The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke

[GaryC 7]

As a newly former smoker I can understand why some really hate second hand smoke. I can also understand why they would not want to smell it. But I also want honesty when they try to control it. I never bought into the idea of the dangers of second hand smoke. I know that there are some with health problems where smoke really is a health hazard. But for the vast majority of people it's just a aggravation.

Gio Batta Gori

Special to washingtonpost.com

Tuesday, January 30, 2007; 12:00 AM

Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.

Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that children exposed to secondhand smoke will "eventually . . . develop cardiovascular disease and cancers over time."

Such claims are certainly alarming. But do the studies Carmona references support his claims, and are their findings as sound as he suggests?

Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location.

In an effort to circumvent this capital obstacle, all secondhand smoke studies have estimated risk using a misleading marker of "lifetime exposure." Yet, instant exposures also vary uncontrollably over time, so lifetime summations of exposure could not be, and were not, measured.

Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.

In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory.

Adding confusion, people with lung cancer or cardiovascular disease are prone to amplify their recall of secondhand smoke exposure. Others will fib about being nonsmokers and will contaminate the results. More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. Thus, the claimed risks are doubly deceptive because of interferences that could not be calculated and corrected.

In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.

Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured."

It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.

By any sensible account, the anachronism of tobacco use should eventually vanish in an advancing civilization. Why must we promote this process under the tyranny of deception?

Presumably, we are grown-up people, with a civilized sense of fair play, and dedicated to disciplined and rational discourse. We are fortunate enough to live in a free country that is respectful of individual choices and rights, including the right to honest public policies. Still, while much is voiced about the merits of forceful advocacy, not enough is said about the fundamental requisite of advancing public health with sustainable evidence, rather than by dangerous, wanton conjectures.

A frank discussion is needed to restore straight thinking in the legitimate uses of "the science" of epidemiology ¿ uses that go well beyond secondhand smoke issues. Today, health rights command high priority on many agendas, as they should. It is not admissible to presume that people expect those rights to be served less than truthfully.

Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7012901158.html

[mawilson 2,133]

Yeah - second-hand smoking is nonsense. The doses are too low to make any difference.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yeah - second-hand smoking is nonsense. The doses are too low to make any difference.

It really depends how often you are exposed to it doesn't it?

I'm probably not going to get any ill-effects from the guy walking on the street fluffing away in front of me, but I can tell you its a somewhat different story if you, for example, (as I did) work in a bar (or have worked in one with heavy smoke). After a 7 hour shift you feel like you've been smoking yourself.

[mawilson 2,133]

Yeah - second-hand smoking is nonsense. The doses are too low to make any difference.

It really depends how often you are exposed to it doesn't it?

I'm probably not going to get any ill-effects from the guy walking on the street fluffing away in front of me, but I can tell you its a somewhat different story if you, for example, (as I did) work in a bar (or have worked in one with heavy smoke). After a 7 hour shift you feel like you've been smoking yourself.

I suppose so - the effect would certainly be more noticeable if you're exposed to it all day long,

but it's still nowhere as bad as smoking.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Journalistic chopfcuks!

I wonder who penned this little piece?

Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologists [sic], is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.

Well, the Health Policy Center is in Bethesda -- it must be legit. A former director of the National Cancer Institute … won an award … sounds like a serious scientist and not one of those guys with an axe to gr … [doorbell rings]

I wonder who that is …

Dr. Gio Batta Gori has a doctorate in biological sciences and a masters degree in public health. He was a former scientist and top official at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where he specialized in toxicology, epidemiology and nutrition […]

After Gori left the NCI in 1980 he traded on the professional credibility he had accumulated, aligned himself with tobacco industry interests and reaped significant financial rewards in the coming years.

In 1980 Gori became Vice President of the Franklin Institute Policy Analysis Center (FIPAC), a consulting firm funded initially by a $400,000 grant from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W). Following its initial formation, FIPAC continued to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding annually from B&W. Gori worked on R&D projects for B&W, such as analysis of the sensory perception of smoke and how to reduce the amount of tobacco in cigarettes. By 1989, Gori was a full time consultant on environmental tobacco smoke issue for the Tobacco Institute in the Institute's ETS/IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) Consultants Project. In May 1993, Gori entered an exclusive consulting arrangement with B&W, reaping pay at the rate of $200/hour an day to $1,000/day for attending conferences.

Activities in which Gori engaged on behalf of the tobacco industry included attending conferences, writing and publishing books and papers, and lobbying.

Nice of the damn Washington Post to mention that little potential source of bias, no?

[mawilson 2,133]

Thank you for smoking!

[garya505 2]

Well I never thought I would be in the position of agreeing with Steven and disagreeing with Gary, but life is full of surprizes.

[UmmSqueakster 54]

Gee, I felt the effects of second hand smoke this morning, when the lovely gentleman next to me in line for the bus lit up and triggered an asthma attack. But I guess not being able to breathe isn't all that important

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well I never thought I would be in the position of agreeing with Steven and disagreeing with Gary, but life is full of surprizes.

I'll be sending your membership card in the mail today.

[mawilson 2,133]

Gee, I felt the effects of second hand smoke this morning, when the lovely gentleman next to me in line for the bus lit up and triggered an asthma attack. But I guess not being able to breathe isn't all that important

I felt it last week when I was sick and someone was puffing away in front of me.

Obviously, second hand smoke is bad for you, it's just not as dangerous as we are led to believe.

[bostonparis 0]

I think it's really funny when people try to argue that smoke, first or second hand, "isn't as dangerous" as you think!! "It's not so baaaaad!"

[GaryC 7]

Journalistic chopfcuks!

I wonder who penned this little piece?

Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologists [sic], is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.

Well, the Health Policy Center is in Bethesda -- it must be legit. A former director of the National Cancer Institute … won an award … sounds like a serious scientist and not one of those guys with an axe to gr … [doorbell rings]

I wonder who that is …

Dr. Gio Batta Gori has a doctorate in biological sciences and a masters degree in public health. He was a former scientist and top official at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where he specialized in toxicology, epidemiology and nutrition […]

After Gori left the NCI in 1980 he traded on the professional credibility he had accumulated, aligned himself with tobacco industry interests and reaped significant financial rewards in the coming years.

In 1980 Gori became Vice President of the Franklin Institute Policy Analysis Center (FIPAC), a consulting firm funded initially by a $400,000 grant from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W). Following its initial formation, FIPAC continued to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding annually from B&W. Gori worked on R&D projects for B&W, such as analysis of the sensory perception of smoke and how to reduce the amount of tobacco in cigarettes. By 1989, Gori was a full time consultant on environmental tobacco smoke issue for the Tobacco Institute in the Institute's ETS/IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) Consultants Project. In May 1993, Gori entered an exclusive consulting arrangement with B&W, reaping pay at the rate of $200/hour an day to $1,000/day for attending conferences.

Activities in which Gori engaged on behalf of the tobacco industry included attending conferences, writing and publishing books and papers, and lobbying.

Nice of the damn Washington Post to mention that little potential source of bias, no?

Another case of discrediting the person rather than the message. Who cares who he works for? The science is flawed and tilted. There have been no studies that can show a direct connection between second hand smoke and an increase in disease. It's all conjuncture and bias. People like rahma have a legit gripe because of a condition they already have but to claim that second hand smoke is dangerous has not been proven. It may turn out to be the case but at this point it's a political football and not scientific fact. I don't smoke any more so I am not taking this side because of my own reasons. I only want honesty instead of hysteria.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Journalistic chopfcuks!

I wonder who penned this little piece?

Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologists [sic], is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.

Well, the Health Policy Center is in Bethesda -- it must be legit. A former director of the National Cancer Institute … won an award … sounds like a serious scientist and not one of those guys with an axe to gr … [doorbell rings]

I wonder who that is …

Dr. Gio Batta Gori has a doctorate in biological sciences and a masters degree in public health. He was a former scientist and top official at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where he specialized in toxicology, epidemiology and nutrition […]

After Gori left the NCI in 1980 he traded on the professional credibility he had accumulated, aligned himself with tobacco industry interests and reaped significant financial rewards in the coming years.

In 1980 Gori became Vice President of the Franklin Institute Policy Analysis Center (FIPAC), a consulting firm funded initially by a $400,000 grant from the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B&W). Following its initial formation, FIPAC continued to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding annually from B&W. Gori worked on R&D projects for B&W, such as analysis of the sensory perception of smoke and how to reduce the amount of tobacco in cigarettes. By 1989, Gori was a full time consultant on environmental tobacco smoke issue for the Tobacco Institute in the Institute's ETS/IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) Consultants Project. In May 1993, Gori entered an exclusive consulting arrangement with B&W, reaping pay at the rate of $200/hour an day to $1,000/day for attending conferences.

Activities in which Gori engaged on behalf of the tobacco industry included attending conferences, writing and publishing books and papers, and lobbying.

Nice of the damn Washington Post to mention that little potential source of bias, no?

Another case of discrediting the person rather than the message. Who cares who he works for? The science is flawed and tilted. There have been no studies that can show a direct connection between second hand smoke and an increase in disease. It's all conjuncture and bias. People like rahma have a legit gripe because of a condition they already have but to claim that second hand smoke is dangerous has not been proven. It may turn out to be the case but at this point it's a political football and not scientific fact. I don't smoke any more so I am not taking this side because of my own reasons. I only want honesty instead of hysteria.

You're a riot, Gary.

[GaryC 7]

You're a riot, Gary.

Just because he works for someone that has a vested interest in the subject does not discredit him. He is a doctor and his points are correct. I am not saying that second hand smoke is good for you and it very well may be as dangerous as everyone thinks but lets not base our actions on hysteria and personal bias and use instead real science.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You're a riot, Gary.

Just because he works for someone that has a vested interest in the subject does not discredit him. He is a doctor and his points are correct. I am not saying that second hand smoke is good for you and it very well may be as dangerous as everyone thinks but lets not base our actions on hysteria and personal bias and use instead real science.

Pot, meet kettle.

Gary, his affiliations make ALL the difference. I can't believe you're defending this man...he's a tobacco lobbyist who sold his soul to the tobacco industry. Do you have a short memory or do you recall that it was tobacco industry scientists who for years reported to the public that smoking was not dangerous to your health. When making a professional scientific opinion about something, conflict of interest DOES make a difference, regardless of whether you want to fess up to that or not.

p.s. What I find oddly peculiar here, Gary - is with the case of Global Warming, you've got thousands of scientists unanimously agreeing and you've dismissed them. You have a strange approach towards science. May I ask - did you ever take any science courses in college?

Edited February 1, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky