SHS and Cancer Risk

[Vocalek]

Research that seeks to prove a causal relationship between one thing and another often expresses the results as "Relative Risk." Relative Risk is a ratio of the probability of the event in the exposed group versus a non-exposed group.

If, for example, you wanted to determine whether smoking causes a particular type of cancer, you would look at the cancer rates for non-smokers and compare that to the rate for smokers. The Relative Risk for the non-smokers = 1.0. If the RR for smokers were 1.5, this indicates that smoking increases the risk by 50%. If the RR were 2.0, then smoking would double the risk. If the RR for smokers were 0.8, this would indicate that smoking reduced the risk by 20%. Following?

A lot more goes into determining whether the results are statistically significant. How many cases are being considered? In general, the larger the sample size, the more accurate the measurement. Were other possible causal factors (e.g., exposure to asbestos) considered? Do the results differ by age or gender?

There are a number of problems in a simplistic application of RR...For these reasons most scientists (which includes scientifically inclined epidemiologists) take a fairly rigorous view of RR values. In observational studies, they will not normally accept an RR of less than 3 as significant and never an RR of less than 2. Likewise, for a putative beneficial effect, they never accept an RR of greater than 0.5. Sometimes epidemiologists choose to dismiss such caution as an invention of destructive sceptics, but this is not the case.

RR

All that being said, in looking for evidence of the relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer, I came across this rather long document. http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/m10_7.pdf

When I found this table, I was very surprised at how small the Relative Risk numbers were. In some cases, there was even a negative effect (exposer to SHS appeared to be slightly protective against cancer.) In the one case where a large effect was seen (RR 7.01) there were only 4 cases.

 

[dordas23]

Hi Vocalek. If you haven't read "Velvet glove, iron fist" by Christopher Snowdon, you might want to have a look at it. He thoroughly discusses the "science" involved in the SHS studies - the bottom line is that there is no proof that second hand smoke harms people.

 

[Zal42]

the bottom line is that there is no proof that second hand smoke harms people.

True. Although far from proven, there is some indication that there may be a link of some sort but the available studies make it very clear that any causal link, if it exists, is very small. So small as to be well below other environmental hazards that we all readily accept (car exhaust, etc.)

However, this is a battle I long ago gave up on. People have it so cemented that SHS is as bad as (or worse!) than smoking that thee's no amount of evidence that will alter their position. I still mention that SHS is, at best, a trivial environmental hazard when the subject comes up, but let it go at that.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

 

[ctourtelot]

I've always believed that the second hand smoke issue is more of a "I don't like what you're doing and it smells" issue.

 

[Zal42]

I've always believed that the second hand smoke issue is more of a "I don't like what you're doing and it smells" issue.

I think that "I hate your smoking stench, please don't do it near me" is actually a valid complaint and reasonable request. No SHS argument is required. Unless, of course, you want to legislate: for that, you need to show that people are being actually harmed rather than just annoyed.

SHS is a classic case of "we want to make this illegal, let's use science-y talk to make that possible." It is the single strongest indicator to me that the antis are deceptive and dishonest in their argumentation.

 

[GMoney]

Research that seeks to prove a causal relationship between one thing and another often expresses the results as "Relative Risk." Relative Risk is a ratio of the probability of the event in the exposed group versus a non-exposed group.

If, for example, you wanted to determine whether smoking causes a particular type of cancer, you would look at the cancer rates for non-smokers and compare that to the rate for smokers. The Relative Risk for the non-smokers = 1.0. If the RR for smokers were 1.5, this indicates that smoking increases the risk by 50%. If the RR were 2.0, then smoking would double the risk. If the RR for smokers were 0.8, this would indicate that smoking reduced the risk by 20%. Following?

A lot more goes into determining whether the results are statistically significant. How many cases are being considered? In general, the larger the sample size, the more accurate the measurement. Were other possible causal factors (e.g., exposure to asbestos) considered? Do the results differ by age or gender?

RR

All that being said, in looking for evidence of the relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer, I came across this rather long document. http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/m10_7.pdf

When I found this table, I was very surprised at how small the Relative Risk numbers were. In some cases, there was even a negative effect (exposer to SHS appeared to be slightly protective against cancer.) In the one case where a large effect was seen (RR 7.01) there were only 4 cases.

View attachment 32571

I thought this was widely known. The studies the FDA was flouting shown no evidence of relative risk as you have seen - they still came to the "conclusion" it was bad. There was even a Federal judge somewhere that stated the conclusion of the study was garbage(my synopsis).

This is why I cringe when well intentioned "vapers" say we just need to get the facts to the politicians and anti-smoking groups. These people will never allow any "facts" or scientific evidence to stand in the way of their agenda.

We need a much more concerted, multi-pronged effort if we have any chance at all. For starters, we need to sway sufficient public opinion to be able to convince politicians that they could lose their re-election bids if they are on the wrong side of this issue. The FDA and anti's have already started with their brilliant and insidious "e-cigs are anti-freeze campaign". Anyone who doesn't realize that this is not ignorance but a coordinated attack strategy is a bit naive.

 

[dee5]

Funny I should come across this thread today as there was a letter to the editor in my local newspaper this morning from a Dr, no less, stating the "facts" about SHS and how she has documented proof of how it causes cancer. Now I have an easy link for my rebuttal letter-thanks all!

 

[boochips]

Seems I read somewhere that SHS caused less than 1% of the pollution in the USA. Automobiles and factory farming cause the majority. Maybe people who don't like SHS should stop driving and stop eating meat?

 

[rothenbj]

Cigarette smoking is deadly, it's been proven because it stinks!

 

[Treece]

Hi Vocalek. If you haven't read "Velvet glove, iron fist" by Christopher Snowdon, you might want to have a look at it. He thoroughly discusses the "science" involved in the SHS studies - the bottom line is that there is no proof that second hand smoke harms people.

That's a big +1 on the Snowdon book.

And the federal judge GMoney is referring to is U.S. District Court Judge William Osteen, who concluded (among other things) that the EPA "publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" and "adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion."

Another eye-opener is this interview with pulmonologist and professor Philippe Even, former president of the Research Institute Necker. An excerpt:

Why would anti-tobacco organisations wave a threat that does not exist?

The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

Why not speak up earlier?

As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Philippe Even « Smoking out the Truth