Talk:Passive smoking/Archive 5

Need Contrary Findings
It is necessary to include contrary evidence on the harmfulness of second hand smoke like the Stanford or Women's Health Initiative studies to provide a complete reference to this subject. The absence of such calls into question the motives of the author(s).15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leisterf (talk • contribs)

Misleading sources
Nearly all of the key sources (i.e., ones asserting "scientific consensus") do not directly link to articles providing any evidence. In one particular case, the link is dead. I agree with a couple of the other posters that this article is seriously flawed; the fact that very strong assertions are made and the references are intentionally or unintentionally obtuse makes this article very unhelpful for someone looking for clear answers. 134.68.168.130 (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To which do you refer? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Needs discussion re: marijuana smoke and "vaping"
With the growing number of jurisdictions allowing for legal recreational use of marijuana, people will want to know about "second hand smoke" with regards to pot smoke. There are concerns over so-called "contact highs" and there's the well-known case of an Olympic snowboarder who successfully defended himself after he tripped a drug test by claiming it was from exposure to passive pot smoke. This article primarily deals with tobacco, but I think the time has come to expand it to include pot as well - there must be studies on both sides of the issue (harmful vs. not harmful) that can be cited. In addition, if you do a google search on the topic you'll find a related issue that gets talked about a lot is odour; even moreso than the odor of second-hand tobacco smoke there is often-emotional complaints about the odor of pot smoke (speaking anecdotally I was exposed to second hand pot smoke about a year ago and while I didn't get any "contact high" from it or anything, the odor made me physically ill to the point where my retching reflex was triggered and I'm one who isn't affected by tobacco smoke or even exhaust fumes). I think the article should also be updated to include discussion of "vaping" as well - using e-cigarettes and vaporizers - which is a relatively new method of delivery for both tobacco and pot smokers. Supporters say that there is no second hand smoke involved, simply water vapor being expelled, but has anyone done any studies to confirm that this is the case? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to follow on the preceding, an incident has occurred on CNN which again raises the question of the impact of passive marijuana smoke on non-smokers: . 68.146.70.124 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no smoke involved with vaping because no combustion takes place. Also, there is no "delivery of tobacco" as the "juice" does not contain tobacco, but rather nicotine extracted from tobacco, in a solution of either propylene glycol, vegetable glycol, or both. Water is the largest component of the vapor, along with glycol and nicotine. The so-called "contact high" is a purely psychological phenomena. I'm not familiar with the case of the snowboarder, but I imagine it got him off the hook by introducing doubt into the case. Anecdotally, I work in an industry that regularly drug tests, and have lived with roommates who, well, let's just say the house reeked 24/7. I never came up positive, even after months of exposure. Regardless, I believe these are all separate subjects from environmental tobacco smoke. Sudont (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversy over harm, Milloy, POV and misleading sources
Where it says:- This approach to epidemiological analysis was criticized in the American Journal of Public Health: A major component of the industry attack was the mounting of a campaign to establish a "bar" for "sound science" that could not be fully met by most individual investigations, leaving studies that did not meet the criteria to be dismissed as "junk science."[131] This source 131 does not even mention relative risk. They would not go so far. It is only good epidemiology to not accept RR's of less than 2.

If X% of people exposed to a putative cause suffer a certain effect and Y% not exposed to the cause (or alternatively the general population) suffer the same effect, the RR is X/Y. If the effect is “bad”, then a RR greater than unity denotes a “bad” cause, while an RR less than unity suggests beneficial cause. An RR of exactly unity suggests that there is no correlation. There are a number of problems in a simplistic application of RR that require an RR to be over 2 to be significant. In particular:

1.Even where there is no correlation, the RR is never exactly unity, since both X and Y are estimates of statistical variates, so the question arises as to how much deviation from unity should be acceptable as significant.

2.X and Y, while inherently unrelated, might be correlated through a third factor, or indeed many others ( for example, age ). Sometimes such confounding factors might be known (or thought to be known) and (sometimes dubious) attempts are made to allow for them. Where they are not known they cannot be compensated for, by definition. 3.Sometimes biases are inherent in the method of measurement employed.

4.Statistical results are often subjected to a chain of manipulations and selections which (whether designed to or not) can increase the deviation of the RR from unity.

In epidemiologic research, [increases in risk of less than 100 percent] are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident .[Source: National Cancer Institute, Press Release, October 26, 1994.] (i.e. the RR must be higher than 2)

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"

"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.177.67 (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Tone, poor citing...this whole page has serious problems with POV
This article, the whole thing, is intensely skewed. One of many examples is stating that Cato institute being accused of consorting with the tobacco industry...and the citations either lead to bad sources or other wiki articles. This is not healthy citing of sources, and this whole article has cancer if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.88.228 (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There are many assertions in the article about health effects which are (at best) far from proven, and the science being done in this field is very politicized, (as is the article). The editor often mentions tobacco industry affiliation of opposing research, but does not mention anti-smoking organization affiliation of supporting research. Sudont (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup the tobacco industry managed to hide the fact / confuse the fact that smoking was and is harmful for many years. The evidence of harm however is as rock solid as it can get in toxicology. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

An organisation lying about one thing does not equate to everything they say being a lie though, and as others on the talk page have noted, from the biggest studies, the relative risks do not count as being statistically significant. The page also doesn't make note of the fact that large scale studies that have been done in the 21st century also fail to prove risk, and that these studies were not done by the tobacco industry but by, for example, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. I think the Wikipedia page making out that all studies which cast doubt on the dangers of second hand smoke are linked to the tobacco industry heavily biases the article and certainly casts doubt on the sentence, "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death."Meravie (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:MEDRS and we can than discuss. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

6.3 cigarettes a day without increased risk of lung cancer
According to Doll and Peto 1978

6.3 cigarettes a day without increased risk of lung cancer

4.5 cigarettes a day without increased risk of heart disease

3.0 cigarettes a day without increased risk of respiratory disease

See here for these results and similar studies http://www.forcesitaly.org/italy/download/gori-mantel.pdf (study by the American University) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.177.67 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MEDRS. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, thanks for that, the above link is good because it shows the full text. I hate giving links that don't show that.

Here are the (more authoritative) others:-

The the study was first published in "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology" Volume 14 issue 1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027323009190054Y http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1947248

One of the study authors "Gori" is the current editor in chief.

This is the wikipedia article about the journal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_Toxicology_and_Pharmacology

The homepage of the The International Society of Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology http://www.isrtp.org/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.177.67 (talk) 08:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow 1991. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

1991? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.177.67 (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Whoopee - a startling new study from ITALY in 1978! Let us all fall down in awe at the brilliance of 1970's Italian scientists! What about the 2008 UCLA School of Nursing study?:
 * the study relied upon surveys completed every two years by 237,648 female registered nurses about their health, including smoking habits...
 * The UCLA research explored changes in smoking trends and death rates among female nurses enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study between 1976 and 2003, a span of 27 years...
 * In all age groups, roughly twice as many current smokers had died in comparison to nurses who never smoked...
 * Quitting smoking made a big difference in enhancing longevity, especially among nurses in their late 70s...
 * Death rates among former smokers that age were 1.5 times higher than those of non-smokers...
 * current smokers were 2.3 times more likely to have died by that age than nurses who never smoked...
 * It's not just lung cancer, there are also chronic pulmonary obstruction and heart disease to consider. Also maybe in the 1970's Italian science wasn't that reliable, kind of like cheap Italian cars and cheap Italian wine. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you are on the wrong page. This is the passive smoking page. Let me give an example of the difference. I advise you to do this near a hospital or with an ambulance standing by (just a suggestion). Take a gas canister of carbon monoxide and with an attached tube try and take about 8 deep breaths of the gas as though you were quickly smoking a cigarette. When you wake up you can reflect that the motor vehicle emissions you breath every day were not as bad as that because they are diluted. You could also try this with other vehicle emissions like nitric acid vapour, NO, NO2, benzene, PM10, PM2.5 or OO2 but unless you want an experience similar to a WW1 gas attack I'd advise against it.

The first line of this section you commented on says "According to Doll and Peto 1978". The name "Doll" there refers to Sir Richard Doll, he is the guy that conclusively proved that smoking i.e. first hand smoking, causes cancer. There are no serious people out there who deny that this is true. There is no conclusive statistical evidence however that shows that ETS or passive smoking is harmful in any way.

Just as an anecdotal aside, I wonder how long it would take you die from tobacco smoke if you were sitting in a car with 4 people all chain smoking fat cigars with the windows done up and the air-con off. My guess is that you would die of dehydration.

If you attach a tube of some kind, like a hose pipe, from the exhaust and then put the other end round to the window with the window done up as much as possible and then start the engine running most people die between 1 and 1 and a half hours. It is a popular suicide method in the UK - CO1 poisoning. Look at poor old Micky Cave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micky_Cave he died accidently by running his car in a small garage.


 * Gio Batta Gori went on to a long career of consulting for tobacco companies. If he is editor in chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, it calls into question the impartiality of the journal itself.  Reify-tech (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And from the wikipedia article he also had a long career at the National Cancer institute and is:- "an epidemiologist and fellow with the Health Policy Center in Bethesda, Maryland where he specializes in risk assessment and scientific research. He is well known for having consulted for the tobacco industry and challenging specific scientific claims concerning the risks of tobacco use. He is also known for advocating the regulation and taxation of cigarettes and other tobacco products based on their specific delivery of carcinogens and other hazardous substances, so as to promote risk reduction." So he admits smoking is dangerous and advocates their taxation and regulation - very radical. Many scientists dispute illnesses attributed to smoking eg. dementia, tooth decay (not gum disease).

In any case none of this detracts from the studies he quoted like Doll and Peto 1978.

Cannabis?
This article has no information about cannabis/marijuana smoke. Is there a separate article that I am overlooking? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to make more objective with simple edits
All I did was add the word "may" to the are for objectiveness and to make the article look less like a rant. I also added a single link to a scientific body about a study that showed "No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer". It did not say that say it was not unhealthy, it simply found no link.

Despite my best efforts, I keep getting these two simple edits undone. I was not trying to rewrite the article and definitely was NOT defending smoking. Vwjr (talk) Vwjr (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Try a RfC. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No objectiveness = Bad science
This is not an objective article. The tobacco industry must love this page! It is perfect for them since it makes the editors look pathological in their assertion. Any evidence that disagrees with the main contributors here is quickly edited away regardless of the source no matter what university or even The National Cancer Institute! I was even reported to in effort to snuff me out of the equation!!

I hate smoking, I really do. I do not date people who smoke and I have never smoked. I do not like second hand smoke. You cannot defend what you believe in by looking one sided like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwjr (talk • contribs) 23:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Truth not a concern here
"Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so." Mark Twain

I am currently being forced into an "Edit War". Since my edits are as legitimate as the "Doc" and anyone else here, it they who are warring. Ironic that legitimate edits are being continuously erased by a few so-called truth seekers. I know how to edit, but I have never filed a complaint before with Wikipedia. Would someone help me with this? I would like to file a complaint in regard to these "Edit Warriors". Please write me with haste because I have little doubt that such ideological fanatics will read this and move quickly to have me blocked somehow. I have never experienced anything like this and it is making me quite disillusioned. :( Vwjr (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

An apology
I wanted to apologize if I seemed a little intense. I am bit wired on coffee. However, I am just a bit flustered. I have edited under another screen name so many times and have never been brought into anything like this. It is very distressing and has been taxing me emotionally as well as intellectually. I am at a lost. Vwjr (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * at this point you are at 5 reverts on this article in the last 24 hours and threaten to do more. You are almost surely going to be blocked for edit-warring, and then your most recent revert will be undone.  What you should do is self-revert your last revert, that will probably avoid a block.  Nobody is pushing an agenda here, all we are doing is summarizing high-quality sources.  The source you are bringing isn't of the same standard as the ones in use in the article and the qualifier you're trying to add isn't necessary.   03:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * you gotta be kidding Zad?! No agenda? I have never, ever seen such behavior! The other editors have already done 3 edits each. Just because you are more organized than I am does not make your, yes, agenda right. This is so petty on your behalf to ruin the objectivity of this article with bias and bullying. Yes, you are bullies. Contacting each other in order to create this illusion of fairness. Each person just shy of breaking the 3 undue rule. Very clever. One person taking over from the next to push someone around. I am not the first either. Others who have tried to make this article more objective were bullied out too. I know your type Zad. Although, this is the first time I have seen it here myself. So, self-righteous you all are, thinking there is something wrong with me and the others who have tried to make good on the science of this delicate subject. Incapable of the self-reflection needed to realize what and who you are. Bullies. Yes, I will be blocked. I will be blocked for being a good editor and trying to do what is right to create objectivity and clarity. I will be blocked because sometimes bullies win. But who knows? Maybe the Wikipedia editors will look at the history and see all those who complained in the past and see that I posted a legitimate edit early today. That I obeyed all the rules and guidelines until your crew came along. Maybe.
 * Comment on the content, not on the contributor. Yobol (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Causes" incorrectly used in lede
The statement in lede: Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.

Causes is being used incorrectly here. The link to the Epidemiology page always uses the word "causes" as a noun, whereas the Passive Smoking article uses it as a verb. From epidemiology perspective, it would be more appropriate on the passive smoking page to say "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke holds a causal inference to disease, disability, and death." Where "causal inference" is linked and is in noun form that matches what the linking page, and science, is saying about the appropriate usage of 'causal relationship.'

As it stands now, the use of the word "causes" is incorrect from the way in which epidemiology makes use of the term and as cited by the linked article page. If "causal inference" is deemed too much in vein of academic language, then 'can cause' could be substituted or even 'correlates.' As noted on the epidemiology page, under Legal Interpretation, "epidemiology addresses whether an agent can cause a disease, not whether an agent did cause a specific plaintiff's disease."

Gw40nw (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can cause sounds good and changed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

For consistency in the article, where it says "passive smoking causes," wouldn't it be better to have it state "can cause?" Such as in the the Effects heading, where it reads: Second-hand smoke causes many of the same diseases as direct smoking, including.....

I observe about 9 instances where the word "causes" is used on the main article page, and on about 5 of those, I do not see a reason to edit or make a change. An example of where I don't think a change is necessary is under Opinions of public health authorities where it reads, "The governments of 168 nations have signed and currently 174 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."

No change suggested here as that is opinion being quoted for accuracy.

But another place besides one I mentioned above where the change is warranted would be, under US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies, where it reads: The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants.

In my quick review of the article, these would be the only other 2 additional places where I think the "can cause" wording ought to be employed to align with what scientific consensus is stating when it invokes the causal inference that is associated with passive smoking. Gw40nw (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't make sense in this sentence "found that passive smoking causes about 603,000 death a year, which represents 1% of the world's death" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that change there is not needed, but feel it is still necessary in other 2 areas I noted previously. Gw40nw (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How about "Scientific studies have shown that exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke can cause disease, disability, and premature death in innocent bystanders." That sounds about as neutral as required. It doesn't imply that it always damages innocent bystanders, but does imply that it sometimes damages them, which is the crux of the legal issue. It falls into the "assault and battery" definition of common law, and is sufficient cause for governments to pass laws against it. The fact that people are innocent bystanders and have not consented to be damaged is critical to the argument. If you get into an argument in a bar, and the other guy punches you in the face, the courts may feel you consented to a fight by provoking him, but if a stranger walks up and punches you in the face without provocation, that's assault and he probably should go to jail. "Same, same, only different" as they say in Nepal. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * "secondhand smoke ... causes the same problems as direct smoking" (first sentence of Effects section)
 * "the 3rd leading cause of preventable death" (last bullet point before Children section)
 * "Another research financed by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and Bloomberg Philanthropies found that passive smoking causes about 603,000 death a year, which represents 1% of the world's death." (same paragraph)
 * "In France passive smoking has been estimated to cause between 3,000 and 5,000 premature deaths per year" (last paragraph of Evidence section)
 * "The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded in 2002 that there was sufficient evidence that secondhand smoke caused cancer in humans" (first sentence of Risk level section)
 * "The governments of 168 nations have signed and currently 174 have ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." (last bullet point in list below Opinion of public health authorities section)
 * "In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the United States were caused by passive smoking annually." (first sentence of EPA lawsuit section)
 * "...the District Court for the District of Columbia found that the tobacco industry ... responded with 'efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that ETS causes disease'." (Tobacco industry response section, 1st paragraph)
 * "The U.S. District Court, in U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al., found that '...despite their internal acknowledgment of the hazards of secondhand smoke, Defendants have fraudulently denied that ETS causes disease.'" (Tobacco industry response section, paragraph before Position of major tobacco companies)
 * "The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants." (under US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies)

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

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

Even Philip Morris, in stating their official position on the issue on their website, say unambiguously:


 * "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes diseases, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheezing, otitis media (middle ear infection) and sudden infant death syndrome."


 * "The World Health Organization External reference (WHO) provides information on its website which states that secondhand tobacco smoke is dangerous to health and that it causes cancer, heart disease, and many other serious diseases in adults.

I see therefore no valid reason to change the formulation which has been in place for years now and has withstood the test of time. It is succinct, articulate, corresponds to the worldwide consensus of public health experts and authorities. What else do we want!

--Dessources (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, but it isn't open and shut for individuals, just for populations. There are other causes after all. We should be able to express the distinction somehow. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * True. However, when talking about this subject, health authorities and other pertinent sources use the epidemiological definition of causation (the verb "causes" in the lead links to such definition to make this clear). In the context of causality used by such sources, replacing "causes" with "can cause" might introduces an ambiguity for some readers, who could interpret this as meaning that the causality is not established yet (and surely the tobacco industry would be pleased to exploit such ambiguity). While for some diseases we can only say that current evidence is suggestive but not efficient to infer a causal relationship (using the US Surgeon General terminology), there are many diseases - and not just lung cancer - where evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship with exposure to passive smoking. Wikipedia rules are that "we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." This makes the issue easy here: all the major reliable sources we cite say that exposure to secondhand smoke "causes" diseases and none of them use the "can cause" terminology. Even Philip Morris uses the "causes" terminology.


 * Interestingly, it seems to me that the "can cause" vs. "causes" debate is rather specific to passive smoking. The sentence "active smoking causes lung cancer" is well accepted and is not subjected to the same objections, while it actually makes use of exactly the same epidemiological definition of causation, as indeed active smoking does not cause all smokers to get lung cancer. Restricting the view to a particular individual, his/her active smoking can indeed cause him/her to have lung cancer.


 * Finally, the "causes" terminology seems also more widely accepted. On my side of the world, a Google search for "smoking causes lung cancer" produces 119'000 hits, while "smoking can cause lung cancer" gives only 21'000 hits, almost six times less. For passive smoking, the difference is not as large, but still in the same direction: "passive smoking causes lung cancer" gives 7'490 hits, while "passive smoking can cause lung cancer" produces 3'360 hits, i.e. less than half.


 * Dessources (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is apparently a difference between common-language English and specialist terminology. A link to the epidemiologist's definition of "cause" seems necessary, but our article epidemiology does not address it well, and the principle of least astonishment applies. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point. It seems however that the Google search settles the issue of least astonishment, since "causes" far outnumbers "can cause" on the web. In the current article, I see no reason to compromise on the principle of verifiability. And also, should one invoke the least astonishment principle to justify the "can cause" formulation, one would also have to be consistent and apply it throughout the article.


 * Finally, regular editors of this article know well that it is the target of attacks by people whose position on the issue coincides strangely with the fraudulent view of the tobacco industry. Their first objective is to mitigate the degree of causality between exposure to passive smoking and diseases, in spite of the fact that it is perhaps by far the most reliably established of all links between environmental factors and diseases. There are tobacco denialists, and this page needs to be protected against their attacks (of course, not all Wikipedians who modify this article in a way that moves its contents away from established evidence are denialists, but some definitely are.)


 * This "causes" formulation has been around for years in the current article and seems very well accepted. I even claim it is the one which creates least astonishment, as common usage of the word "cause" is closer - and even perhaps identical - to the way epidemiogists use it. A good evidence of this is provided by the following search I conducted on Google: when typing "drunk driving causes car accidents" I get 12'400 results. When searching for "drunk driving can cause car accidents", I get only 8 results, while everybody knows that driving a car while drunk does not inevitably lead to an accident. So perhaps people are more educated about epidemiology than we think.
 * Dessources (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A wp:GOOGLE test isn't verifiable. We need wp:Reliable sources to cite that will demystify "cause". LeadSongDog  come howl!  01:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, and I wouldn't refer to a Google search in the article. But the wp:GOOGLE rules does not apply to discussions on the Talk pages, where Wikipedians are free to express their views with the entire palette of arguments they deem suitable, as long as the debate remains civil and respectful, like the one we have now.
 * Dessources (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And, BTW, I thought it was clear that the whole point of my comment above was to draw attention to the numerous quotations of highly reliable sources already present in the body of the article where "causes" is used instead of "can cause". Do you mean we need more reliable sources than the WHO Framework Convention, a treaty ratified by 178 countries, the report of the US Surgeon General, the monograph of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, prepared by a panel of the world's best experts, the US Environment Protection Agency, the California Environment Protection Agency, the National Cancer Institute, the US District Court for the State of Columbia, and ... even Philip Morris? If there are other sources which can challenge these, it would indeed be important to consider them.
 * Dessources (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree. I challenge the earlier discussion on this after having read it, and will be glad to have that discussion further as may be desired on this talk page. The body of the article ought to be using "can cause" if sticking with WP:NPOV. That it does not, is violation of that pillar for it is placing opinion (however much that is met with consensus) over the epidemiological understanding of causal inference. Let us quote that here so there is no mistake about what that is saying.


 * ''Although epidemiology is sometimes viewed as a collection of statistical tools used to elucidate the associations of exposures to health outcomes, a deeper understanding of this science is that of discovering causal relationships.


 * "Correlation does not imply causation" is a common theme for much of the epidemiological literature. For epidemiologists, the key is in the term inference. Epidemiologists use gathered data and a broad range of biomedical and psychosocial theories in an iterative way to generate or expand theory, to test hypotheses, and to make educated, informed assertions about which relationships are causal, and about exactly how they are causal.


 * Epidemiologists Rothman and Greenland emphasize that the "one cause – one effect" understanding is a simplistic mis-belief. Most outcomes, whether disease or death, are caused by a chain or web consisting of many component causes. Causes can be distinguished as necessary, sufficient or probabilistic conditions. If a necessary condition can be identified and controlled (e.g., antibodies to a disease agent), the harmful outcome can be avoided.''


 * The smoking data (via "causes") is written as if "one cause - one effect" and in doing so is misappropriating the term. As noted here, the diseases and death attributed to smoking are caused by a chain consisting of many component causes. If we linking to the epidemiological understanding of "causes" then we are misrepresenting the term by leaving it as is. Your entire argument for this is based on the opinions of others and deeming that as "authority." I grant that there is consensus in these opinions, but not that none of these opinions align with the usage of the term as stated in the epidemiology link which I have quoted above. If truly aligning with what is stated in that link, the lead would read, "Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke has been found to have a inferred causal relationship to cases of disease, disability, and death." By going with simply "causes" this is clearly changing the way in which epidemiologists use the term. Gw40nw (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not possible to change "causes" into "can cause" in the body of the article, since these occurrences of "causes" are in quotations of the most authoritative sources on the subject.
 * Dessources (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly you aren't reading what I'm writing, or for that matter what I am not writing. All I am saying is that we need to provide readers a link to a properly referenced explanation of what "cause" means in an epidemiological context. Doing so would largely avoid the need for the disputation which other editors seem to have found necessary. Is that so complicated? We wikilink things all the time! LeadSongDog come howl!  18:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the misunderstanding. Do you mean that the explanation provided by the link to "Causal inference" when clicking on "causes" is not clear? Upon re-reading that article, I guess you are probably right. Unfortunately, I don't know of any better explanation. It would be nice if you, as an expert editor, would find one.
 * Dessources (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just note though that in my note above I was addressing Gw40nw proposal to amend the body of the article...
 * Dessources (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Apart from the occurrences of "causes" in quotations, it is possible to change "causes" to "can cause" or something closer to the accurate interpretation of epidemiological causal inference. These alleged most authoritative sources are misusing the term. In their quotes, I am glad that we have it the way they are stating it. Makes them look like they lack clear understanding on how causation works within science and reason. Yet, on Wikipedia, the "can cause" is presentation of NPOV content that aligns with understanding of terms, not popular, albeit misguided, interpretations.


 * I know the body of the article was previously amended to "can cause" and then I discovered yesterday that it was reverted back to "causes" which apparently is based on your recent arguments put forth on Talk Page. I strongly believe, and will continue to argue for "can cause" despite all the popular people's infallible interpretation to see it as "causes." I presented the exact text that "causes" is currently linking to. In that, it says, "the key is in the term inference." It also says, "the 'one cause – one effect' understanding is a simplistic mis-belief. Most outcomes, whether disease or death, are caused by a chain or web consisting of many component causes." Apart from the lead, but found in this article and in the many sources, it is routinely presented as: one cause (smoking/passive smoking) leads to the effect (death, disease, disability). I don't dispute that this is the popular interpretation, but do dispute that understanding of epidemiological causal inference. That it is linked in the article is good, otherwise I'd be disputing it as anti-science. That it is linked and not changed to "can cause" is leading me to dispute it as anti-epidemiological. Gw40nw (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Gw40nw: "These alleged most authoritative sources are misusing the term." Well, whether we like it or not, and in the absence of better sources, we have to stick to what these authoritative sources say - that is the rule on Wikipedia (see: WP:SOURCES). If you think these sources are misusing the term "causes", I would then invite you to share with us the authoritative sources on which you base this judgement. I for my part would be very interested in knowing them and learning about their arguments. Then we can decide whether it is legitimate to change the present term. In the mean time, I see no reason to change it.
 * Dessources (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking closer at the question, it's not that they are "misusing" the term, so much as that the term does not have a single agreed-upon definition. Rather there are ongoing debates, as seen in, , and . Indeed, the first of these (Morabia) makes it clear that the philosophers have yet to get their act together fifty years after the Bradford-Hill criteria were published (1965): "Besides Hume and Mill, the epidemiologic literature is clueless about a plausible, pre-1965 philosophical origin of Hill's viewpoints. Thus, Hill's viewpoints may be philosophically novel, sui generis, still waiting to be validated and justified." For all the time, money, brainpower and effort that goes into identifying the "causes" of disease, we remain unclear on the precise meaning of the word. How crazy is that? Still, Hill's usage clearly predominates in medicine. As he famously put it: “What I do not believe is that we can usefully lay down some hard-and-fast rules of evidence that must be obeyed before we accept cause and effect. None of my nine viewpoints can bring indisputable evidence for or against the cause-and- effect hypothesis and none can be required as a sine qua non.” In other words, look at all the criteria, then make the most reasonable judgement call: is there some better explanation of the evidence alternative to causality? LeadSongDog come howl!  22:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the explanation and for the fascinating references. This is indeed an interesting subject. It seems to me that one way to approach the question would be via experimental philosophy as some of our cognitive biases (no judgment implied) are probably at play in our understanding of the concept of causality and different groups of people may understand it differently. In the mean time, the safest is probably to stick to the language used in authoritative sources.
 * Dessources (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of Tobacco and Passive Smoke Equates to Lower Risk of Dementia
There have been strong suggestions that dementia is a deficiency of acetylcholine in studies. Since literally all nicotine does is produce acetylcholine, does that not suggest a therapeutic use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.76.16 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Doesn't Reflect Latest Research
There is "No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer" per Journal of the National Cancer Research Institute, December 17, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.238.95 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I added a comment on this study under Effects. It seems appropriate given that it is the largest and most recent study on the subject, and plenty of smaller and older individual studies are directly referenced.Darkthlayli (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a primary source. We should be using review articles and other high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I added the primary source to a long list of other primary sources, that had been there for years until you removed it. It is... interesting that these primary sources bothered no one until an important primary source took an opposing viewpoint and was added.  Secondly, this article is still littered with references to primary sources, which you apparently are not interested in replacing.  But thirdly, note the following quote from the Wikipedia Policy you so thoughtfully referenced for me.

"If the conclusions of the research are worth mentioning (for instance, publication of a large, randomized clinical trial with surprising results), they should be described as being from a single study, for example:  "A large, NIH-funded study published in 2010 found that selenium and Vitamin E supplements increased the risk of prostate cancer; it was thought they would prevent prostate cancer." (citing )   After enough time has passed for a review in the area to be published, the review should be cited in preference to the primary study.


 * Well, this is precisely a large trial with surprising results (not to anyone with knowledge of the field, but certainly to anyone who relied upon this article for their information), and enough time has not passed since its publication for a review to include it. Digging indicates that your secondary source nowhere considered this study (not surprising since it is from late 2013 and this review is dated 2014, but really is much older than that).  So I don't think WP:MEDRS in any way precludes inclusion of this reference.


 * But just from a common sense perspective, can it really be right not to mention the largest, most recent study if its conclusions fly in the face of the article's text, given that no reputable researcher has even tried to impugn the study (as in the case of Enstrom and Kabat, say)?
 * This article has used too many primary sources for some time. The solution is not to use even more primary sources but to replace them with secondary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There was many issues with this paper including that they state "It’s hard to say anything conclusive with such small numbers” And they did find some concern "The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding of only borderline statistical significance."  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * These were not "issues" with the paper, and have not been raised by the scientific community as problems with it. Every study has its limitations.  In fact, the study is the largest of its kind - no other study on secondhand smoke and lung cancer boasts as high a sample size.  And if a category which includes an increased hazard ratio but whose confidence interval includes 1.00 is grounds for concern, then there is nothing in this world that does not merit concern, and there are literally 100 of categories in each study and some will show increased hazard ratios by chance.  To say the finding was of "borderline statistical significance" is nonsensical - it was not because the confidence interval included 1.00.  The fact remains that the researchers themselves said there was no clear link between lung cancer and secondhand smoke, and no one has impugned the study, including the commenter you quote.  Reference to this study, the largest and most recent of its kind and in clear contradiction of the prior statements, needs to be in this article or the article is just not complete.  I plan on adding it back and will take the issue to administrators if you seek to delete it, as its removal represents clear POV pushing.Darkthlayli (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For reference the underlying study is . No it's not POV-pushing, it's adherence to WP:MEDRS the medical sourcing guideline. Has the study been taken into account in a high-quality literature review?  If so we might be able to use the review, but this a primary study. Here's something very strange, the Peres article says "found no link between [lung cancer] and secondhand smoke" but the abstract of the study itself says "Among NS, prolonged passive adult home exposure tended to increase lung cancer risk."  I'm having trouble reconciling the two. The other side of "Nobody has discredited this study" is, "If the study is so good and useful, how come it hasn't been picked up in a literature review?"  Without a good, high-quality WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source, the article shouldn't be quoting this (or any other) primary source.   02:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Adding, OK I see it in Results but not Conclusions:  "Among NS, any passive smoking exposure did not significantly increase lung cancer risk."  Without a well-qualified defintion of "any" this is hard to use.  Again, we should be looking to secondary sources and not cherry-picking items not even included in the conclusions of primary studies.   02:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have previously made the point, but will make it again, that it is not included in literature reviews precisely because it is recent. To accuse me of cherry-picking for using the largest and most recent study is disingenuous at best.  And as has also been said, you are not adhering to Wikipedia policy by deleting this reference - the cited policy makes specific provisions for just this type of primary study.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.187.189 (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Article is cartoonishly biased – we need cleaner science on Wikipedia
This article is most politically biased science article I've yet seen on Wikipedia. We have a serious problem on Wikipedia of science pages being hijacked by political activists. It makes Wikipedia much less credible.

The section Controversy Over Harm has the following subsections:

6.1 Industry-funded studies and critiques 6.2 Tobacco industry response 6.3 US racketeering lawsuit against tobacco companies

I assume I don't need to explain how absurdly biased and one-sided this is.

The Wang, et al study is a very high-quality study and avoids the problem of recall bias. It found no evidence of increased lung cancer risk except in women who live with a smoker for more than 30 years. I just added it earlier today and another editor deleted the sentence and rewrote it to spin it as "prolonged exposure increases risk" or something like that, deleting the fact that it's only people who live with a smoker for more than 30 years. This is a ridiculous, irresponsible approach to science.

We also need to abandon the dichotomous oversimplification of risk and actually specify risks. "Increases risk" is extremely misleading when the risk is a very low probability. We need more rigor and more statistics knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSingularity (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Political activists like the Surgeon General, IARC and World Health Organization? They all state similar conclusions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, "increases risk" is incredibly vague, and does not indicate statistical significance. A study run by someone who expects a certain conclusion may point to "increased risk" by only paying attention to statistical differences that support their opinion, despite infinitesimal statistical significance. This was part of the US District Court's issue with the EPA study that the court threw out, claiming it was "cherry picked." Vacating that judgment was only done on the basis that the study carried no regulatory weight, not a refutation of the study's court-acknowledged lack of scientific basis.

This article shows it's bias from the beginning, starting with such unscientific language as this: "The health risks of second-hand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus," despite the fact that the legislatively most important large study done on the issue, that concluded SHS was a risk factor for various things, was thrown out by a District Court for making conclusions before research, in the court's own words, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" in addition to significant other violations of sound scientific procedure and the EPA's own policies. The "scientific consensus" statement, which defines the nonobjective tone which continues through the entire article, is refuted as well by the fact that there have been several major scientific studies done which refute the causal link between SHS and cancer or other maladies. That the author may not like the political or industrial funding behind such studies does not exclude them from being part of the community of scientists who create "scientific consensus," nor does it necessarily make the scientists of whose conclusions the author approves any less influenced by political interests. The opposite statement could just as easily be made, depending upon one's view of who has more scientific credibility. Such a blanket statement simply should not be made in a forum that expects to have any credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.66.163 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with the above editor. This article is obviously heavily biased.  Smokey TheCat  19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest you review the cited sources. Tong & Glantz are pretty direct about it. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article needs re-writing by someone who hasn't swallowed the currently fashionable and very obvious anti-smoking zeitgeist. The Greeks smoke twice as much as the British and live just as long. The Japanese smoke nearly twice as much and live longer. And that's active smoking. So how can passive smoking be anything but completely trivial? Anyone interested can confirm what I write by comparing the tables here on Smoking by Country with Smoking by Life Expectancy. I don't have links on this but it's still true. There is so much anti-smoking propaganda that is has now become apparently the norm but propaganda it remains. Wikipedia should be above this but sadly it presently isn't on this issue.  Smokey TheCat  01:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ref summary
First of all we should generally not use primary sources per WP:MEDRS so maybe we should trim

Second the source says "Among NS, prolonged passive adult home exposure tended to increase lung cancer risk" which is better summarized as "Prolonged secondhand smoke exposure also increases the risk of lung cancer" than "However, more recent research has found little or no harm from secondhand smoke except for those who had lived with a smoker for at least 30 years." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I support efforts to add more of the extensive documentation of harm caused by passive smoking, in spite of the well-documented campaign to suppress and confuse evidence about this issue. Reify-tech (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What 'well-documented campaign' ? I don't know where you live, Reify-tech, but here in the UK there is a blanket ban on smoking in all public enclosed spaces and despite the fact that 6,000 pubs have closed because of the ban, benefiting no-one, and not the slightest talk of moderating the ban by any of the legislators. Indeed there is deranged talk of increasing the ban to include open-air public spaces likes parks and squares. ASH, the largest but not the only anti-smoking lobbying group, employs twenty people full-time to continue to churn ever more anti-smoking propaganda while Forest the only group which represents the UK's ten million smokers has but a single employee.  Smokey TheCat  09:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would help if you would provide refs. The talk page is not a soap box. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes please see WP:NOTAFORUM... Wikipedia articles need to document what's happening but article Talk pages are not for discussing personal opinions about article topics.  02:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole article is a soapbox for the currently fashionable Healthist anti-smoking hysteria.  Smokey TheCat  10:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

FCTC
I question whether we should be using the FCTC source to support the statement in the lead that secondhand smoke causes disease. The reason is that it doesn't actually appear to say anything about secondhand smoke specifically, but rather about tobacco use in general. I think that instead, we should use the sources that explicitly say that secondhand smoke is harmful, e.g. the Surgeon General, IARC, etc. Should no one object to this I will remove the FCTC source from the lead. Everymorning (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Page 8 says "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. The ENGVAR/RETAIN concerns have not been adequately addressed for there to be a move. Jenks24 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Passive smoking → Secondhand smoke – "Secondhand smoke" is the primary name for this topic used by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the CDC. Everymorning (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There may be WP:ENGVAR issues here. —  AjaxSmack   21:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Might could be but there's no consensus in the archives and the current article uses both American and British English. If we're establishing a consensus now, my own preference would be to resolve the tie in favor of American English, as spoken and read by a much wider audience in general and on Wikipedia in particular. The objective thing to do per, though, is to see who got in the first edit. Looks like that was the Brits. So it should remain at passive smoking unless enough Brits also use secondhand smoke that we can find . Certainly SHS is the preferred American name for the phenomenon, as documented by User:Everymorning. Can anyone see what the British National Health Service or Lancet uses? — Llywelyn II   01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC) On NHS's "Smokefree" site, this page uses "second-hand smoke" with a hyphen and this one uses "secondhand smoke" without one. No "passive smoking" in sight. So... good to go? —  Llywelyn II   01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to others but I don't see a problem with the current title. It's more accurate — secondhand sounds like something sold at a rummage sale — and we should note WP:TITLECHANGES. —  AjaxSmack   02:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. As above. — Llywelyn II   01:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose "passive smoke" used x2 as much as "second handsmoke" on n-gram, and in my locality is also used more commonly. So per "common name", oppose --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tom (LT) By making the Ngram search case insensitive and by extending the time frame to 2008, the results favour secondhand smoke. However I would be interested to know if people in the US have heard of passive smoking.  I don't remember hearing usage of secondhand smoke.  GregKaye 04:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment There are 611,000 google results for "secondhand smoke" and 714,000 for "second-hand smoke" but only 486,000 for "passive smoking". In addition, there are only 3,060 Google News results for passive smoking but 11,000 for second-hand smoke and 13,100 for secondhand smoke. Thus COMMONNAME would seem to support a move from the current title, in my opinion. Everymorning (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Passive smoking is used by Cancer Research UK, the NHS , BBC Ash , etc. Zarcadia (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that the BBC at least sometimes does use "secondhand smoke",  as does the NHS's Smokefree website.  Everymorning (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per MOS:ENGVAR / MOS:RETAIN. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The United States often uses their own terminology separate from that of the rest of the world. This is similar to how they use miles while the rest of the world uses metric. Sometimes we use American terminology others global terminology. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "mile" isn't US terminology - it was inherited from the UK, who also still use miles. Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The article was originally started in American English, if you look through the archives, it comes off of the article on tobacco smoking, which was also started in American English. The article has always thus been in American English.  Cheers, ipuser 90.192.101.114 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME.  Calidum   14:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support' per nom, common name, and accuracy. Randy Kryn 20:19, 24 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:RETAIN does not seem to apply here, per 90.192.101.114 above. I am inclined to support "secondhand smoke" (or "secondhand smoking"), as I have never heard it called "passive smoking"; but of course WP:ENGVAR. The redirect "secondhand smoke" was created on the same date by the same user as "passive smoking" (originally also a redirect), on June 9, 2004. "Second hand smoking" was created not long after on September 22, 2004, by another user. — the Man in Question (in question)  22:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 90.192.101.114 has no point. The article started at passive smoking. Passive smoking is the default term, and should not be changed, per ENGVAR. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the current title was the title first used.Speccy4Eyes (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN, Pincrete (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Passive smoking" being twice as commonly used as "Secondhand smoke" with "Secondhand smoking" not even featuring..  And a big WP:TITLECHANGES.  There is nothing wrong with the current title.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment When I use the ngram tool and look only at uses since 1950, it seems that "secondhand smoke" is used somewhat more often than "passive smoking", which is, in turn, used more often than "environmental tobacco smoke". It also appears that this arrangement has existed since approximately 1997. Similarly, there are 1,820 Google Books results for "secondhand smoke" and only 1,540 for "passive smoking".   Everymorning (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015
Secondhand Smoke can not only cause lung cancer,stroke and heart disease but make your overall health make a turn for the worse.Due to the fact that a lot of second-hand smoke being inhaled day in and day out,we need to avoid this hazardous smoke at all costs in order to keep a healthy bright future with no toxic chemicals. If more people were informed on how negative second smoking is then they would try to avoid it as much as possible. Individuals whom are exposed to this smoke need to take all things into consideration as something so small can be fixed by just avoiding a situation by leaving the smoker.

CourtneyLT (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Passive smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090327101821/http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/docs/IHCP_annual_report/ihcp03.pdf to http://ihcp.jrc.ec.europa.eu/docs/IHCP_annual_report/ihcp03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Second hand vaping
Electronic nicotine delivery systems (Electronic cigarette) are banned everywhere, even in open air near train station. Same restrictions as cigarettes.

What are the risks of passive vaping? Is it safer or more dangerous? Rthbvcegf (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

2016 study on the impact of smoking bans on heart disease
Under the effects section, I added a recent large study from a peer-reviewed journal. Here it is - http://mcr.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/09/12/1077558716668646. Doc James deleted my edition on the grounds this was not a secondary source, despite the fact that it was a recent, large, peer-reviewed study that directly rebutted other studies referenced in this section (studies that were also NOT secondary sources). So I deleted said studies (I left the meta-analysis as that was a secondary source). Now THAT change was reverted. You can't have it both ways. Either high quality studies that are primary sources are allowed, or they are not. The deciding factor cannot be whether the study supports or rebuts your pre-conceived opinion on passive smoking. Please either restore my original edit or uphold my latest edit deleting the primary source.Darkthlayli (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, "recent", "primary" and "rebutted other studies" is considered to be a bad combination here, just as MEDRS says. There is clearly a need to update that section, but it should use the best available sources, such as  . We don't really need to use a low value source to support the assertion that correlation does not imply causation, however: in the absence of time travel, nobody has yet proposed a plausible mechanism whereby a later-date reduction in disease might cause an earlier-date passage of legislation.LeadSongDog  come howl!  16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way is this a "low value source?" It comes from a peer reviewed journal and has a very large sample size - much larger than the studies it is rebutting.  Moreover, it is not primarily making the point "correlation does not imply causation," but demonstrates that there is not even correlation across any kind of decent sample size.  You cannot just exlude primary sources you don't like and leave ones that you do.Darkthlayli (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting read: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/secondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html Rka001 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

2013 Stanford study on the impact of passive smoking on lung cancer among women
In 2013 the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published a study from a team at Stanford University which made world wide news. The study, by a large number of authors headed by Ange Wang, followed up a database of 76,304 women compiled in the 1990s, and found that while current and former smokers recorded much higher rates of lung cancer than non-smokers in the ensuing 15 years, there was no evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke led to a statistically significant increase in rates of lung cancer, other than for women who had been exposed to smoke in their home for 30 years or more.

This was a startling finding, and an important one given the size of the database it drew on, and the fact that the NCI itself had published the study. I looked up this article on Wikipedia to find out the considered reactions of expert opinion to the study, and was astonished that in this long article there seemed to be no reference to the study at all. This is a form of censorship which is completely alien to the spirit of Wikipedia (I speak as a regular donor). I don't look up Wikipedia to read propaganda, however well-intentioned. I look to Wikipedia to tell me the facts, but this article seems to ignore the scientific debate and present only one side, one version of "the facts".

I can only agree with the comments made by others on the talk page about this article. It is biased. It is unscientific: with good intentions, no doubt, but Wikipedia exists to promote knowledge, not good intentions. This is a lapse of Wikipedia's standards.

The study is entitled: "Active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in the Women's Health Intiative Observational Study prospective cohort". It was presented to the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, and published later that year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (which unfortunately is not accessible from the institute's webpage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.146.49 (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Need I remind everyone of this quote from the article:
 * Since the opposing lawyers got their hands on evidence of tobacco industry malfeasance, it has cost them hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. It must be getting closer to $1 trillion by now.
 * In this particular case, you can find the results of the study by Googling, e.g. Oxford Journals: Annals of Oncology and get the following:
 * In other words, NOT "no evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke led to a statistically significant increase in rates of lung cancer". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all the other usual caveats regarding scientific research. Also, in the case of second-hand smoke the biggest problem is not lung cancer, which is something of a red herring incidental to the bigger risk of heart disease. As usual in smoking articles watch out for trolls and industry shills reinterpreting the experimental evidence for their own purposes.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Does *anyone* have a proper citation for this? The article I can find is:
 * However, this was published in 2015, not 2013, and not in J. NCI (or maybe it changed it's nae to J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncology). Is there another article to which this discussion refers?
 * And on the webpage of J.NCI (they've put one up I guess in the last two years), I don't find anything either. Jimw338 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * However, this was published in 2015, not 2013, and not in J. NCI (or maybe it changed it's nae to J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncology). Is there another article to which this discussion refers?
 * And on the webpage of J.NCI (they've put one up I guess in the last two years), I don't find anything either. Jimw338 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Passive smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905172350/http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html to http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212191352/http://www.nphp.gov.au/publications/legislation/smoke_passive.pdf to http://www.nphp.gov.au/publications/legislation/smoke_passive.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013185238/http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2063791182-1187.html to http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2063791182-1187.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126094031/http://gothamist.com/2011/05/18/smokers_just_daring_bloomberg_to_ti.php to http://gothamist.com/2011/05/18/smokers_just_daring_bloomberg_to_ti.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905172350/http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html to http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Passive smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911020755/http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/factsheets/Prevention/pdf/smoking.pdf to https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/factsheets/prevention/pdf/smoking.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716173310/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914162226/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206182922/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4101474 to http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4101474
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061118145334/http://www.rjrt.com/smoking/summaryCover.asp to http://www.rjrt.com/smoking/summaryCover.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104145317/http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=%2Fmadison.com%2Fhtml%2Farchive_files%2Fwsj%2F2005%2F09%2F25%2F0509240280.php to http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=%2Fmadison.com%2Fhtml%2Farchive_files%2Fwsj%2F2005%2F09%2F25%2F0509240280.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716173310/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Scene in Runaway Jury
Scene: Lonnie Shaver's fellow jurors request him not to secondhand smoke. Please create "Pop culture" section and mention this. Rizosome (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. WP:FANCRUFT, not important to the subject. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021
In the intro of the section 'effects' please add that "There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be harmful to health." This is supported by citation no. 133 from the CDC fact sheet Also additional sources are from: 1) US surgeon general:  2) The EPA: 3) American Lung Association: 4) American cancer society: 5) Australian government Department of health: 6) National Cancer Institute: Also in the same section's sub-section 'Cancer: General', please add "Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, of which hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer." source: citation no.133 from CDC: and from the American cancer society:

Thank you! 2409:4042:2E1F:FE5B:9571:54ED:1ED0:DDFD (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Second part is done. I don't know if we really need the first sentence; it's not like the article implies otherwise. Leaving request open for another opinion. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I find the first sentence about no risk-free level to be helpful information for readers. It looks supported by the sources. I'd probably support adding it. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  03:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see benefits from both. On one hand the article's 3rd sentence screams that it's dangerous and so adding it may be superfluous. On the other, it can be imperative to clarify that the health detriment of the smoke isn't either "nothing" or "horrible disease". I would lean more so on adding it. If we can reasonably get away with further hammering home that smoking is bad, I think we should take it, and the requested addition is extremely inobtrusive from my point of view. Sirdog9002 (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I'm closing this request while it's under discussion per Remember to change the answered no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)