On May 31, 2000 the Philadelphia City Council held hearings on anti-smoking efforts underway in that city.
Michael McFadden, a resident
of West Philadelphia, offers his experiences with, and testimony given
to, the politicians who are the key players in deciding whether or not
to support smoking restrictions. He has been active in social issues
for many years and has also participated in testifying in front of the
New York City Council when current smoking restrictions in the city were
under the threat of being expanded.
Frustrated Efforts & Demand For Equal Time
Disputing The Lies Used to Promote Their Agenda
Environmental Tobacco Smoke Table - ETS studies
and their findings of Relative Risk
Testimony to City Council May 31, 2000 by Michael J. McFadden
Councilpeople, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Michael McFadden and I'm a long term resident of West Philadelphia. I have no connection to any bars, restaurants, or tobacco companies other than being a good customer.
Last Wednesday you heard from Antismoking advocates that Environmental Tobacco Smoke had been added to the National Toxicology Register as a carcinogen. What you DIDN'T hear was that alcohol and sunlight were ALSO added at the same time.
Antismoking advocates consistently ignore the clear and simple fact that there never has been and very likely never will be shown any threat at all from the microscopic exposures to smoke that might exist in well designed nonsmoking sections. If you refer to the testimony that began today's session, you'll note that the Advisor to the Surgeon General herself carefully referred only to "smoky" and "smoke-filled" rooms in most of her testimony. At no point did she indicate that well ventilated smoking and nonsmoking sections posed a threat to the general population.
There's no need for glass partitions or airlock doors: smoke does NOT "travel where it wants". Even a mild movement of air pushes smoke quite effectively in the direction of the air movement. Passing a law prohibiting smoking sections in restaurants on the basis of cancer risk is like passing a law prohibiting windows in restaurants where sunlight might come in and give cancer to innocent diners.
Most studies that have looked at the long term health effects of smoking upon nonsmokers have been based on situations where nonsmokers lived and worked closely with smokers, often in poorly ventilated conditions, every day of the week, over periods of up to 40 or 50 years. Even at THOSE extreme exposures only about one study out of 10 has consistently found any statistically significant link between secondary smoke and even small increases in diseases like lung cancer. The claim made here last Wednesday that these studies were "unanimous" in their findings is clearly false.
Some studies have even come up with NEGATIVE correlations: One of the largest international studies of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and lung cancer in the world was recently published by the World Health Organization. About the ONLY scientifically significant figure in that study showed children of smokers getting 22% LESS lung cancer than matched children of nonsmokers!
(Text of WHO Abstract and list of 124 study results submitted for the record.)
There has never been a study linking the incredibly low exposures existing
in decent nonsmoking sections and any sort of disease.
At these levels of exposure, we are NOT talking about any kind of real
health threat to normal people. There are a very small number
of people with special conditions, sensitivities, or the more severe forms
of asthma who would avoid restaurants that allow smoking and no one here
would speak against that. There are also a small number of people
who avoid restaurants that serve shellfish or have flowers in their dining
areas because of extreme sensitivities and fears of microscopic contact,
but we’d never ban fish from all restaurant kitchens or floral arrangements
from all tables.
The two testimonies heard immediately prior to our citizens’ testimonies give good examples of the kind of emotional, rhetorical, and misleading statistical arguments heard throughout these hearings.
Josh Mittledorf's lengthy testimony was highly emotionally effective
because of his repetition of the statement that one of eight restaurant
workers would die from secondhand smoke. What Mr. Mittledorf mentioned
at the start of his testimony was very important however: that figure
came from a Mr. Repace... the same man who testified last week that 300
mile per hour winds would be needed to protect nonsmoking sections from
smoke. The figure used by
Mr. Mittledorf is a fantasy figure coming from one of the most
extremist “professional testifiers” of the entire Antismoking community.
It is not in ANY sense an accepted scientific finding, yet
it was repeated over and over again by him as though it were fact.
It made for very effective, but also very misleading, testimony.
Mary Tracy's testimony hinged largely upon the idea that because other workplaces have banned smoking therefore restaurants should do the same. Of course the way in which it was put, "Why should restaurant workers be the only workers unprotected from this poison?" made it easy to forget that the simple argument of "Gee, everyone ELSE is doing it..." is not in any sense a justification for passing a new law. Unless I missed it, her testimony did NOT indicate any significant evidence that restaurant workers were actually at risk from their exposures. But the constant repetition of how such workers were the ONLY ONES "forced to work without protection" was very effective as rhetoric.
A *lot* of the testimony heard from Antismoking advocacy groups at these hearings was like this: basic touches of fact, expanded, tortured, and twisted into visions of death and destruction far beyond what reputable scientists not connected with such groups actually subscribe to.
Councilpeople, I do not believe we are here today because of a real concern about the health of nonsmokers. We're here because smoking bans are seen as one of the most effective weapons in the arsenal of social engineering when it comes to reducing smoking and getting smokers to quit smoking. At least three of last week’s Antismoking advocates spoke of that in their testimony.
I'm here today Councilpeople because this is NOT George Orwell's 1984. Our government should NOT be in the business of making laws designed to pressure citizens into thinking in proper ways or conforming to a politically correct healthy lifestyle.
Education about the dangers of smoking is fine. Social engineering
and behavior modification is not. That's NOT what government in the
United States is supposed to be about, and by voting for proposals like
this one I believe you will actually be hurting our country and its people
a LOT more than you'll be helping.
Thank you.
FRUSTRATED
EFFORTS & DEMAND FOR EQUAL TIME
The Nutter Proposal:
A Disgrace to the Democratic Process
There is a side
to the controversy about the proposed smoking ban that’s gotten very little
hearing… literally.
Back in May when City Council was first holding its hearings on this matter I called up Michael Nutter’s office to submit my name for testimony at the hearing. I was asked if I would be testifying in favor of the proposal or against it and with a somewhat simplistic faith in the fairness of the political process I indicated I would be testifying against.
I found myself listed at the very end of the itinerary at the first Council hearing and after six hours I had to leave before my name came up. I resubmitted it for the second hearing and after close to three more hours of listening primarily to fairly long presentations by paid lobbyists for various Antismoking groups my turn and that of my fellow “citizen testifiers” came up. However, for us simple voters, the solid majority of whom were there if my memory is correct to testify against the bill and question and rebut the “facts” that had been lengthily presented by the other side, we were informed that we were limited to TWO MINUTES APIECE of testimony. So much for the value of “citizens” and their testimony as compared to that of paid lobbyists in the eyes of City Council.
At the end of the hearing Mr. Nutter declared that a task force would be formed to develop recommendations reconciling the various points of view. I went home and waited for further information to come about this task force and heard nothing. A call to their office produced a vague promise that “the task force was being worked on” and that I would be contacted. I heard nothing more, nor did I get any response to my testimony or a written complaint about the process in which the voice of opposing citizens was so effectively silenced, until four weeks ago when KYW announced that the task force was about to present its final report.
Further calls to Mr. Nutter’s office resulted in my being referred to Commissioner Tsou’s office. Dr. Tsou’s secretary indicated that in all likelihood the Commissioner had never been apprised of the substance of my testimony and had not even considered my participation in the task force. I was however advised that I could submit my testimony and request for consideration and receipt of relevant materials via email. I proceeded to send them three emails containing testimony, documentation, and eventually, a follow up memo of concern indicating that I’d heard nothing in response. Follow up phone calls had confirmed not only that my material had arrived, but that it had been given to the Commissioner himself. To this date I have still heard nothing in response.
If you examine my testimony you will find that it indeed raises credible points with regard to the types of “propaganda science” that were presented by the lobbyists pushing for Nutter’s bill. Despite this, and despite other credible testimony by citizens against the bill, our position was completely and totally ignored in the charge by City Council to the Task Force. The task force was told to ignore any evidence that might serve to mitigate the argument that secondary smoke was the most deadly thing to hit the public since World War II nerve gas and to simply assume that their job was “preventing, to the greatest extent possible, second-hand smoke from drifting or recirculating from restaurant bars to indoor smoke-free areas of restaurants.”
By ignoring the question of whether microscopic quantities of tobacco smoke actually posed any threat at all to non-smokers in normally ventilated and separated sections of restaurants the task force was obviously given only one real choice in “preventing…to the greatest extent possible” the chance that even a few molecules of smoke might somehow move against ventilation streams to a non-smoker yards away. That choice is of course reflected in their decision, reached unanimously by the Antismoking groups, and unanimously rejected by everyone else on the Commission, that the only practical solution was to totally ban smoking in restaurant areas. The “compromise” put forward by the Antismoking groups (allowing smoking inside of sealed, biohazard airlock style chambers) is not really a compromise since the expense involved makes such accommodations wildly impractical for all but the highest priced and most profitable establishments. Thus, the real objective of the Antismokers in these hearings was achieved: to put smokers out of sight and make it so difficult for them to smoke that many of them might decide to quit instead.
The voice of the citizens received very little hearing by the City Council. The voice of those who question so much of the purported science presented by Antismoking groups received even less hearing in the task force set up to arrive at this “compromise.” And finally, the reactions and response of the formal bodies of the Council and the Health Department in ignoring written, emailed, and oral testimony and concerns of citizens in this matter is disgraceful and unworthy of a city where freedom of speech and discussion, and the free exchange of thought was first declared paramount in this country.
Testimony and documentation attached.
Michael J. McFadden
Cantiloper@aol.com
To the President and Members of Philadelphia’s City Council
June 1st, 2000
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I am writing to register an official protest over the way testimonies were handled at the Council Hearing on the smoking ban last Wednesday, May 31st.
Prior to the previous Hearing on May 24th I had called and identified myself, upon request, as someone opposed to the bill who wanted to testify on the health effects of secondhand smoke. At that hearing the only testimony allowed in that category was from SUPPORTERS of the bill. Nevertheless, I sat from 2:30 until I had to leave at 8pm after unsuccessfully awaiting my chance to testify as a "citizen". Most speakers were given free rein for up to 20 minutes or more, though I do not know how the "citizen" testimonies were handled when they eventually came up.
On the 31st, I again found myself listed at the end of the program and waited over three hours for my chance to testify. Again most speakers were given at least 10 minutes of uninterrupted presentation before being urged to close.
When it came time for the "citizens" to speak, most of whom were speaking against the measure, we were told quite sternly and without warning that we would have to restrict our testimony to two minutes! Of course we were welcome to offer our full testimonies in writing, but as the Committee in its preferences toward the bill was fully aware, citizen testimony is often partially extemporaneous or from handwritten notes concerning earlier testimony.
In sum, after sitting in Council Chambers for over 8 hours, I was allowed 2 minutes to read my 6 minutes of testimony. In that time period I read aloud the first and last few paragraphs of my prepared testimony. At this point I have no idea whether the rest of my testimony will receive its proper official place in the record: it certainly did NOT get anything like the "public hearing" given to the opposing point of view.
This is particularly disturbing since my testimony was fairly unique in nature. Aside from one or two other “citizens” who had their testimony chopped from beneath them, there was very little questioning of the science and the rhetoric about science that was being often misused in support of the bill.
I enclose my written testimony since you may not otherwise have access to it. Please take just two minutes to look it over and I believe you will agree that despite its brevity it calls into serious question some of the "science" that was constantly repeated to make quick passage of the bill seem vital to the public health.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McFadden
<Final email to Commissioner Tsou (11/07/00) on reverse side>
Subj: A Concern....
Date: 11/7/00 2:15:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Cantiloper
To: healthdept@phila.gov
CC: Cantiloper
I am concerned because I have not received any further response from you. In our first conversation you recommended that I send the documentation and request for the Task Force papers and information via email. In our second you confirmed they had gotten through. In our third you indicated that Commissioner Tsou had been given my communications and was considering them.
It has now been almost two weeks and I have still heard nothing. This is exactly what I heard from Michael Nutter's office as well. If this is indicative of the approach that the Commission/TaskForce has taken in responding to those critical of its position I believe that a serious breach of the public trust has occurred.
I am not sure of what avenues are open to me in following this up, but I will certainly be investigating. In the meantime, under whatever legal rights I am entitled to as a concerned citizen who offered formal testimony with regard to the matters under consideration by the Task Force on Smoking in Bars and Restaurants I would like to ask once again for the relevant documents.
Sincerely,
Michael J. McFadden
Cantiloper@aol.com
11/16/2000
Response to date:
Phone response: None.
Email response: None
Fax response: None
US Mail response: None
Total response: NONE
<<By what must surely have been pure coincidence, 30 minutes after
the above was distributed to Council on the 16th Commissioner Tsou’s office
finally DID send me an acknowledgement. It should also be noted that
Anna Verna’s office also sent a November acknowledgement after phone calls
requesting such.>>
Clearing the Air: Another
View
In the debate over government mandated smoking bans in Philadelphia there is a side of the argument that has not been given proper hearing and has even been consciously suppressed. Antismokers know that arguing the murky “science” surrounding the risks of secondary smoke in public places is difficult. Emotional sound bites do not stand up well to detailed scrutiny so such debate is diligently avoided.
Citizens questioning the scientific bases of the Antismoking side at this summer’s City Council hearings were relegated to slots of two minutes each at the day’s end after having sat through hours of Antismoking testimony, largely from paid lobbyists. Those testifying against a ban were sloughed off as simply being “mouthpieces for the tobacco industry”!
This tactic has become the standard response of the Antismoking lobby whenever anyone dares question their arguments. Even The Inquirer fell into this trap of ad hominum argument in its editorial “Clearing the Air”: The Hospitality Alliance was characterized as a “murky group” that had a “meeting” with someone from a tobacco company last May.
Despite my two-minute limitation, I offered well-supported testimony criticizing the Council Committee’s Antismoking position. However follow-up letters, emails, and phone calls to Council and the Health Department were almost universally ignored: my sort of input was not wanted. The committee formed a task force of six Antismoking advocates and five restaurateurs to ensure the “right” decision would be reached. No voice critical of the science of the Antismoking position was allowed: the task force stipulated that the “threat” of tobacco smoke in non-smoking sections was an absolute given. The only question allowed was how best to eliminate that “threat”.
On November 1st the preordained conclusion was handed down: the six Antismoking advocates voted for a nearly universal, government mandated ban while the five restaurateurs totally opposed such a ban.
Thus the pressure from the powerful, well-financed Antismoking advocacy groups may well prevail. The tactic of parading gas-masked toddlers and ex-smokers with cancer in front of TV cameras is effective: City Council members will fear appearing as poisoners of innocent children and puppets of “the industry of death.” They’ll likely vote for a smoking ban that may well destroy the livelihoods of many Philadelphians while providing questionable benefit.
How can the benefit be called questionable? If one actually examines the secondary smoke studies it becomes clear that their results are by NO means “universal and incontrovertible”. In reality, only a few studies have shown consistent significant relations between even long-term daily exposures to high levels of secondary smoke and diseases such as lung cancer. Some have even indicated opposite findings altogether! No studies to date show ANY long-term threat from the low levels of exposure prevalent in standard non-smoking sections.
Why then the push for total smoking bans? The answer is simple: Antismokers see such bans as essential in the war against smoking. Using the tools of social engineering to make smoking socially unacceptable is believed fully defensible in battling the Evil Empire of the tobacco industry. The casualties along the way, the smokers segregated outside in the cold, the massive increase in teen heroin users who’ve been told repeatedly that heroin is safer than tobacco, the fires caused when smokers unsafely resort to sneaking smokes, the plane crashes due to unnecessary “forced landings” simply because someone smokes, and the misdirection of health research money to billboards portraying smokers as dirty, criminal, impotent child abusers are all justified in achieving the “greater good” of a smoke-free world.
The ultimate casualty, our freedom not just to smoke, but also to do many things in our lives that others disapprove of or claim to be socially harmful, is unfortunately not far behind. Modern visual and computer media lend themselves to mass behavior control in ways far beyond the dreams of Orwell or Stalin. And make no mistake: it’s the little actions, such things as votes by City Councils, which will pave the way for such a world.
(The author is a writer and social activist living in West Philadelphia)
Michael J. McFadden
Philadelphia PA
DISPUTING
THE LIES USED TO PROMOTE THEIR AGENDA
Councilman Nutter &
The Inquirer
Are LYING To
You !
1) They say the EPA concluded that levels of secondary smoke such as might normally be found in non-smoking sections cause cancer. The reality is that the EPA never even LOOKED at such low levels of exposure, and even their meta-analysis looking at far higher levels of decades of steady exposures was thrown out over two years ago by the same judge who ruled AGAINST tobacco companies in the FDA case!
2) They say studies show the ban won’t hurt business. The reality is that those studies were designed specifically to give such results: they ignore such things as large degrees of noncompliance in the areas sampled.
3) They say that “tornado like winds” would be needed to blow smoke away from non-smoking sections. The reality is that the velocity of burning molecules of smoke leaving the end of a cigarette is almost immediately diffused by collisions with other molecules within millionths of an inch and even a mild movement of air moves it toward exhaust vents.
4) They say that “10 years after California enacted its groundbreaking antismoking laws, state lung cancer rates dropped 14 percent.” The reality is that the actual “groundbreaking antismoking laws”, the laws banning smoking in bars and adding 50 cents a pack punishment tax on smokers, only happened in the last three years… having NOTHING to do with lung cancer rates that have a 20 - 30 year time lag. The REAL cause of the decrease is a combination of 1970s air pollution/emission laws and the changing population due to Mexican immigration.
5) They say there’s “a strong societal consensus in favor of” bans like this one. The reality is that such “strong societal consensus” is simply in favor of providing decently ventilated normal non-smoking areas. There is NO consensus for government mandates forcing ALL private businesses to ban smoking or install biohazard style airlock chambers.
6) They say “Restaurants could, for instance, have a separate bar where people could smoke . . . so long as a floor-to-ceiling wall separated it from dining areas.” The reality is that the ban mandates extreme exhaust/ventilation requirements that would cost businesses tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement. The real goal, in practical terms, is simply to see smoking banned in bar/restaurants for now, and in ALL bars several years from now (In NY they are calling this “closing the loopholes”)
7) They say that nonsmokers are being “poisoned” by smokers in restaurants.
The reality is that the chemical levels of ANY normal element of tobacco
smoke in standard nonsmoking areas never even APPROACH levels that the
EPA or OSHA have defined as even beginning to be unsafe.
ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE TABLE
Epidemiology relies on establishing relative
risk factors. Relative risk is what they come up with when
studying the association between two things.
It is the statistical chance of what may happen when “X” impacts
on “Y”. Luckily for us they have at least
kept to a standard in defining relative risk outcomes. It is well
established in the field of epidemiology that
a study producing a relative risk greater than 3.0 shows a strong
association. A relative risk between 2.0 and
3.0 shows a weak association. A relative risk between 1.0 and 2.0
shows a very weak association and an even
1.0 means no association. Anything under 1.0 is considered to show
a positive, rather than a negative, effect.
Imagine that! To further underscore this standard, Marcia Angell of
the prestigious New England Journal of
Medicine has said, “As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a
relative risk of 3 or more” before accepting
a paper for publication. Robert Temple of the Food and Drug
Administration said, “My basic rule is
if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” Even further, The
National Cancer Institute explains, “Relative
risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult
to interpret. Such increases may be due
to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors [other
possibilities] that are sometimes not evident.”
| Name |
|
|
|
|
Risk |
Interval |
| Garfinkel 1 (+) | 81 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Chan + | 82 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Correa(+!) | 83 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Correa(+!) | 83 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Trichopouls(+!) | 83 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Buffler | 84 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Buffler | 84 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Hirayama (+)! | 84 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Hirayama + |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 1(+) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 1(+) | 84 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Garfinkel 2(+) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lam W | 85 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wu(+!) | 85 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Akiba(+) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Akiba(+) | 86 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lee(+) | 86 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lee(+) | 86 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bownson 1 | 87 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Gao |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Humble | 87 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Humble | 87 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Koo | 87 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lam T |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pershagen(+) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Butler | 88 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Geng |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Inoue | 88 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Shimizu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Choi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Choi | 89 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Hole |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hole | 89 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Svensson | 89 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Janerick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kalandidi |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sobue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wu-Williams | 90 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Liu Z | 91 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Brownson 2 ^ | 92 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Stockwell ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Liu Q ^ | 93 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fontham ^ | 94 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Layard | 94 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Layard | 94 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zaridze | 94 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 2 ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 2 ^ | 95 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Schwartz ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Schwartz ^ | 96 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sun | 96 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Want S-Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wang T-J |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cardenas ^ | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cardenas ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jockel-BIPS | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jockel-BIPS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jockel-GSF | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jockel-GSF | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ko ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nyberg | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Nyberg | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Boffetta (WHO) | 98 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 1 ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 1 ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Garfinkel 2 ^ | 85 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wu ^ | 85 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lee ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lee ^ | 86 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Koo ^ | 87 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Shimizu ^ | 88 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Janerich ^ | 90 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kalandidi ^! | 90 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wu-Williams ^ | 90 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Brownson 2 | 92 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Stockwell ^ | 92 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Fontham ^ | 94 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zaridze | 94 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 2 ^ | 95 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 2 ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Schwartz ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sun | 96 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wang T-J | 96 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jockel-BIPS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jockel-GSF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ko ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nyberg | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Boffetta (WHO) | 98 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Correa + |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat & Wyn ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat & Wyn ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Garfinkel 2 + | 85 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wu (+) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Akiba + | 86 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Gao ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Koo ^! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Pershagen ^ | 87 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Svensson ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Janerich ^ | 90 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sobue (^) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wu-Will(^)! | 90 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Brownson 2 ^ | 92 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Stockwell ^ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fontham ^ | 94 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zaridze | 94 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 2 ^ | 95 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 2 ^ | 95 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Sun | 96 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Wang T-J | 96 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jockel-BIPS | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jockel-GSF | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Ko ^ | 97 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Boffetta (WHO) | 98 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Garfinkel 2 | 85 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Lee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lee | 86 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Janerich |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stockwell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Fontham |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 2 (^) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kabat 2 (^) | 95 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Boffetta (WHO) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
^ = Figures from Final Report CA EPA 1997
! = Difference from Forces figures (usually slight, and not showing
any consistent bias)
+ = 1986 Surgeon General’s Report
( ) = derived/approximate…
(WHO) = taken directly from WHO study
Unmarked: roughly half the studies noted were not listed in either the California EPA report or the SGR. Figures for those are from FORCES (a “prosmoking” advocacy group.) For the 66 figures in which cross checking was possible a generally high level of agreement was found with CalEPA and the SGR so there is no reason to believe the FORCES figures are incorrect. Limiting the chart to only CalEPA and SGR figures would not change the general tendency of the findings.
Note: in the case of ranges the chart consistently chooses from
the middle or higher range of exposure for these figures. For example:
in the Janerich ’90 childhood study it uses the figure for up to 25 years
of childhood exposure of 1.09 rather than the 2.07 found for more than
25+ years, while in the Brownson 2 1992 study childhood exposure
would have shown a significant negative correlation if exposure was restricted
to smoking parents. Koo 87 “childhood” (actually co-habitant) figures
showed a similar effect: The midrange, which is in the chart, gives 1.73,
while the “heavy” exposure of two or more smoking co-habitants gives a
lower figure, 1.35. However in Fontham 94 the lower exposure
(1-17 co-habitant exposure) would have yielded a slightly higher (.99)
correlation than the higher exposure (18+ years) used (.88). Many
of the studies used differing coding schemes and studied different ranges/sources
of exposure. The figures used generally seek to highlight the middle,
or most reasonable ranges rather than highlight the anomalies in either
direction.
* = Studies indicating a NEGATIVE relationship of exposure to secondary smoke and lung cancer. In these studies, the people that WERE EXPOSED to secondary smoke averaged LOWER rates of lung cancer than those not exposed.
NS * = Reported by authors only as having no significant
relationship or a relationship indicating the SAME rates of lung cancer
(i.e. RR = 1.00) among those exposed to secondary smoke and those not exposed.
Journal Of The National Cancer Institute, Vol 90, 1440-1450, Copyright © 1998 by Oxford University Press
Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.
Authors: P Boffetta et al.
BACKGROUND: An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven Euran countries. METHODS: A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96). The OR for ever exposure to Spouse ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93- 1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative Spouse ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to Spouse or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to Spouse and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to Spouse and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
Copyright © 1998 Oxford University Press. <Emphasis added>
(Note that while the “author’s interpretation” of the childhood figures
was simply “no association”, these WERE in fact the only SCIENTIFICALLY
SIGNIFICANT results found. Imagine the publicity this study would
have received if the results had been in the opposite direction!
Note also that exposure from “other sources” {e.g. BARS AND RESTAURANTS!}
showed no association!)