69.114.87.223 (talk) |
SonofFeanor (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
::::This comes up every now and then. To be honest, I don't have a problem with "can cause" vs. "causes" vs. "is a cause of" vs. "increases the risk of". Any of these are fine with me - they seem semantically equivalent in this context, and accurate. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
::::This comes up every now and then. To be honest, I don't have a problem with "can cause" vs. "causes" vs. "is a cause of" vs. "increases the risk of". Any of these are fine with me - they seem semantically equivalent in this context, and accurate. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::So then let's change to "increases the risk of." Ths is phrased much more clearly. But the rest of my concerns have not been addressed. Yes, you are quoting the WHO. But I mean, the WHO was quoting the Surgeon General. Right away, the problem becomes clear. This isn't two citations! Do we now get to quote Wikipedia and say "Look, consensus?" There is no substitute for looking at the actual studies, abstracts of which are available at the Surgeon General's site. Not one of them shows anything about mortality rates. Some of the regard SIDS, which I believe is where the "death" part of the quote arises. But if you read the studies on SIDS, either they are not even close to significant (many show odds ratios UNDER 1) or they fail to control for prenatal maternal smoking, which is clearly the primary risk factor. So, either show us the studies on mortality, or remove "death." And for heaven's sake, if ETS causes disability, tell me what disability? How can you write it in this article if you can't even name the disability?[[ |
::::So then let's change to "increases the risk of." Ths is phrased much more clearly. But the rest of my concerns have not been addressed. Yes, you are quoting the WHO. But I mean, the WHO was quoting the Surgeon General. Right away, the problem becomes clear. This isn't two citations! Do we now get to quote Wikipedia and say "Look, consensus?" There is no substitute for looking at the actual studies, abstracts of which are available at the Surgeon General's site. Not one of them shows anything about mortality rates. Some of the regard SIDS, which I believe is where the "death" part of the quote arises. But if you read the studies on SIDS, either they are not even close to significant (many show odds ratios UNDER 1) or they fail to control for prenatal maternal smoking, which is clearly the primary risk factor. So, either show us the studies on mortality, or remove "death." And for heaven's sake, if ETS causes disability, tell me what disability? How can you write it in this article if you can't even name the disability?[[User:SonofFeanor|SonofFeanor]] ([[User talk:SonofFeanor|talk]]) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Ventilation section == |
== Ventilation section == |
Revision as of 23:07, 31 January 2009
Medicine B‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Marijuana
How about passive smoking of marijuana fumes? Is this not an issue as well? Redddogg (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's an issue, but since it's generally not legal to smoke marijuana in bars and restaurants, the issue is probably not as "high" on researchers' priority lists.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ha. I see what you did there... Aron.Foster (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Every single clinical study of Marijuana smoking has found no link between the smoking of Marijuana and cancer. It has been proven that Marijuana smoke contains high levels of carcinogens and it is not clear why smoking Marijuana does not cause cancer but it simply does not. In fact the incidence of lung cancer in Marijuana smokers is slightly lower than that of the general populace even when controlled for concurrent tobacco smoking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.139.151 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Er... [citation needed]. MastCell Talk 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Every single clinical study of Marijuana smoking has found no link between the smoking of Marijuana and cancer. It has been proven that Marijuana smoke contains high levels of carcinogens and it is not clear why smoking Marijuana does not cause cancer but it simply does not. In fact the incidence of lung cancer in Marijuana smokers is slightly lower than that of the general populace even when controlled for concurrent tobacco smoking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.139.151 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ha. I see what you did there... Aron.Foster (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure it's an issue, but since it's generally not legal to smoke marijuana in bars and restaurants, the issue is probably not as "high" on researchers' priority lists.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe these [1] [2] are the citations you are looking for, anonymous person. The results of Dr. Tashkin's landmark study may surprise many readers. You seem to have summed it up very well. The results hold for both lung cancer as well as head and neck cancer, according to Tashkin. The difference between this one and previous epidemiological studies on cannabis and cancer is that this one used a much larger sample size, a longer time (age) range, and (most importantly) controlled for virtually every conceivable confounding factor. May I also add that he did still find a very high relative risk (nearly 20) for tobacco smoking (2+ packs a day) after adjusting for confounders.Ajax151 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
The Netherlands recently banned tobacco smoking in their cannabis coffee shops, but obviously still allows the other stuff. So you can no longer smoke a tobacco-containing (Euro-style) joint inside. Sounds like a spoof on Saturday Night Live, but it is true. But seriously, I am not aware of a single study (pro or con) concerning second-hand cannabis smoke.Ajax151 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Last time,
just because it is Friday afternoon and to show how statistics can be used:
Combining http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922202.html and http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality.htm (identical figures in http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm ), we see that the total percentage of deaths, caused directly and indirectly by smoking, is one or two decimals over 18; this percentage is confirmed by http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30 . If we now look in http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/adult/table_2.htm and compare that percentage with the percentage of smokers in the total population in 2001, we see that the smokers have a positive balance of 22.8 - 18.2 = 4.6% over non-smokers. In the logic that in the Passive Smoking page is applied, this gives the conclusion that smoking lowers the mortality risk. Hehe.
This link is a statistic that concerns smoking, although not of tobacco: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67 . Interesting what leniency can do. Or is it a question of mentality?. Ed 123.255.29.209 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Re: your first paragraph, please run those numbers again once you've grasped the difference between incidence and prevalence. MastCell Talk 05:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am lured once more into answering, but this definitely is the last time. In a very long-term effect such as this, statistics are not showing any short-term incidence, practically only prevalence (prevalence, "Examples and Utility"). Even if really everyone stopped smoking now, the stats of the next, say three, years would hardly be affected. I lifted out the year 2001 by chance, but I could have taken any year of the past 15 where the CDC has data available. As the percentage of smokers is slowly decreasing over all of these years, the prevalence should show that the mortality rate is at least higher than the smokers' percentage in 2001 but following the downward trend. What I said before and what this example makes clear, is that the argumentation in the page is unscientific and highly biased because of some contributors' emotional editing by using questionable data, preferential interpretation and exclusion of what they don't like. Questionable data includes consensus-influenced estimates and predictions; smoking can cause e.g. heart attacks, but not every heart attack is contributable to smoking. If that contributive factor is estimated and/or interpolated, then many insecurities about the true values arise, making the data impossible to use in reliable statistics. Mind: I do not fight the intended conclusion w.r.t. health effects, only the way objectivity here is traded against goal-orientated ranting. Wikipedia users are entitled to better than that. Anyway, based on what I can read, there is reason to exclude you from the collective "some contributors". Ed 123.255.29.209 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gosh. What you've done there is taken the percentage of current smokers in the US population in 2001 (22.8%), subtracted the percentage of deaths caused by smoking in the US population in the same year (18.2%), and then somehow then decided the difference (4.6%) is a survival benefit that smokers have.
- I'm going to interpret the links you've posted in terms of natural frequencies, their advantage being that they are easier to understand. So we will talk about the number of events - deaths, smokers, whatever - in a group of 10,000 people in the US in 2001.
- Q1: How many smoked? Well, your fifth link showed 22.8% were current smokers, so 2,280 of them would have been current smokers, and 7,720 non-smokers (5,500 never smokers and 2,220 former smokers).
- Q2: How many died? (Note at this point that you didn't do this calculation.) Your first link gives the deaths per 1000 people in 2000 (which is near enough to 2001) as 8.7, so 87 of our 10,000 would have died.
- Q3: How many of those deaths were caused by smoking? Taking your 18.2%, almost 16 of our 87 deaths were caused by smoking (the numbers can't always be that neat).
- Q4: So that means smokers had a survival advantage over non-smokers, right? In a word, no. In order to comment on that, you'd need to know what the absolute risk of death was in smokers compared to non-smokers, or in English how many deaths there were per 1000 smokers and how many deaths per 1000 non-smokers. You'd also need to separate out never-smokers from former smokers, and perhaps further break them down by some measure of exposure to passive smoke. You begin to see the complexity of the issue, although it's worth saying there's plenty of research out there which does give us ideas of these numbers. Your calculation, alas, doesn't.
- Q5: So what did I actually show? Well, what you did was to subtract the percentage of smokers - regardless of whether they died or not from the percentage of deaths caused by smoking. If only 8.7 people per 1,000 died, you can't have 182 people per 1000 (your 18.2%) dying of smoking-related diseases - it's 18.2% of those who died. Amusingly, therefore, what your "calculation" assumed was that every non-smoker in the US in the year 2001 was incapable of dying until all the current smokers had died first. Suddenly, it's not looking that great a survival benefit anymore, hey? Nmg20 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please do read every sentence that I wrote; you obviously missed a lot of them, reacted by the seat of your pants ("Taking your 18.2%"l; these figures come from the CDC, not from me) and then just assumed that that example would be my real opinion. For example, this obviously did not reach you while you were reading, so let me repeat it: "In the logic that in the Passive Smoking page is applied, this gives the conclusion that smoking lowers the mortality risk." Read the part before the comma again. Do I have to really write that in capitals? Now allow me to repeat also this: "What I said before and what this example makes clear, is that the argumentation in the page is unscientific and highly biased because of some contributors' emotional editing by using questionable data, preferential interpretation and exclusion of what they don't like." In this example I only do exactly that, nothing else: using statistically useless estimates in a goal-oriented presentation. Anyway, thank you for showing once more that emotional interpretation is more common than objectivity, even in reading plain text. Ed 123.255.31.121 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- You outlined a way in which statistics could be interpreted to give "the conclusion that smoking lowers the mortality risk", and claimed that this incorrect logic was "in the Passive Smoking page is applied". That claim was wrong: the misunderstanding of statistics and consequent failures of logic were entirely your own. I've explained in detail, with reference to the numbers you provided (hence "your 18.2%) why this is the case. For you to suggest I thought you were making the numbers up when I provided links to the same sources you did repeatedly through my post is ridiculous.
- I'm not going to respond to the ad hominem suggestion that I'm posting emotionally rather than objectively because it is also ridiculous: my post above is one long, largely numerical, example. I defy you to find any evidence of an emotional response in there. So, at the risk of dropping down to the same level of response you've mustered - try to get your head round the numbers before posting any more offensive innumerate drivel in future. Nmg20 (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tendentious?
I cannot help but think this article is a bit tendentious, especially assuming that all studies finding little to no significant negative effects from ETS are funded by tobacco companies128.118.56.53 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's actually not an assumption, but a fact, that the studies "exonerating" ETS tend to be generated by the tobacco industry (see PMID 9605902, PMID 15741361, etc). That said, some parts of the article are a bit repetitive, and could probably be streamlined. MastCell Talk 20:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- They tend to be, most but not all of them actually are funded by the industry, according to PMID 9605902, PMID 15741361. If anything, I think the tobacco industry is quite scummy IMO. Yes, there is bias in their studies, and it is quite daft to deny that. But even a stopped clock can be right twice a day, and many so-called "independent" studies exaggerate the dangers of ETS and downplay the effectiveness of modern ventilation systems. I don't think the alternative mitigation section should have been deleted either--it cited reliable sources on both sides of the issue.Ajax151 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
"Third-hand smoke"
The third-hand smoke section, as currently written, is a bit one-sided considering the claims are unproven as yet. It is classic junk science and fear-mongering IMO. Why the recent deletions? Blog sources I could understand, but the next revision? The recent edit-wars are pointless and have led nowhere IMO. I recommend the entire "third-hand smoke" section be removed entirely for now.Ajax151 (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. The section on thirdhand smoke is relevant and is not inflated. There are actually more authoritative references than the ones indicated. Thirdhand smoke has been the subject of research for some time - only the term "thirdhand smoke" is recent. The allusion to junk science and fear-mongering are fallacious rhetoric devices that reveal a POV approach. Ajax151 should opt for valid arguments to engage in a fruitful discussion on this talk page.
- --Dessources (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- What sources are you referring to (please cite), and how conclusive are they? Are the results statistically significant at the 5% level? Did the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio (or relative risk) straddle the reference of 1.00 (meaning non-significant), and how wide was it (very wide is a red flag)? How large was the effect size (odds ratio or relative risk); was it of practical significance? What potential confounders were adequately controlled for? Fixed or variable effects model? These questions are central to determining the scientific soundness of epidemiological studies. How about this study <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1253717>, the same one that was deleted? This one, may have had residual confounding with prenatal smoking, and did not control for parents' IQ or reading ability. I read it myself. As a scientist (chemist) myself, I know that correlation is not causation, and it is the dose that makes the poison. I do not think there is anywhere near a scientific consensus on the putative effects of even indoor "third-hand" smoke (let alone that from smoking outside), on children or adults.Ajax151 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- See, for example, Matt et al. (2004); feel free to examine the confidence intervals yourself if you feel like applying "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiological Practices". Given the tobacco industry position that there is still no "scientific consensus" on second-hand smoke (and barely one that primary smoking is bad for you), it seems unrealistic to expect them to be in a hurry to acknowledge this issue - particularly as concern over third-hand smoke can actually motivate people to quit smoking. MastCell Talk 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I remember this study as well. I hate to be a pest, but I gotta say that the study provided no information on actual health effects/consequences on the extremely low levels of exposure; just that nicotine (and cotinine) levels were detectable from "third-hand smoke." And what about reporting bias, residual confounding, or additional sources of exposure? These are trace amounts. As I said earlier, it's the dose that makes the poison. That's a well known maxim of toxicology. Exposure need not imply toxicity. As for motivating people to quit, maybe so--but such scare tactics may also backfire. Anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel theorized that it may discourage smokers from going outside for a cigarette (which Matt et al. acknowledge greatly reduces the amount of exposure to other members of the household) since they will be tracking smoke residue in anyway. See this link: <http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-study-warns-of-dangers-of-thirdhand.html> Any other studies?Ajax151 (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's a good idea to be clear on what each study says and what it doesn't. Matt et al. demonstrated that environmental surfaces are contaminated, and remain contaminated, with toxic byproducts of cigarette smoke even if the smoking takes place outside the home. They also demonstrated that this contamination translated into significantly higher levels of exposure in infants - 5 to 8 times higher than that of infants born to non-smokers. That's an analysis of exposure. You're asking for an epidemiologic analysis to quantify how much excess risk is associated with that increased exposure; Matt et al. did not do that, nor would it be reasonable to expect to see all of that in 1 paper. I am in agreement with you that people can draw their own conclusions from these data without the need for "scare tactics". Infants exposed to "thirdhand smoke" have 5 to 8 times the level of cigarette byproducts in their system compared to unexposed infants. We don't know how much risk is associated with that increased exposure - will it lead to one extra case of SIDS among 20 infants? 5 extra ear infections in 100? 10 cases of asthma in 20? We don't know. In the end, if it's the kind of thing you're worried about, then you can take it into account. If not, then don't. MastCell Talk 06:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- I remember this study as well. I hate to be a pest, but I gotta say that the study provided no information on actual health effects/consequences on the extremely low levels of exposure; just that nicotine (and cotinine) levels were detectable from "third-hand smoke." And what about reporting bias, residual confounding, or additional sources of exposure? These are trace amounts. As I said earlier, it's the dose that makes the poison. That's a well known maxim of toxicology. Exposure need not imply toxicity. As for motivating people to quit, maybe so--but such scare tactics may also backfire. Anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel theorized that it may discourage smokers from going outside for a cigarette (which Matt et al. acknowledge greatly reduces the amount of exposure to other members of the household) since they will be tracking smoke residue in anyway. See this link: <http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-study-warns-of-dangers-of-thirdhand.html> Any other studies?Ajax151 (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- See, for example, Matt et al. (2004); feel free to examine the confidence intervals yourself if you feel like applying "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiological Practices". Given the tobacco industry position that there is still no "scientific consensus" on second-hand smoke (and barely one that primary smoking is bad for you), it seems unrealistic to expect them to be in a hurry to acknowledge this issue - particularly as concern over third-hand smoke can actually motivate people to quit smoking. MastCell Talk 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- What sources are you referring to (please cite), and how conclusive are they? Are the results statistically significant at the 5% level? Did the 95% confidence interval of the odds ratio (or relative risk) straddle the reference of 1.00 (meaning non-significant), and how wide was it (very wide is a red flag)? How large was the effect size (odds ratio or relative risk); was it of practical significance? What potential confounders were adequately controlled for? Fixed or variable effects model? These questions are central to determining the scientific soundness of epidemiological studies. How about this study <http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1253717>, the same one that was deleted? This one, may have had residual confounding with prenatal smoking, and did not control for parents' IQ or reading ability. I read it myself. As a scientist (chemist) myself, I know that correlation is not causation, and it is the dose that makes the poison. I do not think there is anywhere near a scientific consensus on the putative effects of even indoor "third-hand" smoke (let alone that from smoking outside), on children or adults.Ajax151 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, then, here's how I think the section should go. Hopefully we can all reach a consensus.
- In the mid 2000's, some researchers[3] began focusing on "third-hand smoke"—that is, the odoriferous residue left on surfaces and clothing from smoking. They found that this residue contains many of the same toxic chemicals which are in second-hand smoke, and exposure to such residues may have a negative impact on children's health.[126][127]][4]. However, despite resulting in elevated nicotine and cotinine levels in the children studied[5], there is no conclusive evidence to date on whether the usual trace amounts of this residue are actually harmful, and no scientific consensus on how much of a danger this poses. Further studies need to be done to ascertain and/or quantify this potential hazard.
- Contrast that with the current version, which is tendentious IMO. Notice how my version admits uncertainty and does not take sides. Also notice the use of the words "may have" instead of "has". It does not write it off as "junk science," nor does it assume things that aren't proven conclusively. It simply states what is known. It also contains no blogs, POV, or original research, or accusations of bias. In fact, it is about as unbiased as one can get. Surely this way of writing it will satisfy most Wikipedians.128.118.56.53 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I might phrase it this way:
In the mid 2000's, some researchers[6] began focusing on "third-hand smoke"—that is, the odoriferous residue left on surfaces and clothing from smoking. They found that this residue contains many of the same toxic chemicals found in second-hand smoke, and that these smoke residues were a significant source of exposure in infants.[126][127]][7][8] The long-term epidemiologic risks posed by exposure to third-hand smoke are currently unknown
- It highlights that third-hand smoke is a documented source of exposure in infants, but that there is no epidemiologic data on what sort of increased risk goes along with this particular exposure. It avoids leading words like "despite" and "however", which seem designed to editorially minimize the toxicological studies. And it avoids the "more research is necessary" cliche: more research is always necessary, but our job is to summarize existing research. MastCell Talk 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is much better than the current version. Our versions appear to be converging. However, the following would probably be even better
In the mid 2000's, some researchers[9] began focusing on "third-hand smoke"—that is, the odoriferous residue left on surfaces and clothing from smoking. They found that this residue contains many of the same toxic chemicals found in second-hand smoke, and that exposure to these smoke residues led to elevated nicotine (and nicotine byproduct) levels in infants.[126][127]][10][11] The short and long-term epidemiologic risks posed by exposure to third-hand smoke are currently unknown.
- This phrasing is more specific than "significant source of exposure." Significant in terms of what? Currently, the short term risks are just as nebulous as long term ones, hence the modification. Like your latest version, it has no cliches or POV, and no jargon like "cotinine." It is easy for the reader to understand.128.118.56.53 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, "significant" referred to the significantly increased levels of nicotine and metabolites in kids exposed to third-hand smoke. But that's not a major sticking point for me. Why not say "The magnitude of epidemiologic risk posed by third-hand smoke is currently unclear"? Or is that too jargony, maybe? I'm pretty much OK with the recent iteration you posted; I can live with it if you can. You may want to give it a day or so to see if anyone else chimes in. MastCell Talk 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like we now agree. Either way is fine by me, your latest wording is not too jargony IMO. "Unknown" sounds better than "unclear" IMO, but that's minor. Let's wait a day or two--good idea.128.118.56.53 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, "significant" referred to the significantly increased levels of nicotine and metabolites in kids exposed to third-hand smoke. But that's not a major sticking point for me. Why not say "The magnitude of epidemiologic risk posed by third-hand smoke is currently unclear"? Or is that too jargony, maybe? I'm pretty much OK with the recent iteration you posted; I can live with it if you can. You may want to give it a day or so to see if anyone else chimes in. MastCell Talk 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is much better than the current version. Our versions appear to be converging. However, the following would probably be even better
"Unknown" implies that the risks aren't known at all, which is not the case. We are aware of some of the risks, but the full implications are not yet clear because research is ongoing. For example, this article mentions learning difficulties and pregnancy complications as results of third-hand smoke. Unclear yes, but not unknown. waggers (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Waggers, it appears that you have misread the BBC News article somewhat, but that is understandable given that it is primarily junk science and scare tactics, which are all too common these days in both American and British media. The article is very misleading indeed. For learning difficulties in children, the only study that found anything was this one[12]. As was said before, reading levels were lower in children with very low cotinine levels (presumably from third-hand smoke), but this may be due to reporting bias, residual confounding with prenatal smoking or not adjusting for parental IQ. Even anti-smoking activist and professor Michael Siegel acknowledges this possibility<http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-study-warns-of-dangers-of-thirdhand.html> And what about nicotine/cotinine in breast milk? Even the article you cited mentions that one. As for the hypothesized dangers of third-hand smoke to pregnant women (what next, fourth-hand smoke?) there are no studies to back it up directly--just extrapolation based on second-hand smoke studies. If that's not junk science, what is? But that's the media for you. Remember, it's the dose that makes the poison. But for those in the media who imply that even a single molecule of the toxin du jour is worth worrying about, apparently there is no convincing. So, the word "unknown" is more appropriate in that context, but that choice of words is really not all that important to me. This discussion is now getting to be very long and borderline ridiculous IMO, now arguing about minute semantics and all.Ajax151 (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, just as a general suggestion: the term "junk science" is probably counterproductive here. Anyone with basic knowledge of the issues understands that "junk science" was a concept conceived and promoted by the tobacco industry to muddy the waters, delay acceptance of the risks of smoking, and avoid regulations that would cost the industry a few dollars off the bottom line. So when you use the term "junk science", you're putting yourself behind the 8-ball as far as convincing editors who understand the history of the term.
No study is perfect. Every study has flaws, confounders, etc. To label any study which contains a discernible imperfection as "junk science" is silly, particularly given that the term is rarely applied with equal opportunity to the reams of self-serving "research" produced by the tobacco industry.
Drawing new hypotheses from existing research is not "junk science". It's science. That's how it works. There's evidence that thirdhand smoke is a source of exposure in infants, and evidence that exposure is harmful. A reasonable hypothesis would be that third-hand smoke is harmful to infants. This hypothesis has not been rigorously tested, but it is a reasonable inference based on existing knowledge.
Regarding "the dose makes the poison", Paracelsus was a wise man. We're not talking about negligible molecules here, though - we're talking about contamination substantial enough to cause a significant increase in biomarkers for nicotine exposure. There is reason to suspect, based on existing knowledge, that this "dose" is in fact sufficient to make a "poison", so minimizing it as a "few molecules" and a "scare tactic" isn't especially convincing.
But at least we have some common ground on the proposed text, right? :) MastCell Talk 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we do agree on what the text of the article should be, and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree with how the studies ought to be interpreted. I just want to point out a few more things: 1)The term "junk science" was not invented by the tobacco industry or exclusively used by them. A 1985 United States Department of Justice report by the Tort Policy Working Group noted: 'The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as "junk science") has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.'[1] This is the first known use of the term, later co-opted by the tobacco industry and other industries. 2) Making a hypothesis and infererences is not junk science, but jumping to conclusions from preliminary and shaky evidence is.
- OK, just as a general suggestion: the term "junk science" is probably counterproductive here. Anyone with basic knowledge of the issues understands that "junk science" was a concept conceived and promoted by the tobacco industry to muddy the waters, delay acceptance of the risks of smoking, and avoid regulations that would cost the industry a few dollars off the bottom line. So when you use the term "junk science", you're putting yourself behind the 8-ball as far as convincing editors who understand the history of the term.
- Yes, I'm well aware that the term (just like "sound science") is loaded, after being tainted by the tobacco industry any term can be loaded. Yes, the term is often used by equally unscrupulous industries as well. That's too bad because it has such a nice ring to it, and I think it is an appropriate term for any failure to follow the scientific method or adhere to established standards of research, putting politcs before science, misuse of expert testimony, and so on. History is rife with examples of those who abuse science in the name of profit, ideology, prejudice, fame, image, and/or power. And yes, I (and many others) use the term to describe much of the "science" funded or performed by the "Merchants of Death" as well.Ajax151 (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ajax, how'd you get such respect? I applaud your debunking of the ad hominem argument. Be on guard; it will be hurled at you again. Maybe there has been a change of heart around here over the last 6 months or so. Time will tell.
- P.S. I actually like how all this was worked out, and approve of this particular section as currently written. Stamp it.
- As always, stick to the facts and everything will be fine. Chido6d (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Article edit complete.Ajax151 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
NPOV
This article seems to me as if it has been written completely by the anti-smoking lobbyists, as all articles on the matter appear to be. We could at least mention other sides, such as FOREST and such. The article suggests that passive smoking has been proven to have massive health risks and to massively increase the chances of diseases. I think it's important to take into account that the passive smoking theory has not been proven.[13][14]. --HandGrenadePins (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've included a link to FOREST noting its role as part of the industry response. Readers can follow it and make up their own minds. JQ (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- FOREST is an interesting example, since they're probably the archetype of the tobacco-industry front group designed to sow doubt from a supposedly "independent" position. Passive smoking has health risks in the opinion of every scientific and medical body to study the question. In other words, it has been proven, to the satisfaction of just about everyone except the tobacco industry and their mouthpieces. Actually, even some tobacco companies admit the risks of secondhand smoke now - usually those who have been legally compelled to turn over their internal memos documenting that they've known secondhand smoke was dangerous since the 70's. MastCell Talk 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a classic example of "astroturfing." But surely there are similar groups that are not affiliated with the tobacco industry? How about CLASH (http://www.nycclash.com) in NYC? Or FORCES (forces.org)--not to be confused with FOREST? What about general libertarian think-tanks like the Cato Institute, who originally managed junkscience.com but cut ties with them after realizing the connection with the tobacco industry? They still maintain their postion on passive smoking in spite of that. Just a thoughtAjax151 (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- FOREST is an interesting example, since they're probably the archetype of the tobacco-industry front group designed to sow doubt from a supposedly "independent" position. Passive smoking has health risks in the opinion of every scientific and medical body to study the question. In other words, it has been proven, to the satisfaction of just about everyone except the tobacco industry and their mouthpieces. Actually, even some tobacco companies admit the risks of secondhand smoke now - usually those who have been legally compelled to turn over their internal memos documenting that they've known secondhand smoke was dangerous since the 70's. MastCell Talk 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- As you point out, Cato isn't really a good counter-example - since the exposure of Milloy, it's largely stopped fighting the science, so it now has a policy position but little in the way of a case for it. Undoubtedly there are genuinely independent individuals and groups who reject mainstream science on passive smoking and oppose smoking bans. But they aren't reliable sources on the science and their views on smoking bans belong in that article.JQ (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
HandGrenadePins, you're not the only one who noticed the obviously tendentious nature of the overall article. While we're at it, how's about restoring the alternative mitigation (ventilation, cap-and-trade for bars) section? If it is good enough for the smoking ban article, surely it applies a fortiori to this one? That is a very pertinent "other side of the story" that is often (unfairly) assumed to be just another a tobacco industry ploy with no real basis. True, they do support ventilation, but bashing the idea based on that is the guilt by association fallacy. If Mussolini made the trains run on time, therefore it is bad for trains to run on time--same kind of pseudo-logic. In fact, the section gave both sides. If cap-and-trade is OK for greenhouse gases (a much more pressing problem than passive smoking IMO), surely it is OK for tobacco smoke?? I hope we can all reach a consensus on ventilation and cap-and-trade (for bars). I'd like to see comments on this.Ajax151 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have any problem with discussing cap-and-trade, though it might be better to cover it in smoking ban since it's more a matter of how smoking bans are implemented rather than directly dealing with passive smoking. MastCell Talk 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- What about ventilation? There should be at least a brief reference to that (with citations). Any unbiased mention of ventilation, in addition to cap-and-trade, in this article would make the article more neutral IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Again, all this stuff belongs mainly in smoking ban, but a sentence mentioning alternative proposals wouldn't do any harm. I'll try and add something.JQ (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- What about ventilation? There should be at least a brief reference to that (with citations). Any unbiased mention of ventilation, in addition to cap-and-trade, in this article would make the article more neutral IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I just read this article and was appalled. I love Wikipedia, and part of what I love about it is that if an article even leans slightly to one side on a controversial subject it tends to be labeled as under suspicion of bias. I remember reading a Marie Antoinette article that really seemed pretty even handed to me and was labeled as biased or potentially biased in her favor. How then, does this unbelievably one-sided article exist without any caveats? Has any single study of secondhand smoke shown a statistically significant link (that is, a result that is less than 5% likely to have occurred by pure chance) to adverse health effects? I believe the answer is no. Isn't that fairly important when citing all of these studies? Isn't it important that the studies that show significance are meta-studies? One would think that would be mentioned and the term "meta-study" would then be explained. And lastly, how can you just dismiss all counter-arguments as "funded by the tobacco industry" and leave it at that? Shouldn't the findings or methodology be cited, rather than the perceived motivation? And, in case you're wondering, Philip Morris isn't paying me to write this. I don't even smoke. In fact, I dislike it quite a bit when people smoke in my face at a bar or a casino. But the answer is not to invent science and shout down anyone who objects. This article MUST be labeled as biased. Someone please tell me what I can do to further this end.SonofFeanor (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- You can't. To answer some of your questions as well as some of the concerns raised by HandGrenadePins, simply read this page.
- In fairness, the article isn't about original research that you wish to introduce. It's about presenting evidence from reliable sources, though most unfortunately, this is currently done in an extremely biased fashion. It's also about the suppression of the opposing view and/or portraying the opposing view deliberately in the pejorative. Again, read this page. Chido6d (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe the article to be biased, perhaps you could explain how we could better present the unanimity of scientific opinion? The problem you're encountering is that you're running against a couple of well-documented facts:
- Reputable scientific opinion is unanimous that secondhand smoke carries health risks, though (as the article notes) a small minority dispute the magnitude of that risk.
- The vast majority of research "exonerating" passive smoking is now known to have been generated by the tobacco industry, which had internally acknowledged that secondhand smoke was harmful.
- Is it "biased" to state in our article on AIDS that the disease is caused by HIV? If you were to read the article talk page, you'd think so, because a succession of folks stop by with comments much like these. There is scientific consensus here; there is no meaningful scientific debate on whether secondhand smoke is harmful - it is. It's trivially easy to source this consensus - see Passive smoking#Current state of scientific opinion. The problem is that you're requesting that Wikipedia present a scientific "controversy" where none exists. We're not in the business of manufacturing controversies. MastCell Talk 05:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- If you believe the article to be biased, perhaps you could explain how we could better present the unanimity of scientific opinion? The problem you're encountering is that you're running against a couple of well-documented facts:
Where to start? How about the absurd AIDS analogy? There are many, many studies that have achieved statistical significance in linking HIV to AIDS. Since the effect shows up much sooner than do the supposed effects of passive smoking, and since the presence of HIV is easy to test for, unlike measurement of exposure to secondhand smoke, designing meaningful studies is comparatively easy in this case and methodological concerns much less pronounced. There are virtually NO individual studies that have achieved statistical significance in linking passive smoking with ANY adverse health effects. Read that sentence again. It is important. Because of it, the analogy fails miserably. That is, since there is evidence supporting one causal relationship and none supporting the other, one can make the first claim without bias, yet not the second. The fact that comments on that page resemble mine in some superficial sense don't make mine less powerful. If they did, we might justly impeach any skepticism on the exact same basis. "You doubt the relationship between warts and witchcraft that is so clearly presented in our article? You sound just like the AIDS skeptics. Begone, unbeliever."
You speak again and again, here and in the article, about a "scientific consensus." Then you list a bunch of medical organizations and one - count it, one - purely scientific organization. It is hardly surprising that medical bodies are willing to come out against passive smoking. Not even I believe that it could improve health, so they can be certain that such a stance is at worst health neutral. Organizations like WHO and EPA are notoriously unconcerned with fudging science to "serve the greater good." Where are the epidemiological societies, though? Where are the pure scientists? And certainly, there are some doctors and scientists on the other side. The British Medical Journal, for heaven's sake, put out a study in 2003 showing that the risks of passive smoking are vastly overstated. Richard Smith, a Dr. and head of the Journal at the time, was eviscerated for it, though he did nothing other than publish a rigorously peer-reviewed study in his journal. Richard Doll, famous in scientific circles for exposing the dangers of firsthand smoking, maintains that the risks of secondhand smoke are trivial. Likewise Ken Denson. Does this sound like consensus? Oh, I am sure that you will say each and every one of them has some tie to tobacco, as though the publishers of all of the secondhand smoking studies are doing it for free. The grants they receive from governments, and the funding from lobbyists, are conveniently ignored. Given that most people do what they do out of some underlying self interest, how about we dispense with discussions of motivations and - gasp -look at the actual results?
If you did, you would see that there is no need to "manufacture" a controversy. The length and breadth of the objections to your article alone make that clear. A controversy exists, and it ought not to be hushed up by activists pushing an agenda. Not on a site that takes just pride in its objectivity.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I second that. I do not believe that the controversy was entirely manufactured (though the tobacco companies did fund most (NOT all!)of the "exonerating" studies). The risks of passive smoking, while I concede that at least some of which are likely real, are grossly exaggerated IMO. Even anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel (you know, that "third hand smoke" skeptic I keep on referencing) concedes that, even for second-hand smoke. Is it not possible that the anti-smoking side has vested interests as well? Ideological, obviously, but what about funding from pharmaceutical companies, and, dare I say it, the neoprohibitionist Robert Wood Johnson Foundation? Are they somehow automatically off the hook just because they claim to be supporting "public health"?Ajax151 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see that my post, and a followup from SonofFeanor, were removed. I'm fine with that, since both were probably crossing the line set up by the talk page guidelines. Rather than respond to your opinions with my opinions, how about I let you have the last word here, and we focus on specific changes to the article content from here on? MastCell Talk 03:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, so on to specific wording, then. How about starting at "causes disease, disability, and death" in the first paragraph. Shouldn't "causes" be replaced by "may cause?" After all, no study shows that these health effects occur in more than 50% of people, much less 100% of people. Additionally, what disabilities, exactly, has passive smoking been shown to cause? As far as I know, the answer is none, though I am happy to be educated. Lastly, to claim that passive smoking "causes death" is clearly a rhetorical device that has no place here. There is no good study out there on smoking and mortality rates. The BMJ study does consider mortality rates rather than specific diseases, but of course finds no connection. None of the meta-studies, as far as I know, considers mortality rates. To summarize, this sentence ought to read "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke may cause " and then whatever the meta-studies actually show, whether it be heart disease, lung cancer, or what have you. I object to the meta-studies to begin with, but at least they achieve some level of significance that could justify the word "shows" above. I will move on to the rest of the article if we can manage to salvage paragraph number one.SonofFeanor (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Please see Talk:Passive smoking/Archive 3#SHS Causing Death. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- This comes up every now and then. To be honest, I don't have a problem with "can cause" vs. "causes" vs. "is a cause of" vs. "increases the risk of". Any of these are fine with me - they seem semantically equivalent in this context, and accurate. MastCell Talk 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- So then let's change to "increases the risk of." Ths is phrased much more clearly. But the rest of my concerns have not been addressed. Yes, you are quoting the WHO. But I mean, the WHO was quoting the Surgeon General. Right away, the problem becomes clear. This isn't two citations! Do we now get to quote Wikipedia and say "Look, consensus?" There is no substitute for looking at the actual studies, abstracts of which are available at the Surgeon General's site. Not one of them shows anything about mortality rates. Some of the regard SIDS, which I believe is where the "death" part of the quote arises. But if you read the studies on SIDS, either they are not even close to significant (many show odds ratios UNDER 1) or they fail to control for prenatal maternal smoking, which is clearly the primary risk factor. So, either show us the studies on mortality, or remove "death." And for heaven's sake, if ETS causes disability, tell me what disability? How can you write it in this article if you can't even name the disability?SonofFeanor (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Ventilation section
OK, if we're going to do a ventilation section, let's do it right. I think that the current wording is a good start. However, it's a bit incomplete. Relevant and well-sourced aspects of ventilation as a solution to secondhand smoke include:
- Ventilation has been pushed heavily by the tobacco industry as an alternative to smoking bans. Much of the data supporting ventilation was produced as part of a coordinated effort along these lines by the tobacco industry. "The industry developed a network of ventilation 'experts' to promote its position that smoke-free environments were not necessary, often without disclosing the financial relationship between these experts and the industry." (PMID 14985616)
- There is substantial evidence that ventilation is not an adequate solution to the issue of secondhand smoke. For example, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) concluded, in their position statement: "At present, the only means of effectively eliminating health risk associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity... adverse health effects for the occupants of the smoking room cannot be controlled by ventilation. No other engineering approaches, including current and advanced dilution ventilation or air cleaning technologies, have been demonstrated or should be relied upon to control health risks from ETS exposure." ([15]).
- The 2006 Surgeon General's report explicitly found that ventilation strategies are inadequate to eliminate the risks of secondhand smoke, and may actually worsen the problem by distributing smoke throughout a building. ([16])
- The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America states: "Some air cleaners may help to reduce secondhand smoke to a limited degree, but no air filtration or air purification system can completely eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke... a simple reduction of secondhand smoke does not protect against the disease and death caused by exposure to secondhand smoke." ([17])
- The European Commission Joint Research Centre concluded: "Efforts to reduce ETS-originated indoor air pollution through higher ventilation rates in buildings, including residential areas and hospitality venues, would not lead to a meaningful improvement of indoor air quality." ([18])
... and so on. If we're going to cover ventilation as it relates to secondhand smoke, then I think that any honest and balanced coverage would need to mention that a) the idea has been pushed largely by a network of "independent experts" created by the tobacco industry, b) that major technical groups such as ASHRAE and major public-health bodies such as the Surgeon General and the European Commission JRC consider ventilation an inadequate approach. These points are strongly and appropriately sourced. The current text cites one study pro and one con, which fails to give a balanced and complete view of the topic. MastCell Talk 17:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- The current text should stay worded pretty much as is, but you may add links for those additional references to the "con" side. The degree of effectiveness of ventilation is still not a matter of scientific consensus, and the "pro" article should still therefore remain. The "pro" side certainly is NOT a fringe theory or Flat-Earther type position, nor entirely concocted or funded by Big Tobacco. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. True, ventilation/air cleaning cannot eliminate ALL passive smoke, but dramatically reduces it. To me, giving too much weight to the con side is analogous to a "sex education" class briefly mentioning condoms but only talking about their (predominantly user) failure rates. While it may not be good enough air quality for, say, a hospital, I am not convinced that bar workers and patrons would be significantly worse off relative to a smoking ban. Again, Paracelsus was very wise indeed. In addition, in-depth coverage of your references would probably belong in the smoking ban article if you wish to edit that one. The ventilation section on the passive smoking article is concise and balanced as currently worded.Ajax151 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hm. I'm not sure I agree - I understand your opinion about the relative merits of ventilation, but we're not talking about our opinions here. I'm suggesting that rather than picking two journal articles at random to represent "pro" and "con", we instead go to the best available secondary sources, and the best indicators of scientific and medical expert opinion on the matter.
Incidentally, I'm not going to argue semantics about "scientific consensus", but WP:WEIGHT is pretty clear here - the Surgeon General, the European Commission Joint Research Centre, and the relevant engineering body (ASHRAE) all agree that ventilation is an inadequate approach to dealing with secondhand smoke. That's notable. If you're going to juxtapose that weight of expert opinion against a single article from Building Services Journal, well, that would be undue weight and false equivalence.
Smoking ban would be a better place for all discussion of ventilation. If, however, we agree to discuss it here, then we need to use the best available sources, rather than editorially selecting a few articles that create the erroneous appearance of a "debate" between two equally supported positions. MastCell Talk 22:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I still think it is important to present both sides. How about this then?
- Hm. I'm not sure I agree - I understand your opinion about the relative merits of ventilation, but we're not talking about our opinions here. I'm suggesting that rather than picking two journal articles at random to represent "pro" and "con", we instead go to the best available secondary sources, and the best indicators of scientific and medical expert opinion on the matter.
Alternatives to smoking bans have also been proposed as a means of harm reduction, especially in bars. For example, critics of bans cite at least one study suggesting ventilation is an adequate means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking.[128] However, the effectiveness of ventilation is controversial, with several organizations (such as ASHRAE and the European Commission) concluding that ventilation is no substitute for a smoking ban.[129][and your references here]. Others have suggested a system of tradable smoking pollution permits, similar to the cap-and-trade pollution permits systems used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent decades to curb other types of pollution (e.g. greenhouse gases).[5]
- It may not be perfect, but it is concise and neutral. What do you think?Ajax151 (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see you edited the article already, MastCell. I still think my latest version (above) is better as it is more concise and neutral. One sentence for each position. The stuff about the Big Tobacco would be better placed in an earlier section of the article IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your version is more concise, which I like. I'm not sure it clarifies the weight of opposition to ventilation as a sole solution. What about changing the 3rd sentence to read: "... with major medical and technical organizations such as ASHRAE, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the EC JRC concluding that ventilation is not an adequate solution to the risks of secondhand smoke." I'm not aware of any organizations of similar stature which endorse ventilation, though if such exist they could be added.
I'm also not sure we can fully address ventilation without any mention of the industry's role in promoting it. The documents indicate that an "independent network of ventilation experts" promoting the idea was largely cobbled together sub rosa by the industry. That seems relevant (and, of course, well-sourced) in terms of accurately and neutrally covering the issue, no? MastCell Talk 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean the third sentence of my version? Perhaps, but with the word "some" (or "a few") before "major" since not all such organizations even have an opinion on the matter of ventilation, and you only listed a few. As for Big Tobacco's involvement, again it is not all of the ventilation supporters, and that fact should be noted as well for balance if the former is to be mentioned. As for the tagging, that applies to the entire passive smoking article, not specifically the stuff we are discussing here. So, it is an overall disputed article IMO--just read how ridiculously long the talk page is.Ajax151 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Your version is more concise, which I like. I'm not sure it clarifies the weight of opposition to ventilation as a sole solution. What about changing the 3rd sentence to read: "... with major medical and technical organizations such as ASHRAE, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the EC JRC concluding that ventilation is not an adequate solution to the risks of secondhand smoke." I'm not aware of any organizations of similar stature which endorse ventilation, though if such exist they could be added.
- Sure, "some major medical and technical..." would be fine with me. How about removing the cite tag and changing "most" to "some"? The length of the talk page or general disapproval of an article isn't a reason to apply a {{POV}} tag - see WP:NPOV dispute. It's a last resort, to be taken after you've listed specific content issues and we've failed to make progress. So far, I'm doing my best to address the specific concerns you've raised about content. Check my wording on the ventilation issue - I certainly don't say that all ventilation proponents are tobacco-industry-related. I say that ventilation was heavily promoted by the industry through a network of "independent" experts - which is easily and properly sourced. MastCell Talk 00:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else is welcome to comment on this issue so we can achieve a consensus. I still think it is important to present both sides.Ajax151 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- ASHRAE also concluded this: "Some engineering measures may reduce that exposure and the corresponding risk to some degree while also addressing to some extent the comfort issues of odor and some forms of irritation." This missing information seems to indicate that there is at least some benefit to ventilation; anyone with a shred common sense would concur.
- The sad thing is that the extremists and activists, through the promotion of their agenda, are likely diminishing the value and importance placed on filtration and ventilation regarding general indoor air quality.
- Not sure what I can say or do, but I will be happy to add the source to my chart of Information Under Suppression if things don't work out. The chart needs an update anyway. Chido6d (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Amen to that. It's a matter of degree and by that definition it "works." That is also true of "old fashioned ventilation" (i.e. opening doors/windows, or partial enclosure)[19]. Of course ventilation would not be equal to a smoking ban (that is enforced) in terms of eliminating pollutants, just like seat belts and air bags are no substitute for car-free zones in preventing auto accidents, and emission control systems are for car-generated air pollution. There will still be some measurable tobacco pollutants in the air. The question is whether or not the degree of reduced exposure that modern ventilation and air cleaning provide is adequate for a particular purpose (i.e. a bar vs. a hospital). What epidemiological studies have shown actual health effects from bar workers in those bars that do have the best ventilation? What is the basis for claiming ventilation inadequacy, and what is the standard for "adequate"? Is it the idea that there is "no known safe level," or something more substantive? Furthermore, one should still remember that any residual exposure in a well-ventilated (or any) bar is voluntary. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And kitchens produce indoor air pollutants as well, something that modern ventilation/air cleaning can greatly reduce as well.Ajax151 (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, rather than pick apart your analogies, I'm going to ask again that we refrain from debating our opinions here and present reliable sources, along with specific suggestions for how they should be incorporated into the article. MastCell Talk 19:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. The only way to avoid the kind of mess that characterised the entire article until recently is to stick to reliable sources. Editors who disagree with the findings of, say, the World Health Organization can either find a comparably reliable source saying the opposite, or try to get their own views accepted in the broader scientific community whose views Wikipedia reports. Until then, there's nothing to stop anyone who wants from publishing their views on blogs, websites like that of FORCES and so on. JQ (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Let's not edit the ventilation section anymore until we can reach a consensus. Though imperfect IMO, I can live with the way it is written for now. My analogies above concerned the views expressed by sources like the WHO, not the passive smoking article. I will look for some more reliable sources in the meantime to share on the talk pageAjax151 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, I like the idea of making it a bit more concise, along some of the lines you'd suggested... but let's think about it. MastCell Talk 22:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Alternatives to smoking bans have also been proposed as a means of harm reduction. For example, critics of bans cite studies suggesting ventilation as a means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking.[119] Ventilation has also been heavily promoted by the tobacco industry as an alternative to outright bans, via a network of ostensibly independent experts with often undisclosed financial ties to the industry.[120]
Some major medical, technical, and scientific bodies consider ventilation an inadequate mitigation alternative to indoor smoking bans. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers concluded in 2005 that smoking bans were the only effective means of eliminating the risks associated with secondhand smoke, and that ventilation techniques should not be relied upon to control health risks from secondhand-smoke exposure.[121] The U.S. Surgeon General and the European Commission Joint Research Centre reached similar conclusions.[122][123] The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that "approaches other than 100% smoke free environments, including ventilation, air filtration and the use of designated smoking areas (whether with separate ventilation systems or not), have repeatedly been shown to be ineffective and there is conclusive evidence, scientific and otherwise, that engineering approaches do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke."[124], p. 2
Other critics have suggested a system of tradable smoking pollution permits, similar to the cap-and-trade pollution permits systems used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent decades to curb other types of pollution.[125]
- Yes, I think that's an improvement. Since the SG and the JRC reached similar conclusions, we don't need quotes for each of them - the full text is available through the footnote. My instinct is to drop "some", because it leads me to expect that additional "major bodies" will be cited with opposing views - and as yet, we don't have those sources. But it's not a major concern - I could live with it either way. MastCell Talk 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say about this version.Ajax151 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I like the general direction here, too; and concur with MastCell (and my earlier edit summary) that the word "some" implies something isn't isn't necessarily true. In fact, until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined think that of all the major, well respected scientific and technical bodies that have taken a stand on the issue, none have come out in favor of the idea that ventilation is an adequate substitute for bans. Yilloslime (t) 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Good. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say about this version.Ajax151 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's an improvement. Since the SG and the JRC reached similar conclusions, we don't need quotes for each of them - the full text is available through the footnote. My instinct is to drop "some", because it leads me to expect that additional "major bodies" will be cited with opposing views - and as yet, we don't have those sources. But it's not a major concern - I could live with it either way. MastCell Talk 22:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- My two cents (though worth much more):
- I agree that the word some is rightly gone.
- The word financial (as in ties) should go, too. The ties were more than financial; according to the source, the ties were also supervisory.
- I'm happy to see that four quotes have been condensed to two. Is the repetition that remains really necessary? Would choosing the best summary, then listing the organizations that concur satisfy the extremists' appetite for "weight"?
- Comment: I find it very interesting that only one of the five sources contains any meaningful data. Can any of you guess which one it is?
- Comment: The term well respected is highly subjective. Thanks.Chido6d (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- My two cents (though worth much more):
- Can any of you guess which one it is? I think I can (lol). As for listing the organizations, that would probably be better in the smoking ban article, but it is not a bad idea IMO. I also agree that the term "well respeced" is unnecessary and subjective. Let's not stack the deck. I'm fine with the way it is currently written (but prefer my more concise version above), but let's see how everyone else feels about it before making any more edits. Ajax151 (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Re: Chido's comments, removal of "financial" would be fine. I think we can abridge, condense, or paraphrase the WHO FCTC quote as well, though since the FCTC is a treaty and not a scientific document per se it may be best to retain a separate sentence describing it. I'm not finding the term "well-respected" in the proposed section (or in the article) - am I missing something? MastCell Talk 18:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- As a tip of the hat to the extremists and the pharmaceutical companies, I think the FCTC deserves a place. After all, the radicalism of the document is downright amusing. Shouldn't the article contain a good dose of humor?
- "Well respected" is the term that Yilloslime used to describe certain scientific and technical bodies in his comments above.
- I'm wondering if (in a NPOV way, of course) some of the observations of the 2005 publication should be summarized. For example, they observed a stark reduction in RSP's when the ventilation systems were operating (to very low levels indeed); however, in conclusion, they noted that the advocates' standard of "absolute zero" is impossible to achieve. Chido6d (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Come back once you're willing to drop the rhetoric and talk content, sources, and policies. MastCell Talk 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was quite sincere about leaving the FCTC thing in. You should know that I think it's bunk; after all, on several occasions you have claimed to read my mind. But I still think it should be in there. Otherwise, I tried to answer your question, and then made a suggestion for editors' musing. Assume good faith, perhaps? Chido6d (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning the sincerity of your beliefs, and I assume good faith until given clear evidence to the contrary. I'm just asking you to respect the talk page guidelines, in the interest of avoiding endlessly circular arguments. MastCell Talk 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was quite sincere about leaving the FCTC thing in. You should know that I think it's bunk; after all, on several occasions you have claimed to read my mind. But I still think it should be in there. Otherwise, I tried to answer your question, and then made a suggestion for editors' musing. Assume good faith, perhaps? Chido6d (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Come back once you're willing to drop the rhetoric and talk content, sources, and policies. MastCell Talk 07:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
How about simply stating, The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control also concurs[124], p. 2. and leave it at that? That would be much more concise. Anyone agree?Ajax151 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability (Rep. No. 027-000-01251-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437)