Is It Safe Yet to Have an Honest Conversation About Secondhand Smoke and Lung Cancer?

California Department of Health ServicesCalifornia Department of Health ServicesSeveral years ago I was talking to an epidemiologist who is skeptical of the idea that smokers pose a mortal threat to people in their vicinity. Although he supported workplace smoking bans, he was frustrated by the willingness of so many anti-tobacco activists and public health officials to overlook or minimize the weakness of the scientific case that secondhand smoke causes fatal illnesses such as lung cancer and heart disease. He wondered when it would be possible to have a calm, rational discussion of the issue, one in which skeptics would not be automatically dismissed as tools of the tobacco industry. I suggested that such a conversation might take place once smoking bans became ubiquitous, at which point the political stakes would be lower. Judging from a recent article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, headlined "No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer," that conversation may have begun.

The article describes a large prospective study that "confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke." The study tracked more than 76,000 women, 901 of whom eventually developed lung cancer. Although "the incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers," says the JNCI article, there was no statistically significant association between reported exposure to secondhand smoke and subsequent development of lung cancer. "We don’t want people to conclude that passive smoking has no effect on lung cancer," says one of the researchers, Stanford oncologist Heather Wakelee. "We think the message is, this analysis doesn't tell us what the risk is, or even if there is a risk."

While hardly the last word on the subject, the study has advantages over most of the research commonly cited as evidence that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. "To our knowledge," the authors say, "this is the first study to examine both active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in a complete prospective cohort of US women." The prospective design avoids a weakness of studies that start with lung cancer cases and "match" them to controls. "Many studies that showed the strongest links between secondhand smoke and lung cancer were case-control studies, which can suffer from recall bias," notes the JNCI article, since "people who develop a disease that might be related to passive smoking are more likely to recall being exposed to passive smoking."

Even more revealing than the study's findings are the comments from experts quoted in the article (emphasis added):

Jyoti Patel, MD, of Northwestern University School of Medicine said the findings were not new....

"Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer," said Patel. "The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm."

In other words, although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will tell you that "secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year," scientists have long understood that the actual number might be closer to zero. The basic problem is that the doses of carcinogens absorbed by nonsmokers are much lower than the doses absorbed by smokers, so any lung cancer risk would be correspondingly small and therefore hard to detect using the blunt tools of epidemiology. The associations found in studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer (which generally involve wives of smokers) are weak, meaning it may be impossible to rule out alternative explanations. But none of that really matters, Patel says, because the main goal of smoking bans was "to change societal behavior" by stigmatizing smoking, making it less convenient and less socially acceptable. Indeed, even if you accept every allegation about the hazards of secondhand smoke, it's clear that the real "public health" payoff from smoking bans, in terms of reducing tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, comes from shrinking the number of smokers.

That is not what advocates of smoking bans said, however. Their main rationale was always protecting bystanders, and they never had any patience for the distinction between public and private property, or the notion that people who choose to enter a bar or restaurant where smoking is allowed thereby consent to any risk posed by exposure to secondhand smoke. The warning that "secondhand smoke kills," with lung cancer as the paradigmatic example, played an important role in the debate over government-imposed smoking bans. By raising the stakes, it helped transform a complaint into a right, so that people annoyed by tobacco smoke now felt justified in demanding that it be eliminated everywhere they might want to go, including other people's property. As another expert quoted in the JNCI article puts it, "We've gotten smoking out of bars and restaurants on the basis of the fact that you and I and other nonsmokers don't want to die. The reality is, we probably won't." Now they tell us.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Other Kevin||

    "Secondhand smoke kills" is a much more effective call to action than "Secondhand smoke is annoying." And hey, what are a few lies or exaggerations when your intentions are good, right?

  • wareagle||

    sounds like sale of O-care.

  • The Other Kevin||

    I was thinking of posting this same comment on the post right under this one.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Plato thought so.

  • Zeb||

    And I'd have to say that he was nearly right. Any form of government needs to rest on some sort of "noble" lie.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Consent of the governed!

  • Paul.||

    Consent of the 50.5%!

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Consent of the ~5-20% who come up with shit that most people can't afford to have an opinion on. This is what Tony believes in.

  • Zeb||

    Social contract, your vote counts, the government is the people, the King was appointed by God, you must be cured of your false consciousness, the supreme leader is all that protects you from those evil outsiders.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I forgot about how much of a douche Plato was. But I remember determining that by myself just by reading a few things about him. He was a statist douche.

  • Acosmist||

    Good theory of mind means bad political theory, and vice versa, in my experience.

  • CatoTheElder||

    A more relevant response to "Do you mind if I smoke?" would be, "Not at all. Do you care if I fart?"

  • Rich||

    "I tried to quit once. Man, did I gain weight!"

  • Sevo||

    "A more relevant response to "Do you mind if I smoke?" would be, "Not at all. Do you care if I fart?""

    Matter of taste. I enjoy tobacco smoke smell as some folks like that of a wood fire.

  • Agammamon||

    I enjoy the smell of cigarettes like I enjoy the smell of a grass fire.

  • Almanian!||

    I enjoy the smell of cigarettes like I enjoy the smell of Napalm® in the morning...

  • Zeb||

    OK Steve.

    While I might not always enjoy other people's farts, I don't think it's any of my business when and if htey do. As a fairly flatulent person, I may be more accepting of this than some.

  • Loki||

    hey, what are a few lies or exaggerations when your intentions are good, right?

    This seems appropriate here.

  • FXR||

    Flatulence contains thousands of deadly toxins and carcinogens, besides adding substantially to global warming.

    Anyone want to buy a bridge?

  • Paul.||

    They should add a second frame to that image in the post where the guy lights up.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Sullum kind of did in the alt-text.

  • Ted S.||

    He wondered when it would be possible to have a calm, rational discussion of the issue, one in which skeptics would not be automatically dismissed as tools of the tobacco industry.

    [...]

    In other words, although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will tell you that "secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year," scientists have long understood that the actual number might be closer to zero.

    Privately funded science is evil and the conclusions are always suspect! Government-funded research that concludes we need more government is never ever suspect!

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Nobody spreads this lie like the National Cancer Industry.

    There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
  • JW||

    This is why they will never see one thin dime of my money.

    Fuck off, slavers.

  • JW||

    That was actually aimed at the American Cancer Society.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    There is no safe level of exposure to anything.

    Just about everything that is not as dangerous as first hand smoke, is exactly as dangerous as second hand smoke.

  • John||

    For a very long time or maybe even to this day I am not sure, doctors had no idea what the mechanism was for smoking causing lung cancer. Indeed, this lack of understanding is what allowed the tobacco companies to deny the link for so long. The tobacco companies were forever claiming there was some X factor at work that meant the correlation wasn't really causality. But there was a very statistically significant correlation between smokers and increased risk of lung cancer. No one, not even the tobacco companies denied that.

    Think about that for a moment. If exposure to second hand smoke created anything close to the risk of lung cancer that smoking created, there never would have been such a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer. Non smokers would have been getting lung cancer at nearly as high of rates and there would have been no or a much smaller correlation. For this reason it has always seemed to me to be logically impossible for second hand smoke to pose any sort of significant risk.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    If exposure to second hand smoke created anything close to the risk of lung cancer that smoking created, there never would have been such a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

    I remember thinking this in elementary school, when we were told "second hand smoke is just as bad as smoking!"

    Really? Unless I am tethered to a smoker 24/7, I will always be subjected to less smoke and therefore, be less at risk. Even if I am tethered, the fact that one of us is doing the actual fucking smoking has to account for something.

    I went to public school btw.

  • John||

    I always thought exactly the same thing.

  • Rich||

    You guys just think too much.

  • Loki||

    Thinking is for faggots. /Idiocracy

  • Sevo||

    "I remember thinking this in elementary school, when we were told "second hand smoke is just as bad as smoking!""

    If this were true, there's no reason not to smoke.
    If *any* exposure is as bad as a pack a day, why, smoke 'em if you got 'em; you're gonna die from it anyhow.

  • db||

    "Scientists" in the public health realm have for decades claimed that secondhand smoke exposure could be lethal, relying on arguments dangerously close (fuck it, identical) to the preposterous claims of homeopathy. Of course this was going to come to light eventually.

  • FXR||

    The strongest correlations are Stress, age and low income.

    People with no comprehension of these things, tend to ignore or minimize them as relevant factors, when assessing the danger of something or someone, they abhor.

    The most significant risk to the public's health, are the disciples of the public health "movement"

  • ||

    They've known that there was no solid scientific link between second hand smoke and cancer for years. The lie proved too effective to abandon or be truthful about, however, because it was the magic totem to get people to ignore private property rights. It worked perfectly. And shit, now that they BAN BONER crowd has gotten most of what they want, they might even admit that, because there is no fucking way in hell these smoking bans are ever getting reversed. Ever.

    People who want to control others will lie, lie, and then lie some more even if they don't have to. It seems to be part and parcel of the entire mindset.

  • John||

    They had to have known. Lying was the only way they could get people to agree to ban smoking. Like I said above, if second hand smoke were any sort of a danger, it would have been much harder to see the correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

    It is one of the worst lies the public "health experts" have told in the last fifty years.

  • Presedinte PL Romania||

    Your mention of the words "ban boner" reminds me of the people actually trying to ban men from having boners in public.

  • ||

    Third hand smoke kills babies!

  • John||

    A new study reveals that the residue of nicotine that lingers on surfaces can react with another chemical in the air to form potent carcinogens — chemicals linked to various cancers.

    I think that sentence might set a record for meaningful sounding but actually meaningless language. What does "can react" even mean? Does it react? If so, how often and under what circumstances?

    And what does "linked" mean? Is there a reason why they have to use such a odd and meaningless word instead of the straightforward, meaningful one; "cause"?

  • ||

    You're not supposed to question it. You're supposed to shut up and vote for banning things. Next on the list: dihydrogen monoxide.

  • Brett L||

    Hydrogen Hydroxide: Is There Any Safe Level?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Can you believe there isn't an MSDS sheet for it? This is obviously due to industry lobbying - it's a $60 billion/year industry, and has huge profit margins.

  • Sevo||

    Isn't that the stuff they use to cool NUKULAR PLANTS?!
    It must be dangerous!

  • Zeb||

    I like "hydrogen hydroxide" a lot better than "dihydrogen monoxide".

  • Zeb||

    I like "hydrogen hydroxide" a lot better than "dihydrogen monoxide".

  • JW||

    Do weasel words cause weasel cancer?

  • Zeb||

    Not only that, but chemicals can often be detected in extremely tiny amounts. I bet lots of things that people expose babies to every day can react with other chemicals in the air to form potent carcinogens. They just occur in such tiny amounts that there is no measurable risk.

  • Brett L||

    Things used to be safe when we couldn't detect them at the parts per million range. Now that we're at the parts per billion level, there's all sorts of dangerous shit in the 50-450 PPB range.

  • Loki||

    Sounds like they're getting their bogus studies ready so that they can go ahead and ban all nicotine delivery methods/ devices outright. Because nicotine makes some people feel slightly better, and we can't have that now can we? These fuckers are Puritans, pure and simple. They're terrified at the idea that someone, somewhere might be doing something they don't like to enjoy themselves.

  • perlhaqr||

    Good. Hate those little fuckers.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I wrote an opinion column for the school newspaper back in college and my first piece was a criticism of anti-tobacco campaigns. I got a lot of negative reaction to that, including from a guy in my major. He is brilliant (won a Marshall scholarship to Oxford) but really disconnected when it comes to smoking. He asserted that smoking should be banned altogether because second hand smoke picked up as you passed through the cloud exhaled by someone walking in front of you, outside, even just once, increased your cancer risks. I told him I just did not believe that. He was sort of incredulous and said something along the lines of, well, its the truth, I know because my dad is a doctor who studies this. It was all emotion. I'm not at all surprised that is would be wrong.

  • JW||

    He was smarter than you, and his dad was better than your dad, therefore you are wrong.

  • Paul.||

    Well, he heard it... from a guy.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Doctors don't study shit.

  • Cantiloper@gmail.com||

    Lynch, actually, *IF* you want to accept the old EPA study figures as actually truthful, you can calculate a risk for such things. I've done so. If you walked through such a cloud every day on your way into a class, it would take you, on average, roughly 250 million student-years of working on that graduate degree to get lung cancer.

    Seriously.

    - MJM

  • JW||

    That is not what advocates of smoking bans said, however. Their main rationale was always protecting bystanders, and they never had any patience for the distinction between public and private property, or the notion that people who choose to enter a bar or restaurant where smoking is allowed thereby consent to any risk posed by exposure to secondhand smoke. The warning that "secondhand smoke kills," with lung cancer as the paradigmatic example, played an important role in the debate over government-imposed smoking bans. By raising the stakes, it helped transform a complaint into a right, so that people annoyed by tobacco smoke now felt justified in demanding that it be eliminated everywhere they might want to go, including other people's property.

    I hope there is a moment in my life, once property rights have truly gone to shit, that I have the opportunity, as Jose Ferrer does in The Caine Mutiny, where I get to throw a drink in the face of anti-smoking activist Keefer and wait outside for him to do something about it.

    I wish nothing but the best in ironic justice for these people.

  • Tony||

    In my opinion, the old etiquette rules about smoking remain comprehensive in their utility. You ask permission of those around you, and they are entitled to say no. Bans in workplaces and such are okay since it's 100% safe to assume that there will be objections.

    The implicit arrangement is this: you don't berate my personal choices, and I won't blow smoke in your face.

  • db||

    Yay! You still got your way even though you and your heroes and compatriots lied, lied, lied to get what you wanted.

    Fucking liar.

  • Tony||

    What the actual fuck are you talking about? Unlike all libertarians, I don't support discredited research even if it promotes a narrative I like.

  • Frank_Carbonni||

    Actually, Tony is a smoker and this is one issue where he has not been completely insane on.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    In my opinion, the old etiquette rules about smoking remain comprehensive in their utility.


    The frank prohibitions imposed by the State are so far removed from basic etiquette that you could fit the universe between the two concepts.

  • perlhaqr||

    Except, of course, if you choose to get a job in a location that is obviously and explicitly a location where people smoke.

    Such as, say, a bar.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Most people think cigarette smoke is bad because they can see it. Meanwhile, they only get annoyed at ICE exhaust when it comes from a truck or a broken-down car.

    If only someone could invent a tobacco cigarette that produced invisible smoke like automobile exhaust.

  • Loki||

    I think the fact that you can smell it plays into it as well. If it were colorless and odorless I doubt anyone would complain. Speaking for myself I can't stand the smell, and it's incredibly annoying when a co-worker comes back in from their smoke break reaking like a walking ashtray.

    The difference between me and anti-smoking zealots though is that I won't demand that my co-workers not be allowed to go outside and smoke if they so desire. But then again I also understand that the exposure approaches homeopathic levels, and I have no desire to take away an activity from someone that does me little to no harm aside from a mild inconvencience.

  • FXR||

    The smoke from baked bread has the same list of so called "deadly toxins and carcinogens" in nearly identical levels as you see in tobacco smoke. That would include the oxidized nicotine, we otherwise know as niacin.

    Do you feel a similar need for Government protections?

    Risk assessments are more correctly described as levels of emotional beliefs or a level of what they can make you believe.

    Science needs no promotions just open eyes. Ad agencies only provide entitlement, for some belief you can not justify by any other means.

    Public Health [the movement] is the propaganda wing of medicine or large pharma and the majority of their experts study communications and not medicine.

    So what do they represent and who are you actually allowing to define your beliefs?

    Nothing more than large scale fraud.

  • Paul.||

    Anyone find it funny that people are afraid of homeopathic levels of cigarette smoke?

  • db||

    I find it shameful that scientists used the language and arguments of homeopathy, of all things, to make their case.

  • Westmiller||

    I wonder when the "climate" will allow challenges to the proposition that smoking itself "causes" lung cancer (or anything else). I've been smoking (~pack/day) for 50 years and never had any health problems. I know, that's just one instance, but I'm convinced that what you smoke, how you smoke, and your genetic disposition are the primary factors.

    It also seems probable to me that smoking is a consequence of purely psychological factors which also correspond with various cancers.

  • Zeb||

    You make a good point, I think. While in a sense it is accurate to say that smoking can cause lung cancer, it is important to understand what that means. It does not mean that every person who smokes is rolling the dice and has an equal chance of getting cancer. Some people can smoke all they want and won't get cancer. Genetics and other environmental factors are certainly a big part of it. It would be a whole lot better to work on finding out just what exactly those factors are so that people can make more informed decisions than to just work to drive people away from something they enjoy and make it a moral crusade.

  • Russell||

    Somebody should tell Naomi Oreskes !

  • Cantiloper@gmail.com||

    Before the 1970s, doctors sought to educate the public about the harms of smoking. Then the fanatics moved in and took over the campaigning. For the last 35 years the antismoking movement has been based on promoting largely baseless fear among innocent people to justify making it more difficult, unpleasant, and expensive to smoke. Those hurt by these lies were seen as simply collateral damage in the march toward a "Smoke-Free World," and smokers were regarded as nothing more than lab rats to be conditioned with little electric shocks until they behaved as desired.

    The risks of exposure to smoke have been wildly exaggerated to further an agenda of social engineering and behavior modification built around denormalization and duhumanization of smokers. This is not the first study to show the falsehood of the claims, nor will it be the last.

    People whose lives and families and relationships have been disrupted on the basis of the lies of the antismoking campaigners are angry, and they have a right to be angry. Jacob Sullum and many others have been working to communicate this sort of information for quite a while, but the "Tobacco Control Industry" has hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into it every year from smokers' taxes and they're a tough force to combat.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame"

  • Alice Bowie||

    Sounds like a stooge to Big Tobacco.

    You're right friends, you don't need the government telling you anything. And, there's no need to have labels on any product you ingest because you don't need the government telling them to do that.

    If you let the free market handle it, the tobacco companies will put labels of the ingredients all by themselves without government intervention.

  • Cantiloper@gmail.com||

    Alice, you can see my relationship to Big Tobacco in the second sentence of the Author's Preface at http://Antibrains.com

    It's been out there waving in the breeze for almost ten years now and it hasn't been shot down yet by the Antis -- and you can bet yer bippie they've looked! LOL!

    Your point about labels seems to be a bit of a red herring here Alice. What does ingredient labeling have to do with the epidemiology of secondary smoke exposure?

    - MJM

  • FXR||

    When the government moves beyond information and takes it upon itself to make your choices for you.

    You will begin to understand the meaning of nanny state or paternalism as a political strategy.

    Until you are educated enough to see that difference, no doubt you will continue to sing along, as they did with the eugenics promotions of racism and later in the massacre of millions n Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Pol pot's burning of the grasses or Chairman Mao's re-education systems.

    There is no little bit pregnant here. You oppose these tyrants and dictatorship or you sing along at your own peril.

    Just don't try to pretend you were not warned, when the boot finds it's way to your neck.

    Only then will you begin to see who actually represents, the "us and them" in your physical life.

  • Tony||

    I do love it when libertarians find another arbitrary line in the sand beyond which is Hitler. It's OK for government to force companies to go to the expense of providing information? Okay! But anything more = Hitler. Got it.

  • FXR||

    Public Health [The movement and it's investing for profit stakeholders] should not be a political force or involved in the promotions of any oxymoron "Public Health Regulations" The very idea that this is occurring flies in the face of Autonomy Rights and all due respect for the reason those rights must always prevail.

    The above blog post is only one of thousands of reasons that Public health needs to be placed under stricter controls and investigation. The overall feeling of those at the heads of these agencies, is that they preside or have authority over individual rights and freedom, is the problem that needs to be cured. Dominating people is not the mandate of these agencies. Public Health investments to that end, have become an obstacle to progress in all areas of medical treatment and cures. With the power obtained through divided communities and finger wags, they have now become a force that rises above elected officials, with a finger of scold for all who don't align themselves, with the dictatorial powers exerted by that scold in the media.

  • Lisa_Belle||

    Not bad in fact very good, not too good just exactly right!

  • FXR||

    Public Health [The movement and it's investing for profit stakeholders] should not be a political force or involved in the promotions of any oxymoron "Public Health Regulations" The very idea that this is occurring flies in the face of Autonomy Rights and all due respect for the reason those rights must always prevail.

    The above blog post is only one of thousands of reasons that Public health needs to be placed under stricter controls and investigation. The overall feeling of those at the heads of these agencies, is that they preside or have authority over individual rights and freedom, is the problem that needs to be cured. Dominating people is not the mandate of these agencies. Public Health investments to that end, have become an obstacle to progress in all areas of medical treatment and cures. With the power obtained through divided communities and finger wags, they have now become a force that rises above elected officials, with a finger of scold for all who don't align themselves, with the dictatorial powers exerted by that scold in the media.

  • FXR||

    Public health is a criminal racketeering organization, long over due investigations and indictments for their payola racketeering and gross abuse of office and position. The reasons the sugary drinks legislation was throw out of court stands as the proof this organization has overstepped it's boundaries and the propaganda it promotes, demonstrates that it's authority alone, has advanced in a mystical way, to stand even above the health of the public, as it's primary and now sole concern.

    "Having smokers believe one cigarette could be safer than another" demonstrates that public opinion is now reason to hide or deny the facts, which should always be their number one concern, beyond the "control" or "progress", as a reason to serve something else.

    How can anyone oppose what is inherently, and exclusively the people's right to define? Informed consent requires truthful and full disclosures of all the facts. Even the ones that counter agenda, egos and stated goals.

    That is the obligation attached to the Public health mandate so often ignored by those who move outside [or in their mind; above the law] the law and hope that no one will notice their crimes.

  • Lisa_Belle||

    Was this inconclusive risk and it's associated bans was it also the basis for the tax increases that smokers have paid exponentially? If so, it seems grossly unfair. Berkeley, CA is banning smokers from housing being that secondhand smoke could possible enter the domicile next door. Seniors are unable to find housing if they smoke. Smoking is not permitted in parks in NYC. Some smokers have turned to alternative method of enjoying their hobby and it is being reported that water vapor may be secondhand vapor and could possibly be a risk factor. What is it about smoking or using nicotine in this hand to mouth then lung inhilation, this style that creates so much hyperboli which become law, which penalizes, ostricizes, condemns and ridicules a BEHAVIOR. The Behavior and it's effect on the population, is so interesting it requires millions if not billions of dollars to study, research infers Mitch Zeller the overseer of TCP of the FDA who gaurdedly is honing and owning as the basis for "deeming" a 99% safer alternative to smoking known as E-Cigarettes, which to those that think a behavior is distasteful and should be shunned, banned what they really mean is taxed, with no way out for anyone that enjoys the past-time of whatever!

  • Jon Lester||

    When the smoking ban went into full effect here in Athens, one of the bands playing that night burned several incense sticks, which remained perfectly legal, as an act of protest.

  • harleyrider1778||

    Kabats making statements that seem to only perpetuate the lie…….The question is WHY!

    Ive taken his statements to task here on a few notes:

    The most careful studies that have evaluated the actual exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke in the home, at work, and in other settings indicate that the average exposure of a passively exposed non-smoker is roughly equivalent to smoking about 10 cigarettes PER YEAR.

    ………………………

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    ………………………

    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.

    However, even assuming similarities on an equal mass basis, ETS-RSP inhaled doses are estimated to be between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers. Differences in effective gas phase doses are expected to be of similar magnitude. Thus the average person exposed to ETS would retain an annual dose analogous to the active MSS smoking of considerably less than one cigarette dispersed over a 1-year period.

  • harleyrider1778||

    Id just like to know the source of the other studies putting it at 10 cigs a year when everything else Ive seen says much less..

    10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers……………….This is approximately one-thousandth the exposure of the average smoker

    Really how did he come to such a conclusion

    Even at 10 ciggys a year it still comes to 14,600 years of exposure to equal 20 years of smoking at a pack a day and still be able to donate your lungs…………

    Then Their own study showed after the 39 years basically the same outcome no effect and only a slight raised risk for 30 years or longer with a smoker in house. That was during the highest possible exposure time period. So to state that because theres less smoking since the 90s and exposures a lower outcome would be expected its just posh junk and bending to the anti-smokers…….It makes one think they bought Kabat off!
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ge.....tifically/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement