m Signing comment by 69.248.147.86 - "→Breast cancer risk is increased by 70% in younger, primarily premenopausal women.: " |
SonofFeanor (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 333: | Line 333: | ||
:::http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs46.smoking.cfm |
:::http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs46.smoking.cfm[[User:SonofFeanor|SonofFeanor]] ([[User talk:SonofFeanor|talk]]) 07:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:11, 3 February 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 them 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)
- I proposed a solution to this long ago.
- "According to the WHO, passive smoke causes death, disease and disability." This is an accurate statement. It is neutral, and nobody can dispute it.
- "Scientific evidence shows..." is none of the above. Some agree with it and others do not, but as someone has aptly stated, opinions aren't supposed to matter here.
- One of the most extremist editors prefers the word "cause" and offers a reasonable argument: it is the word that the sources use. My proposed solution seems to cover all bases. Any thoughts? Chido6d (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the "According to the WHO..." language, although I suppose I would prefer "According to the office of the Surgeon General ..." since the WHO is really just quoting the Surgeon General.SonofFeanor (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I proposed a solution to this long ago.
- I may be the "extremist editor" Chido is talking about (would I be wrong to be slightly flattered if so...?), and to reiterate, I oppose any dilution of 'causes' to 'can cause' or 'increases the risk of', for all the reasons which we have already discussed on this page, most recently as outlined by User:Dessources in the section titled "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability" in archive 3. In short, my view is that the word 'cause' here is understood at a population level rather than at an individual level, i.e. in the population as a whole passive smoke causes death, disease, and disability (as an aside, the main disabilities would be related to the (after)effects of disease e.g. post-MI, COPD, etc).
- For instance, although car crashes are the main cause of head injury, they don't always cause head injury - given that most car accidents are relatively minor, the overwhelming majority won't. There are undoubtedly other factors involved - the speed of the car, whether the occupants were wearing seatbelts, prevailing weather conditions - and all of these can modulate the risk of head injury - but fundamentally, even though a minority of car accidents cause head injuries and even though those that do are modulated by dozens of other factors, no one has a problem with saying "car accidents cause head injury" and no one takes it to mean that if they reverse into a parking bollard they'll end up with a brain injury.
- For the same reasons, I don't think the meaning currently is in any way unclear with the wording as it is. Nmg20 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I have never heard anyone say "Car accidents cause head injury" and if I did, I would think it was quite strange. I think most people who heard this would think it meant car crashes lead invariably to head injury, which is not much less ridiculous than "passive smoking causes death." But apparently some of you think of something else, and I suppose, therefore, I have to acknowledge there is more than one way to interpret the statement. But if I make such an acknowledgment, it seems to me that you must as well. There is little doubt that many people reading the statement read it as Chido and I and so many other critics have. Given this, we should make it more clear, and wording like "increases the risk of" certainly does that. What is lost by changing the wording? "Increases the risk of" and "causes at a population level" say exactly the same thing, except that the former is idiomatically correct English and the latter is questionable usage at best. But if you must have "cause" then include "at a population level," as you do every time you need to make yourself understood here on the talk page. It is clear that this caveat is not at all "understood," as you claim, and you want to keep the current wording purely for rhetorical effect.SonofFeanor (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- So, when you say "passive smoking causes... disability" you mean it has been tenuously linked to heart disease by meta-studies (and pretty much not at all to myocardial infarction), and since disability results in rare cases of myocardial infarction or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, it has therefore been linked to disability? Is that some sort of joke? I assumed you had some nonsense study or another out there linking passive smoking to hearing loss or something. To continue along the lines of your previous analogy, this is tantamount to saying "car accidents cause memory loss" since they sometimes lead to head injury which is sometimes associated with memory loss. To take it a step further, I guess we could say "driving causes memory loss" or even "working causes memory loss," since working sometimes leads to driving which leads to car accidents. I mean, as long as you understand I am talking about working causing memory loss "at a population level."SonofFeanor (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I put the NPOV tag on this article. I dispute that it presents a neutral point of view, as I have stated. The very first sentence I have a problem with is a matter of continuing debate on this site. I was going to list all of the users who have had the same problem with the sentence, but I soon realized it would be quite a long list indeed. Given this fact, and the fact that my arguments have not been answered in any meaningful way, I do not see how any responsible editor can remove the tag. To do so seems to me to be abuse.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- There has certainly been a steady stream of editors seeking to insert WP:FRINGE viewpoints, personal critiques of the scientific literature, tobacco industry talking points and so on. This is true (with obvious variations) of almost every article on a science-related topic, which is why appeals to the broader Wikipedia community invariably come down on the side of science. It's been a useful process. The current version of the article is much clearer on the role of the tobacco industry in manufacturing doubt than it was in the past, and editors are now much quicker to check on the (almost invariable) industry links of the groups and researchers cited as contrary evidence to the conclusions of relevant authorities. So, please keep up the discussion, but don't imagine that you are going to get an "opinions differ on shape of earth" result.JQ (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but real points were made above and cannot be legitimately answered by simply stating "Everyone knows you are wrong." If ETS causes disabilities, it is fair to ask which ones. No one has given a response to that question, unless you count "That is a tobacco industry talking point" or "Obviously it is true, you can't change the shape of the Earth." A dispute remains, and the article must be labeled accordingly.SonofFeanor (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- This page is neither supposed to be a tutorial nor a Q&A section on the science of secondhand smoke. Clearly there are things SonofFeanor does not fully understand, but we should refrain from explaining it to him, as this is not a proper use of this page (see NOT A FORUM note at the top of this page). Therefore, whether SonofFeanor has ever heard anyone say "Car accidents cause head injury" or not is completely irrelevant. What counts is what our reliable and authoritiative sources say, and this article is fully in line with that, and is probably backed by very solid and undisputable sources more than the great majority of Wikipedia articles. Therefore the case for the NPOV tag is completely ungrounded. Normally posts such as the one by SonofFeanor above should be removed from this discussion page, according to the NOT A FORUM rule.
- --Dessources (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I said I had never heard that in response to "no one has a problem with saying 'car accidents cause head injury.'" It is a very relevant response to that comment, which was perhaps irrelevant to begin with. My remarks above are all directly discussing the "causes" wording, and as such are perfectly appropriate to this page, though I believe your "Clearly there are things SonofFeanor does not understand" falls afoul of the regulations against ad hominem attacks, particularly as you chose not to discuss what those "things" were. As for "authoritative sources," you are quoting directly from one source - the Surgeon General. The WHO is quoting HIM, so they are not a separate source in this matter. And if you want to quote the Surgeon General, that is fine - put the words in quotes and cite him. As it is, the statement is masquerading as more than a simple quote, and so you ought to be able to defend it with more than "the Surgeon General says so." I reiterate that not one of you can even list a disability that passive smoking causes. It should be obvious even to the dullest of you that this is a serious problem. I will change the wording in the article if no one comes up with a disability by tonight.SonofFeanor (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Numerous independent sources have concluded that secondhand smoke is harmful - in fact, every major medical or scientific body that has examined the question has reached that conclusion. See Passive smoking#Current state of scientific opinion. Wikipedia's policies require that claims be presented in context of their acceptance by experts in the field. It is easily demonstrable that a consensus exists among experts in the field that secondhand smoke is harmful. Trying to divide and conquer the sources of this consensus is not particularly useful or productive. It exists, it's easily verifiable, so Wikipedia reports it. As to "disability", I presume that refers to illnesses such as asthma which are exacerbated by secondhand smoke. If you'd like to remove the word "disability", I have no complaints - it's fine to leave it as "secondhand smoke causes disease and death." MastCell Talk 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I misspoke, it is the Surgeon General who cites the WHO, not the other way around. We will get to how many independent sources have concluded what, but for now we are addressing this one statement, and ought not to multiply the sources for IT. There is one. We don't get to count citations as separate sources, or we could easily generate 100 sources for any single-sourced statement. Asthma is, of course, not a disability, nor is it caused by secondhand smoke. So I think I will take you up on your offer and remove "disability" from the article.SonofFeanor (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it's standard practice to cite work by other major bodies that have addressed the same issue, so I'm afraid I don't see this as weakening the sourcing. Again, leaving aside sophistry about hundreds of sources, the breadth of consensus on the topic among experts in the field is amply clear. As to asthma, children exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk of SIDS, respiratory infections, ear infections, and more severe asthma. I probably wouldn't use the word "disability" to sum those up - "disease" seems more appropriate - so we agree on the content issue. MastCell Talk 05:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome to cite work by other major bodies, but NOT mere citations. Citing of citations does in fact allow multiplication of sources. That is not sophistry, just simple mathematics. To put it another way, a previous poster said "We... ought not to multiply the sources for [the WHO's statement]." Yet another wrote "The WHO... are not a separate source in this matter." Do you see how one source becomes many?SonofFeanor (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
NPOV Tag
I just stumbled accross this page, and this argument, and I'm bothered by the way this POV issue is being handled. Everyone needs a referesher at WP:NPOV.
There is a dispute going on here, and the {{POV}} tag is appropriate until it has been satisfactorially resolved. The POV tag is not a badge of shame but an effort to attract other editors to the debate. There are many ways to handle this issue. One is to have a controvery section, another is for other editors to soften some of the language. Another is to create a fork article. What all of these have in common though is the need for outside input from editors that are new to the article. The POV tag's point is to accomplish this. It is not being added here as vandalism, and there is an active controversy. As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) there has not been a prior NPOV tag on here recently that's been resolved. The removal or addition of the POV tag is not a proxy for the actual neutrality itself. There is no legitimate reason for bickering over this tag. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually you are wrong on most of these counts. While the {{POV}} tag is not intended to be a badge of shame, in practice it is. Sure, sometimes when a {{POV}} tag is dropped, there is a legitimate POV issue which can be worked out on the talk page to everyone's satisfaction. But sometimes the article already is written in accordance with WP:NPOV, and editors who disagree with the truth/mainstream view insist on maintaining the tag in order to cast doubt on the article and, by extension, the mainstream view. I won't say which category I believe the current situation falls in. Furthermore, forking articles and creating controversy/criticism sections are generally considered poor ways of dealing with POV issues. There may be some cases where it's best solution, but those will be rare.
- The fact of the matter is that the most reliable, independent, and respected sources that are out there (e.g. the WHO, the surgeon general, the AMA, etc.) all say that passive smoking causes cancer, death, etc., and until they say otherwise, that's what this article should say. Being personally of the belief that the mainstream view is wrong does not give anyone the right to maintain {{POV}} tag atop a page, nor does it give one the right to expound upon their view in the article itself to a degree disproportionate to the weight the belief is expressed in reliable sources. Yilloslime (t) 23:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- The tag says "the neutrality of the point of view ... is disputed." Well, it is. Many of us dispute it. I have given very reasonable arguments above that have not been answered satisfactorily, and they revolve around only a single sentence of this article! The fact that you have quoted a few sources over and over does not put the matter beyond dispute. Indeed, it would not even if those sources were as authoritative as you believe, and they are not. The Surgeon General, the WHO and the EPA are not purely scientific bodies and each has an agenda it is serving. Epidemiologists and journals are to be preferred over them in this case. Galileo was not at all well respected when he said the earth revolved around the sun, but he had a logical argument that deserved to be addressed based on the facts, rather than by means of quoting "authoritative sources." In this case, all of the primary articles are right there for you to view. If you want to edit this article, I encourage you to do so, as I have. But DO NOT remove the tag. It belongs right where it is! I will keep putting it back.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately your responses are not supported by wikipedia policy.
- While the {{POV}} tag is not intended to be a badge of shame, in practice it is.
- This is not the forum for a meta debate about wikipdia tags. The official policy is that NPOV tags should be used as every other tag is used: to bring issues to editors' attention. This is not the place to debate what the tag should mean either.
- Furthermore, forking articles and creating controversy/criticism sections are generally considered poor ways of dealing with POV issues.
- Forking is a poor way of resolving factual disputes within articles. Forking is an excellent way to accommodate viewpoints that will never be reconciled, which is the category it appears you believe fits here. I am unaware of any policy that indicates otherwise, although I would welcome it if you could point me towards some.
- The above content debate needs to happening elsewhere too, as this piece is merely about the propriety of the tag.
- Being personally of the belief that the mainstream view is wrong does not give anyone the right to maintain {{POV}} tag atop a page, nor does it give one the right to expound upon their view in the article itself to a degree disproportionate to the weight the belief is expressed in reliable sources.
- I agree with you. However there is a bona fide dispute as to this article that needs to be dealt with, which is a bit different than the situation you're describing. This needs to be dealt with through the NPOV process/procedures. The POV tag is a way to indicate that. Shadowjams (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- With all due respect you appear to be a relatively new user who has only dealt with reverting vandalism and making minor changes to articles. My experience in editing some fairly contentious articles is that while wikipolicy may say one thing, the {{POV}} tag is, in fact, a stigma, which can be--and often has been--easily abused by POV-pushers to impugn articles that they disagree with. I agree that that's not what it's official purpose is, but in reality, if you see any article with a big ole POV tag on it, you're going to scrutinize what it says a little more closely and be a bit more skeptical than if the tag wasn't there. And maybe the majority of time the tag is used properly, but I've seen plenty of cases where the tagging editor is completely irascible, and insists on maintaining the tag despite numerous editors going to great lengths to deal with the tagger's complaints. Unfortunately, if a tendentious editor is intent on maintaining the tag, they can claim ad infinitum that they still are just not satisfied, and that since they still disagree then there must still be an active dispute and thus the tag must stay. Hopefully that's not the way the tag is usually used, but it is used this way with distressing regularity. While it's easy to jump on the part of WP:NPOVD that says "in general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed," let's not forget how the LEDE says, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." This part is certainly less clear-cut when it comes to enforcement, but if editors aren't willing to abide this part of WP:NPOVD then the rest of the guideline has no useful meaning.
- Now, I didn't want to get into a "meta debate about wikipdia tags" either, but you brought it up. I'm willing to let it drop if you are.
- W/r/t to how the tag is being used here, I see SonofFeanor and various IPs he's using arguing that "cause" is some how misleading in his opinion, but what I don't see is him pointing to "specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons."Yilloslime (t) 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- First off SonofFeanor, what specifically is wrong with the compromise I offered here? You[15] restored the POV tag without explaining why my compromise is unsatisfactory to you. Second, please take a very close look at WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, particularly the subsections on primary, secondary, & tertiary sources and undue weight. What you propose above (relying on primary sources "[e]pidemiologists and journals" in preference to the SG, WHO, EPA) is specifically and strongly cautioned against in WP:PSTS. Yilloslime (t) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I did not see your proposed compromise. I think insertion of "can" is an improvement, but I think to list disability you really must still be able to say what disability you are talking about. In any case, I could not remove the POV tag, as this is just the very first sentence I have trouble with in this article. After we have moved through each problem, then the tag can be removed. Now, I have looked at the link you provided, and apologize for using the terms "primary" and "secondary" incorrectly. I am not referring to unpublished data or notes from researchers, but to studies published in journals with standard deviations and confidence intervals already calculated. Surely these are secondary sources, though I called them primary before. I agree it would be no good to cite data that could not be easily verified, nor even to offer my own calculations. Even though I am a mathematician, I have no right to expect other editors or readers to be, nor to trust in my expertise. But every study I mention is published in a peer reviewed journal and is available to anyone who is interested.SonofFeanor (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- No, "studies published in journals with standard deviations and confidence intervals already calculated" would be primary sources; reviews, meta-analyses, and risk assessments would be secondary sources; and encyclopedia articles would be tertiary sources. So what you want to do is still precluded by policy. And as a gesture of good-faith, you should bring all your problems with the article to table now. The one-at-time approach you are proposing is only going to protract the dispute resolution process and may lead those editors who disagree with you (such as myself) to conclude that you are more interested in maintaining the POV tag than actually improving the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilloslime (talk • contribs) 01:51, February 3, 2009 (UTC)
- "Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." Studies are certainly one step removed from "the event." They rely on the basic data to make analytic and evaluative claims. This is sometimes known as a "Conclusions" section. I cannot reasonably be expected to air all of my grievances with the article at once when I have spent several days unable to resolve even the first. I have a job. I am not holding back to maintain the POV tag. I didn't even know what this tag was until a day or two ago. Believe me, I would much rather get the article re-written than post the tag, which doesn't correct the problem. I will try to address my other issues as I am able, but that is really all I can offer.SonofFeanor (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- In science, a primary source is commonly understood to be a research paper. And if you can't take the time to defend your maintenance of the POV tag, then you really shouldn't using it. Yilloslime (t) 02:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I was taking the time to defend my maintenance of the POV tag. Or what have I been doing all night?SonofFeanor (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
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." ([16]).
- 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. ([17])
- 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." ([18])
- 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." ([19])
... 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)[20]. 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)
- I suggest letting MastCell pick the quote summary he likes the best. Then line up the other agencies that concur/support that view. They all say pretty much the same thing anyway. But if he likes FCTC better than ASHRAE (or whatever), it makes little difference. Chido6d (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea.Ajax151 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I guess I'd suggest something like this:
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 ties to the industry.[120]
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 have reached similar conclusions.[122][123] The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that engineering approaches, such as ventilation, are ineffective and do not protect against secondhand smoke exposure.[124], p. 2
- It retains a separate sentence for the FCTC, but shortens it substantially. MastCell Talk 04:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea.Ajax151 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Request for comment on POV
IPs, COI etc
- Given the arrival of a number of IP editors and newly registered accounts, could I ask recent arrivals to declare if
(i) they are editing both as IPs and under usernames (assuming this is accidental, with a promise to stop immediately) (ii) they have any conflict of interest that should be known to other editors. To get the ball rolling, I'll state that the answer for me is "No" to both.JQ (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what an IP editor is. I have put comments on the talk page under my username. I have no conflict of interest.SonofFeanor (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have not edited this article using an IP in the past two weeks, but have done so prior to creating a username for the first time. I have used an IP on the talk page once or twice since then (forgot to log in), but not the article. I have no conflict of interest.Ajax151 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- No COI and no anonymous editing on my part. Yilloslime (t) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Breast cancer risk is increased by 70% in younger, primarily premenopausal women.
This statement cites no source. It seems strange to me since the link between breast cancer and ETS is more tenuous than the link between heart disease or lung cancer and ETS, and the increase in risk for these other diseases is substantially smaller than 70%. The Medical Journal of Australia says "Is a causal association between ETS exposure and breast cancer now certain, as the Cal/EPA draft report proposes? The jury would be wise to stay out on this one. If the emphasis is put on cohort studies, there appears to be no association between ETS exposure and breast cancer. If the emphasis is put on case–control studies with more detailed information on ETS exposure — but the possibility of recall bias — there appears to be an increased risk, especially in premenopausal women."http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/181_05_060904/elw10324_fm.html Here is another instructive quote - "Although passive exposure to tobacco smoke has been linked to a number of health problems, it is unresolved whether it alters breast cancer risk. Most, but not all, studies that compared women who were passively exposed to tobacco smoke to women with no exposure to tobacco smoke reported an association of passive smoking with an increased risk of breast cancer. Only two of these studies showed a "dose-relationship", where an increase in breast cancer risk was related to more tobacco smoke exposure. Other studies, which compared the risk of breast cancer of women exposed to passive smoke to women with less clearly defined passive smoke exposure (nonsmokers or those who have never smoked), have reported conflicting associations with breast cancer risk; some studies reported increases in risk, some reported decreases in risk and some reported no association with risk. All of these studies were also recently reviewed by the IARC. They found that it was unlikely that passive smoking increased breast cancer risk." http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs46.smoking.cfm
Now, does it seem that the article expresses a neutral point of view on the link between ETS and breast cancer? I don't think so.SonofFeanor (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- It does cite a source, it's the first footnote after the statement, currently reference #3. It's the California ARB/OEHHA proposal to classify ETS as toxic air contaminant. The full quote is "Finally, for breast cancer, when evaluating younger, primarily premenopausal women at diagnosis, a pooled risk estimate of 1.68 is derived in the meta-analysis, and when restricted to the studies with better exposure assessment, an estimate of 2.20 is obtained (see Table 1)." Risk estimate of 1.68 ≈ 70% increase in risk. I have added a second citation at the end of the sentence to make the source as obvious as possible to future readers. Yilloslime (t) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Also w/r/t the MJA thing you bring up: It's an editorial, it's older than the ARB/OEHHA report (2004 vs 2005), and it's commenting on an earlier draft of the report than the one that's cited here. Most importantly, the MJA piece is just the opinion of its two authors, while the ARB/OEHHA report has the weight of the California EPA behind it and was reviewed by an independent scientific review panel before it was finalized. So you really can't say that the one refutes the other. Yilloslime (t) 05:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the MJA piece is an opinion, it's true. It is an analysis of the data from available studies. But I was recently told that this is exactly what I needed, since citing the studies themselves was frowned upon. If neither commentary on studies nor studies themselves are legitimate sources, what exactly are we left with? Anyway, the ARB/OEHHA report does have the weight of the EPA behind it, just as this article has the weight of the MJA behind it. Personally, I give more weight to the MJA, as it is an independent scientific publication and is not a medical society charged with the protection of public interest, whether or not that means fudging science. As to the "earlier draft" business, that will be very meaningful as soon as you explain the differences between drafts that invalidate the editorial. Meanwhile, how about the other citation, from the IARC? Aren't they your heroes? Elsewhere in this article they are accorded near omniscience.SonofFeanor (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- We're left secondary sources that aren't opinion pieces: review articles, findings of expert panels, certain books/book chapters by appropriate publishers, government risk assessments, etc. I don't think you're right about the Elwood & Burton editorial having the weight of MJA behind it. Typically journals will publish commentary and letters that express opinions or ideas that the editorial staff feels is a worthy contribution to scientific debate, but that's a far cry from explicitly endorsing the opinions expressed therein. If MJA's policy deviates significantly from this standard, please let us know, but for now it's safe assumption that it doesn't. And what's your point about IARC? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't see what you're getting at. Yilloslime (t) 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- "They found that it was unlikely that passive smoking increased breast cancer risk." This is their point of view. You name them as an authoritative body. This point of view is not mentioned in the article. Clear enough?SonofFeanor (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Where do they say that? Yilloslime (t) 06:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/factsheet/diet/fs46.smoking.cfmSonofFeanor (talk) 07:11, 3 February 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)