Talk:Passive smoking/Archive 4

NPOV Tag
I just stumbled accross this page, and this argument, and I'm bothered by the way this POV issue is being handled. Everyone needs a referesher at WP:NPOV.

There is a dispute going on here, and the tag is appropriate until it has been satisfactorially resolved. The POV tag is not a badge of shame but an effort to attract other editors to the debate. There are many ways to handle this issue. One is to have a controvery section, another is for other editors to soften some of the language. Another is to create a fork article. What all of these have in common though is the need for outside input from editors that are new to the article. The POV tag's point is to accomplish this. It is not being added here as vandalism, and there is an active controversy. As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) there has not been a prior NPOV tag on here recently that's been resolved. The removal or addition of the POV tag is not a proxy for the actual neutrality itself. There is no legitimate reason for bickering over this tag. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you are wrong on most of these counts. While the tag is not intended to be a badge of shame, in practice it is. Sure, sometimes when a  tag is dropped, there is a legitimate POV issue which can be worked out on the talk page to everyone's satisfaction.  But sometimes the article already is written in accordance with WP:NPOV, and editors who disagree with the truth/mainstream view insist on maintaining the tag in order to cast doubt on the article and, by extension, the mainstream view. I won't say which category I believe the current situation falls in. Furthermore, forking articles and creating controversy/criticism sections are generally considered poor ways of dealing with POV issues. There may be some cases where it's best solution, but those will be rare.


 * The fact of the matter is that the most reliable, independent, and respected sources that are out there (e.g. the WHO, the surgeon general, the AMA, etc.) all say that passive smoking causes cancer, death, etc., and until they say otherwise, that's what this article should say. Being personally of the belief that the mainstream view is wrong does not give anyone the right to maintain tag atop a page, nor does it give one the right to expound upon their view in the article itself to a degree disproportionate to the weight the belief is expressed in reliable sources. Yilloslime (t) 23:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag says "the neutrality of the point of view ... is disputed." Well, it is.  Many of us dispute it.  I have given very reasonable arguments above that have not been answered satisfactorily, and they revolve around only a single sentence of this article!  The fact that you have quoted a few sources over and over does not put the matter beyond dispute.  Indeed, it would not even if those sources were as authoritative as you believe, and they are not.  The Surgeon General, the WHO and the EPA are not purely scientific bodies and each has an agenda it is serving.  Epidemiologists and journals are to be preferred over them in this case.  Galileo was not at all well respected when he said the earth revolved around the sun, but he had a logical argument that deserved to be addressed based on the facts, rather than by means of quoting "authoritative sources."  In this case, all of the primary articles are right there for you to view.  If you want to edit this article, I encourage you to do so, as I have.  But DO NOT remove the tag.  It belongs right where it is!  I will keep putting it back.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately your responses are not supported by wikipedia policy.


 * While the tag is not intended to be a badge of shame, in practice it is.


 * This is not the forum for a meta debate about wikipdia tags. The official policy is that NPOV tags should be used as every other tag is used: to bring issues to editors' attention. This is not the place to debate what the tag should mean either.


 * Furthermore, forking articles and creating controversy/criticism sections are generally considered poor ways of dealing with POV issues.


 * Forking is a poor way of resolving factual disputes within articles. Forking is an excellent way to accommodate viewpoints that will never be reconciled, which is the category it appears you believe fits here. I am unaware of any policy that indicates otherwise, although I would welcome it if you could point me towards some.


 * The above content debate needs to happening elsewhere too, as this piece is merely about the propriety of the tag.


 * Being personally of the belief that the mainstream view is wrong does not give anyone the right to maintain tag atop a page, nor does it give one the right to expound upon their view in the article itself to a degree disproportionate to the weight the belief is expressed in reliable sources.


 * I agree with you. However there is a bona fide dispute as to this article that needs to be dealt with, which is a bit different than the situation you're describing. This needs to be dealt with through the NPOV process/procedures. The POV tag is a way to indicate that. Shadowjams (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect you appear to be a relatively new user who has only dealt with reverting vandalism and making minor changes to articles. My experience in editing some fairly contentious articles is that while wikipolicy may say one thing, the tag is, in fact, a stigma, which can be--and often has been--easily abused by POV-pushers to impugn articles that they disagree with. I agree that that's not what it's official purpose is, but in reality, if you see any article with a big ole POV tag on it, you're going to scrutinize what it says a little more closely and be a bit more skeptical than if the tag wasn't there. And maybe the majority of time the tag is used properly, but I've seen plenty of cases where the tagging editor is completely irascible, and insists on maintaining the tag despite numerous editors going to great lengths to deal with the tagger's complaints. Unfortunately, if a tendentious editor is intent on maintaining the tag, they can claim ad infinitum that they still are just not satisfied, and that since they still disagree then there must still be an active dispute and thus the tag must stay. Hopefully that's not the way the tag is usually used, but it is used this way with distressing regularity. While it's easy to jump on the part of WP:NPOVD that says "in general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed," let's not forget how the LEDE says, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research and Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." This part is certainly less clear-cut when it comes to enforcement, but if editors aren't willing to abide this part of WP:NPOVD then the rest of the guideline has no useful meaning.
 * Now, I didn't want to get into a "meta debate about wikipdia tags" either, but you brought it up. I'm willing to let it drop if you are.
 * W/r/t to how the tag is being used here, I see SonofFeanor and various IPs he's using arguing that "cause" is some how misleading in his opinion, but what I don't see is him pointing to "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research and Biographies of living persons."Yilloslime (t) 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First off SonofFeanor, what specifically is wrong with the compromise I offered here? You restored the POV tag without explaining why my compromise is unsatisfactory to you. Second, please take a very close look at WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, particularly the subsections on primary, secondary, & tertiary sources and undue weight. What you propose above (relying on primary sources "[e]pidemiologists and journals" in preference to the SG, WHO, EPA) is specifically and strongly cautioned against in WP:PSTS. Yilloslime (t) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not see your proposed compromise. I think insertion of "can" is an improvement, but I think to list disability you really must still be able to say what disability you are talking about.  In any case, I could not remove the POV tag, as this is just the very first sentence I have trouble with in this article.  After we have moved through each problem, then the tag can be removed.  Now, I have looked at the link you provided, and apologize for using the terms "primary" and "secondary" incorrectly.  I am not referring to unpublished data or notes from researchers, but to studies published in journals with standard deviations and confidence intervals already calculated.  Surely these are secondary sources, though I called them primary before.  I agree it would be no good to cite data that could not be easily verified, nor even to offer my own calculations.  Even though I am a mathematician, I have no right to expect other editors or readers to be, nor to trust in my expertise.  But every study I mention is published in a peer reviewed journal and is available to anyone who is interested.SonofFeanor (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, "studies published in journals with standard deviations and confidence intervals already calculated" would be primary sources; reviews, meta-analyses, and risk assessments would be secondary sources; and encyclopedia articles would be tertiary sources. So what you want to do is still precluded by policy. And as a gesture of good-faith, you should bring all your problems with the article to table now. The one-at-time approach you are proposing is only going to protract the dispute resolution process and may lead those editors who disagree with you (such as myself) to conclude that you are more interested in maintaining the POV tag than actually improving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs) 01:51, February 3, 2009


 * "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims."  Studies are certainly one step removed from "the event."  They rely on the basic data to make analytic and evaluative claims.  This is sometimes known as a "Conclusions" section.  I cannot reasonably be expected to air all of my grievances with the article at once when I have spent several days unable to resolve even the first.  I have a job.  I am not holding back to maintain the POV tag.  I didn't even know what this tag was until a day or two ago.  Believe me, I would much rather get the article re-written than post the tag, which doesn't correct the problem.  I will try to address my other issues as I am able, but that is really all I can offer.SonofFeanor (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In science, a primary source is commonly understood to be a research paper. And if you can't take the time to defend your maintenance of the POV tag, then you really shouldn't using it. Yilloslime (t) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I was taking the time to defend my maintenance of the POV tag. Or what have I been doing all night?SonofFeanor (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's a problem with secondary sources that I see, and I am seriously seeking some assistance. The article basically states that the tobacco industry knew of the alleged harms of passive smoking some 30-35 years ago. This would include the objective opinion of Gladys Kessler (part of that is a joke). Anyway, all I can find is where the industry acknowledged that a perception of such a danger was a threat to their sales. This has been touched on in the past, but could anyone help with a primary source? Chido6d (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You could try searching out the court records for the lawsuit that the states conducted against the tobacco industry a few years ago. Basically, there is no hard evidence that the tobacco industry knew of the harms of passive smoking; what the court records show is evidence that the tobacco industry conducted scientific studies of the medical effects of breathing smoke - and that they then destroyed all the records of those studies. Of course, destroying evidence goes over badly in a court of law, which is one of the reasons the tobacco industry decided to pay the states $246 billion rather than go to trial on the case.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is undisputable evidence that the industry knew of the harms of passive smoking and tried to conceal what it knew by all possible means, including trying to erase the trail by destroying documents. But they failed - they obviously did not destroy all documents - even a copy of the secret note by Osdene instructing staff to destroy all documents coming from Germany was indadvertently kept at the end of an unrelated file, and has been made publicly available. If the tobacco industry has been found guilty on numerous times of conspiracy, fraud and racketeering, this was based on solid evidence rooted in the documents that have escaped destruction. One may only infer that, if the million of pages that have been destroyed were available, the court findings would have been even more damning for the industry, which is frigthening, given that what has been found is already horrendous.
 * --Dessources (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "sometimes the article already is written in accordance with WP:NPOV, and editors who disagree with the truth/mainstream view insist on maintaining the tag in order to cast doubt on the article and, by extension, the mainstream view." -Yilloslime


 * I'm sure it does happen, unfortunately; but after stumbling across this page, it became clear to me that there really is a controversy. It's one thing if one or two editors are insisting on keeping the tag, but what I see here is several intelligent people disputing the neutrality of the article. Something can be the mainstream view if 65% of people believe it. That doesn't mean that the opinions of the other 35% (and even informed non-authorities like all of us here, count) should be dismissed. And don't forget the tobacco industry.


 * "There is undisputable evidence that the industry knew of the harms of passive smoking and tried to conceal what it knew." --Dessources

The argument here is that the tobacco industry is evil, so they have no right to fund studies to defend themselves. I am a smoker, and I will agree that the tobacco companies are evil, but I don't blame them for my smoking. I think oil companies are evil, but I don't blame them for the fact that I have a car. I think Microsoft is evil, but guess which OS is delivering this message to you. Truth is, anyone with common sense already knew that inhaling smoke of any kind would not be good for you, but the issue at hand is how bad is it. From the studies I've seen, SHS poses a minimal danger to public health, dependent on concentration (that's why I believe in smoking bans in offices and other public places, but think that adult recreational places like bars and pool halls should have a right to choose for themselves). This is what the studies show, and this should be the overall statement of the article. Look at the article on smoking bans. That is an example of a NPOV article. It doesn't argue that SHS is harmless, but it does allow different viewpoints on policy. Most of the studies on SHS have shown a negative effect on health, but the extent varies greatly. That is where the debate is. And that is where this article fails to be neutral, by not examining the varying conclusions about the extent of the risk.


 * "I've seen plenty of cases where the tagging editor is completely irascible, and insists on maintaining the tag despite numerous editors going to great lengths to deal with the tagger's complaints. Unfortunately, if a tendentious editor is intent on maintaining the tag, they can claim ad infinitum that they still are just not satisfied, and that since they still disagree then there must still be an active dispute and thus the tag must stay."

What I see here is the opposite. I see a couple of irascible editors who insists on removing the tag despite numerous editors going to great lengths to make complaints, without first addressing those complaints. Fortunately, if an informed and reasonable editor is intent on having an unbiased article, they can re-write the whole thing, including all viewpoints, which would be hard for anyone to dispute.

What do you say SonofFeanor, you seem to be the most knowledgeable person here on this subject?

If anyone else agrees, please post something.

And Yillowslime, don't embarrass yourself by checking my profile, I haven't been a registered user very long, and haven't done much editing, but its clear to everyone that pointing out that sort of thing is a cheap shot that only a desperate person would use. Have some dignity.

The myoclonic jerk (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to create a controversy subarticle
As a newcomer to this article I found it too long, and swamped by its controversy section. I suggest creating a new article Passive smoking controversy to contain the material in Public opinion, Controversy over harms of passive smoking, and Tobacco industry response. This article could then have a brief summary of the new article. This is one area in medicine where a subarticle on the controversy seems to be well-justified: we have several peer-reviewed journal articles on the controversy itself. Eubulides (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The section should largely be split up into relative parts of the article e.g. Critiques of individual studies and epidemiology should be under Epidemiological studies to give them context not group the controversies. --Nate1481 12:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the content of Critiques of individual studies and epidemiology is almost entirely political: it focuses on promotion by partisans of individual studies. The partisanship and promotion are politics, not epidemiology, and so they would be completely out of place in  Epidemiological studies. The primary studies themselves (e.g., Enstrom & Kabat 2003, ) would also be out of place in  Epidemiological studies, because as per WP:MEDRS that section should be citing reliable secondary sources (of which there are plenty), not individual primary studies.
 * The idea of splitting off the politics and controversy in a separate subarticle works reasonably well in other controversial medical areas. Here are some examples I'm familiar with:
 * Autism and Controversies in autism
 * MMR vaccine and MMR vaccine controversy
 * Thiomersal and Thiomersal controversy
 * Vaccination and Vaccination controversy
 * Water fluoridation and Opposition to water fluoridation
 * There are many more like this; please see Category:Medical controversies. Passive smoking controversy would be another item in that category.
 * Eubulides (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, except that the article should be called Passive smoking denialism, following the AIDS denialism article as a model. Indeed, in the same way that there is overwhelming consensus between the causal link between HIV and AIDS, there is a similar overwhelming consensus regarding the fact that exposure to SHS causes disease, disability and death, and those denying that use approaches that are characteristic of denialism.
 * --Dessources (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Heterodoxy is not necessary "denialism." The link between HIV and AIDS is much stronger and statstically significant compared with that of passive smoke and serious disease.  Look at the examples of medical articles listed above.  The vaccine controversy, for example, is no greater than that of passive smoke.Ajax151 (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Creating a passive smoking controversy subarticle would be a good idea to streamline the main article. I don't think it should be called passive smoking denialism, though, since that would be assuming a particular POV. However, it should point out that there is really an artificial controversy here. In the legitimate medical field, the debate is over whether passive smoke is very dangerous, or extremely dangerous, and why the chemicals in it appear to be so toxic at such low levels. The people who deny it is dangerous at all are either working for the tobacco companies, or don't understand what the current medical research papers are saying.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also debate about what levels of exposure are harmful enough to worry about. There is little doubt that very heavy exposure is unhealthy.  But like I've repeatedly said, it is the dose that makes the poison.  And there is plenty of controversy over how much is too much within the legitimate medical field.  And don't tell me the "no safe level" bit, because even radiation has a safe (background) level. There are also controversies about effects on the risk of specific diseases (as opposed to risk of passive smoke in general) as some effects remain unproven.  But the biggest controversy involves what to do about passive smoke, often influenced by politics.  And even that can be considered part of the controversy for the purposes of a sub-articleAjax151 (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why "disability"
Disability is associated, in particular, with various chronic diseases. The most notable chronic diseases caused by exposure to secondhand smoke and that result in disability are asthma, cardiovascular diseases and pulmonary diseases.

--Dessources (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have answered this argument before, but again, it is not sound science to apply the syllogism [(A causes B) & (B is associated with C) -> (A causes C). This should be obvious, but an example from football may help to demonstrate. Points scored/game is positively correlated with points allowed/game. It is easy to see why. Teams that score a lot of points give their opponenets many chances to score. Points allowed/game is negatively correlated with winning percentage. But, surprise, points scored/game is NOT negatively correlated with winning percentage. Or, to offer an example for which I don't have the states immediately available, active smoking increases the risk of (you would say "causes") cancer. Cancer is, weakly, associated with adult incontinence, since prostate cancer can cause this result. But active smoking does not increase the risk of adult incontinence. So even if we could say that passive smoking "causes" the chronic diseases you mention (and that is not a correct use of that word in ANY frame of reference, which I will point out above as soon as I have some time) we can STIll not say it causes disability. We have had some agreement on that even from editors who typically edit only on the side of increasing the dangers of passive smoking. You may be sure that as soon as this article can be edited again, I will remove the reference to disability.SonofFeanor (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about football to get your analogy, but I think the argument you are advancing is that it would be WP:SYN to "to apply the syllogism [(A causes B) & (B is associated with C) -> (A causes C)." And I would agree, as WP:SYN states, "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research."
 * The thing is though, at least one source, namely the WHO (reference #1 in the article), actually uses the word "disability", so it's not WP:SYN at all for the article to use that same word. If other reliable sources say that ETS does not cause disability, then we can get into weighing one source against another, and trying to find language that reflects the difference in scientific opinion. But as far as I know, the statement is not contradicted by other reliable sources. Yilloslime (t) 18:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I feel I would be remiss if it did not point out that you actually can edit the article right now, you just have to be logged in. Only anonymous editing is disabled. Yilloslime (t) 18:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for letting me know that.


 * Now, we have come to the REAL argument. That quote is up there because the WHO says so.  And the Surgeon General.  But again, he says so and then cites the WHO.  It is just not right to think that both came up with exactly the same conclusions and stated them in exactly the same sentence.  That's not what happened.  So, again, the WHO says so.  I have read what wikipedia says about primary and secondary sources.  But it clearly does not mean that anything that is said in a secondary source can be written verbatim into an article without quotes, as though, rather than what is - a straightforward quote - it is our best estimate of the sum total of current scientific opinion.  The fact is that NO study examines the relationship of passive smoking to disability.  The WHO does not examine it either.  No statistics on disability are presented in its report.  It does not offer any kind a priori argument regarding passive smoking and disability, either.  It makes a single statment mentioning disability in the summary to put the most forbidding face on passive smoking that it possibly can.  It is not right to say this is "scientific opinion."  I have no problem with putting the quote in there and identifying it as such.  but that is really as far as we should go.SonofFeanor (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Two things: 1) I suspect that this boils down to what one considers to be a "disability". If you consider asthma to be a disability, then clearly there are a slew of studies connecting passive smoking to disability. If, on the other hand, you restrict disability to just things like blindness, loss of use of arms or legs, etc, then you are probably right about there not being any studies linking disability to ETS (but haven't actually checked). So what, exactly, are we talking about when we say "disability"?
 * 2) We are bound by what the sources say. We cannot second guess them. If there is a disagreement between reliable sources, then we can describe that disagreement, and if one source has been criticized by others we can certainly describe that criticism. So far, I haven't see any reliable sources that explicitly disagree with the WHO/SG or are critical of their use of the word "disability". I understand that you think their use of the word is inaccurate and politically motivated and their methodology flawed, but we need more to go on than your personal opinion. Yilloslime (t) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Asthma is not a disability (not that scientific evidence even shows that passive smoking causes asthma).SonofFeanor (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is hairsplitting. Whether we call asthma a "disease" or a "disability" isn't that important. "Disease" is probably the more commonly used term; "disability" is perhaps technically correct but less idiomatic. As a side note, there is ample evidence, cited in the article, that secondhand smoke exacerbates asthma. Please take the forcefully counterfactual assertions elsewhere and let's stick to the sources. MastCell Talk 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * MastCell, in general I have been impressed that you are one of the few editors in support of this article who is reasonable and objective. You should recognize that I have defended my comments on this page with sound science and logic, and have not made arbitrary and heavy handed edits to the article.  Indeed, you cited one of the edits as a good one.  That said, there is much that is wrong with the article and I don't have time to rigorously source all of my objecctions at once, which is why I have only attacked very small points, one at a time.  But just because I haven't gotten to a point and cannot yet edit it in the article, I am not going to honor it in my discussion.  Trust that I will get to it, and be satisfied that I have not yet done a thing to the article as regards it.  In this case, the Surgeon General says "the majority of confidence limits included 1. The pooled estimate was 1.23 (95 percent CI, 1.14–1.33), but there is evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (χ230 = 78.8, p <0.001). The studies reporting the highest ORs were more likely to be early publications that had small study populations and did not adjust for potential confounders"  in your own citation.  This is not consistent with "ample evidence."  I am not taking the time yet to go after this issue with evidence of publication bias, confounding variables, and alternative secondary sources, but I certainly plan to and do not intend to discuss asthma on this page as though the link to it were indisputable.SonofFeanor (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's my fault for being imprecise. There is ample evidence that secondhand smoke causes asthma exacerbations, as I stated above. You're correct in that the Surgeon General's report concluded that the evidence was suggestive (but not conclusive) that secondhand smoke caused new-onset asthma. (This is from Chapter 6 of the report). MastCell Talk 06:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition to reference [1] (the WHO FCTC text), reference [3] also mentions disability explicitly: "Regular workplace ETS exposure was associated with a greater risk of respiratory-related work disability (prevalence ratio 1.8; 95% CI 1.1-3.1), defined as self-reported change in job or leaving work due to affected breathing." (Part B, Chapter 6, Other Respiratory Effects). Disability is an important consequence of the morbidity associated with SHS exposure. See for example Quan Gan, Kirk R Smith, S Katharine Hammond, Teh-wei Hu "Disease burden of adult lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease from passive tobacco smoking in China" (Tobacco Control 2007;16:417-422; doi:10.1136/tc.2007.021477), where the disease burden associated with SHS exposure consists of both the premature mortality and disability caused by SHS. "Passive smoking caused more than 22 000 lung cancer deaths in 2002 according to these estimates. When the toll of disability is added to that of mortality, passive smoking was responsible for the loss of nearly 230 000 years of healthy life from lung cancer." (Results in Abstract) --Dessources (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that these so-called disabilities are self-reported, meaning that they were not likely diagnosed by any physician or verified whatsoever.Chido6d (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article
I found this articleexamining epidemiological integrity (as it relates to ETS) to be very interesting, and am open to suggestions as to where to work it in.Chido6d (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC) (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I too found the article of great interest as an example that contains many of the features charateristic of "SHS denialism". It would have its place in an article on "SHS denialism". There is a proposal to extract the "controversy" section and promote it to a full article on "SHS denialism".
 * --Dessources (talk) 10:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This would be an excellent idea, and would make even better use of the large volume of tobacco industry material supplied by (User talk:Chido6d) and other editors. As it is, the exposure of Enstrom and Kabat as industry hacks, and the various scare campaigns brought to light is useful. But a full scale article, with detailed coverage of Steven Milloy, FOREST and so on would really help to relate all this to the The Republican War on Science in general. Thanks for pointing this out.JQ (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than becoming rabid and stooping to other unsavory tactics, consider acknowledging the content of the article and the fact that it has been published in a respected journal. Why does your strongest argument seem to be an attempt to silence and vilify those who disagree with you? Chido6d (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article on "SHS denialism" will be based on reliable sources, following the standard practice of Wikipedia. A number of articles have been published in the professional and authoritative literature which describe the SHS denialism phenomenon. See for example:
 * Eye and heart at mortal war: coronaries and controversy in a smoke-free Scotland Martin Dockrell Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcome Res. (see also Coronaries And Controversy - The Impact of Smoke-free Legislation On Coronary Heart Disease article dated Feb. 6, 2009 in Medical News Today)
 * Denialism: What is it and how should scientits respond? P Diethelm and M McKee European Journal of Public Health 2009 19(1):2-4; doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139


 * These papers, published in well respected journals, describe denialism applied to SHS science. The article that Chido6d finds "excellent" offers indeed an excellent example of what is described in these papers. Resorting to insults like "rabid" to designate editors who point this out is not going to advance Chido6d's case by one iota.
 * --Dessources (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Martin Dockerell may be one of your heroes, but readers should know that he is the Head of Policy for a radical anti-tobacco group in the UK. I still haven't heard/read much about the content of the article cited above. It's sad (and speaks volumes to any thinking person) when the depth of your substance is the attacking of your opponents. And that's what it is.Chido6d (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. It looks like Martin Dockrell is clearly trying to impose a radical, unscientific, nanny-state agenda and we should disregard his work. I mean, a lesser person might read that link and conclude that his 20 years of activism for AIDS research and kids with asthma signal a dedication to public health, but I'm glad you saw right through that. As to the article you cited at the top of the thread, there is not really any substance to respond to. It's a statement of the opinions of one Carl V. Phillips. His opinions are what they are, but when juxtaposed against the findings of every major medical and public-health body in the world, they are not particularly useful here. MastCell Talk 05:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. So, according to you, Dr. Phillips has to be taken "in context", and Mr. Dockerell (not sure of his qualifications) does not. Correct? I wasn't saying to disregard his work. Like Dr. Phillips, he said what he said. It's only fair to know a little bit about the messenger. I'm not sure what to think of him trading in AIDS activism to head policy for an extremist social engineering outfit. People will make up their own minds.Chido6d (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I'm saying. The context for both Phillips and Dockrell's opinions is the same - namely, that all major scientific and medical bodies are unanimous in finding that secondhand smoke is harmful. Personally, I don't think we need to cite either of their opinions, given the wide range of high-quality reliable sources we have to choose from. I am a bit curious about your characterization of smoking-ban advocates as "extremist" - after all, smoking bans have been enacted with widespread public support nearly everywhere that they've been put on the ballot, despite well-coordinated opposition from various tobacco-industry front groups. The "extremist" position would seem to be that secondhand smoke is unworthy of concern. But that's just me, I guess. MastCell Talk 00:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My observation is that most smoking bans aren't placed on the ballot; even so, widespread support for the same would not be surprising after a 20-some year propaganda campaign (add to that the fact that a majority does not use tobacco). Certainly not all smoking ban advocates are extremist. But just about anyone can spend less than 60 seconds on the ASH website and not come to that conclusion about the organization.Chido6d (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The public opinion polls typically show that 60% to 80% of the electorate favors a smoking ban (almost all of the smokers, plus some non-smokers who would like to quit.) The pro-ban faction doesn't see the point of wasting money on a ballot when it's an obvious slam-dunk, and the anti-ban faction fights like mad to keep it from going to a ballot. So, you don't see many ballots, and when you do the pro-ban side almost always wins.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, "in context", Dr. Phillips received a $1.5 million grant from the Smokeless Tobacco Company in 2005, so he can't be regarded as a completely disinterested observer, at least regarding smokeless tobacco. It appears that he is involved in a dispute with his fellow faculty members about whether he and the University of Alberta should accept tobacco company grants, but it's the opinion of the university president that as long as the bank will take it, any money is good money, so he doesn't have to worry about being fired. Almost none of the research schools in Alberta have a policy against accepting tobacco money. Notwithstanding that, you can't smoke in public places at the University of Alberta or anywhere else in Alberta (except on indian reservations) because even politically-incorrect oil-rich Conservative governments reach the point where they have to admit the evidence is overwhelming.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Cognitive impairment and dementia
The source said: So the article says: Does anyone see a problem here?Chido6d (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions Exposure to secondhand smoke may be associated with increased odds of cognitive impairment. Prospective nationally representative studies relating biomarkers of exposure to cognitive decline and risk of dementia are needed.
 * Exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia in adults 50 and over.


 * I read the entire report and condensed it down to one sentence. I think these researchers get paid by the word and take lessens in obfuscation. Translation: "may be associated with increased odds of" -> "increases the risk of"; "Prospective nationally representative studies relating biomarkers of exposure to cognitive decline and risk of dementia are needed." -> "we need money to do more research". The study was limited to adults 50+, which I thought was significant. And you always use the active rather than passive voice unless you're trying to put your audience to sleep.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "translation" is interpretation. What the study concluded is that exposure may be associated with an increase in risk (emphasis not in the original), and that additional study is recommended. I assure you that I am not trying to be rude or patronizing, but this is not the place to exaggerate for the excitement of the readers (lest otherwise they be put to sleep). I will leave ample time for you to do your own correction, if you want to include this information.Chido6d (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional study is always warranted. That is immaterial. I do agree that the word "may" is essential here. MastCell Talk 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken about the qualifier may - I added it to the text.
 * My comment about passive voice (see the WP article about it) is that, although it is often used in scientific research articles, it is seldom used in business writing because it obscures the meaning of what is being said. If you look under WP:weasel words, it says:
 * ..Though the passive voice is syntactically correct, Strunk and White recommend against its overuse in their Elements of Style, calling it "less direct, less bold, and less concise" than the active voice.. and
 * ...it fails to identify who stands behind the opinions or actions it describes.
 * Scientist like to equivocate, but businessmen are expected to stand behind what they say. Now, as for the results of the study, If you read the text under Results, you find:
 * Non-smokers with valid cotinine measurements (n=4809) ...
 * Those with high levels of salivary cotinine (0.8-13.5 ng/ml) were more likely to be cognitively impaired (odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.94) than those exposed to little or no secondhand smoke (0.0-0.1 ng/ml).
 * That's a pretty definitive result - 4809 people is a large sample size, and an odds ratio of 1.44 is rather high. I'd much prefer they gave the risk ratio, but since they didn't, I'm not going to say exactly what the risk is, other than high (one newspaper article said "44% higher", but that may or may not be accurate). And, in the traditional "more study is required" statement under Conclusions, they actually say
 * ...this is a topic of major public health significance. Prospective nationally representative studies of the association between biomarkers of exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive decline and dementia are therefore warranted to assess the relation between secondhand smoke and cognitive health with greater precision.
 * I would interpret that to mean that they think the study has definitely identified a serious risk, and they think that more studies are justified to determine precisely how serious a risk it is. See the WP article on Risk assessment for more info.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The risk ratio is the mean of the confidence interval, but many media sources will report 1.44 as '44% higher'. With the way that statistics works, what that confidence interval actually means is, 'There's a 95% chance that the results lie between 1.07 (barely any correlation) and 1.94 (roughly twice the correlation)'. First, that's not exactly a strong correlation - many prominent epidemologists and scientists believe that a risk ratio of 3 or even higher should be established for things like this to be taken seriously, due to things like confounders, statistical error and systematic error.


 * Second, it also means that there's a 5% chance that the results don't lie within that range. They could be higher than 1.94 - or they could be lower than 1.07. If you do 20 studies on any scientific topic with 95% confidence intervals, there's a very good chance that at least one of them will be completely outside their confidence interval. Crickel (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That section contains a lot of association studies. Perhaps "the User:Eubulides standard" should be applied by saying "statistically associated" (for the non-specialists) and linking to association_(statistics). That trick worked for solving a long discussion at Schizophrenia. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This study, unlike many others, is rather well controlled and methodically eliminated all the likely third variables, so you're left with either an unlikely third variable or a direct causal relationship. In the case of schizophrenia, it's been observed that 80% of schizophrenics smoke, so you have a choice between "schizophrenia causes smoking", or "smoking causes schizophrenia", with the former being more likely based on other medical data. In this case, it doesn't seem likely that "cognitive impairment causes exposure to second-hand smoke", so you're left with "exposure to second-hand smoke causes cognitive impairment" as the most likely conclusion. Of course, further studies (as always) will clarify the nature of the relationship, but at this point it seems rather unambiguous. Saying "statistically associated" obscures the unambiguous nature of the causal link, and WP policy doesn't require us to give equal time to WP:fringe theories.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of the study is very reasonable, but it's not up to you (or any of us) to go farther than the researchers concluded. Your comments/analogy above make me inclined to remind you that correlation does not imply causation. Of course, one has to kick that notion to the curb along with the most basic and foundational principle of toxicology in order to get a good seat on the bandwagon.Chido6d (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias?
The first paragraph mentions an "engineered scientific controversy" by the coordinated efforts of the tabacco industry. It is in itself a strong statement, especially without any kind of citation or evidence. Not to mention the lack of citation proving that there is any kind of "scientific consensus" on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.201.111 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, bias. Read the talk page and its archives; the article is pretty much "controlled" by a small handful of extremists who eventually run everybody else off who comes in. Good observation, though. Chido6d (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Or read the article itself, which contains dozens of citations and reams of evidence demonstrating that a) passive smoking is harmful and b) the tobacco industry hid its knowledge of this fact and engineered an artificial controversy to forestall regulation and protect their revenue stream. Granted, the article may seem somewhat incomplete if you stop reading it after the first paragraph. MastCell Talk 05:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's worth nothing how much of the evidence of engineered controversy was produced by Chido6d who pointed out various pieces of apparent evidence against the consensus that turned out, on closer examination, to have been generated by the tobacco industry and its various front groups. The article was much improved as a result.JQ (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since two of the "fab five" have chimed in, I'll soon have to point you to a catalog (or catalogue as they prefer) of Information Under Suppression (which I'll be updating shortly). Sometimes, the very best others can offer is a tearing down of their opponents ad hominem, and attempts to silence them. When arguments are weak and fraudulent, it's expected. After all, what else can they do? Chido6d (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so no one believes Chido6d is alone in this, let me add my voice to his. There is clear bias in this article, but it is impossible to remove it because of four or five entrenched opponents, some of whom have the power to block.  MastCell, for his part, seems somewhat reasonable, but some of the rest are just zealots who will make absurd arguments to prevent any weakening of the article's stance against passive smoking.SonofFeanor (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I think I'm the only commentator here with "the power to block", and I would not block someone for disagreeing with me about the article. Not only would it be lame, but it would be an abuse of the administrative tools to block someone with whom I'm engaged in a content dispute. So we can take that off the table. MastCell Talk 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that anyone who says something that is patently at variance with the scientific data published on the subject is likely to be quickly reverted by people who actually read the scientific papers which were cited. The people who are complaining of bias have the problem that the scientific evidence itself is quite one-sided. There's no actual scientific dispute that second-hand smoke kills people, the disputes revolve around how many people it kills and how it kills them. That's probably not the debate they wanted to have.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not at all the issue. The scientific data published is overwhelmingly not statistically significant.  Sadly, we are not allowed to reference these "primary sources," and obviously an association like the EPA or the WHO, charged with the protection of public health, is not going to go out and say "Passive smoking is not really a problem."  Anything they can do to prevent smoking - they are going to do it.  And that includes publishing VERY questionable meta-studies.  Now, there is a ton of info out there about publication bias, but there is not one mention of it here.  There is info about confounding variables in these studies.  Again - no mention here.  And if you do happen to cite a study - well then it is linked to tobacco industry funding.  Never mind that the author may be a well established PhD who would not risk his career by publishing a bogus study for 10 or 20 thousand dollars.  Just yesterday I pointed out that Gio Batta Gori is more than a "spokesman for the tobacco industry" but is also a PhD and expert on epidemiology.  Shouldn't an unbiased article mention this?  The article said that the Enstrom and Kabat study was funded and managed by the CIAR, when the CIAR wasn't even in existence at the time of the study.  This is in the article's OWN SOURCES, but is not a convenient fact for the anti-smoking forces so it was conveniently left out.  Is there mention of the huge sums from anti-smoking lobbies that fund the studies on the other side?  Just to keep things balanced?  Nope.  There is substantial dispute that swecond-hand smoke kills people and this is very much a debate I would like to have.SonofFeanor (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Dr. Gori's services could be bought for a paltry 10 or 20 thousands of dollars. The amounts I see under his name in the Tobacco Legacy Archives run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, I scanned the recent judgment in the racketeering case against the tobacco companies and found that his name popped up there a few times. In particular, as part of an attempt to critique and undermine scientific studies that identified ETS as a health hazard, the Tobacco Institute paid Dr. Gori in 1993 alone:
 * $3,555.00 to write a letter to the editor of the Journal of Cancer Institute captioned: "Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Price of Scientific Uncertainty."
 * $4,137.50 to write an Op-Ed newspaper submission on the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Assessment for the Wall Street Journal.
 * $4,000.00 to write a letter to Lancet, disputing an editorial that had found the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Assessment provided a firm regulatory basis for increased social action to minimize the public's exposure to ETS.
 * Note that none of the letters disclosed that tobacco industry money had funded them.
 * This is the sort of thing that got the tobacco companies convicted of racketeering. Since the tobacco companies paid Gori (indirectly through the Tobacco Institute), he was acting as an agent for them. If he said that environmental tobacco smoke did not cause health problems, and the tobacco companies knew that was false (and the judgment says that they did know that ETS caused health problems), then they would have committed fraud because he is acting on their behalf. If he sent his fraudulent letters through the mail, then the tobacco companies would have committed mail fraud. If the tobacco companies did this as part of an organized conspiracy (which the judgment said they did), then they would have been engaging in racketeering. That's the joy of the RICO laws, you can nail conspirators no matter how involved the conspiracy is and how many third parties they act through. You should read this judgment, it's 1652 pages of endless exposure of the tobacco companies' illegal and fraudulent practices. No wonder they got nailed under RICO.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the details on the RICO case. Sadly, they are irrelevant.  I was not defending the tobacco industry nor making any comments about their integrity.  I am no fan of Phillip Morris.  But unless I missed it, nothing in there said Dr. Gori was charged with or convicted of any crime.  He took money, sure.  For working as an expert in his field.  What has been said is that his work, and Enstrom and Kabat's work, is somehow not reliable because of where the funding came from.  If this is so, then Glantz' work is equally suspect, as he has received still more money from RWJF and others.  He has no career whatsoever without this cause, while Gori was well established before he was ever linked to the tobacco industry.  But now I am letting you draw me into this same nonsense.  If you want to criticize the study, then attack the methodology.  This sort of guilt by association approach is unscientific and inappropriate to a scholarly discussion.SonofFeanor (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, the CIAR wasn't in existence at the time of Enstrom/Kabat's study? The journal article itself contains a funding disclosure written in Enstrom/Kabat's own words, stating in part: "...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." The study was partly funded by the CIAR,as our article states. Fact. I have no idea what you're on about, but your arguments are easily falsified with simple recourse to the sources. And what about this vague conspiracism about the "huge sums of money" supposedly biasing "anti-smoking" research? As far as I know, most such research is funded by the NIH and other government agencies which, if anything, have a financial interest in maintaining smoking, since they receive money from tobacco taxes. But I'd be happy to see some reliable sources in place of argumentation. MastCell Talk 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It takes nothing to see that the CIAR was disbanded in 1998 by the courts. Here is one of a thousand sites that says so - http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/tobc/abstract.00061045-200706000-00007.htm;jsessionid=Kc6fJnsJDT5XXWQYmCWvkXQNnzT3D5N5QQLYlTv2hR2TQKXvcWRF!-701738752!181195629!8091!-1.  Enstrom and Kabat published their study in 2003 - presumably I don't need to document this as well?  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the CIAR could not have "managed" the study.  So that is what I mean and it is hardly an argument that is easily falsified.  That they partially funded the study is not under dispute - I left that in the article after all.


 * On the subject of funding of anti tobacco research, one source of such funding is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which provided over 1 million dollars just for the Tobacco Scam campaign - http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=36173SonofFeanor - and has provided millions more in various other grants, often to Stanton Glantz. Of course there are many other such groups, but I think this one is sufficient to prove my point.  Enstrom and Kabat didn't receive anything like this level of funding and their integrity is impugned.(talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has never been found guilty of racketeering and collusion, manufacturing invalid data to protect its commercial interests, or covering up the harmfulness of its products. Therefore, no particular opprobium attaches to its funding. The tobacco industry is a rather different story. MastCell Talk 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So funding from the tobacco industry can create a conflict of interest, but funding from foundations dedicated to eradicating smoking cannot? I submit that it certainly does, and obviously deserves a mention given the amount of time you spend on tobacco industry funding.  You challenged me to show you where the dollars were coming from and I did.  You didn't say "Oh I know, I know that our side gets millions of dollars in interest funding, but that is the good type of special interest funding."  No.  You said "What?  We don't get funding from anyone but the government, and they have every reason to prefer smoking [which, by the way, is absurd]."  Meanwhile, since you seem to have dropped your objection to my comment on the CIAR and Enstrom and Kabat, I would appreciate a retraction of the stuff about my arguments being easily falsified with recourse to sources.  It is insulting and not at all true.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * " ... funding from organizations dedicated to eradicating smoking ..."? Do you mean organizations like the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the US Centers for Disease Control? I think that those organizations only have a conflict of interest in that they are dedicated to eliminating disease, and eliminating smoking is an important step in that process. The tobacco companies have a conflict of interest in that they want to continue to make profits selling cigarettes, and causing cancer and lung disease is an unfortunate side effect of making those profits.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The conflict of interest does not lie with the funding organization, but with the scientists conducting the study. They should not allow the source of the funding to impact their results, no matter how noble the motives of that source may be.  If there is speculation that Enstrom and Kabat are tainted by tens of thousands donated by the CIAR, when CIAR wasn't even around to see the results of their study and did not earmark the funds, how much greater must the speculation be over millions in funding to Glantz by RWJF in funds specifically targeted to the Tobacco Scam campaign?  How can one really do a study under the auspices of such a campaign and claim scientific objectivity?SonofFeanor (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice there is now a section on 3rd hand smoke. Reference 42 is to a paper which informs us only that most people are not aware of this phenomenon. Reference 43 is to an opinion/propaganda article in a newspaper. The people who control this site are fond of their "peer reviewed studies" and I don't think 43 falls into this category. 42 adds nothing useful. The concept of 3rd hand smoke was invented by the authors of 41, which wasn't a best seller, so no surprise that the public haven't heard of it.
 * Reference 41 is the original 2004 paper which noted the fact that ETS exposure in children is 5-7 times higher in children whose parents smoked only outdoors than in children whose parents did not smoke at all. It also noted that ETS exposure is 3-8 times higher in children whose parents smoked indoors than children whose parents only smoked outdoors. The conclusion drawn was that parents who only smoke outdoors are exposing their children to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals, but not as much as parents who smoke indoors.
 * Reference 42 is a 2009 paper that concluded that most smokers thought they could protect their children from ETS by only smoking outdoors, which reference 41 had determined was false.
 * Reference 43 is a 2009 New York Times article which brought the facts in papers 41 and 42 to public attention. I don't think it qualifies as opinion/propaganda piece, more of a public health information article.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

On a more general note, I've been visiting this page for several years. It has always been controlled by no more than 6 anonymous anti-tobacco zealots. Various well-meaning contributors have come and gone, some angry enough to put a POV tag on the page. Chido6d has fought a lonely and futile battle. This is a problem for wiki in general. In the UK, it has become a joke. My nieces' school has forbidden the pupils from using it. Radio presenters and journalists pour scorn on it. I have a couple of suggestions:

contributors should give up their anonymity; it should be accepted that there is not a consensus about the dangers of passive smoking. Part of the problem is that claims are often given the status of "facts", even though they are demonstrably untrue, because they are in peer reviewed journals.

Of course, the solution would be to have two passive smoking entries - one written by us "deniers". The advantage of this is that each side would strive to make its contribution the more objective and it would tease out the areas of disagreement. I think this would be of great service to the public.
 * That would constitute a WP: POV fork, which would be contrary to Wikipedia policy. POV forks are typically created by people who disagree with the consensus of editors. A typical example would be a disagreement by the Flat Earth Society with the scientific consensus that the world is round, in which case they would create an article called "Arguments against the round Earth theory" to denigrate the "so called facts put forth by round-Earth zealots" and give equal time to arguments like "Anybody can see the world is flat", "Columbus proved nothing", and "My uncle fell off the edge and was never seen again".RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What is "the power to block" and why does Mastcell have it? How is it that an anonymous person appears to exercise control over part of an encyclopedia?Otis66 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the "third-hand smoke" section is a bit weak myself, and I could go either way about retaining it. There are a few reasonably good sources, but it's obviously a fairly new/emerging/fringe issue from the perspective of passive smoking as a whole. As to Wikipedia, I would agree with your niece's school that students shouldn't rely on it exclusively. Wikipedia's utility, and its strength, lie in the sourcing. This article is extensively sourced. If it makes a claim about third-hand smoke, then you can quickly and easily check the sources - as you've done - and decide for yourself whether you believe it. Likewise, the article does not merely claim that secondhand smoke is bad for you, but extensively cites the voluminous body of informed medical and scientific opinion supporting such a claim. As for journalists "pouring scorn" on Wikipedia, well, I suppose they do so in between plagiarizing it? :P Note that in that case, Wikipedia compared admirably to more "established" media outlets - the false quotes were rapidly removed here, whereas the mass media propagated (and, in some cases, continues to propagate) inaccurate information. Food for thought. By "the power to block", people are likely referring to administrator status. See Administrators for more detail. I was entrusted with admin status a few years ago. If anonymity (more accurately, pseudonymity) is that distressing to you, you may find Citizendium more amenable, particularly as you self-identify as an academic. Pseudonymity is deeply ingrained in Wikipedia's DNA, so I don't think that raging against the machine from behind your own pseudonym is likely to go too far here. MastCell Talk 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with sources
Moved here from User Talk:MastCell Hey there! I just saw your reversion on the Passive Smoking page edit I did yesterday. Wanted to know if I could ask your help with the cite tags in that article. I wasn't quite sure how to properly cite the 1999 study from the who. When adding that in, I figured that somebody else who knew more would come along and fix the cite, since it was directly from their page, but... :)

Also, I'm a little confused about the WP: WEIGHT comment. There are prominent adherents to the view that relative risk should be larger before something is seriously considered, and I could reference a few, but I thought that going into any exhaustive detail or adding that many references would've invoked WP: WEIGHT in the first place, and that a short one-line comment on the further controversy would be acceptable. How should I have posted it? Crickel (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of things (and these are, of course, just my opinion). The section is about the controversy surrounding the publication of a specific WHO/IARC study, so I didn't think that mentioning the additional study tied in. As to expanding the quote from the abstract, I don't feel strongly one way or the other - my default would be that since the controversy surrounded the WHO's positive finding, it makes sense to mention that finding but maybe less sense to mention their negative, less controversial finding. But I could go either way on that. The sourcing comment had to do with the use of davehitt.com. I don't think that site meets the reliable source criteria (nor the more specific criteria for medical topics). It creates undue weight to give davehitt.com the same sort of weight as the WHO, NCI, NIH, American Cancer Society, and essentially the entire scientific community. If there are current objections to the science on secondhand smoke published in scholarly sources, let's find and discuss those (we mention some such objections, cited to a Nature story, in our article). MastCell Talk 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Crickel, in spite of the song and dance, the truth is that the IARC's finding on childhood exposure is Under Suppression. I suggest that you visit the archives of this page and review my chart of Information Under Suppression until I have a good chance to update it and bring it to the front page again. You will see the pattern, and I won't need to coach you.
 * I would add that MastCell is correct that davehitt.com does not rise to the level of the sources that we are supposed to use here.Chido6d (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Crickel, the statements you cited were part of a misinformation scheme to discredit the WHO/IARC reports, and not what the reports actually said. This was exposed in the racketeering case the government launched against the tobacco companies. A few of the judge's findings in the case (the full judgment is 1652 pages long):
 * Internally, Defendants Expressed Concern that the Mounting Evidence on ETS Posed a Grave Threat to Their Industry
 * Internally, Defendants Recognized that ETS Is Hazardous to Nonsmokers
 * Defendants Undertook Joint Efforts to Undermine and Discredit the Scientific Consensus that ETS Causes Disease
 * Defendants Acted Through a Web of Coordinated and Interrelated International and Domestic Organizations
 * Defendants Made False and Misleading Public Statements Denying that ETS Is Hazardous to Nonsmokers
 * Defendants Continue to Obscure the Fact that ETS is Hazardous to Nonsmokers
 * In the judge's opinion, this constituted racketeering and fraud, rather than scientific research.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure why Rocky is referring to the Kessler case (it's not Under Suppresion here), but I was referring to the conclusion from the abstract of the WHO/IARC report itself -- without further comment or embellishment.Chido6d (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was quoting Judge Kessler's decision because it made reference to a number of tobacco company misinformation schemes against the WHO, including aforementioned scheme to misinterpret the WHO/IARC report. To quote the WHO as quoted by Judge Kessler, "PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER; DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU". (All capitals by the WHO). Not my opinion, that of the WHO. Fascinating stuff, you should read it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on USA vs. Philip Morris et al. RICO lawsuit
From the discussion above, I realize that the article does not treat as it should the findings pertinent to passive smoking that can be found in the USA vs. Philip Morris et al. RICO judgment (and its appeal judgment). Since the article dedicates an entire subsection to the EPA lawsuit, which was vacated, an even greater section should be devoted to the RICO lawsuit and its findings, as these are much more significant to the subject of this article, and were not vacated, but on the contrary unanimously validated by the Appeal Court. I am prepared to write such a section (when the article is unblocked), which will briefly describe the DoJ RICO lawsuit and will summarize the main findings of the final judgment, namely:


 * The tobacco companies have publicly denied what they internally acknowledged: that passive smoking is hazardous to nonsmokers
 * The consensus of the public health community is that passive smoking causes disease in nonsmokers
 * Internally, tobacco companies recognized that passive smoking is hazardous to nonsmokers
 * Internally, tobacco companies expressed concern that the mounting evidence on passive smoking posed a grave threat to their industry
 * Tobacco companies made public promises to support independent research on the link between passive smoking and disease
 * Tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that passive smoking causes disease
 * Tobacco companies and their paid consultants controlled research findings on passive smoking (the E/K study is treated under this heading)
 * Tobacco companies made false and misleading public statements denying that passive smoking is hazardous to nonsmokers
 * Tobacco companies continue to obscure the fact that passive smoking is hazardous to nonsmokers

--Dessources (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Was the appeals court decision unanimous? I don't recall seeing that in any press release. I would not object to more information on the case (though you propose an excessive volume), as long as it is duly noted that the decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court.Chido6d (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to such a section. That would be a fine place to put Kessler's quote on Enstrom and Kabat.  Indeed, having read wikipedia's article on Kessler, I would be happy if this section also linked to it.  Careful now when you say the EPA lawsuit was vacated.  The decision was overturned on appeal because it had no force, but no one disputed Osteen's analysis of EPA's awful study.  This is handled fine in the article.SonofFeanor (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The appeal court decision was unanimous, 3-0 against the tobacco companies. And it would be misleading to say that the decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court, since that hasn't happened yet (nor is the Supreme Court under any onus to listen to such an appeal).RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I endorse the view that we need more on RICO. Regarding the dialectical process by which Wikipedia advances, each attempt to insert tobacco industry talking points into this article, encourages more attention to the way in which Big Tobacco corrupted this debate for so many years. JQ (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a section on the RICO trial. It is in a section of its own, until we find a good way of integrating it in another existing section. --Dessources (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Investigation
So that everyone knows, and so that no one can accuse me of going behind anyone's back. Soxwon (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Dessources (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Enstrom on the 2003 study being "CIAR Funded and Managed"
"The statement 'This study was CIAR funded and managed' is false. The California (CA) CPS-I study upon which my May 2003 article is based was conducted and funded by the American Cancer Society (ACS) during 1959 - 1990. The study has been conducted at UCLA since 1991 and was funded by the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program (TRDRP) during 1991 - 1997 and by CIAR during 1998 - 2003. Adjusting for inflation, the total funding for the entire 1959 - 2003 study was ~90% from ACS, ~5% from TRDRP and ~5% from CIAR. The study was never "managed" by CIAR. Indeed, just before it was dissolved in 1999, CIAR gave its entire award to UCLA and I did not have to report to anyone about my study from 1999 until it was published in May 2003."

Hmm.Chido6d (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One would probably expect any scientist whose work was singled out in a racketeering verdict, as was Enstrom's, to take issue. Our article already notes that Enstrom has denied or disputed many of the criticisms of his paper. Do you have a suggestion about the article text, or are you only intending to use this talk page as a blog/soapbox? MastCell Talk 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we plz move on from this? Chido, you are the only one who holds to this position since we cleaned out the sock/meat puppets. I don't think concensus is going to change. Soxwon (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on your comment/question. What about this particular post has to do with any position that I hold? Or for that matter, how does it advocate changing the so-called "consensus"?
 * Commentary is not needed. Dr. Enstrom's statement is a flat-out contradiction. It is not just "taking issue". His statement presents a problem in the article -- not with a particular source or statement, or that a source is being merely used -- but how it is being used.Chido6d (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We typically deal with such conflicts by summarizing available sources, and noting who has said what. In this case, the Court found that CIAR had "funded and managed" Enstrom's study. Enstrom disputes that. We note both positions. In that sense, our text appears to reflect this site's policies for handling such situations. MastCell Talk 04:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm having a bit of a problem tying the whole "funded and managed" thing into the racketeering trial (as JQ recently proposed) - not to mention trying to avoid an edit war. Can we discuss? See history. Thanks.Chido6d (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like comments on whether the edit was vandalism and/or "POV-warrior edits" as both allegations have been made. Thanks again.Chido6d (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dr. Enstrom may disagree, but usually the Judge's opinion counts for more the the Defendant's opinion, especially after it is upheld by the Appeal Court. The Judge's opinion states that Dr. Enstrom received at least $525,000 from CIAR for the study, and that the work started by CIAR was continued by the Philip Morris External Research Program (PMERP) after CIAR was dissolved. This is a racketeering case, after all, and racketeering law is designed to see through these kind of corporate name-change shell games.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Best I can tell, Enstrom was not a defendant. It would help if you answered my questions. Enstrom admits to getting some funding from CIAR. The dollar amount is not in question. Besides, the proposed edit states that the Court found that the study was funded and managed by CIAR. Anything wrong with that?Chido6d (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Enstrom was not a defendant, but he was acting as an agent for a defendant. Enstrom is not charged with anything because he was just an agent, just a cog in the wheel. Philip Morris, et al, was the racketeer who was deemed by the judge to be responsible for his activities. They paid him, after all. He who pays the piper calls the tune.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the biggest reason that we should keep "funded and managed" in the topic is not that they were the only ones, but that they were involved and were later proven to be a tobacco front group. I think that is the biggest concern raised. I'd be willing to put the partly back in for funded, but keep the managed in for now. Soxwon (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more accurate to say that Enstrom's study was funded and managed by the tobacco companies, particularly Philip Morris. CIAR was just a tobacco company front organization that was dissolved as a result of the lawsuits by the States' Attorneys General, to be replaced behind the scenes by the Philip Morris External Research Program. This is the sort of thing that the RICO Act was designed to deal with - a pattern of racketeering activity. The front organizations don't matter, it's the organizations behind the conspiracy that matter.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, neither one of you are even paying attention. Please read more carefully before having a tantrum.Chido6d (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Dr. Enstrom's comments quoted at the top of this section are basically misleading: the California CPS-I study may have been largely funded by the American Cancer Society, but Dr. Enstrom's analysis of it was funded by the tobacco companies, and the American Cancer Society disagrees with his conclusions. The judge's actual finding was Defendants and Their Paid Consultants Controlled ETS Research Findings. Dr. Enstrom was a Paid Consultant for the tobacco companies, so if he managed the research, then the tobacco companies managed the research. Dr. Enstrom is obviously not keen on being cited in a racketeering case, but that's the price of taking money from a racketeering company.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But all of this has nothing to do with the edit...Chido6d (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What edit are you talking about? I thought we were talking about Dr. Enstrom's statement quoted at the top of this section. Dr. Enstrom is clearly not happy with what the judge said about him, but he doesn't have much recourse from a judge's opinion. Also, he's clearly at a conflict of interest in this case as a result of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has been paid by the tobacco companies, so we have to discount his opinions to take that into account.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit has to do with tying the allegation against Enstrom into the racketeering case. It is a good edit, the substance of which was first entered by JQ, who I rarely agree with but appreciate and respect his efforts in this regard. The edit was also based on discussion by MastCell, who correctly stated that deal with such conflicts by summarizing available sources, and noting who has said what. Unfortunately, there is a newbie here who is very fast to act and offers very little communication. Others know this, but are doing nothing. Hence the POV tag. History shows that I tried to resolve otherwise.Chido6d (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look Chido, you've received no support for your edits, could you please just drop this crusade already? Soxwon (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is clear, and the closer one looks, the more blatant it becomes. If we take the declaration that Enstrom and Kabat made in their BMJ about funding, we find something quite revealing. Their statement was not short:

"Funding: The American Cancer Society initiated CPS I in 1959, conducted follow up until 1972, and has maintained the original database. Extended follow up until 1997 was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles with initial support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, a University of California research organisation funded by the Proposition 99 cigarette surtax (www.ucop.edu/srphome/trdrp). After continuing support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program was denied, 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."

But actually, most of the statement refers to collection of the data set (CPS I) by the American Cancer Society and other analyses done on the data prior to the EK study. The EK study itself was a new project submitted to CIAR on October 20, 1997 by Enstrom, in which he proposed to analyse a subset of the CPS I data set. The American Cancer Society warned Enstrom that they found the data inappropriate for the use that he intended to make of it and they neither supported nor financed the study. (See More misleading science from the tobacco industry Michael J Thun BMJ 2003;327;237-238 doi:10.1136/bmjusa.03070002 - I think this reference should be added to the article when the edit restriction is lifted) The project proposal was modified by the CIAR board (tobacco executives) and the project started on June 1st, 1998. Consequently, if one removes all (misleading) references to funding that took place before the EK study started, i.e. money which actually did not fund the study, the above declaration reduces to:

"Funding: Data analysis was conducted with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies."

Finally, taking into account the fact that CIAR was a front organization which was not funded partially, but totally by the tobacco industry, the above statement further reduces to "Data analysis was funded by US tobacco companies." This is inescapable, and all the rest of the BMJ funding declaration by EK creates a smoke screen that masks the true nature of the funding, i.e. that the study was entirely funded by the tobacco industry. This is a fact that Judge Kessler has correctly noted. However, there is no need to announce it by saying "The court found that...", which actually weakens it - this is probably why Chido6d insists so much. Perhaps John Quiggin could comment, as he made the initial edit, with the desire to make it clear that this was a US court finding. My point is that this is not only a US court finding, but it is also a fact that any Wikipedia user can verify from published documents avaialble on the Internet.

--Dessources (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The version as it stands includes the sentence "In the industry's 2006 racketeering trial, the Enstrom and Kabat paper was cited by the Court as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke". My problem is that this sentence comes out of nowhere - readers have to go way down the article to work out which court is being referred to here. My edit was just intended to provide some context. On the general issue of how to describe facts, I think a finding like "the tobacco industry are racketeers" involves legal judgements about the RICO Act, and needs to be attributed to the Court. The fact that Enstrom and Kabat were funded by US tobacco companies doesn't involve such judgements and can be reported with the source being either included in the text "The US District Court found that ..." or in a citation to a source, depending on which flows better. For a simple factual question like this, I think most readers will find either way of presentation equally definitive. In the present case, I thought my presentation worked better.JQ (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see the point made by John Guiggin. I hope Soxwon is also happy with the explanation. We can fairly safely presume that this satisfies Chido6d as well. If this is a case, we have a consensus to go back to JQ's version.
 * --Dessources (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problems. :) Soxwon (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus it is.Chido6d (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is the larger question. It is inherently biased to name the funding for one point of view and not the other.  For the studies that indicate less of an impact on health from passive smoking, the writers seem very diligent in tracing the origin of the funding.  For the studies advocating a stronger tie between passive smoking and disease, no such questions on the origin of funding are addressed.  One could speculate as to why this may be, but, in keeping with general fairness, funding discussions should be included or excluded for _both_ "sides" of the debate.  (First time poster.  Please advise of any errors in wiki convention, thank you.) The Zipperfish (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The fundamental problem is that one side in the dispute has been convicted in court of racketeering and fraud for, among other things, hiring paid consultants to represent their point of view without revealing to the public that these consultants were paid quite large amounts of money for presenting their particular point of view. The other side was just doing normal scientific research according to normal scientific standards. This creates a very asymmetrical situation. Bottom line - we just want to know who is being paid to lie to the public.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You said: "Bottom line - we just want to know who is being paid to lie to the public"--this reflects what I see as a general tone of advocacy in the piece.  Advocacy is fine; I just don't think it belongs on wiki.  Full disclosure:  I'm not a paid consultant from the tobacco industry; just a joe-blow scientist who likes to read wiki articles when I come across something new (in this case, "third-hand smoke").  The part that stood out for me was the study by Enstrom and Kabat.  The study was originally presented in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal, like, presumably, many of the other studies cited.  However, it is relegated from the "Epidemiological Studies" to the "Controversy over harm" section of the piece, not due to any scientific flaw, but because it was funded by tobacco interests.  It is also subject to an exhaustive political context not present in other studies.  Elsewhere, alleged and controversial findings by the tobacco industry (like sidestream smoke being more toxic than inhaled smoke) are accepted without comment, presumably because they match the viewpoint of the piece.  Tobacco companies are evil; I get it.  But that’s not what I came here to read about.  I'll leave it at that.  Anyways, thanks for responding. The Zipperfish (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But the Enstrom/Kabat article is not the average, "simple" peer-reviewed journal article like any other. It was the centerpiece of a major controversy, and subsequently identified and singled out, both by other scientists and by a federal court. Thus, its inclusion in the "Controversy" section - it was a major part of the controversy. Its scientific flaws have been addressed by reliable sources, but they are not completely separable from the issues identified by the District Court which underpinned the article. If the Enstrom/Kabat article is "subject to exhaustive political context", that is because numerous reliable sources have contextualized it thus. Our job is to honestly report what those sources have said; if the tone verges toward advocacy, then we should address that. MastCell Talk 22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the history, Zipperfish, you'll find that the Enstrom/Kabat study fits a familiar pattern

(1) The tobacco industry spin machine produces a talking point, such as an industry-funded study or bogus scandal (2) This is circulated through the blogosphere and makes its way onto Wikipedia (3) Investigation by Wiki editors reveals evidende of the tobacco industry management in (1) (4) The talking point ends up in the Wiki article as an example of industry manipulation \If you don't like the result, you should address your concerns to the editors who undertake step (2). I think if no-one tries to introduce, say the EK study, as pro-tobacco evidence, it is unlikely that anyone concerned with presenting the scientific evidence will go out looking for examples of this kind. JQ (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert of changes by User:LVAustrian
Nephron T|C 16:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: - The individual studies may not have statistical significance... but if pooled do.  If there is a published criticism of the study that attacks the methodology-- link to it; otherwise mind WP:NOR.
 * Re: - The absolute risk increase makes the numbers look small... the attributable risk percent large.  I think it is fair to mention both.

"Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability and death"
This section reproduces an entry made previously and which is now buried in Archive 3, which I reactivate in view of the discussion in the section just 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 disease, disability and death" 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.

consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke cause death, disease and disability". 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, based on input fom the top experts in the field of tobacco control. It would be hard to find a more authoritative and consensual formulation.
 * 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. It acknowledges the following observation in its Preamble: "Recognizing that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that tobacco


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


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


 * WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer "Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking" IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83, 2002 - The evaluation of the Monograph is: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans." (emphasis added) This assessment is made by a group comprising 25 of the world's top experts in cancer research, epidemiology and tobacco control.

The importance and significance of these references is emphasized in a recent communication by the World Health Organization :

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, 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: 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.
 * WORK PLACES
 * PUBLIC PLACES
 * HOMES

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 disease, disability and death"), 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) 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The current formulation is fine with me as well. The conclusion in Kessler was just that "scientific consensus that SHS causes disease", not any more specific formulation. I'd hate to see a bunch of claims of causation for specific diseases mentioned without specific sourcing that explicitly claims a widespread consensus for causation of each.  That would likely be ripped to shreds in no time without immaculate sourcing for each disease that consensus was claimed for.   Gigs (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kessler came to quite a large number of conclusions in the judgment, not just that SHS causes disease. Among her findings of fact:
 * "Exposure to secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adults."
 * "Exposure to secondhand smoke can also cause coronary heart disease, exacerbation of asthma, reduced lung function, and respiratory symptoms in children."
 * "Despite their internal acknowledgment of the hazards of secondhand smoke, Defendants have fraudulently denied that ETS causes disease."
 * See page 1522 of the judgment. There's no lack of other specific findings in the judgment, if you just look for them. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The sourcing for this article is among the strongest, most detailed, and most solid of any medical topic on Wikipedia. There aren't many cases like this, where we can cite definitive statements from virtually all of the world's major medical and scientific bodies, buttressed by expert testimony in the legal system. I don't see the grounds for your concern. MastCell Talk 18:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, but she came to only one conclusion regarding scientific concensus. So don't extrapolate findings that weren't there, just say the ones that were there, such as the ones you listed here.  Claiming that there is scientific consensus based off disparate evidence is synthesis.   Kessler came to only one conclusion regarding the scientific consensus, and that was that it causes disease. Gigs (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is confused, I'm agreeing with Dessources. The current wording is fine. Gigs (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dessources as well. However, you possibly don't realize the seriousness of this case and its potential future impact. In her decision, Judge Kessler took the scientific consensus and turned it into legally proven facts, of which she found a lot. It is now a fact that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and heart disease. It is now a fact that the tobacco companies knew this, but lied to the public about it. It is now a fact that they conspired to use paid consultants to disguise their role in this fraud. Lawyers arguing lawsuits against the tobacco companies no longer have to prove these facts, since they've already been proven.
 * One of the reasons the tobacco companies signed the Master Settlement Agreement in 1998 with 46 state governments, and agreed to pay them hundreds of millions of dollars, was that they did not want the case to conclude in a judgment in which the allegations against them would be turned into legally proven facts which could be used in the thousands of lawsuits against them. However, as a result of the Kessler decision we have arrived at the same point, with the relevant facts having been proven.
 * As a result, I think the onus of proof in this article has been reversed. Since the facts have been proven in court, the burden is on the nay-sayers to disprove them rather than them editors to prove them, and they also need to cite reliable sources to support them who are not paid agents of the tobacco companies - of which there are darn few. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a scientific topic. Kessler can't adjudicate reality. She provided an important independent overview of the scientific data.  That's all.  Findings of legal fact don't change the nature of science, that all scientific findings are falsifiable.  Science does not deal in absolutes.  Legal "facts" should be reported as such, not presented as reality.  Kessler has provided a valuable overview, but it should be treated as any other reliable secondary source, not as God's word. If some judge in Argentina looks at all the data and declares SHS safe, would that become the new "legal fact"? Gigs (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just a scientific topic, it's a legal one. Kessler found that the tobacco companies had committed scientific fraud. Scientists do not deal well with fraud (e.g. in the case of Piltdown man), whereas judges can send people to jail for lying in court. As for other courts, it's unlikely they would disagree with this court. For instance, an Australian court found that "a review of the totality of the available data leads to the conclusion that there was scientific proof in the sense that there was compelling scientific evidence that cigarette smoke caused lung cancer in nonsmokers." (p. 1310) RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's good to get the exact wording of these things right, but to get some perspective it's worth looking at this version from three years ago. We've come a million kilometers since then, and now we're arguing about differences that are too small to be seen by the untrained eye. Overall, a big success for Wikipedia.JQ (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Third hand smoke
I would like to present the case for a fairly radical rewrite on this section which can be accessed through the history (my edits were reversed a few times).

Despite its lack of evidence for any human health effects, I do not dispute that the section should not exist since it has become well known despite this. I do not dispute the cited references since they from the basis for my argument which is that the write-up is divorced from the content of the articles.

First para, first sentence is fine. Second sentence is somewhat misleading since scientists understand the issue however if it is the point that the general public misunderstands it, that should be specified. The rest of the paragraph is descriptive and does represent the article.

The second paragraph is where the problems arise. Though toxins were identified and measured there was never any indication of actual risk. There have been no studies that have found any actual health effects associated with such low levels of these toxins. (Of course, with modern technology we can measure some level of practically any toxin anywhere so their presence is not of itself indicative of anything). The second study referred to (the Journal of Pediatrics study) was nothing more than a phone survey of parents not asking them about whether they though third hand smoke was a risk but rather along the lines of "if there was such a thing as third hand risk, would you want to expose your child to it". Though either qualifies as nothing more than opinions, the result was promoted in a press release and through the media as proof of the danger of third hand smoke. The third citation is in fact a NYT article that repeated the claims of the article without actually reading the article or conducing any independent inquiry.

For those interested, the third hand smoke issue became the laughing stock of the scientific world, and a source of embarrassment to many anti-smoking activists in that its lack of credibility in any sense undermined their cause. (And perhaps that would make the more informative article if someone would like to write that).

The main point here is that there was never an established risk, and to characterize it as such is misleading (it is not a matter of scientific disagreement or dispute; there are simply no studies that show any effect on humans of third hand smoke).

Pbergen1 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)pbergen1


 * I've edited to make it clear in each reference that the magnitude of any risk has not been established. That said, inferences from the presence of carcinogenic toxins have proved pretty robust in the past, so we don't need any editorialising about their current (epidemiologically) unproven status.


 * On a more general point, it struck me that this section was out of place under "causal mechanism". Thinking about it, what we need is a section on exposure to the risk of passive smoking in general, covering exposure in workplaces, homes and so on. Third-hand smoke would fit neatly under this.JQ (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Following the above discussion, I am proposing to move third-hand smoke to the beginning and just mention the existence of the term and give its definition, without further discussion, except to say that we don't know. The previous text was far too long for an item which is still highly speculative. I have done the change, but if you don't like it, you may revert my edit.
 * Dessources (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem with this, but I'd still like an "Exposure" section. If I get some free time (ha!) I'll try to start one.JQ (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

My faith is restored in the editorial process and support the conclusions on reasonable action here. Just as a side note re carcinogenic toxins, the toxicology is good explanatory evidence once harm has been shown to occur at population levels. (Is that covered anywhere in wikipedia?) If harm has not been shown at those levels then there has been some intermediary process which ameliorates the effect or renders it less harmful than it would seem. (Sorry to stress this point but just don't like it when policy or public opinion is based on what something might do rather than what it actually does). Pbergen1 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)pbergen1

Public Opinion Section
Sitting right in the middle of this article for no apparent reason was a section on public opinion. Perhaps there is room for a section on public sentiment regarding passive smoking at the very end of this article, but that is not what this was anyway. It was a section on whether or not the public believed passive smoking was harmful. That is a purely scientific issue, and public opinion on the matter is no more relevant than it would be on, say, string theory. Maybe public opinion on harm deserves a mention under the section on bans, since it is somewhat relevant there. But here it was at best out of place and at worst distracting and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkthlayli (talk • contribs) 10:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Especially as a new contributor, it's best to seek some support on the talk page before making large scale deletions. Passive smoking raises both scientific and policy issues - public opinion is relevant to the latter.JQ (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia says be bold and make edits where needed. This was needed.  Public opinion IS relevant to policy issues, but not public opinion on whether smoking is harmful.  In no court of law or session of Congress will yopu hear anyone say "Well, the public BELIEVES passive smoking is harmful."Darkthlayli (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This article has a problem with stalking horses for the tobacco industry, so you don't want to be mistaken for a stalking horse. Remember, the antagonists in this little drama have been convicted in court of conspiracy and fraud, so wholesale deletions will not go over well unless you can provide scientific evidence to back them up (and some of us have a wall full of science degrees to help evaluate what is or is not scientific). Oh, and Late Breaking News: the Canadian Medical Association Journal just published a review of 60 cigarette studies that Imperial Tobacco Canada did, but destroyed on the orders of its parent company, British American Tobacco. However, the parent company forgot to go through its own files and delete the copies back in London. Ooops! Look for them to pop up in a lawsuit soon (Ontario and Quebec are suing the tobacco companies for $80 billion).RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Passive smoking has many dimensions, besides the purely scientific/medical. It has a societal dimension (which was first recognized by the tobacco companies, which have invested a lot of money into the "social acceptability of smoking"). It has an obvious economic dimension. It has also, for some, a philosophical dimension. For example, at the core of the passive smoking issue lies a conception of liberty. On one side side of the debate are those who take the definition of liberty from the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which states in its article 4 that "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else.", and on the other side of the debate are two kinds of people: those who take the same definition of liberty, but cut it right after "everything", and those who replace "which injures no one else" with "which does not injure corporate profits." All these considerations converge eventually to the legislators, who view the issue as a political one. In such a context, it is very important to know what the public believes. Public opinion has been surveyed quite intensively on this subjet, in particular by the tobacco industry, which has discovered long before everyone else that the public knew of the harmful effect of passive smoking and favored smoking bans. --Dessources (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As particularly you insist on all entries being scientifically founded, I am surprised that you defend the relevance and advocate the inclusion of a rambling and non-scientific public opinion here. In this context I may refer to the public opinion about Iraq, that had been surveyed quite intensively on the weapons of mass destruction, in particular by the government of the USA, which has discovered long before everyone else that the public knew of the imminent threat Iraq had on the USA.123.255.63.185 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, yeah, this article has an obvious problem with stalking horses. Not from the tobacco industry though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.192.79 (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?
Wow-- if you were to take this entry at face-value, you'd think that any criticism of Purtians peddling studies inflating the harm caused by second-hand smoke without control groups or other fundamental scientic principles that separate correlations from causality, is all just due to tobacco industry propaganda. For the record I've never worked for "Big Tobacco", nor would I ever work for an industry as evil as they are-- but that they are evil should not mean that unscientific, biased studies (and Wikipedia entries based on them) which falsely inflate the real harm are acceptable.

Why not have teetotalers edit the Wikipedia entries on alcohol or have the Partnership for a Drug-Free America edit the entries on THC and marijuana? This is no different, and this entry, with it's pitiful, utterly-biased "Criticisms" section, which seems to exist only to undercut the credibility of completely valid criticisms, is truly shameful. Shame on anti-smoking activists for sacrificing truth on the altar of the public good-- you may consider yourselves better human beings than the Big Tobacco execs, but I'd say only slightly better and just as big of liars as they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.76.58 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Call me a "Purtian", but I don't see how you could have a prospective, randomized control group in a smoking study (I assume that's what you mean, since the existing studies did, of course, have control groups - albeit retrospectively identified, case-matched historical controls). How would you propose to conduct such a study? And what would you regard as proof of causality, based on your understanding of "fundamental scientic principles"? MastCell Talk 22:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There have been several randomized controlled trials to determine the effects of quitting, usually plus diet and exercise improvement. All have shown either no improvement in life expectancy or for one a deterioration.RayJohnstone (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Since you don't actually cite randomized controlled trials, allow me: . . . Should I go on? MastCell Talk 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your references:

This is not a randomized controlled study but as it says a prospective one. Nor does it mention total mortality.

This did not compare death rates - not according to the abstract: nobody died.

Results apply only to individuals with airway obstruction:"LIMITATIONS: Results apply only to individuals with airway obstruction." As you can see in "Health Scare",my review was restricted to healthy individuals - a big enough job.

If you want references to randomized controlled trials see: "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking" By J. R. Johnstone, PhD (Monash) and P.D.Finch, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Statistics (Monash)RayJohnstone (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. So when you said that "all" randomized controlled trials showed no improvement in life expectancy, you actually meant "all trials except those in people with airway obstruction". Consider the goalposts moved. And I still have no idea what studies you're actually referring to; I'm aware of quite a few randomized, controlled trials showing an extremely wide range of benefits to quitting, including those I've cited above. What trials are you referring to? MastCell Talk 04:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My comments have been about the effects of quitting for healthy individuals, not the ill. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. You may prefer the Cochrane treatment of these trials: Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart disease (Review) Ebrahim S, Beswick A, Burke M, Davey Smith G

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001561/pdf_fs.htmlRayJohnstone (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a continuation of this discussion being particularly productive, as it is more appropriate to your blog than to a Wikipedia article talk page. I'll just note that you're citing an outdated 2000 Cochrane review; the 2006 update is at . I think you're abusing the literature - the Cochrane review in question asked whether specific smoking-cessation interventions saved lives. Those interventions were successful in only about 20% of people - most continued to smoke, because cigarettes are addictive and hard to quit. In an intention-to-treat analysis, those people who received smoking-cessation counseling but kept smoking anyway were analyzed as "quitters". The Cochrane review recognized this - if you read the whole thing, then you know that their conclusion was not "smoking cessation is useless", but rather "we need better ways to get people to eat better, exercise, and quit smoking." You're asking a different question - whether the people who actually succeeded in quitting had improved life expectancy - but you're using studies that asked a different question and used analytical methods which were inappropriate for the question you're asking. Whether this is intentional or not, it's a more sophisticated discussion than I feel like having on a Wikipedia talk page. I'm going to let this drop. MastCell Talk 04:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

A few comments. 1 I don't have a blog. 2 The Cochrane review you quote concludes with the same results: "In the ten trials with clinical event end-points, the pooled odds ratios for total and CHD mortality were 0.96 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.92 to 1.01) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.04) respectively..: The pooled effects suggest multiple risk factor intervention has no effect on mortality." 3 In trials of this kind it is important to include in the test group those who have failed to improve their lifestyle. The point of this is to eliminate self-selection.Similarly, in testing a new drug it is important to include those people who react badly to it. The results are clear and as they say: public intervention campaigns to improve lifestyle have no effect on mortality.RayJohnstone (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is definitely an issue with this article. This is an advocacy piece. Frankly I'm surprised anyone would argue otherwise, particularly since there have been so many comments pointing this out. I suppose the solution is to simply rewrite the piece with a more objective and less moralizing viewpoint, but I certainly don't have the time or the inclination. On the plus side, the advocacy is so evident that I don't think anyone above a high school student would consider this to be a particularly reliable source. It's too bad. Advocacy science is ruining the reputation of science. The Zipperfish (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the nicest possible way - posting a comment in which you provide no evidence whatsoever for your opinion beyond 'anyone who disagrees is a high school student or dumber' doesn't make for a strong argument - and it makes your post, ironically, point-of-view. In the past the article has certainly had some POV statements in it both for and against passive smoking having health effects; if you can find any currently flag them up, explain why they're POV, and they'll get discussed here. Nmg20 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Many of the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of judges in legal decisions. The fundamental difference between our opinions and those of a judge in a trial is that a judge's decision is much more authoritative. Thus, if in our opinion someone is a thief, then he can claim we are biased. If, in a judge's opinion someone is a thief, then off he goes to jail. In this article, for the most part, the opinions expressed are those of the judges in trials. They have cost the tobacco companies hundreds of billions of dollars, and will cost them hundreds of billions more. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In hindsight, my comment was more provocative than I intended it to be. It's perhaps unfair to expect a high degree of scientific objectivity on a wiki page; it is not, after all, a peer-reviewed journal.  And 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.  And naturally my post is "point-of-view"; that is why it is here on the discussion page and not in the article.  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.

The Zipperfish (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The one-sided nature of the article largely results from the fact that the evidence itself is rather one-sided. The government and health institute research has tended to be consistently negative about the effects of passive smoking, and the other side in the argument has been convicted in court of conspiring to suppress evidence and mislead the public, so anything they have funded has to be considered as suspect. As it says in the Kessler judgement: At Various Times, Defendants Attempted to and Did Suppress and Conceal Scientific Research and Destroy Documents Relevant to Their Public and Litigation Positions. The tobacco companies have heavily biased their research, to the point where it constitutes fraud. It's true that parts of article, e.g. on animal nicotine exposure, and cigarette butts on seashores are rather dubious, but they aren't relevant in the overall picture. The section on ventilation is not the opinion of the WHO, it's the opinion of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. The tobacco companies have promoted ventilation as a solution to second hand smoke, but the engineers have determined that you would have to crank up the air flow to hurricane force to reduce the toxic chemicals to a safe level, and that's just not practical. The WHO itself has been the target of tobacco company misinformation campaigns - the WHO did not actually say what the tobacco companies (or rather their paid agents) said they did. This again has been identified in court decisions. The main problem in editing this article is that a lot of information which was released and promoted by the tobacco companies was fraudulent and misleading, and editors have to factor that into what they put into the article. There has been a lot of misinformation printed in the popular media, and it has no place in this article. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, your comment demonstrates the advocacy I'm talking about: the reference to the two "sides" of the issue.  From a scientific perspective, there are just observations, analysis and conclusions.  No "sides."  However, as stated, I don't have the time to help make this a more objective review (apart from my comments here) so I can't really complain, can I?  :-) The Zipperfish (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we are getting close to agreement. As you say, ZF, from a scientific perspective, there are lots of observations and analyses leading to the conclusion that passive smoking causes cancer and other diseases. From a political perspective, there are (or were) two sides, with governments, health authorities and so on supporting science, and seeking to formulate appropriate policy responses, and tobacco companies, along with their hired guns, doing their best to discredit science. The article tries to cover this, presenting the science first, then the efforts of the tobacco companies against it and the legal findings of fraud, racketeering and so on that have been made against them. That seems to meet your needs, but feel free to suggest improvements.JQ (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, JQ. I actually did suggest some improvements (from my point of view) in my previous post.  The Zipperfish (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've fixed one problem you point out (the 30 per cent quote about cigarette butts) and agree that this whole section belongs in a separate article. JQ (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Symptoms in context
The article contains a long list of conditions that can result from ETS exposure, but it says very little about the amount of exposure required to cause those conditions. (For example, alfalfa sprouts contain a toxin called canavanine, but you'd have to eat an absurd amount of sprouts to hurt yourself. The first fact can be misleading without the second.) Hopefully an expert on the subject can help to put the existing information the proper context. Oconnor663 (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The earlier studies basically just demonstrated that ETS was toxic, but didn't do a lot of sensitivity analysis to determine thresholds. More recent research has shown surprisingly high toxicity at extremely low exposure levels, which is the opposite of the threshold effect that the tobacco companies were trying to claim. Researchers are still trying to figure out why, but that's the main reason authorities everywhere are banning all smoking in public places - there's no safe threshold for tobacco smoke. It's an issue of legal liability. Once they read the latest studies, they're more or less forced to treat it like plutonium.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the biggest of all such studies, that of WHO: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440 I'd like to know of any studies conducted since then.RayJohnstone (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. So we could start with the fact that you're cherry-picking one study while ignoring the rest of the evidence base. But it's interesting to look at that one study - it's been the victim of so much misrepresentation by the tobacco industry that it got its own paragraph in the racketeering verdict against Philip Morris et al. (see, p. 1316). I'm also curious whether you've read the editorial which accompanied Boffetta's article in JNCI; it provides a more detailed explanation of why you're misrepresenting the article's findings, and can be read here. Interestingly, the tobacco industry's concerted efforts to misrepresent this trial came to light with the release of their internal memoranda; a summary can be read at . But for Wikipedia's purposes, I'll simply note that we deal at length with the study you cite: see Passive smoking. MastCell Talk 18:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not cherry-picking to quote the largest and most recent (so I believe) of all case-control studies. On the contrary, that is what any commentator should do. And I can see why Wikipedia must quote the WHO words even though those words are contradicted utterly by the WHO numbers in the same paper. The "but the authority said so" excuse will come to be recognized as one of the irremediable defects of a project like Wiki.A pity. And this debasement of science by WHO and their authors Boffetta et al will be so recognized.RayJohnstone (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * An excellent analysis. Please go ahead and update your website to point out the sins of the WHO. As you say, Wikipedia is irremediably defective and cannot possibly benefit from your contributions. Goodbye and best wishes.JQ (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Concern re: risk level section
I don't want to get into the overall rights and wrongs of passive smoking per se here, but one thing I am a little concerned about is that the issues of level of risk appear to be a bit glossed over. Having reviewed a number of cites on this issue, SHS appears to have a genuine affect on cancer rates, but apparently only for those who have significant, long-term exposure (working in a smoking workplace or living with a smoker). The line 'Most experts believe that moderate, occasional exposure to secondhand smoke presents a small but measurable cancer risk to nonsmokers. The overall risk depends on the effective dose received over time' doesn't appear to be supported in any scientific literature I have seen to date, and the paper at the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that is cited following this assertion doesn't appear to support it either. To be honest, this sounds like dictionary definition Weasel Words to me; although I am more than happy to be shown to be wrong on this issue.

Does anyone have a proper cite that supports these assertions? I'm going to leave this for a bit before I tag it as 'citation needed' and considerably longer again before I look to delete it, but I feel this is quite an urgent issue for consideration. SupernautRemix (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a dose-response relationship (higher doses of secondhand smoke lead to an increased risk of consequences), as with virtually all biologically active substances. I think that's what the "dose received over time" gets at. Most expert opinion holds that there is no "safe" level of exposure to secondhand smoke, and that even brief exposure carries health risks. For a citation and scientific basis, the US Surgeon General's report (2006) is as good as any. See, item #5. MastCell Talk 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The Surgeon General's report is typical junk science. Claims in it are highly misleading.  The idea that ventilation is useless because it does not reduce exposure (and risk) to absolutely zero is like saying that seatbelts are useless since they "only" reduce risk of death in a crash by 50%.  The risks of second hand smoke have been grossly exaggerated as well, and are less than other risks that society readily accepts, such as those from automobiles.  Also, no studies to my knowledge have ever found any actual risk from the minuscule exposures inherent in ventilated smoking areas.  Real scientists (as opposed to so-called "public health" nanny-state shills) know that there's a safe dose for everything, even (gasp!) radiation. It's the dose that makes the poison.  For the real science on passive smoking, check here[website spam removed]Ajax151 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Automobiles have a clear benefit to society - they enable rapid and convenient transportation, and everything that comes with it. That's probably a consideration when it comes to the amount of risk that people are willing to accept. I don't think there are similar benefits, either to the individual or to society, from cigarette smoking. It seems facile to the point of intellectual dishonesty to present isolated comparisons between the risks of smoking and driving without acknowledging these fundamental differences. MastCell Talk 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Spread The Knowledge
In addition to the existing evidence that there are positive effects of smoking bans, I have added some more, needed information. The information included demonstrates another positive outcome that smoking bans entail. The evidence from recently published articles illustrates that there is a correlation between smoke-free policies and a reduced prevalence of tobacco use. Reduced tobacco use has major positive impacts on a population. If tobacco use is being reduced then the risk of being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke will follow in declination, thus improving the health of our communities. I am new to using Wikipedia, so bare with me while I improve my techniques. Mbarbero12 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Under Casual Mechanisms I have added some more information that is important. I have discussed a few statistics corresponding to lung cancer mortalities of nonsmokers. A highlight of the information that I have added is that lung cancer in nonsmokers should be considered one of the most common cancer mortalities in the United States. Many individuals link lung cancer to smokers, but it is important for people to understand how common lung cancer is among nonsmokers and that one of the most attributable exposures is second-hand smoke. Mbarbero12 (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

While researching review articles in Pubmed, I came upon a new long term risk factor not previously mentioned. A case-control study analysis correlated early childhood exposure of ETS with the development of adult-onset Atopic Dermatitis. AD is a skin disorder that is commonly referred to as Eczema. Mbarbero12 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco recently examined surveys regarding the public’s attitudes towards smoke-free policies in outdoor settings. Majority of those that completed the survey were supportive of the bans, with varying reasons. The public acknowledges the negative effects that smoking in public places has on our communities. It is important for the public to be aware of these problems and to support change for our communities. The more individuals that support change will increase the likelihood for policy change. Mbarbero12 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is known that active smoking is associated to hearing loss, but before this study there was no prior research on the effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke on hearing loss. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey was examined to look at the possible correlation. Hearing loss was found to be associated with Environmental Tobacco Smoke and nonsmokers; potential confounders were controlled. This is another important long term risk of Environmental Tobacco Smoke that should be included for the populations understanding. [User:Mbarbero12|Mbarbero12]] (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There was only a small amount of information regarding the effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke exposure on a newborn. I felt it was neccessary to incorportate this information. The effects were found by a systematic review and meta-analysis.Mbarbero12 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cotinine measurements in the body are reliable measurements of exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. It is important to include the current biomarkers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and the attributions they result in the study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Mbarbero12 (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The data included shows that some cases of environmental tobacco smoke exposure can be as nicotine-inducing as active smoking. Using biomarkers of nicotine, this information was concluded. The levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be so high that the individuals engage in behavior changes due to the nicotine in their body.Mbarbero12 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is important to explain how biomarkers are used and the special attributions of each biomarker. Continine levels were my main focus area of the current biomarkers. Also, the variability between continine levels found in different body functions is examined.Mbarbero12 (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Review
We have a great new review here in the Lancet  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

WHO
Removed the WHO reference, seeing as it (along with the sentence posted) specifically related to first hand effects and not passive smoking. Along with the small little problem that the WHO has repeatedly established that the effects of second-hand smoke is negligible to human health in most existing hospitality establishments.

If you wish to include the WHO link in relation to organisations that state anything about passive smoking, you better damn well show where it relates to passive (second-hand) smoking instead of smokers (first-hand) themselves. It's two different subjects. It's flat out against the rules to include information not related to this article as a HEADING reference to organisations against second-hand smoke. 58.7.214.181 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane


 * No it appears to relate to second hand smoke. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's pretty hard to reconcile what the anonymous editor says WHO has "repeatedly established" with their strongly worded statement. The opening of the executive summary alone is quite damning: "Scientific evidence has firmly established that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS), a pollutant that causes serious illnesses in adults and children. There is also indisputable evidence that implementing 100% smoke-free environments is the only effective way to protect the population from the harmful effects of SHS." - SummerPhD (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

POV
“﻿Currently, the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus”

How is it a matter of scientific consensus? That depends on the point of view, and clearly only one point of view is being expressed here. There is also no sources and no explanation of which “health risks” are implied. It is more of a political consensus than scientific. Schnget (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes exactly the scientific consensus is the POV that is expressed here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing a court case does not prove scientific consensus. Furthermore, it violates wikipedia policy to remove "neutrality disputed" until the discussion has become dormant.

"The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor."

This has been less than four hours and therefore is not dormant. Thank you for violating Wikipedia policy to push politics. It only shows what lengths the advocates will go in order to force their opinions in an encyclopedia. Lets try to be objective. I am adding neutrality disputed until the dispute is resolved. This in accordance with wikipedia policy, please read it! Schnget (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See the WHO above. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read what I just said above. I quoted Wikipedia..

Let me put this in as infantile of terms as I possibly can. You may not remove my 'neutrality disputed' until the dispute ends or becomes dormant. It is quite simple. There is still a dispute therefore you are not allowed to remove it.

As for the WHO whom you mentioned as being cited above, it says on page 2 the first citation:

“All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without any warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader”

This is because it is a political framework, not scientific fact. You are referring to political entities to justify a claim of scientific consensus. Political entities do not represent scientific consensus.

The part where it says “The responsibility for the interpretation and use of this material lies with the reader” means that the conclusion is an opinion of the author because it is based on the authors interpretation. Furthermore you have already previously admitted POV (see above). An encyclopedia must be objective. It must not express personal opinions. Political entitles do not represent science or objectivity and they certainly do not prove scientific consensus. You have twice now violated Wikipedia policy. Schnget (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You would need evidence to back up that their is a dispute. I have added more evidence and you have re added the tag. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Emphasis mine. This article is one of hundreds, if not thousands, that state that there is a clear and definite consensus among scientists about secondhand smoking. NW ( Talk ) 02:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Elsewhere, the hand of powerful corporate interests can be seen. It took many decades for the conclusions of authoritative reports by the US Surgeon General3 and the British Royal College of Physicians4 on the harmful effects of smoking to be accepted, while even now, despite clear evidence of rapid reductions in myocardial infarctions where bans have been implemented, there are some who deny that second-hand smoke is dangerous. In large part this was due to the efforts of the tobacco industry to deflect attention to other putative causes of smoking-related diseases, from stress to keeping pet birds. The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have suffered similar attacks from commentators with links to major oil companies. All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus, convincing many of the public, and often the media too, that the consensus is not based on ‘sound science’ or denying that there is a consensus by exhibiting individual dissenting voices as the ultimate authorities on the topic in question. Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action to tackle threats to health. This phenomenon has led some to draw a historical parallel with the holocaust, another area where the evidence is overwhelming but where a few commentators have continued to sow doubt. All are seen as part of a larger phenomenon of denialism."
 * Schnget: You seem to believe -- contrary to all available evidence -- that there is significant debate about whether or not secondhand smoke is harmful. You previously denied that the WHO was referring to secondhand smoke while claiming that they had repeatedly established that the hazard was negligible. Now that it's been clearly explained that yes, they were referring to secondhand smoke and they were quite clear about their findings that it is a "pollutant that causes serious illnesses" you've decided that, gee, maybe it says that, but it's not the WHO ("it's the author's opinion!") or that they weren't trying to convey a scientific finding. The World Health Organization issued policy recommendations based on one guy's opinion? That doesn't pass the stiff test -- it's an absurd claim of no meaning. They didn't mean to say it was scientific fact? "Scientific evidence has firmly established that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS), a pollutant that causes serious illnesses in adults and children. There is also indisputable evidence that implementing 100% smoke-free environments is the only effective way to protect the population from the harmful effects of SHS."Again, this fails the sniff test. Either you do not understand what you are reading or do not want it to say what it says. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

One may wonder whether Schnget has read the Passive smoking article beyond the summary section, when he/she says that "There is also no sources and no explanation of which “health risks” are implied. It is more of a political consensus than scientific." Indeed, sources showing that there is a scientific consensus and explanation of which health risks are at stake can be easily found in the body of the article. Section  Opinion of public health authorities provides 15 highly authoritative sources which supports the statement that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus. Section  Effects provides a detailed list of the harmful health effects of exposure to passive smoking, each backed by solid scientific references. It's hard to find a Wikipedia topic which is backed by as much evidence and with as many good authoritative sources. The advantage of Kessler's decision is that it provides a very clear, quite recent and at the time fairly comprehensive summary of the state of knowledge on the subject and it enumerates the authoritative sources, which have lead the judge to conclude that indeed there is - and has been for many years - a scientific consensus on the harmful effects of passive smoking. But, as the French say, “You can lead a donkey to the water but you can’t make him drink.” Dessources (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternately, "No one is blinder than he who will not see." - 76.124.102.4 (talk) 18:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I am being attacked, stereotyped, and branded a “denialist” because I think a sentence should be worded in a neutral manner is absurd. Furthermore it proves your own “denialism”.

It is fallacious to insinuate that if I am not engaging in this crusade with you that I must be a “denialist”. This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper or an advocacy forum. Is that too hard to comprehend? or do you think everything in existence should be disgraced for your cause?

I haven’t denied any health effects. I, unlike you, am being neutral and objective. Why is that so enraging?

I do however deny the false statement claiming scientific consensus. You must be completely ignorant of science if you can’t make the distinction between popular consensus and scientific consensus.

Providing evidence of popular consensus is not the same as providing evidence of scientific consensus.

In other words, popular consensus and scientific consensus are not the same thing.

“The health effects” either implies that ALL “health effects" are currently known and this is a matter of scientific consensus, or that ALL known and suspected health effects are a matter of scientific consensus which is impossible since science requires proof. Suspicion is not proof. If all known and suspected “health effects” are a matter of scientific consensus than why is there on going studies? Why is there a need to continuously prove something that is already known? How could it be known without already having been proven? and why is there opposing studies? The only explanation is that the health effects of smoking are not yet established, therefore not a matter of scientific consensus.

The response to my simple request for neutrality certainly failed to address the issue of neutrality. Instead you have shown aversion to it. It is obvious that you have no intention of being objective or scientific. Rather, you have an agenda. Schnget (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There certainly is controversy over whether breathing secondhand smoke is hazardous to human health. I wonder if our article can specify how hazardous it is, in comparison to smoking cigarettes oneself.


 * Also, do we have a source who says that there is a scientific consensus? If so, is this sufficient editorially to declare that all other viewpoints are in the minority (as with global warming)? Or can we describe the minority viewpoints without giving the reader a false impression about how widely held they are?


 * In particular, I'd like to know which sources say passive smoking is harmful (and how harmful, and why); along with any sources which dispute this finding. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean like which scientific bodies, which journal article? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, but the scientific bodies are listed in Passive_smoking, and in general journal article are inaccessible to the lay reader (either because one must have a subscription, or because the publicly available articles are written in arcane jargon). My real question is what evidence is there that passive smoking causes harm; and is it much less, around the same, or even more harm than active smoking?


 * I'd like to be able to counter arguments from ACSH which try to "debunk" the "passive smoking myth". And I need something stronger than the ad hominem argument that "skeptics are funded by the tobacco lobby".


 * I'm looking for something I can explain to a smart 10-year-old, like "Wearing seatbelts reduces injury in car accidents because it keeps your body from hitting the inside of the car at high speed; and studies of accident victims have shown that bruises from the straps are much, much less unhealthy than trauma from hitting your head on the windshield." --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. Will look into it when I have time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, considering the funding source is not an "ad hominem" argument. It's a key part of thinking critically about scientific literature. That's why every respectable scientific journal on Earth requires authors to describe the funding sources behind each publication - because readers need that information to reach an informed judgment. Moreover, it's clear that the funding source directly affects the findings: Barnes & Bero 1998 described this linkage systematically, and Tong et al. 2005 described a case study. In terms of summaries, the executive summary of the 2006 Surgeon General's report is a good starting point if you want to delve into the evidence behind the scientific consensus. MastCell Talk 04:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Some may rightly find Schnget's contribution to this discussion a bit excessive. However, he may have a valid point. I too find the sentence “﻿Currently, the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus” slightly objectionable - or awkward. As he/she says, this is open to being interpreted as "ALL health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus", which is not correct. Clearly, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke causes disease (this is well established beyond any reasonable doubt for some diseases, such as cardio-vascular diseases, lung cancer, etc. - see Surgeon General Report). However, there are still a number of diseases for which a consensus has not been achieved yet, and which are the subject of further studies, such as, for example, breast cancer. When reading the summary of the 2006 Surgeon General Report, one sees that there are many conditions for which the evidence available at the time was "suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke" and them (breast cancer, nasal sinus cancer, stroke, atheroscelrosis, etc.) This suggests that further studies are likely to provide new evidence that will increase the number of diseases for which a causal link can be considered established. Suggestion: replace the controversial sentence with "This is a matter of scientific consensus". This last version would be supported by the WHO FCTC which says: "Scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability." This is even supported by Philip Morris's official position on this issue: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome." (see ) Dessources (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this article is heavily biased towards anti-smoking. It represents anyone who doesn't believe in SHS or disapproves of smoking bans as agents of the tobacco industry. There is no voice at all for the anti-anti-smoking movement, the non-smokers and smokers who aren't funded by the tobacco industry but disagree with the anti-smokers. For example, the article makes it seem like the public is very much in favor of smoking bans, there is no backlash and businesses are not failing because of it, and anyone that says otherwise is part of the tobacco industry with a hidden agenda. There are numerous articles and studies on the negative effects of smoking bans on businesses, many of which are listed here: In 2004 The Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association funded a study that was conducted by Ridgewood Economic Associates. It concentrated on small, independent taverns. They found that bars and taverns in the state have lost about 2,000 jobs, $28.5 million in salary payments and $37 million in gross state product.

It cites a review saying that any ban that finds a negative impact was funded by the tobacco industry. It fails to mention how most of the studies that found positive effects had major ties to anti-smoking movement. How they conveniently under-represent or outright exclude businesses most effected by bans (bowling alleys, bingo halls, pool rooms, distributors, etc.) while including businesses which are not effected at all. 

It also does not mention anywhere the criticism that many of the studies that find significant damage caused by ETS are funded by the pharmaceutical companies who profit off people quitting cigarettes with nicotine patches and other replacement products. They're subject to the same bias and hidden agenda as tobacco industry-funded studies. Many major studies touted by anti-smokers have been debunked as simply untrue and full of misrepresentation on the same level as the tobacco industry funded studies (EPA 93, WHO, Helena) and yet there is no mention of this.

The entire article is written from the anti-smoking viewpoint. It brushes aside any criticism of the mainstream viewpoint as bias and tricks from the tobacco industry while completely obscuring the protests and criticisms of anti-anti-smokers.

In the EPA lawsuit section, it seems to downplay the inaccuracies and bias in the study. It makes no mention of the 1995 Congressional Research Services report, which was highly critical of the meta-analysis and its methods: "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies." They also noted that out of 30 studies, only five found a statistically significant risk at the 95% confidence level, and one showed a statistically significant negative risk (a protective effect). The remaining 24 studies showed no statistically significant increase or decrease in risk.

The judge is only quoting saying they cherry-picked their studies and had flawed methodology. What about Osteen saying how the study count not produce any statistically significant evidence of SHS?

"The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."

Reading the section, it's almost brushed off as the tobacco industry at it again, just simply suing studies that they don't agree with. But if the article was to discuss the wide inaccuracies and bias injected into the infamous study, from sources other than what tobacco agents and one judge thought, then it would be too confusing, considering there's no mention of bias or trickery from anywhere other than the tobacco industry in the entire page. If anything has reached a scientific consensus, it's the debunking of this fraudulent study, that is still routinely cited by government agencies, charity organizations and anti-smoking activists. Wouldn't it make sense to make it clear that this study is, in fact, inaccurate? Not just "junk science" that tobacco industry is trying to make you believe is wrong? Instead we learn that the judge's decision was appealed. Of course it's not clear that it was on completely technical terms, the official policy document didn't fall into Osteen's jurisdiction, it seems relevant to not they didn't challenge a single criticism put forth by Judge Osteen or defend the actual study at all.

Or let's take a look at the section on the World Health Organization controversy. First of all, it only mentions the study finding "weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS." No mention of it finding children of smokers are 22% LESS likely to get lung cancer. Or that in any scientific study that isn't related to SHS would've found that statistic, and the 16% for spouses, completely insignificant. For spouses, the confidence interval was .93 - 1.44, (meaning the real number could also be 1.0, aka no effect whatsoever aka statistically insignificant) and a relative risk of 1.16. For RR, anything under 2 is usually considered statistically insignificant at best: "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine

"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute

My point is, the study wasn't buried just because it didn't find a dose-relationship response. It had a lot to do with the fact they couldn't find any statistically significant connection. Well, that's not fair, they did make one conclusion with a confidence interval that didn't include 1.0, that the RR for children in a smoking home is 0.78 (22% less likely), with a CI of .64 - .96, the only one in the study that does not include 1. Of course, .78 is still very much too close to 1.0 to be relevant.

Then we learn about the media finding out about it. Of course it's portrayed as the media "alleging" things, making assumptions before it got the 'chance' to be published, it only "supposedly" failed to prove a link.

But really that doesn't matter, look at what comes right after. Brush away everything about it and just say the media completely misrepresented them and that the study still proves ETS as a risk. That's not enough of course, suddenly they round up "proof" that it was all organized by the evil tobacco industries. Give me a break.

Like I included above, this summary conveniently omitted parts of the study that prove that WHO were the only ones misrepresenting their study, there was nothing statistically significant found, other than children being less likely, which was not included in their press release. Actually, let's take a look at that press release. Starting with the title: PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU

Now look at the fourth paragraph, where they get around to the facts: "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." Once more for emphasis:

"However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant."

That's interesting, because in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, where the results were published, the researchers clearly state:

"An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its size, which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical precision..."

Tell me who is misrepresenting now?

The tobacco industry? World Health Organization? Wikipedia?

You know, if you were to include these facts in the article, maybe this whole "scientific consensus" would seem a bit inaccurate. There obviously isn't much science being done. Of course, even in this same page it tries to scare you from being skeptical of supposedly bias-free sources, because the evil tobacco industry has tried to trick people with the idea of "junk science", the terrible misconception that non-tobacco funded studies might have *gasp* hidden agendas and bias too!

Basically what I mean is: I should've warned you you'd need an umbrella from the start, because it's raining cold hard facts up in here.

chubbthehippo (talk) 8:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.95.65 (talk)

Pleading for the law of parsimony
Jmh649 introduced a reference after "Currently, the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus" in the summary to an article by Tong and Glantz, saying in his comment: "added more refs that are not really needed" (see ). I reverted this reference, with a comment explaining why. User Jmh649 reverted my edit without explanation. I gave an elaborate explanation of why I had removed the reference on his Talk page and removed the reference again (see ). This is the explanation I gave:

I removed reference to [6] (Tong and Glantz paper) after "Currently, the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus." since this reference is far from being the most appropriate to support the statement (compared to Kessler's findings, which have pages detailing the extent of the consensus). However, I did not delete Ref. [6], as it is very appropriate after "the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products", since it indeeds provides evidence of such activity by the tobacco industry. I provided an explanation of my change. Deleting it without explanation is not a good practice on Wikipedia, and can be assimilated to vandalism. I contend that the article by Tong and Glantz is inappropriate as a reference to support the statement about the general scientific consensus, as, firstly, it provides no additional information beyond what is in Kessler's document, secondly, it deals exclusively, with little elaboration, with the consensus that passive smoking increases on particular type of diseases (CVDs), not the general scientific consensus about the "health risks [plural!] of secondhand smoke", and thirdly, such specific consensus about CVDs is already acknowledged in prior and more authoritative documents, such as the 2006 Surgeon General Report. If a second reference was needed, then the FCTC (ref. [1]) would be more pertinent than ref. [6]). I will make another attempt along this line, hoping that you will not revert my change without at least discussing it on the Talk page.

Jmh649 replied peremptorily that the reference is "definetely appropriate" without addressing my argument, and reverted my edit a second time. To please his requirement for a second reference, I found one that would do the job much better than the Tong and Glantz paper, and provided Jmh649 with the following explanation on his Talk page ((see )):

"This reference is neither appropriate nor necessary for the reason I indicated in my comment above, which you did not address. The paper by Tong and Glantz superficially mentions the consensus with respect to one condition, CVD, without further elaboration. If one were to include all papers that make reference to the scientific consensus on some specific condition, the list of references would be long. The other references (Kessler and FCTC) refer to the general consensus and, in the case of Kessler's report, it details the arguments supporting the conclusion that there is a general scientific ocnsensus. The paper by Tong and Glantz relates to a different subject, the tobacco industry efforts to undermine evidence. Kessler's findings, the SG report and the text of the WHO FCTC are all freely available on the Internet - and I don't know which Wikipedia rule indicates that freely accessible sources are superior to those which aren't. I found a peer reviewed article by a well respected expert on the subject who provides good evidence and arguments establishing that there is a scientific consensus, which I will use instead of the paper by Tong and Glantz. Comparing the two papers, you will see what I mean by providing proper evidence and arguments supporting the assertion that the health effects of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus. The paper by Samet meets such requirement, while the paper by Ong and Glantz doesn't - when you added it as reference, you actually indicated the it was 'not really needed'. Interestingly, the Ong and Glantz paper is not even cited in the Samet paper, which is rather comprehensive. Finally, the Samet paper is freely accessible on the Internet. I hope this time you will not revert my update without an explicit justification and a proper discussion in the Talk page of the article and refrain from starting an edit war."

Jmh649 has ignored my explanation and has reintroduced the Tong and Glantz reference without any discussion. I still contend that this reference is not really appropriate as source of the statement on general scientific consensus, it is also redundant, as a much better one is now provided, and, as Jmh649 remarked when he introduced it, it's "not really needed". I am a proponent of the law of parsimony and think that things that are not really needed should not be included. The specific issue at stake here is a minor point. The principle on which it is based has huge repercussions. Dessources (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The ref I have added is 1) to a review article 2) is from the highly respect medical journal circulation 3) is freely accessible thus I would say it is relevant. I do not see any justification in your statement above for its removal. My reply justified its replacement  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User Jmh649 reverted 4 times my edit - this is a case of edit warring which I feel obliged to report, as violation of the 3RR rule. Jmh649 has systemtically ignored my explanations and has bounced back with the same peremptory arguments: "it's a review paper" (yes, but on a different subject), "it freely accessible" (so what? - no Wikipedia rule says that freely accessible articles are more authoritative), "it's relevant" (well, it's only marginally relevant, together with thousand other references of similarly low relevance with respect to the issue under consideration and that could be equally used - this is why, even Jmh649 himself added this reference with the apologetic comment that it was "not really needed" - see ). Finally, Jmh649's reply at  did not justify its replacement. Surely, the Tong and Glantz paper supports the legal findings in the sense that it provides evidence of the misconduct of the tobacco industry - this is why I have not removed the reference after the sentence "the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products" - since this coordinated scientific controversy is the subject being excellently reviewed by Tong and Glantz. I feel that my removing the reference where it was not needed and leaving it where it is relevant is both appropriate and contributes (admittedly, in a very small way) to improving the article. One should apply the principle of parsimony (Occam's razor) in the choice of references, when there is a vast choice. Finally, it's not a very constructive practice on the part of some editors to instantaneously delete contributions made by others without allowing some time for reflection and discussion. Being a stakhanovist of editing is not an excuse for such dissuasive practice, which, in the end, is more harmful than beneficial to the development of Wikipedia, as it tends to reduce the diversity and universality of its pool of editors.
 * Dessources (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This references is directly significant to the point at hand. You have replaced it with a non review published in Spanish. I have know idea why and do not understand your explanation. Asking for further input  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jmh649, please, would it be too much to ask that you take at least two minutes to give minimal consideration to my explanation and the reference I proposed, before jumping to conclusions. I'm sorry to say, but, reading your comment above, I get the feeling that you have deduced that, because the Samet paper was published in Salud Pública de México, a Mexican scientific journal devoted to public health, it had to be in Spanish and, furthermore, it cannot be a review paper, and has to be, therefore, inferior to the Tong and Glantz review published in English in a US journal (Circulation). Had you simply clicked on the link which is provided in the citation, which gives free acces to the full text of the article (you can also get a PDF copy), you would have immediately seen that it is actually written in English (surprise, surprise...), that the paper was submitted on December 7, 2007 and accepted only seven months later, on July 2, 2008, because it was peer reviewed, as this is the policy of the journal (see ). Its author, prof. Jonathan Samet, is one of the most eminent and qualified experts in the field. He is chairing the Departmnent of Epidemiology at the The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and is director of the Institute for Global Tobacco Control at the same institution. Furthemore, prof. Samet was the senior scientific editor of the 2006 Surgeon General Report on the health Effects of Seconhand Smoke, and was awarded the Surgeon General’s Medallion, the highest honor bestowed by the Surgeon General, for his contribution (see ). If this is not enough for you, let me add that Jonathan Samet acted as one of the key expert witnesses in the USA vs. Philip Morris and al. trial, his name being mentioned over 60 times in Kessler's document (Elisa Tong's name is not mentioned, while Glantz's name appears only once) - this provides the best possible link to what you call the "legal document". Finally, if you take two more minutes to look at his paper, you will see that he devotes a great part of it reviewing the state of knowledge on the health effects (plural) of exposure to SHS, leading to the conclusion that there is indeed an overwhelming scientific consensus on this subject. He provides a nice a clear summary of this review in his Table 1. Actually, the Samet reference is so good as a secondary source, including for Kessler's finding, that it renders superfluous any other reference to support the point where it is used. If one uses this paper to set the standard, one really sees that the Tong and Glantz paper is not only "not really needed" as a reference, it is simply inadequate. I hope this provides the clarification you needed.
 * Dessources (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Pubmed does not list it as a review. I check. Circulation has a higher impact factor than the journal you replaced it with. Thus replacing it per support at WT:MED Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The impact factor of the journal does not ensure the relevance of the cited article. Your comment is therefore misses completely the point.If the current impasse continues, I will feel obliged to refer the matter to arbitration.
 * 86.197.234.90 (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Or you could try to get consensus or listen too the comments at WT:MED. But up to you. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop. I count 14 changes in 5 days directly related to the insertion and removal of i.e. Tong and Glantz 2007. That is far, far beyond what is acceptable in reversions. Surely both of you understand that edit-warring is not the way to establish the best text for an article? James: I understand your view and sympathise with it, but you are a senior editor and know better. Dessources: although you have been around for some time, you could still claim ignorance of WP:3RR. Both of you are working hard to improve this article, and from your contributions, I don't see any real difference in your opinions, merely different emphases. Let me ask both of you this question: "How much worse would the article be, if Tong and Glantz were included or omitted at that point?" In other words, how much does it matter to each of you? Could either of you simply give way to the other without really hurting the article? If you were to ask for a third opinion, I'd be amazed if the opinion was anything more than "this is too trivial to spend any time worrying about". So please, please, pretty please, one of you just leave it be, and see how much easier it would be to work together on this article – it could benefit so much more when major contributors are working together. Hopefully, --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * RexxS, le me repeat here what I say at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine talk page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Passive_smoking).


 * My motivation for replacing the Tong and Glantz reference, which I tried hard to communicate to user Jmh649, is as follows:


 * The paper by Tong and Glantz is indeed a review article, but it reviews a different topic than the one for which it is used as reference. Its subject is: how the tobacco industry tried to undermine the science on secondhand smoke (SHS) by creating a false controversy. I agree that it is a paper of high standard, and this is why I have left it as reference to the last sentence of the summary section, which says "the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products" since this matches quite well the subject of the paper. So the paper is not removed from the list of references.


 * The Tong and Glantz paper is of low relevance as reference to support the assertion that "Currently, the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus," since its purpose is not to review such consensus. The paper makes only a brief reference to the scientific consensus in the first paragraph of its introduction.


 * The main limitation of the Tong and Glantz paper is that it does not deal with the overall scientific consensus about the health effects of SHS, and therefore is inadequate as a source supportng the assertion that "the health risk s of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus." It's important to note the plural in the word "risks". There is a wide range of risks, as can be seen in the Effect section of the article (see ), while the Tong and Glantz paper only provides a rather superficial review of the consensus related to one type of risk among them (namely the risk of CVD). The Tong and Glantz paper is particularly inappropriate in the summary section of the paper. It would be more suitable in the body of the article, in particular in its Evidence section, where it's not currently referenced.


 * It should be observed that user Jmh649 himself, when he added the reference (see diff ) indicated, in the Edit summary, "added more refs that are not really needed". He was therefore not fully convinced that his reference was appropriate.


 * Having made the observation which I just described, I tried to improve the article by replacing the weak reference with a better one, that would achieve the same purpose of providing a good source for the factual assertion made in the summary. Initially, I opted for the text of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an international treaty now ratified by 174 countries, which states in its Article 8.1: "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." However, I managed to find an even better paper, by Jonathan Samet, which actually contains an elaborate review of the status of knowledge of the health risks associated with exposure to SHS. The paper has exactly the content required to do the job: "This paper begins with an overview of the current state of the evidence with regard to the health effects of inhaling SHS, based largely on recent reviews, including the 2004 monograph of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization, the 2005 report of the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the 2006 report of the U.S. Surgeon General." It's written by one of the most authoritative experts in the subject. Jonathan Samet is chairing the Departmnent of Epidemiology at the The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and is director of the Institute for Global Tobacco Control at the same institution. Furthemore, Samet was the senior scientific editor of the 2006 Surgeon General Report on the health Effects of Seconhand Smoke, and was awarded the Surgeon General’s Medallion, the highest honor bestowed by the Surgeon General, for his contribution. Prof. Samet also was one of the key expert witnesses in the USA vs. Philip Morris and al. trial. His name being mentioned over 60 times in Kessler's document (Elisa Tong's name is not mentioned, while Glantz's name appears only once). The Samet paper dedicates almost two and a half pages to review the consensus, and provides on page 430 a table that nicely summarizes the state of knowledge, by type of risk.


 * I therefore propose to replace the Tong and Glantz reference with the Samet reference, which is a great improvement over the Tong and Glantz reference, and which more fully supports the assertion that "the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus". This is what I have been trying to communicate to user Jmh649, but he has responded either by ignoring my position or summarily dismissing it, as if what I wrote was not worth of his consideration. This is a bit frustrating for someone who has dedicated a lot of time and energy in the past contributing to improving this article (see ).


 * As for the edit warring, I got the feeling that Jmh649 was staging an edit war against me, since my edits, which I elaborated with care, taking the time to reflect and write explanations on the Talk page, were each time, almost instanteneously reverted with virtually no explanation from him, or with explanations that clearly indicated he had not taken the time to examine the reference (claiming that the Samet reference is in Spanish and that it's not a review). Looking at his log of contributions, one can see that he did not spent more than a few seconds before jumping to conclusions.


 * I admit that the subject of this particular reference is a minor issue, but the underlying principle is important, because if the editing practice of Jmh649 became accepted as the norm, it could dissuade many competent and qualified editors (I unmodestly pretend to be one with respect to this article), who may not be as superficially prolific as him, to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, with devastating consequences for the encyclopedia.


 * Dessources (talk) 13:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If a reference to a review article in a very important journal is not appropriate than I guess I am editing the wrong encyclopedia. We appear to have a WP:SPA that controls every aspect of this page. I shall leave it too him. Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I reject the accusation of being a WP:SPA. I have made contributions to many other articles. If I make many more contributions to the article on Passive smoking, it's simply because it falls within the area of my professional competency.
 * Dessources (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "If a reference to a review article in a very important journal is not appropriate than I guess I am editing the wrong encyclopedia." Point well taken, provided the review article is about the subject under consideration. The Tong and Glantz paper reviews how "the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products". Its natural place is as reference to support the last sentence of the summary section, where it is. So, where is the problem? Would you insist that this paper is so fundamental that it needs to be referenced twice in the summary section of the article, while actually it's not even cited in the body of the article?
 * Dessources (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Secondhand smoke claims
The section addressing secondhand smoke causing harm in non-smokers is bias. It makes its claims as conclusive fact; instead of citing it being opinion. Only 19% of overall studies show a connection between secondhand smoke causing illness in non-smokers. There is no scientific basis to claim this section a fact. It is the author's opinion. Citing 'scientific concensus' is also an opinion. It does not cite many secondhand smoke studies as having been funded by prohibitionist health organizations and drug makers--yet other articles liberally cite tobacco industry funded studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smace05 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinions are only your opinions. We need reliable sources. Jesanj (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has bee thoroughly discussed with one or more users under several user names (see above). We report what reliable sources have to say about the matter. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Similar problems from the same editor at List of smoking bans in the United States have provided some useful sources, after a good bit of clean up. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Passive smoking → Second-hand smoke –
 * 'Passive smoking' is a colloquialism which is best dealt with by a redirect. The most widely-used technical term is 'second-hand smoke', as used in  the majority of the scientific literature and indeed the current text of the article.  An old redirect exists from an incorrectly-punctuated page named 'second hand smoke' (missing the hyphen) which prevents a straightforward page move with a new redirect, and administrator assistance will therefore apparently be required.  However, there is no evidence that such a move will prove controversial. 13:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Hypocaustic (talk)
 * Support; clear WP:COMMONNAME. Powers T 02:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for several reasons:
 * 1) "Passive smoking" is not merely a colloquialism as the nominator suggests, but an accepted scientific description. Google Scholar results for "passive smoking" are obtained from The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, etc.
 * 2) WP:COMMONNAME. In terms of comparative quantity, a search of Google Scholar reveals 15,000 hits for "second-hand smoke" vs 45,000 for "passive smoking". Likewise, a Google Books search reveals 41,300 hits for "second-hand smoke" vs 155,000 for "passive smoking".
 * 3) The nominator asserts that the article currently uses "second-hand smoke", but he has edited the page several times this year to remove 17 occurrences of "passive smoking", and restructured the lede where it was previously the first-used term. (As a side issue, he also changed from US to British English with that edit, which may have violated WP:ENGVAR.)
 * Even if the page move goes ahead, I believe the article should be edited to undo many of the recent changes implying that "passive smoking" is only a colloquialism. All evidence points to the contrary, and I think this is actually merely a stylistic preference by the user who made the move request. Cross porpoises (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should probably add in 70k+ results for "secondhand smoke". Powers T 15:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Cross porpoises. Most of the foreign language wiki articles down the left hand side of the page seem to translate to passive smoking, but I don't know if that counts for anything, except maybe common use? Callmederek (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Other languages might count for certain proper nouns without well-established English usage, but not for determining what common use in English is. Powers T 02:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Cross porpoises.
 * PubMed search "passive smoking"
 * 2802, Free Full 702, Review 340, PMC 362
 * PubMed search "second-hand smoke" or "secondhand smoke" or "second hand smoke"
 * 1311, Free Full 550, Review 148, PMC 348
 * RDBrown (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * An aside that might be of interest here: should the sidestream smoke article be merged with this one?  —  AjaxSmack   02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re the query about side-stream smoke, thanks for pointing that out Ajaxsmack but I'm not certain that it would add to clarity to merge this immediately. Side-stream smoke is essentially the smoke which emerges from the lit tip of the cigarette/cigar etc., which combines with exhaled tobacco smoke to form second-hand smoke.Hypocaustic (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the above contributors for some thoughtful points. As the proposer of the idea, I can reassure all concerned that this is not simply a personal stylistic preference;  I'm fairly comfortable using both terms in conversation myself, and I suspect that 'passive smoking' did indeed predate 'second-hand smoke' - which may explain the different number of Google hits identified above, although as Powers has identified the frequent omission of the hyphen can complicate searches via PubMed and the like.  However, the substance of the proposal is really not about a terminological popularity contest, and there could well be a real issue as regards NPOV.  I take the point raised by Cross Porpoises above that passive smoking is not 'merely' a colloquialism - it does indeed appear in earlier scientific articles - but it can also be used in ways which are colloquial, imprecise, pejorative or dismissive.  Potential pejorative or opinion-loaded uses are probably of the greatest concerns as regards Wikipedia's editorial standards, as further searches of literature may illustrate; tobacco industry spokespeople, in particular, have been observed to dismiss or belittle the evidence about 'passive smoking' as fabricated, but the scientific consensus around the risks presented by 'second-hand smoke' is regarded as quite robust by all competent authorities.  My view would be that the proposed move remains a potential improvement which is not highly controversial, but I concur that it needs to be clear that it is not simply one contributor's whim.Hypocaustic (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I advise reading WP:POVTITLE. --Cyber cobra (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted, Cybercobra. I'm not sure that this alone settles the question, however.  The rubric advises that "notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious".  Whatever the degree to which 'passive smoking' may or not be colloquial or common (and the above discussion suggests that this may be subjective), it seems hard to avoid the likelihood that a more encyclopaedic alternative is indeed obvious.Hypocaustic (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cannabis
On the talk page for cannabis I put this suggestion down, and it's obviously germaine to this article too. If you do a Google search you'll see a split in opinion as to whether second hand smoke from marijuana is harmful, can cause a "contact high", or can taint drug tests (you'll recall the Winter Olympic athlete who successfully defended his medals after a drug test showed positive and he claimed he'd attended a party where he was exposed to second hand cannabis smoke, so there's precedent of a sort). And some feel it's harmless and doesn't contain enough stuff to effect drug tests or behavior (and on the first point, of course, you have authorities who say no amount of second hand smoke of any kind is safe). Other drugs that can be smoked, likewise, may also create a passive smoking scenario. With a growing number of places considering legalizing it the chances of encountering second-hand cannabis smoke is going to increase, and even without legalization it's not too hard to encounter someone smoking pot on the street or at a concert or even in pubs on the sly, so exposure to second-hand pot (or whatever) smoke is a topic worth discussing as to whether it's harmful or not - or if they simply don't know. 70.72.223.215 (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a magical Death Ray, huh?
The lead section and beginning of the article make no mention of the relationship between exposure/dosage and harm. While not worded as blatant lies, the language is continually misleading to such a degree and extent that suggests dishonesty. This reinforces misleading anti-smoking media propaganda campaigns (and now a full ban-tobbacco campaign also). For example (just one of many) "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death." ...in the lede, without context is a meaningless (but frightening) statement, since the same thing can be said about "food." This tactic appears to be intentional (in the context of all the nearby omissions) and seems to border on well intended fear mongering. Three sections down, (with still no meaningful hint about dosage) are still full of statements like: "A British study reported that exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60%, similar to light smoking." "Exposure!?" Before such statements can be meaningfully made, the exposure levels/dosages should have fully explained context. Some of the content from the section Risk Level needs to be moved to the lede section: "The overall risk depends on the effective dose received over time. The risk level is higher if non-smokers spend many hours in an environment where cigarette smoke is widespread, such as a business where many employees or patrons are smoking throughout the day, or..." and so forth. Not a death ray. Not a biased & carefully crafted hit piece.

Please bring this article up to Wikipedia standards. Quoting: Manual of Style (lead section) "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies...." --68.127.83.38 (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Agreed, this page does not seem to refer to any actual scientific studies. In particular, the phrase "exposure to second-hand smoke causes..." refers to a surgeon general's summary that is not linked on the page. The surgeon general, as an MD and not a PHD, is not a reliable expert on the empirically demonstrated effects of secondhand smoke. The page should refer to scientific data, which as far as I am aware, demonstrates significant effects of second hand smoke on children, spouses and workers who are regularly exposed to second hand smoke. The australian study referenced in the article as proving the risk of lung cancer, for example, refers only to those living with smokers, a point which is not mentioned in the summary.

More importantly, this page does not compare the incidence of smoking related problems amongst those exposed to second hand smoke, particularly those who are only exposed through patronizing establishments where smoking is permitted, to the indicence of these issues in the general population. Smoking is the primary but not the sole cause of such problems. Because casual exposure is the basis of legislative change, this is a particularly important issue (obviously no one would be elected if they promised to regulate smoking in homes, where it matters, because most people have homes but do not own businesses). Without a numerical comparison, defined through empirical study, this page amounts to a politically imbricated, bald-faced lie. If there is any evidence, anywhere, that exposure to second hand smoke outside of employees of businesses that allow smoking, spouses or house-mates of smokers (both of which involve personal choice), and the effects of smoking on the children of smokers (meaning child abuse/neglect), it should be referenced SPECIFICALLY on this page.

-wood0465 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.50.141 (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

this article is not neutral
I found this article uncomfortable to read. I'm no fan of smoking and no apologist for the tobacco industry, but the article's tone seems shrill and heavyhanded: it feels like the it's hitting me over the head with a pretty unrelenting message that any amount of second-hand smoke is BAD and the tobacco industry is EVIL and any study that might even hint that second-hand smoke won't kill you is BOGUS. To me, the article reads like a screed by anti-smoking activists; it does not read like a properly neutral Wikipedia article. I'll try to find some time to help improve it, but in the meantime I'm putting an NPOV tag on it, because yes, I do dispute this article's neutrality. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes reality is biased against a position. The optimal way to neutrally present reality in said situation is not to fudge our article to "seem" more neutral, as that in itself is a violation of WP:NPOV. I would suggest you present some specific suggestions, sourced to reliable sources (WP:MEDRS if applicable) for improvement of NPOV, otherwise I support removal of the tag. Yobol (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See below. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What about marijuana smoke?
This article is all about tobacco-based second-hand smoke. But what about smoked cannabis? With what seems like an increasing number of people smoking pot, and the fact numerous jurisdictions are moving towards legalization, this may become a growing concern. Anecdotally I've heard everything from "it's harmless" to "it makes you stoned" and the Ross Rebagliati case at the Nagano games set the precedent that passive exposure could trip drug tests (that was in 1998, of course and standards/tests may have changed since to take that into account). Again anecdotally I know people who refuse to attend certain events and venues because they don't want to be exposed to second-hand pot smoke. The topic of "third hand" exposure has also arisen, such as people reporting issues when they've moved into a house or apartment where pot has been smoked and I can speak from first-hand experience at having to deal with a book I bought second-hand that smelled like it had been used as a blunt. I'm sure there's been reputable third-party sources covering this topic on both ends of the issue. (I mention cannabis since that's the most common, but obviously any other smoked drug would also qualify for discussion, as well as incense). I suggested this also at the article on cannabis, but it obviously is germane here too. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A Heavily Biased Article
This article is in such bad shape and so biased that it is hard to know where to begin in criticising it. First off the Greeks and the Japanese both smoke more than the British and Americans and both live longer. So never mind passive smoking even active smoking is just not that big a deal in health; it is one factor amongst many that's all. There are of dozens of references cited but no mention anywhere that so many of these studies were funded by Big Pharmacy, makers of the highly profitable patches and gum. There is big money in the smoking cessation industry but of course that is not mentioned here. For example in the UK Forest is criticised for being funded by the tobacco industry, which of course it is, but Forest has only one full-time employee while ASH have twenty and are heavily funded by by Big Pharma. Again nothing in the article to suggest this. Then the 'science' of some the studies mentioned ... take this as just one example ''A minority of epidemiologists have found it hard to understand how second-hand smoke, which is more diluted than actively inhaled smoke, could have an effect that is such a large fraction of the added risk of coronary heart disease among active smokers. One proposed explanation is that second-hand smoke is not simply a diluted version of "mainstream" smoke, but has a different composition with more toxic substances per gram of total particulate matter''. So, you take tobacco smoke, mix it with air and it somehow becomes more toxic? How is this supposed to happen exactly? Then the fact that there are hundreds of toxins in tobacco smoke. Yes, there are indeed in but in such minute quantities as to have no effect. There are toxins in practically every food we eat, viz cyanide in strawberries, arsenic in apples etc but again in such minute quantities that it doesn't matter. Then the studies showing how the smoking bans are so popular - again huge bias in the phrasing of the questions. These bans are not democratic and populist they are elitist and imposed from the top. No-one ever signed a petition to ban smoking in all bars, no-one ever went on demonstration to demand it. Reading this article makes me feel like I am living in a madhouse. I could go on and but right now I need a coffee and cigarette.  Smokey TheCat  07:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Smokey, it's just an article which reflects the reality which proper science has explored and made clear. Your choice to ignore it and smoke anyway is just that - your choice - but it doesn't change the facts. It's probably arguable that the material could be presented more clearly still, sure, but denialism is unlikely to be a helpful starting point from which to do so.Hypocaustic (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Denialism' ie you are right and I am wrong. No debate. Yeah, that's the language of the true scientific method. You answer none of my points and talk of 'proper science', all funded by Big Pharma,  Smokey  TheCat  13:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Viz:-

Average number of cigarettes smoked by adult by year : Greece - 3,017; Japan - 2,028; USA - 1,196; UK 790.

Life expectancy : Greece - 80; Japan - 83; USA - 79; UK - 80.

Sources : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=710 World Health Organisation website  Smokey TheCat  08:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Smokey, you've been here for too long and have too many edits to too many different articles to play this game. You know what WP:OR is.  Please bring WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable sources of quality and authority equal to or greater than what the article currently carries to back up your assertions, or don't engage here any further.  This talk page discussion is heading pretty far into WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX territory.    02:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In what sense is quoting a Wiki page or the WHO website OR? And Soapbox? I know I have minority views but IMHO this whole article is SoapBox for Big Pharma.  Smokey TheCat  07:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pages on open wikis, including wikipedia, fail even wp:RS, let alone wp:MEDRS. You must know this by now. Bring reliable secondary sources that make the correlation, or let it go. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes unless you come forwards with proper sources your comments are neither hear nor their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This gives the number of cigarettes smoked by adult by country http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tob_cig_con-health-tobacco-cigarette-consumption This gives life expectancy by country http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_lif_exp_at_bir_tot_pop-life-expectancy-birth-total-population A simple comparison of these two tables shows that there is no correlation. Therefore, as even active smoking is simply not that significant a factor, how can passive smoking matter at all?  Smokey TheCat  05:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing a change to the article? Biosthmors (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is original research. It would be like saying the Japanese eat a lot of salt and they have the longest life expectancy therefore salt is good for you in large amounts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke does cause disease, disability, and death
This section reproduces almost without change an entry made previously and which is now buried in Archive 2, which I reactivate in view of the discussion above. Although it may not correspond to the point of view of some editors, the sentence "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death" (my emphasis) 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.


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


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


 * WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer "Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking" IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83, 2002 - The evaluation of the Monograph is: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans." (emphasis added) This assessment is made by a group comprising 25 of the world's top experts in cancer research, epidemiology and tobacco control.

The importance and significance of these references is emphasized in a recent communication by the World Health Organization :

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, 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: 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.
 * WORK PLACES
 * PUBLIC PLACES
 * HOMES

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 ("Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death"), 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) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Who are you trying to convince? I have no problem accepting these conclusions, although my comments may suggest that. May point is about intellectual honesty. One study shows an unexpected negative correlation between passive smoking and cancer risk as only result reaching statistical significance at 95% confidence level, and instead of having the balls to just say, "yes, this doesn't fit with other studies, but the total available evidence still shows a clear relationship ... ", we get
 * WHO claims that the results of the study had been "completely misrepresented" in the popular press and were in fact very much in line with similar studies
 * An editorial "summarising" the results by basically repeating the conclusions drawn from previous studies.
 * "findings that the controversy over the WHO's alleged suppression of data had been engineered by tobacco companies in an effort to discredit scientific findings which would harm their business interests." I have no problem believing they were involved, since it was in their interest to get these results out in public, with as much publicity as possible. The WHO could have stopped these rumours at any time by releasing the results. And even "to discredit scientific findings which would harm their business interests" would technically be correct, in a very misleading way: they would want to discredit the overall conclusions regarding passive smoking, but certainly not the results from this study.

The wikipedia trend in such topics to obscure or remove any information that could potentially be used as arguments for the opposition only damages wikipedia's reputation. It means you can't trust articles to provide all the facts when the topic is health and food, alcohol or drugs, climate change, the environment, the safety of vaccinations, CFLs and so on. How is the average reader supposed to differentiate between the propaganda and omissions on the one hand and the conspiracy theories and pseudoscience on the other?
 * All the info on the economic impact from smoke-free laws is taken from anti-smoking websites. No independent study has shown a negative impact? Here in Belgium, there was a 43% rise in the number of bars going bankrupt after the smoking ban was introduced.
 * "Second-hand smoke has been shown to produce more particulate-matter (PM) pollution than an idling low-emission diesel engine. In an experiment conducted by the Italian National Cancer Institute": Three guys from Italy and France do an experiment in someone's garage, the results of which could be predicted beforehand. Three smoldering cigarettes will produce way more PM than cigarettes being smoked, and exceeding outdoor limits is to be expected. This experiment is little more than a way to generate additional publicity about passive smoking dangers. The limits imposed for PM10, and later PM2.5 were based on correlation found between health effects and measured particle concentrations that could be measured at that time. Studies suggest that ultra-fine accumulation (30 to 500 nm) and nuclei (less than 50 nm) mode particles are more dangerous. Most of diesel PM exhaust falls into these sizes. But this report suggests that compared to ETS, diesel exhaust has negligible effects on human health! The oil and car industry will be pleased. And how is this WP:RSMED btw?

Examples from other topics:
 * Preventive medicine: The table "Leading causes of preventable deaths in the United States in the year 2000" Results of this study are mentioned in several wikipedia articles. The data about obesity (Poor diet and physical inactivity) had to be revised later. Aside from that, one might think that suicides were less than 17000 since they aren't in the table. Reading the study, it turns out that the authors picked the nine causes listed, maybe based on some moral judgement? All vices are there: smoking, overeating, alcohol, sexually transmitted diseases and drug addiction. Medical errors, suicide, high blood pressure or high cholesterol aren't, yet their report mentions that 30% of Americans suffer from high cholesterol or blood pressure, and that monitoring and treating these is crucial to prevent premature mortality and morbidity. The way the figures were calculated is a mess, with adding extra consumptions to reported alcohol intake because of an impression they had that binge drinking wasn't included by the respondents, using risk figures from Australia to calculate the number of deaths, and including alcohol related car accidents in both the alcohol and the road accidents figures, because: "We included alcohol-related deaths to stress that efforts to educate the public and enforce laws against driving while intoxicated have accounted for most of the decline in deaths related to motor-vehicle crashes."
 * Vaccine, Vaccine injury, Vaccine controversies, Vaccination: only vaccination related adverse effect mentioned is anaphylaxis. No other risks mentioned other than the pseudoscience claims being debunked.
 * What about infections due to improper techniques like reusing syringes? Six percent of nurses and other health professionals said they "sometimes or always" use single-use or single-dose vials for more than one patient (American Journal of Infection Control 2010). At least one reported case happened with vaccine injections (2008 influenza vaccination if I remember correctly).
 * CDC: In reported cases of vasovagal syncope after vaccination, 7% of the syncope reports resulted in deaths, life-threatening illnesses, hospitalizations, or permanent disabilities, and 12% were complicated with injuries such as contusions, fractures, and intracranial hemorrhage.
 * Seems that for the greater good all efforts go to debunking myths while real risks and the CDC guidelines to minimize them (15 minute monitoring to prevent syncope related falls and injuries) are absent. 1.3 million people die each year because of non-sterile injections btw (WHO numbers).

I'm not hunting for bad articles, the med related topics I recently read about in any detail were thyroid problems, myelin and action potential, infections of the CNS, and causes of death and vaccines. Only the last two gave me reason to consult other sources and to check the quoted articles. And it's the same every time I come across a controversial topic: bad sources and one-sided information.

I know my comment is mostly off-topic, not related to the lead section discussion. Just wanted to point out the one-sided attention editors seem to have in these topics. Something I would expect the Wikiproject Medicine to pay attention to. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If I am not mistaken, the debunking arguments above were in response to a series of earlier edits that tried to wp:WEASELword away from "causes cancer". It is an unfortunate reality on WP that editors sometimes have found it necessary to direct their attentions to resisting such disinformation campaigns rather than always being able to always focus on the straightforward improvement of the work.


 * Certainly iatrogenic illness is a real problem, which deserves fair treatment. I'm not aware of a reason for choosing this talkpage to do so. If you have general issues with the way we edit on medical topics, I would suggest wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine as the place to take them.LeadSongDog come howl!  22:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversy over harm
Some statements in this part of the article suggest that the studies and the organizations that disagree with the anti-smoking laws rationale or with the statistical significance of the harm of passive smoking do so because of monetary incentives from tobacco companies.

These statement is a 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 second-hand smoke, sought wide publicity for those results. The industry also funded libertarian and conservative think tanks, such as the Cato Institute in the United States and the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia which criticised both scientific research on passive smoking and policy proposals to restrict smoking.[109][110] New Scientist and the European Journal of Public Health have identified these industry-wide coordinated activities as one of the earliest expressions of corporate denialism. Further, they state that the disinformation spread by the tobacco industry has created a tobacco denialism movement, sharing many characteristics of other forms of denialism, such as HIV-AIDS denialism."

It seems that the text is not exposing the different views that makes the controversy or introducing them, as expected in the beginning of a section, but instead is trying to discredit the research that do not support a anti-smoking policies.

The statement "As part of its attempt to prevent or delay tighter regulation of smoking" express a supposed intention of the tobacco industry and is not proved.

The statement "Further, they state that the disinformation spread by the tobacco industry has created a tobacco denialism movement, sharing many characteristics of other forms of denialism, such as HIV-AIDS denialism." discredits the critics of anti-smoke policies comparing them with a extreme case of criticism. It's like compare a anti-smoke person to Hitler. Despite Hitler was against smoking and therefore they have similarities, using such a negative case is a tempting to discredit the arguments of that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulzito123 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Lede paragraph
Anyone know what the ":1242" at the end of the lede is about? I would remove it but I am unsure what it actually is. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 14:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Page number. Not my favorite style but fairly commonly used. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 November 2012
[Citation needed] I see no link to any scientific study proving any link between second hand smoking and disease or death, nor any mention of the legal case in 1998 that threw out the ambiguous findings of the prior report (Judge Osteen July 17 1998, North Carolina)

Dugald64 (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you might have missed sources 2, 3 and 8, they're cited near the top of the article. All were published subsequent to the 1998 legal case that you mention.  In passing, why are you requesting scientific studies on the one hand while relying on a court case on the other?  Perhaps it would be more helpful to your case if you could produce a scientific study that demonstrates that known carcinogenic substances magically lose this property at lower doses.  That'd be good.  --P LUMBAGO  11:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am closing this edit request for now as I see no specific request to edit the article. Please feel free to continue this discussion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's all very well decrying the use of a court case to suppress a scientific study, but isn't that how the article deals with the Enstrom/Kabat study, which inconveniently pointed out that there is no correlation at any level of exposure or over any duration between ETS and coronary heart disease? And was not Enstrom/Kabat financed initially by the American Cancer Society until they discovered the likely results? I also seem to recall that the WHO report cited ETS as being responsible for a 16-19% increase in the risk of lung cancer, but as the risk of lung cancer is only 1.36% up to age 64, that represents only a 0.1% increase - which falls within the margin of error of the study. The problem with this article is as Smokey the Cat mentioned in the first 'talk' section, it is heavily biased in favour of the theory of ETS and simply dismisses criticism of the basic proposition - that ETS is lethal. If so many people die from ETS, why don't we name just one of them? :) Dave Briggs (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

no independently funded research has shown...
A reliable source for that? there are 108 countries with smoking bans, and I see one publication reviewing 90 pre-2002 studies covering 31 states or provinces in eight countries, restricted to studies published in english, located with a database search or provided by the "International Union Against Cancer’s International Tobacco Control Network".

I rephrased the part about "a 2003 review reported that independently funded..", to indicate who did the review, and clarified the "independently funded". Ssscienccce (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If people want all the specifics they can click on the ref. We do not start each sentence on Wikipedia by explaining who did the research and how it was done. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that my edit has been reverted. So if I understand correctly, the point being made is that they are not funded by the party that has an interest in a negative outcome, whether or not they are funded by parties having an interest in a positive outcome is not relevant? Ssscienccce (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

JNCI Lung Cancer Study Article
The JNCI recently ran an article on a large, prospective study that showed no relationship between lung cancer and secondhand smoke. This is important because this is the largest and also the most recent study on this relationship, and it has the advantage of being prospective where many others are case control studies. It seems like this ought to be mentioned in the sections of this article discussing lung cancer, especially as the article makes reference to the opinion of the National Cancer Institute many times. There cannot be much doubt this study will impact that opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.101.29 (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding my MEDRS tag
I have been asked on my talk to explain why I added a non-MEDRS tag to the "effects" section of this page. The reason is primarily because of the use of references 19 and 20, which are both clearly primary studies, not secondary reviews and as such do not appear to be MEDRS compliant (I'm not so sure about the use of reference 17, either). To be clear, though, it seems to me as though everything else is not a MEDRS violation. However, if I am misunderstanding the policy, as so politely suggested recently, do not hesitate to point this out and elaborate on what I am missing. Jinkinson  talk to me  04:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have trimmed the two references. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)