Jump to content

Talk:Passive smoking/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Studies concerning passive smoking

MastCell removed the link which gave an extract of the risk levels of the studies with the comment link which "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material". Therefore I inserted again a link, where the actual studies could be viewed to give factually accurate information. Maybe MastCell did not notice, that it was a different link, because it was removed again. I think it is important, that the results of of the studies can be looked up. Why should this page about passive smoking try to suppress information leading to the real studies on passive smoking. If MastCell has a better page, where the studies can be seen, than MastCell should put this link on the page if he is so concerned about the information about passive smoking. I think the real studies are more important than some abstracts or articles from some newspapers, which only give an extract from the studies. Catlover77

I'm not opposed to linking to or citing the actual studies. However, the link added was to a pro-secondhand-smoke (?) site with a large banner indicating that there was no danger from passive smoking. It seemed that, rather than encouraging people to look at the primary data and draw their own conclusions, the site was framing the data and telling people what to think. If we want to cite the primary studies, let's cite them - but linking an advocacy site with an agenda that flies in the face of the scientific consensus is not the best way to accomplish that. I'd welcome other opinions. MastCell Talk 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
But that's exactly what this article doesn't do (seemingly by design). It quotes a lot of "authoritative sources" and their conclusions, but it discloses little or not at all the actual evidence or how these sources arrived at these conclusions (other than to say 'a study was done'). There is a reason for this. 71.72.217.102 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup - because for an editor to criticise their methodology in the article would be original research. If the methodology is flawed, you need to find another published article subject to the same peer-review criteria as the original which says so. This policy exists for a reason, and that reason is because the scientific press, for all its flaws, is a hell of a lot more impartial and a hell of a lot more competent and judging the validity of research than the alternatives. Nmg20 09:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. You are either not reading carefully, or there is some other issue at work. What I was saying is that the article should lay out more (or at least some) primary data and information on methodology (without commentary), "encouraging people to look at the raw data and arrive at their own conclusions" (as MastCell said). This is not the same as criticism from an editor. 71.72.217.102 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What is not what you're saying? Are you not saying the methodology is flawed? What did you mean by your final sentence, "There is a reason for this" - what reason were you driving at for the "seemingly by design" lack of "actual evidence" in the article?
The reason the article doesn't lay out raw data is that it's an encyclopaedia, not a statistical discussion forum. Per WP:NOT, "...articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic". To me, that suggests that top-line statistics are fine in context - but that a detailed discussion of stats and methodology is not something we should be including.
That said, I'm not opposed to an increase in detail if it's done responsibly. What exactly do you have in mind? Nmg20 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
My gosh, calm down. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. It just seems clear that the editors/writers of the article would rather lay out ready-made conclusions and interpretations rather than laying out information. And, yes, there is a reason for it. And I believe you know what it is.
I realize that the details of every study cannot be spelled out in an article like this. But as an example, I've noted that the term "relative risk" is only mentioned once in the article (in a factual sort of way), and there is no reference whatsoever to odds ratio. Nowhere to be found is the fact that the relative risk for secondhand smoke is somewhere in the range of 1.2. I realize that it would be my responsibility, if so inclined, to add this information in accordance to the standards of this site. What I was not saying is that I would never suggest that an editors criticism be included as a part of the article. That would be absurd. While this discussion page relates to the article, not all statements made on this page are intended to be included in the article! 71.72.217.102 06:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Relax - my feathers are unruffled. A word of advice: when what you want is to see something specific added to an article, you will do a lot better by coming straight out and saying what it is than by coming onto the discussion page, editorialising, and muttering darkly about "some other issue at work" and accusing your fellow editors of "not reading carefully".
I support including the most recent estimates of relative risk and/or odds ratio in the article, preferably with an explanation of what they mean in the context of passive smoking quoted or paraphrased from a reliable source. Nmg20 09:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is good, that you do see, that the actual studies should be cited. So do you have a link or links, which provide access to these studies? I think it is irrelevant, whether it is a pro or anti second hand smoking page, as long as the information is correct, it does not matter. And what better source can be provided than the original studies. As the page of passive smoking should be neither pro nor anti but give verifyable information. But when I look at the ASH pages, the original studies are mostly not provided only a summary and and a lot of links to the full text studies or articles are dead or do not show anymore the information which concerns the summary. So if they do not provide anymore the actual studies this information has to come from other sources. Allthough if you do not like Forces as source for this information, then provide a source of your choice with this information. As it seems that you are into this topic you may have a source available, which I do not know.

The argument the page tells people what to think is very weak, otherwise links to anti-smoking pages should rise the same concern from you, which it seems this it not the case.

So if you know a link which leads to the full text studies concerning passive smoking please provide it. Catlover77 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I support MastCell's position as expressed above. In addition, there is another very serious reason for not including the proposed link ([1]). The site makes available electronic copies of all the cited articles, free of charge, while most of these are protected by copyright. This is a serious breach of the authors' and editors' copyright privilege, which could be assimilated to theft of intellectual property. Clearly, Wikipedia cannot give its caution to such a practice by linking to such a site.
--Dessources 14:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point - thanks for pointing that out. MastCell Talk 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


I have no idea where to post this query, and I have no idea if this has been posted before, as this discussion page is vast!

Would this be appropriate for inclusion anywhere in the article?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/320/7232/417?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=passive+oking&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT

Timclarke85 22:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth including a discussion of publication bias, but note that more recent studies have suggested that this is not such a problem [2]. Ideally, a secondary source summarising the literature on this point is what we need - attempts to SP:WYN make a synthesis of conflicting studies have caused enough trouble here already.JQ 00:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Secondary sources have indeed addressed the issue of publication bias; for example, the 2006 Surgeon General's report examined the issue in depth (see the Executive Summary and search for "publication bias"). It's particularly important to use secondary sources here rather than citing individual studies, since a number of studies have found no indication that publication bias is a significant factor here. Citing only one of these studies would misrepresent the total state of evidence. Publication bias is a very interesting question, though, since the tobacco documents make clear that the industry carried out a great deal of its own research on passive smoking; their findings suggesting that passive smoking was harmful rarely saw the light of day. MastCell Talk 05:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Under short term effects you mention a Scottish study to back up your claim of a rapid drop in heart attacks following the smoking ban. I think you will find that this study does not now exist. It was never published but was the subject of a press release by Glasgow University on 10th Sept 2007. Soon after the press release the full data for Scottish heart attacks became available and the claim was demolished by several authors including Blastland and Dilnott, the presenters of BBC R4's "More or Less". At the end of 2007 it was one of their top 20 junk science items in the Times newspaper. 130.88.16.205 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the reference to the Scottish heart attack study be removed until its publication can be verified. The fact that its claims have been disputed is, I admit, irrelevant. I cannot find it and do not believe it has been published. Can you provide a link to it? It does not appear in Google Scholar (author JP Pell/Jill Pell). I would also like a link to the Irish study (author E Cronin). Apparently it may be part of the proceedings of the 2007 Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Have these been published? If not, reference to it should also be removed. 130.88.16.205 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Maybe the study should be included in the denial section - shows attempts(fraudulent ones) to link passive smoking with - you name it.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Editorial comment on the E&K article

Sorry, Chido, but Richard Smith's comments in response to the Enstrom & Kabat article were addressed solely to the comments submitted to the BMJ about the article (see the "Rapid Responses" section below the main article). It's thus not acceptable to put them back in the wikipedia article in a way which implies they were addressed to the other criticism there.

As a sidenote, I did include the more notable comments from those reader responses in the article in the past. If you want to see Dr. Smith's comments included, we can turn up the criticism he's referring to - I think it's a non-starter, but am happy to go with consensus. Nmg20 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could read the contribution and/or the Editor's remarks and conclude that either was "addresed to the other criticism (in the article)."
Nevertheless, I believe the more recent contribution is even more clear.
Contrary to your analysis, Editor Smith specifically stated that he was not going to comment on the Rapid Responses; instead, he said he would "simply share some reflections."
If there is a non-starter here, it is your threat of retaliation for including this information. Chido6d 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that focusing on the "Rapid Responses" is entirely inappropriate in terms of accurately describing the controversy surrounding the Enstrom/Kabat article in a manner consistent with WP:WEIGHT. Rapid Responses are essentially blog postings. They are very lightly moderated. It's a ridiculous strawman to hold up the Rapid Responses as the measure of scientific response to this article, then shoot them down as too ad hominem or unconvincing. It's fine for Richard Smith to do that in the context of addressing the Rapid Responders, but not for an encyclopedia to choose that particular blog-quality debate as representative. Do we discuss criticism of George W. Bush by setting up the blog comments at Daily Kos and then shooting them down? I hope not.
There have, in fact, been reams of criticism of the methodology of Enstrom and Kabat. The Kessler decision; the American Cancer Society; a medical-journal article specifically devoted to the E&K study (PMID 15791022); etc. Smith did not address any of these encyclopedia-level sources; his quote pertains only to the Rapid Responses, and as cited gives the false impression that its context is more general.
We should not cite the Rapid Responses as an encyclopedic determinant of the controversy, any more than we cite blog responses to highlight any other controversy. Nor should we highlight Smith's response to the Rapid Responses. There are numerous excellent secondary sources already cited covering the E&K controversy. If you want an editorial quote representative of the E&K controversy in toto, not just the blog responses to the paper, you could quote Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association (publishers of the BMJ): "It would be wrong to be swayed by one flawed study funded by the tobacco industry - set against the studies and numerous expert reviews that demonstrate that passive smoking kills." MastCell Talk 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
To add to this: it's clear that Smith's response was directed specifically at the Rapid Response debate. He did not "specifically state" otherwise, as the link in the original post makes clear. MastCell Talk 06:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are rejected. Here's why:

  • The Editor specifically stated that he was not going to address individual responses: "I can't respond to all the points raised in this debate, and I thought I would simply share some reflections."
  • Rapid Responses are somewhat of an open forum, and may not qualify as a "reliable source". No Rapid Responses, however, are cited.
  • According to you, a Comment from the Editor of a prestigious medical journal is not suitable, but an editorial from an unknown British doctor is most suitable as long as a quote to your liking is mined therefrom. Did you know that George Davey Smith was falsely accused of having ties to the tobacco industry? Was it because he doesn't toe the line?
  • I like what Smith said here as well: "Of course the study we published has flaws—all papers do—but it also has considerable strengths: long follow up, large sample size, and more complete follow up than many such studies. It's too easy to dismiss studies like this as "fatally flawed," with the implication that the study means nothing." Where could we work this in alongside the quote you suggest, to show that good people disagree?
  • Finally, you specifically agreeded (or indicated that you weren't opposed) to including this information in the past. Why the conversion?

Chido6d 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really very simple. Richard Smith's comment was in response to the Rapid Response debate (he "shares some reflections" on it, if you wish). That debate is not particuarly WP:WEIGHTy or meaningful in the encyclopedic scheme of things. It's the equivalent of a debate carried out on the comments section of a blog, albeit a well-respected one. The argument that "no Rapid Responses are cited" is a bit misleading; you're citing Smith's response to that particular debate, in a context that makes it sound like Smith is responding to more general criticism of the study. The WP:WEIGHTy and reliably sourced criticism of the study is not found in Rapid Responses (hence Smith's comment is not particularly germane). It's found in the sources actually cited in the article: the Kessler decision, the ACS statement, the article on the inadequacy of the conflict-of-interest declaration, etc. I'm not particularly agitating for the Nathanson quote to be included (though describing her as an "unknown British doctor" is pretty rich); I'm just indicating that even that quote would be more germane than Smith's in this context. Bottom line: we're not going to set up a blog debate as noteworthy here when there are so many better sources, and we're certainly not going to parade Smith's comment on the blog debate as if it's a rebuttal to all criticism of E&K. If I indicated otherwise earlier, perhaps I just didn't understand where you were trying to go with this. MastCell Talk 07:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right about one thing: It's really very simple. It's as simple as this: you and a few others will take up any argument, no matter how ridiculous and absurd, in an attempt to silence those with whom you disagree. Chido6d 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's fair, as I've found a number of points you've raised to be compelling. I'm sorry you feel that way. To move back to the realm of content: the Rapid Response debate (and Smith's comment on it) are not representative of the wider, reliably sourced scientific debate over the paper. I'm merely suggesting that as the paper was controversial enough to warrant so much space here, we should use sources that accurately represent the scope of that controversy, rather than focusing on what was essentially a blog war. MastCell Talk 05:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of points I've raised have been more than compelling, as they unmask the audacity of a small group of extremists who continue to shamelessly strong-arm the article in an attempt to preserve it as a piece of their own propaganda. Regarding the Editor's comments, I believe that they were published in a subsequent issue of the BMJ. Is this not correct? And, unlike the Associate Editor (who referred specifically to Rapid Responses), Mr. Smith said that he was not going to "respond to all the points raised in this debate." He was very non-specific about what he was referring to, so we simply cannot say what it was. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the BMJ received letters, emails, phone calls, "rapid responses", and probably a few knocks on their door. Mr. Smith refers to both criticism of the study and, more importantly, the criticism leveled at the BMJ for publishing the study in the first place. To say that he was only responding to the Rapid Responses (something he did not say) is the grandest of assumptions. This is akin to the vehement suppression of the results of the 1998 WHO study; it is argued that some of the findings are "not controversial" and therefore not worthy of mention. Controversial or not, these are profound findings that would be most appropriately included. The article itself states that "ETS is carcinogenic to humans" and increases the lung cancer risk of "those exposed" (no distinction is made between children and adults). There are other examples which indicate that the WHO's finding may very well be controversial. At the very least, you are splitting hairs to keep things out of the article simply because you don't like what they say. At the worst, it is condemnable deception. Chido6d (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening your response with yet another attempt to portray everyone who disagrees with you as audacious, shameless, strong-arming, propaganda-disseminating extremists would get my back up if I weren't so used to it from you and others. More to the point, it's rude, childish, and against wikipedia policy - so can we restrict ourselves to discussing the issue at hand, please, Chido? Maybe take five minutes before you post to decide if you really need to start by insulting everyone whose opinion differs from your own to communicate what you need to.
The Editor's comments were indeed published in the BMJ, as were a proportion of the comments which have been in the article in the past criticising the study. It's abundantly clear that Smith was referring to the comments published in the BMJ rather than the wider debate; even were he merely "non-specific about it", as you claim, that would prevent you from specifying things for him and seeking to apply his comments to the wider debate when he doesn't mention it. If he isn't specific about what he's talking about, the simplest explanation is that he was referring to comments in the BMJ about the article published in the BMJ, and that's the one we should go for. That's not an assumption, it's common sense: the assumption would be that he was talking about whatever is most convenient for an argument in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. If you want to suggest he was talking about other parties in the discussion, state which ones and explain what evidence there is to support that position, please.
Finally, when responding, please try to keep accusations like "condemnable deception" out of your post. Resorting to them makes it look like you don't have an argument worth the name to conclude and are looking to distract from this fact with yet more ad hominem insults. Nmg20 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nmg20 on the fact that Smith, as editor of the BMJ, was clearly responding to responses received by the BMJ and not to the far more notable criticisms of E&K's study by the ACS, testimony reflected in the Kessler decision, etc. As to your other contentions, the article is heavily sourced to reliable secondary sources and stays extremely close to those sources. "Hairsplitting" here would more accurately describe ongoing attempts to obscure the unanimity of these reliable sources. Finally, I can't speak for others, but my patience with Chido6d is at an end and I won't be responding further to any post of his which contains the kind of rhetoric and personal attacks evident in most or all of his recent posts. MastCell Talk 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you focus on what you perceive to be "personal attacks", because the point is not that you are extremists. The problem is how you translate your passions into your conduct when you edit Wikipedia.
I suppose that being called rude and childish exonerates me of any alleged wrongdoing via being the victim of retaliation.
We are told that we cannot "apply (Smith's) comments to the wider debate when he doesn't mention it"; instead, we must apply his comments solely and specifically to the Rapid Responses when he doesn't mention any of them.
In fact, the "Summary of Rapid Responses" was written by an Associate Editor.
But all of this is irrelevant, because you don't like what Smith said. So you create a phony argument -- just like you did about the WHO study (as I have shown, but you fail to mention) -- and surround yourself with 3 or 4 likeminded individuals who...well, you know.
This might be a good case for honest mediation, but not the kind where someone exits the stage silently when it's not his line in order to get the POV tag removed and an awful edit rammed through. That would be shady. Chido6d (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
... and the shunning starts... now. MastCell Talk 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to shun you, Chido. You are welcome to continue having the edits you make to the article to try to bring it in line with your personal opinion, unencumbered as it is by any actual evidence to back it up, reverted by more rational and reasonable editors. But I have given you fair warning on the personal attacks: the next time you post here or elsewhere accusing me and other editors who don't share your opinion "extremists", peddling "phony argument[s]", and "shady", I'll move to have you officially censured.
The reason you keep losing these arguments is because you're wrong, plain and simple - and if you can't learn to accept defeat gracefully, neither I nor the other editors who you claim I "surround [my]self" with (how does that work on the internet, pray tell?) have to put up with it. Grow up or shut up, in short. Nmg20 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please watch WP:CIV. There's no point in getting down in the mud with him; staying to the high road works better against his type. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me, Ray. I appreciate you warning others to refrain from "getting down in the mud with...(my) type" (though the description may, to some, seem to have negative connotations). It's also somewhat ironic (to say the least) that someone warn me about personal attacks while in the same post implying that I am neither rational nor reasonable, I am defeated, and -- believe it or not -- to shut up because I am "wrong, plain and simple". In the past, I have also been called unintelligent (ha), a hypocrite (with religious connotations, including the quotation of Holy Scripture (how low can we really go?)), devious, a "sock", and a few otherwise unsavory descriptives. To the best of my recollection, though, I've not been called an extremist. That would be a personal attack.

I am here because the article is in violation of WP:NPOV. The deliberate, baseless suppression of qualified, reliable sources (including the WHO) is not acceptable. Neither is the presentation of an opposing view in a purely pejorative sense.

Others are not satisfied to state the truth about an opposing view -- that it is not held by the majority, is contrary to scientific consensus, and is often financed by the tobacco industry (because of economic interests...imagine that). The inclusion of this information is most proper, and one would be derilect (or dishonest) to omit it.

Rather, the article is fashioned to the liking of extremists who, among other things, manipulate the text accordingly. In short, there is a concerted, continuous effort to portray the opposing view as sinister, evil, irresponsible, absurd, and/or fraudulent. This is mainly achieved through emphasis, structure/order, selectivity, and duplication. A specific example would include putting Davey Smith's commentary (a quote mined to the editor's liking, and arguably out of context) in the same sentence as the summary of a major study.

There is also an insistence that claims be stated factually ("Current scientific evidence shows...") rather than attributing to the source (i.e. "According to major health organizations...").

There has been some effort lately to portray the article on Passive smoking as what would be more appropriately titled: "The Scientific Community's View on Passive Smoking." This is not the purpose of the article, as is clearly demonstrated by the inclusion of data from Gallup (which itself is manipulated for effectiveness, as I have pointed out on at least two occasions). Were this particular aspect of the article disputed, I have a hunch that the resolution (if one were ever reached) would be to simply delete the Gallup section. This would follow along the lines of the "de-Kessler-ization" of the article. Everyone knows that mentioning the judge's name would "obfuscate the fact that this was a court decision." Chido6d (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"The deliberate, baseless suppression..." POV, and assumes the motives of third parties.
"Others are not satisfied to state the truth..." accusation-by-implication, assumes the motives of third parties, and sets up the poster as the Arbiter-of-Truth.
"The inclusion of this information is most proper, and one would be derilect [sic] (or dishonest) to omit it." POV, flies in the face of the evidence on this talk page that plenty of editors disagree with the statement, accusation-by-implication again (twice), and Arbiter-of-Truth ("is most proper", "one would be").
"the article is fashioned to the liking of extremists" direct accusation, POV, followed up by accusations of manipulation of the text which are, as usual, not backed up by any examples.
"there is a concerted, continuous effort to portray the opposing view as sinister, evil, irresponsible, absurd, and/or fraudulent." Extraordinary for its lack of insight.
I should not have posted in anger, but enough is enough. Nmg20 (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting in anger is one thing; not understanding my post is another, and misrepresentation is yet another. I'm particularly concerned with the lack of understanding. From your post, you imply we should NOT include information that you embrace (which is certainly not true), probably because you were so angry that you failed to tie that paragraph with the next. I'm also curious as to why you say "not backed up by any examples" when I did just that. We do agree that enough is enough. Chido6d (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to imply that the EK study was funded by the tobacco industry. I understand that most of it was funded by the American Cancer Society until it realised that the results would be unfavourable to it's objectives. If any of you have evidence to the contrary, I am interested to hear it. 130.88.16.205 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lifted from a recent dicussion on Talk:Lung cancer:
Its methodological flaws have been pointed up extensively, Enstrom's relationship with the tobacco industry formed the basis of another peer-reviewed article (PMID 15791022), and the Enstrom/Kabat BMJ paper was specifically cited in a U.S. District Court racketeering decision against the tobacco industry as an example of how the tobacco industry and its paid consultants published biased research (pp. 1380-1383).Nmg20 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I'm not much impressed by an article by Glanz in the Journal of Tobacco Control - peer reviewed or not - but I was unaware of the legal documents. I shall read them in conjunction with Enstrom's recent article defending himself. As to the methodological flaws you bring up. Were they pointed out extensively in a peer-reviewed article? I have not gone back and and looked, but I seem to remember Glanz was one of the major critics on the crazy rapid reponse page. I've taught probability and statistics for 25 years but I've never come across anything like that before. Personally I would back the statistical competence of the editor of the BMJ and the referees against that of Glanz, who I don't think even claims to be a statistician. If you feel the need to mention that Glanz's article is peer-reviewed then you should accept the validity of the peer-reviewing of Enstrom's. I think we have got to the nub of the problem, This is not a scientific debate but a religious war. I have a suggestion which might create an article worth reading. There are a small number of you editing this page, who seem, for whatever reason, to be on an antismoking mission: including yourself, Mastcell and Dessources; and Chido6d, Tim85, myself and a couple of others who think this page may as well have been written by ASH. Each side should write it's own view of each topic. Readers can then make up their own minds. This will discourage complete nonsense. For example, in an earlier post I pointed out that the Scottish heart attack study effectively doesn't exist. My method would ensure that there would be no reference to it. It is a bit like pendulum arbitration. The two sides are inevitably forced closer together or risk ridicule. 130.88.16.205 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're unimpressed. However, Wikipedia is not a debate forum in which we go back and forth about the risks of passive smoking. This is spelled out in more detail in the talk page guidelines and the neutral point of view policy. Specifically, the page reflects views in proportion to their representation among experts in the field, as spelled out here. If anything, the small handful of dissenters receive undue weight here, in comparison to the weight of scientific consensus on the risks of passive smoking. We are not going to create two separate versions of the article; at least, I'm not interested in such an exercise, as developing an article which unduly highlights the view of a tiny minority seems to be a means of making an end-run around consensus and policy. I'm not familiar with the details of the Scottish study; if it has been retracted, or never submitted, then rather than bloviating please provide a reliable source to that effect and we'll update the article accordingly. MastCell Talk 17:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mastcell: if the Scottish was retracted or whatever, let's see the proof, and then update the article accordingly. Yilloslime (t) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. You're not much impressed by Glanz's article in the Journal of Tobacco Control, I'm not much impressed by Enstrom's "I'm-great-honestly-leave-me-alone" effort in 'Epidemiol Perspect Innov' (PMID 17927827). Swings and roundabouts. It doesn't mean I or any of the other small number of people you accuse of being on an "antismoking mission" actually are, just that in my opinion an honest researcher who's aware of the intrinsic statistical uncertainty of single pieces of research would see no benefit to their career or to their academic integrity to continuing to try to prop up a dodgy bit of work in the face of concerted opposition from - well, basically everyone else, including the former editor of the BMJ (whose statistical competence I am glad you back) when he said in the accompanying editorial that "they may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings". Unless Enstrom was less interested in honest research than in, say, getting huge wads of cash to be an industry shill. On which note, perhaps you'll find this letter, from James Enstrom to Philip Morris requesting a large research grant "to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking" more convincing regarding the funding of the study?
Finally, I absolutely don't agree that "each side should write its own view of the topic", and thankfully nor does Wikipedia (WP:BATTLE, WP:DEMOCRACY). If you want to suggest "pendulum arbitration", you need to do it to whoever writes wikipedia policy. Nmg20 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
BMJ Editor Richard Smith and contributor Dr. George Davey Smith are two different people. The BMJ Editor did not write the article you cite. I kindly ask that you pay more attention if you wish to continue your contributions to this forum. The misunderstandings, false accusations, hasty reverts and the like continue to occur on a regular basis (as this page and an examination of the article history will show), and they are not helpful at all.
The author of the article you cite is clearly unconvinced that passive smoking increases the risk of disease, but a quote has been mined and is presented out of context in the interest of POV. The newbie is correct that a small group of editors (you may count them on one hand, but he forgot about Yilloslime and JQ) have formed a pseudo-consensus and control the article -- in large part because they have driven away the dissenters.
It is audacious, and frankly offensive, that a few of you would bring up the Wikipedia pillars (especially neutral point of view policy). It is against this policy to suppress information from reliable sources and present a view pejoritavely that is different than your own under the guise of an abusive interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. But since your POV is unconvincing (that is, utter nonsense) when the raw data is considered, I suppose this is what you must do.
I would point out to the newbie that we attempted to create a small section in order to fairly present the opposing view. This attempt was unsuccessful. It was not sufficient that it would be clear (from the rest of the article and the context) that the opposing view was held by a minority, and that it was contrary to major "health" organizations.
That being said, it is pretty clear that the article (for now) isn't going to change. For this reason and others, an article on The Anti-Tobacco Movement is forthcoming. Chido6d (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Before you spend too much time developing a POV fork, please be aware that trying to create a new article emphasizing one aspect of a controversy, as an end-run around consensus, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT, is not going to be successful. MastCell Talk 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice and your concern for my time (why you'd care about the latter is beyond me). But since you don't control Wikipedia, you don't define success, and are mistaken (once again) about my intentions, I will take your comments in context and consider the source.
Actually, I would hope that the new article will focus more on historical and timeline information than anything else (such as Germany in the 1930's and 1940's). It should not be a forum for pro-tobacco zealots, nor should it be an article against the so-called scientific consensus (though it would probably examine several aspects of it). By no means would it be a POV fork. Chido6d (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You stated that you're creating the article because you've failed to get your way here ("...it is pretty clear that the article (for now) isn't going to change. For this reason and others, an article on The Anti-Tobacco Movement is forthcoming.") That is the definition of a POV fork. Your stated focus on Nazi Germany, a common well-poisoning ploy of "pro-tobacco zealots", also belies your comments above. MastCell Talk 07:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets try to stick to WP:SHUN and avoid feeding trolls. As I recall that's what we decided to do a couple months ago, and in my opinion it's been pretty effective. Yilloslime (t) 16:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
True enough. MastCell Talk 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to bite my tongue over Chido's post above in the light of MastCell's and Yilloslime's just here. Except to marvel at his continued ability to talk about "a small group of editors" who are anti-smoking while still being able to use "we", as in "we attempted to create a small section", when he means "I". Nmg20 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attacks, such as calling me a "troll", are uncalled for yet equally unsurprising. I suppose it never crossed Nmg20's mind, while biting his tongue, to thank me for educating him on the identity of Dr. George Davey Smith (for the second or third time, I believe), or to note that there were at least three (3) drafts for the proposed new section (hardly a project solely of my own doing). When one's arguments are shallow, empty and clearly not credible to the reasonably intelligent, it doesn't suprise me that one would stoop to name calling and brand one's dissenters as only trying to disrupt.

It has been said here - and I agree - that this article is not the proper place to document the history of (and information about) the anti-tobacco movement and efforts toward tobacco control. The new article is intended to be more about history and purpose than about science. It would not be a "fork".

Wikipedia is quickly becoming a source of information for virtually everything, and this kind of information certainly merits inclusion. In fact, a professional wrestler of old, "Haystacks Calhoun", crossed my mind the other day, and I knew where to go to find out more.

When I said "for this reason and others", my focus was on the "others". I suggest that this is yet another failed attempt at reading my mind; I also continue to find it mind boggling that anyone would be so concerned about the creation of an alleged "POV fork" while continuing to blatantly undermine the other policies intended to govern this site. A running list of information suppressed in this article for no good reason, as well as pejoritive nonsense, is becoming voluminous. Chido6d (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Chido, you're a real knight-in-shining-armour on the avoiding-namecalling front. We're lucky to have you. Nmg20 (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Enstrom/Kabat study part-funded by ACS?

I have seen claims that the Enstrom/Kabat study was initiated by the American Cancer Society, with funding by the Tobacco Related Disease Research Programme, to prove, once and for all, the link between passive smoking and all the ills associated with smoking proper. When it became clear that the study was not going to prove any such thing, they dropped it in a flash. It was only at this stage that the tobacco industry picked up the tab, to the extent that some 90% of the study's funding came from the anti-tobacco lobby.

Can anyone comment on this? Jel Mist (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See here (cited in the article). The study was initially funded by the American Cancer Society, as Enstrom was using their database. During the course of the study, ACS researchers expressed concern that Enstrom was using flawed and potentially misleading methodology; ultimately, the ACS scientific peer-review panel denied Enstrom further funding. At that point, Enstrom turned to CIAR, a tobacco-industry front group, and wrote to Philip Morris that he required a "substantial research commitment" from the tobacco industry "in order... to effectively compete against the large mountain of evidence" showing that passive smoking was harmful. Draw your own conclusions, though I suspect you already have. MastCell Talk 20:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, MastCell, for that. Just so that you know where I'm coming from, I admit I did go through a couple of smoking phases: first in my mid-teens while at school, then in my early 20s while stuck in dead-end jobs, then more recently I was exposed to it again for about three years as a result of smoking dope. If this instantly prejudices my contributions in anyone's eyes then fair enough. I've since sworn off it - for good this time, I hope - and would not mind if I never had another cigarette or joint in my life. I'm all in favour of the British public smoking ban - among other things, it makes going in pubs more bearable, and I don't have to suffer my work colleagues blowing smoke in the office. You won't hear any objections to anti-smoking measures from me. And I don't have any shares or any other interest in tobacco companies.
The reason I posted my original question was this. The writer James Delingpole wrote that Dr. Enstrom was passionately anti-smoking himself and involved himself with the study in order to prove the harm caused by passive smoking. Now, if this is true, why would Dr. Enstrom have tried, assuming he did, to skew the results of the survey to undermine the case he hoped it would make? If he, like the ACS, wanted to prove such a link, why would he have persisted in using CPS-I data despite repeatedly being warned off? Or is Mr Delingpole's assertion about Dr. Enstrom's own opposition to smoking not credible?
I'd be interested to find out if any links can be established between Dr. Enstrom and either the pro- or anti-smoking lobbies prior to his approach to CIAR after the ACS pulled the plug. Jel Mist (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I know Dr. Enstrom's motivation. As to links to various interest groups, in 1996 internal Philip Morris emails indicated that Enstrom had already been doing "litigation-oriented" work for PM and RJ Reynolds. Again in 1996, Enstrom wrote to CIAR that he had been doing consulting for Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds "for the past three years", putting it back to 1993. I have no idea when the ACS funding was sought or lost, so I can't contextualize it further. Take a look at the U.S. District Court's decision in U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al. (scroll down to page 1380 for the Enstrom/Kabat discussion). MastCell Talk 16:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Scottish study

To go back to the Scottish study raised by the anon IP above: looking again at the article, I see that we mention (under "Short-term effects") a list of places where heart-attack admissions dropped after smoking bans were implemented, including Scotland. Most of these, however, are currently unsourced. I removed the unsourced ones, including Scotland. We can put them back when good sources are found, but they shouldn't be in there till we have the sources. Is the Scottish study mentioned elsewhere in the article that I missed? MastCell Talk 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was the anon IP. From now on I am writing under the name Otis66. Otis66 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
A sufficiently reliable source for the Scottish result might be given by [3]. This is a press release by the Scottish Government. It refers to a research paper presented in September 2007 at the international conference "Towards a smokefree society" held in Endinburgh, but which is, I presume, not yet available in printed form.
--Dessources (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
While the Scottish government is a reliable source, I would favor waiting until the article is published in the peer-reviewed medical literature before we cite it here. The bar for presenting results at conferences, even very respectable conferences, is generally lower than the bar for publishing one's results in the literature. MastCell Talk 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Let us wait. --Dessources (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Increased Lung Cancer in Mice?

Studies between smoking/non-smoking spouses aside, most articles and studies that talk of the direct relation between ETS and Lung Cancer reference the Surgeon General's 2006 The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke, which in turn references a number of Dr. Hanspeter Witschi's studies. Those studies show an RR of 1.3 for 73 mg/m3 of total suspended particulates, up to an RR of 2.8 for 137 mg/m3 of total suspended particulates. Ok, fair enough, I said to myself. So is a smoky bar closer to 73 mg/m3 or 137 mg/m3? Strangely, the Surgeon General's report measures bar smoke in micrograms of nicotine/cubic meter and says nothing of suspended particulates. When trying to find a way to compare μg/m3 of nicotine to mg/m3 of particulates, I came across Repace, J.L., Lowrey, A.H. Indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke, and public health. Science 208: 464, l980 which measured an average of 16.72 mg of particulate matter per cigarette. Which made my heart go out to all those poor bartenders in 1 cubic meter bars with patrons who constantly smoke at least 5 cigarettes in less time than it takes the air to recirculate, because their chance of getting a specific, rare, naturally occurring type of tumor is about 30% higher than all those health nuts and anti-smoking zealots. But I realized this constitutes original research, so I can't do much more than post it on the talk page, whine a little, and ask if anyone's found anything similar to Witschi's studies that directly compares ETS with cancer... Aron.Foster (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm failing to see what your post has to do with mice, but what you are looking for is here. It's really not original research, but it's a curious thing that air quality is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not tobacco smoking is taking place. And since there is "no safe level", then all levels are harmful (no matter how small). Got it? Good. Chido6d (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The key sentence in that press release is the last one: funded by the Center For Indoor Air Research (CIAR). Jenkins, the study author, was described as an "external resource" by Philip Morris, who apparently reviewed his manuscript prior to publication (see the Philip Morris "tactics" sheet here). The Oak Ridge studies were specifically criticized as an example of the CIAR's deleterious effect on scientific objectivity (PMID 8784687). MastCell Talk 06:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really surprised that you think the "key sentence" is the last one, but it's unfortunate. There is a lot of good information there. Even if you only believe the JAMA study, RSP levels of 117-348 mcg/c3 are just a tiny fraction of the OSHA standard. I believe that air quality measurement should be the norm, rather than asking sick people how many cigarettes or cigars were in the same room with them over the course of 50 years. But I'm not being paid big bucks by the pharmaceutical companies to call the shots.
I think the study would be a great addition to the article, in the scope of the debate and for informational purposes. But since ad hominem attacks rule the day here (and elsewhere), I will digress.
Even your sources state that some of the CIAR research was submitted for peer review. I, too, would be suspects of the research that was only reviewed internally. Still, since you can't argue with the data, I guess there has to be some reason to dismiss it out of hand -- no matter how frivolous. Chido6d (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chido6d, one must be suspicious of any study whose final report is a PowerPoint presentation (it's available for download on their website). As for what it has to do with mice, I'd point you towards Animal Testing on Rodents. It's very difficult to determine causation from Epidemiological studies. The smoking/non-smoking spouse studies will only ever be able to determine correlation, unless you go by the EPA's 7 point system of "correlation + we can't think of any reason why not = causation".

You say "air quality is irrelevant", which is exactly the stance on this subject that makes me so upset. The amount of smoke in the air is everything! Witschi et al. showed unequivocally that an increase in the amount of smoke leads to an increase in tumors. Which prompts one to ask "What's the increased risk in an average bar or smoking workplace?"

As for "no safe level", there's a safe level for mercury in your drinking water and a safe level for gamma radiation, so I have a very hard time swallowing that there isn't one for smoke. We shouldn't be looking to remove all risk, but to find an acceptable level. Do you actually want to Nerf the world? The 2006 Surgeon General's report said it best:

The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist, thus implying that any exposure carries some risk.

Got that? From "suggests" and "may not" to definitive risk without a breath inbetween. Sadly, this type of logic is swallowed whole by most people, yourself apparently included.

If comparing quantities of ETS in the lab studies that show increased risk with average quantities of ETS in bars, restaurants, workplaces, and homes isn't original research, then I'd like to add that section to the main page. Aron.Foster (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you were being sarcastic Chido6d, I totally missed it. You know that doesn't translate well into text?Aron.Foster (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It's so outlandish that I thought the sarcasm would be obvious. Chido6d (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It is original research to synthesize two primary-source studies to advance a third position or argument, which is what it sounds like you're suggesting (though if you could re-post links to the 2 sources for convenience it might be clearer). As to ad hominem, this has come up hundreds of times before. Since there is well-sourced and documented evidence of tobacco companies manipulating the research they fund (CIAR in particular), and well-documented evidence that tobacco-company-funded studies are somewhere around 88 times more likely than non-industry studies to "exonerate" passive smoking, the source of funding is relevant and not ad hominem. MastCell Talk 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chido6d: outlandish positions on the internet, even on wikipedia, can't always be discarded as sarcasm. I met a man online the other day who actually planned to vote for Hillary! Could you believe such a thing?

MastCell: I'm looking at the 2006 Surgeon General's report here [[4]], specifically Chapter 2 and Table 2.2. Yesterday I found the data I was originally looking for in US Environmental Protection Agency's Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disorders here [[5]] in figures 3.1 and 3.2. Regretfully, I haven't been able to find any of the Witschi et al. reports (1997-2000) for free online. Nor have I been able to find any other inhalation studies on mice.

I'll admit that the reason I started looking into this subject was because I was frustrated I could no longer smoke in bars in Ohio. I also saw the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on ETS, which got me more frustrated. I read a lot of the literature and concluded that ETS is undeniably harmful to humans (to my credit, that's not what I entered the issue believing), that the tobacco companies have done some shady if not downright amoral things on the science of the issue, and that there's a widespread misunderstanding of the level of risk ETS poses. The statistical fallacies made in #Misleading are the most readily available example. The only position I am advocating is an increase in the ease of finding the actual risk of ETS according to trustworthy scientific literature so that policy makers can make an informed decision on the issue. It took me a long time and a lot of digging to find a report on regular smoking that didn't fluff up the issue* so I'm not hopeful for second hand smoke.

* The relative risk of all-cause mortality of smokers versus non-smokers (surprisingly constant over age and different reports) is about 2. That, in my mind, is the clearest answer to "How unhealthy is cigarette smoking?" and, coupled with an understanding of the non-lethal negative effects of smoking, is required to make an informed decision as to whether or not one should smoke. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The relative risk of cardiovascular mortality and lung cancer associated with secondhand smoke exposure is actually fairly consistent in large studies: the RR is about 1.3 for cardiovascular mortality and about 1.2 for lung cancer. Check the National Cancer Institute's executive summary of the evidence here (see page ES-3, paragraph 2). These relative risks are fairly small, but given the ubiquity of exposure, the absolute impact in terms of deaths caused by secondhand smoke can actually be quite substantial, as described in the summary and elsewhere. The information is out there and available to decision-makers. MastCell Talk 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For lung cancer, yep, RR of 1.2 is generally accepted. Am I odd for believing that's misleading? It sounds like working in a smoking environment is 20% more dangerous than a non-smoking one, and I worry policy is being made on that assumption. It actually means that the chance of getting a rare, naturally occurring type of cancer is increased 20%. IMO, the increased risk of lung cancer from ETS is far below many other acceptable risks—I would compare smoking bans and lung cancer with lowering the speed limit 5 mph.

Chapter 8 subsection Controlling for Confounding, starting page 517 of the Surgeon General's 2006 report, raises some interesting points on cardiovascular mortality. There are strong correlations between exposure to ETS and other factors known to increase the risk of heart attack. Lots of factors. Figure 8.1 shows 16 studies, only 5 of which have the bottom of their 95% CI's above RR 1, and notes elsewhere that many of those 16 studies didn't control for those factors. That doesn't prove or disprove anything, but it does raise some interesting questions that are all too often overlooked when quoting "55,000 myocardial infarction deaths because of ETS". It comes down to the question "People who have a smoking spouse or work in a smoking environment more likely to make lifestyle choices that put them at greater risk for heart attack; do you believe that current studies have sufficiently controlled for and eliminated those factors when assessing the increased risk of ETS?" And I don't think the level of human knowledge on the issue is at a point where either answer can be written off as idiocy or unfounded by the other party. Aron.Foster (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously welcome to form your own opinion based on your reading of the literature, though I don't see how a clearly stated relative risk of 1.2 is "misleading", nor would I overlook the difference between relative and absolute risk highlighted in the source above. In any case, though, views in the article are represented not in proportion to the number of Wikipedia editors who hold them, but in proportion to their representation among experts in the field. However, if we anywhere in the article refer to a view as "idiocy", then let's change that. MastCell Talk 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, maybe I was treating this too much like a forum, but I believe I made some good points. A few anonymous users have already (poorly) altered the article to more clearly express actual risk, so there are obviously more people than just me who believe this important information should be included. If you disagree, let's talk about it (this is the talk page, after all) rather than just deleting it. Aron.Foster (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolute risk is already expressed, in terms of absolute numbers of deaths annually related to passive smoking in a given country. What else did you have in mind? MastCell Talk 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Size of reduction in hospital admissions following ban (Dinno & Glantz 2007)

Briefly, there have now been repeated attempts to change the figure of 25% to 11% in the article, the most recent here. These are basically vandalism - the article actually quotes 27%, which is the figure I've now reverted it to. The exact text is:
Page 10 of the commentary reads: "Now that there are 4 similar studies, it is possible to pool them to obtain an overall estimate of the effects of smokefree ordinances on hospital admissions for coronary heart disease. The effect size estimates for the different studies are heterogeneous (Qdf=3=28.30, pb0.001), so we used a random effects meta-analysis using the meta package for Stata version 9.2. Overall, these four studies indicate that smokefree laws were associated with a 27% reduction (RR .73; CI 0.56, 0.89) in heart disease hospital admissions." None of the individual relative risks for those studies (in table 1) included 1.0, and only the *lowest* was 0.89 (consistent with an 11% reduction). These are also graphically represented in figure 1 - in short, if you've read the article, it would be impossible to come away with the impression that 11% was the figure the study came up with.
I've amended the wording to make clear the first reference is not solely the Italian study; it'd be great if this data could now remain accurate in the article. Nmg20 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the American Heart Association says 27%, not 11%. But is there somewhere in that study where the account for the fact that smokers smoke less after smoking bans, therefore have a lower risk of heart attack? Because they don't mention that in the link provided... Aron.Foster (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the focus on these small studies when there is data available for whole countries? Heart attack admissions for Scotland, both before and after the smoking ban, are public knowledge. Nobody is going to get a peer-reviewed paper out of quoting them, but several authors have commented on them. eg Blastland and Dilnott, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stm and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3085272.ece. Surely you answer the question of whether smoking bans cause a drop in heart attack admissions by looking up the statistics for heart attack admissions? Statistical inference is necessary only when data for whole populations is not available. Second, why is there a section on smoking bans? Doesn't this go against the guidelines, as there is already a separate page for smoking bans? Why not just refer to that page? Also I don't agree with picking out opinion polls. In the UK there have been countless polls on the smoking ban and the results depend on exactly what question is asked.Otis66 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The older text mentionned the Piedmont study, and clamed that the reduction was 25%. The linked page with the abstract of the original article clearly states that it was 11%, and not 25%, and only among under 60 year olds, since the full study shows heart attacks actually augmented in the general population in Piedmont after the ban. Correcting an incorrect number in accordance with the link you actually provided certainly is NOT vandalism. Unfortunately the Glantz "metanalysis" isn't available on the web.

Who has tampered with the heading to this section? It does not not now appear as a separate section. Please can it be replaced. Otis66 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The smoking ban section should be brief, with a quick summary and a pointer to the main article on smoking bans (which, incidentally, needs work). As to the Scottish study, it's not entirely clear. While your point about statistical inference is valid, it should be balanced with the issue of coding accuracy - the national data was based on discharge coding (a notoriously iffy source), while the StopIt study was apparently based on more direct assessment of smoking and MI's. Still, there seem to be enough questions about the Scottish data that it would be best to draw no conclusions here about it - certainly not until the real world have decided what conclusions to draw. MastCell Talk 19:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The study in question is a meta-analysis including over 8,000 people. That's not small. Nor, of course, is it conclusive - but it's a decent start. It is available on the web if you subscribe to the relevant journals. If you don't, go to a medical or university library and see if they can dig up a paper copy for you. The Piedmont study is one of four included in the meta-analysis, and its findings are as you saw them on the abstract page. However, the meta-analysis is, per WP:MEDRS, a better source than one of the studies it includes. The Glantz study was and remains the reference attached to the 27% figure, because that's what the article says - as in the section I reproduced above. End of story.
Regarding those news stories - how seriously am I supposed to take Michael Blastland (co-author of one book with a silly title) when he comes up with such damning indictments of the smoking ban as "This seems to demonstrate significant variability around the trend, suggesting that last year's 8% drop might even be the result of chance. It is conceivable, although perhaps unlikely, that the smoking ban had no effect at all." That's not exactly hard-hitting, is it? Nmg20 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference to denialist's position in summary

MastCell has modified the summary of the article, which had been around for months, replacing "Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability" with "The risks associated with passive smoking have been the subject of debate and controversy, much of it generated by the tobacco industry. There is currently a scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." I do not think this is an improvement, and I think this is making a huge concession to the denialist's view on passive smoking, in two ways. First, it gives the "controversy" a status of recognition that it does not deserve, as if this had been a genuine scientific controversy, while we now know it was uniquely engineered by the tobacco industry, directly or via scientists under the influence of the tobacco industry or mislead by the industry's propaganda. Second, it seems to indicate that the controversy was generated in part by the tobacco industry, while actually the whole controversy on the general toxicity of passive smoking can always be traced down to the tobacco industry, directly or indirectly. There was discussion about points of details, which could be controversial (such as whether passive smoking causes breast cancer), but this is very different from the type of generic controversy implied by MastCell's text. I did a check with other articles on topics which are also the subject of denialism: 9/11, AIDS, Holocaust, Evolution. None of these contain in their summaries references to the controversies launched by denialists against the scientific consensus. I do not see why passive smoking should be an exception. Sorry, MastCell, but I think the text should be reverted to its previous version.

--Dessources (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement over what was there, but it's still POV for two reasons. The first you mention (in your own extreme and biased way), and the second is the swipe at the tobacco industry.
Better yet, and in harmony with NPOV, I think the opener could be further improved by deleting the first sentence and including the second: "There is currently a scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." This is a factual statement.
By the way, what is a denialist? The labeling is not particularly helpful, and it should be defined. Could a denialist be one who:
  • Denies that there is a "scientific consensus" on passive smoking
  • Denies that passive smoking is harmful, or believes that the alleged dangers are grossly exaggerated (among the general population)
  • Denies that the alleged dangers of passive smoking are controversial (among the general population)
  • Denies that well over 80% of the studies on passive smoking fail to find a statistically significant link between passive smoking and disease
Thanks.
Chido6d (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree it was better as it was before. Nmg20 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR on death of waitress

The following text has been in and out of the article.

In 2008 ScienceDaily reported on a case study confirming that the death of a Michigan woman was the result of acute asthma associated with environmental tobacco smoke. Death Of Waitress Linked To Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Case Study Shows

Let's leave it out for now and discuss modifying/including it here.

I don't think it has any place in this article. She was an asthmatic. We don't write about heart attack victims on the exercise page, regardless of the spin the media puts on it. Aron.Foster (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong in the "controversy" section, where it appears outright inflammatory and sensationalist. I could see it fitting in as a few words and a ref under "Long-term effects" next to asthma there - perhaps as "and acute exacerbations of asthma" with the ref? Nmg20 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't care where you put it but I don't think it should be removed outright. It's clear that it is relevant to passive smoking. And I'm not sure why someone's opinion on whether it's "spin" isn't really relevant to the discussion. We don't put heart attacks as an exercise controversy, but it's not controversial that activity can cause a heart attack. From the article:

“This is the first reported acute asthma death associated with work-related ETS,” said Kenneth Rosenman, an MSU professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. “Recent studies of air quality and asthma among bar and restaurant workers before and after smoking bans support this association.” In 2006, the surgeon general’s report concluded that ETS causes coronary heart disease, lung cancer and premature death. But at that time there was little hard evidence linking ETS to the exacerbation of asthma in adults.

Athene cunicularia(talk) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've included it in the short-term effects section (where on reflection it obviously fits more tidily given that it's an acute event), and have changed the reference from a newspaper report to the actual case report in the literature per WP:MEDRS. Hope that suits everyone. Nmg20 (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with that. I think that it is relevant enough to be included here, but sorry for the misplacement.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all, and thanks for finding the article!
Still interested to hear from other editors about this - my line is that although the article title is itself a bit inflammatory, it's probably in the context of the journal inflammatory in an industrial-lawsuit kind of way. In any event it fits the peer-reviewed, published respectably etc. criteria, and I think now it's clear it is an isolated but possibly indicative case report it's a good addition. Thoughts? Nmg20 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it really that inflammatory? I didn't pick up on that at all, but I could've just missed something. :) My intent was to include the article because it seemed relevant to passive smoking.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Good find on the actual case report. Titling a report "How many deaths will it take?" is inflamatory in my book, but Nmg20 is right that since it's peer reviewed and published in a major journal, it's acceptable. It's a shame one must pay to read the study. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was thinking only of "Death Of Waitress Linked To Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Case Study Shows".Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is most suitable for inclusion, though its title screams advocacy. "How many deaths will it take?" begs the question, "To do what? Convince people to take needed medication as prescribed? Eradicate all things that may trigger a deadly asthma attack, such as cats, perfume and -- yes -- even smoke?"
The key is to include the source appropriately and in an unbiased way. For the record, in a rare moment of agreement, I wish to endorse the contribution of Nmg20 for upgrading the source and locating a very fitting place to put this information.
I would like to make a minor edit, though, and change "triggered" to "associated with." Chido6d (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Chido. Not sure I agree with the change - although the conclusion of the abstract uses "associated with" to link passive smoking and asthma attacks, it's pretty clear that - in the opinion of the authors - the woman's death was directly due to passive smoke exposure. Quote: "The waitress collapsed at the bar where she worked and was declared dead shortly thereafter. Evaluation of the circumstances of her death and her medical history concluded that her death was from acute asthma due to environmental tobacco smoke at work." I'm not too fussed about it, however. Nmg20 (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia reviewed at FORCES

There's a piece critical of this article at FORCES [6]. This may or may not presage arrival of some new POV warriors on this page.JQ (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. People who are prevented from spamming their pet website and prevented from abusing Wikipedia to advance their contrarian agenda complain that it's biased. In other news, the sun rises in the east again. :) MastCell Talk 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Lord knows we don't need any more POV warriors on this page. This all makes me wonder who the "Forces Five" are (not counting Dave Hitt, of course). I would have thought they would send more intelligent folk. Is this the basis for the recruiting tag?
Nevertheless, while I agree with about 49.9% (yes, just under 50%) of what the article says, I would not go so far as to say that those with whom I disagree have been "planted" here and are funded by pharmaceutical groups.
It is well known that I oppose the suppression of some sources and information (on baseless grounds), and an obvious, deliberate attempt to frame a view other than "scientific consensus" entirely in the pejorative.
All of this would be fine if it didn't clearly violate NPOV and fairness of tone in particular. I think the problem lies more in what Wikipedia claims to be than what it actually is.
Chido6d (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the {{recruiting}} tag, as we haven't seen any particular increase in inappropriate editing of the article in the month since User:John Quiggin noted the FORCES article. It seems self-evident to me that it was appropriate to add it at the time, however, and that we should restore it should the article suffer any influx of new POV editors in the future. Nmg20 (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to reactivate old tobacco industry propaganda

The newly added section entitled "Exposure to ETS as cigarette equivalents" reactivates old propaganda, or rather disinformation, of the tobacco industry. The notion of "cigarette equivalent" as a measurement of exposure to tobacco smoke has been one of the techniques most systematically used by the tobacco industry to minimize, or even trivialize, the risk of exposure to tobacco smoke, by stating that the risk associated with such exposure is equivalent to the risk associated with actively smoking an extraordinarily minute fraction of a cigarette. Most of the results quoted by the industry were actually produced by scientists paid by it, and were part of the fraudulent plot which has been brought to light by the public release of millions of previously secret tobacco industry documents and which has been confounded in the courts of various countries.

The misleading use of the notion of cigarette equivalent was already denounced back in 1994 in an editorial of the New York Times. In his 2006 Report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, the US Surgeon General clearly indicated the limitations of the notion of cigarette equivalent - and this explains why he does not use it in the report:

"The underlying concept of deriving a “cigarette equivalent” risk factor for CHD [the greatest risk associated with ETS] from secondhand smoke exposure by linear extrapolation appears biologically inappropriate [...]. Furthermore, calculating equivalence based on relative exposures to nicotine or to its metabolite cotinine may not be biologically appropriate because the particular components of secondhand smoke that are most relevant for an increased risk of CHD have not yet been identified. [...] Constituents besides nicotine may play a more important role in the damaging effects of secondhand smoke. Additionally, some of the mechanisms linking tobacco smoke exposure to CHD risk appear to have nonlinear relationships with dose." (Chapter 8, p. 520)

The section added by Chido6d raises several other issues. Let us look separately at the two paragraphs of the section, starting with the first:

Some research methods require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS. Using relative risk estimates for ETS exposure, The National Cancer Institute concluded that cigarette equivalents for ETS exposure range from 0.1 to 1.0, with the most likely number being 0.2 (or two-tenths of one cigarette per day).

The leading statement ("Some research methods require en estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS") is not backed by the paper by Jay H. Lubin, which is referenced as the source for the paragraph. Actually, in its draft response to the New York Times editorial, the tobacco industry suggested that the use of ‘’cigarette equivalent’’ was motivated by an opposite purpose (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that we can take their explanation at face value): “The notion of a cigarette equivalent is used, because it is not very meaningful to the non-scientist to hear that the average nonsmoker' s exposure to nicotine in the workplace, a restaurant or other public venue is about ‘one microgram per cubic meter per hour’.” Therefore, starting the paragraph with “Some research methods require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS” provides a scientific justification that is not deserved.

The next sentence states that, "Using relative risk estimates for ETS exposure, the National Cancer Institute concluded that…" (my emphasis) One gets the feeling that what follows is an official statement made by the NCI in one of its substantial reports or monographs. Looking at it more closely, one sees that this is not the case. The source that is referenced here is not an official statement made by the NCI. It is taken from an article written by Jay H. Lubin, a scientists working for the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at NCI, based on a presentation he had made in July 1998 at a workshop. The best source to find the official position of NCI on ETS is its Monograph 10: Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke published in November 1999. Although this monograph dedicates a whole chapter to "Exposure Measurement and Prevalence", there is no trace in it of any notion of "cigarette equivalent".

Finally, the conclusion which is attributed to the NCI in the first paragraph is also misleading. Indeed, it states that ETS exposure ranges between 0.1 to 1, with the most likely number being 0.2. This gives the impression that 0.1 is the lower bound of the range and 1 its upper bound, while 0.2 would be the mean value. This is plain wrong. First, it should be noted that ETS exposure varies greatly depending on the particular context, some people being indeed exposed to very little ETS (although still running a risk) and others, particularly in the hospitality industry being exposed (assuming no smoking ban) to amount of ETS that may be orders of magnitude greater. Second, the point Jay Rubin makes is that, in order to be subjected to an increase of 27% of the risk of lung cancer, one only needs to be exposed to the "equivalent" of between 0.1. to 1 smoked cigarette, with the most likely quantity being 0.2. But this does not preclude the fact that many people are exposed to far greater quantities of smoke and are subjected to a far greater increased risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, this only refers to lung cancer, not to the highest cause of mortality and morbidity attributable to passive smoking, CHD.

We see why this first paragraph is very misleading. I do not say that the issue raised by Jay H. Lubin is wrong, but it is of little relevance and would require, to avoid being misinterpreted, an explanation to a level of detail that would be out of place in this Wikipedia article.

Let us now address the second paragraph:

Similarly, on the basis of urinary cotinine concentrations, the National Research Council concluded that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb the equivalent of 0.1 to 1.0 cigarette per day. The National Research Council also found that blood and urine samples analyzed for vapor phase nicotine indicate that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb about 1% of the tobacco combustion products absorbed by active smokers.

It is interesting, first, to examine the reference used as the source for this statement. The source is a webpage on the CDC website, reproducing the Current Intelligence Bulletin, number 54, issued in 1991 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC. This webpage contains the following two sentences: "On the basis of urinary cotinine concentrations, the [NRC 1986] concluded that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb the equivalent of 0.1 to 1.0 cigarette per day." and "Blood and urine samples analyzed for vapor phase nicotine indicate that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb about 1% of the tobacco combustion products absorbed by active smokers [NRC 1986; DHHS 1986]." The two sentences are reproduced almost verbatim in Chido6d’s second paragraph. NIOSH is not, however, the real source for these two sentences, which are attributed to other sources, notably a report produced in 1986 by the National Research Council [NRC 1986] and, accessorily, the 1986 Surgeon General’s Report on Involuntary Smoking [DHHD 1986].

The NRC 1986 report is entitled Environmental Tobacco Smoke – Measuring Exposures and Assessing health Effects. I found a copy of it among the tobacco industry documents [7]. The only "conclusion" found in the report is the following: "Generally, the mean concentration of nicotine and cotinine in the plasma or urine of nonsmokers exposed to ETS are about 1 percent of the mean values observed in active smokers." (pp 5-6) However, the report acknowledges that the state of science at the time was insufficient to make a firm conclusion on this subject, and made the following recommendation: "Absorption, metabolism, and excretion of ETS constituents, including nicotine, need to be carefully studied in order to evaluate whether there are differences between smokers and nonsmokers in these factors. Further epidemiologic studies using biological markers are needed to quantify exposure-dose relationships in nonsmokers." (p. 6)

Confining oneself, in 2008, to digging up (and misrepresenting) a "result" from a 1986 report, ignoring the fact that the report presents the result with great caution and proposes that further research be conducted, and acting as if no valid research had taken place since then, is not what is expected on Wikipedia. It seems that this actually provides a flagrant illustration of "cherry picking", a criticism that Chido6d has often used against other editors.

Finally, if other editors were to insist that a section be included on the concept of cigarette equivalent, then a very recent result, published a few weeks ago in the Swiss Medical Review (Revue Médical Suisse) (see [8]), should be included – still making all the reservations that are needed. Using a new nicotine monitor (MoNIC), developed specially by the Occupational Health University of Lausanne (IST), Swiss researchers have measured the level of exposure of various categories of non-smoking people in Switzerland, a country where passive smoking is still prevalent in most public and work places. They found that only 5% of the population of non-smokers is exposed to very low doses of ETS (< 0.2 cig. equivalent/day). Over 90% of the population is exposed to higher doses, going from 1-2 cigarettes per day to over 10 cigarettes per day. Workers in the hospitality industry are exposed to very high doses, from 15 cig. equivalent/day to 38 cig. equivalent/day. The results of the nicotine monitor were cross-checked with a measure of nicotine and cotinine found in saliva. This study shows that, should one insist to use the concept of cigarette equivalent per day, in spite of its limitations, the real figures reveal much higher levels of exposure than the results picked and distorted by Chido6d.

I have deleted the section. If someone insists to have it anyway, it will have to be completely redesigned to meet the NPOV rule.

--Dessources (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

CDC and NIOSH are pushers of tobacco industry propaganda? Well, the section is back for you to twist and deform to your POV. Chido6d (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What is typical of industry propaganda is to dig up very old statements from an official agency, take them out of their context, distort them to suit the industry's line and present them as if they were the current official position of the agency. Neither CDC, nor NIOSH (a subsidiary of CDC), currently support the concept of cigarette equivalent. On the contrary, they warn against using this concept. The Surgeon General's statement quoted above represents the official position of CDC (and NIOSH) on this issue (note that the Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking is produced by CDC).
--Dessources (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Dessources has pretty comprehensively demolished the idea this should stay in the article as-is, and a 2-sentence accusation of twisting and POV doesn't really even dent that. This looks in the light of what's posted above to be more a footnote in the annals of industry attempts to undermine or distract from legitimate science... Nmg20 (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, quote mining is more typical of creationists than of tobacco hacks. One thing that fascinates me about Wikipedia is the apparent hierarchy of discreditableness among different kinds of delusionists/denialists even though in real life, there's a lot of overlap. AGW delusionists are furious when you point out the origins of many of their leading figures, and standard lines of argument in the tobacco lobby. Tobacco lobby types usually disliked being lumped in with creationists, and they all hate being tied to AIDS reappraisal. Yet the arguments are exactly the same, with all the same wikidodges being employed. About the only genuinely consistent person on the antiscience side is Tom Bethell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs)
I wasn't trying to "dent that". I cannot possibly spend precious time responding to complete nonsense; I must do so (if I so choose) when I have absolutely nothing else to do. There are, though, some inconsistencies (to put it very kindly) that I will soon point out.
It did suddenly dawn on me that JQ's seeming attempt to get under some people's skin through name-calling and belittling doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either. The AIDS "denialists" appear to ignore or contradict solid, statistically significant raw data. Creationism (though some creationists claim to have proof of their position) is based largely on religious faith.
That's not a lot of overlap. Chido6d (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The scientific community begs to differ with you about passive smoking denial's ignoring/contradicting "solid, statistically significant raw data", Chido6d. And once again, by specifically accusing JQ of name-calling and belittling, despite the fact that he, er, didn't mention any names in his message, you're exhibiting some pretty breathtaking hypocrisy. Nmg20 (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


I was beginning to see a glimmer of hope, since Nmg20 and I seemed for a moment to be working well together (regarding the death due to asthma attack, where I endorsed his work, and his kind/generous upgrading of the source for my latest contribution). We are, unfortunately, back to reality.

Dessources, you obviously put a lot of work into your explanation. In a certain sense it is respected and appreciated, but you could have saved a lot of time and effort by simply erasing the section and stating that you find it’s implications to be at odds with your agenda and your point of view. You may have wished to add that you were, once again, engaging in mind reading and fretting over how the reader may interpret what he/she reads. This has become a pattern. It is fair enough that you would question the notion of cigarette equivalence, but to throw out an unsigned editorial from the New York Times as evidence is not very convincing. Without question, and not surprisingly, Dick Carmona would reject cigarette equivalence. After all, he has stated unequivocally that “there is no safe level” of exposure to ETS. I do take issue with your criticism of my summary:

Some research methods require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS.

What the source actually said was this (emphasis mine):

Estimates of lung cancer in nonsmokers due to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)…may be based on a) models developed using the full range of data in smokers; b) models developed using data restricted to smokers with a low smoking rate, for example, 10 cigarettes per day; c) models developed using data from studies of residential exposure to ETS of nonsmokers, with exposures based on smoking rates of spouses; and d) models using data from studies of occupational exposure to ETS of nonsmokers. Methods a and b require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS as well as assumptions on the cigarette equivalent dose to target cells from ETS and on the comparability of lung cancer risk per unit dose from smokers and nonsmokers.

This resulted in the following response:

The leading statement…is not backed by the paper by Jay H. Lubin…Starting the paragraph with “Some research methods require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS” provides a scientific justification that is not deserved.

Please explain.

The point about the reference to the NCI is well taken. Perhaps you could have clarified or named Dr. Lubin, in the same fashion as you advocated the identification of Judge Gladys Kessler. Or, you could just erase the whole thing.

There is nothing wrong with the second paragraph, either. Your ‘’quote mining’’ basically says that they recommend further study to better understand the meaning of the results. This does not negate the study’s data - sorry.

So, what more do we have? Take a look at the following spiteful accusations:

  • I dug the sources up
  • I misrepresented the results
  • I ignored important information
  • I was “acting as if no valid research had taken place since then” (I love that one), and
  • I was flagrantly cherry-picking.

The whole thing sounds eerily similar to an indictment against the EPA about 15 years ago.

I cannot finish without mentioning what a complete joke the Swiss study was. Is it really going to be published in a Journal? The nicotine monitors were “gracefully” distributed by the CIPRET Valais (Center of Information and Prevention of the Addiction to Smoking) as part of a campaign entitled "Smoked passive, we suffer from it, we die from it." The stated objective (before undertaking the project) was to "inform clearly…the population of the dangerousness of the passive smoke." [9] (Grammatical errors not mine.)

That sounds a bit like committing to a conclusion before even starting the research…kinda like the EPA did. Is that why you suggested including it? Chido6d (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Can someone distill the essence of this latest argument into a useable precis so that the rest of us can comment? MastCell Talk 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, would you like some Grey Poupon and a distilled water with that, Mr. Precis? Chido6d (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm asking that you drop the snarkiness and outline the issue briefly, and that Dessources do the same. That would be the tack that a constructive, good-faith contributor would take. If you want to keep using this talk page to take potshots at the EPA and Richard Carmona, then you will likely remain irrelevant. Is that better? MastCell Talk 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, aside from your potshot about "remain(ing) irrelevant".
I'll get on it tomorrow. Chido6d (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As regards your comment on the Swiss study, can I suggest that you need to radically revise your thinking before you are going to make useful contributions here. As the article states, the question "does passive smoking cause cancer and other forms of health damage" is settled (Hint:The answer starts with "Y"), so the notion that a research project beginning from that premise is "committing to a conclusion before even starting the research" is about as sensible as suggesting that a research project in geography should start from an agnostic position regarding the shape of the earth. Long experience suggests to me that you are unlikely to make a useful contribution to this page until you accept the conclusions of scientific research on this topic.JQ (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh my. The last time I checked, Wikipedia's pillars didn't require a litmus test for one's personal point of view. Maybe I should revisit and see if things have changed. Similarly, I'm not certain that being arrogant and patronizing makes for a good editor, because it's neither persuasive nor conducive to good faith. Maybe that, too, has changed.
Your suggestion is rejected until there is evidence beyond a weak association that fails to reach statistical significance (in other words, never).
MastCell, here is what I was saying. Don't be mistaken; I have no real hope of coming to mutual agreement even on the meaning of neutrality.
The addition would have been out of place if commentary would have been added. I don't recall reading anywhere anything like "this means that the risk is itty-bitty, too."
Once again, information is being suppressed simply for not fitting into one's own agenda. I will add this to the running list, which is quite lengthy as you might imagine.
There's also way too much mind reading going on. One can't help but to think that things in here border on the bizzare. A contribution, straight from the source and without commentary, is railed against as original research and/or propaganda that was dug up out of unseemly places in order to mislead. In my life, I don't recall meeting many people who make such grand assumptions with little or no evidence (thank God).
Desources also said that the source did not offer a scientific justification for determining cigarette equivalence. Whether or not there is justification in fact, the source said there was.
A proper response would have been to add information if necessary.
If anyone believes that CIPRET could conduct a fair evaluation, he/she likely also believes their finding that some occupations offer their nonsmoking employees the equivalent of one cigarette every 12 or 13 minutes, simply by being in the same room where others are smoking. It would be difficult to even (actively) smoke that many cigarettes.
And if you believe all that, I will sell you a large southern island. For cheap. Chido6d (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Information Under Suppression

For a while now, I've recognized the need to outline the bias of this article in a systematic way. The following table is by no means exhaustive, and deals only with the information that is currently under suppression.

There are many other issues with the article, such as abuse of sources, bullying of editors, misinformation and purposely framing other viewpoints in the pejorative, which I may be able to address at a later date. This is probably not a final version of the table (it's more like a draft).

For those who come into this forum and would like to edit, I hope that the following work is enough to convince you not to waste your time.

I've not included links to everything (yet), but I encourage anyone who wants to know more to use a search engine and/or consult the history and talk pages.

I intend to update this table as needed, and I also intend to pull it from archives (whenever this is done) in order to keep it on the current page. Thanks. Chido6d (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Under Suppression Comment Reason given for Suppression (if known)
Major conclusions of the 1998 World Health Organization report on ETS This major study found no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. The study also found no detectable risk after cessation to exposure of ETS. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that these two findings are not controversial, and therefore do not have a place in the controversy section. Attempts to rename the section appropriately and to include this information elsewhere have both been thwarted.
Editor Richard Smith’s comments on the Enstrom/Kabat study published in the British Medical Journal In a letter written in 2003 and published in the British Medical Journal, the Editor of the BMJ commented on the uproar caused by publication of the Enstrom/Kabat study. He defended the BMJ’s decision to publish the study, calling the same study "a useful contribution to an important debate." Of passive smoking, he said, "We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered." Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the Editor’s letter was solely a response to blog postings (though he did not limit his comments to Rapid Responses), and is therefore not relevant.
Congressional Research Service Report on the 1992 EPA study The U.S. Congress reviewed the 1992 EPA study on ETS, and subsequently issued a report that cast doubt on the EPA’s classification of ETS as a carcinogen. Unknown
The identity of District Court Judge Gladys Kessler Judge Kessler ruled against the tobacco industry in a recent racketeering case. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that identifying the judge would "obfuscate the fact that this was a court decision", while in fact Ms. Kessler made the decision and handed down the ruling on her own.
Comments of Dr. George Davey Smith Dr. Smith wrote an article in the BMJ, which analyzed the Enstrom/Kabat study. Dr. Smith called the risk of exposure to ETS "small", and said that the impact of exposure to ETS remains under dispute. Activist Wikipedia editors have suppressed the comments mentioned, while including his comment that Enstrom and Kabat "may (have) overemphasized the negative nature of their findings." Unknown, apart from pure, unadulterated bias and selectivity.
"Where’s the Consensus on Secondhand Smoke?" published by the Heartland Institute. Published in November of 2007, the article is harshly critical of the report by the former U.S. Surgeon General. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the Heartland Institute (a non-profit organization) is not a reliable source, and claim that the Institute has ties to the tobacco industry.
Link to the Scientific Integrity Institute Website where Dr. James Enstrom explains his work, questions conclusions on ETS and defends himself against his critics. Activist Wikipedia editors claim (for unknown reasons) that this website does not merit inclusion (though they leave untouched a link to "Tobacco Scam").
Article from Skin and Allergy News: "Is the Public Health Message on Secondhand Smoke Based on Science?" Published in February 2007. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the article implies a debate that does not exist.
The British House of Lords Report on Risk Management The Report questioned the size of the risk of exposure to ETS, and whether the risk was large enough to justify the banning of smoking in privately owned places that are open to the public. Unknown
Reanalysis of Epidemiological Evidence on Lung Cancer and Passive Smoking by J. B. Copas Concluded that the risk of exposure to ETS is overstated due to publication bias. Unknown
Center for Disease Control Report on ETS as cigarette equivalence The report concluded (in brief) that non-smokers were exposed to the equivalent of about 0.2 cigarettes per day. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the information is "old tobacco industry propaganda", and that a report by CIPRET (an activist organization) claims that non-smoking workers are exposed to the equivalent of up to 38 cigarettes per shift.
Studies and data on RSP’s as related to Permissible Exposure Limits The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (a part of the U.S. Department of Energy) conducted a study on ETS, concluding that various chemical and particulate matter was not observed at levels known to be dangerous. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.
POV tag A number of editors coming in to contribute to the article (or comment on it) have expressed concern about the bias of the article. When the POV tag has been placed, activist Wikipedia editors have removed it repeatedly, claiming that there is a "consensus" that the article is not in violation of NPOV. Unknown, though one could easily conclude that the activist editors prefer not to acknowledge the controversy outlined here.
Sigh. Is it that time again? Are you hoping for a new set of editors, who will be more responsive to this sort of approach? Or hoping that people will get tired of hearing you push the same arguments and POV again and again and just give up? Or do you honestly believe that your approach - demanding undue weight for a discredited tobacco-industry/denialist perspective while branding any editor who disagrees as an anti-smoking zealot, will actually work this time around in a collaborative environment? MastCell Talk 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No. The purpose of the table is clearly stated at the beginning: "to outline the bias of this article in a systematic way." Another purpose, in part, is to actually help preserve your propaganda piece. Perhaps you read too quickly; a warning precedes the table advising potential editors to not waste their time. This is hardly a call for a bunch of new editors to take interest and/or action. Chido6d (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well, if its only purpose is to express your frustration and warn other users away from actually editing and improving the article, then it ought to be removed as an abuse of the article talk page. I'll move it to your userspace momentarily. MastCell Talk 19:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate this must have been a bit of work for you, it's just rehashing lots of old discussions from this page in which you have by and large been the only proponent of your point of view, Chido, and as in those discussions rather than accepting this is because yours is the minority viewpoint you choose to brand everyone else "activist". In addition you leave out all the evidence myself and other editors have provided: there is an entire section of this talk page, a little higher up, which User:Dessources devoted to explaining exactly why the concept of a 'cigarette equivalent' was flawed, and it's extensively referenced, and it was supported by three other editors. Your view was supported by, er, none.
If you have any new supporting data you feel is valid, by all means let's discuss it - otherwise you're just bringing up arguments out of context because the context tends to be damning of your point of view. Nmg20 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of difference in exposing the bias in an organized fashion and merely expressing frustration. The latter accusation is simply not true. Pointing out the bias, even if on a talk page, is an improvement of the article in and of itself (via discussion). It's also not really rehashing old debates. There is no new proposal that this information be included in the article.

Regarding the statement that I am by and large the only proponent of another view, I have also considered assembling a list of other editors that have been shouted down and/or driven away. They far outnumber the five or six activist editors that come to mind.

In fairness, I acknowledge that I could not extensively rehash all arguments for or against the use of a certain source. The table is only a snapshot or a summary, and the rest of the discussion is, of course, here for the record. That being said, I believe all statements to be accurate. By no means is the information intended to be deceptive.

I have no plans at this time to introduce any new supporting data. The likelihood of suppression is just too high. Chido6d (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you seem you to realize that you are beating a dead horse. While we may disagree on how or why the horse has died, I hope we can agree that the best course of action in times like these is to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Yilloslime (t) 04:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I like that - "shouted down" and "suppressed" are so egosyntonic. Certainly preferable to the alternate hypothesis that Chido's failure to advance his minoritarian POV at every level of Wikipedia's dispute-resolution pathway is due to the fact that it is simply incorrect, inaccurate, or out of line with basic Wikipedia policy. Actually, another admin said it best - see #1 on the list. MastCell Talk 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Good article...I think #35 and #39 are applicable here, and with that I'll refrain. Chido6d (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

SHS Causing Death

Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.

Surely, this is incorrect. I've been exposed to second-hand smoke on numerous occasions, but I'm still more likely to die of something other than a smoking-related illness. I suggest changing this sentence to either:

Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke can cause death, disease and disability.

or, perhaps better:

Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke increases the risk of death, disease and disability by smoke-realted causes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedd (talk • contribs)

I think most readers will understand causes to mean "increases the risk of", but I don't see a problem with

Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke increases the risk of death, disease and disability.

It's a good idea not to change the summary until others have had a chance to comment, so I'll wait for that to happen.JQ (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that "increases the risk of" is a better way of phrasing this, so I'd be fine with the change. Secondhand smoke does cause death, disease, and disability on a population level, but it's probably most accurate to say that it "increases the risk" for an individual. MastCell Talk 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this change. This is, to my mind, obviously referring to causation at a population level: Tedd is right to suggest it would be absurd to say that anyone exposed to passive smoke will suffer death, disability, etc., but it's equally absurd to suggest passive smoke doesn't cause these things in the population.
So while I'm happy to go with the majority view here, my worry is that this is an unnecessary dilution of the point and that it will be taken as an indicator that all other instances of "cause" should become "increases the risk of" - and that I would oppose more firmly. Nmg20 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We might could rephrase to make sure that the sentence cannot be read as "after a single exposure to second hand smoke, everyone immediately suffers ...", but "cause" is precisely the wording used by the cited sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's at all clear from the context that death (etc.) within an exposed population is being referred to. If it's important to state the causality I suggest:

Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability within an exposed population.

--Tedd (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that it is referring to some sort of generalized ecological increased risk; your proposals are technically true, but underrepresent the power of the studies used to draw the conclusion. To my reading, the sentence as written conveys precisely the conclusions of the cited material - that environmental exposure to second-hand smoke causes death, disease, and disability. Reading the reports, this is exactly the language used to describe the studied effects of exposure.
I think that we are arguing semantics, and I would like to present what I see as being an analogous situation. Suppose a friend and I spend the weekend volunteering in Iowa, spending one evening with an old raconteur and his head cold. It so happens that my friend's immune system wards off infection after equal exposure while mine does not. Is it still appropriate to speak of the virus as a causative agent for my symptoms?
Put another way, low SES is also associated with increased incidence of heart disease. It is, however, a risk factor rather than a cause - the population has an increased incidence, but changing an individual's socioeconomic status will not reduce their risk of heart disease if all other factors remain constant. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"Is it still appropriate to speak of the virus as a causative agent for my symptoms?"

Clearly, yes, the virus caused your symptoms. But it would not be correct to expand that statement to the general case. We run into a problem if we try to apply wording used to describe individual cases ("exposure to virus X caused symptom Y in patient Z") to the general case ("exposure to virus X causes symptom Y"). There will always be cases where the factor did not cause the symptom, so general statements about causality have to be qualified.
To do otherwise overstates the case. It is a semantic issue, but, since we're using language to communicate, semantics are as important as facts. An ill-formed sentence does as much damage to the truth as an ill-formed arithmetical statement or formula. --Tedd (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the section below [10], which should settle this discussion. "Cause" is the term adopted by all public health authorities; it is used in all our most reliable sources. This Talk page is not the place for redefining the notion of causation. In epidemiology, criteria such as the Bradford-Hill criteria are used by public health authorities for interpreting the massive evidence at hand and draw the conclusion that "passive smoking causes death, disease and disability".
--Dessources (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not realistic to expect readers of Wikipedia to understand the specialized uses of language in every field. This is not an article in an academic journal, and the phrase, "causes death, disease and disability" will be interpreted by most readers to mean what it means in everyday usage. I think the phrase, as written, will not convey to the average reader what someone knowledgeable and experienced in the field thinks it says.--Tedd (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a pamphlet targeted directly at average people using cause in the same way and sense as this article. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The reference cited discusses smoking, not second-hand smoke, and so is not relevant here. However, even if it were about a relevant subject, citing such a reference indicates a misunderstanding about the use of references in Wikipedia. Reference are used to back up statements of fact. But the facts are not at issue here. What is at issue is the semantic manner in which the undisputed facts are stated, and no article or study about second-hand smoke can help us decide that.
I have proposed two improvements on the statement in question. To date there has only been one objection to my proposals (raised by a couple of commenters), and that is that they understate the case. It is precisely my contention that the original wording overstates the case. It's clear from the references that death, disease, or disability do not always result from exposure to second-hand smoke, and therefore second-hand smoke does not cause them in the sense of A causes B, which is the everyday understanding of the word. SHS indisputably can cause those things, and it indisputably does cause the risk of them to increase. Such undisputed statements are precisely the "consensus truth" that Wikipedia is meant to express.--Tedd (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with your parsing. Smoking causes lung cancer. That is both widely recognized as true, and it is the language used by reliable sources (e.g. the guv'mint pamphlet cited by Eldereft) to summarize the issue. But death/disease/disability do not always result from smoking cigarettes - I'm sure we all know individuals who have lived a long, functional life and died in their 90's despite smoking 3 packs a day. I'm actually fine with either phrasing as they are both reasonably accurate, but I don't agree with your stated rationale since it plainly fails when applied across the board. MastCell Talk 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"Smoking causes lung cancer." I agree that we're all familiar with that phrasing. But my comments above are equally valid when applied to it, as well. What happens in the case of the phrase "smoking causes lung cancer" is that people unconsciously adjust their semantic understanding, knowing that the person speaking doesn't literally mean "cause" in this case. But, while this flexibility in our readers makes it possible for us to be semantically sloppy without losing all meaning (unlike writing code for a compiler, for example), we shouldn't rely on it. The existence of one example of sloppy semantics doesn't justify creating more.--Tedd (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I think it's simpler than that. The sources all say "cause", and there's an acknowledgement here that 'cause' is readily understood to mean 'at a population level'. It is therefore not "sloppy" to use 'cause' - if it were you should take it up with the dozens of national and international organisations who've used it in the same way! - it's true to the original sources. Nmg20 (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I already addressed this idea earlier in this section.--Tedd (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I take it you mean when you said "It's not realistic to expect readers of Wikipedia to understand the specialized uses of language in every field. This is not an article in an academic journal, and the phrase, "causes death, disease and disability" will be interpreted by most readers to mean what it means in everyday usage."
If so, it appears your honest position is that your average person happening on the article will think it means every single person exposed to passive smoke will become ill (disease), disabled (disability), and ultimately dead (death). I think that's pretty insulting to the intelligence of a notional average reader of this encyclopaedia, and given that they all seem to cope with sentences like "Most cases of meningitis are caused by microorganisms, such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, or parasites" (from the meningitis article) without assuming any infection of any sort leads irrevocably to meningitis, it's also entirely unwarranted. 'Cause' is used throughout this encyclopaedia and throughout the currency of everyday life in precisely the way it is in this article without anyone becoming confused. Nmg20 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I was actually referring to my justification for calling the original wording sloppy, which I think stands on its own and was in no way countered by your reference to the sources.
But I do honestly think that some people will interpret the statement to mean, "anybody exposed to SHS for long enough will die or become diseased or disabled (as a result of the exposure)," and, quite possibly (since the statement is also a bit ambiguous as to whether we should expect any or all of these things), simply, "anybody exposed to SHS for long enough will die (as a result of the exposure)." I know people who believe this now, and I assume it's because they've been exposed to similarly poorly-formed statements from other sources. (Poor writing is toxic in its own way.)
But, more to the point, why would the article say something that's not literally true, when it's quite easy to change it to say something that is literally true, and virtually impossible to misconstrue? Does the semantic grey area created by the original wording serve a valid purpose? If it doesn't, then it should be eliminated. A more clear and precise statement is superior to a less clear and precise one, when the objective is honest communication. I think I've amply demonstrated that both of my suggested changes are more clear and precise than the original, and, to date, nobody has challenged that. I'm having difficulty understanding why this is even an issue.--Tedd (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps people do honestly believe this wording means they'll become ill through prolonged exposure to passive smoke. This is a good thing for the simple reason that they may be right. It is not "poor writing" or "toxic" to state that passive smoking causes disease any more than it's "toxic" to say that rhinovirus causes the common cold - in both cases there will be people exposed to both who do not develop disease, but the one still causes the other.
Your comments on semantics are, with respect, irrelevant - put simply, your opinion on what is "more clear and precise" is contradicted by, among others, the WHO, the US Department of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the UK's Chief Medical Officer. To be blunt, those national and international authorities disagreed with you about what constituted "clarity" and "honest communication", and please feel free to take this as a challenge to your suggestion that your wording is better than the original. Nmg20 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Nmg20 object to the first wording change I proposed at the beginning of this section? I don't want to see one person's POV limit the quality of this article, and I suspect Nmg20 would say the same thing, so third parties are going to have to decide.--Tedd (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really care whether it says "causes" or "can cause". I think these are semantically equivalent in this context, and any marginally literate reader will draw the correct conclusion from either wording. It doesn't seem worth expending a lot of time over. I'm not as crazy about the last forumulation proposed by Tedd (Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke increases the risk of death, disease and disability by smoke-realted causes) - too wordy and not clear enough. MastCell Talk 00:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think I made my arguments clear above. Cause is how reliable sources intending to inform the general public describe the issue. I respect MastCell's analysis, but do not see the need to change this formulation. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I also, for my part, expressed the case for the current formulation in a fairly extensive way (see section below), and this has not been substantially challenged. Changing "cause" to "can cause" fails to make the point clearer - it rather obscures it, as it implies a meaning of "cause" which is different from the way the term is used in epidemiology and by the public health community (see definition of causality in epidemiology). Moreover, the present formulation is consistent with other references to causality in the body of the article, which have been around for a long time and do seem to be well accepted. The lead sentence under the Long-term Effect section says: "Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke [...] causes the same problems as direct smoking [...]". At the end of the same section, passive smoking is said to be "the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. and in children." In the section entitled Epidemiological studies of passive smoking one reads that "In France passive smoking has been estimated to cause between 3,000 and 5,000 premature deaths per year." Even Philip Morris, in stating their position on the issue, says "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease." I see therefore no valid reason to change the present formulation. The second wording proposed by Tedd is awkward and is even less clear. The current formulation is succinct, articulate, corresponds to the worldwide consensus of public health experts and authorities, and has stood the proof of time. We could of course always change it, but we would need far more convincing reasons than the one advanced by Tedd (" I've been exposed to second-hand smoke on numerous occasions, but I'm still more likely to die of something other than a smoking-related illness."), which refers to the "one cause-one effect" understanding of causality, described as a "simplistic mis-belief" in the Wikipedia article on causality in epidemiology.
--Dessources (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I accept what appears to be a consensus of editors here, that the original wording does not need to be changed. But I will express a dissenting opinion.

  1. Dessources's comment that "cause" and "can cause" are semantically equivalent in this context expresses the essential difference between my POV and what appars to be the majority POV on this issue. I do not believe that it is appropriate, with respect to semantics, to apply the context of the reference material to a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is the context, and the semantic difference between "cause" and "can cause" is obvious in that context. A general-interest reference might offer some guidance. I checked the Chicago Manual of Style but can find no reference to the specific issue of the semantic difference between "cause" and "can cause" there. (I suspect it's too obvious for anyone to bother.)
  2. I agree with those who suggested that my second proposal ("risk of") is wordier than necessary. "Can cause" is clearly the optimum compromise between clarity and wordiness.
  3. There is less to be gained by changing other sentences, later in the article, that use "cause" specifically because they are later in the article. It is mainly in the introductory paragraph, where no context within the subject-matter area has yet been established, that the semantic problem is most acute.
  4. Finally, my arguments in no way require a "one cause one effect" interpretation of causality. That's a straw man. They simply reflect the obvious fact that, in a general context (such as a Wikipedia article, and particularly the opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article), there is good reason to be extra clear how we use a term such as "cause." The very fact that there's a reference to explain its meaning in the context of epidemiological studies demonstrates that we should use it cautiously, and advisedly, in Wikipedia.

--Tedd (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User Tedd's desire to improve the article is pertinent and appreciated, as far as I can judge (I obviously cannot speak on behalf of other editors). His contribution is strengthening the article, even if leading to no change.
However, contrary to what he says, I do not consider that "cause" and "can cause" are semantically equivalent. I just said the opposite a few line above:

"can cause" fails to make the point clearer - it rather obscures it, as it implies a meaning of "cause" which is different from the way the term is used in epidemiology

Now, if you look at all instances of "cause" in the article (there are 23 of them), they are all of the direct form, except two:
  • "those who are trying to quit prefer to not be around smoke as it can cause them to have cravings"
  • "in poorly ventilated areas ETS can cause substantial irritation of the eyes, nose and throat" (comment by Japan Tobacco)
It is interseting to observe that "can cause" is used in each case with a mild outcome or an annoyance. This shows that, spontaneously, the many editors of this article, and even the tobacco industry, have opted for two uses of causality, one associated with serious diseases, for which they use the epidemiological notion of causality (defined by the Bradford-Hill criteria) and one associated with mild outcomes, for which they used the more ordinary "one cause-one effect" notion. This being said, this is a formalisation of the way most people think about those things, without necessarily making a conscious choice between these two notions of causality.
Now, to make things 100% clear, when assuming the epidemiological definition of causality, we are talking about the nature of an association between two sets of events (we are not at the individual event level). Either the association is "causal", meaning that it fulfills the Bradford-Hill criteria, or it is not. Saying "can cause" in such a context means that the causal nature of the association is still at the current stage an eventuality, that it has not been fully established yet (and may never be) - i.e. the Bradford-Hill citeria are not fully met. This is why "can cause" is not equivalent to "cause" in this article when refering to the causal association between exposure to passive smoking and diseases, disability and death. Indeed, this causal association has been overwhelmingly established, according to all authoritative sources. For example, Article 8.1 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control says: "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."
--Dessources (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Have some mention about passive smoking in Nazi Germany?

Hear me out first. I read in Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germanythat the term "passive smoking" was first coined in the 1930s in Nazi Germany. It just so happens that Nazi Germany was the first nation to enact strict anti-smoking laws. I think this should have some place in the article. Discuss. 69.208.228.193 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before, and decided against it. Yilloslime (t) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It does currently feature in the smoking ban and tobacco smoking articles, and has its own article as above. Nmg20 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps detailed coverage in those 3 articles represents sufficient weight for the fact that zOMG THE NAZIS were involved with secondhand smoke. MastCell Talk 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this subject was already addressed on this list. Sure, the term passive smoking was first coined in the early 1930s in Germany, but actually by an opponent to the Nazis. I quote below for easy reference an extract from the previous discussion which appears in section Etymology of Archive 2 of this Talk page.

Prof. Fritz Lickint's pioneering work on the health consequences of tobacco should be mentioned, together with the fact that he probably coined the word Passivrauchen. In 1930, Lickint published a paper entitled "Tobacco and tobacco smoke as aetiological factors for carcinoma", which was one the first review papers, if not the first, of the subject, which included 167 literature citations. Finally, to avoid any possibility of confusion with the Nazis, it will important to indicate that Lickint belonged to the Social Democratic Party of Germany, banned by Hitler in 1933, and was a member of the "Vereins sozialistischer Ärzte" (Association of socialist doctors), and that he was dismissed in 1934 from his position at Küchwald hospital in Chemnitz by the National Socialists.(See [11])

Ironically, the editor who had proposed to make the point seems to have lost interest as soon as he learnt that the term passive smoking was not of Nazi origin, but associated with someone opposed to the Nazis. For more information on this subject, see the recent article published by Bachinger, McKee and Gilmore in the May 2008 issue of Public Health, entitled Tobacco policies in Nazi Germany: not as simple as it seems.
Finally, if one insists of finding links between anti-smoking policies and Nazism, the picture is more confused than some may wish to present it, and there are facts on both sides of the argument (refer again to the article by Bachinger et al. mentioned above). For example, one may observe that the founding text of Nazism was written by a heavy smoker - indeed, Hitler was on two packs a day when he wrote Mein Kampf in the mid 1920s.
--Dessources (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany is currently under GA-review. The article of course mentions that the term "passive smoking" was coined in Nazi Germany, but fails to make clear (as is claimed above) the coin-er was a Nazi opponent. Yilloslime (t) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody for some NPOV?
How about: "The term passive smoking (passivrauchen) was coined by German physician Fritz Lickint in 1936."
Or are we even capable of NPOV? Chido6d (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the subject of passive smoking. However, this is the first I've heard of Hitler being a smoker, let alone a heavy one. William Shirer, in his classic The Rise & Fall of Third Reich, states several times that Hitler, by his own admission as well as the evidence of those who knew him, was a non-smoker and a non-drinker (he goes so far as to recount the story of the "first and only time" that Hitler got drunk, which was on September 16, 1905). For what it's worth, he also states Hitler was vegetarian. Another Hitler biographer, Alan Bullock (Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, and Hitler & Stalin: Parallel Lives) also records Hitler as being a non-smoker and non-drinker. AlistairLW (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was a smoker in the early part of his life. See [12].
--Dessources (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that all of this information may be Under Suppression. If not, please advise. Thanks. Chido6d (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite your history, I'm going to assume that you simply missed the lengthy exposition on the links between the anti-tobacco movement and Nazi Germany, and thus mistakenly concluded that the information was being suppressed. I've provided a link. MastCell Talk 05:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, and for the presumption (in spite of the subtle jab). There seems to be some implication that there is a more suitable location for information on the origin of this (passive smoking) notion than the passive smoking article itself. I find this very odd.
There has been side-tracking discussion of the political affiliation of Lickint (irrelevant) and whether Hitler was ever a smoker (also irrelevant).
Though I acquiesce that some may try to simply make a point -- that is, to tie the mere notion of passive smoke with Nazism simply in order to disparage (in violation of NPOV), the fact is that Hitler embraced Lickint's research and ideas in his campaign against tobacco use and to promote his "public health" agenda. There are ways to include this information in a historical context. To say mentioning it elsewhere precludes its necessity here appears to be Suppression. Chido6d (talk) 04:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. Adolf Hitler's association with passive smoking is an irrelevant footnote to Hitler's career and inconsequential to the history of Nazi Germany. If you put this info into one sentence it could be: "An opponent of the Nazis coined the term passivrauchen (passive smoking); Hitler didn't like it regardless". Including that in an article with no other historical information is ridiculous, the more so when it's covered extensively in the appropriate historical article about Nazi Germany. Nmg20 (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting observation, but I believe the article is about passive smoking - not Adolph Hitler, his career, or Nazi Germany. Isn't the 1936 report the first mention of the notion that the harms of tobacco smoking extend beyond the smoker? There have been anti-tobacco efforts here and there for centuries, but this is the invention of the passive smoke idea to the best of my knowledge. Chido6d (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This section of the talk page, however, is titled "Have some mention about passive smoking in Nazi Germany" - hence my previous post. To my knowledge, per Dessources' post above, Lickint coined the phrase, yes, and that could reasonably be included in the article. If we can avoid mentioning Hitler, all the better: I give it 48 hours. Nmg20 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability"

This section reproduces an entry made previously and which is now buried in Archive 2, which I reactivate in view of the discussion in section SHS Causing Death above. Although it may not correspond to the point of view of some editors, the sentence "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability" is a statement which is among the most firmly rooted in authoritative and reliable sources of Wikipedia. Let me restate, again, the case for this formulation in the summary section of the article.

The causal link between exposure to tobacco smoke and diseases, disability and death has been the subject of intensive and extensive research, and long and in-depth discussions by the scientific community for at least two decades. It appears that today, the worldwide scientific and public health communities agree overwhelmingly that passive smoking is indeed the cause of disease, disability and death. In reporting this fact, we, Wikipedia editors, must adopt a neutral point of view, and the best way at our disposal to guarantee such a NPOV approach is by citing verifiable and authoritative sources.

This is what is being done in the summary section, which bases its finely crafted wording on four references. These four references are currently the four most authoritative sources of information on passive smoking. Each one arrives at the 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) This formulation has been elaborated with great care, not by "anti-tobacco zealots", but by ministers of health and their representatives of virtually all countries of the world. It would be hard to find a more authoritative and consensual formulation.

The importance and significance of these references is emphasized in a recent communication by the World Health Organization ([13]):

There is no doubt: breathing second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS) is very dangerous to your health. It causes cancer, as well as many serious respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in children and adults, often leading to death. There is no safe level of human exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.

These are the indisputable conclusions reached by international and national health authorities, backed up by extensive rigorously reviewed and published research results, over many years. Three recent major publications remind us of these facts:

  • The 2004 IARC Monograph 83: Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking
  • The 2005 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of Environmental Tobacco Smoke
  • The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke

In the same communication ([14]), the World Health summarizes the result of current research by stating the following facts:

Fact 1
SHS contains thousands of identified chemicals, at least 250 of which are known to be carcinogenic or otherwise toxic. Among those chemicals and toxins are the deadly, odourless, colourless gas carbon monoxide (CO), increased levels of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde and many other substances. When inhaled, these poisons are concentrated and quickly spread throughout the body, leading to a range of serious diseases.
Fact 2
People are most exposed to tobacco smoke in the following enclosed spaces:

  • WORK PLACES
  • PUBLIC PLACES
  • HOMES

Fact 3
Second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS) has officially been classified as carcinogenic – cancer causing – in humans. It also causes severe acute and chronic heart disease. Other adult conditions linked to SHS are bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, and in children: lower respiratory infections, asthma, middle ear infection, sudden infant death syndrome and low birthweight for babies of women exposed to SHS during pregnancy.

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)

Judge Kessler summarizes the state of scientific knowledge about the health effects of passive smoking as follows:

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. (page 1229 - emphasis added)

If other Wikipedia editors want to change the formulation presently used in the summary section ("Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability"), this is always possible, but they would have to back up their proposal with references at least as authoritative and verifiable as the references indicated above.

--Dessources (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability" indeed may not correspond to the point of view of some editors, but it certainly corresponds to the point of view of other editors. Proof abounds.
That being said, Dessources is correct that the statement is well grounded in its sources. The issue transcends Wiki: there is no definitive bar or level that must be reached before the term is utilized. C'est la vie. Chido6d (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"It appears that today, the worldwide scientific and public health communities agree overwhelmingly that passive smoking is indeed the cause of disease, disability and death." Here is another example of a semantic problem. Most people die of something other than passive smoking, so I assume that what you mean is: "It appears that today, the worldwide scientific and public health communities agree overwhelmingly that passive smoking is indeed the cause of disease, disability and death in these cases;" or "It appears that today, the worldwide scientific and public health communities agree overwhelmingly that passive smoking is indeed a cause of disease, disability and death." The first carries over context from statements that have come before, while the second stands on its own as true.
I want to reiterate that my objection, both here and in the section above, is to the faulty semantics of the statement. I do not in any way question the data or the references. Statements in Wikipedia need to be worded such that readers who are not familiar with the literature and the special semantics therein infer from it what a person familiar with the literature would infer. In this case, that can only happen if we drop the specialized semantics (from which we are to infer, for example, that "causes" means "causes in a population sample").--Tedd (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is somthing very wrong with this entire article. The problem with the phrase "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability" is not that it is fundamentally incorrect. It is absolutely, 100% correct as it is written. It is also, unfortunately, a lie of omission and this lie is killing our children. It should read "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability in those regularly exposed over long periods of time." Scientific evidence has not shown in any CLINICAL study that SHS causes any ill effects in any but the following groups: spouses of smokers, children of smokers and those employed in high SHS environment (bars, for example). Because of the phrase "second hand smake kills," which so many are fond of reading in TV commercials and on the side of busses, smoking has been banned in bars and in other public places accepted to be high in smoke when it is only know to be harming people in their homes. It is easy for the rabid majority to ban smoking in bars and give themselves a big pat on the back. They have done nothing but limit the freedoms of bar patrons, employees and owners (all consenting adults). A law declaring smoking around children to be abuse or making SHS grounds for divorce or annulment would actually protect people. Unfortunately telling people what to do in their own homes is not a very good way to get re-elected. -wood0465 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.139.151 (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I stopped reading around when you mentioned that this article was complicit in killing children. If you have a concrete suggestion for the article, please restate it without recourse to hyperbole so that it can be discussed. Continued postings which misuse this article talk page will end up removed. MastCell Talk 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tedd says above that "Statements in Wikipedia need to be worded such that readers who are not familiar with the literature and the special semantics therein infer from it what a person familiar with the literature would infer." This is stretching the Wikipedia policy to a point that would make many, if not most, articles impossible to write. For example, if one were to "drop the specialized semantics", as he infers from his rule, all the articles of Wikipedia belonging the field of Mathematics would have to go - and this is just one field among many others. Fortunately, Wikipedia does not submit to the dictatorship of the "average" reader (this is what distinguishes it from the general media). In fact, what Wikipedia requires is something simpler and more practical: Terms which may go without a definition in an academic paper or a textbook may require one in Wikipedia. (WP:JARGON). To help the reader understand what is meant by cause in the context of this article, I have added a link to the section of the article on Epidemiology which defines and discusses causality in epidemiology. This section indicates that the "one cause-one effect" understanding of causality is a "simplistic mis-belief".

Contrary to what Tedd says, however, I think we should not underestimate the capacity of our readers to under what is meant when the experts say that "passive smoking causes death, disability and disease" - they are quite capable of understanding that this is not a "one cause - one effect" relationship at the level of individual events. The Daily Telegraph had no doubt that their average readers would understand what they meant when their big headline said across the front page back in 1998: "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official"! Average readers seem to understand what is meant when they read in Wikipedia, for example: "Excessive UV-radiation is the leading cause of skin cancer" (see Sunburn). It is interseting to note that a formulation which is not challenged when dealing with the health effect of exposure to sun radiation becomes problematic when dealing with the health effects of exposure to tobacco smoke. Could it be that incriminating the sun as the cause of a health problem does not affect anybody's commercial interest, while this is obvioulsy not the case with tobacco smoke?

--Dessources (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"...if one were to "drop the specialized semantics", as he infers from his rule, all the articles of Wikipedia belonging the field of Mathematics would have to go..." You are confusing semantics with jargon, although that's understandable in this case because the semantic problem is created by the specialized use of a common word. (I'm accepting, for the purpose of argument, that this specialized use of "cause" exists. That's something others have asserted, but I see no reason to challenge it.) If I found a similarly semantically incorrect statement in an article on a mathematical subject I would propose a similar change. Note that I would not have to know much about math to identify such a statement.
I've been steering clear of the question of motive here, but, since you brought it up, I will say that I doubt there would be as much resistance to making such a simple and obvious improvement in an article on mathematics.--Tedd (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting way of presenting one's point of view. Those who disagree with Tedd are simply "confusing semantics with jargon", and are expressing "resistance" to the "obvious improvement" proposed by him. Please re-read what is said above, which shows that the question raised by Tedd has been discussed at length, including in international governmental negotiations at ministry level, and that all pertinent authorities, including public health experts, have opted for the formulation (or equivalent variants of it) used in this article. BTW, for my part, I used the WP:JARGON quotation, because this is where I found a rule that came closest to the one Tedd advanced. Perhaps he could indicate for us from which precise page of Wikipedia he extracted his rule, so that we could talk about the same thing.
--Dessources (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider adding to article

From the most recent New England Journal of Medicine, evidence that smoking bans reduce the occurence of acute coronary syndrome in smokers and non-smokers: [15]. MastCell Talk 21:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been over recent months new articles and evidence that indeed justifies such addition.
--Dessources (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources of SHS

Should information and links be added regarding SHS sources such as automobiles, firewood, coal fired plants, etc?Dynamicduct (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a good reason for sticking with "passive smoking" as the title of this article - SHS is indeed ambiguous. Of course, the lung cancer article correctly covers all sources of air pollution, including SHS from cigarettes.JQ (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sidestream smoke vs. First hand smoke

The article implies that sidestream smoke is somewhat more harmful than first hand smoke, however it doesn't explain why. My granny smoked a pack of cigs every day for 60 years of her life and died at age of 81. How I am supposed to get cancer from breathing at least 100 times less concentrated smoke for couple hours one day in a week? The article mentions some substances being more concentrated in sidestream smoke, however I think it needs more elaboration.Mik1984 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Philip Morris' research, in their secret laboratory in Cologne (Germany), INBIFO, has amply demonstrated the higher toxicity of sidestream smoke compared to mainstream smoke. The articles cited under [88] provide relevant information. I do not think it is appropriate to go into greater detail on this question in this Wikipedia article.
--Dessources (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Subjective preferences (VOPs) vs. objective results

It is clear that trendy opinion has the absolute major valence in the page of this emotionally charged subject.

- Contrary to the rules, not irrefutable facts are presented and referred to but "estimates", "believe", "risks" (per definition unquantifiable) and opinions originating from non-scientific committees. This is in line with present-time political trends like e.g. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/heartdisease.htm, a US-governmental page that with big letters claims to be a fact sheet and two lines lower presents an uncorraborated estimate as truthful fact.

- If studies are cited, the results of which are contradictory to the trend in and the dominant opinion of this page, they are repeatedly and consequently deleted within minutes without quoting a valid reason. Instead, the editor is requested to "talk" first before updating, an obvious sign of assumed proprietary controlling rights of the requestor. I was unaware that the contents of a Wikipedia page not necessarily needs to be factual, as long as it merely follows the opinion of the majority.

- Impartiality and, most of all, factuality, seem neither to be a requirement. Quote: "Raymond Gibbons, M.D., American Heart Association president said, "The decline in the number of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year and a half after the non-smoking ban that was observed in this study is most likely due to a decrease in the effect of secondhand smoke as a triggering factor for heart attacks." Unquote. Note the circumferential wording of this statement. Here there is a reference to [135], but apparently Mr Gibbons has retracted his words as the link points to a non-existing page. This statement and the perceived results of the study of Pueblo are contradictory to claims made in other references in this Wiki page, where the long-term cardio-vascular effects are reported to universally persist for almost 15 years. Interesting in this aspect is: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/11/massachusetts-study-shows-lower-smoking.html . As most of the references in this Wiki page, this latter link is a possibly opiniated discussion, so I do not see a justification to present that on the page as a reference.

I can only wonder how e.g. people with a claimed universitary Masters degree in an exact science can live with such irrelevance in the use of statistical science.

I am educated (Promoted Chem + Mstr. Intern. Law) to disregard selective interpretation of facts, so I won't bother any more. Btw, as I am a non-smoker, I assume I am allowed to quote unpopular factual studies without suffering from partiality. As this is a contribution that is critical w.r.t. some people, I will not be astonished when it gets deleted as well. 123.255.28.73 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Ed

Er, OK. There are some good points here: we should not be citing blogs in the article; if we are, feel free to remove those citations. If we have a dead link for Dr Gibbons' comments, then we should fix that problem. The rest is really neither here nor there. I understand that you disagree with the scientific consensus on secondhand smoke, and are of course welcome to your (educated) opinion. But the consensus exists nonetheless, and needs to be reflected properly in any honest encyclopedic treatment of this subject. If you have a problem with the CDC, then that's your right, but they remain a reliable source for the purposes of this encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the existence of the consensus on the consquences of smoking per sé; the interrelation between health and direct smoke inhalation is factually undeniably proven. However, if we would apply the same factual strictness in this page about passive smoking and delete things accordingly, not much would be left. From the pages of the contributors and guardians I deduct that they are intelligent and have had a scientific education that should prevent them bringing subjective points of view into an objective presentation such as this should be. If they are not able to censor themselves, then the whole concept of Wikipedia misses its fundamental raison d'etre and is reduced to nothing better than an opinionated discussion group. I have several times presented two edits that are critical to the consensus, not wanting to erase an entry referring to nothing else but a estimate based on interpretation and prediction but mirroring it with its more factual contradiction of a research; I could have presented many more but for a start I tried to contribute only these. Admittedly the first two trials were worded wrongly and failed references. However, the later ones were one-sentenced and factual with due references to this factuality. Nevertheless, they got erased within two or three minutes from saving them, however carefully they were worded to leave out any interpretation or supposed bias. The speed with which this erasing happened leaves very little doubt about the impossibility to have been able to read, verify or even look up the referred sources, ergo only one conclusion can be drawn: an edit seems not to be merited on its factual value but on its conformity. I have the impression that the main guards/contributors could benefit from a being bit more introspective and less selectively fond of the comments they present on their personal information pages.
Re. consensus: mostly a consensus is an higly influenced anonymous or committee decison, adapted to the at that period valid political and socio-political opinion, and used there where facts are not available or welcome. A very good example is the consensus re. Iraq's WMDs and involvement in 09/11; a more objective and factual approach would have benefitted everyone. Of course consensus can not and should not be disregarded, but its inherent dogmatism should be left to religion and not be used to refute facts in a Wiki. Ed :-) 123.255.30.126 (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Er, I'm old enough to remember the runup to the Iraq War, and there was not a consensus on WMD - most thinking laypeople without shares in Halliburton realized, or at least suspected, that rationale was a bogus contrivance (nor was there consensus in the intelligence community). Anyone with two neurons to rub together knew that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 - if anything, there was consensus that he wasn't involved. But I digress. Glad you liked my userpage, though. :) MastCell Talk 06:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Just throwing in a link supporting MastCell on the absence of prewar consensus "http://www.johnquiggin.com/archives/2003_03.html] —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs)

Last time,

just because it is Friday afternoon and to show how statistics can be used:

Combining http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922202.html and http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality.htm (identical figures in http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm ), we see that the total percentage of deaths, caused directly and indirectly by smoking, is one or two decimals over 18; this percentage is confirmed by http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30 . If we now look in http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/adult/table_2.htm and compare that percentage with the percentage of smokers in the total population in 2001, we see that the smokers have a positive balance of 22.8 - 18.2 = 4.6% over non-smokers. In the logic that in the Passive Smoking page is applied, this gives the conclusion that smoking lowers the mortality risk. Hehe.

This link is a statistic that concerns smoking, although not of tobacco: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67 . Interesting what leniency can do. Or is it a question of mentality?. Ed 123.255.29.209 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: your first paragraph, please run those numbers again once you've grasped the difference between incidence and prevalence. MastCell Talk 05:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I am lured once more into answering, but this definitely is the last time. In a very long-term effect such as this, statistics are not showing any short-term incidence, practically only prevalence (prevalence, "Examples and Utility"). Even if really everyone stopped smoking now, the stats of the next, say three, years would hardly be affected. I lifted out the year 2001 by chance, but I could have taken any year of the past 15 where the CDC has data available. As the percentage of smokers is slowly decreasing over all of these years, the prevalence should show that the mortality rate is at least higher than the smokers' percentage in 2001 but following the downward trend. What I said before and what this example makes clear, is that the argumentation in the page is unscientific and highly biased because of some contributors' emotional editing by using questionable data, preferential interpretation and exclusion of what they don't like. Questionable data includes consensus-influenced estimates and predictions; smoking can cause e.g. heart attacks, but not every heart attack is contributable to smoking. If that contributive factor is estimated and/or interpolated, then many insecurities about the true values arise, making the data impossible to use in reliable statistics. Mind: I do not fight the intended conclusion w.r.t. health effects, only the way objectivity here is traded against goal-orientated ranting. Wikipedia users are entitled to better than that. Anyway, based on what I can read, there is reason to exclude you from the collective "some contributors". Ed 123.255.29.209 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Gosh. What you've done there is taken the percentage of current smokers in the US population in 2001 (22.8%), subtracted the percentage of deaths caused by smoking in the US population in the same year (18.2%), and then somehow then decided the difference (4.6%) is a survival benefit that smokers have.
I'm going to interpret the links you've posted in terms of natural frequencies, their advantage being that they are easier to understand. So we will talk about the number of events - deaths, smokers, whatever - in a group of 10,000 people in the US in 2001.
Q1: How many smoked? Well, your fifth link showed 22.8% were current smokers, so 2,280 of them would have been current smokers, and 7,720 non-smokers (5,500 never smokers and 2,220 former smokers).
Q2: How many died? (Note at this point that you didn't do this calculation.) Your first link gives the deaths per 1000 people in 2000 (which is near enough to 2001) as 8.7, so 87 of our 10,000 would have died.
Q3: How many of those deaths were caused by smoking? Taking your 18.2%, almost 16 of our 87 deaths were caused by smoking (the numbers can't always be that neat).
Q4: So that means smokers had a survival advantage over non-smokers, right? In a word, no. In order to comment on that, you'd need to know what the absolute risk of death was in smokers compared to non-smokers, or in English how many deaths there were per 1000 smokers and how many deaths per 1000 non-smokers. You'd also need to separate out never-smokers from former smokers, and perhaps further break them down by some measure of exposure to passive smoke. You begin to see the complexity of the issue, although it's worth saying there's plenty of research out there which does give us ideas of these numbers. Your calculation, alas, doesn't.
Q5: So what did I actually show? Well, what you did was to subtract the percentage of smokers - regardless of whether they died or not from the percentage of deaths caused by smoking. If only 8.7 people per 1,000 died, you can't have 182 people per 1000 (your 18.2%) dying of smoking-related diseases - it's 18.2% of those who died. Amusingly, therefore, what your "calculation" assumed was that every non-smoker in the US in the year 2001 was incapable of dying until all the current smokers had died first. Suddenly, it's not looking that great a survival benefit anymore, hey? Nmg20 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do read every sentence that I wrote; you obviously missed a lot of them, reacted by the seat of your pants ("Taking your 18.2%"l; these figures come from the CDC, not from me) and then just assumed that that example would be my real opinion. For example, this obviously did not reach you while you were reading, so let me repeat it: "In the logic that in the Passive Smoking page is applied, this gives the conclusion that smoking lowers the mortality risk." Read the part before the comma again. Do I have to really write that in capitals? Now allow me to repeat also this: "What I said before and what this example makes clear, is that the argumentation in the page is unscientific and highly biased because of some contributors' emotional editing by using questionable data, preferential interpretation and exclusion of what they don't like." In this example I only do exactly that, nothing else: using statistically useless estimates in a goal-oriented presentation. Anyway, thank you for showing once more that emotional interpretation is more common than objectivity, even in reading plain text. Ed 123.255.31.121 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You outlined a way in which statistics could be interpreted to give "the conclusion that smoking lowers the mortality risk", and claimed that this incorrect logic was "in the Passive Smoking page is applied". That claim was wrong: the misunderstanding of statistics and consequent failures of logic were entirely your own. I've explained in detail, with reference to the numbers you provided (hence "your 18.2%) why this is the case. For you to suggest I thought you were making the numbers up when I provided links to the same sources you did repeatedly through my post is ridiculous.
I'm not going to respond to the ad hominem suggestion that I'm posting emotionally rather than objectively because it is also ridiculous: my post above is one long, largely numerical, example. I defy you to find any evidence of an emotional response in there. So, at the risk of dropping down to the same level of response you've mustered - try to get your head round the numbers before posting any more offensive innumerate drivel in future. Nmg20 (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious?

I cannot help but think this article is a bit tendentious, especially assuming that all studies finding little to no significant negative effects from ETS are funded by tobacco companies128.118.56.53 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's actually not an assumption, but a fact, that the studies "exonerating" ETS tend to be generated by the tobacco industry (see PMID 9605902, PMID 15741361, etc). That said, some parts of the article are a bit repetitive, and could probably be streamlined. MastCell Talk 20:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
They tend to be, most but not all of them actually are funded by the industry, according to PMID 9605902, PMID 15741361. If anything, I think the tobacco industry is quite scummy IMO. Yes, there is bias in their studies, and it is quite daft to deny that. But even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, and many so-called "independent" studies exaggerate the dangers of ETS and downplay the effectiveness of modern ventilation systems. I don't think the alternative mitigation section should have been deleted either--it cited reliable sources on both sides of the issue.Ajax151 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana

How about passive smoking of marijuana fumes? Is this not an issue as well? Redddogg (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's an issue, but since it's generally not legal to smoke marijuana in bars and restaurants, the issue is probably not as "high" on researchers' priority lists.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha. I see what you did there... Aron.Foster (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Every single clinical study of Marijuana smoking has found no link between the smoking of Marijuana and cancer. It has been proven that Marijuana smoke contains high levels of carcinogens and it is not clear why smoking Marijuana does not cause cancer but it simply does not. In fact the incidence of lung cancer in Marijuana smokers is slightly lower than that of the general populace even when controlled for concurrent tobacco smoking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.139.151 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Er... [citation needed]. MastCell Talk 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe these [16] [17] are the citations you are looking for, anonymous person. The results of Dr. Tashkin's landmark study may surprise many readers. You seem to have summed it up very well. The results hold for both lung cancer as well as head and neck cancer, according to Tashkin. The difference between this one and previous epidemiological studies on cannabis and cancer is that this one used a much larger sample size, a longer time (age) range, and (most importantly) controlled for virtually every conceivable confounding factor. May I also add that he did still find a very high relative risk (nearly 20) for tobacco smoking (2+ packs a day) after adjusting for confounders.Ajax151 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Netherlands recently banned tobacco smoking in their cannabis coffee shops, but obviously still allows the other stuff. So you can no longer smoke a tobacco-containing (Euro-style) joint inside. Sounds like a spoof on Saturday Night Live, but it is true. But seriously, I am not aware of a single study (pro or con) concerning second-hand cannabis smoke.Ajax151 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Third-hand smoke"

The third-hand smoke section, as currently written, is a bit one-sided considering the claims are unproven as yet. It is classic junk science and fear-mongering IMO. Why the recent deletions? Blog sources I could understand, but the next revision? The recent edit-wars are pointless and have led nowhere IMO. I recommend the entire "third-hand smoke" section be removed entirely for now.Ajax151 (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The section on thirdhand smoke is relevant and is not inflated. There are actually more authoritative references than the ones indicated. Thirdhand smoke has been the subject of research for some time - only the term "thirdhand smoke" is recent. The allusion to junk science and fear-mongering are fallacious rhetoric devices that reveal a POV approach. Ajax151 should opt for valid arguments to engage in a fruitful discussion on this talk page.
--Dessources (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
What sources are you referring to (please cite), and how conclusive are they? Are the results statistically significant at the 5% level? Did the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio (or relative risk) straddle the reference of 1.00 (meaning non-significant), and how wide was it (very wide is a red flag)? How large was the effect size (odds ratio or relative risk); was it of practical significance? What potential confounders were adequately controlled for? Fixed or variable effects model? These questions are central to determining the scientific soundness of epidemiological studies. How about this study <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1253717>, the same one that was deleted? This one, may have had residual confounding with prenatal smoking, and did not control for parents' IQ or reading ability. I read it myself. As a scientist (chemist) myself, I know that correlation is not causation, and it is the dose that makes the poison. I do not think there is anywhere near a scientific consensus on the putative effects of even indoor "third-hand" smoke (let alone that from smoking outside), on children or adults.Ajax151 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
See, for example, Matt et al. (2004); feel free to examine the confidence intervals yourself if you feel like applying "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiological Practices". Given the tobacco industry position that there is still no "scientific consensus" on second-hand smoke (and barely one that primary smoking is bad for you), it seems unrealistic to expect them to be in a hurry to acknowledge this issue - particularly as concern over third-hand smoke can actually motivate people to quit smoking. MastCell Talk 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I remember this study as well. I hate to be a pest, but I gotta say that the study provided no information on actual health effects/consequences on the extremely low levels of exposure; just that nicotine (and cotinine) levels were detectable from "third-hand smoke." And what about reporting bias, residual confounding, or additional sources of exposure? These are trace amounts. As I said earlier, it's the dose that makes the poison. That's a well known maxim of toxicology. Exposure need not imply toxicity. As for motivating people to quit, maybe so--but such scare tactics may also backfire. Anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel theorized that it may discourage smokers from going outside for a cigarette (which Matt et al. acknowledge greatly reduces the amount of exposure to other members of the household) since they will be tracking smoke residue in anyway. See this link: <http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-study-warns-of-dangers-of-thirdhand.html> Any other studies?Ajax151 (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's a good idea to be clear on what each study says and what it doesn't. Matt et al. demonstrated that environmental surfaces are contaminated, and remain contaminated, with toxic byproducts of cigarette smoke even if the smoking takes place outside the home. They also demonstrated that this contamination translated into significantly higher levels of exposure in infants - 5 to 8 times higher than that of infants born to non-smokers. That's an analysis of exposure. You're asking for an epidemiologic analysis to quantify how much excess risk is associated with that increased exposure; Matt et al. did not do that, nor would it be reasonable to expect to see all of that in 1 paper. I am in agreement with you that people can draw their own conclusions from these data without the need for "scare tactics". Infants exposed to "thirdhand smoke" have 5 to 8 times the level of cigarette byproducts in their system compared to unexposed infants. We don't know how much risk is associated with that increased exposure - will it lead to one extra case of SIDS among 20 infants? 5 extra ear infections in 100? 10 cases of asthma in 20? We don't know. In the end, if it's the kind of thing you're worried about, then you can take it into account. If not, then don't. MastCell Talk 06:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then, here's how I think the section should go. Hopefully we can all reach a consensus.
In the mid 2000's, some researchers[18] began focusing on "third-hand smoke"—that is, the odoriferous residue left on surfaces and clothing from smoking. They found that this residue contains many of the same toxic chemicals which are in second-hand smoke, and exposure to such residues may have a negative impact on children's health.[126][127]][19]. However, despite resulting in elevated nicotine and cotinine levels in the children studied[20], there is no conclusive evidence to date on whether the usual trace amounts of this residue are actually harmful, and no scientific consensus on how much of a danger this poses. Further studies need to be done to ascertain and/or quantify this potential hazard.
Contrast that with the current version, which is tendentious IMO. Notice how my version admits uncertainty and does not take sides. Also notice the use of the words "may have" instead of "has". It does not write it off as "junk science," nor does it assume things that aren't proven conclusively. It simply states what is known. It also contains no blogs, POV, or original research, or accusations of bias. In fact, it is about as unbiased as one can get. Surely this way of writing it will satisfy most Wikipedians.128.118.56.53 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I might phrase it this way:

In the mid 2000's, some researchers[21] began focusing on "third-hand smoke"—that is, the odoriferous residue left on surfaces and clothing from smoking. They found that this residue contains many of the same toxic chemicals found in second-hand smoke, and that these smoke residues were a significant source of exposure in infants.[126][127]][22][23] The long-term epidemiologic risks posed by exposure to third-hand smoke are currently unknown

It highlights that third-hand smoke is a documented source of exposure in infants, but that there is no epidemiologic data on what sort of increased risk goes along with this particular exposure. It avoids leading words like "despite" and "however", which seem designed to editorially minimize the toxicological studies. And it avoids the "more research is necessary" cliche: more research is always necessary, but our job is to summarize existing research. MastCell Talk 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This is much better than the current version. Our versions appear to be converging. However, the following would probably be even better

In the mid 2000's, some researchers[24] began focusing on "third-hand smoke"—that is, the odoriferous residue left on surfaces and clothing from smoking. They found that this residue contains many of the same toxic chemicals found in second-hand smoke, and that exposure to these smoke residues led to elevated nicotine (and nicotine byproduct) levels in infants.[126][127]][25][26] The short and long-term epidemiologic risks posed by exposure to third-hand smoke are currently unknown.

This phrasing is more specific than "significant source of exposure." Significant in terms of what? Currently, the short term risks are just as nebulous as long term ones, hence the modification. Like your latest version, it has no cliches or POV, and no jargon like "cotinine." It is easy for the reader to understand.128.118.56.53 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In this case, "significant" referred to the significantly increased levels of nicotine and metabolites in kids exposed to third-hand smoke. But that's not a major sticking point for me. Why not say "The magnitude of epidemiologic risk posed by third-hand smoke is currently unclear"? Or is that too jargony, maybe? I'm pretty much OK with the recent iteration you posted; I can live with it if you can. You may want to give it a day or so to see if anyone else chimes in. MastCell Talk 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like we now agree. Either way is fine by me, your latest wording is not too jargony IMO. "Unknown" sounds better than "unclear" IMO, but that's minor. Let's wait a day or two--good idea.128.118.56.53 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Unknown" implies that the risks aren't known at all, which is not the case. We are aware of some of the risks, but the full implications are not yet clear because research is ongoing. For example, this article mentions learning difficulties and pregnancy complications as results of third-hand smoke. Unclear yes, but not unknown. waggers (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Waggers, it appears that you have misread the BBC News article somewhat, but that is understandable given that it is primarily junk science and scare tactics, which are all too common these days in both American and British media. The article is very misleading indeed. For learning difficulties in children, the only study that found anything was this one[27]. As was said before, reading levels were lower in children with very low cotinine levels (presumably from third-hand smoke), but this may be due to reporting bias, residual confounding with prenatal smoking or not adjusting for parental IQ. Even anti-smoking activist and professor Michael Siegel acknowledges this possibility<http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-study-warns-of-dangers-of-thirdhand.html> And what about nicotine/cotinine in breast milk? Even the article you cited mentions that one. As for the hypothesized dangers of third-hand smoke to pregnant women (what next, fourth-hand smoke?) there are no studies to back it up directly--just extrapolation based on second-hand smoke studies. If that's not junk science, what is? But that's the media for you. Remember, it's the dose that makes the poison. But for those in the media who imply that even a single molecule of the toxin du jour is worth worrying about, apparently there is no convincing. So, the word "unknown" is more appropriate in that context, but that choice of words is really not all that important to me. This discussion is now getting to be very long and borderline ridiculous IMO, now arguing about minute semantics and all.Ajax151 (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, just as a general suggestion: the term "junk science" is probably counterproductive here. Anyone with basic knowledge of the issues understands that "junk science" was a concept conceived and promoted by the tobacco industry to muddy the waters, delay acceptance of the risks of smoking, and avoid regulations that would cost the industry a few dollars off the bottom line. So when you use the term "junk science", you're putting yourself behind the 8-ball as far as convincing editors who understand the history of the term.

No study is perfect. Every study has flaws, confounders, etc. To label any study which contains a discernible imperfection as "junk science" is silly, particularly given that the term is rarely applied with equal opportunity to the reams of self-serving "research" produced by the tobacco industry.

Drawing new hypotheses from existing research is not "junk science". It's science. That's how it works. There's evidence that thirdhand smoke is a source of exposure in infants, and evidence that exposure is harmful. A reasonable hypothesis would be that third-hand smoke is harmful to infants. This hypothesis has not been rigorously tested, but it is a reasonable inference based on existing knowledge.

Regarding "the dose makes the poison", Paracelsus was a wise man. We're not talking about negligible molecules here, though - we're talking about contamination substantial enough to cause a significant increase in biomarkers for nicotine exposure. There is reason to suspect, based on existing knowledge, that this "dose" is in fact sufficient to make a "poison", so minimizing it as a "few molecules" and a "scare tactic" isn't especially convincing.

But at least we have some common ground on the proposed text, right? :) MastCell Talk 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we do agree on what the text of the article should be, and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree with how the studies ought to be interpreted. I just want to point out a few more things: 1)The term "junk science" was not invented by the tobacco industry or exclusively used by them. A 1985 United States Department of Justice report by the Tort Policy Working Group noted: 'The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as "junk science") has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.'[1] This is the first known use of the term, later co-opted by the tobacco industry and other industries. 2) Making a hypothesis and infererences is not junk science, but jumping to conclusions from preliminary and shaky evidence is.
Yes, I'm well aware that the term (just like "sound science") is loaded, after being tainted by the tobacco industry any term can be loaded. Yes, the term is often used by equally unscrupulous industries as well. That's too bad because it has such a nice ring to it, and I think it is an appropriate term for any failure to follow the scientific method or adhere to established standards of research, putting politcs before science, misuse of expert testimony, and so on. History is rife with examples of those who abuse science in the name of profit, ideology, prejudice, fame, image, and/or power. And yes, I (and many others) use the term to describe much of the "science" funded or performed by the "Merchants of Death" as well.Ajax151 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm off my soapbox now. :) MastCell Talk 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ajax, how'd you get such respect? I applaud your debunking of the ad hominem argument. Be on guard; it will be hurled at you again. Maybe there has been a change of heart around here over the last 6 months or so. Time will tell.
P.S. I actually like how all this was worked out, and approve of this particular section as currently written. Stamp it.
As always, stick to the facts and everything will be fine. Chido6d (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Article edit complete.Ajax151 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As always, stick to the facts and everything will be fine. Can I get an AMEN?Ajax151 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Amen. waggers (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly-useful sources

While responding to #Request for comment on POV above, I found some sources that other editors may find useful when editing this article:

Eubulides (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Breast cancer risk sources are a bit dated

The current version's discussion of breast cancer risk seems a bit out of date to me. It's not bad, but surely we can do better. The article currently cites the 2002 IARC report, the 2006 US SG report, and the 2005 CA EPA report. Here are some more-recent sources, which I suggest be looked into:

Eubulides (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For not being an expert on the subject, this is very impressive.Chido6d (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lung Cancer Series of Studies

It is stated that the studies listed "have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke." I have not gotten through all of the studies, but study 16, "State-specific prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults, and policies and attitudes about secondhand smoke--United States, 2000," shows no such thing. The study is not about lung cancer at all, and presents NO data on it. It is a study about exactly what it says, prevalence of cigarette smoking in particular U.S. States. I have no idea why it is included here, as it has no relevance whatsoever, unless it is simply to make the list appear more impressive by virtue of sheer numbers. Accordingly, I am removing the citation. Here is a link to the study - http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/3/309SonofFeanor (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The current 16th citation is to a piece which states "This article provides a summary of the epidemiologic evidence on lung cancer, with an emphasis on issues that are currently relevant to prevention."http://www.chestjournal.org/content/123/1_suppl/21S.full.pdf+html It does not "show a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke," as it provides no new data and no new analysis of data (it is not a meta-study and says so). This is another example of a citation that does not belong in this particular list. I will wait for rebuttal before I delete it.SonofFeanor (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved the source in question to the end of the sentence[28]. This should make it clearer that it's not a primary source reporting the results of an individual study (as the context made it seem), but rather a secondary source which summarizes prior work to conclude that ETS causes lung cancer.Yilloslime (t) 07:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

IARC Report Date

The IARC monoraph is listed under year 2004 at the IARC's online site. It shows the date 2004 on the cover. The following citation is just one of a few examples of citations from 2003.

Government of British Columbia (2003) What is in cigarettes? Mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke chemical constituents by cigarette brand. [http://www.healthplanning.gov.bc.ca/ttdr/ index.html Accessed 07.03.2003] Greenberg, R.A., Bauman, K.E., Glover,

The report is correctly dated 2004. Yes, they met in June 2002, but clearly serious revisions were made after that, given the 2003 citations and the fact that many of the most important studies reviewed were from 2002.

Yilloslime, is this another honest mistake? It is amazing how they all seem to go in the same direction.

Please do not change the date again.SonofFeanor (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference in the article for IARC's position on breast cancer is cited as "Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking" (PDF). International Agency for Research on Cancer. 2002-07-24. Retrieved 2009-01-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). On the very first page of the link document are the words, "Last updated: 24 July 2002", and on page 8 is the phrase "provided no support for a causal relation between involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and breast cancer in never-smokers," which we quote in this article. That's the infomation I based this edit on. Yilloslime (t) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The cover - http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/mono83-1.pdf
Main site - http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/index.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofFeanor (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well I think I see the source of confusion. You can't fault me for using the source cited in the article. How am I supposed to know that the date you cited (2004) refers to a different, newer version, of the monograph than the version that you used as a source for the direct quote you inserted? At any rate, I have reverted[29] back to previous version. Here's why: There's absolutely no consensus for changing "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.," to "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke can cause disease and death." And, with regard to breast cancer, both our versions are technically correct (my only says IARC's conclusions were earlier) but your version has the aforementioned issue sourcing IARC 2004's statement to a document from 2002. If you'd care to update the reference and put that dates back in the text, I'd be fine with that, too. I just don't want start playing with a reference that has several different statements sourced to it. Confirming that all the direct quotes sourced to the 2002 version are also in 2004 version seems like too much work just to be able say "2005 v 2004" rather than "earlier". Yilloslime (t) 06:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
So, you know you have a bad reference with an old date, but since fixing it is too much work you will leave it? Presumably if the reference were to evidence exonerating passive smoking, you would make the same choice, right? This is another example of your complete lack of objectivity. Of course, I will verify all quotes and change the citation, plus any other stray 2002's I happen to see. As to no consensus on the wording "cause" wording, I have cited the editors who agree with me. Who agrees with you? Dessources, obviously. NMG20. Anyone else? There certainly is not consensus on YOUR version, so there is no reason not to change it back.SonofFeanor (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
My version is/was accurate. The IARC's conclusions preceded CalEPAs--that's all my wording said. And the 2002 reference is not "bad," in fact I doubt there are significant differences between the 2002 and 2004 summaries. But the fact is that we've taken a number of direct quotes from the 2002 version. If we switch the reference to the 2004 version, we'd better be sure all those exact quotes are in that version, too. Otherwise in due time, I guarantee that a tendentious single-purpose account will show up, be like: "This article says IARC says 'bla bla bla', but this quote is not in the cited reference, so I am removing this quote." And as for consensus, yes, "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.," enjoys consensus, as it's been the wording employed in the article forever, and only you are actively seeking to change it. Yilloslime (t) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"I doubt there are significant differences between the 2002 and 2004 summaries." How self-serving. Aren't you the same guy who thought the MJA rebuttal of the EPA study was invalid because it referred to an earlier draft? Back then, one would have thought the new draft consitituted a brand new report. Now, despite the inclusion of important studies from 2002 and 2003, like Egan and Change-Claude, there are probably not "significant differences." Don't worry, I did your work for you and investigated every quote on which I switched the date. I did not expect you to actually read the study, scientist that you are. On the other subject, thanks for pointing me to the wikipedia reference. Here is a meaningful quote, "Epidemiological studies can only go to prove that an agent could have caused, but not that it did cause, an effect in any particular case:
'Epidemiology is concerned with the incidence of disease in populations and does not address the question of the cause of an individual’s disease. This question, sometimes referred to as specific causation, is beyond the domain of the science of epidemiology. Epidemiology has its limits at the point where an inference is made that the relationship between an agent and a disease is causal (general causation) and where the magnitude of excess risk attributed to the agent has been determined; that is, epidemiology addresses whether an agent can cause a disease, not whether an agent did cause a specific plaintiff’s disease.'[13]"
Finally, only I am actively seeking to change the wording because the others have given up and left. Their objections are recorded in the archive and continue to be valid, as the wording has not changed. The fact that it has been there forever is no argument that it enjoys consensus.SonofFeanor (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"How self-serving." Again, see WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." And please don't twist my arguments around. While I did indeed note that the MJA was commenting on an earlier draft of the CalEPA reprt, that was not my primary issue with it. What actually wrote was: "It's an editorial, it's older than the ARB/OEHHA report (2004 vs 2005), and it's commenting on an earlier draft of the report than the one that's cited here. Most importantly, the MJA piece is just the opinion of its two authors, while the ARB/OEHHA report has the weight of the California EPA behind it and was reviewed by an independent scientific review panel before it was finalized."
And I'm not going to debate with you the meaning of the word cause or the epistemology of epidemiology. But if you want to talk about what the sources actually say and how the wikipolicies of No original research, neutral point of view, and guidelines around realiable sources bear on this article, then I'm game. Yilloslime (t) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"I'm not going to debate with you the meaning of the word cause." Check the title of this section. Read all that has gone before. That is exactly what we are doing! And if you think there is a wikipedia policy that prohibits debate about the exact wording of articles or the meaning of those words, then think again. Of course, you don't want to debate it now. Not after you gave a citation without reading it and I produced a quote from it that unequivocally rejected your position.SonofFeanor (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The title of this section is "IARC Report Date". And I have never stated or implied that policy precludes "debate about the exact wording of articles," afterall we've been doing just that on these pages. And I have no idea what you talking about with regard to me "produc[ing] a quote from it that unequivocally rejected [my] position." If you are going to say I've done this-or-that, please be specific. Yilloslime (t) 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops, wrong section there. But as to the quote, come on, it is four paragraphs up from yours and was left fourty minutes earlier. I was pretty sure you would know what I was referring to.SonofFeanor (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. WIth 4+ active threads meandering across various topics, you're going to have to be a little more specific. Yilloslime (t) 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If you cannot be bothered to read the quote when I pointed you directly to it and it was made just today in this very thread, in response to your own post, then I certainly am not going to reproduce it.SonofFeanor (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You haven't pointed me "directly" to anything since you first made that assertion. I'm not trying to play with you here, I just don't see were I produced a citation from which you pulled a quote that "unequivocally rejected" my position. And I've gone through and reread this thread twice now. Yilloslime (t) 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Epidemiological Studies Section

"Research using more exact measures of secondhand-smoke exposure suggests that risks to nonsmokers may be even greater than this estimate. A British study reported that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60%, similar to light smoking.[49] Evidence also shows that inhaled sidestream smoke is also about 4 times more toxic than mainstream smoke, secondhand smoke is more deadly to those who have chosen not to smoke.[50]"

This paragraph has many problems and ought to be removed. Reference 49 is to a primary source, not a secondary source, and wikipedia policy is against our directly interpreting its findings. But, for the record, it is a study based only on cotinine levels as a proxy for ETS exposure, has fairly wide confidence intervals, inexactly controls for confounders, and achieves statistical significance in certain groups only by arbitrary stratification. There is a reason why this study is not included in most reviews of the literature. Reference 50 is not a precise reference at all and is impossible to verify via the internet.SonofFeanor (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm 49 is a medical study published in the BMJ, and the article reports what the study says. From the conclusions seciton "Higher concentrations of serum cotinine among non-smokers are associated with an excess risk of coronary heart disease of about 50-60%" re-wording to 50-50% would be reasonable, but are you questioning the reliablity of BMJ article as sources?. There are very few journals that have a higher reputation.
On the use of the blood marker, in the introduciton "Biomarkers of passive exposure to smoking, particularly cotinine (a nicotine metabolite), can provide a summary measure of exposure from all these sources." sourced from: Jarvis M, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Feyerabend C, Vesey C, Salloojee Y. Biochemical markers of smoke absorption and self reported exposure to passive smoking. J Epidemiol Community Health 1984;38: 335-9. What was your point? YOu seem to be dismissing the sourec based on you own interpritaions.
I agree Ref 50 needs improving, as there is a little detail. --Nate1481 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nate. Our description of ref 49 is fully in line with what the paper actually says. I fail to see what the problem is. And I agree that Ref 50 is inadequate. Yilloslime (t) 22:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but this falls afoul of the wikipedia policy on original research again. This is a PRIMARY study, and wikipedia policy states that primary sources can only be used to make claims "the accuracy of which [are] verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." This claim is certainly not. But if this is acceptable, I will quote primary study after primary study stating that it did not find statistical significance. Choose which way you want it.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also up for deletion, "Some studies find that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25% increase in risk of death from heart attack, are more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes contract genital cancer."

This statement is not sourced, unless it is to the earlier footnote, number 6 currently. Regardless, it is imprecise. Which studies? Are they primary studies or meta-analyses? Do they achieve significance? Do they control for confounders? Are they even peer-reviewed? How much more likely are non-smokers to suffer a stroke? Is that result statistically significant? What does "sometimes contract genital cancer" even mean?SonofFeanor (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There has been no response on this subject. I am going to remove the offending wording.SonofFeanor (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence "Some studies find that non-smokers living with smokers have about a 25% increase in risk of death from heart attack, are more likely to suffer a stroke, and can sometimes contract genital cancer." needs a source. If we cannot find one, it should be removed, or replaced with a sentence for which we have a source. I propose adding the \{\{fact\}\} tag after the sentence, and to delete it only in a couple of weeks if nobody has come up with a reference for it, or has found a better alternative.
On the other hand, the Whincup study (ref [49]), contrary to what SonofFeanor says, is a very valid and highly reliable study, and is included in all the major reviews of the literature (the CalEPA report covers it extensively in Part B, Chap. 8, pages 7-9, and the SG 2006 Report reviews its findings too; it is referenced by the World health Organization in its Policy Recommendations on Protection from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke). A search on Google Scholars shows 120 citations for this article. The approach used by Whincup and colleagues, using biomarkers, is a good complementary avenue to the assessment of exposure to SHS. New articles have been published since the Whincup article that reinforce the conclusions of the Whincup et al. paper. For example, toenail nicotine levels have been studied as biomarkers and found quite reliable (Al-Delaimy, W. K., Stampfer, M. J., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C. (2008). Toenail Nicotine Levels as Predictors of Coronary Heart Disease among Women. Am J Epidemiol 167: 1342-1348). In Exposure to Secondhand Smoke and Biomarkers of Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Never-Smoking Adults, A. Venn and J. Britton conclude that "passive smokers appear to have disproportionately increased levels of 2 biomarkers of cardiovascular disease risk, fibrinogen and homocysteine. This finding provides further evidence to suggest that low-level exposure to secondhand smoke has a clinically important effect on susceptibility to cardiovascular disease." Gven that context, deleting the reference to the Whincup article has no justification. What would be needed is to bring the most recent results, which reinforce the findings of Whincup and his colleagues.
As to the deletion of the sentence "Evidence also shows that inhaled sidestream smoke is also about 4 times more toxic than mainstream smoke, secondhand smoke is more deadly to those who have chosen not to smoke." and of the related reference, I find the explanation unconvincing. It is very relevant and factual that sidestream smoke, the main component of SHS, is at least 4 times more toxic than mainstream smoke. However, the second part of the sentence (which is another sentence stuck to the first), "secondhand smoke is more deadly to those who have chosen not to smoke" is redundant and wrong. First, people do not choose to be non-smokers - they are born non-smokers. Second, secondhand smoke is equally deadly, if not more, to the smokers themselves. No reference can be found which says that SHS is more deadly to the non-smokers. This part of the sentence should therefore be removed. I also agree that the reference needs improvement. I will provide the correct reference (it is already cited elsewhere on the page).
--Dessources (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why "causes" is better than "can cause"

I repeat here what has been said before about the two variants ("causes" vs "can cause") of the second sentence in the lead paragraph.

I have expressed the case for the first formulation very extensively in a previous Talk contribution (see [30]), which has not been challenged. Changing "cause" to "can cause" fails to make the point clearer - it rather obscures it, as it implies a meaning of "cause" which is different from the way the term is used in epidemiology and by the public health community (see definition of causality in epidemiology).

Moreover, the lead paragraph is a summary of the article and should be consistent with the body of the article. The "cause" formulation is consistent with all other references to causality in the body of the article, which have been around for a long time, which appear the natural wording, and have been well accepted by all editors:

  • "secondhand smoke ... causes the same problems as direct smoking" (first sentence of Long-term effects section)
  • "the 3rd leading cause of preventable death" ((first sentence of Long-term effects section)
  • "In France passive smoking has been estimated to cause between 3,000 and 5,000 premature deaths per year" (last paragraph of Epidemiological studies section)
  • "The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2002 that there was sufficient evidence that secondhand smoke caused cancer in humans" (first sentence of Risk level section)
  • "The report also found that passive smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in children." (last sentence of Risk level section)
  • "The governments of 151 [now 162] nations have signed and ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." (last bullet point in list below Current state of scientific opinion section)
  • "In 1986, the United States Surgeon General issued a report concluding that secondhand smoke was a cause of disease." (first sentence of Controversy over harm section)
  • "In the same year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Research Council also released reports concluding that secondhand smoke was a cause of lung cancer" (second sentence of Controversy over harm section)
  • "In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the United States were caused by passive smoking annually." (first sentence of EPA lawsuit section)
  • "...the District Court for the District of Columbia found that the tobacco industry ... responded with 'efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that ETS causes disease'." (second sentence under Tobacco industry response section)
  • "...despite their internal acknowledgment of the hazards of secondhand smoke, Defendants have fraudulently denied that ETS causes disease (last sentence under Tobacco industry response section)

All the instances of "causes" read very naturally, some being quotation of people (such as the judge of the Federal court) who are not specialized in epidemiology.

The body of the article contains not a single instance of "can cause".

Even Philip Morris, in stating their official position on the issue, say "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease." I see therefore no valid reason to change the formulation which has been in place for months now. It is succinct, articulate, corresponds to the worldwide consensus of public health experts and authorities, and has stood the proof of time. What else do we want!

--Dessources (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Having reread the first discussion regarding "causes"/"can cause", as well as the archived discussion on this same topic, and now Dessources's post immediately above, I have to say I prefer "causes". To my ear, the constructions "causes," "can cause," "is a cause of," and "increases the risk of," are all equivalent and have the same meaning in this context. However, as Dessources points out, "causes" is the construction used is the rest of the article. And "causes" is also used more frequently than "can cause" in the CDC factsheet, the SG's report to Congress, and the WHO/IARC monograph. These are the first three sources cited in the Current state of scientific opinion section, and the only I've checked. If other people find that in subsequent citations in that section use "can cause" in preference to "causes", then I'd be willing to reconsider, but for now it looks like "causes" is the preferred wording of these preeminent bodies. So if it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. Yilloslime (t) 04:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
As I said below, this is the real argument. You are using this wording because the WHO said it. Well, they did, in a highly politicized foreword that is substantially emoved from the scientific discussion. This is not sufficient for us to repeat the claim without quotes, not when we know for sure it is not true, based on the definition of "cause." Despite repeated references to the wikipedia article on causality, no one seems to have read it. Here is the first sentence. "Causality denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct consequence of the first." That is not at all the case here. That "causes" is not cearly the same as "can cause" and "increases the risk of" is readily seen by the responses on this and previous pages, as well as from even a cursory reading the aforementioned article. But if you believe it is the same, nothing is lost by switching to these other formulations. If you are wrong, as many believe you are, then the accuracy of the article improves. Now, you are quite right that "cause" and :causes" are used elsewhere in the article. But this article is not a respected secondary source. Agreement with it is not in itself a desirable end. Where it uses "cause" and "causes" elsewhere it is also wrong, and should be changed, and the only reason I have not made the changes yet is that I am trying to go through the problems in order, though the list is so lengthy that I am unlikely ever to reach the end.SonofFeanor (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Except it's not just the WHO that uses "causes" instead of "can cause" or the other formulations. It's at least also CDC and the SG. Also, that the WHO statement is "highly politicized" and "substantially removed from the scientific discussion" is your opinion. Find reliable sources that say that and we can put the matter on the table, but for now it's irrelevant. Who are the "many" that believe I am wrong about this? Yilloslime (t) 23:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
More to come, but here is a partial list of those who believe cause is incorrect: BlowingSmoke, Guy, Munta, Procrastinating, Chido6d, AcetylcholineAgonist, SonoftheMornng, Mixsynth, Tedd, Ajax151, SonofFeanor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonofFeanor (talk • contribs) 01:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
So people who haven't edited this page in months disagree with arguments I've presented in the last 24 hours.... Yilloslime (t) 03:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You can't be serious. No, scratch that. I've listened to you. You can be. The arguments are not new. Check te archives. The arguments are exactly the same. And whether or not they are strong is not based on the number who agree or disagree, but you did ask me who they were. They are only presented to make it clear that many people who hear cause do not think "cause in a population" but rather think of the precise definition of cause offered RIGHT HERE IN WIKIPEDIA.SonofFeanor (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please remember that no personal attacks is wikipedia policy, violations of which are punishable by blocking. If you keep making statements like the one above ("You can't be serious. No, scratch that. I've listened to you. You can be."), you're probably going to end up blocked.
But back to the article: While the other editors you mention have previously tried to change "causes" to "can cause" or "increases the risk of", in all cases they failed to find consensus for that change. That should be taken as evidence that their arguments are not very convincing, and that if you you hope to be more successful than they were, you should try a different approach. And I still don't understand how people I haven't interacted with in months (or, in some cases, ever) can believe that I'm personally wrong about something I wrote last night. But sorting this out isn't going to help us improve passive smoking so I suggest we move on.
And here's something that will help: earlier I pointed out that it's not just the WHO that prefers "causes" to "can cause" but also at least the CDC and the SG. Why should we not follow what these sources say? I think a counter-argument that refers to wikipedia policy and reliable sources will be a lot more convincing to other editors (including me), than one that involves your personal opinion the WHO, CDC, SG, or other preeminent bodies. Yilloslime (t) 05:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
There was no personal attack. I was just recognizing that you were, in fact, capable of making the argument you made. You made the argument - you cannot believe it is an insult to recognize you are capable of it. As to your sources, check them again. I searched the above references to the Surgeon General and CDC. Neither uses the "causes" wording in reference to disability and death. If you have other citations, please provide them. CDC factsheet SG's report to Congress, copied from above.SonofFeanor (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You are conflating to arguments: 1) whether "can cause" is better than "cause" and 2) whether "disability" is appropriate at all. We're talking about issue #1 in this thread. And yes, WHO, CDC, SG and probably all use the word "cause" in preference to "can cause" in describing the health effects of ETS. And those health include various diseases, disabilities--depending on your definition of "disability", ultimately death. That's seems pretty straight forward. If you find other reliable sources use other phraseology in preference to "causes" let us know, but for now this is settled in my eyes. Yilloslime (t) 16:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If it is not important that they refer specifically to disability and death, but just use the word "cause," for this portion of the discussion, then I assume I can bring in all manner of sources that use cause to mean 'directly produce a result' or words to that effect. They need not have any relation to passive snmoking at all. Is that acceptable? If so, prepare for a deluge. If not, recognize that only one of your sources uses "cause" for disability and death. The issue is not settled at all.SonofFeanor (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I consider that the issue is completely settled, and that the arguments presented by SonofFeanor are not valid. I notice that he has now shifted to hair-splitting arguments such as "only one of your sources uses 'cause' for disability and death". In fact, this (highly reliable) source provides a excellent summary of what is said in the other sources - and this is a pertinent quality for a summary section in an encyclopedia article. If SonofFeanor could find statements in the other sources that contradict the WHO FCTC statement, then I am, for my part, prepared to consider it. However, my detailed analysis shows that the WHO FCTC captures very well the essence of what all other reliable sources say - it was carefully drafted for that very purpose by the adopters of the WHO FCTC text (192 countries). The Surgeon General says "Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke." Can we infer from the fact that he omits "disability" that the type of morbidity that is caused by exposure to SHS is not disabilitating? Is WHO FCTC wrong to add "disability" after "cause", because the SG did not include that word? If this were the case, we would have a truly extraordinary situation: "All people who die because of exposure to SHS die instantly, without any suffering and without any period of disability associated with the disease!" Of course, we all know that coronary heart diseases and asthma are highly debilitating conditions. The WHO FCTC statement makes it explicit, while the US SG leaves it as an implicit cause. (See also my remark below under "Why 'disability'".) Clearly, this is a false trial against this article - in the same vein as a stream of previous attacks, with which SonofFeanor correctly identifies his contribution. Finally, the threat of a "deluge" of irrelevant sources is not new: similar threats have been made in the past, and have either not materialized or simply have acted as revelator of the weakness of the editor's argument, so we are waiting to see it.
--Dessources (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Premature Birth

There is a single citation - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17439527

It is to a primary study, and the study does not achieve sttistical significance (lower bound of confidence interval is .99). This is not enough for us to conclude here that passive smoking "causes", "shows", "is linked to", "increases the risk of", or whatever other wording you care to choose, premature birth. The statement ought to be removed, or else better sources should be found.

I have just cited numerous problems (epidemiological studies section, premature birth, and the "causes" controversy) with this article that all are on one side of the issue, and again, I have barely even looked. None of these problems has yet been dealt with. I am reinserting the POV tag and it should not be removed while these issues remain unresolved.SonofFeanor (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

95% is commonly used in medical studies, and while a single study is not incontrovertible proof, it is strong supporting evidence published in a peer reviewed journal that there may well be a link. More sources would always be an improvement but a wording of "a study has linked" would be reasonable. "does not achieve sttistical significance" is not a valid statement. --Nate1481 16:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
.99 above does not refer to a percentage. .99 is the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the risk ratio. The important thing to note is that this is below 1. "Does not achieve statistical significance" is indeed a valid statement. Check the source to see for yourself.SonofFeanor (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is original research: you are using your own interpretation of the study's results to draw a conclusion different from the authors'. The abstract clearly says: "ETS exposure in non-smoking women was associated only with early preterm delivery." If you haven't yet read WP:OR, please do. Most the arguments you are presenting on this talk page are original research (as defined by wiki policy), and thus not valid. Yilloslime (t) 17:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but the article is a primary source. Wikipedia states "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." If you haven't yet read WP:OR, please do. The accuracy of this claim about ETS is not verifiable by a person without specialist knowledge. The rest of my comment is not necessary to discard the reference, I was just pointing out what sort of problems crop up when people disregard this policy. As to other arguments of mine, feel free to point out the problem where it occurs. I have been diligent about providing sources.SonofFeanor (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't patronize me. Your interpretation of the this study differs from the authors' and thus clearly constitutes WP:OR. On the other hand, using a study that concludes that "ETS exposure in non-smoking women was associated only with early preterm delivery" to support the statement that "A wide array of negative effects are attributed, in whole or in part, to frequent, long term exposure to second hand smoke.[9][10][11] Some of these effects include: ...Risk of premature birth" is entirely consistent with the WP:OR policy. If you really think I'm wrong, you could post a note on the Original Research Noticeboard and see if anyone agrees with you. Yilloslime (t) 18:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The patronizing wording is copied verbatim from your own post! And again, your use is not consistent with policy because you are not making a claim "the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." There is no need to subject this to a vote. The quote is from the Wikipedia policy. That is easily verified. You cannot believe that a person without specialist knowledge can verify the relationship between ETS and premature birth.SonofFeanor (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I know where the wording comes from. Here's the thing: you're a new user, and you keep making original research-based arguments, so it's reasonable for me to think that you might not yet have read the policy. My suggestion that you read it if you hadn't already was not meant to be patronizing, rather it was intended as advice. Meanwhile, it should be obvious that I've read the policy, as I've been around WP for 2 years, and I brought the page to your attention. Therefore, I don't see how this edit was intended to be anything other than patronizing. Yilloslime (t) 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. You have demonstrated on many occasions that you do not read your own citations, and I wasn't sure you had read this one, since your use of this primary source clearly violates it, as I have demonstrated. I am not patronizing you.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, and the CalEPA 2005 report slightly diverge in their assessment of the causality link between preterm delivery and exposure of the mother to SHS. While CalEPA considers the evidence "conclusive", the Surgeon General still evaluates it as "suggestive". We could stay on the conservative side and not include it in the list, or present both information, leaving it to the reader to make up his/her mind (my preference). On the other hand, both the SG and Cal EPA agree that the evidence that exposure of the mother to SHS causes low birth weight. This condition should be added to the list. --Dessources (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to me as if it has been written completely by the anti-smoking lobbyists, as all articles on the matter appear to be. We could at least mention other sides, such as FOREST and such. The article suggests that passive smoking has been proven to have massive health risks and to massively increase the chances of diseases. I think it's important to take into account that the passive smoking theory has not been proven.[31][32]. --HandGrenadePins (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've included a link to FOREST noting its role as part of the industry response. Readers can follow it and make up their own minds. JQ (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
FOREST is an interesting example, since they're probably the archetype of the tobacco-industry front group designed to sow doubt from a supposedly "independent" position. Passive smoking has health risks in the opinion of every scientific and medical body to study the question. In other words, it has been proven, to the satisfaction of just about everyone except the tobacco industry and their mouthpieces. Actually, even some tobacco companies admit the risks of secondhand smoke now - usually those who have been legally compelled to turn over their internal memos documenting that they've known secondhand smoke was dangerous since the 70's. MastCell Talk 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's a classic example of "astroturfing." But surely there are similar groups that are not affiliated with the tobacco industry? How about CLASH (http://www.nycclash.com) in NYC? Or FORCES (forces.org)--not to be confused with FOREST? What about general libertarian think-tanks like the Cato Institute, who originally managed junkscience.com but cut ties with them after realizing the connection with the tobacco industry? They still maintain their postion on passive smoking in spite of that. Just a thoughtAjax151 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
As you point out, Cato isn't really a good counter-example - since the exposure of Milloy, it's largely stopped fighting the science, so it now has a policy position but little in the way of a case for it. Undoubtedly there are genuinely independent individuals and groups who reject mainstream science on passive smoking and oppose smoking bans. But they aren't reliable sources on the science and their views on smoking bans belong in that article.JQ (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
When did this "exposure of Milloy" occur? I've seen some recent articles published by the Cato Institute that are harshly critical of the so-called science. Chido6d (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

HandGrenadePins, you're not the only one who noticed the obviously tendentious nature of the overall article. While we're at it, how's about restoring the alternative mitigation (ventilation, cap-and-trade for bars) section? If it is good enough for the smoking ban article, surely it applies a fortiori to this one? That is a very pertinent "other side of the story" that is often (unfairly) assumed to be just another a tobacco industry ploy with no real basis. True, they do support ventilation, but bashing the idea based on that is the guilt by association fallacy. If Mussolini made the trains run on time, therefore it is bad for trains to run on time--same kind of pseudo-logic. In fact, the section gave both sides. If cap-and-trade is OK for greenhouse gases (a much more pressing problem than passive smoking IMO), surely it is OK for tobacco smoke?? I hope we can all reach a consensus on ventilation and cap-and-trade (for bars). I'd like to see comments on this.Ajax151 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with discussing cap-and-trade, though it might be better to cover it in smoking ban since it's more a matter of how smoking bans are implemented rather than directly dealing with passive smoking. MastCell Talk 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
What about ventilation? There should be at least a brief reference to that (with citations). Any unbiased mention of ventilation, in addition to cap-and-trade, in this article would make the article more neutral IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, all this stuff belongs mainly in smoking ban, but a sentence mentioning alternative proposals wouldn't do any harm. I'll try and add something.JQ (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read this article and was appalled. I love Wikipedia, and part of what I love about it is that if an article even leans slightly to one side on a controversial subject it tends to be labeled as under suspicion of bias. I remember reading a Marie Antoinette article that really seemed pretty even handed to me and was labeled as biased or potentially biased in her favor. How then, does this unbelievably one-sided article exist without any caveats? Has any single study of secondhand smoke shown a statistically significant link (that is, a result that is less than 5% likely to have occurred by pure chance) to adverse health effects? I believe the answer is no. Isn't that fairly important when citing all of these studies? Isn't it important that the studies that show significance are meta-studies? One would think that would be mentioned and the term "meta-study" would then be explained. And lastly, how can you just dismiss all counter-arguments as "funded by the tobacco industry" and leave it at that? Shouldn't the findings or methodology be cited, rather than the perceived motivation? And, in case you're wondering, Philip Morris isn't paying me to write this. I don't even smoke. In fact, I dislike it quite a bit when people smoke in my face at a bar or a casino. But the answer is not to invent science and shout down anyone who objects. This article MUST be labeled as biased. Someone please tell me what I can do to further this end.SonofFeanor (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't. To answer some of your questions as well as some of the concerns raised by HandGrenadePins, simply read this page.
In fairness, the article isn't about original research that you wish to introduce. It's about presenting evidence from reliable sources, though most unfortunately, this is currently done in an extremely biased fashion. It's also about the suppression of the opposing view and/or portraying the opposing view deliberately in the pejorative. Again, read this page. Chido6d (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
If you believe the article to be biased, perhaps you could explain how we could better present the unanimity of scientific opinion? The problem you're encountering is that you're running against a couple of well-documented facts:
  • Reputable scientific opinion is unanimous that secondhand smoke carries health risks, though (as the article notes) a small minority dispute the magnitude of that risk.
  • The vast majority of research "exonerating" passive smoking is now known to have been generated by the tobacco industry, which had internally acknowledged that secondhand smoke was harmful.
Is it "biased" to state in our article on AIDS that the disease is caused by HIV? If you were to read the article talk page, you'd think so, because a succession of folks stop by with comments much like these. There is scientific consensus here; there is no meaningful scientific debate on whether secondhand smoke is harmful - it is. It's trivially easy to source this consensus - see Passive smoking#Current state of scientific opinion. The problem is that you're requesting that Wikipedia present a scientific "controversy" where none exists. We're not in the business of manufacturing controversies. MastCell Talk 05:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Where to start? How about the absurd AIDS analogy? There are many, many studies that have achieved statistical significance in linking HIV to AIDS. Since the effect shows up much sooner than do the supposed effects of passive smoking, and since the presence of HIV is easy to test for, unlike measurement of exposure to secondhand smoke, designing meaningful studies is comparatively easy in this case and methodological concerns much less pronounced. There are virtually NO individual studies that have achieved statistical significance in linking passive smoking with ANY adverse health effects. Read that sentence again. It is important. Because of it, the analogy fails miserably. That is, since there is evidence supporting one causal relationship and none supporting the other, one can make the first claim without bias, yet not the second. The fact that comments on that page resemble mine in some superficial sense don't make mine less powerful. If they did, we might justly impeach any skepticism on the exact same basis. "You doubt the relationship between warts and witchcraft that is so clearly presented in our article? You sound just like the AIDS skeptics. Begone, unbeliever."

You speak again and again, here and in the article, about a "scientific consensus." Then you list a bunch of medical organizations and one - count it, one - purely scientific organization. It is hardly surprising that medical bodies are willing to come out against passive smoking. Not even I believe that it could improve health, so they can be certain that such a stance is at worst health neutral. Organizations like WHO and EPA are notoriously unconcerned with fudging science to "serve the greater good." Where are the epidemiological societies, though? Where are the pure scientists? And certainly, there are some doctors and scientists on the other side. The British Medical Journal, for heaven's sake, put out a study in 2003 showing that the risks of passive smoking are vastly overstated. Richard Smith, a Dr. and head of the Journal at the time, was eviscerated for it, though he did nothing other than publish a rigorously peer-reviewed study in his journal. Richard Doll, famous in scientific circles for exposing the dangers of firsthand smoking, maintains that the risks of secondhand smoke are trivial. Likewise Ken Denson. Does this sound like consensus? Oh, I am sure that you will say each and every one of them has some tie to tobacco, as though the publishers of all of the secondhand smoking studies are doing it for free. The grants they receive from governments, and the funding from lobbyists, are conveniently ignored. Given that most people do what they do out of some underlying self interest, how about we dispense with discussions of motivations and - gasp -look at the actual results?

If you did, you would see that there is no need to "manufacture" a controversy. The length and breadth of the objections to your article alone make that clear. A controversy exists, and it ought not to be hushed up by activists pushing an agenda. Not on a site that takes just pride in its objectivity.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I second that. I do not believe that the controversy was entirely manufactured (though the tobacco companies did fund most (NOT all!)of the "exonerating" studies). The risks of passive smoking, while I concede that at least some of which are likely real, are grossly exaggerated IMO. Even anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel (you know, that "third hand smoke" skeptic I keep on referencing) concedes that, even for second-hand smoke. Is it not possible that the anti-smoking side has vested interests as well? Ideological, obviously, but what about funding from pharmaceutical companies, and, dare I say it, the neoprohibitionist Robert Wood Johnson Foundation? Are they somehow automatically off the hook just because they claim to be supporting "public health"?Ajax151 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I see that my post, and a followup from SonofFeanor, were removed. I'm fine with that, since both were probably crossing the line set up by the talk page guidelines. Rather than respond to your opinions with my opinions, how about I let you have the last word here, and we focus on specific changes to the article content from here on? MastCell Talk 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, lets agree to disagree, and focus on the wording of what the article should say.Ajax151 (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so on to specific wording, then. How about starting at "causes disease, disability, and death" in the first paragraph. Shouldn't "causes" be replaced by "may cause?" After all, no study shows that these health effects occur in more than 50% of people, much less 100% of people. Additionally, what disabilities, exactly, has passive smoking been shown to cause? As far as I know, the answer is none, though I am happy to be educated. Lastly, to claim that passive smoking "causes death" is clearly a rhetorical device that has no place here. There is no good study out there on smoking and mortality rates. The BMJ study does consider mortality rates rather than specific diseases, but of course finds no connection. None of the meta-studies, as far as I know, considers mortality rates. To summarize, this sentence ought to read "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke may cause " and then whatever the meta-studies actually show, whether it be heart disease, lung cancer, or what have you. I object to the meta-studies to begin with, but at least they achieve some level of significance that could justify the word "shows" above. I will move on to the rest of the article if we can manage to salvage paragraph number one.SonofFeanor (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Passive smoking/Archive 3#SHS Causing Death. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This comes up every now and then. To be honest, I don't have a problem with "can cause" vs. "causes" vs. "is a cause of" vs. "increases the risk of". Any of these are fine with me - they seem semantically equivalent in this context, and accurate. MastCell Talk 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
So then let's change to "increases the risk of." Ths is phrased much more clearly. But the rest of my concerns have not been addressed. Yes, you are quoting the WHO. But I mean, the WHO was quoting the Surgeon General. Right away, the problem becomes clear. This isn't two citations! Do we now get to quote Wikipedia and say "Look, consensus?" There is no substitute for looking at the actual studies, abstracts of which are available at the Surgeon General's site. Not one of them shows anything about mortality rates. Some of them regard SIDS, which I believe is where the "death" part of the quote arises. But if you read the studies on SIDS, either they are not even close to significant (many show odds ratios UNDER 1) or they fail to control for prenatal maternal smoking, which is clearly the primary risk factor. So, either show us the studies on mortality, or remove "death." And for heaven's sake, if ETS causes disability, tell me what disability. How can you write it in this article if you can't even name the disability?SonofFeanor (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I proposed a solution to this long ago.
  • "According to the WHO, passive smoke causes death, disease and disability." This is an accurate statement. It is neutral, and nobody can dispute it.
  • "Scientific evidence shows..." is none of the above. Some agree with it and others do not, but as someone has aptly stated, opinions aren't supposed to matter here.
One of the most extremist editors prefers the word "cause" and offers a reasonable argument: it is the word that the sources use. My proposed solution seems to cover all bases. Any thoughts? Chido6d (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with the "According to the WHO..." language, although I suppose I would prefer "According to the office of the Surgeon General ..." since the WHO is really just quoting the Surgeon General.SonofFeanor (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I may be the "extremist editor" Chido is talking about (would I be wrong to be slightly flattered if so...?), and to reiterate, I oppose any dilution of 'causes' to 'can cause' or 'increases the risk of', for all the reasons which we have already discussed on this page, most recently as outlined by User:Dessources in the section titled "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability" in archive 3. In short, my view is that the word 'cause' here is understood at a population level rather than at an individual level, i.e. in the population as a whole passive smoke causes death, disease, and disability (as an aside, the main disabilities would be related to the (after)effects of disease e.g. post-MI, COPD, etc).
For instance, although car crashes are the main cause of head injury, they don't always cause head injury - given that most car accidents are relatively minor, the overwhelming majority won't. There are undoubtedly other factors involved - the speed of the car, whether the occupants were wearing seatbelts, prevailing weather conditions - and all of these can modulate the risk of head injury - but fundamentally, even though a minority of car accidents cause head injuries and even though those that do are modulated by dozens of other factors, no one has a problem with saying "car accidents cause head injury" and no one takes it to mean that if they reverse into a parking bollard they'll end up with a brain injury.
For the same reasons, I don't think the meaning currently is in any way unclear with the wording as it is. Nmg20 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You're not. Sorry.Chido6d (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have never heard anyone say "Car accidents cause head injury" and if I did, I would think it was quite strange. I think most people who heard this would think it meant car crashes lead invariably to head injury, which is not much less ridiculous than "passive smoking causes death." But apparently some of you think of something else, and I suppose, therefore, I have to acknowledge there is more than one way to interpret the statement. But if I make such an acknowledgment, it seems to me that you must as well. There is little doubt that many people reading the statement read it as Chido and I and so many other critics have. Given this, we should make it more clear, and wording like "increases the risk of" certainly does that. What is lost by changing the wording? "Increases the risk of" and "causes at a population level" say exactly the same thing, except that the former is idiomatically correct English and the latter is questionable usage at best. But if you must have "cause" then include "at a population level," as you do every time you need to make yourself understood here on the talk page. It is clear that this caveat is not at all "understood," as you claim, and you want to keep the current wording purely for rhetorical effect.SonofFeanor (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
So, when you say "passive smoking causes... disability" you mean it has been tenuously linked to heart disease by meta-studies (and pretty much not at all to myocardial infarction), and since disability results in rare cases of myocardial infarction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, it has therefore been linked to disability? Is that some sort of joke? I assumed you had some nonsense study or another out there linking passive smoking to hearing loss or something. To continue along the lines of your previous analogy, this is tantamount to saying "car accidents cause memory loss" since they sometimes lead to head injury which is sometimes associated with memory loss. To take it a step further, I guess we could say "driving causes memory loss" or even "working causes memory loss," since working sometimes leads to driving which leads to car accidents. I mean, as long as you understand I am talking about working causing memory loss "at a population level."SonofFeanor (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I put the NPOV tag on this article. I dispute that it presents a neutral point of view, as I have stated. The very first sentence I have a problem with is a matter of continuing debate on this site. I was going to list all of the users who have had the same problem with the sentence, but I soon realized it would be quite a long list indeed. Given this fact, and the fact that my arguments have not been answered in any meaningful way, I do not see how any responsible editor can remove the tag. To do so seems to me to be abuse.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
There has certainly been a steady stream of editors seeking to insert WP:FRINGE viewpoints, personal critiques of the scientific literature, tobacco industry talking points and so on. This is true (with obvious variations) of almost every article on a science-related topic, which is why appeals to the broader Wikipedia community invariably come down on the side of science. It's been a useful process. The current version of the article is much clearer on the role of the tobacco industry in manufacturing doubt than it was in the past, and editors are now much quicker to check on the (almost invariable) industry links of the groups and researchers cited as contrary evidence to the conclusions of relevant authorities. So, please keep up the discussion, but don't imagine that you are going to get an "opinions differ on shape of earth" result.JQ (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but real points were made above and cannot be legitimately answered by simply stating "Everyone knows you are wrong." If ETS causes disabilities, it is fair to ask which ones. No one has given a response to that question, unless you count "That is a tobacco industry talking point" or "Obviously it is true, you can't change the shape of the Earth." A dispute remains, and the article must be labeled accordingly.SonofFeanor (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
This page is neither supposed to be a tutorial nor a Q&A section on the science of secondhand smoke. Clearly there are things SonofFeanor does not fully understand, but we should refrain from explaining it to him, as this is not a proper use of this page (see NOT A FORUM note at the top of this page). Therefore, whether SonofFeanor has ever heard anyone say "Car accidents cause head injury" or not is completely irrelevant. What counts is what our reliable and authoritiative sources say, and this article is fully in line with that, and is probably backed by very solid and undisputable sources more than the great majority of Wikipedia articles. Therefore the case for the NPOV tag is completely ungrounded. Normally posts such as the one by SonofFeanor above should be removed from this discussion page, according to the NOT A FORUM rule.
--Dessources (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
"What counts is what our reliable and authoritiative sources say...." True. Then, I referred in December to one of those: "Breast cancer risk is increased by 70% in younger, primarily premenopausal women. The California Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that passive smoking causes breast cancer[3] and the US Surgeon General[23] has concluded that the evidence is "suggestive," one step below causal. This opinion is contradicted in other studies, exemplary one by the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford.[24]" in the last sentence, and another time: "Overall increased risk of death in both adults, where it is estimated to kill 53,000 nonsmokers per year, making it the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.[46][47] and in children[48] The reliabilty and presentation of specifically this estimated figure as statistical reality is strongly critisised by a.o. Hans J. Eysenck because of its illusory correlation and confirmation bias[49][50].", also last sentence. If published and peer vetted sources of the University of Oxford and Hans Eysenck (see his page in Wikipedia) are erased by you yourself, then indeed the word "our" in your statement becomes very meaningful and one should not wonder about the obvious partiality in this page that not only I have noticed. Wikipedia should be no place for festiving personal dogmatism and pleading to remove others from a discussion page, who's opinions one does not like; please find the meaning of "discussion" in the Oxford dictionary. I also object to the demeaning attitude towards SonofFeanor w.r.t. his by you assumed intellectual capability.123.255.28.185 (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I said I had never heard that in response to "no one has a problem with saying 'car accidents cause head injury.'" It is a very relevant response to that comment, which was perhaps irrelevant to begin with. My remarks above are all directly discussing the "causes" wording, and as such are perfectly appropriate to this page, though I believe your "Clearly there are things SonofFeanor does not understand" falls afoul of the regulations against ad hominem attacks, particularly as you chose not to discuss what those "things" were. As for "authoritative sources," you are quoting directly from one source - the Surgeon General. The WHO is quoting HIM, so they are not a separate source in this matter. And if you want to quote the Surgeon General, that is fine - put the words in quotes and cite him. As it is, the statement is masquerading as more than a simple quote, and so you ought to be able to defend it with more than "the Surgeon General says so." I reiterate that not one of you can even list a disability that passive smoking causes. It should be obvious even to the dullest of you that this is a serious problem. I will change the wording in the article if no one comes up with a disability by tonight.SonofFeanor (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Numerous independent sources have concluded that secondhand smoke is harmful - in fact, every major medical or scientific body that has examined the question has reached that conclusion. See Passive smoking#Current state of scientific opinion. Wikipedia's policies require that claims be presented in context of their acceptance by experts in the field. It is easily demonstrable that a consensus exists among experts in the field that secondhand smoke is harmful. Trying to divide and conquer the sources of this consensus is not particularly useful or productive. It exists, it's easily verifiable, so Wikipedia reports it. As to "disability", I presume that refers to illnesses such as asthma which are exacerbated by secondhand smoke. If you'd like to remove the word "disability", I have no complaints - it's fine to leave it as "secondhand smoke causes disease and death." MastCell Talk 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually I misspoke, it is the Surgeon General who cites the WHO, not the other way around. We will get to how many independent sources have concluded what, but for now we are addressing this one statement, and ought not to multiply the sources for IT. There is one. We don't get to count citations as separate sources, or we could easily generate 100 sources for any single-sourced statement. Asthma is, of course, not a disability, nor is it caused by secondhand smoke. So I think I will take you up on your offer and remove "disability" from the article.SonofFeanor (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's standard practice to cite work by other major bodies that have addressed the same issue, so I'm afraid I don't see this as weakening the sourcing. Again, leaving aside sophistry about hundreds of sources, the breadth of consensus on the topic among experts in the field is amply clear. As to asthma, children exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk of SIDS, respiratory infections, ear infections, and more severe asthma. I probably wouldn't use the word "disability" to sum those up - "disease" seems more appropriate - so we agree on the content issue. MastCell Talk 05:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome to cite work by other major bodies, but NOT mere citations. Citing of citations does in fact allow multiplication of sources. That is not sophistry, just simple mathematics. To put it another way, a previous poster said "We... ought not to multiply the sources for [the WHO's statement]." Yet another wrote "The WHO... are not a separate source in this matter." Do you see how one source becomes many?SonofFeanor (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Feanor: the head injury article linked here and in my last post includes the line "Common causes of head injury are traffic accidents, home and occupational accidents, falls, and assaults", so while you may not have heard it said, it is accepted usage here. If we can say there (paraphrasing) 'traffic accidents are a cause of head injury', why can we not say here 'passive smoking is a cause of death, disease, and disability'? Nmg20 (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the article seems biased. Not as bad as the ridiculous claims made by the anti-smoking crusaders, but not quite neutral. I agree with SonofFeanor about the use of "cause." It's interesting how people tend to say things like "food X causes heart disease," but if its good, they say "a diet high in food Y has been shown to decrease the risk of heart disease." The first statement has a matter-of-fact kind of certainty (truthiness?)to it, the second is just stating the facts.

I know from painful experience that smoking "can cause" holes in your pants, but I would feel like I was distorting the truth somewhat if I told a little kid "don't smoke it causes holes in your pants." It's always best to be clear, even if you have to use a couple more words. And,'traffic accidents are a cause of head injury,' is less definitive than 'traffic accidents cause head injury,' They chose to use softer language even though there is no one in the world who would dispute that car accidents are a significant cause of head injuries, even without doing 50 studies (although I'm sure they have ). The truth is, if you even have to defend the accuracy of results of a study like this, the findings probably aren't very relevant. Typically, the more arguments I hear, and studies I see done on a scientific issue, the more I realize its not really an issue. Better sign off before I start ranting. The myoclonic jerk (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ventilation section

OK, if we're going to do a ventilation section, let's do it right. I think that the current wording is a good start. However, it's a bit incomplete. Relevant and well-sourced aspects of ventilation as a solution to secondhand smoke include:

  • Ventilation has been pushed heavily by the tobacco industry as an alternative to smoking bans. Much of the data supporting ventilation was produced as part of a coordinated effort along these lines by the tobacco industry. "The industry developed a network of ventilation 'experts' to promote its position that smoke-free environments were not necessary, often without disclosing the financial relationship between these experts and the industry." (PMID 14985616)
  • There is substantial evidence that ventilation is not an adequate solution to the issue of secondhand smoke. For example, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) concluded, in their position statement: "At present, the only means of effectively eliminating health risk associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity... adverse health effects for the occupants of the smoking room cannot be controlled by ventilation. No other engineering approaches, including current and advanced dilution ventilation or air cleaning technologies, have been demonstrated or should be relied upon to control health risks from ETS exposure." ([33]).
  • The 2006 Surgeon General's report explicitly found that ventilation strategies are inadequate to eliminate the risks of secondhand smoke, and may actually worsen the problem by distributing smoke throughout a building. ([34])
  • The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America states: "Some air cleaners may help to reduce secondhand smoke to a limited degree, but no air filtration or air purification system can completely eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke... a simple reduction of secondhand smoke does not protect against the disease and death caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." ([35])
  • The European Commission Joint Research Centre concluded: "Efforts to reduce ETS-originated indoor air pollution through higher ventilation rates in buildings, including residential areas and hospitality venues, would not lead to a meaningful improvement of indoor air quality." ([36])

... and so on. If we're going to cover ventilation as it relates to secondhand smoke, then I think that any honest and balanced coverage would need to mention that a) the idea has been pushed largely by a network of "independent experts" created by the tobacco industry, b) that major technical groups such as ASHRAE and major public-health bodies such as the Surgeon General and the European Commission JRC consider ventilation an inadequate approach. These points are strongly and appropriately sourced. The current text cites one study pro and one con, which fails to give a balanced and complete view of the topic. MastCell Talk 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The current text should stay worded pretty much as is, but you may add links for those additional references to the "con" side. The degree of effectiveness of ventilation is still not a matter of scientific consensus, and the "pro" article should still therefore remain. The "pro" side certainly is NOT a fringe theory or Flat-Earther type position, nor entirely concocted or funded by Big Tobacco. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. True, ventilation/air cleaning cannot eliminate ALL passive smoke, but dramatically reduces it. To me, giving too much weight to the con side is analogous to a "sex education" class briefly mentioning condoms but only talking about their (predominantly user) failure rates. While it may not be good enough air quality for, say, a hospital, I am not convinced that bar workers and patrons would be significantly worse off relative to a smoking ban. Again, Paracelsus was very wise indeed. In addition, in-depth coverage of your references would probably belong in the smoking ban article if you wish to edit that one. The ventilation section on the passive smoking article is concise and balanced as currently worded.Ajax151 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not sure I agree - I understand your opinion about the relative merits of ventilation, but we're not talking about our opinions here. I'm suggesting that rather than picking two journal articles at random to represent "pro" and "con", we instead go to the best available secondary sources, and the best indicators of scientific and medical expert opinion on the matter.

Incidentally, I'm not going to argue semantics about "scientific consensus", but WP:WEIGHT is pretty clear here - the Surgeon General, the European Commission Joint Research Centre, and the relevant engineering body (ASHRAE) all agree that ventilation is an inadequate approach to dealing with secondhand smoke. That's notable. If you're going to juxtapose that weight of expert opinion against a single article from Building Services Journal, well, that would be undue weight and false equivalence.

Smoking ban would be a better place for all discussion of ventilation. If, however, we agree to discuss it here, then we need to use the best available sources, rather than editorially selecting a few articles that create the erroneous appearance of a "debate" between two equally supported positions. MastCell Talk 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is important to present both sides. How about this then?

Alternatives to smoking bans have also been proposed as a means of harm reduction, especially in bars. For example, critics of bans cite at least one study suggesting ventilation is an adequate means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking.[128] However, the effectiveness of ventilation is controversial, with several organizations (such as ASHRAE and the European Commission) concluding that ventilation is no substitute for a smoking ban.[129][and your references here]. Others have suggested a system of tradable smoking pollution permits, similar to the cap-and-trade pollution permits systems used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent decades to curb other types of pollution (e.g. greenhouse gases).[5]

It may not be perfect, but it is concise and neutral. What do you think?Ajax151 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you edited the article already, MastCell. I still think my latest version (above) is better as it is more concise and neutral. One sentence for each position. The stuff about the Big Tobacco would be better placed in an earlier section of the article IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Your version is more concise, which I like. I'm not sure it clarifies the weight of opposition to ventilation as a sole solution. What about changing the 3rd sentence to read: "... with major medical and technical organizations such as ASHRAE, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the EC JRC concluding that ventilation is not an adequate solution to the risks of secondhand smoke." I'm not aware of any organizations of similar stature which endorse ventilation, though if such exist they could be added.

I'm also not sure we can fully address ventilation without any mention of the industry's role in promoting it. The documents indicate that an "independent network of ventilation experts" promoting the idea was largely cobbled together sub rosa by the industry. That seems relevant (and, of course, well-sourced) in terms of accurately and neutrally covering the issue, no? MastCell Talk 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the third sentence of my version? Perhaps, but with the word "some" (or "a few") before "major" since not all such organizations even have an opinion on the matter of ventilation, and you only listed a few. As for Big Tobacco's involvement, again it is not all of the ventilation supporters, and that fact should be noted as well for balance if the former is to be mentioned. As for the tagging, that applies to the entire passive smoking article, not specifically the stuff we are discussing here. So, it is an overall disputed article IMO--just read how ridiculously long the talk page is.Ajax151 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, "some major medical and technical..." would be fine with me. How about removing the cite tag and changing "most" to "some"? The length of the talk page or general disapproval of an article isn't a reason to apply a {{POV}} tag - see WP:NPOV dispute. It's a last resort, to be taken after you've listed specific content issues and we've failed to make progress. So far, I'm doing my best to address the specific concerns you've raised about content. Check my wording on the ventilation issue - I certainly don't say that all ventilation proponents are tobacco-industry-related. I say that ventilation was heavily promoted by the industry through a network of "independent" experts - which is easily and properly sourced. MastCell Talk 00:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I just fixed it. But I still prefer my version (above) better.Ajax151 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else is welcome to comment on this issue so we can achieve a consensus. I still think it is important to present both sides.Ajax151 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

ASHRAE also concluded this: "Some engineering measures may reduce that exposure and the corresponding risk to some degree while also addressing to some extent the comfort issues of odor and some forms of irritation." This missing information seems to indicate that there is at least some benefit to ventilation; anyone with a shred common sense would concur.
The sad thing is that the extremists and activists, through the promotion of their agenda, are likely diminishing the value and importance placed on filtration and ventilation regarding general indoor air quality.
Not sure what I can say or do, but I will be happy to add the source to my chart of Information Under Suppression if things don't work out. The chart needs an update anyway. Chido6d (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Amen to that. It's a matter of degree and by that definition it "works." That is also true of "old fashioned ventilation" (i.e. opening doors/windows, or partial enclosure)[37]. Of course ventilation would not be equal to a smoking ban (that is enforced) in terms of eliminating pollutants, just like seat belts and air bags are no substitute for car-free zones in preventing auto accidents, and emission control systems are for car-generated air pollution. There will still be some measurable tobacco pollutants in the air. The question is whether or not the degree of reduced exposure that modern ventilation and air cleaning provide is adequate for a particular purpose (i.e. a bar vs. a hospital). What epidemiological studies have shown actual health effects from bar workers in those bars that do have the best ventilation? What is the basis for claiming ventilation inadequacy, and what is the standard for "adequate"? Is it the idea that there is "no known safe level," or something more substantive? Furthermore, one should still remember that any residual exposure in a well-ventilated (or any) bar is voluntary. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And kitchens produce indoor air pollutants as well, something that modern ventilation/air cleaning can greatly reduce as well.Ajax151 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, rather than pick apart your analogies, I'm going to ask again that we refrain from debating our opinions here and present reliable sources, along with specific suggestions for how they should be incorporated into the article. MastCell Talk 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The only way to avoid the kind of mess that characterised the entire article until recently is to stick to reliable sources. Editors who disagree with the findings of, say, the World Health Organization can either find a comparably reliable source saying the opposite, or try to get their own views accepted in the broader scientific community whose views Wikipedia reports. Until then, there's nothing to stop anyone who wants from publishing their views on blogs, websites like that of FORCES and so on. JQ (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Let's not edit the ventilation section anymore until we can reach a consensus. Though imperfect IMO, I can live with the way it is written for now. My analogies above concerned the views expressed by sources like the WHO, not the passive smoking article. I will look for some more reliable sources in the meantime to share on the talk pageAjax151 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I like the idea of making it a bit more concise, along some of the lines you'd suggested... but let's think about it. MastCell Talk 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes.Ajax151 (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Would this be concise and still dense enough in information? I did not add any other sources. This is what the "fat-trimmed version" would look like:

Alternatives to smoking bans have also been proposed as a means of harm reduction. For example, critics of bans cite studies suggesting ventilation as a means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking.[119] Ventilation has also been heavily promoted by the tobacco industry as an alternative to outright bans, via a network of ostensibly independent experts with often undisclosed financial ties to the industry.[120]

Some major medical, technical, and scientific bodies consider ventilation an inadequate mitigation alternative to indoor smoking bans. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers concluded in 2005 that smoking bans were the only effective means of eliminating the risks associated with secondhand smoke, and that ventilation techniques should not be relied upon to control health risks from secondhand-smoke exposure.[121] The U.S. Surgeon General and the European Commission Joint Research Centre reached similar conclusions.[122][123] The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that "approaches other than 100% smoke free environments, including ventilation, air filtration and the use of designated smoking areas (whether with separate ventilation systems or not), have repeatedly been shown to be ineffective and there is conclusive evidence, scientific and otherwise, that engineering approaches do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke."[124], p. 2

Other critics have suggested a system of tradable smoking pollution permits, similar to the cap-and-trade pollution permits systems used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent decades to curb other types of pollution.[125]

How's that? Again, I still think the word "some" is entirely appropriate, but I can live without it. I also cleared up the ambiguity of "others" to "other critics." Ajax151 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's an improvement. Since the SG and the JRC reached similar conclusions, we don't need quotes for each of them - the full text is available through the footnote. My instinct is to drop "some", because it leads me to expect that additional "major bodies" will be cited with opposing views - and as yet, we don't have those sources. But it's not a major concern - I could live with it either way. MastCell Talk 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Good. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say about this version.Ajax151 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I like the general direction here, too; and concur with MastCell (and my earlier edit summary) that the word "some" implies something isn't isn't necessarily true. In fact, until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined think that of all the major, well respected scientific and technical bodies that have taken a stand on the issue, none have come out in favor of the idea that ventilation is an adequate substitute for bans. Yilloslime (t) 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
My two cents (though worth much more):
  • I agree that the word some is rightly gone.
  • The word financial (as in ties) should go, too. The ties were more than financial; according to the source, the ties were also supervisory.
  • I'm happy to see that four quotes have been condensed to two. Is the repetition that remains really necessary? Would choosing the best summary, then listing the organizations that concur satisfy the extremists' appetite for "weight"?
  • Comment: I find it very interesting that only one of the five sources contains any meaningful data. Can any of you guess which one it is?
  • Comment: The term well respected is highly subjective. Thanks.Chido6d (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Can any of you guess which one it is? I think I can (lol). As for listing the organizations, that would probably be better in the smoking ban article, but it is not a bad idea IMO. I also agree that the term "well respeced" is unnecessary and subjective. Let's not stack the deck. I'm fine with the way it is currently written (but prefer my more concise version above), but let's see how everyone else feels about it before making any more edits. Ajax151 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: Chido's comments, removal of "financial" would be fine. I think we can abridge, condense, or paraphrase the WHO FCTC quote as well, though since the FCTC is a treaty and not a scientific document per se it may be best to retain a separate sentence describing it. I'm not finding the term "well-respected" in the proposed section (or in the article) - am I missing something? MastCell Talk 18:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, is the FCTC even necessary to mention at all?Ajax151 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
As a tip of the hat to the extremists and the pharmaceutical companies, I think the FCTC deserves a place. After all, the radicalism of the document is downright amusing. Shouldn't the article contain a good dose of humor?
"Well respected" is the term that Yilloslime used to describe certain scientific and technical bodies in his comments above.
I'm wondering if (in a NPOV way, of course) some of the observations of the 2005 publication should be summarized. For example, they observed a stark reduction in RSP's when the ventilation systems were operating (to very low levels indeed); however, in conclusion, they noted that the advocates' standard of "absolute zero" is impossible to achieve. Chido6d (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Come back once you're willing to drop the rhetoric and talk content, sources, and policies. MastCell Talk 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I was quite sincere about leaving the FCTC thing in. You should know that I think it's bunk; after all, on several occasions you have claimed to read my mind. But I still think it should be in there. Otherwise, I tried to answer your question, and then made a suggestion for editors' musing. Assume good faith, perhaps? Chido6d (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not questioning the sincerity of your beliefs, and I assume good faith until given clear evidence to the contrary. I'm just asking you to respect the talk page guidelines, in the interest of avoiding endlessly circular arguments. MastCell Talk 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, maybe I was a bit snarky. Can we move on with my apologies? Chido6d (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about simply stating, The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control also concurs[124], p. 2. and leave it at that? That would be much more concise. Anyone agree?Ajax151 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest letting MastCell pick the quote summary he likes the best. Then line up the other agencies that concur/support that view. They all say pretty much the same thing anyway. But if he likes FCTC better than ASHRAE (or whatever), it makes little difference. Chido6d (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a bad idea.Ajax151 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'd suggest something like this:

Alternatives to smoking bans have also been proposed as a means of harm reduction. For example, critics of bans cite studies suggesting ventilation as a means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking.[119] Ventilation has also been heavily promoted by the tobacco industry as an alternative to outright bans, via a network of ostensibly independent experts with often undisclosed ties to the industry.[120]

Major medical, technical, and scientific bodies consider ventilation an inadequate mitigation alternative to indoor smoking bans. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers concluded in 2005 that smoking bans were the only effective means of eliminating the risks associated with secondhand smoke, and that ventilation techniques should not be relied upon to control health risks from secondhand-smoke exposure.[121] The U.S. Surgeon General and the European Commission Joint Research Centre have reached similar conclusions.[122][123] The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that engineering approaches, such as ventilation, are ineffective and do not protect against secondhand smoke exposure.[124], p. 2

It retains a separate sentence for the FCTC, but shortens it substantially. MastCell Talk 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. Assuming the cap-and-trade part is still there as well.Ajax151 (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I vote no. The problem here is a textbook example of what ails (almost) the entire article. The source does not say that ventilation is studied "as a means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking." The study was done to examine the effect of ventilation on reducing tobacco smoke pollutants and improving air quality. The goal of the article should be a NPOV. Sadly, it's not. However, the section does look fine otherwise. Chido6d (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

From a POV standpoint, to avoid promoting junk science, you would have to say that these alternatives have been evaluated by the experts and found to be unworkable. I don't think that any of them are in any sense practical. The engineers have calculated that you would have to crank the air conditioning up to hurricane force to get the dangerous chemicals down to safe levels. Pollution permits might work financially for a multibillion dollar power plant, but I don't think a bar could afford a few hundred thousand dollars a year in permit costs, which is what it would work out to if you factored in medical costs and put in a meaningful value on premature deaths. Franky, to make cigarette smoke safe you have to use the kind of equipment designed to handle toxic fumes in a petrochemical plant.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all experts view it this way. Did you even look at the Building Services Journal study? If you did, how is it junk science? By "safe" levels, do you mean not even a single molecule? Because many of those same pollutants (including carcinogens and particulate matter) are still going to be there without any smoking at all (i.e. from the kitchen or even the road traffic nearby). As for the cost of permits, where did you get your data from? It is frankly a dis-analogy. The purpose of cap-and-trade is to guarantee that there will always be some non-smoking bars/restaurants in a given jursidiction, leaving some as smoking, all while letting the free market sort it out. It is not intended to place any kind of "value" on the consequences. Remember, exposure is voluntary in bars. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen (smoking-permitted bars in this case). For greenhouse gases, on the other hand, we will ALL suffer when the ice caps eventually melt. Nothing voluntary about that, since there's no way to avoid it. Same with other industrial pollutants. But bars are different, so your dis-anaology does not render it unworkable if one wants to maintain NPOV. I suggest you read the sources in question. Ajax151 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I did read the Building Services (BS) study, speaking of junk science.
  • My first question was, "Why are they monitoring carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulates in general?" since these are not the chemicals of primary concern in tobacco smoke. Carbon dioxide is not even a pollutant, it is a normal constituent of the atmosphere.
  • The 30 ppm they imply is the safe level for carbon monoxide is actually the warning level for an industrial environment. If it reaches that level, the plant alarms go off, and they send the workers home early. 30 ppm is known to cause heart attacks in people with weak hearts. The EPA safe level is 9 ppm.
  • The particulate level of 4 mg/m3 they imply as being safe is twice the level reached in the London Great Smog of 1952, which is estimated to have killed 1000 people per day. The EPA safe level is 150 micrograms/m3 or 0.15 mg/m3.
  • The most dangerous substances in tobacco smoke include environment nicotine and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), particularly benzo(a)pyrene. Benzo(a)pyrene is a really nasty chemical that the EPA puts the same class (Group A) of carcinogens with with airborne arsenic dust and asbestos fibers. Nicotine is sometimes used as an insecticide, but many experts think it should be banned for that purpose because it's too dangerous.
  • Studies have shown that ventilation systems cannot reduce PAHs and other chemicals produced by cigarettes to reasonably safe levels. They can reduce the level as much as 90%, but that only reduces odors, it doesn't produce a reasonable level of contamination.
  • Because of those studies, the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has taken the official position that the only means of effectively eliminating health risk associated with indoor exposure is to ban all smoking activity.
  • The BS study is similar to a number of others that have been done over the years by organizations receiving funding from the tobacco industry. A classic case was the Black Dog Pub in Toronto, in which a study claimed that ventilation reduced particulates to safe levels. Suspicious investigators went in with their own equipment and found that particulates were nowhere near being safe, even in the nonsmoking section. They also found the study was sponsored by an organization funded by the tobacco industry, although it didn't say so.
As for smoking being "voluntary" in bars - no it's not. As the lawyers will argue, coercion is involved, so it constitutes involuntary smoking for staff and nonsmokers. And as for the Global Warming red herring, PULL-EZE don't bring that up. There's way too much misinformation floating around to have a rational discussion on the subject.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you actually debunked the study or what I had previously said. For starters:
  • The choice of measuring CO2 was to test if the system was functioning properly (not as a pollutant itself), and CO and particulates were measured as proxies for gaseous and non-gaseous pollutants, respectively. I do not see how they are not suitable proxies, since the gas laws say they are.
  • For CO levels, the health effects below 70 ppm are uncertain, and numerous "safe" levels are given by different sources, ranging from 9 to 50 ppm. OSHA's, for example, is 50 ppm, pertaining to the workplace.[38] The EPA, on the other hand, does not set an indoor limit, only an outdoor one of 9 ppm like you mentioned.[39] So 30 ppm is not that bad by OSHA standards. In fact, 30 ppm was the British HSE standard.
  • And as long as we're talking about OSHA, check out this link as well.[40]
  • The Great Smog of 1952 was so thick it made driving difficult due to lack of visibility. I've been to numerous smoking bars, an even some of the ones without ventilation systems did not even come close to that level of reduced visibility. To say that even well-ventilated smoking bars are smoggier than the Great Smog doesn't even pass the straight face test IMO.
  • You are right about The EPA limit[41] of particluates (in fact it's even lower for PM-2.5), but that is a 24-hour exposure limit. The study in question referred to the British HSE standards in place as of 2002, an 8-hour weighted average. There's a difference. For someone working 24 hours a day straight in a bar, many days a week, passive smoke is the least of their problems IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As for the effects (or lack thereof) ventilation on benzo(a)pyrene and similar PAH's? Where did you get the data from? I have no doubt on how nasty these chemicals are, but 90% effectiveness is nothing to sneeze at considering the levels are already relatively dilute to begin with. It's the dose that makes the poison. Take a look at this rather humorous menu, and see how many items contain benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and other nasties.[42]
  • The "BS study" (in your opinion), while it may contain superficial similarity to Big Tobacco-funded studies, is not one to my knowledge. This is the "guilt by association" fallacy anyway. I still haven't bothered to even mention any of the numerous ventilation studies from FORCES (which by the way deny any association with Big Tobacco). I could make the same argument that all the "anti" studies were similar to those funded by the (arguably) neoprohibitionist RWJF, and the pharmaceutical companies that sell smoking cessation products. And who are those "suspicious investigaors" anyway?
  • I agree that "voluntary" means different things to different people. Lawyers are notorious for twisting the meaning of ordinary words to fit agendas. However, is it any more "voluntary" for firefighters to inhale toxic smoke when entering a burning building? Or for a cop to risk acute "ballistic lead poisoning" while on duty? Some risks are inherent to a particular job. While it is true in bars the risk is much more modifiable, cap-and-trade will level the playing field so some bars will be smoking and others non-smoking. And modern ventilation greatly reduces the risks for those who choose to work in a smoking-permitted bar. So where's the problem?
  • For the global warming analogy, it is not a red herring, it is simply an illustration of the different purposes of cap-and-trade relative to bars. Again, the standards are not equivalent, nor should they be.

But that's enough for now. I vote that the most recently suggested version by MastCell stays, provided the one sentence about cap-and-trade in the current version remains as well. Any one else have an opinion?Ajax151 (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that settles it.Ajax151 (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the section on the ASHREA position paper to bring it closer to the actual document. Other stuff:
  • While 9 ppm is the EPA's standard for outdoor CO exposure, there's no reason why it should be different for indoor exposure. The EPA does not have a standard for indoor exposure, no doubt having something to do with Bush-era politics (it's not really torture, it's just what happens to people we don't like). The Canadian standard is 11 ppm, the New York fire department makes firefighters put on their respirators at 9 ppm.
  • Smog is smoke+fog. In the 1952 London smog, it wasn't the fog that killed people, it was the smoke. Fog isn't toxic, it just makes it hard to see. You can see in a smoke-filled bar, but it's not safe.
  • I got my data on PAH levels from the Black Dog Tavern study (not the one funded by the tobacco companies), and numerous other studies of bars. The general conclusion was that levels of PAH's and other toxic chemicals in bars is much too high to be safe, regardless of ventilation. Governments are not banning smoking because they hate smokers, it's because they can read the studies, too.
  • The thing about benzo(a)pyrene is that it's not really a carcinogen, it's a pro-carcinogen. It defeats your natural protection from cancer, and if you are also exposed to any carcinogens (such as are found in alcoholic drinks), you're a sitting duck for cancer. That is why they do not hire smokers as uranium miners. Your natural cancer defenses can handle a little bit of environmental radon, but radon + benzo(a)pyrene = high probability of death.
  • The waitress in the smoking section of a bar probably wasn't told the atmosphere was life threatening, so it's not informed consent. Sure, policemen and firefighters are voluntarily assuming risks, but policemen wear bulletproof vests and firefighters wear self contained breathing apparatus when conditions are dangerous. The waitress is probably exposed to higher levels of toxic gases than a firefighter (at least in New York) would be permitted to breath without SCBA gear. So, why isn't she required to wear a respirator and protective clothing at work?RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I re-re-wrote it to make it less wordy. By the way--
  • Like I said, the standards vary greatly, and the health effects below 70 ppm are uncertain. OSHA doesn't seem too worried about 30 ppm or even 50 ppm. Are they somehow backwards? And by the way, your torture analogy is no less of a red herring than my global warming analogy.
  • Yes, smog is smoke+fog, but the fog aspect is not simply water vapor like normal fog. As for comparison of the Great Smog to particulates in ventilated smoking bars--um...[citation needed]
  • Funny that benzo(a)pyrene AND radon (from radium and polonium-210) are both found together in tobacco smoke. If what you say is true, imagine how many lives would be saved if the cheap radioactive phosphate fertilizers used by Big Tobacco to grow their stuff were banned. Probably more than would be saved banning cigarette sales entirely (14 states already tried it in 1920's, and smoking became a national pastime, along with getting wasted).
  • While synergism between alcoholic beverages and first-hand smoking (in causing cancer) is well known, I am not aware of any such interaction with second-hand smoke and drinking.
  • How do you know the motives of every government who bans smoking? There is definitely a strong (and growing) prejudice against smokers in the USA and numerous other countries. I should know since I used to be one myself. A few cities even have outdoor bans now!
  • As for the numerous studies showing levels too high to be safe with ventilation--um...[citation needed]
  • If the risks of ventilated secondhand smoke were conclusive, they should be common knowledge, but controversy still exists. No controversy you say? Then why not just inform the waitress of the hazards and let her choose? That would be no less "informed" than the firefighter. And most bar workers are smokers (and drinkers) to boot--many of them choose to work there because it's pretty much the only place left where you can smoke (and drink) on the job in many jurisdictions. And I doubt very much that the levels of toxic gases come anywhere close to that of a burning building, even without modern ventilation/air cleaning. Fumes from burning wood, plastic, furniture, etc. are far more toxic. So requiring a respirator is absurd in this case IMO. Ventilation and air cleaning are risk-reduction measures in themselves. Funny how you don't see too many bar workers whining about passive smoking like the supposedly benevolent pro-ban crowd--gee, why do you think that is?
This argument is getting ridiculous, and has past the point of relevance to the article content IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I hear that. I know a lot of people who work in that business, and almost all of them are smokers, and a lesser, but still high, proportion are drinkers. Ever stick around to help the staff "clean up" after they close? Only job I know of where you can start getting drunk in the last two hours of your shift, for free! When the smoking ban came on the ballot, nobody was more against it than those people. I understand, have you seen how busy they are on a Saturday night? Do you really think they can get away for five minutes to smoke, they're lucky to get a chance to run to the bathroom.The myoclonic jerk (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I was trying to emphasize that the ASHREA position paper was an official position paper. They are concerned about the legal liability of their members if they design a ventilation system that fails to control toxic chemicals. It's not just governments in the US that are concerned about this - it's a global trend. Even the French have banned smoking in restaurants and bars, and the French are notorious smokers who think it's okay to have level crossings with 750 volt third rails - they just put signs on them saying "Danger of Death". In any case, having reviewed the literature, I don't think there's any real controversy on this subject. The official ASHREA document stating second-hand smoke is dangerous and cannot be controlled with ventilation is based on the most authoritative studies and reflects the current medical and engineering consensus. The experts who disagree are probably all working for the tobacco companies, whether they admit it or not, and the studies they cite show distinct signs of having been fudged. You're just naive about this.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I edited the article one more time and added the word "offically" for the reason you said. The article is still very concise and eloquent, and should stay as is. It is also neutral and gives both sides. This talk page is really starting to turn into a forum (not good) with the endless debate we are having about alternative mitigation. I think we should just stick to the article itself and agree to disagree about the best way to remedy passive smoking. And the article has been settled IMO, unless others have a problem with the way it is written.Ajax151 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the term "procarcinogen" means a substance that turns into a carcinogen. Benzo[a]pyrene certainly is that--the liver turns it into an epoxy diol that intercalates and binds to DNA (like many other epoxides) and causes uncontrolled growth of certain cells. A substance that interacts with other carcinogens, but need not be carcinogenic in itself (although it can) is called a "cocarcinogen." Just thought you would like to know.Ajax151 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
BaP is both procarcinogenic, and cocarcinogenic with variety of other substances; and it also promotes development of atherosclerotic plaque in blood vessels. It's a one-stop shopping center for toxic effects.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Breast cancer risk is increased by 70% in younger, primarily premenopausal women.

This statement cites no source. It seems strange to me since the link between breast cancer and ETS is more tenuous than the link between heart disease or lung cancer and ETS, and the increase in risk for these other diseases is substantially smaller than 70%. The Medical Journal of Australia says "Is a causal association between ETS exposure and breast cancer now certain, as the Cal/EPA draft report proposes? The jury would be wise to stay out on this one. If the emphasis is put on cohort studies, there appears to be no association between ETS exposure and breast cancer. If the emphasis is put on case–control studies with more detailed information on ETS exposure — but the possibility of recall bias — there appears to be an increased risk, especially in premenopausal women."http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_05_060904/elw10324_fm.html Here is another instructive quote - "Although passive exposure to tobacco smoke has been linked to a number of health problems, it is unresolved whether it alters breast cancer risk. Most, but not all, studies that compared women who were passively exposed to tobacco smoke to women with no exposure to tobacco smoke reported an association of passive smoking with an increased risk of breast cancer. Only two of these studies showed a "dose-relationship", where an increase in breast cancer risk was related to more tobacco smoke exposure. Other studies, which compared the risk of breast cancer of women exposed to passive smoke to women with less clearly defined passive smoke exposure (nonsmokers or those who have never smoked), have reported conflicting associations with breast cancer risk; some studies reported increases in risk, some reported decreases in risk and some reported no association with risk. All of these studies were also recently reviewed by the IARC. They found that it was unlikely that passive smoking increased breast cancer risk." http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs46.smoking.cfm

Now, does it seem that the article expresses a neutral point of view on the link between ETS and breast cancer? I don't think so.SonofFeanor (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It does cite a source, it's the first footnote after the statement, currently reference #3. It's the California ARB/OEHHA proposal to classify ETS as toxic air contaminant. The full quote is "Finally, for breast cancer, when evaluating younger, primarily premenopausal women at diagnosis, a pooled risk estimate of 1.68 is derived in the meta-analysis, and when restricted to the studies with better exposure assessment, an estimate of 2.20 is obtained (see Table 1)." Risk estimate of 1.68 ≈ 70% increase in risk. I have added a second citation at the end of the sentence to make the source as obvious as possible to future readers. Yilloslime (t) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Also w/r/t the MJA thing you bring up: It's an editorial, it's older than the ARB/OEHHA report (2004 vs 2005), and it's commenting on an earlier draft of the report than the one that's cited here. Most importantly, the MJA piece is just the opinion of its two authors, while the ARB/OEHHA report has the weight of the California EPA behind it and was reviewed by an independent scientific review panel before it was finalized. So you really can't say that the one refutes the other. Yilloslime (t) 05:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the MJA piece is an opinion, it's true. It is an analysis of the data from available studies. But I was recently told that this is exactly what I needed, since citing the studies themselves was frowned upon. If neither commentary on studies nor studies themselves are legitimate sources, what exactly are we left with? Anyway, the ARB/OEHHA report does have the weight of the EPA behind it, just as this article has the weight of the MJA behind it. Personally, I give more weight to the MJA, as it is an independent scientific publication and is not a medical society charged with the protection of public interest, whether or not that means fudging science. As to the "earlier draft" business, that will be very meaningful as soon as you explain the differences between drafts that invalidate the editorial. Meanwhile, how about the other citation, from the IARC? Aren't they your heroes? Elsewhere in this article they are accorded near omniscience.SonofFeanor (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
We're left secondary sources that aren't opinion pieces: review articles, findings of expert panels, certain books/book chapters by appropriate publishers, government risk assessments, etc. I don't think you're right about the Elwood & Burton editorial having the weight of MJA behind it. Typically journals will publish commentary and letters that express opinions or ideas that the editorial staff feels is a worthy contribution to scientific debate, but that's a far cry from explicitly endorsing the opinions expressed therein. If MJA's policy deviates significantly from this standard, please let us know, but for now it's safe assumption that it doesn't. And what's your point about IARC? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't see what you're getting at. Yilloslime (t) 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"They found that it was unlikely that passive smoking increased breast cancer risk." This is their point of view. You name them as an authoritative body. This point of view is not mentioned in the article. Clear enough?SonofFeanor (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Where do they say that? Yilloslime (t) 06:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs46.smoking.cfmSonofFeanor (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Where does IARC say that? The info on the page you cite is second hand and could be wrong, misinterpreted, or out of date. Yilloslime (t) 07:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Presumably the monograph on the IARC's own site is sufficient. See Involuntary Smoking, 5. Summary of Data Reported and Evaluation. It should now be clear that the POV expressed in this article on breast cancer is not neutral. You have summarized the Cal-EPA's opinion, but not the IARC's, which happens to be based on much more complete evidence. The IARC is certainly as authoritative a cource as the California EPA. In addition, I have provided a direct rebuttal to the Cal-EPA's conclusions in a peer-reviewed journal. Based on these facts, I am restoring the POV tag to this article.141.162.101.50 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
First off, thanks for finding the actual IARC document that says this. OK, If you look at the sources in question, you'll see that the CalEPA report was finalized in 2005, while the IARC monograph was lasted updated in 2002--and therein lies the solution to the apparent disagreement between the sources. In a nutshell, the CalEPA report is more up to date than IARC's. As discussed in the CalEPA report itself (section 7.4, beginning on page 611), there were a number of studies published since about 2000, which IARC did not/could not include in their evaluation. As a secondary point, the IARC report doesn't consider whether there is a difference between pre and post menopausal women, while that CalEPA report does, and this is another reason for their apparent disagreement. So the two concusions are not mutually exclusive. Yilloslime (t) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Now the tactics have escalated from merely delays (asking for the IARC's own site when clear references to their report and a summary of said report in a peer-reviewed journal were provided) to borderline dishonesty. The Cal EPA discusses a SINGLE study (Shrubsole) on breast cancer published after the IARC report. Egan, the large, important study from 2002, is covered at length by IARC. So is Kropp-Chang-Claude from 2002. Shrubsole was not a revolutionary study on the basis of which we should discard the IARC and accept the Cal EPA. As for the contention that IARC does not consider pre-menopausal/post-menopausal stratification, this is so ridiculous that it makes me wonder whether an agenda is at work and outright lies being foisted upon the readers of this page. At the least, you have not taken the time to read the IARC report, which discusses the age stratification in the results of the vast majority of studies it considers. Please change the article to give equal or greater time to the IARC and MJA conclusion that ETS does not cause breast cancer. Or I will.SonofFeanor (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Ummmm... Look, you came out with the statement that "They [IARC] found that it was unlikely that passive smoking increased breast cancer risk" and did not provide a link other any type reference to back the statement up.[43] It's reasonable for me to ask you to substantiate that statement by providing a link. Instead of linking to an IARC document, you linked to university website that contained a statement about IARC's views.[44]. Again, it's reasonable for me to ask for a reference to the actual IARC document, rather than some secondhand reference. And you finally provided it[45], but now you accuse me of stalling. If you want things to move faster, then from the get go you should have provided the link the IARC document.
With regard my alleged "borderline dishonesty": What is borderline dishonest about noting that the IARC report came three years before the CalEPA report (2002 vs 2005)? What is dishonest about noting that IARC report makes no mention of stratifying by age, while the CalEPA one does? At any rate, that was a secondary point; the main point is that CalEPA considered many studies not available to IARC:

7.4.1.2.2. ETS and Breast Cancer: Recent Epidemiological Data. ... Several cohort and case-control studies have reported on breast cancer risk and exposure to ETS (Millikan et al., 1998; Jee et al.,1999; Lash and Aschengrau, 1999; Zhao et al., 1999; Delfino et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2000; Liu et al., 2000; Marcus et al., 2000; Wartenberg et al., 2000; Egan et al., 2002; Kropp and Change-Claude, 2002; Reynolds et al., 2004a; Shrubsole et al., 2004; Gammon et al., 2004). ... A few studies assessed breast cancer risk associated with ETS exposure at work (Johnson et al., 2000; Wartenberg et al., 2000; Egan et al., 2002; Shrubsole et al., 2004). Some studies evaluated breast cancer risk in relation to age or menopausal status (Millikan et al., 1998; Morabia et al., 1998; Delfino et al., 2000; Johnson et al., 2000; Morabia et al., 2000; Hanaoka et al., 2005)...."([46] at 617.)

Clearly, CalEPA is working with a more current database of studies than IARC. When there's a conflict between reliable sources of equal stature, we should use the most recent one, unless we have compelling reason to do otherwise. That ETS exposure increases the risk of breast cancer is sourced to both the CalEPA and US Surgeon General's reports, which are both more recent that the IARC monograph you are citing. Yilloslime (t) 01:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It's clearly reaching new heights. Or should I say...lows. Chido6d (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
All I'm saying is we should rely on the most current sources. What part of that is "reaching to new lows"? Yilloslime (t) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to state that opinions and evidence are mixed on passive smoking/breast cancer. We can simply indicate that the IARC wasn't especially convinced, while the Surgeon General and CalEPA were more so. Since reputable opinions differ, we can just note and attribute the various conclusions. That seems the most neutral approach, to me anyway. I think this is a good edit. As far as my personal opinion, I think IARC has some good points - since there is little or no association between active smoking and breast cancer, it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that an association exists with passive smoking. Course, the IARC are a bunch of biased hacks, right? :) MastCell Talk 05:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Discussion who said what and when, only peripherally related to improving the page
I did indeed provide a reference for the first quote. Check the quote. The path immediately follows the quote, and always has, since I posted it. I just copied it in response to your first request. To answer your second request for citation, I went to the extraordinary step of googling IARC and hitting the VERY FIRST LINK. You must have really struggled on your own to try and source the quote. Meanwhile, as I stated clearly earlier, the IARC DOES MAKE MENTION OF STATIFYING BY AGE. They mention it repeatedly, in evaluating study after study. THAT is what is dishonest about saying they make no mention of it. Is that clear now? You said they don't, and in fact, they do. Hence the dishonesty. And as to the studies you list, I took pains in the paragraph just above to say that the IARC does indeed consider the Egan study and the Change-Claude study, so they are not part of a "more current database." They are in the prior database. Shrubsole is not, but Shrubsole does not achieve significance anyway and is relatively small in comparison with Egan. It hardly constitutes a reason to consider the EPA study more up to date. Certainly this is not a basis to quote the most aggressive (70%) number from the EPA study and not to mention the IARC study at all. That is not "equal weight." And finally "That ETS exposure increases the risk of breast cancer" is not sourced to the Surgeon General. Your very own article says he states the evidence is a step below causal! Don't worry. I will make appropriate changes.SonofFeanor (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, let me try this once more:
So where in the above exchange did I miss it when you provided a link to IARC's assessment of breast cancer and ETS. As far as I can tell, the last diff of yours that I cite above is the first time. Now what does that link actually say about breast cancer? The sum total of what it has to say is:

"The collective evidence on breast cancer risk associated with involuntary exposure of never-smokers to tobacco smoke is inconsistent. Although four of the 10 case–control studies found statistically significant increases in risks, prospective cohort studies as a whole and, particularly, the two large cohort studies in the USAof nurses and of volun- teers in the Cancer Prevention Study II provided no support for a causal relation between involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and breast cancer in never-smokers. The lack of a positive dose–response also argues against a causal interpretation of these findings. Finally, the lack of an association of breast cancer with active smoking weighs heavily against the possibility that involuntary smoking increases the risk for breast cancer, as no data are available to establish that different mechanisms of carcinogenic action operate at the different dose levels of active and of involuntary smoking.

There is not a word in there about stratification by age.
In summary, you claim:
  • "I did indeed provide a reference for the first quote. Check the quote." - false.
  • "IARC DOES MAKE MENTION OF STATIFYING BY AGE" - not in any of the references you've cited so far.
  • "'That ETS exposure increases the risk of breast cancer' is not sourced to the Surgeon General. Your very own article says he states the evidence is a step below causal!" - true. I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me.
Moral of the story: The burden is you to back up your arguments with references to documents that actually say what you claim they say. Don't expect me or anyone else to track down the references to back up your arguments. (Maybe IARC has done the stratified analysis--I'm open to that possibility. Bu the point here is that you've yet to back your assertion that they have.) And don't go accusing me or anyone else of "dishonesty", especially without solid proof. Remember "no personal attacks" is an official policy, and breaches of it are punishable by blocking. You've already been shown a great amount good faith[47], so I hope you'll do your best to show the same to me and other editors. Yilloslime (t) 05:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What follows is the very first text in this section. Pay special attention to the mention of the IARC, the FIRST mentio of IARC, at the end and the source - the same source provided in response to your later request.
This statement cites no source. It seems strange to me since the link between breast cancer and ETS is more tenuous than the link between heart disease or lung cancer and ETS, and the increase in risk for these other diseases is substantially smaller than 70%. The Medical Journal of Australia says "Is a causal association between ETS exposure and breast cancer now certain, as the Cal/EPA draft report proposes? The jury would be wise to stay out on this one. If the emphasis is put on cohort studies, there appears to be no association between ETS exposure and breast cancer. If the emphasis is put on case–control studies with more detailed information on ETS exposure — but the possibility of recall bias — there appears to be an increased risk, especially in premenopausal women."http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_05_060904/elw10324_fm.html Here is another instructive quote - "Although passive exposure to tobacco smoke has been linked to a number of health problems, it is unresolved whether it alters breast cancer risk. Most, but not all, studies that compared women who were passively exposed to tobacco smoke to women with no exposure to tobacco smoke reported an association of passive smoking with an increased risk of breast cancer. Only two of these studies showed a "dose-relationship", where an increase in breast cancer risk was related to more tobacco smoke exposure. Other studies, which compared the risk of breast cancer of women exposed to passive smoke to women with less clearly defined passive smoke exposure (nonsmokers or those who have never smoked), have reported conflicting associations with breast cancer risk; some studies reported increases in risk, some reported decreases in risk and some reported no association with risk. All of these studies were also recently reviewed by the IARC. They found that it was unlikely that passive smoking increased breast cancer risk." http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs46.smoking.cfm
Now, this is a secondhand source, as you say. But secondhand sources are provided throughout this article, as I am sure you know. You said I "did not provide a link other any type reference to back the statement up." Clearly, I did. As an aside, it's not like Cornell University is some random blogger not to be trusted.
When you say "the IARC report doesn't consider whether there is a difference between pre and post menopausal women" I take it to mean you have read the entire report and know what you are talking about, rather than having read merely the citation I provided in support of a single quote. Otherwise, I would expect words like "Your citation doesn't consider whether there is a difference between pre and post menopausal women." Notice the difference. Nowhere did I claim the citation was the whole report, and as a scientist I would think you could tell the difference, particularly as this article referenced said report prior to my mention of it. The burden is indeed on me to back up my statements, but not also to source yours.
You made a claim about the IARC report - check your words. It was not correct. To prove it, here is the link to the full report that YOU should have cited if you were going to comment about what it did and did not include. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/ I guess if you really believed that the paragraph I cited was the IARC's entire report then you were not dishonest in making your erroneous claim - merely deluded. But that is hard to credit. A scientist should know what a report looks like, particularly as this one has come up so often before now. Your claim above regarding the Surgeon General was not correct either. The attempt to characterize the EPA's database as significantly more recent than the IARC's is likewise faulty, as I have shown. You have said again and again that ETS causes disability, but cannot name a disability when pressed. You have removed the NPOV tag from this article when a legitiamte dispute is ongoing - even MastCell has agreed there was a problem with the breast cancer wording. All of this smacks of dishonesty to me, but if you say not, then I guess you have just been honestly mistaken over and over.SonofFeanor (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
So I've removed the tag. I've left Feanor's most recent edit as (I would hope) it satisfactorily address his own issues with the section, and MastCell is fine with it, too. I'm not loving it, but I can live with it, especially in light Feanor's correcting me and pointing out that the SG only calls the evidence "suggestive". So it appears all POV that have been brought to the table have been dealt with, so the tag is gone. If SonofFeanor or anyone else has additional problems, why don't we try dealing with them here, on the talkpage, first, before readding the {{POV}} tag. Afterall, that's way it's supposed to work per WP:NPOVD. Also, if it does come to tagging again, consider tagging just the section that's problematic rather the whole article. That'll help readers understand better exactly what is being disputed. Yilloslime (t) 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit to remain true to the source. One step below causal was/is original research and is just another example of activism over accuracy.Chido6d (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IPs, COI etc

  • Given the arrival of a number of IP editors and newly registered accounts, could I ask recent arrivals to declare if

(i) they are editing both as IPs and under usernames (assuming this is accidental, with a promise to stop immediately) (ii) they have any conflict of interest that should be known to other editors. To get the ball rolling, I'll state that the answer for me is "No" to both.JQ (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I have not edited this article using an IP in the past two weeks, but have done so prior to creating a username for the first time. I have used an IP on the talk page once or twice since then (forgot to log in), but not the article. I have no conflict of interest.Ajax151 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would add that I think people should have to sign in to edit. Chido6d (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I too am guilty of accidentally posting without signing or being signed in. It used to keep me signed in as long I visited the site at least every 10 days or so. Now, for some reason, I have to sign in every time I come here. I need to check my browser settings. I agree you should have to sign in, or at least be warned when you try to post and forgot to sign. The myoclonic jerk (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on POV

  • I see that the POV tag got reinstalled about an hour ago by an IP address without comment. I suggest that the article be semi-protected to avoid this sort of problem.
  • Disclaimer: as far as I can recall, I have not edited the article. I am not an expert on the subject.
  • Method I used to come up with a "Remove" opinion:
  • I independently did a search (as per WP:MEDRS # Search) for reliable sources on the subject. I generally read just the abstracts, but occasionally dipped further into the articles.
  • I then read Passive smoking and this talk page.
  • Passive smoking seems to pretty fairly summarizes mainstream scientific and medical opinion on the topic.
  • By the way, in the process I found some sources not currently cited by the article, which other editors may find useful. They are listed in #Possibly-useful sources below.
Eubulides (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has no POV problem, except that it is inflated in the direction of the "controversy" (i.e. towards the views of passive smoking denialists). The issues being challenged by anonymous editors or single purpose editors have been settled long ago and truly reflect the consensus of all long-term editors of this page. See for example:

The motivations presented for changing the previous consensual version have nothing to do with new and/or more authoritative sources which would propose new formulation of some aspects of the subject. They are driven by the desire to give a voice to the "other side", such as FORCES, i.e. to the denialist view. Just have a look at the [FORCES website], and you will see for yourself. FORCES is apparently a microscoipic group, driven by a philosophy that has the characteristics of denialism/negationnism. It falls short of fullfilling any of the Wikipedia criteria of reliable source. A striking characteristic is that is full of hatred-oriented language, making it completely inappropriate as a valid source for Wikipedia. For example, the former US Surgeon General Everett Koop is assimilated to a nazi, and the no-smoking sign to the swastika of the Third Reich. This is an incredible "normalization" of nazism and an insult to the memory of victims of the holocaust (see [[48]]). This is also a case of the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy typical of denialism.

Clearly, this article is under attack, and the reference to FORCES gives good indication of where the attack comes from.

--Dessources (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I always knew Godwin's Law would eventually come into play on this talk page (lol). Looks like I was right about that. Nonetheless, I would have to disagree--I do not think the article is biased toward the "denialists" any more so than the global warming article. Uncertainty about the magnitude (or even existence) of some particular effects of passive smoking still remains, due to relatively weak and/or inconsistent associations. In fact, even those dangers of second-hand smoke that are part of the "consensus," while they have do some public health implications, are often exaggerated to the point of absurdity. So, a modicum of skepticism is often justified, and the "other side" ought not be simply written off as Big Tobacco shills, flat-earthers, or extremists. Just my 2 cents.Ajax151 (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
"Uncertainty about the magnitude (or even existence) of some particular effects of passive smoking still remains, due to relatively weak and/or inconsistent associations." Well, this statement captures the problem quite well - it is pure point of view, backed by no serious source, the "weak association" being the old leitmotiv of the tobacco industry (even Philip Morris now is no longer saying it), with no foundation at all - actually a federal court found the US tobacco companies guilty of racketeering for manufacturing and propagating such disinformation. To learn about the mechanisms used by the denial industry, see for example Doubt is their product by David Michaels, which covers denial about the science of second-hand smoke in quite some detail. The current attack on the passive smoking article is nothing but the continuation of such tactics. They should not be accepted on Wikipedia.
--Dessources (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I said some, not all. If uncertainty exists about a particular effect of smoke exposure, it should be stated in the article. That is not denialism. That's SCIENCE. That's why the "third-hand smoke" section is no longer a topic of discussion on this talk page--it admits uncertainty. Just so you know, I am not a "denialist" myself (a la FORCES), but do think that the risk is grossly exaggerated by the ideologues. There's a difference. Remember, it's the dose that makes the poison, and the assertion that there is absolutely no safe level of exposure to a substance (even radioactive ones) should immediately make one's antennae go up. I am simply saying that not all skeptics are "denialists" and the little weight skepticism is given in this article is not excessive. In fact, it is insufficient IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It is your right to "think" that the problem is grossly exaggerated by the "ideologues". This is clearly your point of view. However, if you really want to challenge the current text, it's always possible, but you will have to show that the new wording you propose is backed by references at least as authoritative and reliable as the four indicated at the end of the lead paragraph of this article. You also need to exhibit equally trustable sources that support your statement concerning "ideologues", i.e. indicate which sources meeting the WP:RELIABLE criteria say that the expert committee of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the US Surgeon General, the experts who participated in the elaboration of the CalEPA report, and finally the governments of over 160 countries which have ratified the WHO FCTC are "ideologues" which have "grossly exaggerated" the risk. If you produce such references, I will be pleased to engage in a fruitful discussion with you, and I'm sure the other editors will too. If, on the other hand, the only evidence you have is simply that you "think" the problem is "grossly exaggerated" by the "ideologues", please understand that I am not prepared to accept this as a valid consideration for amending the current text and as a basis on which a constructive discussion can be build. The choice is yours.
--Dessources (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My comment would be that there is really not much opportunity for different points of view on this subject. There's really no scientific disagreement. The original Harvard study (Kawachi et al, 1997 - which I don't see referenced here) set off alarm bells all over the medical field, and since then all the studies have converged on the same conclusion - second hand smoke has severe medical effects. Under most industrial standards, it would have to be considered an environmental hazard similar to airborne arsenic dust or asbestos fibers, requiring the use of respirators and protective clothing. People can debate if it should be allowed in bars or restaurants, but in petrochemical plants and nuclear facilities smoking, has to be banned because it violates their internal air quality standards and sets off the alarms on all the monitors.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article, both of you. Take it or leave it. It pretty much sums up the gross exaggerations made by the anti-smoking establishment.Ajax151 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I did. The basis of the dispute revolves around the fact that the author, Dr. Carl V. Phillips, received a $1.5 million grant from the Smokeless Tobacco Company, and perhaps unsurprisingly he is strong promoter of smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to the smokey kind. Despite his complaints, he and his university have lots of money, are politically safe in conservative, oil-rich Alberta, and can afford to ignore their detractors regardless of complaints from other academics that his research may not be totally unbiased. The other academics may be particularly upset because they don't get nearly as much money for their research.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The irony of it all is that smoking bans he rails against would actually help the cause of the Smokeless Tobacco Company more than hurt it. Smokeless tobacco (of any kind) does not produce any secondhand exposure, and snus (even Marlboro makes it now) is increasing in popularity in the USA in part due to emerging smoking bans. So I fail to see how the grant has anything to do with the validity of what Philips is saying about the science concerning secondhand smoke.Ajax151 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. It's pretty hard to say that grants from smokeless tobacco would generate any bias favoring smoking tobacco. But some people will find a way. Coming soon.Chido6d (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, note that Dr. Phillips is not saying that second hand smoke is safe, he's actually saying it's quite dangerous. He just wants to be able to take money from smokeless tobacco companies, and then say that smokeless tobacco is safe, without being criticized for it. Apparently many of his fellow faculty members disagree on that point.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
What he said was much more nuanced than that (but unfortunately not terribly specific). His exact words were, "There is little doubt that inhaling smoke is unhealthy, but equally clear evidence shows that we can only demonstrate disease risk from ETS for those at the highest level of exposure. The evidence about health effects of smoke and the legitimate aesthetic objection to involuntary ETS exposure are quite sufficient to justify prohibiting indoor smoking in public places, though clearly insufficient to justify public policies that prohibit voluntary low-level ETS exposure." (emphasis mine) This pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue as well, with well-ventilated bars qualifying as "voluntary low-level exposure" IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with Dr. Phillips on that point. The data in the studies cited in this article seems to indicate a rather startling level of toxicity at extremely low levels of exposure. Why that is so seems to be the main topic for debate. From what I can gather from the studies, the researchers seem to be making progress, as in the studies indicating that the smoke coming off the lit end of the cigarette is much more toxic than what the smokers are inhaling, and other studies indicating that second-hand smoke becomes even more toxic as it ages. What I would conclude is that there still needs to be a lot of work done to clarify the problem, but it clearly it is a serious problem. The bottom line, as the ASHRAE position paper states, is that ventilation is not an adequate solution to making smoke-filled air safe for the public. A prudent government would ban it until the situation is clarified.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
"A prudent government would ban it until the situation is clarified." I suppose a prudent government would invade a foreign country suspected of having WMD until the situation is clarified. I'm not trying to make a political statement here. My point is that this is not a debate about politics. Politics is about what we do with our current knowledge. Science is about obtaining knowledge. And I believe that science needs to stay totally objective. If we let ideology or politics skew the results of research, even for the public good, we destroy the validity of science.
Hell, I just read that less than half of Americans don't believe in evolution. We're all taught it in school, it is extremely rational with tons of evidence, there is no other competing scientific theory, but most Americans who don't know much about science are distrustful of the scientific community's conclusion. Why do you suppose that is? Because this country has a long history of fudged science which furthers a political agenda. If you doubt me, investigate why marijuana (which I don't even touch because I don't enjoy it) is illegal. Scientific consensus in the 30s suddenly became that it was a deadly drug that would drive users mad. Everyone who hasn't spent most of their life in a cave on Mars knows that's completely ridiculous. And yet, even today, there are people out there getting millions in grants to do research on the dangers of marijuana.
I don't think that anybody has done serious scientific research on the effects of marijuana, especially not in the United States. The politics and laws preclude it. Based on an analysis of the chemicals coming off the cigarettes, I would expect marijuana smoke to be somewhat more toxic than tobacco smoke, because it contains the same kinds of chemicals, but in higher concentrations. However, that would be theoretical because I haven't seen a serious, unbiased study on the subject.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The point myoclonic was making was that it was outlawed based on dubious "evidence" and specious political arguments in 1937. You are right that studies of cannabis (at least in the USA) are seldom unbiased. There is a lot of junk science out there (Dr. Heath's brain-damaged monkeys comes to mind). But at the risk of being off-topic for a moment I want to point out for the reader a few differences between the two smokable substances. Yes, most of the chemicals (including carcinogenic PAH's) are in fact identical, and these will be produced by any burning plant material. Some (but not all) of these are in higher concentrations in cannabis smoke compared with tobacco smoke. The method of inhalation is also deeper for cannabis and (unnecessarily) held in the lungs longer. Those are the exacerbating factors. Remember that filters don't make tobacco significantly safer, so the unfiltered nature of joints is a moot point. But tobacco contains unique, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (from nicotine), as well as polonium-210 and lead-210 from radioactive phosphate fertilizers. Nicotine is not a carcinogen, but is co-carcinogenic with other substances in tobacco smoke. And the average cigarette smoker smokes 20 or more cigarettes a day while the average joint smoker smokes a few joints a week. So it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges. That's probably why Dr. Tashkin (by no means a hippy-dippy) found no increased risk of lung cancer or head and neck cancer (actually a slight decrease) from cannabis smoking contrary to his prediction but did find up to a 20-fold risk for tobacco smoking.[49] And again, the dose makes the poison. By the way, cannabis need not be smoked, it can also be vaporized or eaten.Ajax151 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, this stuff about the smoke off the tip being worse, I'm sure it's true. But keep in mind that the smoker is also inhaling that between puffs, so it contributes to the active smokers risk. Actually, that is probably why I have chosen lately to smoke outside, even though it's my apartment, and I could smoke in here if I wanted to. That and I just don't want it to smell too bad. Although I can't do much about the smell of garlic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The myoclonic jerk (talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with myoclonic on this one. Well said. RockyMtnGuy's version of the precautionary principle, which is its strongest formulation, can easily be misused and is better termed the "paralyzing principle." This is starting to turn into a forum IMO, let's get back to the article shall we?Ajax151 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Logically speaking, it's not the precautionary principle, because the scientific consensus as documented in the 120-odd citations is that harm does ensue from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke; and hence the burden of proof falls on those who disagree - i.e. the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry apparently did conduct its own studies of it, but the evidence is that they destroyed the results of those studies, so there's no legitimate counter-evidence available. What is available is a lot of misleading writing with a lot of logical fallacies in it. (Citing the precautionary principle would be a classic example.) Myclonic has been persistently trying to put a POV tag on the article, despite having been shot down several times, so it's worthwhile bringing the facts to his attention. Eventually a discussion of the rules of logical reasoning might ensue as well.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is the precautionary principle when specifically promoting a blanket indoor smoking ban instead of ventilation or other alternatives, though. That is still controversial. That is what I was really referring to (I can't read myoclonic's mind.)Ajax151 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. That is exactly what I think the health community is doing here. The scientists haven't concluded to what extent SHS is dangerous, but the doctors all want to embrace, and even exaggerate, every finding that shows any danger. Why? Because smoking bans encourage active smokers to quit. [50] Great for public health, but dishonest and underhanded. They don't care if they accomplish their goal honestly or not(and it is a good goal). But those of us who care about the truth, don't think that way.

People like FORCES and the tobacco companies impugn rational minded people by spouting off rhetorical nonsense, and they make genuine skeptics like me look bad. I don't see anyone here who is a zealot, just people who don't automatically take what the US government or the WHO say for granted.

And, as far as Marijuana goes, you guys must not have looked it up like I recommended. 100 years ago nobody cared about what it would do to your lungs. In those days marijuana grew wild all across the nation, but most Americans didn't know it was a drug, or weren't interested in it. Then a lot of Mexican immigrants started coming up here in the teens and twenty's, and they liked to smoke pot. When the jobs started to dry up, Americans wanted the Mexicans to leave, so they created stiff anti-marijuana laws. They got the public to support them with phony "scientific" studies showing that pot turned people into raving lunatics. The "studies" claimed that pot could turn a choir boy into a serial rapist and killer. They claimed that thousands of white women were being raped or lured into prostitution by Mexicans with the help of marijuana. Most Americans had no experience with pot, so they believed it. It had nothing to do with lung damage. Scientific studies at the time made marijuana out to be more dangerous to your mind than we now know methamphetamine to be. Funny how in the 40s-60s doctors were prescribing meth like it was going out of style, while telling people that pot would drive them insane. I don't know if any of you have any experience with those kind of people, but pot-heads can be a little annoying (or funny) because they are so stupid, but totally spun individuals make you wish you had a gun. I am not kidding, they are so unpredictable that if you have a conversation with one, you will spend the entire time thinking about your escape route, or how you will kill them if they make a move on you.

Anyway, I won't mess with the NPOV tag anymore, although I think the page really needs to be rewritten or cleaned up. ta-ta The myoclonic jerk (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The myoclonic jerk (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

100 years ago, lung cancer was a very rare disease (most people don't know that) because, while people smoked, they didn't smoke very much. That changed with the invention of machine-rolled cigarettes, and the distribution of them free in the Great War, after which time lung cancer rates skyrocketed (but only in men). So, while doctors have known for centuries that smoking was unhealthy, they didn't consider it a big problem compared to smallpox, tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria, plague, etc. which were killing millions. But that's a different article.
Another difference 100 years ago was that the tobacco itself was different. Of course, that did not make it safe, only a shade less dangerous. The Native Americans have been doing it spiritually for centuries (but again, only occasionally) and were usually able to control their use and not smoke daily like nicotine fiends. They would have regarded that as tobacco abuse, and rightly so. Thus lung cancer was rare, because the dose makes the poison. Not that it wasn't an addictive substance; it had quite a bit of nicotine so of course it was if done enough. And Americans in general would occasionally indulge in it as a recreational drug throughout the 1800's. But selective breeding over the years produced relatively high nicotine strains that were smoother tasting and also much easier to inhale copious quantities of smoke without gagging or coughing profusely. The cigarette is born. Cowboys rolled them by hand. Then came machine rolling. And America was hooked. During Prohibiton, 14 states banned cigarettes. But their popularity only increased, and smoking (even heavily) became a national pastime (as did drunkenness). First for men, but later for women as well. From WWI until the present, tobacco companies engineered their product to be more and more addictive, including addition of numerous additives. In the late 1930's Big Tobacco found that restricting nitrogen and increasing phosphorus in the soil made tobacco "more flavorful"--usually code speak for higher nicotine delivery. So they began using radioactive phosphate fertilizers from the mineral apatite (which often contains uranium and radium) because it was the cheapest source of inorganic phosphate there was (and still is). This caused cigarette smoke to contain the radioactive carcinogens polonium-210, lead-210, and radon, due to the affinity of the plant for heavy metals. Although lung cancer death rates were steadily rising prior to that (with a 20-year lag between smoking rates and cancer rates), they went up even faster after this innovation.Ajax151 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
This is off topic, but I have always thought it was totally reckless and irresponsible of the gov't not to have the FDA or the USDA regulate the production of tobacco, like they do every other crop raised for human consumption.The myoclonic jerk (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the point you're missing on this issue is that the scientific consensus, and that of the air-conditioning engineers, is that the level of toxic chemicals (particularly PAHs) in a well-ventilated smoking room are typically much higher than would normally be considered safe levels in a chemical plant. Building a separate smoking room with its own independent air supply 1) is expensive, and 2) has been shown to be inadequate because whenever someone opens a door, smoke leaks into non-smoking areas. The only effective engineering remedies are to install air locks and/or chemical filtration systems, which are unaffordable for the average restaurant or tavern. As economists have pointed out, the net financial cost of banning smoking is zero to restaurants and taverns, as long they all do it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
What is considered "safe" really depends on the purpose of the environment. Like I pointed out in the ventilation section of the talk page, "acceptable" standards vary widely. As for the financial cost, many of the studies done exclude bars/restaurants that closed immediately after the smoking ban, and lump take-out restaurants (which would likely increase in patronage) with sit-down restaurants (which would likely decrase).[51] Closures reduce competition, and the remaining establishments prosper. Voila! No apparent effect, but that hides the reality. There is plenty of evidence of negative effects, including the job losses for workers that are supposedly being "protected" by the blanket bans. See the above link. "Smokeasies" will always exist as well. Again, this is starting to become a forum.Ajax151 (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually going to stick up for Rocky here, because there is an apparent scientific consensus. Therefore, suggestions of a precautionary principle are not valid. He also correctly observes that the standard of absolute zero is highly questionable at best; it is in fact pure and utter nonsense.Chido6d (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Key phrase: "apparent scientific consensus."The myoclonic jerk (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents (actually, zero): Any POV in ANY long article should be posted above the specific part of article that is in dispute. Posting a POV tag on top of a very long article that is not a blatant monologue (which no articles are) is naughty and should be removed per se. Anyone who thinks an article is in dispute should have the brain cells to specify the core of the dispute. If not, delete. This is an eternally valid general discussion concept.

Secondly, I think the section about public health authorities is anglo-centered. It should include more non anglo-centric PHA's to avoid any impression of bias.

I have no contentual comment. Crusty007 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Language: regardless of the scientific merits of the "no-harm" research (actually the only thing I know about the subject came from Penn & Teller's "Bullshit"), this sentence is severely POV and even somewhat conspiracy-theorizing:

Despite an early awareness of the likely harms of secondhand smoke, the tobacco industry coordinated to engineer a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products.

I don't think one can equate the controversy on second-hand smoke with an "engineered controversy" such as intelligent design, where an already established scientific consensus was bullied into controversy. The list of symptoms that follow is also based on worst-case scenario research, and a survey of the meta-analysis studies should come before that.

Nope, I don't smoke. Ex-post note: this article @ http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/PUS2005.pdf is an interesting read when evaluating my NPOV claim. Dnavarro (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question is neutral, and it's hardly a "conspiracy theory" - unless you consider the U.S. District Courts, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, and the major medical journals to be in the business of promoting conspiracy theories. Take a look through the actual sourcing in the article, or through the various databases of formerly confidential tobacco-industry documents - our article actually soft-sells it a bit compared to reality as evidenced by reliable sources.

The "Scientific Integrity Institute" should probably be evaluated in context. The Institute is essentially a project of James Enstrom, a researcher who offered to generate data which could "effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS", in return for a "substantial commitment" of money from the tobacco industry. Enstrom's methodology has been widely criticized, and his 2003 study was cited as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke." (Dalton, Nature 2007). MastCell Talk 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was an "engineered controversy" - even of unprecedented scope - and there is ample documentation about it. This article provides several good sources on which the statement can be based, but there is much more available. What distinguishes the controversy engineered by the tobacco industry to deny the harm caused by secondhand smoke from other engineered controversies is that the tobacco industry controversy has even been recognized and condemned by various courts, notably in the US, but also in other countries. The industry has been found guilty of "racketeering" (i.e. organized crime) by a US federal court for having staged a large denial campaign, spread over decades, and involving the corruption of scientists. Another source which could be referenced is a report produced on an inquiry by the University of Geneva in the so called "Rylander Affair" (named after the Swedish professor who had been a secret agent of Philip Morris for 30 years, while officially publishing studies that declared secondhand smoke harmless) - see [52]. The UG report makes the following conclusion: "Prof. Rylander’s infringements of scientific integrity take on their full significance only when viewed within the framework of a strategy devised and conducted by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the toxicity of tobacco smoke, particularly for non-smokers. The case of one person should not make us forget that the most unforgivable fault lies with an institutional and commercial force, the tobacco industry, whose objectives and interests run counter to both public health and medical science. The huge mass of tobacco industry documents released as a result of rulings against it by United States courts shows that these companies have attempted to manipulate public opinion for decades and that the targeted involvement of numerous scientists has been a preferred tool in that disinformation campaign." A pretty damning finding!
Concerning the article by Bray and Ungar, it is pure point of view, with a sugar coating of pseudo-science. Their analysis of the "rapid responses" to the publication of Enstrom & Kabat article in the BMJ is fatally flawed. It's based on a single case and has no control. Nothing allows the authors to conclude that the pattern of answers that appeared in these "rapid responses" was characteristic of a deliberate attempt to "silence science". My guess was that these reponses followed a pattern which is very common and typical of any web forum where a controversial subject is debated (and the E&K article was indeed controversial!) The same type of pattern is found in the comments made on blog posts which raise sensitive issues. There is nothing in the article to support the opinion of the authors that these rapid responses differed from rapid responses on other controversial topics where no one would say that there was any attempt of "silencing science". Bray and Ungar started with the a priori opinion that there had been an attempt to "silence science" and it's not surprising, therefore, that their "analysis" and their interpretation of it confirmed that opinion.
--Dessources (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In context, MastCell continues his pattern of selectivity and deception by stating, as a fact, the Opinion of one left-wing judge (Gladys Kessler) whose Opinion has been stayed on appeal and (at least initially) appears likely to be overturned. Furthermore, he fails to point out that the President's Office at U-Cal made a simple request of the ACS: to provide specific information in support of an allegation of scientific misconduct against Dr. James Enstrom. After receiving, in reply, a hodge-podge of non-specifics (instead of what was requested), the matter was referred for more follow up and review. No misconduct has been established.
I'm not even certain that Judge Kessler's Opinion is a reliable source worthy of this article until the matter is fully settled. But then again, I'm not an extremist trying to make a point with the whole thing.
Regarding the point of view allegation, Dessources gives other examples of authors who start with an a priori opinion, such as Martin Dockrell -- and he lauds them. I guess sometimes that's OK. When they agree with him, I mean. Chido6d (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
The District Court ruling is a reasonable source for now. Decisions are appealed all the time, sometimes with merit and sometimes without. If it's overturned on appeal, then we will of course update the article to reflect that. Until then, I don't think that your perception of a judge's political alignment is really grounds for removing the source. As to Enstrom, scientific misconduct is a serious charge, which is one reason that I am careful for our purposes only to refer to published, reliable sources when describing his actions. My point was that it would be wrong to treat the Scientific Integrity Institute as a disinterested party here. A secondary point is that where the tobacco industry is concerned, it's always worth a few extra mouse clicks before accepting an impressively-titled organization as a neutral party. MastCell Talk 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
True in part, but of course you would have to set the straw man up again. The point is that you are misusing the source, stating as factual that which is being challenged according to the law and has not been proven. A single judge (left or right) rarely has the final word in the United States of America. It is not in question that the tobacco companies downplayed the risks of smoking. Why that is so unusual or sinister escapes me; billions of units are in circulation at all times for testing, etc. and - yes - honestly, they want to make money. I've never seen any proof that they even "knew" of any real merit to the alleged harms of passive smoking (other than the mere perception of an alleged harm in their customers' minds), or further that they conspired to cover up any harms that allegedly existed. Kessler's political alignment (which you seem to adore) is not the real issue, nor would it be grounds for suppression, but you have suppressed many sources on even more trivial grounds. To my knowledge, the Scientific Integrity Institute is not tobacco industry funded. Even if it were, that would not be grounds for outright dismissal. And again, scientific misconduct has never been proven against Dr. Enstrom (after several years of trying). Perhaps that's why you and your ilk continue to focus on the seriousness of the charge rather than the evidence for the charge. Do you consider Stanton Glantz a neutral party? You like him a lot. Chido6d (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I am impressed with how well you believe you know me, but I don't see anything in your post that requires a further response. MastCell Talk 04:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Epilogue: Cigarette makers lose appeal in landmark case. MastCell Talk 22:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Lest any activist/extremist editor or reader (not MastCell, of course) be sitting at his PC wearing a boyish grin, snickering and most likely picking his nose, I feel the need to point out that this decision is not an epilogue. Rather, it is the next chapter. Per the article, the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. I hate to bust anyone's bubble (sorry).
I continue to assert that citing the Kessler opinion as a fact without more information is misleading and not neutral.Chido6d (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

SIDS

I realize that the authors of this page are committed to "causes" vs. "can cause" terminology, but in the case of the SIDS it doesn't make sense to use "causes". This is because SIDS is by nature an exclusionary disease. Infant deaths are labeled as SIDS when the infant's death is unable to be explained. In other words I feel as though the statements made in this article regarding SIDS are at complete odds with wikipedia's own article dedicated to SIDS. Again this is the problem when trying to sort out the normal word "cause" and the epidemiological term "cause" when rooting through sources that are used to compile this article. Does anyone else see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to clarify apparently that the source that I was mentioning from the surgeon general uses the words "more likely". This does not meet the causal definition. As a personal aside, judgeing by the smoking families in my neighborhood I'm sure that there are risk factors involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But "cause" is more scary, and more likely to be misunderstood. Hence, it must be used here and in the statements issued by the WHO, etc. SIDS is also caused by failure to run a fan in the infant's room. But the sources (for what they're worth) use the word often times, and where they do so it should remain. Feel free to edit closer to the source when necessary. Beware of the auto-revert feature of the site, though. It's a strange phenomenon. Chido6d (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, to quote the Surgeon General in his speech to launch the report, "...we have determined that secondhand smoke is a cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)." There, he stopped beating around the bush and blurted the "C" word right out.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
He also blurted a lot of something that begins with "s". Nevertheless, are you committed to using the press release (to quote the surgeon general in his speech to launch the report) instead of the report itself?Chido6d (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit of an edit war...

A war over a few words, but has devolved into this, with possible meat-puppetry. We wish to know if our sources justify the inclusion of the phrase "funded and managed by the CIAR (center for indoor air research) and also if the sources justify the inclusion of other parties such as Philip Morris. Soxwon (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

appears to be going on here over something quite silly. Please stop it. lifebaka++ 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the point is pretty straightforward, the study was funded by CIAR, not much to argue about. Soxwon (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may ask, what is the main objection to the current wording? Soxwon (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated many times, the objection is that CIAR was disbanded in 2000, and could not "manage" a study published in 2003. Nor was the study entirely funded by CIAR. This is a matter of public record. There is no room for debate on it. Enstrom makes this point and has vigorously defended himself. If the study were truly "managed" by an outside agency and this were so clear, Enstrom would have been censored and would no longer be able to publish studies. Additionally, he would be guilty of fraud.SonofFeanor (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion is flawed in that the study was commissioned in 1997-98 and was first pitched in 96. Funding and management decisions were made then that affected the project's course all the way up to its end. Evidence of manipulation can be seen here and here. For funding: [53] (follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies) and here. If anything, it appears that the circle should be widened to include Phillip Morris and Co. Soxwon (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, guys. Talk about it here, not in edit summaries, eh? And, if you can't convince each other, compromise. I'd like not to be back. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these citations offered to rebut me or to support me? It seems to me that they provide evidence that: 1) Enstrom was working on his study and had the design in place long before CIAR was involved, and 2) he received funding from UCLA long before CIAR was involved. I see nothing about any discussions after 2000. Where exactly is the evidence of manipulation? I've been through the citation but I can't find any communication from CIAR at all, nor a shred of evidence suggesting any part of the study was changed or adopted in the first place based on interaction with any member of that body. Could you please quote the material I am missing?SonofFeanor (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the point made above by Soxwon, let me remind SonofFeanor that, on Wikipedia, the ultimate criterion is not what we editors think (or deduce from the facts - this would be original research), but what the source which we use as references say. In the particular case, the referenced source is Judge Kessler's Final Opinion. Referring to the E/K study, Kessler says on page 1380: "This study was CIAR-funded and managed." The phrase "was funded and managed by CIAR" used in the article is very faithful to the source text and simply reads a bit better. Unless there is a more authoritative source on which we could base a different version of the facts (and so far, SonofFeanor has produced none), we will be well advised to stick to the current version.
--Dessources (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As SoF says, it seems Soxwon has provided the sources himself. Just look and it is clear the study was underway and being funded before CIAR's involvement. As to sources, Kessler is a well known judicial activist from the Clinton school. You have Enstrom's own rebuttal cited here, and that is much more accuarate, detailed and authoritative than Kessler's summary. Enstrom's study was peer reviewed by BMJ, which subsequently defended its publication. Are they not greater scientific authorities than Kessler? UCLA's board of academic regents has not censored Enstrom despite tremendous pressure from the pc establishment. Clearly, true authorities are not in doubt about Enstrom's integrity.Pcpoliceman (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it shows a continuing cycle that included CIAR. CIAR was a part of it, I'm saying more should be mentioned. Soxwon (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, this is silly. And you've got three days or protection because of it. Figure it out here before that expires, please, as I'd prefer to unlock it quickly. lifebaka++ 02:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The question should be how to most accurately portray the study. Unfortunately, the current read is only partly true, is misleading and is the handiwork of a small number of extremists who really don't seem interested in avoiding bias.
Without question, the goal is to give the impression that the study was entirely a CIAR project. However, it should be fairly easy to balance out this impression within Wiki guidelines.
It's notable that Editor Richard Smith defended the publication of the study after hearing all of these worn-out accusations. The Associate Editor was even more critical of the ad-hominem attacks.
One thing we can all agree on is that an edit war won't solve anything. Discussion is a decent start. If people would be reasonable, so much the better.
There also seems to be a problem with the characterization of Gio Gori. Is it fair to call him a tobacco industry spokesman (present tense) when he apparently hasn't received any funds from the industry for 10 years? Sounds more like activism to me.Chido6d (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here's a thought: respect the talk page guidelines, don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox, discuss specific and concrete changes to article content. It would also be nice to see that these inappropriate alternate accounts don't edit the article again. I will say that on the issue of "partly funded" vs. "funded and managed", I really don't care and could be happy either way, but I am absolutely not interested in enabling the sort of disruption, nonsense, and abuse of alternate accounts on display at present. MastCell Talk 04:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a problem with the process when such a minor and indisputable change takes this much wrangling to get passed. No one is contending that CIAR paid for the whole study, right? As far as I know, no one would say they paid for more than half? If so, speak up, but it is very clearly not the case. So while "funded" may technically be correct, "partly funded" is as well and is much more descriptive. In terms of "managed," that is a very serious charge for an academic paper. If it could be proven, there is no doubt BMJ would not have published Enstrom subsequently (they did) and would have retracted the article (they didn't). Also, Enstrom could not still be employed at UCLA (he has never even been censored by the university). No one has offered any evidence of "management." Soxwon's citations above show a guy asking for money. There is nothing about any specific feature of the study being put in place based on recommendations from CIAR. Given the lack of evidence and the response of UCLA and BMJ, "managed" seems a very strong line for an "objective" source like wikipedia to take.SonofFeanor (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
And as to your comment about meatpuppets, at least PcPoliceman took the time to post here on the discussion page. I don't see anything from Yilloslime or Darrenhusted. They just appeared to revert my changes. Oh, I know they are both long time editors. But there is no doubt in my mind that in this case Dessources recruited them to jump on and make reverts.SonofFeanor (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is the link to Enstrom's paper, published in yet another peer reviewed journal, defending his study from Kessler and others. Note the date is 2007 and I don't believe anyone has chosen to rebut this paper since.http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/pdf/1742-5573-4-11.pdfSonofFeanor (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to UCLA stating they found no evidence of academic misconduct in Enstrom's study.http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/HumeUCOP101607.pdfSonofFeanor (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The tobacco industry, notably Philip Morris, funded the E/K study via CIAR, which acted as a front organization. The CIAR board of directors approved the project in November 1997, with modifications, and placed it under the Directed Studies Program, controlled by high level industry executives, bypassing review by the CIAR Advisory Board. CIAR voted a project allocation of USD 525'000 from 1 June 1998 to 31 May 2001. (Although CIAR was disbanded in 1999, its commitment were met until they expired).

Over half a million dollars is quite a large amount of money for a study that was purely a re-analysis of existing data (CPS-I data) - which, by the way, Enstrom knew very well already, as this amount came on top of a USD 150'000 grant that Enstrom had received directly from Philip Morris in April 1997 to study the "Relationship of low levels of active smoking to mortality" using the same data. It is interesting to note that Enstrom and Kabat, in their "Funding" section at the end of their paper, indicate that the other sources of funding had been terminated in 1997, i.e. ended before the project actually started! Once the project was placed under the supervision of tobacco executives, no other source of funding has been identified and declared by the authors.

That the project was managed by the CIAR, or rather by the tobacco executives, is also undeniable. Even the choice of Enstrom's co-author was made by the CIAR Board (see Kessler's Final Opinion, p. 1381: "According to the minutes of the May 15, 1997 CIAR Board of Directors meeting, CIAR found a co-author collaborator for Enstrom, Geoffrey Kabat."). Another illustration of such management is provided by a meeting organized by Philip Morris in June 2000 with Enstrom and Peter Lee, a leading consultant to the tobacco industry, to "discuss the results of the CPS I and CPS II studies and develop possible approaches to analysing the data".([54])

To sum up, saying that the E/K study was "funded and managed by the Center for Indoor Air Research" is not only faithful to what Judge Kessler found, but also translates the facts very accurately. But if one needed a more precise, or rather detailed, formulation, I would go along with the following: "The study was placed under the direction of tobacco industry executives and funded through the Center for Indoor Air Research." In any case, we should not hide the fact that the industry had full control over the study, as is amply shown in several references and is evidenced by internal tobacco industry documents, as this is a crucial piece of information about the E/K study. So MastCell may forgive me for disagreeing that the two formulations "funded and managed" and "partially funded" are equivalent. They are not, as is testified by SonofFeanor's insistence to have the former replaced with the latter.

(Note: my references are Judge Kessler's Final Opinion, the United States Proposed Finding of Facts, the paper by Bero, Glantz and Hong (The limits of competing interest disclosures - Tobacco Control 2005;14;118-126) and some of the rapid responses to the E/K paper on the BMJ site.)

--Dessources (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Enstrom citation above - "CIAR assigned the entire award for the study to UCLA in 1999 just before it was dissolved." After that, only UCLA had financial control and there was no need to report to anyone within the tobacco industry. That is, not only did the tobacco industry NOT have "full control over the study," but in fact they had none. Where is this "ample evidence?" A reference to 1997 minutes without even any direct citation of the minutes? A meeting "organized to discuss results?" How does discussion of results translate into control of the study? Is there more? If so, please tell us where. I mean, "ample" has to mean more than that there was a meeting to discuss results. Where is the evidence that "the study was placed under the direction of tobacco industry executives?" That is directly at odds with Enstrom's statement above and I don't see a single quote from any "tobacco industry executive" that corroborates this statement. Why hasn't the BMJ used this "ample evidence" to retract the paper? Why hasn't UCLA fired Enstrom?SonofFeanor (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This issues were duly contemplated by Judge Kessler, and this page is not the proper place to redo the trial and reopen the discussion. The argument according to which UCLA had financial control is fallacious: this was CIAR money earmarked to the E/K study, so there was not great deal of financial control, and what is at stake here is scientific control, which was exercised by the tobacco industry executives. Judge Kessler's findings were unanimously endorsed by the Appeal Court, so they constitute an authoritative reference. The paper by Bero, Glantz and Hong is another authoritative source. There are penty of tobacco industry documents, some of which were referenced in this discussion, which provide the evidence on which Judge Kessler and Bero et al. based their findings. This is sufficient to back up the factual statement that the study was "funded and managed by CIAR". Enstrom's own statement is hardly a neutral source in the matter, and it has nevertheless been given its due share in the closing sentence of the paragraph.
--Dessources (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
My understanding always has been that when the activists didn't like how things were panning out, they would have nothing to do with the study. CIAR provided the resources necessary for its completion.
It's pretty clear that "funded and managed" (while partly true) is not an adequate characterization of the report's entire background and history, except perhaps to activists.
I don't believe that adding the word "partially" is the way to address this, but am not prepared for additional input at this time.
I was unaware (though I had planned to find out) that Enstrom was independently cleared of any wrongdoing. Given the amount of mudslinging in the article and elsewhere (and for other reasons as well), the fact should certainly be noted. Remember that the Scientific Integrity Institute is Under Suppression, so another source may need to be found.Chido6d (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Enstrom's defense appears in a peer-reviewed article in an epidemiological journal - it is not some "statement" he made to the press. Surely the journal can be considered neutral. However money was earmarked, it was assigned to UCLA. Yes, it had to be spent on the study, but that is not the issue. There was no requirement to report to industry sources - that is what it means to say it was assigned to UCLA. Nothing in the Bero et. al. article suggests "management" by the tobacco industry. It details funding and that is it. Please supply some of this "ample evidence" that you spoke of. I don't believe you can, and that is why you say again and again "but Judge Kessler said" and leave it at that. BMJ and UCLA obviously do not share Judge Kessler's opinion. I would call them more authoritative sources.SonofFeanor (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure considering how much I dug up in just 10 minutes from the top 5 hits on Yahoo. Imagine if I used Google. Soxwon (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If I understand this properly, no one is contesting that CIAR funded it, or that groups other than CIAR funded it. And it appears that both versions of the text say basically the same thing (unless I'm missing something, in which case most likely everyone else who reads this will as well). I heartily suggest that one side just give it up and be happy with the text the other promotes. Supposing you're willing to do that, I'd like to remove the protection as soon as possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The stumbling point, Lifebaka, is "managed." This is a very significant term from an academic perspective. It implies lack of ovjectivity at the least and fraudulence at the worst. It is a pure slander on Enstrom and there are no facts to back it up. None have been offered here. All that has been said is "Kessler said so."SonofFeanor (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, no - Kessler's judicial opinion was based on a huge mountain of evidence, testimony, and argument. I'm sure you're familiar enough with the legal system to realize that a District Court judgment of this magnitude is a bit more solid than "Kessler said so", particularly as it has been upheld as sound by the Appeals Court. The Court's opinion, based on that evidence and upheld on appeal, held in part that Enstrom's paper was "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke." I believe we should note that Enstrom has defended himself against these charges, and that UCLA did not find that he had committed misconduct. I also believe that a U.S. District Court's finding that this paper was the biased product of an effort to subvert science is perhaps worthy of mention - call me crazy. Enstrom's objectivity has been questioned by numerous reliable sources. That does not mean he is unethical or even that he did anything wrong - it's not our job here to decide that. It's our job to note that these sources have questioned his research. That's not "slander". MastCell Talk 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think people are arguing about semantics here. Rather than managed, I would echo Judge Kessler's decision in the government's RICO case and use words like fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering. As to the CIAR, according to Judge Kessler,
  • After the MSA-mandated dissolution of CTR and CIAR, the SRRC continued to approve research projects funded by Philip Morris through its “External Research Program” which was created in 2000 to take over the function of funding third-party research and eventually took the place of the SRRC.
  • Even though the MSA required Defendants to shut down and disband CIAR, Philip Morris has reconstituted it at the same address and with the same director, under the name of the Philip Morris External Research Program.
Abbreviations used:
  • MSA means the Master Settlement Agreement between the State Attorneys General and the Big Tobacco Companies
  • CTR means the Center for Tobacco Research - "a sophisticated public relations vehicle -- based on the premise of conducting independent scientific research -- to deny the harms of smoking and reassure the public".
  • SSRC means the Scientific Research Review Committee which oversaw “all scientific studies, related to tobacco, smoke and/or smoking, conducted or funded by Philip Morris Companies”.
Also, I just thought I'd mention the consequences of the decision - Judge Kessler ordered that:
  • Defendants will also be ordered not to reconstitute the form or function of CTR, TI, or CIAR.
  • Finally, because this is a case involving fraudulent statements about the devastating consequences of smoking, Defendants will be prohibited from making, or causing to be made in any way, any material, false, misleading or deceptive statement or representation concerning cigarettes that is disseminated in the United States.
So, if by any chance that applies to anybody here, it's not too soon to check out vacation property in countries that have no extradition treaty with the US. Cheers, RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, "defendants" does not include Enstrom, and he has been charged with no crime whatsoever. Similarly, Kessler's judicial opinion was not about Enstrom per se but about Phillip Morris and crew. Enstrom is mentioned in the decision, but the appeal is not about him and does not corroborate Kessler's opinion of him or his study. She did not have a "huge mountain of evidence" regarding Enstrom, and I stress again that no one here has offered one jot of evidence suggesting that "managed" is correct. But if you want to mention the court's opinion, that is perfectly appropriate. I have no problem with the article stating "Judge Kessler found that the 'study was funded and managed by CIAR'" as long as it also states, "BMJ editor Richard Smith defended the paper as having satisfied the journal's peer review process" and "The UCLA Academic Board of Regents and Dean have never sanctioned Enstrom, though this issue was brought before them when they considered whether to continue to accept tobacco funding of reasearch (they still do)."SonofFeanor (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes, Enstrom, speaking of unindicted co-conspirators. According to Judge Kessler,
  • BATCo summarizes the 2003 Enstrom study results, but fails to state that the study was funded and managed by the tobacco industry through CIAR and Philip Morris
  • The PMERP utilized a number of former CIAR peer reviewers and grantees, as well as ETSAG project recipients, including James Enstrom, Alan Hedge, Samuel Lehnert, Roger Jenkins, and Antonio Miguel.
  • Many researchers funded through CIAR have continued to receive funding through the PMERP. Through the PMERP, Philip Morris continues to manage projects conducted by ETSAG and CIAR researchers Roger Jenkins, James Enstrom, Demetrios Moschandreas and Samuel Lehrer.
PMERP refers to Phillip Morris Extended Research Program and BATCo to British American Tobacco Company. And, while I haven't taken a tape measure to it, the opinion does appear to be a fairly mountainous document.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, we know what Kessler said. She has been quoted ad nauseum. MastCell didn't say "a montainous opinion" but "a mountainous pile of evidence." Where is it? What is the evidence that Phillip Morris or CIAR "managed" anything?SonofFeanor (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the evidence makes a considerably larger pile than the opinion. I think the case ran for 10 years, involving 246 witnesses and 14,000 exhibits. The tobacco companies have said that they will appeal to the Supreme Court, but if they lose there, that's their last stop, and the Supremes don't have to listen to appeals if they don't want to. I mean, how much evidence do you really need to come to a decision?RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
That is great! So you should be able to provide some of it, right? Just give me the link to Enstrom saying "We will change [x and y and z] per your instructions [tobacco exec]." Or give me two copies of the study, one of which has been altered based on instructions from a tobacco affiliated person. Anything like this out of the "pile" will be sufficient to support the term "managed."SonofFeanor (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're asking a serious question about the evidence from the case, you can start by searching the Legacy Tobacco Library and the Philip Morris Documents Archive. As to Enstrom, the most damning piece of evidence was probably the letter in which he requested a "substantial" sum of money from Philip Morris in order to "compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist" regarding the harmfulness of secondhand smoke (hmm, apparently I stole that "mountain" metaphor). Before the analysis was begun, its author was already pitching it to Philip Morris as a counterbalance against existing data showing that secondhand smoke was harmful. Philip Morris went in with eyes wide open - they conceived of Enstrom's project as "clearly litigation-oriented", meaning that they intended from the start to use his conclusions as a legal defense in the tobacco lawsuits. I think most people can connect those dots, but then it's not really our job to do that. A number of reliable sources already have, and our job is to accurately represent those sources. I'd rather see a bit more focus on the sources and less grandstanding and argumentation based on personal opinion. MastCell Talk 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Asking for money for funding is something that every researcher does. It does not imply that the study was "managed." That Phillip Morris thought it was litigation oriented is neither here nor there - I see nothing from Enstrom that says so. As to sources, you have ONE source that concludes the study was "managed," in a note within a much more sweeping ruling. Even Bero et. al. do not use this wording. Put it in quotes, cite the source, and be done. It is clearly not appropriate to do more than that when there is no evidence of this type of manipulation available. Again, two academic investigators at UCLA cleared Enstrom of any wrongdoing, and the BMJ obviously did as well.SonofFeanor (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Mast Cell, there is a large mountain of data and opinions about passive smoking. Dr. Enstrom's letter does not say what you are saying he said. He said that a large mountain exists of data and opinions (note: plural) regarding the "health effects of ETS and passive smoking." This is a pretty neutral statement, juxtaposed against what you may rather him have said - something to the effect of a mountain of evidence confirming that a harm exists. It is not necessary to add your own words based on your understanding and wishful thinking. Chido6d (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Again (and again, and again, and again), it doesn't really matter what I think. I'm not interested in yet another pointless exercise here, and you have yet to convince me that engaging with you is anything else. Reliable sources exist. Let's use them. That would be a start. MastCell Talk 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn't matter what you think, then quote the sources accurately rather than interjecting your interpretations. That would be a start.Chido6d (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll assume you didn't see the direct quotes in my previous posts. They are outlined in light blue, and if you click on them, you will be taken to the actual sources, where you can verify that I have quoted them accurately. MastCell Talk 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Enstrom received at least $525,000 from the tobacco companies for his study. The American Cancer Society repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) made the following statement: Enstrom and Kabat's conclusions are not supported by the weak evidence they offer, and although the accompanying editorial alluded to "debate" and "controversy", we judge the issue to be resolved scientifically, even though the "debate" is cynically continued by the tobacco industry. Again, I'm quoting from Judge Kessler's opinion.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

At least you mention Kessler's name. Did you know it (her name) is Under Suppression within the article? To name her may obfuscate the fact that it was a court decision. I'm not kidding...Chido6d (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has presented any evidence that Enstrom's study was "managed" by anyone within the tobacco industry, other than the Kessler quote (not really evidence). Once blocking is turned off I will put "funded and managed" in quotes and attribute it to Kessler, so that won't be lost. I will also cite UCLA'S academic review, and Richard Smith's comment on the peer review of the article. Bero et. al.'s article on funding (I have been through it at length and there is nothing about manipulation or "management" in that article), can also be cited. Are there any other reliable sources that need to be included?SonofFeanor (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I believe Enstrom's own words to in writing should be entered.

Enstrom states “level of trust must be developed…commitment [needed] on your part to compete against the epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS…” (link below) Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Alright, let's at least make some headway

Keep CIAR and add Phillip Morris (from CIAR letter: Separate discussions with Dr . James Enstrom, University of California-Los Angeles and Dr. Kabat, Stonybrook, New York about the possibility of their collaboration. That appears to be managing) [55] and add Phillip Morris [56] [57] "In accordance with our discussion on November 18, 1996 I have prepared the £allowing simplified grant application regarding my proposed research on the relationship of low levels of active smoking (a few cigarettes per day) to mortality ." [58] Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of to whom Enstrom submitted funding proposals, it was CIAR who actually produced some funds, not Phillip Morris. Enstrom specifically denies any funding directly from Philip Morris. And discussions about the possibility of a collaboration before the study commenced do not amount to management of the study. Manage is defined as "to handle, direct, govern, or control in action or use." None of this happened. Proposal:

"In her opinion on the United States v. Philip Morris RICO case, Judge Gladys Kessler noted that the study was 'CIAR-funded and managed.' The study was subsequently investigated by UCLA's Board of Regents and 'officials independently reached the conclusion that these materials provide no evidence of scientific misconduct.' Additionally, Richard Smith, the editor of the BMJ at the time of the article's publication, defended the decision to publishm, saying 'Two top epidemiologists-- including George Davey-Smith--reviewed the paper. Then the paper went to our hanging committee, which always includes a statistician as well as practising doctors and some of us... Of course the paper has flaws --all papers do-- but it also has considerable strengths-- long follow up, large sample size, and more complete follow up than many such studies.'"SonofFeanor (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm on record as not caring whether we use the word "managed" or not, but this is just nonsense. CIAR was one of many front groups for Philip Morris - that is a matter of record, supported by numerous reliable sources - so it's mind-boggling to insist that these were independent entities. Tobacco companies commonly channel funding through ostensibly independent third parties to hide the trail - the most recent high-profile case being that of Claudia Henschke.

The above proposal significantly misstates actual opinion on the paper. Kessler's opinion was based on a large volume of expert testimony. Additionally, the ACS, whose database Enstrom used, was highly critical and reportedly warned him prior to publication that his methodology was flawed. On top of that, Enstrom's findings are in conflict with what he accurately termed a "mountain of data" indicating that secondhand smoke is harmful, so we should be cautious about giving his findings undue weight. The controversy surrounding his paper is one thing; it would be another to pretend that his findings are accepted by the scientific community. I agree that we should include the findings of the UCLA committee (sources?). MastCell Talk 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kessler's opinion was based on a large volume of material, but NOT ABOUT THIS PAPER. It is an opinion on Philip Morris' racketeering. This was a minor sidelight in a much larger case. The use of the term CIAR rather than Philip Morris is because that is what Kessler says, and we are quoting her. The "mountain of data" on secondhand smoke is not at all the issue - it is covered everywhere else in this article and does not need to be touched on again here. It does not bear on the conduct of the study. As to ACS, Enstrom talked to two vice presidents of ACS while preparing his study. They only objected AFTER they found out the results of the study. But this is also beside the point - this does not point to any kind of influence from the tobacco industry. My proposal does not touch on current opinion about the paper other than on questions of its integrity, which is what this section is about.SonofFeanor (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem we face is the following: We have a good and reliable source (the federal Court decision) which says that the study was "funded and managed" by CIAR. I see no compelling reason to substitute ourselves to this source and inject personal opinions, distorting the fact reported by this highly authoritative source by watering down "funded" into "partially funded" and suppressing "managed". Judge Kessler based her finding on tobacco industry documents and testimonies that provided solid evidence for what she said in her final opinion. It would have been very difficult, and quite risky in terms of her credibility, for the Judge to have made unsubstantiated allegations, specially in a context where the tobacco industry was represented by several hundreds of lawyers. So we have every reason to believe that she had sufficient material about the E/K paper (she makes reference to some of it, which is pretty clear) to conclude that this study was "CIAR-funded and managed". I agree that she did not need a "large volume" of material - just the material that offered proper evidence. Furthermore, all the exhibits are very consistent and point in the same direction. The tobacco companies have failed to produce contradictory evidence - and you can trust them that if they had been able to produce such contradictory evidence, they would have done it.
The other side of the problem we face is that whatever formulation we use which deviates from the one coming straight from our reliable source will be the result of original research, i.e. the result of re-opening the case and making our own deductions and interpretation of the facts, as SonofFeanor keeps doing. As far as I know, this is a breach of Wikipedia rules.
--Dessources (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add that the issue of scientific misconduct is an entirely separate question. It could very well be that, for the UCLA Boards of Regents, having one's own study funded and managed by CIAR is not a sufficient criterion to make a case of scientific misconduct (which is, BTW, not a legal offense - while racketeering is). Actually, the target of Judge Kessler's final opinion was the tobacco companies, not Enstrom. The point she makes is that the E/K paper offers "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke." This is also the point made in the article.
--Dessources (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

← We should probably go to the sources. Any honest and policy-compliant representation of this paper should note the rejection of its findings by the scientific community. We should probably not pretend that these findings are considered a methodologically sound part of whatever debate exists about secondhand smoke. Sources:

  • USA v. Philip Morris et al., decision of the District Court (or, as some would frame it, the "personal opinion" of Judge Gladys Kessler, the "most liberal justice in [the Court|the country|American history]": "When the Enstrom/Kabat paper was published in the May 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal, it was roundly criticized in the scientific community." (p. 1382).
  • The World Health Organization: "Enstrom and Kabat's conclusions are not supported by the weak evidence they offer." (quoted in the Court decision, p. 1382.
  • The American Cancer Society: Called the paper's conclusions "neither reliable nor independent"; listed an extensive series of flaws (the selective use of a small subset of the total database, poor surrogate markers of secondhand smoke exposure.
  • Philip Morris itself: The internal, confidential tobacco industry review of Enstrom's proposal criticized his proposed method of classifying deaths as tobacco-related or not ("Death certificates are generally considered to be not the best source of information"), and felt that the proposed study lacked scientific significance and meaning ("The amount of money asked for seems rather high when considering the work proposed. The outcome, most probably, will not add much new scientific information.") These documents are now freely available in the tobacco-document archives, but for simplicity's sake and as a secondary source, they are quoted by the American Cancer Society in their criticism of Enstrom's paper ([59]).

That's without really getting into the issues raised by Enstrom's pledge to "compete effectively against the mountain of evidence" on the harms of passive smoking.

I share Dessources' bemusement about the promotion (by editors here) of the UCLA findings as vindication for Enstrom. The university decided that he hadn't done anything that rose to the level of gross misconduct necessary to discipline a tenured professor. That should be noted, perhaps, but not as an absolute indication that Enstrom was "right". Here's a question: let's say Enstrom himself charged Stanton Glantz with misconduct and making "blatantly false statements" about Enstrom. Let's say that a UC panel investigated and exonerated Glantz of any wrongdoing. Does that mean that Stanton Glantz is right about everything he's alleged about Enstrom? (As you may have guessed, this is not entirely a hypothetical). MastCell Talk 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is not currently about the accuracy of the findings, MastCell, but whether the study was managed by CIAR. That would indeed be academic misconduct, as CIAR would have had to credited for the parts of the study they designed and their intellectual contributions. But additionally, Kessler says that it is an example of how tobacco companies sought to "hide the dangers of tobacco smoke" and if there was any hiding going on in the study that would also be misconduct. But in the fictional world where Kessler was the only source speaking to Enstrom's integrity, her short quote in a lengthy opinion on another matter would not be enough to say there was some kind of consensus that Enstrom was a pawn of the tobacco industry. And for the record, Dessources, if evidence had been presented in the trial that Enstrom was managed by CIAR it would be a matter of public record and available for you to cite, which you have not. Evidence that one was NOT managed - what exactly would that be but lack of evidence that one was managed? Without any kind of consensus, the proper thing for an encyclopedia to do in this case is to quote the source. At the same time we can quote UCLA, Richard Smith, and Enstrom's own response in Epidemiology, a peer reviewed journal. There is no need at all to "make our own deductions" and I have never done so.

As to the completely separate matter of the scientific community's assessment of this study, I will deal with that once this has been settled.SonofFeanor (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So there is no way to twist my words, bring up irrelevant subjects, or simply ignore what I say, I will spell it out. For CIAR: [60] this is minutes of a board meeting from CIAR which include them being the ones who partnered Enstrom and Kabat. This appears to be managing. For inclusion of Phillip Morris: [61] "Although acknowledging some financial support from the tobacco industry, the authors did not reveal the full extent of their relationship with this industry and did not mention that the study was actually an industry’s “directed project” under the close supervision of tobacco executives." (citation given: Bero LA, Glantz S, Hong MK.The limits of competing interest disclosures Tob Control 2005; 14: 118–126.) I'm not sure how you can deny it now. Soxwon (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The citation on management is a suggestion of a meeting. That is not evidence of management. Meanwhile for Glantz and crew to say something was under the close supervision of tobacco executives does not make it so. They provide as little evidence as you do. Enstrom rebuts this effectively in Epidemiology.SonofFeanor (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Come on now. Saying: "Hey, we set up a meeting with a guy who we think should write this paper with you" is managing a study. More to the point, several reliable sources (a major and apparently sound legal decision, a peer-reviewed article from a major medical journal, the American Cancer Society, etc) suggest that Enstrom's relationship to the tobacco industry may have contributed to a biased or invalid result. We have apparently one source disputing this - Enstrom himself, albeit published in a journal.

I don't think you understand the issue of scientific misconduct. It would not be de facto misconduct for CIAR to manage the study, all the more so given the acknowledgement of their role by Enstrom and Kabat in the article. The relationship is questionable; it has led numerous reputable sources to view Enstrom's paper as biased and his results as untrustworthy; but that is not necessarily scientific misconduct, as the UCLA panel agreed. One can produce methodologically unsound research which serves the financial interests of one's paymasters without officially committing scientific misconduct - it happens all the time. MastCell Talk 23:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on now. "Manage" means to exert control over. To suggest a meeting with a co-author is hardly to exert control. What you are really saying and what Kessler says explicitly is that the study was managed by CIAR to hide the dangers of tobacco, and soxwon's citation does not show this at all. We have discussed reliable sources at length, but to so again, there is a legal decision that mentions Enstrom as biased, and an academic board that doesn't think so (more on this in a moment). There is a Glantz paper in a peer reviewed journal, but also multiple Enstrom papers in peer-reviewed journals, (as well as a paper by Ungar in a peer-reviewed journal that questions the attacks on Enstrom). The American Cancer Society, meanwhile, is a lot of things, but they are not a reliable source on whether Enstrom was biased in writing this article. They did not do any research on this matter and are not experts in cases of criminal fraud. I completely understand the issue of scientific misconduct, but I think to get into our relative levels of understanding, as satisfying as that might be, would violate several wikipedia policies. One can indeed produce scientifically unsound research without committing misconduct - though that is not what happened here. But one cannot have one's study "managed" by sources that are not credited with participating (beyond funding) in the study.SonofFeanor (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition to what MastCell just said, I would caution against giving too much importance to the "clearance" of Enstrom by the UCLA Boards of Regents. This "clearance" does not carry much weight, as it does not follow proper procedure for investigating charges of scientific misconduct. Such charges should normally be investigated by an independent third body of experts, for obvious reasons. Indeed, institutions in which there is presumption of scientific fraud are overly defensive and usually tend to protect themselves by protecting the person who is suspected of misconduct and by denying or trivializing the alleged facts. This is the most usual reaction (a good explanation of why this happens can be found in the book Mistakes were made (but not by me) - Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson). It is pereferable to have the allegations investigated by people who cannot be judge and parties at the same time. This was clearly not the case at UCLA, as the investigation was assigned to UCLA Acting Chancellor, who in turn asked two senior campus officials to look at it. It's very likely that UCLA Acting Chancellor and his two senior campus official did not find evidence of scientific misconduct simply because they actually did not look for it, looked elsewhere, or lacked motivation in their investigation. Indeed, the explanations given by UCLA Board of Regents to justifiy their conclusion miss the point. They say that "disagreement regarding research methodology and disputes about the soundness of scientific conclusions do not ... constitute scientific misconduct." This is obvious, and we all agree, but this is not the issue here. What should have been investigated is whether there was undeclared conflicts of interest, incomplete or false declarations concerning funding of the projet, and misleading declarations about the independence of the researchers, while their research was actually placed under the direction of tobacco industry executives.
--Dessources (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh are we going to start examining the motivations of these various sources now? I thought that was strictly not allowed as it was a personal deduction, but I would really be happy to. Firstly, throw out anything Glantz says because he is the most personally motivated of all, given that his entire career is to be a paid anti-tobacco expert. Let's also throw out the American Cancer Society, whose stated mission is to eradicate smoking in any way they can. But I can't see how BMJ got anything out of peer-reviewing the Enstrom study and vouching for its soundness. It seems all they got was trouble from the establishment.SonofFeanor (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we fundamentally don't see eye-to-eye on this site's actual policies regarding encyclopedic material as opposed to expressions of our personal opinions. Do you understand the difference between us, as editors, questioning someone's motivation and reputable, respected, reliable sources questioning someone's motivation? Hint: one is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and one is not. Has Stanton Glantz's work been cited prominently by a U.S. District Court as an example of biased tobacco-industry junk science? Have major, respected medical organizations like the American Cancer Society or the World Health Organization called him out? If so, cite a reliable source and let's put it in the article. If not, take this nonsense to a blog, respect the talk page guidelines, and leave Wikipedia in peace. MastCell Talk 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
My comment was in response to an attack on the UCLA Board of Regents and its motivation. No reputable source was cited as expressing doubt about the Board - it was simply a deduction by Dessources - so I responded in kind. Glantz, ACS, etc. did not attack UCLA. Try to keep it straight. Glantz, ACS, Kessler attack Enstrom. UCLA, BMJ, Ungar defend Enstrom. All are reputable. Dessources says UCLA is no good based on a borderline ridiculous argument with no support from a source. I say Glantz, Kessler, and ACS are no good with about the same level of support. Are you clear where we stand now?SonofFeanor (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No, because as I've expressed before, the world is not divided in a binary fashion between Enstrom supporters and Enstrom attackers. UCLA found that he did not commit scientific misconduct. They didn't "defend" him, or say that his research was valid, or that it was free of funding-source bias, or that the scientific community's criticisms of his work were misguided. The BMJ defended their decision to publish the paper, which is a bit different from defending Enstrom or his work. MastCell Talk 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We face a difficulty in the sense that each time we raise a point related to Wikipedia rules, this seems to hit a blind spot in SonofFeanor, who diverts the discussion to something else that has little, or no relevance to the topic under discussion. SonofFeanor keeps making all kinds of arguments to refute the truth of the statement that the E/K study was "funded and managed by CIAR". But, in the process, he keeps ignoring a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, the WP:VERIFY rule: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." We have provided a highly reliable source where readers can verify the statement that the E/K study was "CIAR-funded and managed". SonofFeanor, on his side, has failed to produce any similarly reliable source for his version. This should put an end to the discussion. Continuing in an endless circle the same argument, staging an edit war, using sock/meat puppets for the purpose, is leading us nowhere, and is wasting everybody's time. Futhermore, SonofFeanor fails to address my observation that the letter from the UCLA Board of Regents is not a proper reliable source, as per WP:RELY rule. This personal letter constitutes raw material that expresses the view of a party in the issue, and as such it can hardly meet the Wiki requirement for "reliable, third-party, published sources". What I am saying is that this letter is not an appropriate source to justifiy the inclusion in the article of a statement declaring that Enstrom has been cleared of any scientific misconduct. Somehow, again, this point hit a blind spot in SonofFeanor's mind, who sidelines the debate to some irrelevant point. This type of unproductive contribution needs to come to an end. We should revert to normal edit mode. The tag at the top of the page that blocks editing is doing damage to an article which is probably backed up virtually for each and every sentence by highly reliable sources, to much higher degree than the majority of articles in Wikipedia. Its sole problem is that it is under constant attack by the denialists. But blocking the page is actually unduly rewarding these attacks. --Dessources (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The ruling of the UCLA Board of Regents is not a reliable, third-party, published source? Decisions of the Board of Regents are certainly published and they are not a party at issue. There cannot possibly be a problem witht he reliability of the academic board of a major U.S. university. Additionally, BMJ and Epidemiology are also reliable sources. I have offered plenty of reliable sources and do not fall afoul of this policy. Now you are moving to censor your critics and also verging on ad-hominem attacks. I would be careful.SonofFeanor (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I really, really would hate to see this go to RfC over three words. Can we plz reach some sort of agreement? I agree with Dessources that we have proven our case beyond a doubt and that SonofFeanor has not. Soxwon (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well then, that must be all there is to it. If you, representing one side of the argument, believe you have proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must have done it. Congrats there on meeting that high standard.SonofFeanor (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Then plz address my points. How is arranging personel not managing and how is a paper commissioned by two esteemed organizations simply "opinion" with no real weight? Soxwon (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Personnel were not arranged. A meeting was suggested before the study began. I have said this at least half a dozen times. You cannot have missed it. You ahve not come back with anything more. You have not offered an alternative version of events or an alternative definition of "managed." This point has thus been answered - in spades. If you are referring to the Bero/Glantz paper, at no point did I say it ahs no weight. But the paper merely discusses sources of funding. It nowhere claims management. And it ought not to have more weight than Enstrom's response in Epidemiology, or the conclusion of UCLA's Board of Regents. This point has been answered as well. Please do not make these points again. Redundancy does not equate to logical strength.SonofFeanor (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No I'm not talking about the Glantz paper, I'm referring to the one commissioned by the European Respiratory Society and Institut National du Cancer (INCa, France) and the one conducted by Pascal Diethelm President, OxyRomandie, Geneva, Switzerland and Martin McKee Professor of European Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. I posted it earlier. And as for the "meeting" the CIAR picking the two scientists that eventually worked together on a project the CIAR funded is indeed a personel decision. I hope this explanation can finally put this to rest. Soxwon (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't see this citation anywhere and I don't remember us ever discussing it. Could you point out where it is and where I gave it no weight, or just post the link again? As to the other, the CIAR didn't pick two scientists. Enstrom came to them, right? He wasn't picked BY them. And a meeting with Kabat was suggested, but they certainly didn't PICK him. Where does it say more than that they suggested a meeting?SonofFeanor (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
[62] for the source you dismissed in the next post and for the exact quote: [63]

Separate discussions with Dr . James Enstrom, University of California-Los Angeles and Dr. Kabat, Stonybrook, New York about the possibility of their collaboration.

So it was CIAR who paired them together (which is supported by: Enstrom and Kabat had no prior record of collaboration. A search of PubMed on 25 July 2003 revealed that their only joint publication was the article in BMJ in 2003. from [64]. Now before you dismiss that, plz find evidence refuting it.) Soxwon (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay didn't see this reference before but I have now checked it out. Sorry, but there are only two references to the tobacco industry's manipulation of Enstrom and Kabat's study . The first is a direct quotation from Bero and Glantz and cites their article, which I HAVE given weight, and the second cites Kessler's decision. Go and check your source and its footnotes. Now I am happy to count those as reliable sources, as I have said many times, but you don't get to count them again every time they are cited. I don't know how many times I can say that a "discussion" with two scientists about "the possibility of their collaboration" does not amount to "management." Please check the definition of that word and explain how it could. In fact, I am not going to answer that argument any more, as it has been addressed and re-addressed.SonofFeanor (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
For what will be the last time: it doesn't matter for our purposes whether you think that Philip Morris' involvement rose to the level of "management" or merely "funding". It matters what reliable sources say. One such source found, verbatim, that Philip Morris had "managed" the study. I was previously willing to compromise, and I suppose I may be again if approached reasonably, but at this point given the absolute refusal to understand how this site works I'm not interested. The sources say what they say. Go ahead and fill up the talk page with your personal interpretation of the word "managed", but leave the article to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research. MastCell Talk 22:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Already answered too many times to count. Don't care if you are willing to compromise. I am not.SonofFeanor (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Fortunately, there are means of taking care of that. Soxwon (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It does seem a bit odd when one claims that a study published in 2003 was funded and managed (implication: entirely) by an organisation that was dissolved as a part of a 1998 agreement. It is very unlikely that an unbiased judge would make such a statement, unless he/she simply did not know the facts of the case (perish the thought).
That being said, I have always advocated meticulous accuracy in staying as close to the source as possible. The statement should be attributed to its source, not merely footnoted. The section really does need work. I would be more interested in working this out than being obstructionist.Chido6d (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying it was completed within a year or so?Chido6d (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you think it's "odd", take it up with the District Court - it was their decision, not ours. Or get a blog (they're free) and expound on your thoughts about its "oddness". While you're here, please respect the talk page guidelines. MastCell Talk 03:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
YOu state continually that I am drawing my own conclusions and not sticking to the sources. But my proposal sticks as close to the sources as is possible. I want to directly quote them and attribute the quotes. YOU want to pick one of the sources and transcribe the quote without actually using quotation marks.SonofFeanor (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing further to say to you until you stop abusing alternate accounts and show at least a flicker of interest in collaborative editing. I won't hold my breath about respecting the talk page guidelines, but we have to start somewhere. MastCell Talk 18:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection expired

The protection has expired. If the edit war resumes, I plan on blocking those involved. lifebaka++ 02:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask that NO ONE make any more changes to the disputed section until the RfC is complete. Thank you. Soxwon (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The recent chain of reverts amounts to another edit war. The semi-protection put in place should prevent it from happening again soon, but I'm placing those who frequent this talk page on a 1RR restriction in relation to this article for now, just in case. As I stated above, violators will be blocked. lifebaka++ 18:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What use is 1RR when one particular editor is abusing numerous multiple accounts? I'm not willing to be expend a huge investment of time and effort to deal with an editor who egregiously abuses this site's policies and openly disdains collaborative editing. MastCell Talk 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think of any editors here, there wouldn't be an edit war without both sides contributing. Further reverting the article isn't constructive. lifebaka++ 18:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
SonofFeanor has been indeffed, does this still apply? Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
@Lifebaka: I don't totally agree. Sometimes one editor is responsible for an edit war. What you have here is one editor trying to force a set of changes into the article against consensus, and a number of other editors undoing those changes as inappropriate. It may look like an edit-war, because the first editor is abusing multiple accounts, but in fact it's just one guy trying to force the article into his preferred state over the objections of numerous others. If a single editor (+ his socks and meatpuppets) is being reverted repeatedly by a range of other contributors, then I don't know that "it takes two to tango" is the right take-home. After all, this is basically what the encyclopedia's only defense mechanism against aggressive POV-pushing looks like. MastCell Talk 18:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Restriction's gone. I apologize to anyone I freaked out with it. I'm leaving the semi-protection for now, however. lifebaka++ 19:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving right along

Are there any other changes that anyone feels should be made? Soxwon (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

All I have to say is, wow, I've rarely seen a less neutral article on Wikipedia. Even the title is POV, as it implies that second hand smoke is effectively a form of, and on par with, actual smoking. "Involuntary inhalation"? Is it really about that? Surely it's only involuntary in the cases where you can't walk away easily. I suggest moving the article to one of its more neutral names such as "Environmental tobacco smoke". Gigs (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
When you say that "even the title is POV", you are aware that "passive smoking" is a term widely used in the medical and scientific literature to refer to this subject? "Involuntary exposure" was used by the Surgeon General, among others. I mean, I don't really feel strongly about which name we use - "environmental tobacco smoke" is no more or less "POV" to me than "passive smoking", "secondhand smoke", or "involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke", and all of these terms are used by reputable sources - but the tenor of this comment doesn't inspire confidence that you've actually looked at the sources. MastCell Talk 04:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In addition to MastCell's comment, I'd like to say that the title has been the subject of intense discussion. It was retained because it is the most widely used term in reliable sources. For example, PubMed (MEDLINE) searches for various variants give today the following results:
  • "passive smoking" - 2419 items
  • "environmental tobacco smoke" - 2262 items
  • "secondhand smoke" or "second-hand smoke" - 739 items
  • "involuntary smoking" - 72 items
Clearly the winner is "passive smoking", with "environmental tobacco smoke" a close second. Having chosen the first term as the title of the article is clearly in line with usage, and not a POV choice. Furthermore, the other terms are indicated at the very beginning of the article. They are also used as titles of articles which redirect to the "Passive smoking" article. Gigs's objection seems therefore without ground. Concerning Gigs's blanket statement "I've rarely seen a less neutral article on Wikipedia", we cannot consider it as a constructive remark unless we have some precise indication on what motivates it.
--Dessources (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Passive smoking is the right title, but I think there is some merit in tweaking the definition. How about "Passive smoking is the inhalation of smoke, called secondhand smoke (SHS) or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), from tobacco products used by others."JQ (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the definition proposed by John Quiggin. It is true that the word "passive" is not fully adequate, as one can be exposed to passive smoking even when voluntarily present in a room where people smoke. However, passive smoking is the term most widely used. So we have to stick with it. Some people are hesitant about using the term environmental tobacco smoke, as this was coined by the tobacco industry (in the 70s) - but one effect of such choice of a name - unanticipated by the industry - was that it gave justification for the US Environmental Protection Agency to review the impact of ETS on health, and for California EPA to classify it as a toxic air contaminant. --Dessources (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I actually have more of a problem with the word "smoking", not passive as much. It's not smoking, it's breathing. No one says "Hey I'm going to go passive smoke now!". It's a POV term that implies that secondhand smoke is just as bad as, or is actually form of, smoking.

A numerical count of the most common term using an acedemically biased cross section of sources is hardly a good way to choose a name. To assume that the academic community has an inherently neutral point of view would be naive. Lets try Google News archive instead:

  • Results 1 - 10 of about 26,200 for "second hand smoke"
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 34,300 for "secondhand smoke".
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 13,300 for "passive smoking".
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 5,860 for "environmental tobacco smoke"

A large difference. Secondhand smoke is easily the most common name in the wider world, and nearly the most common name in your academic search above, and also is what the article is actually about. The article isn't about the "act" of "passive smoking" (which I'm not even sure is defined anywhere), it's about passive exposure to smoke, commonly called secondhand smoke. Gigs (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So you dismiss the scholarly community out of hand, because of their "biases", and then rely on a Google News search as supposedly more... what? "neutral"? Have you seen the sorts of crappy sites that are indexed on Google News? Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious, respectable reference work, and as such we value scholarly sources and the work of the academic community. Like I said, my first choice would actually be "secondhand smoke" - it's the term I find to be in widest circulation - but the reasoning used to get there seems a bit odd. MastCell Talk 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely don't dismiss the scholarly community. I just acknowledge that there is a bias there. What I do dismiss is a simple numeric popularity contest as a means to choose a name. My Google News numbers are just as irrelevant as the scholarly search. We should choose the most NPOV name that is in common use, and like you say, that's secondhand smoke. It's descriptive and doesn't carry any potentially POV connotations like "passive smoking" does. Gigs (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"Secondhand smoke" is fine by me (for that matter I have no real problem with ETS), but it seems a little bit less encyclopedic than "passive smoking". As regards POV, I think they both embody the viewpoint that should be given WP:WEIGHT here, that in situations where other people are smoking, we are passively consuming their secondhand smoke.
True. Since all of the terms are widely used in the journals, I think any of them would qualify. I favor ETS because it specifically mentions tobacco, which is obviously the thrust of the article. Tobacco smoke is air pollution, with the main concern being indoors. There is no question about it. But there are other methods of passive smoking, such as cannabis, incense, and even cooking. There are also other methods of indoor air pollution, such as chemicals (for cleaning or health and beauty), dust/dirt, pet dander and other substances and allergens.
That being said, I contend that having an unbiased article is more important than the article's title. I would add that any of the titles are nominally appropriate, as long as all of them point here.Chido6d (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
On the comment that there are other methods of passive smoking, such as cannabis, incense, and even cooking. I'd like to mention that the World Health Organization estimates that cooking smoke kills about 1.5 million people annually in third world countries. I've traveled a lot in third world countries, and would have to say that is probably correct. Here in the first world, we have a lot more safety regulations about stoves, and only have to worry about tobacco smoke.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've actually heard that benzene is abundant (and dangerous), especially around restaurant grills. Is the WHO taking any action on the cooking problem? Just curious.Chido6d (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The first paragraph ends with the statement that scientific evidence clearly indicates SHS as an cause of illness and death. But none of the citations for the claim are scientific studies. One is a treaty, one is a proposal that SHS be considered an air pollutant, one is a fact-sheet and one is the surgeon-general's advice.

Now I certainly respect all of these scientific opinions, but they're not evidence. My point is that the citations and the statement don't truely match up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.139.100 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC) - I'm going to edit this reply to myself here - one of the links DOES link to scientific studies into the effects of second hand smoke. The problem is that it seems less than consistent whether or not it really has a reliable effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.139.100 (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. Scientific opinions are evidence in a sense and while using a very broad definition of the word. I've always favored something along the lines of Major health and medical authorities worldwide have concluded that exposure.... That's pretty indisputable. Comments?Chido6d (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That's WP:Weasely though... Say instead who it was that said it, and let the reader come to their own conclusion about whether there is agreement among major medical authorities or not. Gigs (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Except it's not really weasely, so long as we cite the authorities. Antelan 21:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything that is said in an encyclopedia comes from some (hopefully reliable) source or another. If, instead - or even in addition - of indicating sources by footnote references, we preceded each sentence, or even each phrase, with "Such and such authors say that...", or "such and such authoritative institution concludes that...", this would make the whole Wikipedia totally tedious and close to unusable. Therefore, the practice of Wikipedia is to leave out such declarations, assuming that the mention of the source suffices to make them implicit. There is no reason that the opening paragraph in the current article be treated differently.

Furthermore, there is no justification for requiring that scientific studies be specifically cited to support the statement "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death." The number of individual studies supporting this statement is way too large to be cited in an encyclopedia article. What is needed, as per WP:SOURCES, is that articles be based upon "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on secondary sources. The reports from the US Surgeon General, the CalEPA and the IARC are all secondary sources, written by groups of scientific experts which are selected on the basis of their reputation for top competence in their field, and, consequently, for fact-checking and accuracy. The statement from the WHO Framework Convention has been very carefully crafted, after intense discussions, so that it could be adopted - unanimously - by 192 nations. If the wording had not met a high level standard of fact-checking and acuracy, it would have been subjected to enormous challenge and would have never passed the test of its unanimous adoption.

We have discussed the above point numerous times in the past, and the current formulation has always turned up receiving the largest consensus among editors - we can consider it well established and fairly robust. Please see [65].

--Dessources (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be fine with either the current wording or the wording proposed by Chido6d. I don't have a strong feeling since I think both are reasonably accurate. It may actually be clearer to say, in Chido's wording, that "Major scientific and medical authorities worldwide have concluded..." because this makes it clear where the evidence synthesis is occurring, and reflects the state of expert opinion on the subject. MastCell Talk 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell for the reasons he stated.Chido6d (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
While I appreciate MastCell's desire to have the clearest possible wording, I still think that the current wording is best, and that adding "Major scientific and medical authorities worldwide have concluded..." loads the sentence without benefit, on the contrary. To appreciate what I mean, consider the following example (where the situation is a bit similar). The definition of AIDS currently used on Wikipedia is as follows: "Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." Compare this with a formulation that would say: "Major scientific and medical authorities worldwide have concluded that acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." This formulation is just as true as its passive smoking counterpart. It does not feel necessary or even appropriate with the definition of AIDS, which states that HIV causes AIDS (a fact rejected by HIV/AIDS denialists). I don't see why the same formulation would be better suitable in the definition of passive smoking, which is also challenged by denialists of its own (SHS denialists).
--Dessources (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the current state of scientific study on the subject, I think we can conclude that the relationship between second-hand smoke and disease can be considered to be scientifically proven - not to mention legally proven, given the latest court decisions. We shouldn't have to qualify who came to the conclusion, any more than we should have to qualify who concluded that gravity is caused by mass, or that AIDS is caused by HIV. The nay-sayers on this topic have largely been proven to be in the pay of the tobacco companies, although they didn't admit it, so I don't think they really qualify as reliable, third-party, published sources but more as paid agents of the tobacco companies. I would vote for a straightforward "Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke has been proven to cause disease, disability, and death from lung cancer, heart disease, and other medical problems."RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Science doesn't deal in proofs... Save those for the mathematicians. That said, I agree that you don't need to add the weaselly prefix of "major authorities"... let the citations do the sourcing when it is not an opinion. But don't say proven either, especially not in an equally weaselly passive voice, (i.e. "has been proven"... prompts "by who?"). This statement, from the body of the article, says it well:

"Currently, there is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful.[2]"

I'm not sure that is the best ref, but you see how it both avoids POV implications and weasel words/passive voice at the same time. Gigs (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, scientific theories are never proven but can only be disproven. So it is scientifically established, but legally proven (as a result of the racketeering case). Since the court decision also established that the tobacco companies knew it was true, although they claimed it was false, you shouldn't really have to state that they disagreed - in the judge's opinion, they were lying when they said they disagreed. Thus, you shold be able to say: "Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death from lung cancer, heart disease, and other medical problems", without qualifying it. (I like to be more specific than "is harmful".) RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
-----
After a careful rereading of Kessler's decision, how about this: "The consensus of the public health community is that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death from lung cancer, heart disease, and other health effects. In children and infants, it increases the risk of asthma, respiratory problems, middle ear disease, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)." RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That would likely be improper synthesis, if you rely on Kessler alone. To report an academic consensus, you need a reliable source that says that the consensus exists. This is addressed at Wikipedia:RS#Consensus, however the guideline seems to be poorly worded. The way I understand it, you can't extrapolate that there exists a consensus for something based on a pile of evidence. The Kessler source says only that "there is scientific consensus that ETS causes disease". It does not claim consensus for any particular disease. I'd bet you could probably find a reliable source that says that there is scientific consensus for ETS causing increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease, but you may not be able to find one that specifically claims causation. Gigs (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be degenerating in a dismally pedantic and legalistic direction. There is no lack of sources; in fact, every major medical and scientific organization to have looked at the issue is in agreement that secondhand smoke is a cause of disease - specifically, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and SIDS, among others. Since these sources are both easy to find and already cited extensively in the article, it starts to feel like we're being given the run-around with these sorts of comments. Similarly, the distinction between "causing" and "causing an increased risk of" is artificial in this case, since both wordings (and concepts) are supported by the sources in this instance. MastCell Talk 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing that that is the truth. But the truth needs a citation when it's this contentious, and a sweeping claim like the proposed one is going to need very stringent sourcing. If there's so much source data out there, then it shouldn't be a difficult job. Maybe this page will help: [66] Gigs (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it! The curent formulation ("Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death") was challenged at the top of this section on the claim that none of the citations given as sources are scientific studies. I replied by explaining that the citations used to support the formulation is actually better than individual studies, as they are from highly reliable, third-party sources. It seems to me that none of the proposed alternatives read better than the current formulation. The formulation used today, with only minor variations, has been around since November 2006 (i.e. for over 30 months). The initial formulation was "Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." The only changes were to drop the first word ("Current" - as this is redundant with the use of the present tense) and to reorder the conditions ("death, disease and disability" became "disease, disability, and death"). So we can say that the current formulation is very robust, as it has resisted many attempts to replace it with weak or POV formulations. Any proposed change must be backed by very solid argumentation. I do not see anything compelling in the alternative formulations suggested above that would justify giving up what we have already. Moving away from a highly reliable third-party source will open a pandorra box for all the denialists who are targeting this article.

For a full explanation about the current formulation, see section below.

--Dessources (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Epidemiological Studies, and General Organization

I removed a paragraph under epidemiological studies regarding the health risks of parental smoking for children. I have no problem with this statement in general, but it did not reference any study, and was already covered in the initial laundry list of dangers of passive smoking. It clearly did not belong in this section.

In general, this article is not well organized. Sections have obviously been added as they occurred to people, and frequently overlap with other sections or do not to be sections in their own right at all, but rather should be subsections. And cases like the one I addressed, where a piece of data has been thrown in where it does not belong, abound.

Does anyone agree? Can we clean this up a bit?Darkthlayli (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Dessources (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to move this to the "risks to children" section? Several items deleted are not in that list.JQ (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This does not resolve the issue that the text is poorly sourced. If we can find a better source, then, indeed, its place is in the risk to children section, unless the source clearly refers to epidemiological results. But as it is, I think this piece of text is better left out of the article.
Dessources (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I found and added a source for middle ear infections.JQ (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Tone of the article.

is this an anti second hand smoking page or a real article of an encyclopedia. It claims any critics about the subject is funded by industry and the tone is highly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to a study that either disputes the existence or claims the damage is far less than popularly held? Soxwon (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A study from the World Health Organization shows that passive smoking prevents lung cancer:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440 RayJohnstone (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the study says. Try reading it. It concluded that there is little evidence that environmental tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in children. However, it does NOT say that it prevents cancer.
While there is little evidence that ETS causes cancer in children, there is strong evidence that it DOES cause reduced birth weight, developmental problems, sever lower respiratory infections, middle ear disease, chronic respiratory problems, asthma, and reduced lung function in children. ETS has also been found to be a weak lung carcinogen in adults, although its cardiovascular effects are much more serious. The negative lung cancer result for children is a red herring frequently cited by tobacco companies to obscure the real medical problems ETS has been proven to cause.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 Here is a direcf quote:

"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96)." All true. As the numbers (0.64- 0.96) show, the risk was not increased but decreased.RayJohnstone (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that many of the critics have been named by the courts as being secretly funded by industry, and many of the companies in the industry have been convicted by the courts of racketeering and fraud. This drastically reduces the credibility of these sources, and is something that you more or less have to mention when citing them in an article.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I did one year ago, not once but several times, citing the independent sources, one of which has a Wikipedia page dedicated to the quality of his research. Regrettably however, as that seems to be a heresy with regard to his own conviction, Dessources constantly erased them under the NPOV tag within half a day's lapse. You can still look them up in the modifications, if you want. Fighting a dogmatic opinion is not my choice, so I just let it be, as, as reading this talk page shows, several others did. I left a comment on Dessources' user talk, titled Why?, just above an identical comment from Shadowjams. Ed. 123.255.63.185 (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Why not add a section that covers the fascist-attitudes against humans who choose to smoke tobacco? In fact, in my personal experience, it is largely liberal-fascists (anti-smoking "activists") that want to tell people how to live, business' like restaurants and pubs what they can or can't do in their own establishment, treat humans who smoke like second class citizens - even regulating them to out doors. When I see signs like "City Ordinance: No Smoking" in a bar it reminds me of the days when signs like "No Blacks" or "Whites Only" existed. I believe a section like this would have merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Absurd comparison. A Black guy's skin doesn't give me cancer. A homosexual's desire for same-sex partners doesn't give me heart attacks. Second hand smoke does all that and then some. You have the right to do your own thing, as long as you harm no one else, and second hand smoke does harm others.RebelKnightCSA (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it was the relatively recent research that disclosed that tobacco smoke was an environmental hazard equivalent to airborne arsenic dust and asbestos fibers that set the whole process of introducing no-smoking bylaws in motion. After a city has banned asbestos in builldings and arsenic dust in factories, it is a very short step to banning smoking in public places - at least for bureaucrats capable of reading the research papers. It's all about public safety.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
And you have the right not to go to a particular bar (or other establishment) if you don't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, the risks of which have been grossly exaggerated by the way. What you don't have is the right to force your narrow prejudices upon everyone else.Ajax151 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I have to agree with some of the comments above regarding a lack of NPOV in this article. For example:

"As part of its attempt to prevent or delay tighter regulation of smoking, the tobacco industry funded a number of scientific studies and, where the results cast doubt on the risks associated with passive smoking, sought wide publicity for those results."

That sentence is almost certainly accurate, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Speculations about an industry's motivations—no matter how believable—should not be mixed in with recorded facts, and implications of any kind (of bias, in this case) do not belong in an article at all. There is plenty of objective evidence already in the article that demonstrates what most readers would regard as bias. There are also several authorities, like the US Surgeon General, whose explicit allegations of bias have been properly quoted and cited. But because the industry's motivations are essentially subjective, and especially because the industry disputes allegations of bias, the article must restrict itself to these (very convincing) citations rather than stating or especially implying the allegations as fact.

At first glance, the sentence above doesn't look too bad, and I've picked it out precisely because the bar for NPOV is very high. There are many other remarks in the article that venture much further into unacceptable territory. Among these:

  • "Delaying and discrediting legitimate research"
  • "the industry attempted to discredit Hirayama's landmark study"
  • "Promoting 'good epidemiology' and attacking so-called junk science"

Terms like "legitimate" and "landmark" as used here represent a particular point of view, which is inappropriate no matter how agreeable that view is. The use of quotation marks and the phrase "so-called" make strong implications, which are also inappropriate no matter their content.

At the risk of overstating the point here, I want to quote the relevant section from Wikipedia policy: An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. Oconnor663 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

All of this is well documented in the tobacco archives and elsewhere. As you yourelf say, it's almost certainly accurate, so the problem, if any, isn't NPOV, but lack of adequate citation. Why don't you mark those points that require explication. For example, as regards your final dot pint, we could spell out the way tobacco shill Steve Milloy promoted the idea of "junk science" while secretly on the tobacco payroll.
I don't quite agree. Facts that are probably correct (i.e. the consensus of historians) can usually be stated in an article without qualification, but opinions that are probably correct (i.e. the consensus of historians that George Washington was awesome) shouldn't be. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of research, for example—as opposed to the accuracy of that research—definitely falls into the latter category, because it's based on opinions regarding the motivations and conduct of researchers. Obviously most of us buy into those opinions, but that's the whole point of NPOV, as opposed to "consensus point of view" or something like that. Oconnor663 (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
As a more general point, given the way in which this section of the article tends to be a major focus of discussion, maybe it's time to split it off into its own major article, something like "Tobacco industry criticism of research on health risks of smoking", where we could make more complete use of the archives to show how it was done, with more extensive naming of names, discussion of the money trail and so on. The main difficulty would be to find good secondary sources. JQ (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. Oconnor663 (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the main issue here is that a lot of the allegations against the tobacco companies have been proven in the courts, so they are now matters of fact rather than matters of opinion (I use the word "fact" in its legal sense). If someone says that you are a liar and a thief, you can sue them for slander, but if the judge in the case rules that as a matter of fact you are a liar and a thief, then it is no longer debatable - the newspapers will call you a liar and a thief without qualification and they are under no obligation to print your counter-arguments. A similar situation applies to the tobacco companies - a lot of the allegations against them have been proven in court and as a result they are no longer debatable. They have been proven in court and are now matters of fact. A court decision is a highly irrefutable source, unless a higher court disagrees, and they will seldom overturn a finding of fact. You might disagree but the judge's opinion is final.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
That's definitely right in come cases, but I don't think it applies to all. Someone more familiar with the case record than I am will have to separate those issues that have been ruled upon (i.e. that tobacco companies deliberately spread information they knew to be false) from those that have not (i.e. that Hirayama's study was "landmark"). However, I think we have to be very careful with differences between legal fact and what we might call "encyclopedic fact". For example, OJ Simpson was legally acquitted of murder, but that doesn't make "OJ Simpson never committed murder" a proper encyclopedic fact. The legal facts regarding ETS also come largely out of the American court system, while the article—unlike a newspaper—should be relevant and neutral for a worldwide audience. That's why court rulings should generally be attributed like any other authoritative remark. Oconnor663 (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a fact that OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, but it is not a fact that he was innocent. The jury just found that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. However, in a civil case the jury found that he had killed the victims. The difference is that criminal trials use "beyond a reasonable doubt" as their criterion, and civil trials use "preponderance of evidence".
To call Hirayama's study "landmark" is just the opinion of the editor, not the judge. In the decision, Judge Kessler found (from internal company documents) that the tobacco companies knew that Hiramaya's results were correct, but that they took steps to discredit his findings regardless. So, you have to discount the tobacco companies' statements because they have been found to be lies, but you can cite Hirayama's results as being very credible.
The various states in the US were the innovators in suing tobacco companies, but since then it's become very fashionable elsewhere in the world. The main difference is that damages awarded in lawsuits in the US are much higher than elsewhere. Cases in Australia have gone against them, but the tobacco companies have managed to have a lot of cases in Britain thrown out. In Canada, Ontario is preparing to launch a 50-billion lawsuit against them, but, just a few days ago, in a lawsuit launched by British Columbia, the tobacco companies managed to implicate the Canadian federal government as a co-conspirator. The fallout from that court decision is likely to be interesting. In Canada, provincial governments have no qualms about suing the federal government if they think it has done something wrong.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This sentence in the opening also brings up questions of NPOV: "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death." There is no evidence that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death... because secondhand tobacco smoke cannot cause death. It can *lead* to death, but definitely not cause it. It can cause deadly *diseases*, but not death directly. Yes, it's semantics, but important nonetheless. It's misleading and should be worded differently, in my opinion. (For the record, I'm a non-smoker, a non-secondhand-smoker, and definitely not a member of big tobacco industry). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.212.27 (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to narrow the definition of the word "cause" to a subset of the full dictionary definition. "Lead to" is really just a synonym for "cause".
Lead to definition:
1. Same as cause
2. To be a contributory cause of
There is an argument that it should say "can cause" rather than "causes" because it does not invariable result in disease, disability and death. However, sometimes it does, and that has been statistically proven. The causal relationship is more direct than the tobacco industry would like people to believe.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I see that the format of this article hasn't improved any since I was last here. Amazingly, it has gotten worse. At least, previously, the introduction served its purpose of summarizing the key points of the article in a cogent, organized fashion. Now I find a discussion of thirdhand smoke there, though this is barely touched on later and can hardly be said to be one of the more important points about passive smoking. And the second paragraph goes into inappropriate detail on the tobacco industry's efforts - one would think from its coverage in the intro that this was the single most important issue to be discussed in the article. Finally, the sentence "Since the early 1970s, the tobacco industry has been concerned about passive smoking as a serious threat to its business interests" is not semantically accurate. The tobacco industry does not feel passive smoking is a threat to its interests, only that legislation based on the effects of passive smoking is a threat.Darkthlayli (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable with removing third-hand smoke from the lead, since it's a relatively minor and obscure part of the subject. On the other hand, the regulatory issues related to passive smoking - and the tobacco industry's approach to those issues - forms a central part of the subject and is essential to any comprehensive and encyclopedic overview of the topic. As to your semantic point, we could amend the sentence to read "... public awareness of the risks of passive smoking as a serious threat...", or "Concerned that the risks of secondhand smoke would prompt anti-smoking legislation, the tobacco industry..." MastCell Talk 04:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


The sentence "Since the early 1970s, the tobacco industry has been concerned about passive smoking as a serious threat to its business interests" is almost verbation from the cited source. It is correct and corresponds faithfully to how the industry felt about passive smoking back in the 70s and 80s. See for example the following quotation, extracted from the cited paper:

William R. Murray, the vice-chairman of Philip Morris, in a speech: "Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or ETS, is probably the greatest threat to our industry. ETS is the driving force behind smoking restrictions in the workplace, on airlines and other forms of public transportation, and in virtually all public areas. If present trends continue, smokers will have fewer and fewer opportunities to enjoy a cigarette. This will have a direct and major impact on consumption." (emphasis mine)

A good evidence that the tobacco industry has considered passive smoking a threat is the huge fraudulent campaign it launched to deny that passive smoking is harmful, as is amply documented in the findings of the federal raketeering trial, USA vs Philip Morris et al. Passive smoking was a threat because recognition of its harmful effects would inevitably lead to measures, legislative or others, for the protection of people against exposure to passive smoking. Recognition of the harmful effects of passive smoking would also change the status and image of the smoker, who would become perceived as a polluter.

Concerning "thirdhand smoke" (THS), this notion was previously covered in much greater detail in the body of the article, in its own section. This was challenged by some editors, who observed that what is known about the health effects of THS is still too speculative to dedicate a section to THS. It was consequently agreed among editors to just define the term "thirdhand smoke" in the Introduction, for the sake of completeness of the terminology, simply adding that we don't know whether and to what extent THS causes diseases. We could go back and create a section dedicated to THS, but this would mean we are in a loop.

Dessources (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy Crap

This is the most jaw-droppingly strident, one-sided, biased article I have ever seen on Wikipedia.130.76.32.144 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. It frequently frames the "tobacco industry" as the enemy. While I don't smoke myself, I still can't abide by bad science. There are many peer-reviewed articles that disagree with the gist of this entry. Here's a quick summary: http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.PDF.
Without meaning to tarnish the reputation of that hard-hitting, peer reviewed journal magazine Skeptic or the website hosting it ("Citizens Against Smoker Harassment"), in comparing them to the organizations that disagree with them (The World Health Organization, the Surgeon General of the United States, California Environmental Protection Agency, European Respiratory Society and L'Institut National du Cancer, the National Research Council, US Environmental Protection Agency, etc.) and the journals their reports are published in (Nature, Journal of the American Medical Association, MMWR, American Journal of Public Health, Cancer, Int J Epidemiol, European Heart Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, etc.), it seems that the "bad science" is kinda like when Mrs. Jones went to see her son in the marching band: "Oh look!" she screamed with pride, "everyone's out of step, except for my little Johnny!" - SummerPhD (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you have suggestions based on reliable sources to improve the article, or did you just need to vent? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I previously posted this in an archive, but since you ask...[note: edited for format and author attribution]
- ...Those that have actually sat down and composed the body of this article should be commended for the effort. I was just adding that--in my opinion--the advocacy of this piece would be evident to any disinterested, somewhat-trained scientist. The article would be improved by eschewing this advocacy. Similar opinions have been expressed by several people in this discussion. ... This exact same type of discussion has been going on in the climate change debate. The various IPCC reports were forwarded to the public with an air of unimpeachable scientific authority, but systematic analysis by folks with more time on their hands than me has uncovered that the science was often sloppy. At first criticism was dismissed as being the product of oil company shills, however it turns out that the science was often sloppy and that, more importantly, the sloppiness was tilted one way--it was consistently biased towards showing effects of anthropogenic climate change to be more severe. This, in my opinion, is the danger of "advocacy science."
- I had pointed out what I see as the more egregious errors in the past, a few pages ago, as have others. The folks (the ones whom I assume took the time to actually write this piece) disagreed, and, as stated earlier, as much as I'd like to I don't have the time to tackle the issue. But I'll recap here briefly.
- Funding of studies is immaterial to the science argument (though certainly germaine to the overall policy discussion); the science stands on its merits or it doesn't. If the writers insist upon identifying who funded various studies, they should be consistent and identify the funders for all studies cited.
- Studies that find that effects of ETS are less severe than the consensus view are, in the wiki article, subject to much more critique and rebuttal than studies that show that ETS effects are more severe than the consensus view. This is the primary issue with the objectivity of this piece.
- Studies that find that ETS effects are less severe are put under the title of "Industry Funded Studies and Critiques," even when the study in question was not "industry funded" (namely the 1998 IARC report of the 1993 EPA report). Studies not funded by the tobacco industry chould not be included under the heading "Industry Funded Studies." Also, some industry funded studies are included (the constuents of "sidestream" smoke for example) and these should be moved under the heading of "Industry Funded Studies" to be consistent.
- It should be indicated if "studies" are peer-reviewed (Steven Milloy studies, in my experience, are not peer reviewed and are not very rigorous).
- There is a section on the use of animals for experiments by tobacco companies, but no discussion of use of animals by other researchers involved in ETS. I'm not even sure that there's a point in having this topic discussed in this article.
- The section on animal nicotine poisoning is not relevant to the article. It also contains many uncited claims, some of which stretch credulity (e.g. the idea that 30% of the world's cigarette litter ends up on US shorelines).
- The section entitled "Risk Level" was very instructive and should be moved to the top of the piece, since it contains a qualitative analysis of teh risk of exposure (as opposed to the less instructive and artificial "risk/no risk" dichotomy)
- The statement "Preliminary research suggests that byproducts of thirdhand smoke may pose a health risk, though the magnitude of risk, if any, remains unknown" should be rewritten. Given current models of carcinogenesis, exposure to even a single molecule of a carcinogen can cause cancer, so it's not very instructive to say that third hand smoke may cause a risk; of course it causes a risk, given that a single molecule presents a risk. The question is the magnitude of that risk, which is unknown. Therefore the statement should read "The magnitude of the risk from third-hand smoke is presently unknown."
- Ventilation is not just "posed" as an alternative, it often is actually used as one. Ventilation is actually quite a common method of control of carcinogens in industrial environments. The statement that "The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that engineering approaches, such as ventilation, are ineffective and do not protect against secondhand smoke exposure" is misleading. Since the WHO holds that the only acceptable risk is zero, any method of engineering control, even in principle, would be ineffective. In fact ventilation can be quite protective of health but it can't reduce the risk to zero; so it's misleading to say that ventialtion is "ineffective."
- In the Epidemiological Studies section, some of the studies cited are 20 or 30 years old. There are more recent studies available, and they should be cited as well.
That's just based on a cursory review. But again, the issue goes a little deeper than these specific instances. The issue is the overall tone of advocacy in the piece. As I've stated earlier, advocacy is great, especially for a serious public health issue like ETS. But advcoacy is not science and it is not objective. Zipperfish (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion: Break down your concerns into managable chunks: Partialize. Then, rather than presenting a long, drawn-out discussion of those concerns, begin to correct what you see as short-comings: Pick one well-bounded concern and edit appropriately. Wait a couple of days for reactions. Lather, rinse, repeat. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Those are good suggestions. That said, I've been thinking about whether it's worth restructuring this article a bit. It's gotten bloated and repetitive, and the effect of repeating over and over the conclusions about the tobacco industry etc can get a little heavy-handed. I don't think there's any need to water down the facts - ventilation has generally been dismissed as an inadequate solution by independent public-health bodies, and has been pushed largely by the tobacco industry as an alternative to smoking bans, for example. The funding of studies is clearly relevant - that's why every respectable journal on Earth requires authors to inform the reader of their funding. Industry-funded articles are orders of magnitude more likely to "exonerate" second-hand smoke, and thanks to the declassification of internal industry memoranda, we have a much clearer picture of exactly how the tobacco industry used its money and weight to produce misleading research.

We should probably lessen the emphasis on "third-hand smoke" even further - it's pretty speculative at this point, and dilutes the focus of the article. Likewise, we should prioritize and de-bloat the article - much of what's in here is trivial, or perhaps better off in other articles or spin-offs. MastCell Talk 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest spinning off most of the material relating to animals into a new article.JQ (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've now done thisJQ (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the poor formatting. I'm still new to this. I've (hopefully) corrected my previous entry to be more readable.Zipperfish (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved as of 02/24/2011

All Sections Below Are Unresolved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.72.181 (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am just beginning as a Wiki editor and am still learning the proper procedure. Guidance is welcomed. I have an excellent article from a 2011 Pediatrics (italicized) issue on cotinine exposure in multiunit housing and would like to post the reference. As this topic is locked, it appears that permission is needed from the group for further editing. The subject of exposure across apartment walls has been debated on the news in the last few months, so I thought this addition would be timely and enlightening. What more should I provide the group to facilitate this process? (01melanieeditor (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC))

The page is only "semi-protected". You can read about what that means here. The short of it is that unregistered users (i.e. people without accounts, editing anonymously as IP addresses) and brand new users like yourself cannot edit it. If you simply wait a few days and make a few edits elsewehere, your new account will automatically transform to "autoconfirmed" status, at which point you'll be able to edit this article and others that are semi-protected. In the meantime you are welcome to suggest changes to the article here, and if other edits have the time and inclination, they can make the changes for you. Yilloslime TC 23:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Likely verses possibly

The ref says "An April 3, 1970 report from a United Kingdom tobacco manufacturer, Gallahers, circulated among Defendants, concluded that “we believe the Auerbach work proves beyond a reasonable doubt that fresh whole cigarette smoke is carcinogenic to dog lungs and therefore it is highly likely that it is carcinogenic to human lungs.”"Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It has already been proven without a doubt that fresh whole cigarette smoke is carcinogenic to human lungs. That is not the issue at hand.

The study you reference refers to "fresh, whole cigarette smoke", not secondhand smoke. I am also of the opinion that secondhand smoke does cause cancer, but to say there was a "likely early awareness" of the harms of secondhand smoke goes beyond an early awareness of "firsthand smoke". Dietcherrycola (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We also have from page 1242 "From the early 1980s onward, INBIFO ETS studies began generating results “strongly suggesting” increased harm incurred from passive smoke." This seems to mean likely. Thus changed the wording to match. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that in order to gather reliable data regarding passive smoking, nobody anywhere in the world has ever undertaken the clinical trials which are necessary over a period of 20-30-40 years in order to prove beyond doubt that passive smoking is dangerous and causes all the problems documented. Indeed, if such a trial did take place, it's findings would still be unreliable unless those taking part do not inhale or are shielded from the huge amounts of traffic pollution from motor vehicles we find in our major cities and towns which are equally carcinogenic, or even shielded from the many other poisonous substances one encounters in every day life which could be attributed to their health problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbuckone (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Blackbuckone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If we shoot 100 people in the hearts with shotguns and all of them die, it does not prove the gunshots killed them. However, reliable sources verifiably state that smoking kills and passive smoking kills somewhat less frequently. If you have reliable sources to the contrary, please present them. Otherwise, you're simply arguing that there is no way to know for sure that the Moon isn't made of green cheese, which is not what talk pages are for. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Public health is held to a different standard of evidence than drug trials. Those who wish to continue doing harm seem to always claim that they should be held to the same standard. There is something called the precautionary principle Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Blackbuckone's comment above offer a good illustration of two requirements that usually characterize denialism. The first is the creation of impossible expectations of research, or expectations which are so far fetched as to be practically unrealizable. Indeed, to state that it is "necessary" to conduct a "clinical trial" over a period of 40 years in order to prove that passive smoking is harmful is such an impossible expectation. It would delay public health decisions by 40 years, a "grace period" that the tobacco industry would indeed welcome (actually, their strategy with respect to the health effects of passive smoking was to delay for as long as they could protective decisions made inevitable by the scientific findings on the toxicity of secondhand smoke, by entertaining an artificial controversy where there was actually a scientific consensus). A second characterization of denialism, closely related to the first, is moving the goalpost: "Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence" (see Denialism). Blackbuckone moves the goalpost in anticipation of the result of his requested long term prospective "clinical trial". Should such study show that passive smoking is indeed harmful, its findings would not be sufficient, as they would "still be unreliable unless those taking part do not inhale or are shielded from the huge amounts of traffic pollution from motor vehicles."
Blackbuckone does not seem to know that long term prospecrtive clinical trial is not the only method available to prove that secondhand smoke is toxic. There is a wide array of methods for studies: prospective, restrospective, case-control, longitudinal, cross-sectional, and also biological assays. Interestingly, in the latter category of studies, bioassays, the most damning studies revealing the high toxicity of secondhand smoke have been conducted by the tobacco industry itself, but it has kept its findings secret. Blackbuckone does not seem to know or understand that studies can be designed to take into account the effect of confounding co-factors, such as exposure to air pollution. Typically, in a case-control study, the controls are exposed to the same level of street pollution as the cases, allowing the investigator to isolate the effect of passive smoking. All the large studies conducted with rigorous methods have reached the same conclusion: secondhand smoke causes disease, disability and death.
Finally, Blackbuckone's comment is nothing but a piece of personal opinion about the issue, to which he/she is entitled. But this has no validity as far as editing the current article is concerned, since such editing can only be based on verifiable and reliable sources, as per Wikipedia rules.
Dessources (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is biased

The article deems the controversial section as tobacco funded and highlights the main section as fact. If you want the article to stop drawing negativity, remove the biased tone and stick to the studies and references only including all per tenant information from both sides..

Here are some starting ideas: ( This has biased wording to it) Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.[1][2][3][4] Currently, the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus.[5][6][7]

Suggest: Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causing disease, disability, and death are currently a matter of scientific consensus

Should be according to ???: Secondhand smoke causes many of the same diseases as direct smoking, including cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases.[2][3][4]

Should say 'many' Epidemiological studies show that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke are at risk for many of the health problems associated with direct smoking.

The evidence clearly states of equal concentration which is a very significant part of the study!! Evidence also shows that inhaled sidestream smoke (of equal concentration as main stream smoke), the main component of secondhand smoke, is about four times more toxic than mainstream smoke. This fact has been known to the tobacco industry since the 1980s, though it kept its findings secret.[59][60][61][62]

Missing significant information to the Engstrom study -- Enstrom study was started by the CDC and vacated when the results were not as expected. (see your own reference http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2164936/?tool=pmcentrez )

-- The study is based on the California (CA) portion of the original 25-state Cancer Prevention Study (CPS I) [1]. CA CPS I was begun by the American Cancer Society (ACS) in 1959 and has been conducted at UCLA by me since 1991.

-- The study was peer reviewed: Our paper was deemed to be scientifically sound and worthy of publication after being peer reviewed by two distinguished epidemiologists, a BMJ statistician, and a BMJ editorial committee.

    • Here's the list of peer reviewers: The details of the entire peer review process and the names of all the individuals involved in the review process are available online as the "Prepublication history" [5].

Enstrom took tobacco money to finish the study but denies any affiliation that the money swayed the results. It was a study performed at UCLA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.135.163 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Better Citations

I suggest improving the citations for the initial, strong statements of public and scientific consensus. For example, the sentence "Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death," should be citing scientific journals. Currently it entirely cites memos from national governments and international organizations rather than scientific sources. That is good evidence of why governments are acting how they're acting on this issue; it is not good scientific proof. More direct primary scientific citations would greatly improve this article. 76.164.224.149 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Human are animals

Thus per this and WP:MEDMOS we use the heading "In other animals" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Other animals", although technically correct in a very narrow sense, is pedantic, unnecessary and likely to confuse readers. The section on "Animals" refers to the main article on the subject, the title of which is "Animals and tobacco smoke" (not "Other animals and tobacco smoke"). Unless one is an idiot, everybody understands that this means non-human animals, in the same way as everybody understands that the Animal right movement is about the rights of non-human animals. The article "Animal testing" is also clearly understood by everybody to refer to non-human animals - it would be equally silly to say "Other animal testing" or "Non-human animal testing". Here, the intellectual "rigor" that would be invoked to justifiy the choice of a title such as "Other animals" verges on actually intellectual rigidity, and the presumption that readers are stupid.
Dessources (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Please get consensus at WT:MEDMOS. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I am invoking WP:MEDMOS rules to revert from "Other animals" to "Animals", since the first title may confuse readers into thinking that two kinds of (non-human) animals are discussed in the article, and that the section deals with the second kind. I think we should stick to the simple, common-sense, plain language and usage-based "Animals" to designate non-human animals in obeyance of the following two rules of WP:MEDMOS: "Write for the average reader and a general audience—not professionals or patients." and "Use plain English".
Dessources (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide the exact text that supports this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See box entitled "This page in a nutshell" at top of the MEDMOS page ([67]).
See also under Common pitfalls on the same page ([68]) the following points:
  • "Wikipedia is written for the general reader. ... Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, they are not the target audience."
  • (Example of pitfalls:) "You use jargon when there are suitable plain English words" - Here, assuming that the word animal includes humans while virtually all readers will interpret the word as meaning non-human animals is taking the word with its technical jargon meaning.
The Wikipedia article on Animal states that "In everyday colloquial usage, the word (animal) usually refers to non-human animals." This is the way the word is understood by the general reader. This understanding is acknowledged throughout Wikipedia in the articles I mentioned above (Animal rights, Animal testing, Animals and tobacco smoke). But the list could be extended with a lot of other entries, such as Animal law, Animal testing regulations, Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, Cruelty to animals, Animal welfare, Animal-liberation movement, etc. All these articles refer, without ambiguity, to non-human animals. I contend that the use of the title "In animals" in the body of the passive smoking article is similarly void of ambiguity, while, on the other hand, replacing this title with "In other animals" would puzzled most readers and create an ambiguity, thus achieving the exact ipposite effect than what was sought.
Dessources (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
You could propose making this change to the guideline on the talk page their if you wish.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
What change? Please explain.
Dessources (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Here it states "In other animals" [69] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We have an established consensus documented at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes which gives suggestions for section headings, and it is normal to use those headings for medical articles. In this case the suggestion is In other animals as is used in many other articles falling under the scope of WikiProject Medicine. The section headings are not compulsory, but using different ones from the Manual of Style will always beg the question, "Why should this article be different?". James is pointing out the (cogent) argument you make above is not to make this article an exception, but to challenge the general recommendation, and therefore ought to be made at the talk page Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. If it is accepted as valid, then it would apply to all our "Diseases or disorders or syndromes" articles. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! It does help.
Dessources (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Having looked at the examples at [70], I understand the motivation for a well structured list of sections, with standard section headings. However, I think the Passive smoking article does not belong to such category. If one had an article entitled "Health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke", I would probably consider the article sufficiently medically focused to put it in such a category. However, the Passive smoking article is of much more general nature, and deals with a lot of issues - even the majority of issues - which are not medical, but social, sociological, economic and political. The article should therefore be considered to be aimed at a much larger audience, and I think it is not correct to subject it to strict rules that act as a straight jacket and make its reading less natural to this general audience. This means that for me, the rule "Wikipedia is written for the general reader" takes precedence over the internal Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes convention. I don't think it necessary to make an exception to the convention: I simply think the convention is not fully applicable in the case of this article. I still plead for "In animals" in the context of the Passive smoking article.
Do you have other examples of actual articles where this "In other animals" title is used?
Dessources (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
A Google search for 'site:en.wikipedia.org "In other animals‎" ' gives 6,900 hits. Not all of those will be section titles, but those hits which read 'Jump to In other animals‎:' are showing the navigation link to a section with that title. Of the first 20 hits, 16 match that, so I'd guess perhaps 5,000 or so articles have In other animals as a section header. By no means all of them are diseases or conditions, but just about all of them are medical/anatomical. It is worth pointing out that it is difficult for a medical article to become a Featured article without complying with the Manual of Style (MOS), as that is one of the FA criteria. Most Good medical articles would also be very likely to conform to the MOS. I understand your argument above, but it's not convincing me that it's making a case for having this article as an exception to what is very common practice here. On the other hand, it's pretty small beer in the grand scheme of things. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Note, however, something interesting. A Google search for 'site:en.wikipedia.org "In animals‎" gives access to a lot of Wikipedia articles which have, in their title, "in animals" (while you get none which have "in other animals" in their title. And checking the first batch, one can see that "animal" means for the majority of them "in non human animals". So there will be an inconsistency between the usage of the word "animal" in article titles and section titles. Something that will have to be fixed.
Dessources (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The title of the article (Passive smoking) is already in violation of the first WP:MEDMOS rules, which states that "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term." Clearly, passive smoking is not the recognized medical term that is most commonly used in recent medical sources. "Exposure to tobacco smoke," "exposure to secondhand smoke" or "environmental tobacco smoke" are much more frequently found in the medical litterature than "passive smoking".
As per the change of the section title from "In animals" to "In other animals", the anomaly with such a change is that it is an isolated application of a larger principle in a context where this larger primciple does not apply or is not applied (the larger principle being here the WP:MEDMOS rules). It would therefore be wiser to stick to the advice contained in WP:MEDMOS at [71]: "The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors." So I suggest that the change be postponed until the article is completely rewritten to fit the WP:MEDMOS guidelines.
Dessources (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I vote the name of the section is titled Animals other than humans and tobacco smoke or Non-humans and tobacco smoke or even maybe Marsupials and tobacco smoke, and in reply to the straw-man argument about the title of the article, passive smoking is the accepted terminology, though you may hear people say second-hand smoke, the term is officially passive smoking[3].

Skeptical views of Prof. Philippe Even, ("world-renowned pulmonologist")?

Is this guy credible?

http://smokingoutthetruth.com/philippe-even/

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Even (He doesn't appear in English Wikipedia)

I expected to see him mentioned in this article.

Thanks! Glueball (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A blog that likes what he has to say (and labels him a "world-renowned pulmonologist") is not a reliable source. WP:MEDRS applies to this article. If the professor has something published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject, we might have something to include. For someone "world-renowned, it's surprising I find nothing he's published. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To know more about Philippe Even, read the article about him in the French Wikipedia article. If he deserves the qualification of being "world-renowned" it's not for his scientific achievement (he has virtually zero publication in peer-rewiewed journals). In October 1985, he, and two other of his colleagues, organized a press conference in a rush, in the presence of the French Minister of Health, at which they announced that they had discovered a cure for AIDS. They had a few days before administered ciclosporin, an immunosuppressant drug, to two AIDS patients, without their informed consent, and bypassing the ethics committee; they rushed the announcement because they wanted to "get a head start on the Americans". Philippe Even and his colleagues had no evidence whatsoever that the drug, which they obtained illegally, would work - they based their decision to use it on speculations from an unpublished PhD thesis, in which the author said that ciclosporin could be used to study AIDS in vitro. The two patients died within days of the administration of the "miracle" drug. The whole affair caused a huge scandal that threw a great deal of international discredit on French science. All the above information is simply the Englsih translation of information found in section "Le scandale de la ciclosporine" in the French Wikipedia article, which is fully sourced - in particular the story appeared in scientific magazine Science et Vie, No. 820, January 1986 (see [72]). See also article in Time Magazine, Nov. 11, 1985 Medicine: Furor Over an AIDS Announcement. Since this event, Philippe Even has become kind of a disgruntled contrarian scientist. Dessources (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh, that's a surprisingly dramatic story. Anyone else thinks he deserves a write up on English Wikipedia? I think it would be useful, since a lot of mentions on English pages / blogs / comments, are from second-hand smoke skeptics. Oh, and I don't know French. Glueball (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A more elegant solution

The illuminating discussion above suggested that a straightforward move-and-redirect swap did not meet with universal approval, but also revealed that the two terms 'second-hand smoke' and 'passive smoking' are not actually direct synonyms; second-smoke is a substance, whereas passive smoking is the exposure to it. As definitions of both are available and can be referenced, a more encyclopaedic solution to what appears from the record to have been a recurrent debate may be to move on from a false dichotomy and have some content (expanding on those definitions) on both pages, with links between them. Ideas, opinions on this? It's not a proposed move in the normal sense, but as there has been some controversy it looks appropriate to try to discuss it here first.Hypocaustic (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Update - from a further scan of all the literature this looked the sensible way to go - moving on from a false dichotomy and recognising that both terms (passive smoking and second-hand smoke) have specific and subtly different meanings which both need to be glossed in Wikipedia. Major update and edit made as a result, as well as some specific further references about the definition of passive smoking being added. It is not a swap-and-redirect page move, and I suggest that the contributions from Wikipedians here should continue to be acknowledged. Comments and proposed improvements very welcome, as ever.Hypocaustic (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Response: No Cross Porpoises, I didn't. There was indeed a consensus not to carry out a simple transfer-and-redirect move, and I have of course respected this. As I have laid out above, reading around the subject reveals that although the terms passive smoking and second-hand smoke are sometimes used as if they were synonyms, they are subtly but importantly different. There is therefore a good argument for an encyclopaedia to cover both, and to explain the connection. Wikipedia now does so. Please don't indulge in knee-jerk reverts of edits which you have not fully understood; your enthusiasm is great, but you need to read about, consider and explore the issues to be helpful here. Thanks.Hypocaustic (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The current situation, with Second-hand smoke being a virtually identical article to this one, presents excessive and unnecessary duplication. I can see nothing in the latter article which should not be addressed by a redirect to this one. Although it is not a content fork in the sense of espousing a different view, it is certainly a waste of space, and likely to confuse readers who go from that article to this one. bd2412 T 04:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Coming here from a notice at WPMED. There has not been a substantive case made justifying a content fork. Until such time as the editors who created this page agree on it, such a copypaste is not only a technical wp:copyvio but is also unnecessarily wp:POINTY. I urge Hypocaustic to self-revert that action and continue discussion, then abide by the consensus formed.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Here from the same place as LeadSong and second his position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2012

The claim that second hand smoke claims 49,000 lives a year is highly questionable. Of six pathologists asked. None of them had ever put secondhand smoke as a cause or secondary cause of death. Yet all had pt pancreatic cancer down before. which claims 33,000 lives a year.

71.238.140.102 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done:The claim of 53,000 deaths a year is sourced to this scholarly review article, a seemingly reliable source. If you want to dispute it, you need to refer to another reliable source, not your own original research or conjecture. In any case, you seem to be making a logical error. Passive smoking increases the risk of dying from many different diseases; it is not a direct cause of death in its own right. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the source cited claims that SHS is estimated to kill 53,000 people who live with smokers or are otherwise regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. Because, as the wikipedia article explains, "Harm to bystanders was perceived as a motivator for stricter regulation of tobacco products," the term "non-smokers" is an insufficient description in this context. Spouses of smokers, for example, are non-smokers but not "bystanders." Children of smokers are both bystanders and non-smokers, but they are regularly ignored in a legislative context. This destinction is regularly elided in the article.

Review articles are only as reliable as their sources, which are often not the original empirical research. The cited article refers to "10 epidemiological studies, conducted in a variety of locations, that reflect about a 30% increase in risk of death from ischemic heart disease or myocardial infarction among nonsmokers living with smokers." Doubtless the physicians who composed the linked source would be quick to correct the mangling of their carefully worded work. Using an article this way is like a game of telephone.

-wood0465 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.50.141 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Increased risk in an epidemiological study rarely infers anywhere close to that increased danger or concern among the general public. The 30% is actually a .3 increase over 1 or no risk with all confounding elements estimated to represent the starting point at 1` with another .7 required to climb to a 50-50 chance that a risk exists at all. The general public is not well informed in this, or the over used phrase "significant increase" which to the Public perception would raise concerns that are not well founded. In epidemiological terms the possible results indicate whether or not the starting point is included in the range of possible outcomes by testing the model, making them significant or non significant respectively. The spin and levels of misconceptions associated with this agenda driven topic are well beyond the taking of sides between the tobacco industry shills and the equally nefarious drug industry shills. Taking sides affects the common good our quality of life and our continued future as accommodation and compassionate individuals. WIKI is not the place for such arguments and the page needs to be removed in it's entirety, primarily because it supports one side of a controversy which divides communities deeply, but more for the lack of factual information which reads more like an ad for smoking patches than anything balanced or evidence based.

Claiming Stanton Glanz is a reliable source of information, speaks volumes here. His claim that endothelial dysfunction is the reasoning behind his "53,000" claim is controversial at best. "Endothelial Dysfunction" is the reason your mom tells you not to go swimming for an hour after lunch. It is the process of normal human physiological functions at work, adjusting heart rate and blood flow during the actions of digestion. A big Mac creates endothelial dysfunction, as does going from an air conditioned room into the heat outdoors. It is temporary normal and nothing that should be associated with the development of heart disease, if not for inciting irresponsible fears among the general Public. For which, I might add; Mr. Glanz a man who would likely faint at the sight of bleeding,is paid handsomely to perform. 64.56.250.14 (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

World Health Organization controversy

The section talks about conspiracies by the tobacco industry, and has a WHO statement that the conclusions of the report were completely misrepresented in popular press. From the study:

ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS.

An OR 0.78 equals an inverse OR of 1.28, showing an inverse relationship between exposure and cancer risk. The effect is stronger than the 1.16 and 1.17 they found in the other cases. And it's the only result significant at the 95% confidence level. I wouldn't mind if they called it a fluke, but to ignore it, or say that it was misrepresented is intellectual dishonesty. Seems to me that the facts in this case discredit the WHO. Real scientists look for explanations, they don't ignore inconvenient results.

And for wikipedia to report on this "controversy over the WHO's alleged suppression of data" without mentioning the data seems a bit ironic. I see a similar bias in the radon article: There it says about radon progenies:

Because of their electrostatic charge, radon progenies adhere to surfaces or dust particles. ... The equilibrium factor is also lowered by air circulation or air filtration devices, and is increased by airborne dust particles, including cigarette smoke. In high concentrations, airborne radon isotopes contribute significantly to human health risk.
If you read the next page of the reference, it states: the unattached particles have much higher mobility and can more effectively deposit in the respiratory tract. Which in theory could explain the anomalous results in the WHO study. But the way it's presented, one would assume that smoke causes increased exposure to radon progenies. Cases of confirmation bias maybe? Ssscienccce (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I added the main results from the report. These read in verbatim:

"Statistically significant results were the reduced risk from childhood exposure and the increasing trend in risk for weighted duration of exposure to ETS from the spouse or at the workplace."

As noted before, of all the results in the report, only the childhood exposure numbers reached statistical significance at the 95% confidence level. Ssscienccce (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


This is a terribly difficult section from the perspective of clarity. The problem, of course, is that the WHO found "weak" evidence, but evidence nonetheless that ETS is a low-level carcinogen, and still the Tobacco Industry sought to discredit the results in spite of the "low" RR. However, I think, without reading the sources, it is difficult to understand that the Tobacco Industry did not affect the actual results of the study but only the perception of those results and did so precisely because it was not possible to "to cancel or influence the expected monograph through IARC’s donor countries." (Who Inquiry, pg 212.) The section should have a brief introductory paragraph outlining the WHO findings, which were not as strong as expected by the public, but in-line with scientific expectations, while also pointing out that the Tobacco Industry preempted the study's release by pushing for unrealistic expectations. Secondly, there is no reason for this study or the following EPA section to fall under the heading of "Industry-funded studies and critiques" (which also requires an explanatory paragraph).Andwats (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the study found SHS exposure in childhood to decrease the risk of lung cancer as the only statistically relevant result, and the WHO not mentioning this. Given that the inclusion of these results in the article is impossible because editors seem more concerned about giving out the right message, I'll just add this to my list of ideologically tainted wikipedia articles. Ssscienccce (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


Yeah this article needs review, especially the WHO section. It is obviously. The research showed no evidence of causation for children, and a statistically insignificant correlation for adults. 71.41.61.87 (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

lead section needs work

Here are two specific problems with the first paragraph:

  1. The statement "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death." is too strong.
  2. The sentence "The health risks of second-hand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus" is unnecessary.

As regards point 1, it makes it sound like any exposure will cause such problems.

Here is a continuum of similar statements, on a scale from "rabidly anti-smoking" to "rabidly pro-smoking":

  • Exposure to even small amounts of second-hand tobacco smoke will cause disease, disability, and death.
  • Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke will cause disease, disability, and death.
  • Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.
  • Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and death.
  • Studies have shown that exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and death.
  • Some studies have shown that exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and death.
  • Some studies have shown that exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and death, but they're bogus.

The current wording, though not rabidly anti-smoking, strikes me as still being biased. I am going to adjust it one notch closer to the middle.

As regards point 2, any and all Wikipedia articles present truths arrived at by scientific consensus; the parallels between scientific consensus and NPOV are many, and not accidental. But there's no need to explicitly say, in a lead paragraph, that something represents scientific consensus -- doing so just sounds defensive and shrill. That there are references to back up this statement is good, but they should be moved to the main text of the article. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding point #1, NPOV and OR require that we should follow the wording of the sources, which state "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke", "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability" etc. Substituting your own wording against what is in the source goes against our our policies. Regarding point #2, there is an entire section discussing the scientific consensus, so it naturally fits into the lead per WP:LEAD. I see nothing shrill about pointing out that there is a consensus, it is just stating a fact. Yobol (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Instead of saying you see nothing shrill, why not listen to all the people who say they do?
We're not writing for you, we're writing for all the people who will come and read this page, most for the first time.
Yesterday, I was one of those people, and I've described my reaction, and it doesn't look like I'm the first.
You do your readers (and what I assume is your argument) a disservice by insisting on this non-neutral presentation, no matter how often you assert that a reliable source backs you up. WP:RS says that you have to have reliable sources for what you say, but just because you have a reliable source doesn't mean you have to say something, or in a certain way. —Steve Summit (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand you think it is non-neutral, but as we are not writing for me alone, we are not writing for you either alone either. I acknowledge you feel it is non-neutral, but as you have not presented any sources or policy based arguments as to why you think it is "shrill", I see no point in arguing this further here, as that is what this page is for. I will open up a new topic on WT:MED to get outside input from those who regularly edit medical articles. Yobol (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for these acknowledgements. I agree that it's not just you and not just me; that's why it's important to note that others have raised the same concerns I have. For example, the NPOV tag was placed back in May. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide proper references per WP:MEDRS to justify the POV concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Steve thinks the WP:LEAD only focuses on the "sins" of the tobacco industry, instead of proportionally summarizing the entire article. If so, Steve please suggest or make improvements by following our guideline and summarizing the entire article. I would support the text "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and death". I agree we could maybe just state the facts instead of mentioning scientific consensus, but I tend to think that is an editorial issue, not a POV issue. Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You can call it an editorial issue if you like. The article seemed to me, on first reading, to be trying too hard, to be too defensive, to be the one-sided shadow of a massive former POV war between the forces of anti and pro smoking... except the pro side is gone, such that all the defensiveness and "no, really, *our* side is right" machinations are unnecessary and distracting.
Yobol keeps asking me what I mean by "shrill". Another way to explain it is that the article doth seem to protest too much, methinks. —Steve Summit (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, another tobacco-related argument over the meaning of the word "cause". (Excuse me for being cynical.) Regarding this statement: "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death" four references are given. I do not believe that the first reference supports the statement. This isn't helped by the absence of a page number in a 42-page document. The second reference seems to be a broken link. The third reference is helpful. It states "ETS causes developmental toxicity", "ETS exposure produces a variety of acute effects involving the upper and lower respiratory tract", and "Reviews ... concluded that ETS causes lung cancer." Several other diseases are noted to have a "causal association". The fourth reference is incorrectly titled and links to a web page with a series of pdf downloads. The main document is 1,473 pages long. Without any page numbers used in the reference, this is particularly poor referencing. I have not wasted my time trying to look for the supporting statement.

In summary, of the four references provided, one does not support the statement, two are not verifiable, and only one actually supports it, although even here the verifiability is questionable. The referencing requires clean-up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Page 8 from Source #1 (WHO): "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." From Source #2 (Surgeon General report) page #9 "Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke." Agree that referencing with page numbers would be more helpful. Yobol (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The WHO source does not explicitly state "environmental tobacco smoke", "second-hand smoke" or "passive smoking". Its statement could be inferred to include active smoking. Therefore I do not believe that it supports a causal relationship regarding passive smoking. At the time that I looked for the second reference, the website was down. It appears to be back up now. Thank you for pointing out the relevant text. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
A surgeon general report seems OK but I think we should ideally cite a medical journal. I'm going to remove the extraneous sources. Biosthmors (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
CDC source says "Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).1 Some of the health conditions caused by secondhand smoke in adults include heart disease and lung cancer." American Cancer Society says "Secondhand smoke causes cancer" and "Secondhand smoke causes other kinds of diseases and deaths", WHO says "Scientific evidence has firmly established that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS), a pollutant that causes serious illnesses in adults and children." Yobol (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a page from WHO directly addressing ETS [73] "There is clear scientific evidence of an increased risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to SHS. This increased risk is estimated at 20% in women and 30% in men who live with a smoker (2). Similarly, it has been shown that non-smokers exposed to SHS in the workplace have a 16 to 19% increased risk of developing lung cancer (3). The risk of presenting lung cancer increases with the degree of exposure. The Californian Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) estimates that SHS causes 3000 deaths each year due to lung cancer in non-smokers." We must keep in mind that the lead simply summarizes the body of the text and that second hand smoke causes disease, disability and death is established there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is amazing how many comments were posted on this issue before someone mentioned the specific groups affected according to the studies referenced. "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and death" is not an accurate summary of the information presented. "Regular or prolonged exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and death" would be a more accurate summary. The lead in for this article suggests that patrons of establishments which allow smoking, patrons of establishments with smoking sections or even people standing near smokers outside would have a notably increased risk of lung cancer, etc. Based on the sources here, this is not supported by scientific research. A claim that water, air and food can cause disease, disability and death would be just as accurate if not more so. The amount/type of exposure is integral to the data summarized. Also, the WHO claim that there is "no safe level of exposure" refers to three other summary sources (14, 15 and 54), which are not, themselves, scientific studies. Without specific data the word "safe" has no meaning. Even a lifetime of living in a 100% SHS free environment does not eliminate the possibility of death by lung cancer or other conditions that are much more common among smokers. There is "no safe level of exposure" to life, so the numbers are important here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.204.39 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not what "no safe level of exposure" means. It simply means that any increase in dose is accompanied by an increased response, without a minimum threshold dose. A single DNA molecule's mutation can trigger the disease, and that mutation can be caused by contact with a single mutagenic molecule. Thus, any increase in the dose increases the risk of a cancerous mutation. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
If it meant that, it would say that. If the source referenced means that risk varies with exposure, then a less misleading quote would be appropriate. The phrase "no safe level of exposure" is clearly being used here to imply that any level of SHS exposure is qualitatively more dangerous than no exposure. This implication ignores dozens if not hundreds of unknown variables that affect the likelyhood that anyone not exposed to secondhand smoke would develop a condition related to smoking. If there is "no safe level of exposure," but not being exposed at all is also unsafe, then the phrase "no safe level of exposure" is meaningless. It is clear that "no safe level of exposure" does not mean that "any increase in dose is accompanied by and increased response," or you wouldn't have had to explain the quote. If you want to put that phrase in the intro, I support it wholeheartedly. The "single DNA molecule's mutation" theory, while compelling, is not based on clinical data because there is no way to find the original mutated cell in clinical trials. All we know is what we've measured, and the sources referenced do not measure anything, they refer to each other and to studies that have measured the effect of SHS on regularly expposed subjects. Theoretically marijuana should give a greater risk of lung cancer than tobacco based on the method of inhalation and the number of carcinogens, but thanks to clinical studies we know it doesn't even come close. Clinical studies are appropriate sources, political organizations like the WHO are not. 70.171.204.39 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LeadSongDog's definition of "no safe level of exposure" (although I'm not sure that "a single DNA molecule's mutation can trigger the disease").

" The phrase "no safe level of exposure" is clearly being used here to imply that any level of SHS exposure is qualitatively more dangerous than no exposure. This implication ignores dozens if not hundreds of unknown variables that affect the likelyhood that anyone not exposed to secondhand smoke would develop a condition related to smoking. "

Yes, both of those statements are true. This article is about "passive smoking".

" If there is "no safe level of exposure," but not being exposed at all is also unsafe, then the phrase "no safe level of exposure" is meaningless. "

That's not true. LeadSongDog has already given the correct definition. This source confirms the statement with respect to passive smoking. This source gives a more explicit definition, although not specific to passive smoking.

I am surprised that you do not consider the WHO to be appropriate as a source. WP:MEDRS gives guidelines regarding reliability of sources, and WHO is explicitly called out as reliable. You can choose to try to gain consensus to overrule this, but I suspect that you would be unsuccessful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the WHO is not as reliable as their sources' sources. The document linked here, as I have mentioned, actually refers to other non-empirical sources which, themselves, may not refer to empirical data. The guidelines you refer to list sources like this last after "general or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher." Since, as far as I'm aware, none of these sources document health risk for minimal exposure to second hand smoke, that should be a sign that the WHO is misrepresenting their data in the same fashion as this article does when it transposes the risk varies with exposure variable model with an absolute statement like "no safe level" or a vague statement like "exposure can cause." This is a big enough issue that we should use the best, most pertinent and most accurate sources rather than merely those that are acceptable and easy to link on the web. If there is any scientific data that shows a relationship between casual exposure to secondhand smoke and smoking related disease, it should be referenced here. Politicians, not for profit managers and physicians are not scientists and their knowledge is meant to be based on empirical research rather than a substitute for it. Becuase the notes in the WHO document do not refer to primary sources, this particular quote would be a tertiary source. Under the guidelines you mention, we should be using a primary or secondary source, not the tertiary source that is the WHO's statement that there is "no safe level." 70.171.204.39 (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the source you linked is also a tertiary source. It references a surgeon general's report, which is at best a secondary source and more likely would be found to refer to another secondary source. The only answer to my criticism under the guideline cited here is to either cite a primary source (clinical research) that makes this connection or to cite a source that refers to such a clinical study. The clinical studies on this wikipedia page currently document only the effects on employees of smoking establishments, spouses of smokers, and, most importantly, the children of smokers.70.171.204.39 (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The WHO report states "Scientific evidence has firmly established that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke." I believe that the WHO report is a reliable source. I am not going to check all of the WHO's references. I note that you haven't provided any references that state a safe level of secondhand smoke exposure. I do not believe that any further dialogue between us will be productive. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I have already checked their references, as I have mentioned they are citation numbers 14, 15 and 54. It seems like you should have done so before you replied to my criticism of the page. It is not necessary to prove that there IS a safe level of second hand smoke, because the wikipedia article doesn't claim that. You can get as uptight as you want, but the guidelines that you yourself brought up caution against sources such as "public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." This is the only section where the WHO is mentioned and it is not "called out as reliable," in fact the opposite is true. If you have a problem with Wikipeida's standards, then you probably shouldn't have brought them up. 70.171.204.39 (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you prefer the conclusion of the SCOTH 2004 update?:

SCOTH’s conclusion is that knowledge of the hazardous nature of SHS has consolidated over the last five years, and this evidence strengthens earlier estimates

of the size of the health risks. This is a controllable and preventable form of indoor air pollution. It is evident that no infant, child or adult should be exposed to SHS. This update confirms that SHS represents a substantial public health hazard. It's not clear what wording (and associated references) that you are seeking to insert.

LeadSongDog come howl! 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is evident that no infant, child .. should be exposed to SHS. Evident from what? Do you have a source that shows that the negative impact of SHS on children is more important than the decrease in lung cancer risk associated with childhood exposure as shown by the 2001 study? Or do you prefer to ignore that evidence, just like the WHO does? Ssscienccce (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What I want to see is language in the lead in to this article that reflects the primary sources that are already referenced, which refer to heavy exposure samples (bar employees, housemates of smokers, etc.). Consider the following claims; "exposure to sunlight can cause disease, disability, and death," "consumption of fast food can cause disease, disability, and death," "exposure to x-rays can cause disease, disability, and death." Each one is either as true or more true than "exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and death." The reason that in all these other cases the claim would be moderated with an adjective like "heavy" or "regular" but this claim is not is that this article is serving a political agenda, just like the WHO. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to "control" or "prevent" anything, but to relate information from reliable, empirical, scientific sources without bias. 70.171.204.39 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

On a more personal note, if you are looking to prevent harm to infants and children, you are on the wrong side of this debate. Widespread ignorance about the actual effects of second hand smoke has allowed cowardly politicians to "protect" the public from something that doesn't endanger the majority of them unless they choose to patronize smoking establishments, while avoiding the prickly issue of reaching into smokers homes and protecting children. Granted this is off topic, but you played the "won't somebody think of the children" card first. 70.171.204.39 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability (Rep. No. 027-000-01251-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437)
  2. ^ Kessler, Gladys (August 17, 2006). "United States of America v. Philip Morris et al" (PDF). United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Retrieved 2007-07-29.
  3. ^ Adlkofer F (2001). "Lung cancer due to passive smoking--a review". Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 74 (4): 231–41. PMID 11401014.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Passive_smoking/Archive_3&oldid=1090574434"