Talk:Passive smoking/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Article Needs Cleaning Up

This is a horrible article that's totally biased. It reminds me of the global warming article in that respect. The tone of the article suggest that this is a closed debate, and no future insights will overturn any existing theories. I find this to be particually true for the death statistics. The citations to which they are linked to do not specify the methodology undergone to obatian the statistics and even cite previous stuides as the origin of their source data. Also the studies admittedly make no distinction between the degree and frequency of smoking (in other words someone who just smoked 5 or 6 cigarettes a day for 10 years is weighted the same as someone who smoked 2 packs a day for 45 years). I think it is somewhat strange that 28% of the people in the United States smoke and 64% of those people do not die from smoking related diseases. Yet somehow 20% of the smoking related deaths in the US are supposedly caused by 2nd hand smoke. Also, I do not think it is very likely that second hand smoke could cause such a great magnitude of death in the population when the smoke particles are absorbed in such realatively small concentrations when compared to the people actually smoking. This seems to be one of those articles that is partolled by people who feel too strongly on the subject and have too much emotional stock invested the views they have fashioned for themselves.

To deal with your concerns in turn:

(1) I'm sorry you feel that the article suggests the debate is closed, but you don't provide any suggestions for wording which could be changed to improve it in that respect, nor links to studies which might contradict the overwhelming weight of evidence that passive smoking is dangerous. Without those, your opinion of the article is just that - POV.

(2) Which articles are you referring to, please? All of the citations that I've looked at - and that's most of them - use standard survival or risk methodologies, and explain how they're used very clearly in the relevant sections. I picked two examples at random - Cantani & Micera (ref 9, PMID 15850141) and Taylor et al 2001 (ref 31 PMID 11494987). The former's a prospective study which presents its own data without leaning on previous stuff, and the latter's a standard meta-analysis which calculates relative risks with confidence intervals and explains how it does so in minute detail. However, if there are specific examples you have in mind, please say what they are.

(3) Studies will always "cite previous studies as the origin of their source data". That is a prerequisite of meta-analysis and indeed of any paper in order to outline the context into which it is released.

(4) Assessments of the amount smoked - the commonest in use is the pack year - are often used in studies of the direct effects of smoking, and indeed in clinical assessment of patients in a hospital setting, and in both settings they are useful. However, they are by no means accurate assessments of someone's smoking history, because people don't know themselves exactly how much they've smoked, and invariably underestimate the amount, particularly to their physicians. Asking someone who lived with a smoker to assess what sort of smoking history they'd been exposed to would add another element of estimation to something which is already an estimate - which isn't to say that it shouldn't be done, merely that these studies don't require it. They can demonstrate adverse health outcomes from exposure to passive smoking without assessing the amount of smoke exposure - so why do it? They can already show there are dangers there.

(5) What you think likely or unlikely in terms of death statistics is not a valid counterargument to the scientific and epidemiological data presented in the article.

(6) If you read the article carefully, it explains why passively inhaled smoke is more toxic than mainstream smoke, and links to research done by the tobacco companies which has proven exactly this point. Nmg20 12:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(1),(5) I didn't suggest any terms that should be reworded mainly because I've tried changing several "weasel-ish" words on this arcticle, but I always notice that any modifications are swiftly reverted, so i dont really see the point. Also I didn't cite any studies contradicting the "overwhelming evidence" because I personally don't know of any. Not to say that the studies cited in the article qualify as "overwhelming evidence," its just that most of these studies are funded with govt. grants (government science works just like the rest of government, majority rule, and anyone going against the grain and attempting to debunk existing theories can be sure that their funding will be cut) and by people who have an idea of what results they are looking for before they carry out their experiments, sadly a common occurance in science these days. Now, I also find it hard to get behind a study that postulates ideas like 'carcinogens are more dangerous in small amounts than in large ones.' The main reason I don't have much faith in these studies is that I don't see how someone can conclusively prove that someone died from second hand smoke. Most of these deaths are associated with heart disease (which the majority of people die of whether they smoke or not) and are people who are elderly, and in poor health to begin with. If someone dies of heart disease when they are 78 years old and they happened to live with a person who smoked, it is not to say that smoker was the cause of death... they're 78 years old. I think if 2nd hand smoke is to be attributed to someone as a cause of death, their death should be at least somewhat untimely.

(2),(3) The articles i was refering to were...

US Death Statistics - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_15.pdf

Percentage of Smokers in US - http://smokingsides.com/docs/stat.html

And what i was pointing out related to the 'previous studies' was that they are building upon previous 'data' that may or may not be reliable. Also the fact they are using meta-analysis techniques should be a red flag in itself. Those calculations are used to detect variations (risks) that are extremely low in the first place and would appear negligable when using % type statistics.

(4),(6) "They can demonstrate adverse health outcomes from exposure to passive smoking without assessing the amount of smoke exposure - so why do it?" That sounds like a very dangerous assumption. If we are talking about unstable isotopes causing rapid cell division in the body (and it is a known fact that the risk of disease and death increases with increasing dosage of particles), then this is the most important variable in the whole equation. Just because it is difficult to address, it should not be neglected. The biggest service these studies could do to the public would be to figure out, at least to some extent, where negligable doses end and dangerous ones begin. Call me crazy, but I think its just a little stupid to assume that any dose does harm no matter how small it is. As a matter of fact in studies related to radiation exposure is has been shown that it is not true that minute doses of carcinogens compound themselves over time.

This whole passive smoking theory sounds very inconclusive and I'd like you to show me one certificate of death that says 'Cause of Death: Passive smoking' on the bottom. I know it feels comforting to have faith in data and numbers, but you have to realize that the data we collect has real limitations and in this case it is definately being stretched to the limits of honest science.

All of this reads to me as if you don't like the conclusions of scientific research, and therefore have decided to offer your own, off the cuff, critique. If you're worried about Threshold Limit Values, maybe you could contribute there and see if you can bring something useful to bear here. JQ 08:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding - most people don't bother, so it's good of you to bring your concerns here rather than just slicing away at the article! I'm sorry your edits in the past have been reverted; all I can say is that in an article like this, which a lot of people have put a lot of work into getting NPOV and into ensuring that edit disputes are conducted in as friendly and reasonable as way as possible, edits which rub either side up the wrong way are likely to be reverted unless they're discussed here first, which is why I suggested you raise which bits you thought needed changing here.

I appreciate that you may not feel the studies cited in the article constitute "overwhelming" evidence, but they are evidence and in order to have the article changed to criticise them, you need to have studies offering evidence to the contrary. The same thing applied when the studies in there were added - no one putting the case for passive smoking as a health risk should have been coming in and saying "passive smoke kills" without citing their sources, and people certainly used to.

This is essentially the reason I don't think your concerns about government funding of these studies rendering them invalid can make it into the article - without evidence of individuals who have had their funding cut under the circumstances you describe, you're talking about adding what is essentially a conspiracy theory to the article. On top of that, I'd point out that a lot of the scientific work on the constituents of passive/sidestream smoke have come from tobacco company-funded work they were obliged to release into the public domain in courts of law. That undermines the idea that passive smoking is just the government pushing an agenda.

None of the studies are saying "carcinogens are more dangerous in small amounts than large ones". The work I was thinking of in particular here wasn't actually in this article, but in the Smoking ban article, so I've moved it across - it's the Schick & Glantz paper, which shows that part of the increased toxicity of sidestream smoke is because those actually inhaling get the (dubious) benefit of the filter, whereas those exposed to sidestream smoke don't. In other words, less carcinogens get into the lungs of the smoker (because some are trapped by the filter) than get into the atmosphere and thence the lungs of those around.

The US death statistics article you raise issues with I can't actually find in the article references - can you point out where it features? The paper itself actually gets its information from primary sources directly, i.e. from death certificates. The Smoking Sides page again I can't find referenced anywhere in the article, but appears to be a list of other sources rather than something doing any analysis of its own.

You may not like meta-analysis as a technique, but they're internationally accepted as the highest possible level of clinical evidence. The controversies you mention - over how to select which studies to include and which are poor science in the first place - are well-recognised, however.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Of course it would be ideal to measure actual exposure to passive smoke - but my point was and is that there is no valid way of doing that. If these studies did take an estimate of an estimate, you could reasonably legitimately simply criticise them for not measuring the exposure directly - which is so impractical as to be effectively impossible. Nor am I sure what your point is about ionising radiation; it's actually quite a good analogy, in that we have something which is known to be oncogenic, and so is restricted in usage. When it is used, for instance when someone is having an X-ray or is having radioiodine treatment, although the individual doses are "minute", everyone involved in treating the patient takes precautions (lead-lined aprons, isolation of the patient, etc) to prevent the increase in risk that is known to come from repeated exposure. It's quite a neat analogy: no one's suggesting that people having radioiodine therapy should be allowed to wander the streets giving off their tiny but dangerous doses of radiation, so why are people allowed to wander the streets smoking?

As I've said before, if you find the theory inconclusive, more power to you - but you'll need to find reputable scientific authorities who agree with you and have published to that effect before you can change the article to say so. Your point about death certificates is, rather like my radioiodine example, a bit wilfully stupid: death certificates for smokers don't say "smoking", they say "lung cancer", "COPD" or whatever on them. You are also free to criticise my "faith" in data and numbers - but spare me your assumptions that stems from my finding them "comforting"; I will acknowledge, however, that I find them a lot more comforting than the alternative. The limitations of meta-analysis and of scientific research are well-known and are taken into account in initial study design, by the appropriate ethics committees who review them, throughout the data collection period, by the editors of whatever journal they're published in, and then finally by whoever peer-reviews the paper prior to publication. You can't discount any individual paper on the subject of passive smoking unless you can show that there are specific methodological flaws in it, never mind the entire body of literature on the subject. Nmg20 14:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow

I did not think Wikipedia could get any worse, but this is the most POV piece of shit article I have ever read. Did the anti-smoking lobby groups write the whole thing? The only portion of the article that seems to offer any criticism is the section Enstrom and Kabat and even that is lacking. I don't smoke, so I do not have bias, but this is so unbalanced due to the very little 'opposing view' represented. Any opposite beliefs seems to attributed to 'big tobacco'. user:Pzg Ratzinger

Then try to rewrite it so it's neutral. That's what Wikipedia's all about. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that would work. If I were to bother to research it, it would all get reverted within a day. This is one of those articles that is policed by probably 20 different people. user:Pzg Ratzinger

Can you tell me a few parts of this article that make it biased and cite a sources to "balance" them? Wikipedia is not about a battle ground between smokers and non smokers (although a few months ago it looked quite like one). They'll not throw out anything you find because you didn't find something to disprove it, just make sure your source is credible. For example, secondhand smoke causes SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) is a fact and the source is the recent surgeon general's report. It doesn't have a counter-argument because there (likely) is none. It is just a fact with a credible (and neutrally funded) source. There is even a link to it, should you care to dispute it yourself. Nobody to this date has found and cited a legitimate argument that says passive smoking is harmless. Mohandas Gandhi once said, "You must be the change you wish to see in this world." In this case, rather than complaining about how biased the article is, then you must take the initiative to neutralize it - since it is clearly in dire need of immediate change, being the "most POV piece of..." you have ever read. Edits are freely allowed, as you must well know by now - By the way, please try to cut down on the profanities. --Smokeresearcher 02:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I infer that your disagreement is political rather than scientific, please note that political criticisms of Smoking bans are presented at some length in that article. One of the big problems with articles on contentious issues like this is that people seem to assume that their preferred political view is entitled to representation in articles that are about the scientific facts, not about the policy implications.JQ 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Political? Nope. I disagree with 90% of the article though, but I don't have a 'hidden agenda'. I don't smoke. And Smokeresearcher (yeah, with name like that I see where you stand on the issue. You work for the 'thetruth' right?), you aren't my dad, so don't tell me to cut down on 'the profanities'. Thing is, I am no expert on the topic, I don't follow the 'smoking debate' the bias is just notable to a casual observer of the page. user:Pzg Ratzinger

Would it be fair to summarize your position as follows?

• You think the article's "the most POV piece of shit article [you] have ever read". Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.
• You admit you haven't actually done any research into the dangers of passive smoking. "If I were to bother to research it,...".
• "I disagree with 90% of the article though, but I dont have a 'hidden agenda'. I don't smoke." You don't have a hidden agenda - but given that you're judging the article without, by your own admission, having researched it properly, you do have an agenda - you think it's a piece of shit and have come onto the talk page to tell us all so. You can be anti-smoking restrictions (I'm assuming you're not anti-acknowledging the dangers of passive smoking) without being a smoker yourself - the topic's covered in the smoking ban article.
• "And Smokeresearcher (yeah, with name like that I see where you stand on the issue. You work for the 'thetruth' right?)" I think it means he researches the effect of smoke on people's health.

Just about every claim in the article is backed up by references to peer-reviewed, independent, scientific articles published in respectable journals. Wikipedia's NPOV policy says that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." As this article stands, that's exactly what it does. If during the course of any research you manage to find time for you find evidence to the contrary, please do add it to the article - but as it stands it just isn't true to call the article POV. The scientific evidence of the dangers of passive smoking is overwhelming, and that's why the article highlights that position. Nmg20 15:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

By 'research' I mean something online I can cite. I have read numerous articles (and no, not ones paid for by Marlboro) that disagree with much of the content of this article (Or at least, contradict much of it). So maybe I have 'researched' by the larger standard but I wouldn't say I am at all ignorant on the topic. But I know it won't cut it for Wikipedia. Funny you should quote the NPOV policy. My opinion, which I know goes against the popular view here, is that the other side (Yes, I will go out and say it - the side I believe) is barely at all represented, and you dismiss it simply as "..The scientific evidence of the dangers of passive smoking is overwhelming, and that's why the article highlights that position. " So what you are saying, because in your view, the 'scientific evidence' is overwhelming, the other side is almost completely left out. Not NPOV at all. user:Pzg Ratzinger

"So what you are saying, because in your view, the 'scientific evidence' is overwhelming, the other side is almost completely left out. Not NPOV at all." Love the scare quotes around 'scientific evidence'. Perhaps we could have a section on unscientific and anti-scientific views of the topic, where your online articles could be included. Would that be satisfactory?JQ 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to cut down on the use of your foul language because it is not the tone for an encyclopedia. Many people come and read these articles, and if someone reads language and takes offense, they might not be inclined to return to Wikipedia. I am not telling you how to live your life or be your "mother". It looks to me like you are trying to discredit all of what I cited based on my username. No, I do not work for Truth. I have had some involvement with anti-tobacco groups, and looked over the research very carefully (at times, even found it on my own, hence my username), but had very little to do with Truth (I once met some of the people responsible for the campaign). By your own method, I could say that you're just bound to work for R. J. Reynolds because of the spin you are trying to throw on my username to discredit all I say. It doesn't matter who it is that posts to Wikipedia, as long as they cite legitimate sources (not sponsored by a tobacco company, made by a bunch of smokers angry about a smoking ban that just passed in their area, or a site for people who poke fun at and try to discredit modern science). If you can find some contradicting evidence out there, then go ahead and cite it. If it is a legitimate source, it won't be deleted. If it's vandalized, it will soon be recovered. Please keep your flaming to a minimum though. --Smokeresearcher 06:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone with a minute of spare time, please look over the following

The first line of the "Studies of Passive Smoking" section has some sort of typo and/or vandalism. I'm not sure what it's supposed to say, but there is definitely something wrong.--Cotixan 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I will, but you're awfully quick to claim both typo and vandalism. I've seen your type before...okay...It's either typo or vandalism, and it can't be both, and I doubt one small thing is the latter.--OleMurder 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

he never said it was definetely both. "and/or" means it could be both, or it could just be the one of them.Dbalsdon 08:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

>>Anyone think that the line in the intro section, "Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and/or disability.[1][2][3][4]" is a bit 'anti-smoker' biased? This is an article about ETS (or second-hand smoke, or passive smoke, or whatever you wanna call it), and the abovementioned line should either state "Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to PASSIVE tobacco smoke causes death, disease and/or disability.[1][2][3][4]", or be removed completely. I don't know if many would argue that smoking is bad for you, but this isn't an article about smoking, it's an article about Passive Smoking, and should remain as such.

Also, in the same line, there is ABSOLUTELY no credible evidence that smoking *CAUSES* death, disease, or disability. It's likely that the original writer of that line meant that the *RISK* of these things rises when exposed to tobacco smoke. A completely unbiased meta-analysis study is extraordinarily difficult to pull off, especially in such a politically-charged topic, without bias creeping in. 170.98.106.254 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's anti-smoking, not anti-smoker. Second, I think it was suppossed to be passive smoking, but I'll check the sources later on to be certain. Third, there is credible evidence that smoking causes disease and death, but I'm not sure about disabilities (other than asthma and gangrene). The sources are later on in the article. --Smokeresearcher 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I could see an argument for what you say - "...passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes..." would be a better wording (it's the exposure that's passive, not the smoke). Removing the line I'd disagree with absolutely, however.

Why? There is a wealth of credible evidence that smoking causes death, disease, and disability - there has been some confusion recently in this and similar articles about the concept of risk. You're quite right that increased risk for an individual doesn't equate to definite causation - but an increased risk in a population does. If the risk of e.g. MIs in a hundred people exposed to passive smoke is 1 in 10 (it isn't - this is an example!) vs. 1 in 40 in those not exposed, the passive smokers are at an increased risk, yes, but passive smoke has also caused an extra 7.5 heart attacks in those exposed to passive smoke. Your points about meta-analyses are fair enough - but the ones that make it to scientific journals are peer-reviewed to avoid bias, and Wikipedia policy states that they're therefore valid sources.

On the disability front, tobacco smoke both active and passive causes COPD and a large number of other chronic illnesses - these qualify as disability (e.g. COPD sufferers who have to have home oxygen and can't climb stairs, etc.) Nmg20 09:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is better passive smoking or second hand smoking?

Passive smoking is known to be called second hand smoke. I made searches in WHO-Web site. When I searched with the words "passive smoking," 3000 articles were found. With the words "second hand smoking," 7480 articles were found. And when I searched with the words "passive smoke," 2590 articles were found. On the other hand, with the words "second hand smoke," 5080 articles were found.

Is the words "second hand smoking" better for the title of this page than "passive smoking" ?

I would suggest that Environmental Tocacco Smoke would be a better title, since it is more precisely descriptive and a neutral expression. Second Hand Smoking and Passive Smoking are both designed to be pejorative. For that reason, ETS should be used.--Sudont 18:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a functional difference between the terms: Environmental Tobacco Smoke is just there, but Passive Smoking or Second Hand Smoking implies that it is inhaled by a nonsmoker. I favor the current title.--Zamia12 15:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Google's verdict: ...1 440 000 for "passive smoking". ...84 800 for "second-hand smoking".

WINNER: PASSIVE SMOKING. Settled! Breathe in the air, second hand smoke...--OleMurder 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction to OleMurder's carefully constructed google search:

Google's Verdict:
Results 1 - 10 of about 50,800,000 for second hand smoking.
3,450,000 for "second hand" +smoking
5,610,000 for "second hand" smoking
78,000 for "second hand smoking"

5,750,000 for passive smoking
1,390,000 for "passive smoking"

the proper variations must be accounted for to make such a verdict, i would hope.

Criticism removed

Looks like someone (68.100.238.219) is trying to remove any criticism on ETS science from this page. This needs to be a balanced page, not an anti-smoking ad!

And this is balanced right now? It certainly wasn't before, but it hasn't gotten any better (the only difference being that it's shifted in favor of the other side.)

It was not my intent to remove all criticisms of ETS science. I edited portions in an effort to better reflect accepted scientific consensus on ETS. 68.100.238.219

-- 'scientific consensus' is no science. It's science contaminated with political/financial interests. No objectivity guaranteed.

Consensus by non-politicized studies is that there are -no- dangerous effects of passive smoking in the long term for non-asthmatics. That's right militant anti-smokers, i'll be editing the controversy section soon with citied sources in the next couple of days. Also, should there be a section in the article about the rise of the second-hand smoke buzzword in the early to mid-nineties? Not sure how relevant it is to the topic at hand and it may take away from the NPOV of the atricle, it could on the other hand provide a useful perspective on the term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Adding of sources would, of course, be welcome. I personally would love to see a history section added, I don't think a history section would detract from NPOV at all. ONUnicorn 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit?

Penn & Teller: Bullshit had a rather interesting take on Second Hand Smoke (Session 1 Episode 5 -- occassionally aired on SHOUTCast Internet TV, search for "Bullshit"), debunking various claims (in particular, stating that the EPA study was revealed to have been made up on the spot and the WHO study showing the opposite conclusion of what the press releas claimed). While I don't think an American TV show is the most trustworthy source of information, they seemed to have a point.

Anybody know whether the facts have changed since the original airing of that show?

Since the risks of active smoking are commonly blown out of proportion (which, of course, doesn't make it non-harmful to the smokers) I wouldn't be surprised if most of the anti-smoking hysteria is really only based on strong feelings against smoking (i.e. people who don't like smoking and feel offended by other people smoking).

PS: I'm a non-smoker, but that doesn't make me as much of a psycho as some of the 'Merkins that have apparently started the whole anti-passive-smoking trend. -- Ashmodai 11:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's still BS. Here's another analysis, this by Cecil Adams. Sudont 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No government report is "made up on the spot". They are extensively, exhaustively, even tediously reviewed, by layers of people. The 1992 EPA report was reviewed by 2 sets of outside scientists: [[1]]. I know nothing about Penn and Teller but this claim is incredible.Zamia12 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

ow really? how about the federal court's rulling that this study "cherry picked" it's data and abolish scientific norm? how about the drug nad or alcohol prohibition? scientist use their methology and the govement officals regard what they see feat.

Please add the above information from penn and teller's to this article.(12.5 people out of a million die of smoking related cancer a year, reseaerchers caleld this statistically insigificant) --Procrastinating@^talk2me 10:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Having seen the passive smoking episode, I think Penn and Teller made a very, very good argument. If anyone has the episode transcript I think it would be beneficial to this article to add some of their findings to it because it really doesn't give the opposition argument justice and they really do have quite a bit of amo. More so than the pro smoking ban side in my opinion.

With respect, I'm not sure a comedy double act are the sort of source we should be citing in an encylopaedia, however good and/or well-intentioned the episode. Nmg20 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen the episode, and the fact that they don't conduct a scientifically valid study, this doesn't really belong amongst respected journal articles by scientists. --Bwabes 09:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

They aren't respected or credible studies. The rest of the scientific community and the United States Supreme Court have made that abundantly clear. CodyM 20:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do criticise individual studies listed in the references (which someone appears to have made a mess of - I will sort it out) and explain why they're not credible. Blanket statements like the one you've made aren't helpful, and the response of the scientific community to the Enstrom & Kabat article (as referenced in the article) made their view that passive smoking is a health risk abundantly clear. Nmg20 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But they had some very credible experts (some of whomb had no agenda) explain how how the studies cited so often were themselves not scientifically valid. The show presented a very blunt straight forward argument against smoking bans and sums up many of the main arguments of the movement against said bans. I see no reason why the episode cannot be used as a source for the rebuttal section, which needs to be severely epanded to even this articles bias out. The Cecil Adams article cited above would also make a good source as the author has no pro smoking agenda.

That episode was terrible - I was actually interested after they pointed out that the only two studies done had been discredited - but they then fail to mention that the court decision that found the study invalid was overturned, and that there are in fact many other studies. They clearly weren't interested in pointing out the facts, just what they wanted. --Iorek85 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What they actually said (which is true) is that virtually all of the studies conducted since those two have directly referred to data collected from and/or conclusions cited by those two, which means that disproving those two automatically makes the rest of them questionable.

Also, the decision was overturned on a debatable technicality; the "overturning" did not call into question the fact that the EPA cherry-picked their data to support a pre-formed conclusion, it just said that the Judge didn't have the power of oversight over the EPA.

216.220.57.164 17:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)sean

FYI: The Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode was made before it was widely known that Cato Institute adjunct scholar Steven Milloy (now former adjunct scholar) was being paid by the tobacco industry to promote their opinions. P&T just got hookwinked. These "expert's" were paid to attack and concentrate attention on the weak evidence for a low rate of lung cancer deaths attributable to ETS in an effort to distract attention from the very strong evidence for a high rate of non-cancer illness and death attributable to ETS. For more see:

 http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter41.html#smoke
 http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter61.html#4
 http://www.davehitt.com/blog/skeptic.html
 http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

To paraphrase from one of the Skeptic's Dictionary links above: One of the experts claims that to prove a causal relationship between smoking and some illness, you would need a "relative risk" greater than 2. By this unreasonable standard, 80% to 120% of all smokers would have to die from cardiovascular disease to prove that smoking causes cardiovascular disease! Farcast 05:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics can never, ever, prove anything. They merely indicate the probability that there is a coloration between a thing/behavior and an illness. Even an RR of 6.0 (600%) doesn’t prove a connection, it simply says there is a strong probability of a connection. This is why legitimate epidemiologists like to see an RR of 2.0 to 3.0 before getting excited.

SHS studies (which are almost always funded by anti-smoker organizations) show probabilities of 1.15 to 1.3, which is barely on the edge of what can be measured with statistics.

First learn to sign your posts Hittman6, second SHS is a WELL KNOWN and undeniably cause of illnesses - the only people who deny it are A) paid shills for the tobacco industry and B) self-centered smokers who don't want to admit they're infringing the rights of others

Keep your POV, protecting-your-infringing-practice, shit out of here. Perhaps you should pay attention to the mathmatics of those numbers ot the person above that shows just a "2" goes above 100% of people making the numbers you cite impossible and your entire post bullshit lie. Wikipedia doesn't accept inaccurate entries from the paid shills of corporations. This page is on my watch list and any vandalism by you will be dealt with swifty. Lordkazan 14:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You clearly seem to have a chip on your shoulder rather than an interest that this article is scientifically correct. Wikipedia shouldn't accept whiny rhetoric by anti-smokers as fact either. Mixino1 20:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn’t be so keen to display your ignorance of statistics. Might I suggest visiting The Facts to gain some understating? An RR of 2.0 indicates an increase in risk, not that that 200% of the people are affected. Sheesh. And it's a pitty that, in your ignorance, you insist that facts are vandalism - Hittman6 (happy?)

You've missed the point being made above, which is that given that the proportion of all people eventually affected by cardiovascular disease is 40 to 60 per cent, RR of 2 for smokers would require that 80 to 120 per cent be affected. In any case, your claim about RR>2 being standard is false, and can be traced to well-known hack Steven Milloy. Read the Wikipedia article Relative risk, before making claims like this, and especially before accusing others of ignorance of statistics. JQ 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You don’t understand Relative Risk.

In the age group the Vioxx was deisgned for, the risk of getting a heart attack or stroke was 1 in 1,000. Among users that used it for 18 months or more, the risk was 3 in 1,000, creating an RR of 3.0. The RR is 300%, but that doesn’t mean people more than 100% of the people who take it will be affected.

The 2.0 rule of thumb did not come from Milloy. He was simply repeating what real epidemiologists had said:

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine" "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

"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 that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute

"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm - Dave Hitt - Hittman6

You should be very careful before taking anything from Milloy, either directly or via John Brignell. The Angell quote has been cut to remove crucial clauses making it clear she is talking about single studies proposing new cancer risks with no biomedical basis. The risks of passive smoking have been confirmed by numerous studies and the biomedical basis is clear - tobacco smoke is the most important single carcinogen known to us.

I agree that Farcast doesn't understand the first thing about relative risk---and by the look of things, neither does Milloy. A 100% increase in risk does NOT mean that 100% of smokers would die. (This is an unbelieveably simple-minded and ignorant misapprehension of data, and anyone who betrays it has basically disqualified his comments from serious consideration.) A 100% increase in relative risk applies to the initial risk factor: eg, if an American has 0.5% lifetime risk of lung cancer, then an RR of 100% would increase that lifetime risk to 1.0%. Get it?

NPOV

There is a very selected reading of the evidence in this article. Many physician organizations have spoken-out again it[2] [3][4] and there is broad agreement that it is associated with harm, both from epidemiological perspective and a toxicological one. The article looks like it was written by a tobacco lobbyist. Nephron 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted some of the most clearly unsourced and NPOV claims, but the article needs a lot more work.JQ 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Started POV

When I first saw this article, it was completely from the POV of anti-smoking, with factual errors, selectively omitted informtion, and gross POV misinterpretation of study results showing a basic lack of understanding of statistics. The Osteen decision was derided by inserting the fact that he was previously a tabacco lobbyist, although his neutrality can't be honestly questioned since he has also ruled against the tobacco industry in another important case (whether it is a drug that can be regulated by the FDA). It also had a "Tobacco industry vs. everyone else" tone.

We are now in the process of achieving a balance, although there was apparently a reactionary swing in the other direction. It appears there is now a swing the other way since the paragraph on the WHO study showing no significant link has been cut.

I'll work on it when I find the time. I think the page needs to show the issue isn't settled, and show how agenda-driven studies are on both sides. Should probably put the studies with the basic criticism and facts in one place, and show (but not argue) the debate, naming all the players.

The claim that "the issue isn't settled" should be supported by reference to scientific studies, not the vagaries of US Court Decisions. The Osteen stuff should be in a section on political controversy. Certainly the Osteen decision fits into a "Tobacco industry vs everyone else" view, since the case was part of a campaign by the tobacco industry. JQ 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Osteen’s decision wasn’t some "vagarie of the court." It was a very specific 92 page document outlining significant fraud by the EPA.

Osteen's decision was overturned, so I would say "vagaries of US court decisions" is an apt description of the process as a whole, whichever side of it you take. JQ 22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It was only overturned because the case shouldn't have been handled by the court. The overturn did not touch the content of the decision....

I'd say it's far more than "apparent" that it has shifted to the other side. This page has turned into a battle ground between "pro-smokers" and "anti-smokers," and it needs to be cleaned up.

• "Secondhand smoke" is pure bunk. It's a myth. I don't smoke, but I'm smart enough to know that the only risk of cancer that one has is if one smokes his or herself. (Ibaranoff24 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

• Is this your personal opinion? Why does this correlate with being smart? Where's the studies/evidence backing it up? This discussion appears to be taking the wrong tack. In science, there is not a balance. There is a right and a wrong answer. That's how science works. This article should listen to science, and while it should list LEGITIMATE criticisms from respected sources, i.e. university professors or researchers for organizations that do not sell tobacco, personal criticisms and non-expert testimony should not be included, as it is clearly subjective and not backed by research.--Bwabes 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• All personal opinions aside... please feel free to go and do a search for review articles (the highest level of medical evidence) about passive smoking in Medline. I can tell you right now for free that the consensus of the medical literature is that ETS does have several adverse health effects in both the long and short term. There are also no new articles published about it since 2003... if there even was a scientific argument about the facts then people would be publishing papers about it, the fact is that the scientific community are in agreement. So if you are challenging the scientific basis of the claim that passive smoking is harmful please come up with something more concrete than the consensus of the literature of the medical community. --Condolini 16:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And the reason couldn't possibly be that there's no money out there to fund a study that could possibly dis-prove one of the most popular health myths of the 20th century.... CodyM 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no it couldn't. The tobacco companies are very wealthy and have poured lots of money into efforts to fight restrictions on smoking, including funding sympathetic scientists (see the note on Enstrom and Kabat in the article, for example). If their efforts had produced anything worthwhile, they and their agents would have trumpeted it, as they did with E&K. JQ 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a very poor circular argument. You are saying that if the only place you can get funding from is tobacco companies (because your research is not supportive of the position of the typical research sponsors), then your findings are false. The evidence is that there is no evidence ETS causes lung cancer. You can't trumpet that because it is saying the null hypothesis is proven i.e. there is nothing to talk about. You seem to think the PT Barnum approach is more valuable than the research approach - shout about inconsequential differences and cause worry. Furthermore, cigarette sales go up when bans come in. It isn't exactly in the interests of a tobacco company to oppose something that makes their sales go up. Never let facts or logic get in the way of a PC rant though. Mixino1 20:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

An awful lot of the so-called "anti-smoking" studies are government-funded. Given that they lose out economically by publishing data suggesting smoking is bad for you, perhaps you can explain why these typical research sponsors have a vested interest in being anti-smoking? I assume you've never been involved in scientific research: if you had, you'd know that when the funding has no strings attached, you're aiming at testing objective scientific fact.

The rest of your rant above is just a series of unreferenced claims. There's plenty of evidence in the article to show that ETS causes lung cancer: references 8 through 17 demonstrate *precisely* this point. By contrast, there is no evidence whatever that cigarette sales go up when bans come in, and the wealth of tobacco industry documents outlining their attempts to prevent smoking bans suggest that the people who sell cigarettes disagree with you. Your claim that they don't try to oppose smoking bans is risible - go to http://www.pmdocs.com and you will find thousands of articles saying the exact opposite to you, and published by Philip Morris, which I believe is the largest tobacco company in the world. Otherwise, nice post. Nmg20 22:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that whenever I look for said studies, the only places I can find them are extremely biased websites which derive their income from selling anti-smoking information? I don't consider a website whose sole financial support comes from anti-smokers to be non-biased. (Other than the ones relating to more provable claims, such as smoking around children with asthma being bad.)

Can I suggest having a look at Pubmed [5]? Many of the studies referenced in the article are available there for free. I understand what you're saying, though, and any sources cited on anti-smoking websites need re-sourced or got rid of - as is the case for pro-smoking sources, of course. Nmg20 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How about the American Legacy Foundation? They have a nice collection of fact sheets with cited sources. This comment was added by User:Smokeresearcher at 22:14 on 6th September 2006. Four tildes, like this ~~~~ will sign your name and datestamp.

In my opinion, those factsheets look excellent, and the references are just the sort of thing we could usefully add to the article. Nmg20 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Helena

We need to remove the reference to the Helena study from this page as it is complete BS. Read expert Michael Siegel's comments on it: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/04/challenge-issued-to-anti-smoking_10.html

This blog post does not reference the Helena study or its authors. I'm restoring the Helena section.--Bwabes 23:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you people even arguing about? The fact is that smoking does not carry any health benefits. The reason people like smoking is because the nicotine relaxes them or they like the taste; not because it cures cancer! You shouldn't use your own opinion on this site; just facts.If you write something never claim it as fact. If you want to show commonly accepted points of views and statistics, you should write as "The commonly accepted view is". If you have found something that contridicts the normal accepted view write " This is disputed by". Don't try to convert people to your side by providing them possibly false information. The truth is you will never truly know the answers. If you can't accept that, you should be using a different site. Repku 19:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh man.. I got to hot headed about something I read and forgot to read the rest of please don't hurt me.. Repku 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ending POV

The article's been fairly static for some time now. Would anyone object if we took the POV tag off? If so, can you highlight which areas need adjustment? Nmg20 08:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's in pretty good shape JQ 11:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Pull the POV Tag Lordkazan 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

One More POV

Since the specific methodological problems/flaws with the Enstrom and Kabat reasearch are listed, I think it would be appropriate to do the same for the EPA study, which does not actually specify its statistical flaws. -Hellkyte

Could we discuss those here first, please? I added the methodological problems with the Enstrom and Kabat research, and they are all referenced from reputable journals. I've not seen or heard of any similarly published, credible criticism of the EPA study, and I have read e.g. Enstrom and Kabat's own responses to the criticism of their own article, although of course if such evidence does exist it should be added. Nmg20 21:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you want to consider this: Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research --83.153.23.161 13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC) -pal

Sure. The laughably-named "Scientific Integrity Institute" has as its president and (as far as I can make out from the website) also its sole member, none other than James Enstrom! It gives as its aims a series of laudable-sounding desires to critically assess and defend epidemiological research; the only actual research it defends is, er, Dr. Enstrom's own research.

So, my considered opinion is that it's pathetic, and more to the point that it is just about as far from meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria as it is possible for any article to be. Nmg20 11:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Politically Charged Terms

Expressions like "second-hand smoke" and "passive smoking" are politically charged terms. The preferred and politically neutral expression is "environmental tobacco smoke". In fact, I'd say much of the article rightly belongs under "Environmental Tobacco Smoke", and that the Passive Smoking article should be a discussion of the term itself, along with the other politically charged terms like Second-Hand Smoke, etc... The way it is set up now, ETS is, rightly so, a disambiguation page, but the link to "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" redirects you to "Tobacco Smoking", which doesn't discuss ETS at all. It seems to me that there should be an "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" page, containing the article now entitled "Passive Smoking", with a link to the political terms under the "Passive Smoking" page, and discussing them as such. After all, "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" is the preferred, neutral, "scientific" term, if you will, for what we're talking about. As it is, it's politically slanted in the anti-smoking direction.

This seems reasonable enough to me JQ 22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

“Preferred” by whom? -Ahruman 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Preferred by people without a political agenda. Expressions like "second-hand smoke" were designed to be pejorative. An encyclpœdia is, ideally, neutral, dispassionate, and scientific.

"Junk science" is also a politcally charged term, created by people working for the tobacco industry and then enthusiastically adopted by anti-environmentalists, especially "Greenhouse skeptics."

I had no idea that "secondhand smoke" or "passive smoking" were politically loaded or that "environmental tobacco smoke" was even a term before I saw this. As a way of settling this issue, try looking up "secondhand smoke," which is the term I'm most familiar with myself, or "passive smoking," if you prefer that term, at www.dictionary.com; you'll find 3 entries for each, and no tag denoting that they are offensive. Then look up "environmental smoke" or "environmental tobacco smoke" at the same site, and you'll see that neither one has an entry in the dictionary. I can only conclude from this that E.T.S. isn’t encyclopedic because it isn’t standard English. I have no special grudge against those who do or do not smoke, but I’ll admit that I am tired of political correctness impeding the simple transfer of information and turning free discussion into an emotional minefield. Harkenbane 01:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

the scientific literature uses the terms "involuntary smoking", "passive smoking" and "sidestream smoke". Anlace 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought sidestream smoke referred only to the smoke coming from the cigarette (or pipe, cigar, whatever) itself, as opposed to the smoke exhaled by the smoker. Mainly used when a distinction between the two sources is useful or necessary. Both sidestream and exhaled smoke would be components of second hand, passive, or environmental, or whatever you want to call it smoke. ONUnicorn 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unicorn, your distinction is totally correct. cheers. Anlace 19:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the amount of BS on this site. yes BS.

Dave T: I would not accept at face value the proposition that any term noted above is more or less politically charged than any of the others. Proving this would take a detailed analysis of the origins of the terms and how the words in them are used in a number of contexts. I'd suggest this objection based on neutrality be removed until that analysis is done and it shows that there is in fact a lack of neutrality.

Meh, how is second hand smoke politically charged? I sense BS. Anyways the majority of the people looking for information on the subject will most likely search for "second hand smoke". I think at least a redirect should be in place. Xaios 06:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to say that the term "second hand smoke" in and of itself gives the impression that the smoking is being done without a personal choice (you choose to smoke around me, therefore I am exposed to your second hand smoke wether I like it or not). Likewise, I think it is reasonable to say that the term "passive smoking" gives the impression of no risk and no reason for concern. In this way, proponents and opponents of this issue have and often do use these terms when speaking their opinions. With that said, the National Center For Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the American Heart Association, the National Safety Council all refer to it as "environmental tobacco smoke" or "ETS." My opinion is that ETS is a safe, non-politcally charged term that is preferable to "second hand smoke." The argument that more people will search for "second hand smoke" should be irrelevent, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a popular phrase database.

I have to agree. Environmental tobacco smoke is the scientifically neutral term. The number of Google hits is completely irrelevant.

EtaKooramNahSmech 10:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Below are the hits obtained with the various terms when used as search keys on PubMed/Medline. We will probably all agree that PubMed/Medline hits are better criteria of scientific acceptability than Google hits:

Term	Hits
involuntary smoking	63
secondhand smoke (*)	419
environmental tobacco smoke	1899
passive smoking	2121

(*) Two variants were used for the search: secondhand smoke (259 hits), second-hand smoke or second hand smoke (160 hits)

It seems therefore that the smoke itself (the substance) is much more often designated environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS, than secondhand smoke within the scientific community. Therefore, ETS seems to be the preferred term for Wikipedia use. This term has a long history which hardly makes it completely void of political connotations, as it was coined by the tobacco industry (back in the 70s) and has been since then their favorite term. However, concerning exposure to ETS (the phenomenon, not the substance), passive smoking appears to be the favorite term among the scientific community.

--86.211.207.91 18:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that while your numbers are correct, they also include letters and responses to articles. This would tend to skew the data. It is also notable that MedlinePlus directs all search terms to "secondhand smoke." If you wish to revisit Google, "secondhand smoke" is now the clear winner. (1,060,000 to 1,170,000.)

Also interesting is the claim that the term "environmental tobacco smoke" was coined by the tobacco industry. It is a popular statement used on anti-smoking websites, yet sources who disagree claim the term was invented by the anti-tobacco movement.

The one paper I could find with a reference to "coined by the tobacco industry" led to a footnote which said nothing of the kind. Whether this was by accident or design, one can only speculate.

Due to conflicting data, I personally am unable to form a conclusion on the coinage of any term. In the end, it hardly matters. A wiki search ends up here, and the title is one of the smallest problems with this article.

EtaKooramNahSmech 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I changed the style of citations to a more acceptable superscript style.

We need citations for the section on risks to pets. I've added links where I think we need them.

Also concerning this section, I'm a bit dubious on the following

Quotes:

This indicates that the risk of developing cancer from second-hand smoke may be greater for cats than for humans, including children. ONE POSSIBLE REASON (emphasis added) is that the cat receives the cancer-causing agents both by inhaling and by grooming, or IT MAY (emphasis added) caused by factors unrelated to ETS.

THIS IS BECAUSE, IN THEORY, (emphasis added) a dog with a long nose has an extra filtering system in its nose, so it is more likely to develop nasal cancers, but because of this extra filtering system, tobacco smoke is less likely to reach its lungs and cause cancer there.

The emphasised parts are totally ridiculous. They maybe true, but we need citations. "This is because, in theory" does not not even make sense. It begins by implying it's a fact (This is because), then adds in theory, which shows it is not a fact. I have as much trouble with this statement as I do with people who say It's a fact, I think. I'm tempted to remove these all together, unless citations from a respectable source can back these up. Links for the reports should be easy to find, but this theorizing on why it may cause it has no place here.

Thanks - Welshy 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation links at the top of page

I propose that the red disambiguation links to a Sublime album and single be removed. They are not serving any purpose, and are unsightly. Also, the see also links should be moved to the proper space. GilliamJF 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I've removed them. The song link (Second-hand smoke) was poorly done, and I can't find a reference to the song on the Twiztd wiki page - Welshy 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave Hitt original research

I have re-added the Dave Hitt link that critisizes the EPA/WHO report. It is not original research, but an examination of the studies.

If the person who removed the link can present an argument why it is original research, then please provide it.

Thanks - Welshy 13:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

An examination of studies, published on a personal website, constitutes original research in that "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" WP:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F

If you want to use this material go back to the published studies, and cite them.JQ 23:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I put the link back on, and it was removed. There is information there that the anit-smokers don't want seen.

If you'd like, I can post entire pages from the site, as they do contain the requested links. But I think a link to it is more approprate. - Dave Hitt

A single source for every original study published concerning passive smoking

As noted, quoting sites like this (private websites summarising research from a tendentious viewpoint) is an important example of the things prohibited by WP:No original research. Please be sure not to include material from this or similar sites in Wikipedia, unless the organisation being cited is notable in itself, and the material is labelled as describing its views (not the case for FORCES.org, which manages one hit on Google. JQ 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Ok, sorry for the delay, but here's the begining of my rewrite. What follows is an illumination to my removal :)

1) environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)

That's the stuff you inhale, not the act of doing so (same for second-hand smoke)

2) Carcinogens that occur in secondhand tobacco smoke include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, benzo[a]pyrene, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and many others.

The source was in german, and I can't read german. Seeing as this is the English wikipedia, I removed it. Also, possible NPOV with the use of the word many

3) Numerous studies have suggested that passive smoking can be harmful to human health. The majority of the adverse health effects of ETS, such as reduced lung capacity, are extremely exaggerated, based on studies, funded by anti-smoking groups, that show effects so low they are barely measurable. Some research suggests that the risk of death from ETS is lower than otherwise predicted.[citation needed]

Seemed pretty irrelavent as much of that is expressed in the article to follow. Also, all of it is unsourced and obviously pov.

More to follow - Welshy 03:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Headaches?

No one argues against the fact that passive smoking causes headaches in many people. Shouldn't that be stated in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbaer (talk • contribs)

Uhm, no. Stand nearby a smoky fireplace and you'll experience the same thing. It's not related to the tabacco, but the smoke itself (it probably also has partially to do with the lack of oxygen in smokey air or something to that effect).

You could also add that passive smoking can cause your eyes to get a bit dry and irritated. Or that burning cigarettes are hot (litterally, the tip of a lit fag can burn through things or set them on fire).

And while we're stating the bloody obvious already, let's also add a note on George W Bush that he is a human being with two eyes, a nose, mouth and central nervous system.

But seriously, filling a closed room with smoke will cause headaches in people no matter WHAT you're burning. Most people, however, don't just spontaneously develop headaches just because someone in their vague viscinity is smoking in an outdoor environment. And if they do, they either have a serious health condition they should see a doctor about or a serious mental condition they should see a shrink about.

Blowing smoke into someone's face (which can cause headaches, even outdoors) is always considered rude, just like farting into someone's face or spitting in their general direction.

Even as a non-smoker I think including a notion like this would not exactly improve the article -- it would look more like someone tried to come up with reasons smoking is evil and just couldn't be bothered to try anymore. — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)}

A doctor would like to have a discussion with you about that - because I am perfectly healthy and can run a 6-minute mile and have had more health tests done on me than you're ever likely to have in your entire life [so that i know i'm 100% healthy] and I get headaches pretty fucking fast from open air exposure - probably has something to do with the fact that the threshold of sensory perception is WAAAAY above the threshold of toxicity for ETS. (Reason why I had all those tests is because my father was a research patient in familiar hyperparathyroidism and they were trying to determine if I had inherited the gene) Lordkazan 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but passive smoking gives me headaches. It didn't when I was a kid, but it does now and I know I'm not alone. Since the most recent controversial smoking laws regard smoke-filled rooms in restaurants, bars, pool halls, etc., this is highly relevant. I don't mind standing upwind from a smoker outside on a windy day - as I have many times - but I certainly mind being in the same room as one and getting a headache because the right to smoke is more respected than the right to not be harmed by someone else's intentional act. Whether the cause is tobacco, ash, or toxins really doesn't concern me, but the fact that this harm done by passive smoking is little-discussed is quite puzzling if it is, as you say, "bloody obvious." As is the fact that fireplaces, unlike smokers, have chimneys attached. Calbaer 21:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Allergies, Asthma

These more common and less controversial effects of second-hand smoke are not discussed in this article at all. The article is over-focused on the controversy surrounding studies which attempt to demonstrate the long term, more serious effects of second-hand smoke, such as cancer. Perhaps a section should be added on short-term effects?

I've added more on asthma. The source could be used to improve the discussion of short-term effects

-----

I would like to dispute any reference to asthma and smoking links short of further presentation of studies. I was involved in the USC Studies on asthma ( I suffer chronic Asthma ) and there is a documented link between a sharp decrease in the frequency, duration and strength of my asthma attacks and my uptake in cigarette smoking, as well as a large number of other smokers.

Cigarette Smoking has been shown to effectively supress asthma attacks through stopping the Hyperventilation reflex involved, the inreased carbon monoxide and dioxide levels are similar to the paper bag trick.

Cigarette Smoking has been shown to effectively supress asthma attacks through stopping the Hyperventilation reflex involved, the inreased carbon monoxide and dioxide levels are similar to the paper bag trick. - bullshit, source citation pls. tobacco smoke is an asthma trigger AND cause Lordkazan 20:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Any reference to ETS in http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1697143.stm ? And what about the fact that, although smoking (and therefore exposure to ETS) has dropped tremendously in the last 30 years, the number of asthma cases are still raising rapidly? So, it cannot be a cause...

You are joking, right? The fact that asthma has multiple causes is well known and not in dispute here. JQ 23:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not joking at all, because you might be an asthma patient, and if you would laugh, that's not good for an asthma patient, is it? It's rated in the top 5 of triggers for asthma. Why don't we ban laughing as well? This could prevent a lot more asthma attacks than banning smoking.

Um, excuse me? Cigarette smoke is definitely an asthma trigger, and anyone who says otherwise is being deliberately obtuse or trying to sell you something. I've had asthma since infancy, and I can say with total certainty that cigarette smoke is one of the worst triggers to be around. One whiff is all I need to lapse into an attack, and I've met many other asthma sufferers who agree with me. Science also agrees with me. --Lady Voldything 23:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be extra sensible for it. On the other side I know people who have taken up smoking to fight against their asthma attacks. An asthma expert once told me it's a bad thing for patients to avoid triggers because their asthma will get worse. But this is not the place to discuss this.

PASSIVE SMOKE CAUSES/TRIGGER MY ASTHMA?

RISK FACTORS FOR ACUTE EXACERBATION OF SYMPTOMS - American Lung Association/American Thoracic Society International Conference Day 1 - April 25, 1999 "Passive cigarette smoke often has been thought to increase the risk of active asthma, but studies to date have not demonstrated this association convincingly.

American Lung Association/American Thoracic Society International Conference Day 1 - April 25, 1999

Risk Factors for Acute Exacerbations of Symptoms David Stempel, MD

What places an individual at risk for developing asthma? Which patients are more likely to have acute exacerbations of their asthma? Has there been too much of a focus of late on inflammation in asthma definition and therapy? A series of presentations on asthma risk factors explored these themes.

Of Thunderstorms, Pollen, Smoking and Obesity Girgis and coworkers[1] from Australia and Lewis and colleagues[2] from the United Kingdom both assessed the association of aeroallergens, thunderstorms and air quality on the occurrence of asthma exacerbations. The Australian study investigated an epidemic of asthma visits during a thunderstorm and found that those patients who were ill during this spring also had evidence of IgE reactivity to rye grass. The use of inhaled corticosteroids protected against flares of illness even in patients with grass pollen reactivity. The complementary English study demonstrated that the thunderstorms tended to enhance the effect of high pollen counts and that this combination might increase asthma morbidity. Passive cigarette smoke often has been thought to increase the risk of active asthma, but studies to date have not demonstrated this association convincingly. Leitch et al assessed this issue in a questionnaire to more then 7,400 college students[3]. Students newly exposed to passive cigarette smoke had an increased relative risk of wheezing symptoms and awakening with cough than those not exposed. Discontinuation of passive smoke exposure in the previous year was still associated with chest tightness and awakening short of breath, according to the survey. This offers additional evidence of a link between passive cigarette smoke exposure and asthma, although the association does not appear to be as strong as many believe.

Also of interest is whether obesity is a risk factor for asthma or whether active asthma contributes to increasing weight gain. A study by Litonjua and associates demonstrated a weak association between increasing body mass index and the development of bronchial hyperreactivity[4]. But the authors also found that patients with greater bronchial hyperreactivity were more likely over the next three years to significantly increase their body mass. In a slightly different conclusion, Schacter et al reported that patients who were increasingly obese were more likely than those who were not to have a history of recent wheeze and use of asthma medications, but lacked evidence of airway hyerresponsiveness[5]. These two presentations clearly demonstrate obesity's role as both a complication of and complicating factor for recent asthma.

Airflow Obstruction, Inflammation, or Both? Asthma has commonly been thought of as a disease either of airflow obstruction or inflammation. Now, however, the pendulum seems to be shifting, with the condition increasingly explained has having both of these components. For example, Toelle and associates reported the results of a 15-year follow-up study that assessed patients for evidence of airway hyperresponsiveness, atopic status, peripheral eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide (NO) and smoking history[6]. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. While multiple factors (atopy, exhaled NO, peripheral eosinophils) were seen as independent predictors of asthma, odds ratios by multivariate analysis increased for recent wheeze only in those patients with evidence of airway hyperresponsiveness and smoking. This supports the concept of the heterogeneity of asthma and suggests that smooth muscle abnormalities may play a significant role in addition to inflammation. Further, it suggests that therapy may need to address both components of the disease.

Several studies demonstrated the greater prevalence of asthma in prepubertal males and higher rates of the condition in post-pubertal women[7]. Adult women tend to frequent the emergency department with symptoms of asthma more than males of the same age. Active cigarette exposure and allergens seem to be additional risk factors. Allergic reactivity to cats appears to be more strongly associated with asthma in smokers and allergic antibody to Alternaria for nonsmokers[8]. Serological evidence of Chlamydia appears to have an association with greater disease severity of asthma[9].

In an attempt to better characterize asthmatics seen in the emergency department, Peters and colleagues looked at the relationship between exacerbation of symptoms and a number of factors[10]. Using multiple regression analysis, the authors found markedly increased odds ratios in patients with extensive sinus disease noted by CT examination, evidence of rhinovirus infection and inflammatory markers of peripheral eosinophilia, and exhaled NO. Several other reports also emphasized the co-morbidity of acute upper respiratory symptoms at the time of presentation to acute care facilities. What remains to be defined is whether the upper respiratory disease is a response to the viral or bacterial infection that simultaneously triggers lower airway reactivity, or whether the extensiveness of the upper airway disease is a direct factor that exacerbates the asthma symptoms.

Eisner and colleagues from Kaiser Northern California assessed the risk of intensive care hospitalization and intubation for asthma[11]. Previous studies have reported that use of more than 5-to-8 canisters of short-acting bronchodilators is associated with increased risk of hospitalization; this risk decreases with the use of inhaled corticosteroids. The California study asked whether these associations also held if one studied patients admitted to intensive care units. This latest report also demonstrated an association between increased risk for severe asthma and overuse of beta agonists, as well as reporting the protective effect of inhaled corticosteroids, providing additional evidence that inhaled corticosteroids are important in decreasing the risks of acute exacerbations of asthma.

Exposure to dog dander is another factor shown to exacerbate symptoms in many asthmatics. As a result, there have been numerous attempts to design a technique to reduce the detrimental effect of exposure to pet hair. Vacuuming the family dog doesn't appear to be the answer, however. British researchers found that this technique offered no protective reduction in dander exposure[12]. Perhaps additional studies will yield more positive results.

References

Girgis S, Marks G, Downs S, et al: Thunderstorm related asthma epidemic in inland New South Wales-Australia: Who is at risk? [Session A39].

ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Lewis SA, Newlands M, Jenner D, et al: Aeroallergens, air pollutants, thunderstorms, and asthma morbidity in derby [Session A39]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Leitch DN, Keeley J, Bromly CL, et al: Effect of changes in passive smoke exposure on asthmatic symptoms [Session A39]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Litonjua AA, Carey VJ, Sparrow DW, et al: The relationship of body mass index with methacholine airway hyperrresponsiveness in middle-aged to older men [Session A39]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Schachter LM, Salome CM, Peat JKA, et al: Obesity is a risk for asthma and wheeze but not airway hyperresponsiveness [Session A39]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Toelle BG, Marks GB, Salome C, et al: Hyperresponsiveness and inflammation of the airways are independent predictors of wheeze [Session A39].

ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Mishra A, Schiff MJ, Fein AM, et al: A comparison of demographics of asthma hospital discharges in a large health system with national hospital discharges [Session A40]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Soriano JB, Anto, Sunyer J, et al: Relationship of skin test reactivity to decrements in FEV1 in young adults with asthma symptoms [Session A39]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Black PN, Scicchitano R, Jenkins C, et al: Chronic infection with chlamydia pneumoniae is related to the severity of asthma [Session A39]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Peters EJ, Velez S, Crater S, et al: Chronic infection with chlamydia pneumoniae is related to the severity of asthma [Session A39]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

Eisner MD, Blanc PD, Chi F, et al: Beta agonists inhaled steroids, and the risk of intensive care unit admission for asthma [Session A40]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999.

McGrory H, Custovic A, Craven M, et al: Vacuuming the dog does not reduce dog allergen levels [Session A39]. ALA/ATS International Conference, San Diego, Ca, 1999. References

The article is fine - it isn't available on pubmed, as you'd perhaps expect from a brief conference overview of a subject - but Stempel has been published a number of times about asthma, and so seems entirely credible. However, he supports a link between passive smoking and asthma, and does so quite explicitly: "This offers additional evidence of a link between passive cigarette smoke exposure and asthma, although the association does not appear to be as strong as many believe." Stempel has not published anything that I can see (on pubmed or elsewhere) which questions the association, and he has a review in this month's Chest which I suspect reasserts the link - but I can't currently access it. If anyone can (Stempel DA. "Assessing the impact of asthma guideline implementation." Chest. 2006 Jul;130(1):5-6. PMID 16840373), please do let us know what he says.

I'm afraid that, scientifically speaking, there is no question that cigarette smoke exacerbates asthma, nor that this is true whether you inhale it because you smoke or because it's around. I'm going to add some references to the main article to reinforce this point. Nmg20 13:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

People with asthma to not count as asthmatic after thay are dead, so the idea that smoking can reduce rates of asthma does fit in with the idea that asthmatics are being killed.

If you survive smoking without an asthma attack and still think you have asthma, one has to doubt whether you know what the word "asthma" means. Does it mean the same thing in the U.S. as in England? (The above comment was added by User:Alec - U.K. at 04:17, 10 October 2006

Definitions of asthma are covered on the asthma page. Nmg20 14:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thirdhand smoke

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-08-06-thirdhand-smoke-usat_x.htm

May be worthy of a mention. violet/riga (t) 20:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Debunkify.com

May I respectfully suggest that the well-meaning folk using sites like debunkify.com and Standonline.org are not helping themselves? These sites are obviously POV (the latter has a tagline which is something like "take a stand against smoking") and, if left in, will return the article to a state in which the pro- and anti-smoking brigades can resort to posting "facts" from more and more ridiculous POV websites without any scientific rigour behind them. I don't think that's where any of us want the article to go - and it is in any case against the policy documents Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I've taken them out for now as I believe their presence damages the article, but thought I'd explain my rationale here. Nmg20 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree that they are POV, but they do have some facts with unoriginal research to back them up. It's really hard to make links to specific parts of the first one (Debunkify) because it is all interactive media, but it does have some parts with cited sources. I see several under the "MYTHS" link at the top of the page. This comment was added by User:Smokeresearcher at 22:14 on 6th September 2006. Four tildes, like this ~~~~ will sign your name and datestamp.

The issue with the site being POV is that using it as a source is polarising, inflammatory, and validates the use of similarly POV pro-smoking websites. I have had a quick look at the myths section of the site, and unlike the factsheets you mention above, they do not look like appropriate sources for Wikipedia to my eye - the factsheets were citing peer-reviewed journal publications where this site could for all I know be pulling its figures from the air. I'm not saying it's a bad site, and I wholeheartedly support what it's trying to do - but I still don't think we should be citing it or similar sites as sources here. Nmg20 22:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the statistic based on a less biased source. Let me know if this one posses a problem. Smokeresearcher 19:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Less biased is still biased. Find a medical paper on it. I hate smoking with a passion but let's keep pov stuff out of the article (and don't forget your sig!) Lordkazan 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but did you look at the source first? The cited source was "Journal of American Medical Association." I'm not judging anything I see as completely biased nor completely un-biased because of my own hate for smoking and involvement in tobacco prevention groups; I fear that such judgment might be flawed, so I asked that someone else looked at the source. American Legacy is a national tobacco prevention group paid for by the Master Settlement Agreement, but they cited someone else as their source, which I don't believe to be biased. Perhaps you just misunderstood my wording? Smokeresearcher 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite JAMA directly. Lordkazan 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I got it from their fact sheet and it doesn't have a link to the root source. That is why I put them as the source. Perhaps I should have noted the root source immediately following them? Smokeresearcher 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If they don't have a specific citation to JAMA then I must object to their inclusion. I'm just trying to keep sites that could be accused of bias out of the article so the pro-smoking freaks cannot start shuving their pov articles into this and ruin the article. Lordkazan 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

They do cite JAMA in their factsheet, which is how I know. That is why I asked if you looked at their source. Smokeresearcher 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

American Legacy Foundation factsheet on Secondhand Smoke (PDF); cited source there is "Glantz, S.A. and W.W. Parmley. 1995. "Passive Smoking and heart Disease: Mechanisms and Risk". Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1947-1053" since that is how they cited it? Smokeresearcher 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Found a page with that number and citation of the studies for you http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=215 - bullet 10, citations 11 and 12 Lordkazan 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll just add it back on with this source instead then... Smokeresearcher 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Does anyone else think the "Enstrom and Kabat" portion of this article should be moved to under the controversy portion? Generally, if someone wants to look up secondhand smoke in an encyclopedia, they will want to know something about whether or not it is as dangerous as it is made out to be lately; not whether the American Cancer Society knows what they are talking about. If someone wants to look into the controversy and tred down the no-man's land of a debate, they will most likely scroll down to the controversy. Smokeresearcher 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this move. JQ 22:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this too. Nmg20 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

thirded Lordkazan 16:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is done. Smokeresearcher 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

bias banner should be put on this page

this article seems clearly biased towards the anti-tobacco companies. i think that not enough evidence is presented that condesending talk of big-tobacco companies should be in this article. either it should be changed or else a bias banner should be put on the top of this page. this is due to when reading this article, it does not seem like this issue is taken objectivly

Would you be able to give some examples from the article to support your claim? If you do, we can try to make them less biased if appropriate. I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-tobacco companies", too - I don't know of any... Nmg20 15:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no anti-tobacco "companies" because all the anti-tobacco groups are non-profit. Most of them (at least all that I know of) are just about spreading some message, not about selling some product/service. That's like calling the American Cancer Society "Cancer-Cures for Less." Smokeresearcher 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is taken objectively, the truth is just unmitigatedly against smokers Lordkazan 00:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

i have to agree that this article is somewhat biased. one of the main sentence that states that passive smoking is harmful was cited to an article by "Americans for Nonsmoker Rights". This is a group with obvious agenda, and i think that findings can be a bit skewed. Janechii 03:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A source merely being partisan doesn't instantly make them not a RS - nor does it make the article pov - the statement is absolutely undeniably true and a better citation should be found. The Article is most CERTAINLY not POV - the FACTS just are overwhelmingly against smoking. Lordkazan 04:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Nonsmokers Rights site was only a secondary source, and shouldn't have been included. I've deleted it and given direct links to the primary sources. Obviously, it's important to go to primary sources wherever possible in an article like this. JQ 05:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations in Talk Page

I was reading through this page and I gotta tell you, most of you are spilling out bullshit. If you want to bring forth a counter argument you must provide a scientific research article or finding that supports your theory. You can not simply say something like "anyone can see that" because that is not a proof and you just humiliate yourself. Please remember that the wikipedia talk pages are not forums and that the main rule of Wikipedia is Verifiability. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

UH OH! NO NPOV HERE!

I don't see any arguments toward the other side of this, so I'm putting put a notification. DO NOT remove it until there is a general consensus of both sides that the article is neutral - 76.181.12.98 10:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You should not be issuing orders like this, particularly as an anonymous user with no contribution history. Please discuss what information you think needs to be added, and how NPOV has been violated.JQ 10:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps his (or her) IP address changes and they do have contribution history, just not at 76.181.12.98. The views of anons are often ignored and discounted on Wikipedia, and I think their "issuing orders" is mearly their (misguided) way of saying "I'm not trying to vandalise or make trouble, this is really my opinion and I'd rather have it respected than ignored". However it would be very helpful if they would explain where the article is lacking so that it can be fixed. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think it's acceptable for anyone to come tag an as POV without explaining why. Every claim in that article that I can see is well-referenced in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policy - i.e. "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." Accordingly, if we haven't had any elaboration from 76.181.12.98 in the next 24 hours or so, I'll remove the tag pending a discussion here if (s)he comes back in the future with some detail. Nmg20

I'm removing the POV tag. Nmg20 12:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Helena again

The Helena study is

Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study, Richard P Sargent, Robert M Shepard, Stanton A Glantz. BMJ 2004;328:977-980 (24 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.38055.715683.55 (published 5 April 2004) [6].

Glantz responds to some criticism here. I'll try to work this into the article unless someone else gets to it first. 67.117.130.181 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Disgusting

This article is disgusting. It is a flapping mouthpiece for anti-tobacco advocacy groups, and any attempt to try to introduce the other POV is subverted by transparent, and often misleading, attempts to claim that people who think that the `research' is junk science must necessarily be on the payrolls of the tobacco companies. It also slickly attempts to portray research sponsored by the tobacco companies as being inherently flawed (which is obviously not the case: why is the same tone not applied to research sponsored by anti-tobacco fanatics?).

Moreover, the question of civil liberties is raised only in connection to tobacco industries PR campaigns, as if it is positively unthinkable that someone not being paid by tobacco companies might feel that these laws are draconian and not founded on fact. What a laugh.

I am appalled. I haven't the time to fight irrational fanatics here, but thought it would be beneficial to register my disgust so that if anyone else is bothered to take them on, there is more of a precedent established. I can be contacted on my talk page if assistance is needed. Rosenkreuz 12:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As an example, I have tried to change, in the first paragraph of the long-term effects section, `scientific evidence' to `statistical evidence', for two reasons:

1. It is statistical; the simple fact is that `statistical' is the semantically more accurate choice of word. Correlation doth not causation imply. I know that's an old one, but nonetheless, the best that can be offered is evidence of a statistical nature, especially with regards to long term effects. One simply cannot argue with that.
2. `Scientific' is being used here in a rather clumsy way to insist on the perceived insurmountable veracity of the claims. Now, they may or may not be true. However, to insist that `scientific' must be used just because it is the propaganda-buzzword employed by advocacy groups but without explaining why it is more accurate than `statistical' simply does not work.

Anyway, I'm extracting myself from this one: it is a pointless waste of time. Rosenkreuz 12:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How to qualify the evidence that passive smoking causes diseases and other PoV changes made by Rosenkreuz

The preamble of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control indicate that the parties which have ratified this international treaty recognize that "scientific evidence has unequivocally established that tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke cause death, disease and disability." (my emphasis) Article 8, in its first paragraph, repeats the same line specifically for passive smoking: "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." In both cases, the adjective "scientific" is used to qualify the evidence. As this international treaty has been signed by 168 countries and has been ratified as of December 23, 2006, by 142 countries, I would think that the text can be taken as a sufficiently reliable and authoritative reference for the use of the expression "scientific evidence" in the wikipedia article on passive smoking.

To qualify the evidence as "statitiscal" instead of "scientific", as is proposed by Rosenkreuz is not appropriate for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that it is reductionnist and does not do justice to the full extent and scope and comprehensiveness of the evidence which has accumulated over the last three decades about the harmful health effects of passive smoking. One of the best accounts of this evidence is given in the Final Opinion of Judge Gladys Kessler in the case United States of America vs. Philip Morris, et al.. Pages 1211-1238 provide an excellent account of the current state of knowledge about the health effects of passive smoking, of which I quote below a few characteristic passages:

3307. Evidence of the health risks of passive smoking is derived from many sources. It comes from knowledge of the health risks of active smoking, the carcinogenicity and toxicity of the components in mainstream and sidestream smoke, the evidence that nonsmokers absorb the disease causing components of tobacco smoke, and epidemiological studies that have assessed the association of passive exposure to tobacco smoke with disease outcomes.

3308. Conclusions about the causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and adverse health effects are based on the extensive evidence derived from both epidemiological and toxicological investigation of active smoking. Additionally, studies using biomarkers of exposure and dose, such as the nicotine-specific metabolite cotinine, document the absorption of known disease-causing components of secondhand smoke by exposed nonsmokers, confirming the observed associations of secondhand smoke with adverse health effects.

3349. Using the five criteria adopted by the Surgeon General as a framework for evaluating causality (see ¶3309, herein), scientists in the public health community view the accumulation of data to determine if a causal relationship exists. In this case, the overwhelming accumulation of data demonstrates that ETS causes disease.

3348. Since the 1986 Surgeon General's Report, every major scientific review and assessment of the science on passive smoking and its health effects has independently and consistently concluded that passive smoking causes disease and other adverse health effects in adults and children.

Another reason why the qualification "satistical" for the evidence is not appropriate is that it is POV. It is indeed the qualification used by the tobacco industry in their policy of denial of the causal link between exposure to secondhand smoke and diseases. For the industry, the link is not causal, it is simply "statistical", with a strong connotation given to the term to mean that it is coïncidental. The Final Opinion of Judge Gladys Kessler shows that this stratagem was used as as early as in the 70s by the tobacco industry.

1978 Report of the Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A., Inc. (“[T]he complex etiology of these constitutional diseases [cancer, heart disease, chronic pulmonary ailments] remains unraveled. These diseases have been associated statistically with smoking, but such associations are not proof of cause and effect.”).

I therefore plead that the term "statistical" be not accepted as a qualification and I would plead that many of the changes made by Rosenkreuz be reverted, as they are PoV and seem to be aligned on the biased views of the tobacco industry or of fringe libertarian groups with also a very radical point of view on the subject. Dessources 13:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Fanatics

In trying to assume good faith, I made a few minor edits to the article: changing a word here, adding a phrase there. Dessources has seen fit to revert all of them, including mentioning such indisputable facts as that Roger Scruton has partnered with the tobacco industry to publicise the libertarian side of the debate. There is no reason why that should have been removed, other than that Dessources is not prepared to let anything other than derogatory sneers appear on the `pro-tobacco' side of the debate. I find it quite bizarre that the tobacco industry is held up to be biased, but anti-smoking groups are not.

Anyway, Dessources can revert as much as he likes. This article is pathetic, a pack of lies and propaganda, and I'll have nothing to do with it. It nauseates me, though (and no, I am neither a fringe libertarian, nor in the employ of the tobacco industry). I just believe that encyclopaedias are here to convey facts, not agendas. Rosenkreuz 13:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dessources has narrowly beaten me to reverting the majority of Rosenkreuz' edits. My rationale is below.

The article is nothing of the sort - I've made a lot of the "anti-smoking" edits, and I can assure you I'm not part of a single anti-tobacco advocacy group. The issue with the other POV is that it is held by a minority of scientists, and that means that per Wikipedia:NPOV, it should not get as much airtime as the position held by the majority. To quote the Wikipedia policy:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

The issue of research funded by tobacco companies has been covered in a number of papers which are linked to from here or from the tobacco industry page. The issue with it a simple one of bias - as corporations, their only interest in funding research is to have pro-smoking articles published, and they have a long history, resolved in the courts, of suppressing research showing the dangers of smoking. As so many do who come on here, you talk about research funded by "anti-tobacco fanatics" - like who? There are websites around which bang the anti-smoking drum - but we've got rid of them from the article, where all the research linked to is, per wikipedia policy, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you have specific examples of research referenced there which was funded by an "anti-tobacco fanatic", then by all means bring up the proof - otherwise you're citing a personal opinion without any basis in fact, and that's nothing like sufficient cause to change the article.

On the libertarian campaign - if you honestly think the tobacco companies are motivated by a burning desire to promote a philosophical viewpoint, then perhaps you can explain why Heinz aren't promoting a libertarian view of the eating of baked beans? There are any number of analyses of their use of libertarianism and SRGs - Balbach et al, How the health belief model helps the tobacco industry: individuals, choice, and "information". PMID 17130622, Michaels D. Manufactured uncertainty: protecting public health in the age of contested science and product defense. PMID 17119200, Smith EA, Malone RE. 'We will speak as the smoker': the tobacco industry's smokers' rights groups. PMID 17065174, Carlini et al, The tobacco industry's response to the COMMIT Trial: an analysis of legacy tobacco documents. PMID 16972502 - and they're utterly damning, largely because the industry's own documents are so unambiguous.

So, on to your edits:

I've changed "statistical" back to "scientific" and "is associated with" back to "causes". You're quite right that correlation doesn't imply causation, but that's a simplification of causality - it has been demonstrated that passive smoking precedes the onset of the health problems outlined in the article, that they're contiguous, and you've already acknowledged the association. It causes adverse health effects in the same way that icy roads cause car accidents - no one would claim that everyone driving on icy roads will crash, nor that icy roads are the only cause of car accidents - but the association between the two is causal.

Your attempts to change "scientific" evidence into "statistical" evidence is disingenous, and your attempts to paint it as an attempt to add credibility to the claims being made are feeble. The studies linked to are all published in scientific journals and use statistics as part of the scientific process. That makes the evidence scientific unless you wish to claim that the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal, JAMA, and Chest (to pick some out) are statistical rather than scientific journals?

On a happier note, I agree that the start of the "short term effects" section is POV, and needs changed - so I've taken out the section about time spent in rooms with smokers.

It is utterly ridiculous to highlight the "strong anti-tobacco stance" of the American Cancer Society as if it makes it biased. The causality is not, as your change wishes to imply, ACS hates tobacco -> ACS publishes anti-tobacco research. The causality is: tobacco causes cancer -> cancer societies are anti-tobacco by virtue of being anti-cancer.

The groups criticising Enstrom and Kabat are not lobby groups - they're scientists. I even linked the criticisms to the journal they were published in - in short, the British Medical Journal isn't a lobby group, and it's utterly dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Funding bias: that review was of all the studies of the effects of passive smoking, so that's what it should say. Yes, it was "one review" - but that makes it a higher class of scientific evidence than an individual study, and attempting to downplay it by changing the phrasing isn't on.

You've cut the section on delaying and discrediting research - read the paper linked to in there. I've restored this.

So you're welcome to call me an irrational fanatic if you wish - way to start a reasonable discussion about the article - but your own post above is the irrational one per Wikipedia's own policy on NPOV as I've quoted it above. Your edits are by and large counter to that policy, so I've by and large reverted them for the reasons I've given. As and when you have what that policy requires - published, reputable evidence to support your claims that e.g. "anti-smoking" research is funded by rabid anti-smoking lobbyists, that everyone who disagrees with your opinion is agenda-driven, etc. then by all means come back and provide that evidence. Until then, I will continue to defend the scientific research in this article. Nmg20 14:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments above are full of fallacies and strawmen, to wit:

1. Your understanding of causality is more simplistic than a first year philosophy student's. However, I concede that such a simplistic understanding is shared by the majority; I would merely have hoped that one could expect better editorial quality from an encyclopaedia.
2. I never tried to `paint' the scientific/statistical change as `lending credibility'. Perhaps why the perceived effect of that struck you as `feeble'. I wished to add accuracy, no matter whether it made the studies appear more or less credible. It is yet another strawman to claim that by calling the evidence `statistical' I am denying that JAMA et al are scientific journals. Scientific journals publish statistical studies, do they not? And given a broad term, which carries much emotional weight with the uninformed, or a crisp term which describes a given study exactly, I still firmly believe it to be more accurate and less biased to use the latter, but have no intention to edit war over this stupid article.
3. Nmg20 says `It is utterly ridiculous to highlight the "strong anti-tobacco stance" of the American Cancer Society as if it makes it biased'. That statement is self-contradictory. I fully appreciate the reasons why that Society feels the way it does, but that doesn't change the fact that it advocates for a particular position. It is fallacious to assert otherwise.
4. I never contested the criticisms of Enstrom and Kabat. At all. Mentioning that study and then attempting to say that I called the British Medical Journal a lobby group is utterly dishonest. I never did that, and would never do that. Another strawman.
5. Regarding the `one review'. Well, that's exactly what I said, isn't it? I left all the information intact, I just reworded it for accuracy. Tobacco companies fund research. That review found x and y about studies funded by tobacco groups. That's what I worded it to say, without the emotional appeals and propaganda.
6. I don't care about what the paper in the propaganda `journal' Tobacco Control says. It's not a reliable source — it's that simple.
7. On libertarianism. It doesn't matter why the tobacco companies do this, and any fool can see why they do it, but that still doesn't mean that a brief description of how they do it is out of line. Removing that information is simply an attempt to skew the article because of personal bias.

So, given that Nmg20 has personally given me permission to call him an irrational fanatic, I will do so. Nmg20 is an irrational fanatic, who uses strawmen and other fallacies to promote his personal POV in this article, while abusing science as a pavisse of respectability for his illogical opinions. I do not contest many of the claims, and actually personally believe that given enough time, scientific research will prove that tobacco smoke causes all those nasties. But at this point in time, that is a personal belief and not what the hard evidence says. I will also never condone the use of emotional appeals, strawmen and other propaganda techniques to exaggerate and otherwise whip up into a frenzy a set of objective facts, which is exactly what is happening here.

But don't let me ruin your article, guys. If you want to make fools of yourselves and trick yourselves into thinking you're `doing science', go ahead. I see that you have even removed that banner stating that the POV of this article is disputed, which is akin to lying. It is disputed, I am disputing it right now, and removing it is not really very decent. But have fun. Rosenkreuz 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"My" understanding of causality summarised, er, this encyclopaedia's understanding of it. Your energy would be better spent in persuading those contributing to that article that they are in the simpleton majority than in telling me I'm backward, my friend.

Scientific journals publish scientific articles. In an article on a topic where terms like "junk science" are bandied around by the tobacco companies in an attempt to peddle their wares, your changing every reference you could find in the article from "scientific" to "statistical" evidence reads like an attempt to make that evidence seem unscientific - and in the absence of any reasonable explanation for why you did, I changed it back.

Bias is "a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice." The ACS is not anti-tobacco because they're predjudiced; they are anti-tobacco because - after unprejudiced consideration of the question - they've noticed that tobacco causes cancer, and so unless they become a pro-cancer organisation, they have to be anti-tobacco. Before you suggest that this is "self-contradictory", try looking up the words in a statement in a dictionary - "prejudice" in particular.

As and when Wikipedia declares that Tobacco Control doesn't count as a reputable source, I'll remove references to articles in it myself - until then, your regarding it as a "propaganda journal" matters not one jot, however high an opinion you have of your own intellectual prowess.

The POV tag was removed following section 7.3 above. No one said it needed to stay. If you want to put it back, by all means poll it on this page.

I'm afraid that I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to your closing accusation that I'm using "emotional appeals", "propaganda", "strawmen and other fallacies" until you learn that thinking yourself extremely clever is not sufficient grounds to contribute to a scientific article. Nor am I going to respond to your childishly aggressive ad hominems: if and when you learn how to have an adult discussion about scientific topics, please do come back and contribute again. Nmg20 19:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have but one point to make, which does well since it is emblematic of all the others — the Tobacco Control journal. In their one-liner blurb quote on their very own website, which they use to sum up what the journal is about, they have someone describing it as "Essentially, this journal offers a one-stop shopping guide for anti-smoking literature and other resources."

Which is all very well. However, would it be correct to include, in the article on anti-smoking campaigns, in the section on the purpose and aims of the movement, a statement from the tobacco companies which purports to be an unbiased and factual account of their motivations? Of course not. But, that's exactly what has happened in this article, only the other way around. The journal is being cited in such a way as it looks like this is the tobacco industry's declared and secured agenda.

To quickly address the issue of the Anti-Cancer Society and its bias (and it seems that the problems Nmg20 is having in understanding this tie in quite closely to his problems with understanding causality): it doesn't matter in the least how the Society came to have the opinions it does, whether they are valid, or anything else of that sort. In assessing their bias, it matters whether they have strong inclinations, one way or the other, about the effects of tobacco. And they obviously do (just because the dictionary mentions `prejudice' in its definition of bias, doesn't imply that they mean the same thing: they don't).

Nmg20, I truly think you are deluding yourself if you think that this is a `scientific article'. There is very little scientific about it, except for many of the citations. If I had wanted to portray the evidence as unscientific, it would have been very easy for me to do. But that wasn't my goal. I wished to portray it accurately. However, as you rightly point out, the tobacco industries coined the term `junk science' to describe this issue. I can now see just what they mean. Not because there is no scientific evidence for the links between tobacco and illness, but rather because of the effects that the panoply of political, personal and other mitigating factors have upon the manner in which the scientific evidence is portrayed. Accuracy is sacrificed to political agenda, scientific findings are misquoted and blown out of proportion, and words are chosen not for their semantic accuracy but rather because of the emotional and agenda-ridden baggage they carry: implicit in Nmg20's decision to remove my correction of `scientific' to `statistical' because he, by his own admission, assumed that my intent was to further the agenda of the tobacco companies in portraying anti-smoking research as `junk science' — not because, objectively, `scientific' is the better word.

You appear to be an educated person. I find it quite disturbing that you are unable to understand this; unless, having settled one NPOV dispute (as you describe on your userpage) you are now anxious to quash others at all costs. Rosenkreuz 20:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone else is going to reply, so I guess I'll have to. I think by "scientific article", Nmg20 is referring to the tone Wikipedia is supposed to be written in. Also, organizations like the American Cancer Society are indeed inclined in one direction, but that direction is the health and well-being of humanity. They, as their name implies, work to cure/prevent cancer. As scientific evidence shows, cigarettes cause cancer — even sidestream smoke, thus it is their intention to stop it (such as with lobbying for Smoking bans). Their inclination is anti-cancer, and to be anti-cancer, makes one also anti-cigarette. You could have an agenda to minimize diseases in animals and thus advocate flea collars, but does the intention of severing a cause-effect relation make you biased if you back up all of your information? That same person could also find some new disease that afflicts animals because of a certain chemical in the flea collars and then advocate against them (still having an agenda), but would still be basing their information on facts. Smokeresearcher 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Would someone list...

(Before beginnning would someone list 3 people who have died of second hand smoke please?) (The above comment was added by User:208.104.110.144 at 21:59, 24 January 2007

I'll start: Roy Castle.

Or we could play a different game: can you name me anyone who's died of "smoking"?

No, you can't. You can probably list people who've died of lung cancer, though, or COPD.

So your question's a bit misguided. Or stupid, if you prefer.

Nmg20 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Castle attributed his cancer to ETS exposure, which doesn't make it so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlowingSmoke (talk • contribs).

True, but to address 208.104.110.144's point, an alternative question could be: Given that first-hand smoke has been comprehensively demonstrated to be hazardous, on what grounds would second-hand smoke be safe? The smoke contains the same hazardous chemicals, so why can't it cause the same diseases in passive smokers? Sure, the dose is different, but even first-hand smoke causes disease in people after a huge range of exposure periods (from years to decades), so why shouldn't the same apply to passive smokers? No-one is saying that passive smoking is as dangerous as being a smokers (at least in a statistical sense), but it's unclear why a priori one might expect no risk from involuntary passive smoking given the known risks of active smoking. --Plumbago 12:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Arsenic has been demonstrated to be a deadly poison AND a cure for syphilis. Water is necessary, yet has a lethal dose.

Smoking itself is not a guarantee of any disease. It is one risk factor among many. Chemicals are nothing to fear, if one is aware of what constitutes a dangerous dose. There were dozens of "hazardous" chemicals in my morning coffee.

This very article mentions that tobacco smoke contains Polonium 210, a deadly substance that the media is all buzzy about. What is conspicuously missing is the dose. A big, scary New York times article about it gave a number. .04 picocuries.

You need to smoke 5.4 billion cigarettes to get a lethal dose. If you can do that, I think something else might kill you first. BlowingSmoke 08:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes BlowingSmoke, dose is crucial. But as I've already noted, lots of smokers die from smoking-related diseases long before they reach some averaged "lethal dose". Whether this is down to genetic factors or bad luck is up for grabs, but the point to note is that there appears to be no minimum safe dose. Consequently, a starting position of "passive smoking is likely to be bad for you" is much more rational than "until it's absolutely proven, passive smoking doesn't harm you at all".

Regarding your numbers, you've just done exactly what the New York Times has done, you've cited a number but not given it any context whatsoever. 0.04 picocuries sounds small (it uses "pico" for starters), but I've no idea if it's actually small in health terms. And I'm sure your number for cigarettes must be "millions" and not "billions" of cigarettes. To smoke 5.4 billion cigarettes at even the crazy rate of 40 per day would take more than 369 thousand years. Given the prevalence of smokers in cancer wards this geological timescale seems somewhat unlikely. That said, even 5.4 million cigarettes would take the 40 per day smoker 369 years to puff their way through. The careful use of numbers is always good; misuse is not. --Plumbago 09:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Now realise what you were getting at. Duh. My apologies. That clears up the 0.04 picocuries and the 5.4 billion cigarettes at once. So, yes, you're right, ²¹⁰Po is not one of the major components of cigarettes to worry about. Its fame in the press at the moment is possibly the reason for its inclusion here. Anyway, sorry for getting your point arse-backwards. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cause & association

User:BlowingSmoke has changed the line "passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "passive exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with increased risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability". My view on this is (as outlined above) that when something (in this case secondhand smoke) results in an increased risk of disease in a population, it causes that disease. To repeat the example above, if the risk of e.g. MIs in a hundred people exposed to passive smoke is 1 in 10 (it isn't - this is an example!) vs. 1 in 40 in those not exposed, the passive smokers are at an increased risk, yes, but passive smoke has also caused an extra 7.5 heart attacks in those exposed to passive smoke. I believe this should use "causes" not "is associated with", but having changed it once I'd appreciate the thoughts of other contributors on this if y'all have time to comment. Nmg20 11:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed "associated with" (though statistically accurate accurate)and replaced it with "increases risk of." Surely this is a reasonable compromise, as only studies which show increased risk are references in the article.

I suspect if I posted links to null studies, or those that show a (statistically) protective effect would be removed immediately.

"There are about 200 different types of cancer affecting all the different body tissues. What affects one body tissue may not affect another. For example, tobacco smoke that you breathe in may help to cause lung cancer. http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=119#multi_fact

"Help to cause" is quite different from "cause." BlowingSmoke 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nmg20. I would like to further add the following remark. When writing an article, we are not supposed to express our point of view on the question dealt by the article, but to present the current state of knowledge as objectively as possible, making every possible attempt to back it with authoritative references. For the definition of passive smoking, and the causality relationship between passive smoking and death, diseases and disability, the four references quoted are more than sufficiently authoritative and universal to fully meet the wikipedia requirement. One is an international treaty signed by 168 countries and ratified by 143 as of this day. The other are all from world recognized public health authorities. A change of the definition based on the position expressed by these authorities would have to be based on even more highly authoritative sources. Not only BlowingSmoke has failed to produce such references when modifying the article, but, far worse, he has tampered with the quotation from the FCTC (Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, a UN treaty) and has altered the text to fit his attempt to re-orient the article along his own views (which coincide with the views of the tobacco industry). This throws a light of suspicion on all his attempts to modifiy the "Passive smoking" article. Dessources 19:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have studies which meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion (i.e. scientific, peer-reviewed, published in reputable journals) which show no adverse effects of passive smoking, by all means post them. There are already a (limited) number of studies on the protective effects of smoking in the health effects of tobacco smoking page - I know because I added some of them. While the evidence they provide is generally weak at best, they are there, so your suggestion that the dark forces of issue-driven censorship are at play is simply wrong. They would of course be removed from an article on passive smoking.

The quote from the cancerhelp website is interesting, but it is individual advice (as evidenced by the use of the second person) - and as I said in my initial post, of course passive smoke doesn't cause cancer in every individual exposed to it (although it may help to) - but at a population level, it causes a whole host of illnesses. That's the issue you need to address here.

Nmg20 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My inference was not of "dark forces" but of zeal.

To repeat the example above, if the risk of e.g. MIs in a hundred people exposed to passive smoke is 1 in 10 (it isn't - this is an example!) vs. 1 in 40 in those not exposed, the passive smokers are at an increased risk, yes, but passive smoke has also caused an extra 7.5 heart attacks in those exposed to passive smoke.

To use your example, the increased risk shows only that. Increased risk. Such statistical data would require further study to prove the theory.

A number of the links provided are not to studies, but to articles about the studies, summaries, or editorials. In my experience, abstracts and articles do not present complete information. An editorial is simply an opinion, and could contribute to a biased article.

A number of the studies listed here have weak associations as well, though are considered sufficent "evidence" for inclusion. BlowingSmoke 04:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

While the evidence they provide is generally weak at best, they are there, so your suggestion that the dark forces of issue-driven censorship are at play is simply wrong. They would of course be removed from an article on passive smoking.

Sorry, can you clarify this? It seems like you're saying links to valid studies both will and won't be removed. BlowingSmoke 09:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok - the example I use is about the rates of disease in samples (and by inference in populations). If the population of those exposed to passive smoke suffers more from (to take one example) heart attacks than those not exposed, then (given that the studies demonstrating such things have used reasonable methods to keep other things equal), passive smoke has caused the excess incidence of heart attacks. This is exactly the same as saying "(direct) smoking causes lung cancer" - clearly it doesn't cause it in everyone, but it increases risk to the point that it can be said to cause the disease in the general population. Assuming that you wouldn't dispute that smoking causes lung cancer (and given that you haven't made changes to those pages, I think it's a reasonable assumption), I struggle to see how you can argue against passive smoking being causative?

On the links which you feel aren't to studies themselves - can you give some examples? There was a purge of most editorial-style pro- and anti-smoking website links a while back, and I reckon most of the links are to articles from reputable sources - but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

On the studies which would and wouldn't be removed - the possible protective effects of smoking have only been demonstrated in active smokers, not in passive smokers, which is why I personally would remove them from this article - they're not relevant to passive smoking. If anyone manages to find health benefits of passive smoking, of course those studies would belong here - but given the weak nature of the associations in active smokers, I wouldn't put money on it happening.

Nmg20 17:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Nmg20 was very kind of tutoring BlowingSmoke on the fundamentals of epidemiology. In addition, I would like to communicate the following message to BlowingSmoke: When a topic has been the subject of long and in-depth discussions by the scientific community, and when the scientific community has reached an overwhelming consensus on the topic, our rôle as wikipedia editors is to express this state of knowledge and consensus as clearly and faithfully as possible. We should refrain from using our contribution to an article as an opportunity to re-open the issue, simply because it does not correspond to our point of view, and to start modifying it, acting as auto-proclaimed world best experts of it - which clearly most of us aren't, including myself - and without supporting our change with solid and authoritative sources.

The four references indicated in the summary of the article are currently the four most authoritative sources of information on passive smoking. Each one indicates in its main conclusion that there is a causal relation between exposure to passive smoking and diseases, leading either to death or disability.

• WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control - This is the first international treaty on public health, adopted in May 2003 by 192 countries and signed by 168. Its text has been the subject of intense negotiations, which have lasted several years and has involved the contributions of some of the best public health experts of the world. Its Article 8.1 states "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability." (emphasis added)

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General", 2006 - One of the major conclusions of the Surgeon General Report is: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke." (emphasis added)

• California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant" (June 24, 2005) - The CalEPA reports states its finding in its executive summary as follows "ETS exposure is causally associated with a number of health effects, including effects on infants and children.". It provides a list of 26 "developmental, respiratory, carcinogenic and cardiovascular effects for which there is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship." (emphasis added)

• WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer "Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking" IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83, 2002 - The evaluation of the Monograph is: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans." (emphasis added)

Judge Gladys Kessler, in her Final Opinion in the case United States of America vs. Philip Morris U.S.A. Inc. produced a very detailed study on how the scientific community has reached a consensus concerning the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke. (pages 11215-1230). Her conclusion is as follows: "Using the five criteria adopted by the Surgeon General as a framework for evaluating causality [...], scientists in the public health community view the accumulation of data to determine if a causal relationship exists. In this case, the overwhelming accumulation of data demonstrates that ETS causes disease. [...] Passive exposure also causes a reduction in the rate of lung function growth during childhood, and is linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). [...] In adults, exposure to secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Passive exposure causes two to three percent of all lung cancer cases in the United States. [...] Exposure to secondhand smoke can also cause coronary heart disease in adults." (page 1230-31 - emphasis added)

The point can then be considered as closed as far as we, wikipedia editors, are concerned.

Dessources 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it increases risk. By a large factor, in some cases. You could even say it causes diseases which can lead to premature death. But it is a stretch to say it causes death, because for most people exposed to second-hand smoke, it does not. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is your point of view. However, what matters, as far as writing the article on Passive smoking is what the experts and public health authorities think. It appears that they overwhelmingly agree, probably to a degree which has been rarely reached before, that passive smoking causes death. The position of the public health authorities, worldwide, is expressed in the documents quoted above, in particular in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which has been adopted unanimously by the representatives of 192 countries. Article 8. of the FCTC states clearly that passive smoking "causes death, disease and disability".

Dessources 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just a collection of quotes from various reference sources. It is should be a well written NPOV article that removes obvious inacuracies and collates the information in an easy to read form. I would have thought that it is pretty clear to most people that the claim "causes death, disease and disability" must be inaccurate for if it were an accurate statement then everyone exposed to passive smoking would die from passive smoking. It is does not have the same accuracy as saying "decapitation causes death" or "amputation causes disability". The fact that the quote comes from an attributable source does not make it a logically true statement given the definitions within the english language. Munta 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my explanation of why I feel it is justified to use "cause" in this context. Of course it doesn't cause those things in everyone - but at a population level, it does. To use one of your own examples, it is not true that all amputations cause disability - if you remove a limb which didn't function to start with, if you remove a sixth digit at birth, etc. These examples do not cause disability - but equally no one would dispute that your statement ("amputation causes disability") is correct. That's the key point about passive smoking. Nmg20 14:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Amputation causes disability in over 99% of cases. And my example you ignored - Decapitation causes death in 100% of cases. Passive smoking causes death in 0.0001% (or less depending on the research) of cases. So we are looking at things where there is an almost 100% chance of something happening compared to one where there is negligable risk. Thats why "cause" does not make sense in this context. Munta 16:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the following problems with using the WHO Framework to establish "cause."

1. This treaty is a political document. It contains no references to the scientific evidence behind its conclusion.

2. The treaty qualifies itself: "All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either express or implied."

Since there are three other references being used to establish "cause," removal of this one should pose no problems.

BlowingSmoke 06:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation does not support data

Sidestream smoke contains more than 4000 chemicals, including 69 known carcinogens such as formaldehyde, lead, arsenic, benzene, and radioactive polonium 210

The document referred to does not mention the listed substances, except for benzene, and does not contain the information about 4000 chemicals or 69 carcinogens. Nor does it contain much information about the quantities of these chemicals.

Perhaps a suitable reference can be found to support this data.

On another note, the 4000/69 numbers are bandied about quite a lot. Does anyone know the source of these numbers?

"4000 chemicals" We consume thousands of chemicals in our food and drink. Our bodies are made of chemicals. Presented as it is, the number 4000 seems prejudicial. Perhaps no fuss should be made over innocuous substances. BlowingSmoke 10:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

BlowingSmoke says:

"The document referred to does not mention the listed substances, except for benzene, and does not contain the information about 4000 chemicals or 69 carcinogens. Nor does it contain much information about the quantities of these chemicals."

This is not true. The cited IARC Monograph (Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking, Volume 83 of the IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 2004, 1452 pages) contains on pages 59-60 the following statements:

"Some 4'000 mainstream smoke compounds have been identified to date, and account for more than 95% of the weight of mainstream smoke. [...] The qualitative composition of smoke components is mainly identical in mainstream, sidestream and secondhand tobacco smoke [...] Advances in chemical analytical techniques and an increased knowledge of the genotoxic environmental agents brought the number of carcinogens identified in tobacco smoke to 69 by the year 2000."

Furthermore, the monograph provides a list of the carcinogens in Table 1.14, on pages 81-83, which include formaldehyde, lead, arsenic, benzene, and the radio-isotope Polonium 210. Table 1.3, on page 1200, gives the average values of 44 smoke constituents in sidestream smoke, together with the sidestream/mainstream ratio.

The IARC monograph does not provide a detailed and exhaustive list of the 4'000 constituents, but refer the reader to other publications. Such a list could be found, for example, in Appendix A of the CalEPA report (California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant" (June 24, 2005). Tobacco Control. Surveys and Program Evaluations from Outside UCSF. Paper CALEPA2005. [7]).

We can conclude from what precedes that, contrary to what BlowingSmoke claims, the IARC monograph is very suitable reference for the quoted figures.

Dessources 23:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I will read the above-mentioned documents. If I may suggest, perhaps the additional publications should be cited directly to clarify where the information is available. BlowingSmoke 03:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The cited IARC Monograph (Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking, Volume 83 of the IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 2004, 1452 pages) contains on pages 59-60

The cite leads not to the information you mentioned, but to a summary that does not contain that information. A cite that does contain the information would be better. Since you know exactly where it is, perhaps you can improve this section in the interest of accuracy.

The citation to the IARC monograph is complete and unambiguous, and any librarian knows how and where to find the book. Wikipedia does not have as a requirement that only texts freely available on the web be used for citations. Books in paper form, in case you did not know, are also a source of knowledge. Any wikipedia user can go to a good academic library and obtain the book and read it. I suggest you do the same and come back only when you have properly educated yourself about this topic.

Dessources 08:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree. The cite does not even contain the title of the work. Perhaps the title should be included, no? If it can be posted here with page numbers, why not there?

Another thought, although not required, there are a number of sources of freely available information on the web. Why not use one?

I thank you for your assistance with my ongoing education. BlowingSmoke 09:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To even make things easier for you, I have even completed the reference to the IARC study, although this reference was fully given several times earlier in the article (it already appears as ref. 4).

Dessources 10:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant passage removed

I am not a "phony moderator" as someone claimed.

I removed the passage as it is redundannt, and lessens the impact of the health information beneath. Moderation 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. A lead section is supposed to summarize the most important parts of an article. So if health info is discussed at length in the article, it needs to be mentioned in the intro. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hi there. As a new editor to Wikipedia, you may not be aware of the role the the introduction section plays. It is intended to give a brief overview of the rest of the article, summarising the key points of a particular subject. As such, it is inevitable that it will reproduce material from the main body of the article. Stating upfront that passive smoking is viewed as a health risk by the scientific community is exactly the sort of information that such a summary should contain. As it happens, the portion of text you are repeatedly removing is both short and not a direct reproduction of later material. To this end I am restoring it again. Your POV may be that it lessens the impact of later health information, but given that you are being reverted by multiple editors that is hardly consensus. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ASH

ASH is a rather biased source of information, as they are solely and anti-tobacco lobbying group. Perhaps a more neutral source can be found to criticize the E&K report, or this passage removed. BlowingSmoke 13:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ASH appears to be a respectable organization. It describes itself on its website as a "campaigning public health charity working to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco." [8]. This is an honourable cause. Nothing indicates that ASH is not a reliable source of information. Of course, we would not expect them to be pro-smoking - they openly admit that their concern is public health.

Dessources 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ASH is a militant organization that makes big money from tobacco litigation, among other things. It's founder and director decribes himself as:

... the "Ralph Nader of the Tobacco Industry," "the Ralph Nader of Junk Food," "The Man Who Is Taking Fat to Court" [for using legal action to fight OBESITY] "Mr. Anti-Smoking," "One of the Most Vocal and Effective Anti-Tobacco Attorneys," a "Radical Feminist," a "Man Who Lives by his Writs," the "Father of Potty Parity" "the Area's Best-Known 'Radical' Law Professor," an "Entrepreneur of Litigation, [and] a Trial Lawyer's Trial Lawyer," "one of the "100 Most Powerful People in Washington," "The Man Big Tobacco and Now Fast Food Love to Hate," the lawyer "Who's Leading the Battle Against Big Fat," "a Driving Force Behind the Lawsuits That Have Cost Tobacco Companies Billions of Dollars," "the Renowned and Often Flamboyant Public-Interest Law Professor at George Washington University," "the Fastest Legal Gun in the East,"" Dean of Public Interest Lawyers", "a Major Crusader Against Big Tobacco and Now Among Those Targeting the Food Industry," and "the law professor who masterminded litigation against the tobacco industry." He's also been called -- by his enemies -- a "Legal Terrorist," the "Osama bin Laden of Torts," a "Legal Bomb-Thrower," and a "Legal Flamethrower" -- clear indications, he says, that his many targets fear him and his legal actions. Banzhaf Portrait

Judge by yourself if their concern is public health .... --83.153.23.161 14:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC) -pal

Concensorship

I just noticed an anonymous rebuttal to the use of "consensus" was removed as "irrelevant." Perhaps, on the topic of encylopediic summarization. However, that word is used quite a lot here, so I believe it is highly relevant to the topic in general.

Business and political analysts have pointed out a number of problems with consensus decision-making. A too-strict requirement of consensus may effectively give a small self-interested minority group veto power over decisions. Decision by consensus may take an extremely long time to occur, and thus may be intolerable for urgent matters, e.g. those of executive decisions. In some cases, consensus decision-making may encourage groupthink, a situation in which people modify their opinions to reflect what they believe others want them to think, leading to a situation in which a group makes a decision that none of the members individually think is wise. It can also lead to a few dominant individuals making all decisions. Finally, consensus decision-making may fail in a situation where there simply is no agreement possible, and interests are irreconcilable.

Discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlowingSmoke (talk • contribs).

Hi BlowingSmoke! Please note that it is good practice to sign your posts. The use of consensus in the wiki process is best discussed in the context of the Wikipedia:Consensus article. Feel free to contribute to the discussion there.

Dessources 19:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to force a change against consensus

I have changed the text in the summary from "passive exposure to tobacco smoke increases risk of disease and disability" to "passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability". I have done this after looking carefully at the four references (the text I used comes from reference 1) and also after reading the interesting discussion of this point on the talk page (see Passive smoking - Cause and association). I have also noted that my edit actually restored the consensus version which was in place since mid-November 2006, until one editor, user 69.141.30.12, started changing it on 30 January without any explanation, and has kept changing it since then, ignoring the fact that his changes were reverted by many editors. Here is a brief history of the edits done by user 69.141.30.12:

• On January 30, user 69.141.30.12 deletes in its entirety the sentence "Current scientific evidence shows that passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability." No explanation is provided for the deletion. It is reverted by Plumbago a few moments later.
• On January 31, user 69.141.30.12 changes "causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability and death" without explanation. This is reverted by 86.194.76.177.
• On February 1, user 69.141.30.12 changes twice "causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability". This is reverted, first by Dessources and then by Nmg20
• On February 2, user 69.141.30.12 changes four times "causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability", and, in another attempt, replaces the whole phrase with "may be a health hazard". His/her changes are reverted by three editors: Indolences, who takes it as vandalism, Dessources and Nmg20, who asks user 69.141.30.12 to "stop making this change. Next time "causes" becomes "increases risk", this goes to dispute".
• On February 3, user 69.141.30.12 repeats the same change twice, and is reverted by user 86.219.255.211 and user 83.205.189.80.
• Between February 4 and February 7, user 69.141.30.12 has repeated the same change three times, one on each day, which have been reverted by user 83.205.189.80, user 195.15.64.2 and by Wp4all.

Although I am a newcomer to wikipedia, it would surprise me if this were acceptable practice. I think that user 69.141.30.12 should accept the verdict of the other editors and stop making the same change. Please discuss. Wp4all 11:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have requested protection for this page due to edit warring as I have also noticed that it's been shifting back and forth between those two wordings for a while now. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this edit war rather infuriating since it appears to be due to a single phrase. My view on it is as follows.

Wikipedia is not just a collection of quotes from various reference sources. It is should be a well written NPOV article that removes obvious inacuracies and collates the information in an easy to read form. I would have thought that it is pretty clear to most people that the claim "causes death, disease and disability" must be inaccurate for if it were an accurate statement then everyone exposed to passive smoking would die from passive smoking. It is does not have the same accuracy as saying "decapitation causes death" or "amputation causes disability". The fact that the quote comes from an attributable source does not make it a logically true statement given the definitions within the english language. Surely "Increases the risk" is the logical and accurate definition regardless of what a cited source claims. Munta 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensual opinion of the recognized experts in the field and the position of scientific authorities are the sources of information needed to preserve the neutrality of wikipedia. Concerning the question at stake here, the four references cited seem to constitute the best sources of authoritative information on the health effects of passive smoking. It appears that they all say basically the same thing and agree that passive smoking causes disease and death. It will be hard to find a more authoritative source of information than an international treaty very recently adopted by 192 countries, the Surgeon General report, the report of the Californian Environment Protection Agency, or the report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. All these sources explicity use the word "cause" in their conclusion.

It should be borne in mind, as has been said elsewhere, that the notion of causality is central here and has been the key issue on which the policy of denial of the tobacco industry has concentrated during the last three decades. The tobacco industry's position was indeed to suppress any reference to causality in the relationship between passive smoking and disease and death. As described above by Dessources, this question has been thoroughly reviewed by judge Kessler in her Final Opinion (United States of America vs. Philip Morris U.S.A. Inc.) She arived at the following conclusion:

"...scientists in the public health community view the accumulation of data to determine if a causal relationship exists. In this case, the overwhelming accumulation of data demonstrates that ETS causes disease. [...] Passive exposure also causes a reduction in the rate of lung function growth during childhood, and is linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). [...] In adults, exposure to secondhand smoke causes lung cancer. Passive exposure causes two to three percent of all lung cancer cases in the United States. [...] Exposure to secondhand smoke can also cause coronary heart disease in adults." (page 1230-1231)

In her own finding, the judge uses the word "cause" five times - and she is a neutral person - that's her job!

Finally, observe that causality does not necessarily imply a mechanical relationship whereby the occurrence of the effect implies automatically the occurrence of the cause, such as may happen in classical physics. Refer to the Cause article, which says: "Causality always implies at least some relationship of dependency between the cause and the effect. For example, deeming something a cause may imply that, all other things being equal, if the cause occurs the effect does as well, or at least that the probability of the effect occurring increases." (bold mine) As far as epidemiological evidence of causality is concerned (which has been at the center of the assessment by the different groups of experts which produced the reports quoted by reference 2-3), the method to assess causality is generally derived from the Braford Hill guidelines (see description in Epidemiology). Furthermore, epidemiological evidence of causality is complemented with biological experimental data and other toxicity analyses of the components of tobacco smoke.

Should wikipedia editors be more royalist than the king, and pretend they know better than the world best experts on the subject? Perhaps this is the way wikipedia works, but this would in my mind be sad as it would undermine the credibility of our great encyclopedia. Wp4all 17:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be included as an alternative argument. "At what level of occurrence would you feel comfortable saying that X "causes" Y? For myself and most scientists, we would require Y to occur at least 50% of the time. Yet the media would have you believe that X causes Y when it actually occurs less than 10% of the time." [9]. And this "Our point is that although it is important to be able to use epidemiological research to predict and intervene at the public health level, to tell the best story possible about the research findings at hand, one doesn't have to say that X causes Y to achieve such an outcome. In fact, one cannot definitively claim such a relationship." [10] Going on NPOV, if an entry is disputed, then the alternative argument should also be included. Munta 17:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This goes against the First rule of the Bradford-Hill guidelines: "Strength: A small association does not mean that there is not a causal effect". Actually, a small association with a very high risk like cardio-vascular diseases, has dramatic consequences - a 20% risk increase translates into something like 30'000 deaths per year in the USA alone. The rule you advocate was actually the line used by the tobacco industry in its denial policy. When the EPA classified secondhand smoke as a carcinogen, they paid scientists to advocate what the industry called GEP, "good epidemiological practice" (actually written by the tobacco industry lawyers), with, as central argument, that any risk ratio less than 2.0 was to be ignored. This was exposed and you can find a great deal about it in the Final Opinion of judge Kessler. Finally, we should refrain from re-opening the scientific debate, as this is beyond our competence and we are not supposed to do original research. These questions have been more than amply addressed by the experts who produced the reports cited in references.

--195.15.64.2 18:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Under NPOV - "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." I am offering alternative views to both the cited references and to the Bradford-Hill guidelines (which are just guidelines and not rules). As such, they should be included in this article. Munta 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Munta, I am prepared to give due attention to your views. But, please, try to base them on reliable and relevant sources. The first reference you mentioned above ([11]) is an editorial by an obscure writer from the defunct Journal of Theoretics, and not a peer reviewed article. Furthermore, this reference is completely beyond the point contemplated in this discussion. The editorial is rather of the negationist type, claiming that smoking (i.e. active smoking, not passive smoking) does not cause cancer. Not only this says nothing about passive smoking, but, furthermore, the position advanced by this editorial has no longer been tenable for decades. Even the tobacco industry does not believe it anymore. For example, Philip Morris USA states on their website [12] "Philip Morris USA agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers."

Your second reference ([13]) is a bit more serious, but still not of great relevance to the point being discussed here. This is an epistemological and metaphysical essay about the concept of causation, which, in its conclusion, states the obvious: that causation has to be understood with reference to a context, and that abolute metaphysical causation per se can never be proven (how illuminating!). But this actually supports the position of the epidemiologists who define causation in epidemiology with respect to the Bradford-Hill guidelines. And causation, as understood by the public, has much more to do with common sense rules (such as those used in the Bardford-Hill guidelines) than with the metaphysical notion of causation per se of the philosopher.

Finally, by discussing causation and its epistemological implications, we are engaging in original research. I think it is wiser as wikipedia editors to stick to the definition of causation given in the Epidemiology article.

--Wp4all 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

They are both POV which argue that the use "cause" is incorrect in definition. The rest af these articles can safely be ignored for the purpose of this discussion. As opposing POV they (or other relivent articles) deserve to be mentioned. And as far as causation, as understood by the public, is concerned you are correct that common sense should prevail. Common sense is that smoking may cause death not that it does cause death Munta 23:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, and the earth is round and the earth is flat are also both POV - and we are not too far from such an absurd situation with your proposed alternative POV. Actually, this is pure sophistry, and I am convinced it will not prevail in this debate. Common sense and scientific knowledge agree overwhelmingly that passive smoking causes death, disease and disability. Now, let us step back for a while and see what the other editors think.

--Wp4all 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So this is how you treat others POV. You may disagree with it all you wish but I have always been civil in my discussions. I suggest you do the same. Comparing my alternative POV with flat earthers is attempting to ridicule my view. Accusing me of sophistry has no place in an intelligent discussion where I have cited published articles to back up my POV Munta 23:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As Mgm|^(talk) reminds us above on this discussion page, and according to Wikipedia:Summary style, a lead section is supposed to summarize the most important points of an article. I do not understand why some insist so much to have the notion of causation removed from the lead section, when this notion is found prominently in key sections of the article. The first sentence of the long-term effects section says: "Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (i.e. in case of cigarette, a mixture of smoke released from the smoldering end of the cigarette and smoke exhaled by the smoker) causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung ailments such as COPD, bronchitis and asthma." (emphasis added). The last sentence of the same section says "It is estimated that passive smoking kills 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S." Both statements are backed by solid references (articles published in peer reviewed journals by reputable experts of the field), which come in addition to the references cited in suport of the statement in the lead section. At the end of the section Epidemiological studies of passive smoking, reference to causation is again very explicit: "In France passive smoking has been shown to cause between 3000[44] and 5000 premature deaths per year."

It is interesting to note that, when the summary section of the wikipedia article on sunburn says that "Sunburn can be life-threatening and is a leading cause of cancer" (emphasis added), nobody seems troubled (even if no reference is indicated as source of this satement). Why therefore such an insistence when the causative agent is tobacco smoke? Could it be because the energy coming from the sun is (still?) free and that there is no industrial lobby behind it, while tobacco is the source of enormous profits, and anything that may limit its use, in particular by emphasizing its dangers, is seen as a threat to the profitability of the tobacco industry? --Dessources 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You might note that there is a {{Fact}} tag on the sentence you mentioned from sunburn.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, ONUnicorn. I did indeed notice and I refer to the fact that the reference is missing. This makes the case all the more interesting, because even without a source on which the statement is based, nobody has removed it. The statement has been there for months, and it seems to have remained quite immune from the kind of treatment that was inflicted to its passive smoking counterpart.

--Dessources 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that the reason that arn't complaining is that it takes a very NPOV. It does not blindly claim that Sunburn causes Cancer but that it is a leading cause of cancer. That is the sort of terminology that should be contained in an introduction. Repeating a verbatim quote in an introduction sets the tone of the article as one of POV. It is for the body of the report to expand upon the introduction. Munta 19:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your explanation of how something can be a leading cause of cancer without causing cancer! Something escapes me in the logic.

--Dessources 22:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You know precisely what I am talking about. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Attitudes contained in your comment make it difficult hold intelligent discussion and portray an attitude that the discussion has become personal. So I will take my leave, for I have no wish to become embroiled in a flame war. Munta 00:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you take it personally. I am never fighting people, but ideas, and do not hesitate to say it when I consider them wrong. My own ideas could be wrong too, and others have not hesitated to say it, including you, and I never took it as a personal attack. Let me say finally that I genuinely did not understand the logic in your previous post, and still do not understand it. This is a statement about your post, not about you.

--Dessources 07:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WhyQuit.com is rabid anti-smoking website. Although they describe tobacco products as "instruments of enslavement and slaughter," when it comes to science, they use language like "linked with cancer," "may cause cancer," "likely causes brain damage," and "contributes to coronary artery disease."

However, they make no claim to be an encyclopedia. The bulk of this article states that exposure to ETS increases risk of disease, which in turn may lead to death. In an article which uses the term "risk" roughly 30 times to illustrate its point, it stands to reason that the opening paragraph would use that terminology.

BlowingSmoke 13:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a small association with a very high risk like cardio-vascular diseases, has dramatic consequences - a 20% risk increase translates into something like 30'000 deaths per year in the USA alone.

30,000 is quite a body count. However, if you use the Surgeon General's risk ratio of 1.25, this translates into zero deaths.

To call 1:1.25 a "25% increase in risk" may be a mathematically accurate phrase, though disingenuous. If your risk of heart disease is 1, and your risk of heart disease upon expose to ETS increases to 1.25, how big a jump is this? If you began with 1 in 10,000 people, you are now up to 1.25 in 10,000 people. You have to increase your pool to 40,000 people to get one extra potential death.

A risk ratio is just that: increased risk. When you get in your car, you dramatically increase your risk of dying in a car crash. That does not mean you are definitely going to crash, it means your risk is now higher. That's all.

The big, scary numbers aren't all that scary.

(Desources, the skin cancer article may generate more controversy when attempts are made to regulate sun exposure, or use of sunscreen mandated, or high taxes imposed. Until then, the article is irrelevant.) BlowingSmoke 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be kept in mind, contrary to what BlowingSmoke suggests, that saving one life per year for 40,000 people is a great achievement. This means saving 10 lives per year in a city of 400,000 people. I do respect the value of human life and find 10 unnecessary and avoidable deaths per 400,000 inhabitants scary - this represents 10 individual tragedies, 10 families which are broken. How could one say this is not scary!

Dessources 23:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite easily. I am not frightened at all by a miniscule increase in risk. You've scratched your hypothetical body count up to 10, however, they are still statistics. Your 10 people may die, yet you prefer to think they will die.

Drinking coffee carries a risk ratio of 3.0, far higher than ETS exposure risks. In your city you can "save" many more lives by banning coffee consumption. Sure you value 120 lives more than 10? BlowingSmoke 05:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 09:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, BlowingSmoke (at least your answer has the merit of lifting the slight doubt that persisted as to whether BlowingSmoke and 69.141.30.12 were the same person) , for this clarification of your point of view. But where do you get that coffee carries a risk ratio of 3.0 (and, BTW, risk ratio of what?). Please indicate your source.

Dessources 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I am an AOL user, and would not be surprised if many users had the same IP address as I. I would also not be surprised if there was a fair amount of sock puppetry on this page on both sides of the debate.

That said, coffee carries an RR of 2.7 for pancreatic cancer in "Coffee and cancer of the pancreas," NEJM. I lost track of the 3.0 study, but 2.7 is nice and scary for the time being, considering pancreatic cancer has one of the most dismal survival rates.

Of course, the scariest RR of all time has to go to the breast cancer risk of wearing a bra. That RR is up around 12,000 (that's twelve thousand). (Singer, Sydney Ross, and Grismaijer, Soma. Dressed to Kill. The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. (1995) Avery Publishing Group, Garden City Park, New York. ISBN 0-89529-664-0.)

Obvoiusly bras are a far greater scourge, killing millions of women every day. Ladies, if you're wearing one of these cancer machines, I strongly suggest you remove it immediately.

BlowingSmoke 05:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What is now established, and your correction from 69.141.30.12 to BlowingSmoke in the signature of the mail above now proves it, if a proof was indeed needed, is that there may be many AOL users with the same IP address as you, but there is just one of them who keeps editing this article and this one happens to be you. This is no surpise to anybody: exact same pattern of edits - this is obvious by a quick inspection of your contributions whether as 69.141.30.12 or as BlowingSmoke, and same contempt for the wikipedia rules.

Dessources 11:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And you have no response to statistically insignificant risk ratios?

You say there is "consensus" in the scientific community that ETS "causes" a plethora of illnesses, yet there is also consensus in the scientific community that statistics alone never prove cause.

How do you reconcile this paradox?

Correlation does not imply causation

BlowingSmoke 11:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Surgeon General says the data are unequivocal-good enough for me!

It's amazing how many people talk about "anti-tobacco fanatics" and their "junk science". The scientific evidence has been reviewed by the Surgeon General of the United States and his conclusion is that there is no longer any debate possible. The data clearly state that passive smoking causes and aggravates disease. Now if there are any of those who disagree who are as well educated as the Surgeon General and if they have the staff to thoroughly examine all the evidence, then I might be willing to listen to their arguments.

The tobacco industry in the US has been found guilty of rackteering; lying and deceiving the American public. Why would you rather believe their arguments? Christo61````

71.72.217.102 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC) It's because the FORMER surgeon general has an agenda, and it is not to communicate the truth about tobacco, smoking or ETS. Dr. Carmona is a fanatic who believes that the use of tobacco should be illegal (check the record for facts). You can (hopefully) distinguish the lies by reading his own report. Compare actual air contaminant levels in samples with OSHA limits (something he does not do) and you will see for yourself that the whole second-hand smoke thing is much ado about nothing (except for tyranny in the name of "public health"). -Mike

The former Surgeon General appears to be an educated man, and to attain such a postition, a skilled politician. Quite a few politicians have been found quilty of lying (and other crimes), including a few Presidents. Mr. Carmona stood before Congress and declared his support for a total prohibition of tobacco, so his bias is clear.

To examine a few of his statements: "The debate is over." Obviously not. It continues here, and all over the world. Saying something doesn't make it true.

"ETS is more dangerous than previously believed." "Believed" is the key word in that statement. The 2006 report (report, not study) contained no new information. However, the executive summary reports that the risk association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer is still 1.2 to 1.3, and heart disease 1.25 to 1.3, which are same weak values from 20 years ago. Because the former Surgeon General "believes" differently, despite looking at the same data, does not make it true.

"There is no safe level of exposure {to ETS)." How can that be? There is a safe level of exposure to mercury, uranium, x-ray radiation, arsenic, chlorine, carbon monoxide, and every other hazardous substance.

"Even the best available technology does not cleanse the air adequately." His definition of "adequate" is zero. However, why should a the local pub maintain standards greater than that for chemical manufacturing plant? OSHA measures substances by their permissable exposure levels, and current technology is definitely adequate for all substances in ETS. Air cleaners actually do clean the air. Simply saying otherwise does not change this.

If a doctor tells most people something bad, they seek a second opinion. If a politician says anything, most people assume he's lying. I see no reason to trust this particular politician's statements just because he declares them to be true. Quite the contrary.

BlowingSmoke 06:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Research Sponsorship

I have noticed on this discussion page a number of comments that dispute research carried out with sponsorship from the Tobacco industries. The contributers go on to say that tobacco industry funded research should not be included in this article due to a conflict of interest. Is there not an argument that some of the anti-smoking research cited on this pages also has a conflict of interest?

As an example, I refer to funding provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This is the world's wealthiest foundation devoted to health issues and is worth $8 billion. While this is a non-profit organization, much of its funding is sourced from Johnson & Johnson stock ($5 billion). [[14]] Now despite claims claims made by Smokeresearcher - "There are no anti-tobacco "companies" because all the anti-tobacco groups are non-profit", Johnson and Johnson is in the Nicotine market and therefore in direct competition with the Tobacco companies. As a major funder of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, it is in their interests for any research funded (indirectly) by them to find against smoking. Given the stock holding in J&J these two are financialy beholden to each other.

Here are some facts [15]

• RWJF provide $200,000,000 for research into smoking and for anti smoking projects [16]
• The nicotine replacement therapy market currently stands at $500,000,000 [17]
• Robert Wood Johnson IV is CEO of Johnson & Johnson and also on the board of trustees of RWJF [18]
• Other board members, have links to J&J as former CEOs, Presidents, Chairman etc [19]

Now if this article is to restrict citations based upon tobbaco funded research, should we also restrict citations based upon nicotine replacement funded research? I would be interested if any direct link can be made to funding by RWJF in any of the major research already contained in this article

Any thoughts on this

Munta 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The point raised by Munta is easily resolved if we adopt the rule whereby any organization found guilty of racketeering be considered as an unreliable source. The tobacco industry has been found guilty of racketeering in the U.S. (see [20]). The day the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is found guilty of racketeering, we should also be prepared to consider the research they pay as unreliable. --Dessources 12:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious point - please don't be so dismissive. This is a discussion page to build upon ideas before putting them forward into an article. I have given people the courtesy of dicussing content in the talk page rather than directly editing the article. Please give me the courtesy of allowing this dicussion with out you dismissing it out of hand. Munta 12:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Class action against Drug Manufacturers [21]
• TAP pharmaceuticals plead guilty to fraud [22]
• Johnson and Johnson settle Anti-Trust case [23]
• GlaxoSmithKline settle in RICO class action [24]

Given the very strong financial links between RJWF and J&J, I assume that this is enough information to make this discussion worthwhile for you to continue.

Munta 13:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Munta makes some excellent points. The pharmaceutical industry simply wishes to be the world's supplier of nicotine, a highly profitable business. The best part about it is that none of their smoking cessation products actually work.

WhyQuit.com, a passionate quit-smoking organization, lists numerous studies attesting to this fact, and their primary goal is to get people to stop smoking. [25] Big Pharma has a self-serving interest in ETS data, and a history of manipulating all data for their own ends, which may make a reasonable person question any studies funded with such money.

The American Medical Association is also a highly political organization which relies heavily on money from the RWJF and pharmaceutical companies, which tends to influence what information they will publish and when. Just such a scandal caused the firing of the JAMA editor in 1999. If a topic is "juicy," the JAMA doesn't much care about the science.

The Wall Street Journal recently published a front-page article (Behind Antismoking Policy, Influence of Drug Industry By Kevin Helliker)exposing the collusion between drug companies and governmental policy-making boards. [26]

If one argues that tobacco industry funding corrupts data merely due to the source, one must argue the same for the pharmaceutical industry.

BlowingSmoke 13:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of people would argue that the pharmaceutical industry manipulates data - and I believe they've been prosecuted for it in a variety of countries in the past. However, it is a huge jump from there to suggesting this makes some or all pharm-funded anti-smoking research biased, and more to the point an entirely POV one. The criticism of tobacco industry-funded research in this article is summarised from relevant letters and peer-reviewed articles (refs 62-64, 69-71): that sets a clear standard for those wishing to claim the dangers of passive smoking have been drummed up to sell nicotine patches - find scientific publications per wikipedia policy which agree with you. Nmg20 14:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems odd that the anti-smoking kooks are getting beat up all through the page, and the article still looks the way it does. But you know how it is. Once these kids get a trendy cause to run with you just have to let 'em run wild. 68.166.71.84 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. They're a hoot, ain't they?

Data manipulation is presented in a number of ways, usually by overstating the dangers of weak associations. Some studies with implausible conclusions are published in "respectable" journals with simply to discourage smoking as a justiification.

For example, when a study claiming cervical cancer is linked with active smoking and ETS was loudly criticized, the authors responded: "While we do not know of a biologic mechanism for either active .... smoking or ETS to be related to cervical cancer, we do know that cigarette smoking is harmful to health. The message to the public, as a result of this study, is one that reinforces the message that smoking is detrimental to health." (Journal of the American Medical Association, 29 July 1989, page 499)

If a letter is a valid reference, then this one must be as well: It is also a letter to the editor of the BMJ, from Michael McFadden, criticizing the scientific community for not reporting conflicts of interest, i.e. pharma affiliations and anti-tobacco funding.

As are these responses to the E&K study:

Agreeing the limits of conflict of interest - editor of The Lancet
Consistency - science for sale? - founder of WhyQuit.com
Why The Double Standard? - Dave Hitt, Smoker's Rights activist
Pots calling kettles black - Retired physician

This article, "Bans on Industry Research Grants Are Bad for Science" by Gilbert Ross, MD of the American Council on Science and Health stating that the results of a study should be weighed on the merits of the data, not where the dollars come from, on both sides. ACSH is vehemently anti-tobacco, however they are also vehemently opposed to bad science.

Reference 62 is a letter to the editor of the BMJ referring to the Enstrom and Kabat study. (Michael Thun of the Americal Cancer Society objects to ACS data in the the report, though the ACS compiled and maintained the database until 1997.)

This sentence is misplaced: "Furthermore, Enstrom and Kabat are funded by the tobacco industry." It should be included with Ref. 63, which is the letter complaining about funding, though rephrased to be more truthful.

Ref. 63: Has been refuted by Enstom himself.

Ref. 64: A letter from Dr. Enstrom to someone named Dr. Borelli at Phillip Morris in 1990. There is no evidence from this letter that Phillip Morris funded any studies proposed in it, and later funding has never been denied.

Ref. 68: "In addition, Enstrom and Kabat's work confirmed some harmful effects of secondhand smoke, in particular that it increased the risk of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease." It should be noted here that the increased risk is a weak one, with an RR of 1.65. It's interesting that this reference goes to a summary of a letter to the BMJ. You can easily link to the letter here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12946981">Passive smoking</A>, or to the E&K study where the information comes from in the first place. I have to question the "spin."

Ref: 69: By Barnes & Bero, names frequently associated with anti-smoking research conclude:

"The conclusions of review articles are strongly associated with the affiliations of their authors. Authors of review articles should disclose potential financial conflicts of interest, and readers of review articles should consider authors' affiliations when deciding how to judge an article's conclusions."

The study is a swipe at tobacco money, however one would think this would apply to studies funded by pharmaceutical companied as well, however the author focus solely on tobacco funding.

Fortunately, this other study reports research bias in all financial relationships: <A HREF="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=12533125">Entrez PubMed</A>

Ref. 70: "Alongside other faults, this analysis also criticizes the BMJ for failing to inform readers who funded the studies." This reference does say this, however, it is patently false. Funding disclosure was made in the BMJ at the time of publication, as pointed out to ASH in the BMJ, yet they wrote this anyway.

Reply to ASH - please be more careful in future

This reference is not a "scientific" source, nor is it a peer-reviewed article. It is not made clear in the article that ASH is an anti-smoking lobbying group. If this is in line with Wikipedia guidelines, then I am comfortable with including opinion pieces by pro-smoking activists.

On the whole, the section on the E&K report is deeply flawed and sloppy. BlowingSmoke 12:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Crap POV Article

"Current scientific evidence shows that passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.[1][2][3][4]"

This effectively states that anyone who breathes in second-hand smoke will die or develop a disease SOLELY because of this. Can you not write an article about passive smoking without the anti-smoking brigade determining what the text is?

I highly recommend the POV banner for this page. 195.157.52.65 16:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently protected from editing because people were edit warring over the very sentence you mention. Apparently it is more or less a quote from the 4 sources cited - they all use the word "causes". Many people prefer the phrase "increases risk of" and try to change it to that. However, other people think that such a change misrepresents the cited sources. No one was talking about the change - just changing it back and forth so the article was protected to encourage discussion. Said discussion is in the three sections above the section above this one. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, although in agreement with what you say, some slight rectification is deemed appropriate. When you mention that "no one was talking about the change - just changing it back and forth," this does not do justice to the extensive explanations which were provided by both Nmg20 and Dessources on the subject of causation in the section Cause & association above. This was done to clarify why the change proposed by BlowingSmoke could not be taken. If you read the section, you will admit that this explanations goes quite deep, and shows that we have treated BlowingSmoke's intentions with a lot of respect.

Furthermore, the notion of causation refererred to in the lead section of the article is completely in line with the body of the article, and is also in complete coherence with other related wikipedia articles. See for example the article on Smoking ban, which says quite clearly: "The main reason for smoking bans is to protect workers and citizens from heart disease, cancer and respiratory illnesses and other chronic and acute diseases caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." (first sentence of Rationale section) and then "Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung ailments such as COPD, bronchitis and asthma." (first sentence of Medical and scientific basis for bans section). Zhe article on Smoke-free restaurants is no less clear: "Medical research demonstrates that second hand tobacco smoke causes 35,000 to 40,000 excess deaths per year in the U.S. alone." So, clearly, the notion of causation is the one which appears to be the most natural and the most consensual. BlowingSmoke and his/her alter ego have not provided any convincing reason to change it.

--Dessources 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent intensification of attacks against this article by people with strong pro-smoking POV

Over the last four weeks, the article on Passive smoking has been targeted by people with a strong pro-smoking POV, and these attacks continue, and even seem to intensify.

This has all started with a first change made by BlowingSmoke on 26 January. BlowingSmoke changed the text of the lead section of the article from "Current scientific evidence shows that passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability." to "Current scientific evidence suggests that passive exposure to tobacco smoke is linked with disease and chronic illness leading to disability." The proposed explanation was "The word 'cause' is not scientifically accurate. Only weak statistical associations have been made." This change would have aligned the Wikipedia article on the view of the tobacco industry, which still camps on a denial position concerning the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke, while it is now overwhelmingly recognized by the scientific community and public health authorities all over the world that ETS exposure is a cause of death, disease and disability. This is no longer disputed in the scientific community. However, attempts to create an articial "controversy" persist. The trial USA vs Philip Morris et al., which came to its conclusion in 2006, has publicly revealed the extent to which such a "controversy" actually belonged to a large scale conspiracy by the tobacco industry, involving public relations agencies, "independent" scientists secretly retributed by the industry, and networks of tobacco industry allies, among which pro-smoking groups. It is therefore not a surprise that these attempts to create such an artificial "controversy" be manifest among the editors of the wikipedia article, owing to its highly open nature.

The change by BlowingSmoke was reverted by Nmg20, who refered BlowingSmoke to an older talk, where the same point had been discussed. However, BlowingSmoke persisted and made, in a few days, several attempts to change the part which was the subject of his attack:

• On 28 January, BlowingSmoke changes "exposure to tobacco smoke causes disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "exposure to tobacco smoke is associated with increased risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability." This is reverted by Dessources on the same day.

• On 29 January, BlowingSmoke modifies the text of reference [1], falsifying (!) the quotation of Article 8.1 of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, a UN treaty, changing "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." (the actual text of the treaty) to "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke increases risk of disease and disability."

• On the same day, BlowingSmoke changes again "exposure to tobacco smoke causes disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "exposure to tobacco smoke increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability." Both changes are reverted by Dessources, who point out that there was an attempt to tamper with the quotation of an article from a treaty.

• On 30 January, BlowingSmoke changes again "exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability" to "exposure to tobacco smoke increases risk of disease and chronic illness leading to disability." This is reverted by 86.193.106.221, who observes that "'causes' is backed by four solid references."

• On the same day, BlowingSmoke makes again the same change two more times. and is reverted each time by Dessources.

• A few minutes after the the last revert by Dessources, a "new" user, User 69.141.30.12, comes into the picture and deletes entirely the sentence "Current scientific evidence shows that passive exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and chronic illness leading to disability." This is immediately reverted by Plumbago. This starts the long series of edits (12 attempts in just 5 days), always of the same part, done by User 69.141.30.12, which are listed at the beginning of the section Repeated attempts to force a change against consensus, and which lead to the request to have the article protected from further editing.

While 86.193.106.221 was making his/her repeated edit attempts, which were the continuation of those started by BlowingSmoke, in turn BlowingSmoke remained inactive. This suggested that the two editors were actually one and the same person. This has now been confirmed by BlowingSmoke, via an interesting incident. BlowingSmoke signed his post submitted at 09:12, on 14 February 2007 User 69.141.30.12. When this was brought to his/her attention, BlowingSmoke changed the signature back to his/her userid, and acknowledged that he was using AOL with IP address 69.141.30.12, but pretexting that many other people were probably also assigned the same IP address. Yes, but only one of them was actively editing the Passive smoking article of wikipedia, and this happens to be BlowingSmoke!

Now BlowingSmoke (together with his/her alter ego User 69.141.30.12) is flooding the talk page of the passive smoking article with crap taken straight from the websites of pro-tobacco extremists, such as FORCES, challenging key aspects of the article and creating a great deal of confusion and smoke, so that well intentioned editors will be lost and will not see the good stuff from the bad, which is probably the intention. This must be stopped, as these contributions are completely unconstructive, they waste everybody's time, and dissuade good-willing editors from contributing to the article, since the standard set by BlowingSmoke is very low, and he/she seems to have complete disdain for the wikipedia rule. I think enough is now enough.

Anybody around here who would know how best to deal with such a situation. This must not be the first time such a thing happens to a wikipedia article, I presume. --Dessources 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

All my edits and comments are signed by me. Attribute unsigned edits where you wish, though belief does not make something true. 69.141.30.12 could be one person or 12; I have no way of knowing. I also don't think it's that big of a deal. You may believe otherwise as you wish, as it is irrelevant to the article. "Blowing smoke says.." is true where it says so, not because you have altered the edit history.

Perhaps this type of discussion is the time-wasting nonsense you were referring to?

Exactly which "Wikiepdia rule" do I disdain? You demand sources, and several users, including me, have provided them. Where exactly is my reference to FORCES? This pattern is repeated throughout the article and this discussion page. A number of my references come from anti-smoking organizations an medical journals. If you wish to discuss them, please do.

Your idea of "Wikipedia rule" seems to be that you and those who agree with you rule the wikipedia.

You may consider opposing viewpoints to be a waste of time, though others on this page do not. If you are unwilling to discuss the merits of the data presented, I recommend you absent yourself from this discussion to allow more reasonable participants to be heard.

I am user BlowingSmoke, and I have approved this comment.

BlowingSmoke 06:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing:

My POV on smoking is that it is hazardous to the health.

My POV on ETS is that this is a poor article with a deep anti-smoking bias. On the whole, I think you're doing more harm than good to the anti-tobacco movement.

BlowingSmoke 06:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the facts (at the risk of becoming repetitive) showing that BlowingSmoke has disdain for the wikipedia rules:

• Fact no. 1: At 05:58, on 16 February, BlowingSmoke altered the signature of a post on this talk page, changing it from 69.141.30.12 to his own. Now, if user 69.141.30.12 had been a different person, this would have been a serious breach of the wikipedia rule to change the signature of someonelse's contribution. Therefore, we will assume that 69.141.30.12 and BlowingSmoke are the same contributor (BlowingSmoke has confirmed that 69.141.30.12 is his IP address.) This explains the similarity of the patterns of edits. Now BlowingSmoke would like us to believe that there may be out there another 'AOL user', who happens to have the same IP address as him, and, who by some extraordinary turn of events, makes exactly the same changes as he did. Does he really think that we are ready to believe this fairy tale? The IP address has nothing to do with AOL, and its constancy indicates that this is indeed the address attributed by his ISP to BlowingSmoke. The multiple edits done by 69.141.30.12, alias BlowingSmoke, are a real breach of the wikipedia rules.
• Fact no. 2: To falsify a quotation in a reference, in this particular case, the text of an international treaty signed by 168 countries, including the USA, is a very serious breach of the rules of integrity that you would expect from wikipedia editors. This is exactly what BlowingSmoke has done in his edit of 00:09, 29 January 2007.

--Dessources 11:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, any post signed by me is by me. Multiple users of an IP address are common, so perhaps you can read up on it.

You have again revealed your tendency to be fast and loose with facts to serve your own ends, Dessources.

"Signed" means exactly nothing, as the treaty has not been ratified by the United States. The WHO lists the US among the countries who are not party to the treaty. This has drawn sharp criticism from the anti-smoking community, yet you're waving it around like a victory flag. Weird.

The true number of countries who have ratified the treaty is 144, so perhaps that number is more accurate to support your case.

Now perhaps we can get back on the topic of ETS, or you can recuse yourself from the discussion. Perhaps a stress pill and a nice cup of tea will calm your hysteria. BlowingSmoke 04:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What is required to continue this discussion productively are editors who show a minimum of good faith and good will. BlowingSmoke persists in refusing to admit that the repetitive edits made by 69.141.30.12 were done by him, while he acknowledges that this is his IP address. BlowingSmoke claims that another user, out there, with the same IP address as him, happended, by some extraordinary set of circumstances, to make the exact same edits as he did. This is useful information, since it provides a way of assessing BlowingSmoke's good faith. The probability that BlowingSmoke is of good faith is equal to the probability that on the whole Internet, two independent users have the exact same permanent IP address and make the exact same changes, word for word, to the same article of wikipedia!

--Dessources 10:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dessources,

I've been watching the edit war with interest. Had BlowingSmoke or user 69.141.30.12 been prevented from making the edit, I would have made the exact same edit myself. Why do you continue to carp on BlowingSmoke's identity, rather than address issues raised elsewhere on the page?

Your own reversions of the edits seem out of line with Wikipedia policy. Please confine yourself to the topic, or refrain from posting.

EtaKooramNahSmech 04:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WARNING! EtaKooramNahSmech is a confirmed sock puppet of BlowingSmoke, alias 69.141.30.12 or Moderation, other sock puppets of BlowingSmoke (see [27]). This name has been blocked indefinitely.

--Dessources 10:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this edit war is a repeat of something that happened a long time ago, wheñ this article was the target of the same type of attacks, with a lot of POV, but very little in terms of reliable sources and scientifically verifiable material. Dessources, Plumbago, Indolences and Nmg20 (who has done a lot of good work contributing to this article) are all editors with important track records of Wikipedia contributions. They have all rejected the edit proposed by BlowingSmoke. I join them.

Wp4all 11:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wp4all. Broadly speaking I agree, and as I've just said below it may be time this went to dispute. On a side-note, the identity of User:BlowingSmoke is relevant in the context of the three-revert rule. Nmg20 10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine people, I'm sure. And all editors who support making this article as anti as possible, as their edit histories clearly show. At least Plumbago was willing to admit that the polonium reference in the article was because it was buzzworthy.

The controversy here is far from "artificial." You say so only because you dismiss facts which contradict your views.

This line of discussion is nothing but a straw man.

EtaKooramNahSmech 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WARNING! EtaKooramNahSmech is a confirmed sock puppet of BlowingSmoke, alias 69.141.30.12 or Moderation, other sock puppets of BlowingSmoke (see [28]). This name has been blocked indefinitely.

--Dessources 10:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a number of references to other smoking-related articles which could be construed as "pro" smoking - for instance, I referenced a number of the putative health benefits of smoking in the Health effects of tobacco smoking article - so you're not looking hard enough at my edit history. Accusing all the editors listed above of acting to make the article "as anti as possible" isn't just ill-informed, it's also not assuming good faith.

With regards to your second point, I don't dismiss facts which contradict my views - you aren't providing any. You're just coming into the discussion thread and accusing everyone else of being Very Bad Editors. There are a host of references in the article supporting the information in there - so far you have provided one (1) about tooth decay. Where are all these "facts" which are being ignored, please? Nmg20 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

END OF THE STORY

The abusive character of BlowingSmoke edits has been confirmed. BlowingSmoke has been using several sock puppets, 69.141.30.12, Moderation and EtaKooramNahSmech, to disguise his identity and give the impression that several editors were sharing his strong POV. These facts have been confirmed, and, as a warning, BlowingSmoke's account has been blocked for two weeks, starting on 27 February 2007 (see [29]). --Dessources 10:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Epidemiology 101

A statistical correlation between two phenomena is simply that. It does not prove that one phenomenon caused the other. Just because A is often associated with B, does not prove that A causes B. Example: the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver is associated with cigarette smoking. Does smoking cause cirrhosis? Probably not. Excessive consumption of alcohol is a more likely cause. However, as heavy drinkers tend to be heavy smokers, the statistical association is there, but in this case is probably a confounding variable.

Dr. John W. Kimball, "Biology" Sixth Edition, 1994 Wm. C. Brown (Secondary school textbook)

It cannot be stressed enough that an association or correlation does not prove cause and effect. This is one of the easiest mistakes to make when interpreting research. The media do it frequently, and so do consumers. When an association is suggested, more research is always needed to determine whether that association really exists and why.

International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation

It took a bit of digging to find sources that cannot be dismissed as "shills for the tobacco industry" or "self-centered smokers'" organizations, but here they are.

Other Wikipedia articles of interest:

Misuse of statisticsand Correlation does not imply causation BlowingSmoke 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There are far more entertaining examples than that to prove the (rather facile) point you're making - there's one about parsons and hurricances which escapes me for the moment.

I don't think these discussions are going anywhere - it's clear that User:BlowingSmoke and I are not going to agree, and I don't think that the recent additions to the discussion here are getting us any closer to a resolution. We've been over the Enstrom and Kabat thing a number of times before, and the existing wording took a long time to thrash out - I don't really think revisiting it because you disagree with "causes" is useful.

With the best will in the world, I think it's probably time to consider taking this to dispute, isn't it? Fundamentally I believe that this "causes" reflects the scientific consensus, and "is associated with" would not. Nmg20 10:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "scientific Consensus" is being used far too often. [30] [31] I don't smoke and yet I can still see through the using of this topic as another cause by the same who protest about Environmental "issues" and "anti-Walmart" and "anti-Whatever." "shills for the Environmental Groups" if you will. But much like other topics at Wikipedia, the activists with the louder voice tend to dround out the science. Just like BlowingSmoke siad:Correlation does not imply causation. Otherwise Going Outside of your hosue could be the Cause of the thousands each year that die from tripping on their steps. Or Auto Makers would be responsible for thousands of people who die each year from screwing up on the highway. Or it would be my Gun's fault that someone died form a gun. Should we sue book printers for putting all these ideas in people's heads?--Zeeboid 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "scientific consensus" is used because every respectable scientific journal that's reviewed the evidence has found that secondhand smoke is harmful. There are 26 references just in the long-term effects section demonstrating that - and they aren't from the sort of organisations you mention, they're from the JAMA, the BMJ, and the WHO. Making them out to be tubthumping agenda-driven hippies is, I'm afraid, not going to cut much ice with anyone who actually reads the scientific literature, nor more to the point with Wikipedia policy on verifiability and appropriate sources for citations.

There's no activism going on in this thread, just a lot of people deluding themselves that findings which have been repeatedly replicated, published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals are "activism". It's absurd.

I don't feel I can keep responding every time someone pops in to the discussion to say that correlation is not causation. I know; I interpret statistics on at least a weekly basis as a medical student. My point, one last time, is this: at an individual level, of course passive smoking doesn't "cause" anything. At a population level, however, there is ample evidence that secondhand smoke causes mortality and morbidity - that's why so many scientists say so when talking about the subject in print. I'd respectfully suggest that it is their viewpoint, not that of an active and vocal minority in this discussion thread, which should take precedence in the article. Nmg20 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite any study you wish, but the flaws in those studies should be made clear. In this article flaws are only pointed out in studies that disagree with you.

Why is a publication in a peer-reviwed journal considered carving in stone?

"Peer-review" is a trumpet sounded quite a lot here. The peer-review process, and the journals themselves have been soundly criticized for the last two decades.

Journals are plagued by conflicts of interest, political interference, and rubber-stamping in deference to popular opinion. The JAMA in particular has been rocked by scandals, one resulting in the firing of the editor.

Since when does publication make something "true"? Remember Hwang Woo-Suk and his cloning? That was peer-reviewed. So was nuclear winter, coffee and cancer, electromagnetic fields and cancer, microwave ovens and cancer, cell phones and cancer, sugar and hyperactivity...the list is enormous. All peer-reviwed, and all crap.

What journal was the WHO treaty published in? Or the EPA study? BMJ published the E&K study, so why is their finding not gospel truth?

The concept of infallibility and inerrancy is best left in Sunday school.

EtaKooramNahSmech 06:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find criticism of all those studies - there are 70 in the article, and I think it's fair to say the majority are pro-smoking - published in the sort of source which I have already explained that Wikipedia requires that you use - then as above, I would be delighted for you to post them.

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is considered carving (sic) in stone, and is trumpeted so much here because it's Wikipedia policy. The alternative is a lot of people turning up and changing things to suit their own POV without any reference to scientific opinion.

Care to provide any links to the criticism of the peer-review process you mention? Or any science which doesn't rely on it?

The E&K article was published in the BMJ, yes - as was all the criticism of it in the article. I added most of those references, so I know that. Can you find similar criticism of any of the "anti"-smoking articles?

The rest of your post reads like a giant conspiracy theory, so you'll forgive me for glossing over it. Nmg20 00:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations - for amendment once current dispute has been resolved

Long-term effects: the line about learning difficulties needs referenced (Richards GA, Terblanche AP, Theron AJ, Opperman L, Crowther G, Myer MS, Steenkamp KJ, Smith FC, Dowdeswell R, van der Merwe CA, Stevens K, Anderson R. Health effects of passive smoking in adolescent children. S Afr Med J. 1996 Feb;86(2):143-7. PMID 8619139) and (Rauh VA, Whyatt RM, Garfinkel R, Andrews H, Hoepner L, Reyes A, Diaz D, Camann D, Perera FP. Developmental effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and material hardship among inner-city children. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2004 May-Jun;26(3):373-85. PMID 15113599) and (DiFranza JR, Aligne CA, Weitzman M. Prenatal and postnatal environmental tobacco smoke exposure and children's health. Pediatrics. 2004 Apr;113(4 Suppl):1007-15. PMID 15060193) all deal with the subject.

Chronic illness: there's evidence that children raised in smoking households have a greater incidence of chronic illness than those not (Spencer N, Coe C. Parent reported longstanding health problems in early childhood: a cohort study. Arch Dis Child. 2003 Jul;88(7):570-3. PMID 12818898).

Increased risk of lung infections: good grief. Someone honestly put this in? You could pick any dozen papers on medline with "passive smoking" and "lung" in... The best are probably DiFranza et al (as above) who say "A large literature links both prenatal maternal smoking and children's ETS exposure to decreased lung growth and increased rates of respiratory tract infections, otitis media, and childhood asthma, with the severity of these problems increasing with increased exposure." Or (de Jongste JC, Shields MD. Cough . 2: Chronic cough in children. Thorax. 2003 Nov;58(11):998-1003. PMID 14586058), or (Dybing E, Sanner T. Passive smoking, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and childhood infections. Hum Exp Toxicol. 1999 Apr;18(4):202-5. PMID 10333302). Nmg20 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget this one: Association of pediatric dental caries with passive smoking. Aligne CA, Moss ME, Auinger P, Weitzman M.

Our children's teeth are in grave danger. It's peer-reviewed and eveything.

EtaKooramNahSmech 06:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, EtaKooramNahSmech. I will be delighted to add that to the article (Aligne CA, Moss ME, Auinger P, Weitzman M. Association of pediatric dental caries with passive smoking. JAMA. 2003 Mar 12;289(10):1258-64. PMID 12633187, to use the full reference) when the current dispute's resolved. Why?

It meets the requirements laid out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Nmg20 00:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 WARNING! EtaKooramNahSmech is a confirmed sock puppet of BlowingSmoke, alias 69.141.30.12 or Moderation, 
 other sock puppets of BlowingSmoke (see [32]). This name has been blocked indefinitely. 
 --Dessources 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Okay - thanks to Dessources' detective work, it looks like a number of editors, myself included, have been conducting the same argument with a number of different fictional versions of the same person. Clearly a number of editors, myself included, have wasted a large amount of time arguing with fictional people: had I realised all these people were in fact one person with an ill-informed vendetta, I'd have been able to spend time working on new articles rather than preventing him screwing up this one.

However, laying that to one side, it is possible that there are Wikipedia editors who are willing to work on and discuss articles honestly and reasonably, and that their voices may have been lost in the above threads. If so, could you please say so and we can attempt to have a reasonable discussion about any flaws you perceive in the article? Thanks. Nmg20 10:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet of blowingsmoke and I still disagree with the POV of the article as a whole. However, you will find me in this talk page rather than editing the article as I realise my view is currently a minority one. - Regards - Munta 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Munta. Looking back at the points you've raised, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's viable to use "causes" in this context. I would agree with you that at the moment the majority opinion here is in favour of retaining it; as an aside it's extremely good of you to acknowledge that so openly, and to continue discussing things here rather than going after the article itself - so thank you again for that.

Some of the references you've quoted worry me a little. This one [33], for instance, undermines its scientific credibility by arguing against positions that don't really exist; no one is saying, as the article claims, that "if you smoke you will die". Similarly, the claim in the article that "the media would have you believe that X causes Y when it actually occurs less than 10% of the time" is totally unreferenced.

It also takes what should be a single risk factor (asbestos exposure) and puffs it up into several (asbestos exposure, shipbuilding), and it fails to understand that many of these so-called risk factors in fact merely make you susceptible to the disease - but not vulnerable to it in the absence of smoking. It uses unscientific, partisan, and populist references ("""I feel like the Fox Network" (a bastion of truth in a sea of liberalism)"). Most bizarrely, it has a quasi-mystical feel in places ("As someone whom I respect says, "Words mean things."", "We must embrace Theoretics as a discipline that strives to bring objectivity and logic back into science."

That said, your other main reference [34] is a very good article. I would say, however, that it is explicitly aimed at scientific researchers ("Our goal is to allow researchers to feel more confident in the power of their research to tell a convincing story without resorting to metaphysical/unsupportable notions of cause.") and so perhaps overestimates the ability of the general public to interpret research - but the argument they make (which touches on the philosophical) is an interesting one, and I'd be happy for it to be summarised as such in the passive smoking article, although I think it would be better under section 4 or 6 than in the introduction, as they admit that the point they make is largely a semantic one.

Apologies for having missed this bit of the discussion first time through. Nmg20 15:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Where was this photograph taken? It is definitely not Ireland. (I'm an Irishman) This comment was added at 02:21 on 8th March 2007 by User:194.125.110.125. New comments go at the bottom of the page; four tildes like this ~~~~ will sign your name and datestamp your comments.

I have no idea. Perhaps if you send a message to User:Mnbf9rca, who took the photo, he could help point you to whichever Irish pub it was taken in. Is it at all possible you haven't visited the pub and so don't recognise it...? Nmg20 09:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nmg20, and in reply to your question, no. This comment was added at 22:21 on 9th March 2007 by User:194.125.98.179. Four tildes like this ~~~~ will sign your name and datestamp your comments.

Heh - enjoy your weekend, then! Nmg20 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

SSRN papers

Could User:Tjmailzone`, who has added the list of anti-smoking papers today (revision 113546897) please clarify what the SSRN is? Specifically, there's no evidence on reading papers like this that it's a peer-reviewed journal, and the tone treads a thin line between being populist and unscientific, IMHO. I'm not convinced these add anything to the article... Nmg20 14:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I don't think these are appropriate references for the article; I would appreciate other editors' opinions, as I feel they need removed. Nmg20 16:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

None of the claims that second-hand, or passive, smoke is dangerous have been substantiated

This article need to be more objective, and clearer that this is an unsubstantiated theory. The WHO and EPA studies are incredibly biased, and have not lived up to the credibility tests of real science. Also, two of the reports cited in the opening lines are inconsequential, as they are basically a summary of the producing organization's own, single, biased, study. Saying "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability." is in NO way evidence of second-hand smoke's health impacts, it is only unbiased, unbased rhetoric. Also, the Surgeon General's satatement is inconsequential as he does not have to, nor does he, back up the claims. If I had more time I would cite this, but I have to run. I do not feel like I should be the one to make the edits, as I am not a registered user yet, I do not have the articles needed to cite this, and am not a real expert. 70.130.138.210 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Moved the latest addition to the bottom of the page per convention)

I'm sorry you feel that those sources are "incredibly biased" - however, Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. In addition, there are 74 references in the article, the overwhelming majority of which support the dangers of passive smoking. Until or unless comparable studies which meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia can be found which demonstrate that passive smoking is not dangerous, the article should not be changed. The references in it at the moment are credible, "real" science - that's why they've been published in JAMA, the American Journal of Epidemiology, the BMJ, Thorax, the NEJM, etc. Unless you're suggesting some vast and vastly improbably conspiracy between pretty much every respectable medical journal with a passing interest in public health spanning the past two decades or so, your claims that it's not science are absurd. Nmg20 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read many of the cited references and many others, many of which boiled down to citing a small handfull of actual studies, a good deal were highly criticized for their methodology, and some were based simple in the concurrence of physicians while the reports themselves contained no usefull scientific data. I have not read all of the cited references, and am no longer persuing medicine as a course of study, so I doubt I am as qualified to speak on this as you :) . Still, I do have doubts about the methodological integrity and credibility of many of the cited studies and references, the majority of which are performed or sponsered by organizations predisposed to the opinion that passive inhalation is harmfull simply because active inhalation is harmfull. (varous heart and cancer educational centers such as the American Cancer Society). Perhaps my view has been tainted by the culture I grew up in,(although I know better than to let that move my hand to the edit button) and the laws of physics. I will have to go through all of the studies cited, as well as find my own notes on this issue when I have more time, and then I will bring up these issues again if they still concern me. Either way, I refuse to edit a page about such a polarizing issue when I am not an expert, and will bring these issues into greater light in this discussion page.

Also, sorry about putting this at top. The other wiki's that I participate in have different guidelines, and I should have checked wikipedia's first, as I have never discussed, edited, or created articles here. -70.130.138.210 03:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem about putting the new thing at the top - in many ways it'd make more sense to put 'em there, but there you go. And as you're new here, welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for discussing things on this page and not diving straight back to the article. I'll try to deal with each of the points you raise in turn as I understand them.

(1) The references only actually cite a small number of actual studies.

I'm not sure I agree - for instance, ref 6 (PMID 15552776) is a review of more than 3000 published studies. Ref 28 (PMID 11494987) includes 43 specific to lung cancer and passive smoking. Ref 29 (PMID 10089185) includes 18 studies about heart disease and passive smoking. Moving away from meta-analyses, ref 33 (PMID 15082893) reviews 503 schoolchildren in respect of passive smoking and asthma symptoms, ref 34 (PMID 15805186) looks at more than 3,700 adults with regard to childhood passive smoke exposure, and ref 36 (PMID 15850141) adds another 589 children. The largest (=most participants) individual pieces of scientific work looking at passive smoking invariably find that it causes health problems, and every meta-analysis published in a scientific journal worthy of the name reinforces that view, IMHO. If you have concerns about specific articles then by all means raise them, but I can't agree that as a group these references are based on small numbers of participants or small numbers of studies.

(2) "A good deal" were highly criticised for their methodology.

There has certainly been criticism of the studies supporting the dangers of passive smoking released by the tobacco industry, but much of that criticism has itself been discredited as a result of internal industry documents released as part of legal settlements (ref 73, PMID 14645955). Fundamentally, Wikipedia policy requires that criticism of studies should itself be sourced from peer-reviewed and respected scientific journals, as in the criticism in the article of Enstrom and Kabat's work (refs 65-67, PMID 12946977, PMID 12946975, and PMID 12946979).

(3) Some are just a "concurrence of physicians" without supporting data.

I quite agree that expert committee reports are the weakest form of evidence (grade C per AHCPR guidelines) - but I can't see where this features in the article?

(4) Some are by biased organisations.

All the independent assessments of the statistical likelihood of bias have shown that the biased studies come from the tobacco industry - see ref 70 (PMID 9605902) for details.

In short, I'm not defending the article in its current state because I believe I'm any "more qualified to speak on this" than anyone else - we're all ultimately trying to make Wikipedia a better resource! It's just that I don't see the gaps in the evidence which people tend to suggest are there.

Nmg20 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)