoke brings.a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of
> consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner
> evokes! It's the consensus of the American people. Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to
> confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor
> have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that
> second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much
> anything you want about second-hand smoke. As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to
> promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want
> people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody,
> and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth
> is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've
> given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is
> the way to succeed. As the twentieth century drew to a close, the connection between hard
> scientific fact and public policy became increasingly elastic. In part this was possible
> because of the complacency of the scientific profession; in part because of the lack of good
> science education among the public; in part, because of the rise of specialized advocacy
> groups which have been enormously effective in getting publicity and shaping policy; and in
> great part because of the decline of the media as an independent assessor of fact. The
> deterioration of the American media is dire loss for our country. When distinguished
> institutions like the New York Times can no longer differentiate between factual content and
> editorial opinion, but rather mix both freely on their front page, then who will hold anyone
> to a higher standard?
>

While anti-smoking in all contexts, I have to confess I have also been a little suspicious of this
aspect of scientific research. It requires some stretching of plausibility. A smoker has to expose
himself constantly to huge quantities of tobacco smoke, *including the second-hand smoke of others*
over many years before suffering the undoubted ill-effects. While there could be effects on those
exposed only to second hand smoke, it is normally very difficult to convincingly show the level of
epidemiological association that one might expect from such a markedly different order of dosage.

How hard was it over very many years to convince everyone about the evidence that smoking caused
lung cancer? Remember how many massive trials with conflicting results have been done to try and
settle the issue as to whether "the pill" causes breast cancer.

This has been too suspiciously easy .

Peter Moran

I can't believe that _PT_ really had the following to say that was worth
commenting on:

> Taken from:
>
> A lecture by Michael Crichton Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003
>
>
>
> In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung
> cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of
> hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based
> its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand
> smoke a risk factor of
> 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for
> publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there
> was no statistical association at the 95% coinfidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to
> 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen. This was openly
> fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and
> airports. California banned public smoking in 1995.

We enacted our bans in Colorado in 1985-7 for the most part. How exactly did a 1990 study influence
these 1987 laws (which I got passed in my town by initiative with 70% of the vote)

>Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand
>smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society
>announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is
>nonexistent. In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a
>conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on
>selective information."

and got overturned.

as someone with lung cancer, who never smoked, pro tobacco pseudo science probably annoys me more
than anything else

--
tired of reading posts from morphing kooks? get a real news reader - http://xnews.newsguy.com help
page rank Jamie Baillie http://www.jamiebaillie.com

_PT_ <ZfulanoZ@x-mail.net> wrote:

> As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good
> policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out
> against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ
> Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the
> grossest of superstitions.
It seems that in the end its the combination of genes and tobacco smoke (whether first-hand or second-
hand) that determine whether one gets cancer or not.

--
madiba