I must ‘doff the cap’ to Rose.
Some time ago, I had in my mind a source of the Surgeon General’s statement that, “There is no safe level of tobacco smoke exposure”. I tried and tried to find the source, without success. But, incidentally, Rose has produced the goods. I quote:
4. EVALUATION
“The Committee considered that, despite the long history of human consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids, the available epidemiological and experimental data from human and laboratory animal studies did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake.
The Committee recognized that the development of empirical data to support such a level would require considerable effort.
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v30je19.htm
That statement is almost meaningless (I wonder who thought it up?). Ought it not to read, “The long history of human consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids (nicotine and such) shows that there IS a safe level of intake (even though we do not know what it is)?” Interpret the last sentence to mean: “Whatever data might be produced, at enormous expense, will prove nothing”, and you get the general idea.
On the basis that it would be massively expensive and, probably, inconclusive, to try to define a safe level, the Surgeon General of the USA chose to state that there is no safe level. The reality is not that there is no safe level, but rather that evidence cannot be produced that ‘there is not not a safe level. it is impossible to establish a ‘safe level’ because of ‘tobacco-like’ constituents in ordinary vegetables like potatoes and tomatoes. Thus, the statement, “There is no safe level” means only that, “Because of the confounders, it is impossible to state that THERE IS a safe level” The reality, however, is that, ”Any level can be safe“, given our present knowledge.
To conclude: The Surgeon General’s statement actually means that any level of SHS may be safe.
QED.
27/02/2012 at 01:36
“To conclude: The Surgeon General’s statement actually means that any level of SHS may be safe.”
Which is similar in some ways to going outside in the daytime. Sunbathing/lifeguarding all day long at the beach or the pool, year after year, ENORMOUSLY increases your chances of skin cancer. Even if you put on SPF 15 or 30 or somesuch it is still only providing “partial” protection (the same way ventilation provides “partial” protection from smoke). Doing such sunbathing, day after day, is sort of equivalent to actively smoking day after day.
But going around the corner to the store, of walking in the park for a couple of hours several days a week, is NOT something your doctor would EVER advise you to avoid — despite the fact that there is “no safe level” of sunshine. And exposure to secondary smoke should be seen the same way. Is smoking 2 packs a day every day for your whole life “dangerous”? I’d say so… in much the same way I’d say sunbathing every day, even with decent sunscreen on, was “dangerous.”
Is spending every night working in a poorly ventilated smoky bar “dangerous”? To a small extent, if we’re willing to stretch the meanings of words and also say that going to the beach or the pool a half dozen times or so per year is “dangerous” or that having a lot of windows in your house where UV rays can sneak in and attack you while you’re simply trying to live is “dangerous.”
Is ordinary exposure to secondary smoke in a well-ventilated bar or restaurant or similar situation “dangerous”? Utter nonsense: just as it would be utter nonsense to eve think about the term being used to describe darting out your front door at six am to grab your morning paper or having a few small windows in your home is “dangerous.” Are you being exposed to killer UV radiation? Of course. Is there a guaranteed “safe level” of exposure to it. Nope. But would anyone except crazy people worry about such things?
Nope.
- MJM
27/02/2012 at 02:03
The problem is, MJM, that enormous numbers of people do worry about such things – but only in theory, mostly. They apply the thinking to others. They do not think it through, as it might apply to them.
Harm to children from SHS? Why does anyone believe it? The lungs of children are probably as defensively strong as is possible.
You have just woken up, damn you! It is 2am here!
One is off to bed.
(Pleasure to hear from you, MJM, as always!) Tomorrow, my friend.
27/02/2012 at 11:30
Smoking kills one in two of its users”
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-3-health-effects/3-28-health-benefits-of-smoking-
“We are talking about a fairly unhealthy section of the population anyway . . . one in two will die because of smoking.”
http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/tm_headline=smokers-urged-to-keep-taking-pills&method=full&objectid=20316976&siteid=50081-name_page.html
“Tobacco is not a normal product – it kills half of its consumers if used as intended”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/standard_life_bans_employees_from_smoking_electronic_cigarettes_at_work_1_2124568
What does LD50 mean?
LD stands for “Lethal Dose”. LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at once, which causes the death of 50% (one half) of a group of test animals.”
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/ld50.html
27/02/2012 at 11:53
Panic.
Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds
“OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Feb. 2, 2000 — Exposures to environmental tobacco smoke may be lower than earlier studies indicated for bartenders, waiters and waitresses, according to a study conducted by researchers at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).
While people who work as wait staff and bartenders may generally be considered to be more highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, data from our study suggests that the situation is more complex,” said Roger Jenkins of the Chemical and Analytical Chemistry Division.
The study, which involved 173 people employed at restaurants or taverns of varying sizes in the Knoxville area, concluded that exposures to respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP), for example, were considerably below limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the workplace.
Subjects, who were non-smokers, wore pumps that sampled the air they were breathing while at work for a minimum of four hours. Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of 768 micrograms per cubic meter. The OSHA standard for RSP is 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours.”
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20000203-00
the Covance laboratories study into non-smokers’ exposure to ETS
“Dear friends,
This is in response to Mike Daube and Fenton Howell’s request for background on the Covance laboratories study into non-smokers’ exposure to ETS. This was reported in the Sunday Telegraph of 16 August 1998 and picked up around the world.
The study used personal air quality monitors mounted on volunteers to measure their exposure to ETS as they went about their normal business.
The newspaper report suggests that exposure is one thousandth of that of a smoker – equivalent to 6 cigarettes per year – 10 times lower than Government backed estimates. It is another attempt to challenge the increasingly robust consensus surrounding the health risks of passive smoking. However, it looks as though the results were misinterpreted…. read on.
The study was undertaken by Covance Labs of Harrogate, UK and the client was the Centre for Indoor Air Research of the US. We know the CIAR is a tobacco industry front – so this is tobacco funded research.”
http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/docs/ets/Covence.shtml
.
.
Warning: the health police can seriously addle your brain
“It was a rare good news story in an otherwise grim week. A landmark study into the effects of inhaling other people’s smoke revealed that fears that passive smoking kills more than 1,000 a year in the UK alone are unfounded.”
“The demise of a supposed major risk to public health might be expected to prompt celebration among medical experts and campaigners. Instead, they scrambled to condemn the study, its authors, its conclusions, and the journal that published them. The reaction came as no surprise to those who have tried to uncover the facts about passive smoking. More than any other health debate, the question of whether smokers kill others as well as themselves is engulfed in a smog of political correctness and dubious science.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/4769409/Warning-the-health-police-can-seriously-addle-your-brain.html
.
.
The contested Telegraph stories that were on the internet in 2007 have now disappeared, luckily ASH still has copies on pdf
.
.
Challenging the Telegraphs reporting
“On March 8th 1998 the Sunday Telegraph published a front-page headline report accusing the World Health Organization of suppressing a study that the newspaper claimed showed there was no link between passive smoking and lung cancer. The Sunday Telegraph headline was: “Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer – official”.
ASH immediately contacted the Sunday Telegraph requesting a withdrawal and correction. When it refused, ASH concluded there was no alternative but to make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).
This page brings together the various pieces in the story (pdf files).
http://www.ash.org.uk/information/secondhand-smoke/challenging-the-telegraphs-reporting
.
.
.
Sunday Telegraph reports on passive smoking
Articles and editorial from the Sunday Telegraph regarding passive smoking. Appendix 1. Published : 08/03/1998
http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_654.pdf
Includes
Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer – official
1998
A setback for Nanny
No “significant” risk in passive smoking
Behind the smokescreen
“But what became clear as the week progressed was how important it was to the anti-lobby that passive smoking should be seen as harmful”
Now we know why.
.
.
WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT – 1999
“The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health. The Project provides a model which can provide a basis for future partnerships with the private sector in other important health areas.”
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html
FCTC – 2003
“Recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability, and that there is a time lag between exposure to smoking and the other uses of tobacco products and the onset of tobacco-related diseases.”
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241591013.pdf
[Article 8]
24. This creates an obligation to provide universal protection by ensuring that all indoor public places, all indoor workplaces, all public transport and possibly other (outdoor or quasi-outdoor) public places are free from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. No exemptions are justified on the basis of health or law arguments. If exemptions must be considered on the basis of other arguments, these should be minimal. In addition, if a Party is unable to achieve universal coverage immediately,
Article 8 creates a continuing obligation to move as quickly as possible to remove any exemptions and make the protection universal.”
http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf
“Services and support are key to helping smokers quit and to helping governments who have signed up to the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) meet their commitments to drive tobacco use down.”
“In an effort to reduce tobacco use, the EU and its Member States have signed up to the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).3 The FCTC’s Article 14, through its recently adopted guidelines, demands action to promote cessation of tobacco use and provide adequate treatment for tobacco dependence.”
Countries who have signed up to the FCTC therefore have a legal obligation to implement the recommendations of Article 14.”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/219321.php
Guidelines Article 14
http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop4/FCTC_COP4_8-en.pdf
You can’t force people to stop harming themselves, but you can move against them if you can “prove” that their activities are harming others.
That’s why Godber started this.
27/02/2012 at 12:40
The “No safe level” phrase is just verbal legerdemain.
It provides the anti-tobacco lobby with a very useful soundbite that would appear to indicate (to the layman) a high level of risk. Despite being disingenuous in the extreme, it is a statement that cannot be challenged on the basis of veracity.
Smoke and mirrors.
27/02/2012 at 19:17
At a press release for the 2006 Sur.Gen’s Report, he made the ‘no safe level of exposure’ remark.
However:
1. “Indicates” is not the same as ‘proves’.
2.’ No risk-free’ is not the same as ‘no reasonably safe’ level of exposure.
3. Only if the ‘increased risk’ is enough for ‘causality’ is there a chance of having gone beyond the ‘thresh hold level of harm’.
4. A 100% increased risk is still only a 50% probability of ‘causation’!
.
SG’s 2006 Report
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/chapter1.pdf
Chapter 1
Conclusions-page 11
4. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke.
Chapter 2, page 66
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/chapter2.pdf
Overall Implications
This broadly reaching body of evidence on the toxicology of second hand smoke and on these biological mechanisms indicates that any exposure to second smoke will increase risk for adverse health outcomes.
27/02/2012 at 19:23
Antis tossing around ‘facts’ and figures is like a magician practising their craft.
You know you are being mis-lead and deceived, you just have to figure out how it is being done.
The big difference is, a magician is trying to amuse and amaze and the antis are Hell bent on controlling and demonizing people.
27/02/2012 at 19:42
“Half will die from a disease caused by their smoking’
Stupid, useless statement.
56% of deaths are from ‘smoking related’ diseases.
Here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm
we see that there are about 1.3 million deaths from the 19 ‘smoking related’ diseases. Since there are only about 2.4 million deaths per year and 1.3 million is 56% of 2.4 million, we can say:
“56% of never-smokers’ deaths are from ‘smoking related’ diseases.”
27/02/2012 at 22:43
Thank you, everyone for your contributions, and especially the links.
I knew that I had seen the ‘no safe level’ assertion in the SG’s report, but I couldn’t find it and assumed that I was mistaken (that is in addition to the stuff Rose quoted). garyk has located it:
“4. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” (page 11: General Conclusions)
But we now know that the phrase: “The scientific evidence indicates…no risk-free level” does not mean the same thing as: “The scientific evidence proves….a dangerous level. More ‘verbal legerdemain’, as Nisak puts it.
I suspect that the SG would not dare to try to be precise because questions would be asked about the effects of breathing the ordinary atmosphere (filthy as it is) 24 hours a day!
28/02/2012 at 00:40
December 9, 2010
“Today, U.S. Surgeon General Regina M. Benjamin issued the 30th tobacco related report, “How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease”. The report describes how the tobacco smoke in one cigarette can damage the body.
“Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer, ” Benjamin said in the report.
Highlights from the report include:
“There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke”
http://www.examiner.com/smoking-in-los-angeles/surgeon-general-s-report-says-one-cigarette-can-cause-immediate-damage
28/02/2012 at 02:01
This may sound racist, but it is not intended to be so.
Ms Benjamin is black.
Is there a racial memory of the exploitation of blacks in the the south of the USA on the tobacco plantations? Is it not true that civil rights for blacks in the south were only achieved in the 1960s? Could it be that Ms Benjamin is exacting revenge for decades of exploitation by tobacco plantation owners? Is her view coloured by these sort of considerations?
I think that it is very likely. It really is very frightening that such personal animosities can rule a country like the USA – and the UK as a consequence.
28/02/2012 at 08:09
Junican, two things:
1) No, I don’t think there’s anything at all going on with race and the Antis here, other than the antismoking campaigns that try to exploit every minority group under the sun by saying “LOOK! LOOK! BIG TOBACCO is targeting YOU with this particular advertising campaign because you are (Gay) (Female) (Black) (take your pick)
and
2) Last night you wrote, “You have just woken up, damn you! It is 2am here!” Heh, I think you were correct: i’d just woken up. That was 17 hours ago. And I’m *STILL HERE!!!* ::sigh:: OK, it’s THREE am HERE now, so *I* am going to bed. You better dam well haul your butt back to the puter and take over now!
;>
Michael
28/02/2012 at 11:57
Junican
Frankly, no.
According to the IPCPR the answer is much simpler.
“The IPCPR noted that prior to her nomination as U.S. Surgeon General, Regina Benjamin served as a trustee of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which contributes tens of millions of dollars every year to promote smoking bans and fund anti-tobacco groups.
“Why is this a potential conflict of interest?” McCalla asked. “Because the foundation’s sister organization is Johnson & Johnson, maker of Nicorette, a nicotine replacement product.”
http://cnsnews.com/node/79135
28/02/2012 at 14:33
Right. I didn’t know that, Rose. So she’s a sort of Milton then!
The plot thickens all the time.