Talk:Passive smoking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Passive smoking article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the risks of secondhand smoke.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale
Archive
Archives
  1. Inception – March 2007
  2. June to December 2007


Contents

[edit] Studies concerning passive smoking

MastCell removed the link which gave an extract of the risk levels of the studies with the comment link which "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material". Therefore I inserted again a link, where the actual studies could be viewed to give factually accurate information. Maybe MastCell did not notice, that it was a different link, because it was removed again. I think it is important, that the results of of the studies can be looked up. Why should this page about passive smoking try to suppress information leading to the real studies on passive smoking. If MastCell has a better page, where the studies can be seen, than MastCell should put this link on the page if he is so concerned about the information about passive smoking. I think the real studies are more important than some abstracts or articles from some newspapers, which only give an extract from the studies. Catlover77

I'm not opposed to linking to or citing the actual studies. However, the link added was to a pro-secondhand-smoke (?) site with a large banner indicating that there was no danger from passive smoking. It seemed that, rather than encouraging people to look at the primary data and draw their own conclusions, the site was framing the data and telling people what to think. If we want to cite the primary studies, let's cite them - but linking an advocacy site with an agenda that flies in the face of the scientific consensus is not the best way to accomplish that. I'd welcome other opinions. MastCell Talk 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
But that's exactly what this article doesn't do (seemingly by design). It quotes a lot of "authoritative sources" and their conclusions, but it discloses little or not at all the actual evidence or how these sources arrived at these conclusions (other than to say 'a study was done'). There is a reason for this. 71.72.217.102 06:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup - because for an editor to criticise their methodology in the article would be original research. If the methodology is flawed, you need to find another published article subject to the same peer-review criteria as the original which says so. This policy exists for a reason, and that reason is because the scientific press, for all its flaws, is a hell of a lot more impartial and a hell of a lot more competent and judging the validity of research than the alternatives. Nmg20 09:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying. You are either not reading carefully, or there is some other issue at work. What I was saying is that the article should lay out more (or at least some) primary data and information on methodology (without commentary), "encouraging people to look at the raw data and arrive at their own conclusions" (as MastCell said). This is not the same as criticism from an editor. 71.72.217.102 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
What is not what you're saying? Are you not saying the methodology is flawed? What did you mean by your final sentence, "There is a reason for this" - what reason were you driving at for the "seemingly by design" lack of "actual evidence" in the article?
The reason the article doesn't lay out raw data is that it's an encyclopaedia, not a statistical discussion forum. Per WP:NOT, "...articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic". To me, that suggests that top-line statistics are fine in context - but that a detailed discussion of stats and methodology is not something we should be including.
That said, I'm not opposed to an increase in detail if it's done responsibly. What exactly do you have in mind? Nmg20 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
My gosh, calm down. I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. It just seems clear that the editors/writers of the article would rather lay out ready-made conclusions and interpretations rather than laying out information. And, yes, there is a reason for it. And I believe you know what it is.
I realize that the details of every study cannot be spelled out in an article like this. But as an example, I've noted that the term "relative risk" is only mentioned once in the article (in a factual sort of way), and there is no reference whatsoever to odds ratio. Nowhere to be found is the fact that the relative risk for secondhand smoke is somewhere in the range of 1.2. I realize that it would be my responsibility, if so inclined, to add this information in accordance to the standards of this site. What I was not saying is that I would never suggest that an editors criticism be included as a part of the article. That would be absurd. While this discussion page relates to the article, not all statements made on this page are intended to be included in the article! 71.72.217.102 06:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Relax - my feathers are unruffled. A word of advice: when what you want is to see something specific added to an article, you will do a lot better by coming straight out and saying what it is than by coming onto the discussion page, editorialising, and muttering darkly about "some other issue at work" and accusing your fellow editors of "not reading carefully".
I support including the most recent estimates of relative risk and/or odds ratio in the article, preferably with an explanation of what they mean in the context of passive smoking quoted or paraphrased from a reliable source. Nmg20 09:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is good, that you do see, that the actual studies should be cited. So do you have a link or links, which provide access to these studies? I think it is irrelevant, whether it is a pro or anti second hand smoking page, as long as the information is correct, it does not matter. And what better source can be provided than the original studies. As the page of passive smoking should be neither pro nor anti but give verifyable information. But when I look at the ASH pages, the original studies are mostly not provided only a summary and and a lot of links to the full text studies or articles are dead or do not show anymore the information which concerns the summary. So if they do not provide anymore the actual studies this information has to come from other sources. Allthough if you do not like Forces as source for this information, then provide a source of your choice with this information. As it seems that you are into this topic you may have a source available, which I do not know.

The argument the page tells people what to think is very weak, otherwise links to anti-smoking pages should rise the same concern from you, which it seems this it not the case.

So if you know a link which leads to the full text studies concerning passive smoking please provide it. Catlover77 08:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I support MastCell's position as expressed above. In addition, there is another very serious reason for not including the proposed link ([1]). The site makes available electronic copies of all the cited articles, free of charge, while most of these are protected by copyright. This is a serious breach of the authors' and editors' copyright privilege, which could be assimilated to theft of intellectual property. Clearly, Wikipedia cannot give its caution to such a practice by linking to such a site.
--Dessources 14:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point - thanks for pointing that out. MastCell Talk 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


I have no idea where to post this query, and I have no idea if this has been posted before, as this discussion page is vast!

Would this be appropriate for inclusion anywhere in the article?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/320/7232/417?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=passive+oking&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT

Timclarke85 22:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth including a discussion of publication bias, but note that more recent studies have suggested that this is not such a problem [2]. Ideally, a secondary source summarising the literature on this point is what we need - attempts to SP:WYN make a synthesis of conflicting studies have caused enough trouble here already.JQ 00:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Secondary sources have indeed addressed the issue of publication bias; for example, the 2006 Surgeon General's report examined the issue in depth (see the Executive Summary and search for "publication bias"). It's particularly important to use secondary sources here rather than citing individual studies, since a number of studies have found no indication that publication bias is a significant factor here. Citing only one of these studies would misrepresent the total state of evidence. Publication bias is a very interesting question, though, since the tobacco documents make clear that the industry carried out a great deal of its own research on passive smoking; their findings suggesting that passive smoking was harmful rarely saw the light of day. MastCell Talk 05:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Under short term effects you mention a Scottish study to back up your claim of a rapid drop in heart attacks following the smoking ban. I think you will find that this study does not now exist. It was never published but was the subject of a press release by Glasgow University on 10th Sept 2007. Soon after the press release the full data for Scottish heart attacks became available and the claim was demolished by several authors including Blastland and Dilnott, the presenters of BBC R4's "More or Less". At the end of 2007 it was one of their top 20 junk science items in the Times newspaper. 130.88.16.205 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the reference to the Scottish heart attack study be removed until its publication can be verified. The fact that its claims have been disputed is, I admit, irrelevant. I cannot find it and do not believe it has been published. Can you provide a link to it? It does not appear in Google Scholar (author JP Pell/Jill Pell). I would also like a link to the Irish study (author E Cronin). Apparently it may be part of the proceedings of the 2007 Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Have these been published? If not, reference to it should also be removed. 130.88.16.205 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Maybe the study should be included in the denial section - shows attempts(fraudulent ones) to link passive smoking with - you name it.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial comment on the E&K article

Sorry, Chido, but Richard Smith's comments in response to the Enstrom & Kabat article were addressed solely to the comments submitted to the BMJ about the article (see the "Rapid Responses" section below the main article). It's thus not acceptable to put them back in the wikipedia article in a way which implies they were addressed to the other criticism there.

As a sidenote, I did include the more notable comments from those reader responses in the article in the past. If you want to see Dr. Smith's comments included, we can turn up the criticism he's referring to - I think it's a non-starter, but am happy to go with consensus. Nmg20 10:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could read the contribution and/or the Editor's remarks and conclude that either was "addresed to the other criticism (in the article)."
Nevertheless, I believe the more recent contribution is even more clear.
Contrary to your analysis, Editor Smith specifically stated that he was not going to comment on the Rapid Responses; instead, he said he would "simply share some reflections."
If there is a non-starter here, it is your threat of retaliation for including this information. Chido6d 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that focusing on the "Rapid Responses" is entirely inappropriate in terms of accurately describing the controversy surrounding the Enstrom/Kabat article in a manner consistent with WP:WEIGHT. Rapid Responses are essentially blog postings. They are very lightly moderated. It's a ridiculous strawman to hold up the Rapid Responses as the measure of scientific response to this article, then shoot them down as too ad hominem or unconvincing. It's fine for Richard Smith to do that in the context of addressing the Rapid Responders, but not for an encyclopedia to choose that particular blog-quality debate as representative. Do we discuss criticism of George W. Bush by setting up the blog comments at Daily Kos and then shooting them down? I hope not.
There have, in fact, been reams of criticism of the methodology of Enstrom and Kabat. The Kessler decision; the American Cancer Society; a medical-journal article specifically devoted to the E&K study (PMID 15791022); etc. Smith did not address any of these encyclopedia-level sources; his quote pertains only to the Rapid Responses, and as cited gives the false impression that its context is more general.
We should not cite the Rapid Responses as an encyclopedic determinant of the controversy, any more than we cite blog responses to highlight any other controversy. Nor should we highlight Smith's response to the Rapid Responses. There are numerous excellent secondary sources already cited covering the E&K controversy. If you want an editorial quote representative of the E&K controversy in toto, not just the blog responses to the paper, you could quote Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association (publishers of the BMJ): "It would be wrong to be swayed by one flawed study funded by the tobacco industry - set against the studies and numerous expert reviews that demonstrate that passive smoking kills." MastCell Talk 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
To add to this: it's clear that Smith's response was directed specifically at the Rapid Response debate. He did not "specifically state" otherwise, as the link in the original post makes clear. MastCell Talk 06:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are rejected. Here's why:

  • The Editor specifically stated that he was not going to address individual responses: "I can't respond to all the points raised in this debate, and I thought I would simply share some reflections."
  • Rapid Responses are somewhat of an open forum, and may not qualify as a "reliable source". No Rapid Responses, however, are cited.
  • According to you, a Comment from the Editor of a prestigious medical journal is not suitable, but an editorial from an unknown British doctor is most suitable as long as a quote to your liking is mined therefrom. Did you know that George Davey Smith was falsely accused of having ties to the tobacco industry? Was it because he doesn't toe the line?
  • I like what Smith said here as well: "Of course the study we published has flaws—all papers do—but it also has considerable strengths: long follow up, large sample size, and more complete follow up than many such studies. It's too easy to dismiss studies like this as "fatally flawed," with the implication that the study means nothing." Where could we work this in alongside the quote you suggest, to show that good people disagree?
  • Finally, you specifically agreeded (or indicated that you weren't opposed) to including this information in the past. Why the conversion?

Chido6d 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really very simple. Richard Smith's comment was in response to the Rapid Response debate (he "shares some reflections" on it, if you wish). That debate is not particuarly WP:WEIGHTy or meaningful in the encyclopedic scheme of things. It's the equivalent of a debate carried out on the comments section of a blog, albeit a well-respected one. The argument that "no Rapid Responses are cited" is a bit misleading; you're citing Smith's response to that particular debate, in a context that makes it sound like Smith is responding to more general criticism of the study. The WP:WEIGHTy and reliably sourced criticism of the study is not found in Rapid Responses (hence Smith's comment is not particularly germane). It's found in the sources actually cited in the article: the Kessler decision, the ACS statement, the article on the inadequacy of the conflict-of-interest declaration, etc. I'm not particularly agitating for the Nathanson quote to be included (though describing her as an "unknown British doctor" is pretty rich); I'm just indicating that even that quote would be more germane than Smith's in this context. Bottom line: we're not going to set up a blog debate as noteworthy here when there are so many better sources, and we're certainly not going to parade Smith's comment on the blog debate as if it's a rebuttal to all criticism of E&K. If I indicated otherwise earlier, perhaps I just didn't understand where you were trying to go with this. MastCell Talk 07:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right about one thing: It's really very simple. It's as simple as this: you and a few others will take up any argument, no matter how ridiculous and absurd, in an attempt to silence those with whom you disagree. Chido6d 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's fair, as I've found a number of points you've raised to be compelling. I'm sorry you feel that way. To move back to the realm of content: the Rapid Response debate (and Smith's comment on it) are not representative of the wider, reliably sourced scientific debate over the paper. I'm merely suggesting that as the paper was controversial enough to warrant so much space here, we should use sources that accurately represent the scope of that controversy, rather than focusing on what was essentially a blog war. MastCell Talk 05:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of points I've raised have been more than compelling, as they unmask the audacity of a small group of extremists who continue to shamelessly strong-arm the article in an attempt to preserve it as a piece of their own propaganda. Regarding the Editor's comments, I believe that they were published in a subsequent issue of the BMJ. Is this not correct? And, unlike the Associate Editor (who referred specifically to Rapid Responses), Mr. Smith said that he was not going to "respond to all the points raised in this debate." He was very non-specific about what he was referring to, so we simply cannot say what it was. I think it is reasonable to conclude that the BMJ received letters, emails, phone calls, "rapid responses", and probably a few knocks on their door. Mr. Smith refers to both criticism of the study and, more importantly, the criticism leveled at the BMJ for publishing the study in the first place. To say that he was only responding to the Rapid Responses (something he did not say) is the grandest of assumptions. This is akin to the vehement suppression of the results of the 1998 WHO study; it is argued that some of the findings are "not controversial" and therefore not worthy of mention. Controversial or not, these are profound findings that would be most appropriately included. The article itself states that "ETS is carcinogenic to humans" and increases the lung cancer risk of "those exposed" (no distinction is made between children and adults). There are other examples which indicate that the WHO's finding may very well be controversial. At the very least, you are splitting hairs to keep things out of the article simply because you don't like what they say. At the worst, it is condemnable deception. Chido6d (talk) 06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening your response with yet another attempt to portray everyone who disagrees with you as audacious, shameless, strong-arming, propaganda-disseminating extremists would get my back up if I weren't so used to it from you and others. More to the point, it's rude, childish, and against wikipedia policy - so can we restrict ourselves to discussing the issue at hand, please, Chido? Maybe take five minutes before you post to decide if you really need to start by insulting everyone whose opinion differs from your own to communicate what you need to.
The Editor's comments were indeed published in the BMJ, as were a proportion of the comments which have been in the article in the past criticising the study. It's abundantly clear that Smith was referring to the comments published in the BMJ rather than the wider debate; even were he merely "non-specific about it", as you claim, that would prevent you from specifying things for him and seeking to apply his comments to the wider debate when he doesn't mention it. If he isn't specific about what he's talking about, the simplest explanation is that he was referring to comments in the BMJ about the article published in the BMJ, and that's the one we should go for. That's not an assumption, it's common sense: the assumption would be that he was talking about whatever is most convenient for an argument in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. If you want to suggest he was talking about other parties in the discussion, state which ones and explain what evidence there is to support that position, please.
Finally, when responding, please try to keep accusations like "condemnable deception" out of your post. Resorting to them makes it look like you don't have an argument worth the name to conclude and are looking to distract from this fact with yet more ad hominem insults. Nmg20 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Nmg20 on the fact that Smith, as editor of the BMJ, was clearly responding to responses received by the BMJ and not to the far more notable criticisms of E&K's study by the ACS, testimony reflected in the Kessler decision, etc. As to your other contentions, the article is heavily sourced to reliable secondary sources and stays extremely close to those sources. "Hairsplitting" here would more accurately describe ongoing attempts to obscure the unanimity of these reliable sources. Finally, I can't speak for others, but my patience with Chido6d is at an end and I won't be responding further to any post of his which contains the kind of rhetoric and personal attacks evident in most or all of his recent posts. MastCell Talk 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you focus on what you perceive to be "personal attacks", because the point is not that you are extremists. The problem is how you translate your passions into your conduct when you edit Wikipedia.
I suppose that being called rude and childish exonerates me of any alleged wrongdoing via being the victim of retaliation.
We are told that we cannot "apply (Smith's) comments to the wider debate when he doesn't mention it"; instead, we must apply his comments solely and specifically to the Rapid Responses when he doesn't mention any of them.
In fact, the "Summary of Rapid Responses" was written by an Associate Editor.
But all of this is irrelevant, because you don't like what Smith said. So you create a phony argument -- just like you did about the WHO study (as I have shown, but you fail to mention) -- and surround yourself with 3 or 4 likeminded individuals who...well, you know.
This might be a good case for honest mediation, but not the kind where someone exits the stage silently when it's not his line in order to get the POV tag removed and an awful edit rammed through. That would be shady. Chido6d (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
... and the shunning starts... now. MastCell Talk 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to shun you, Chido. You are welcome to continue having the edits you make to the article to try to bring it in line with your personal opinion, unencumbered as it is by any actual evidence to back it up, reverted by more rational and reasonable editors. But I have given you fair warning on the personal attacks: the next time you post here or elsewhere accusing me and other editors who don't share your opinion "extremists", peddling "phony argument[s]", and "shady", I'll move to have you officially censured.
The reason you keep losing these arguments is because you're wrong, plain and simple - and if you can't learn to accept defeat gracefully, neither I nor the other editors who you claim I "surround [my]self" with (how does that work on the internet, pray tell?) have to put up with it. Grow up or shut up, in short. Nmg20 (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please watch WP:CIV. There's no point in getting down in the mud with him; staying to the high road works better against his type. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me, Ray. I appreciate you warning others to refrain from "getting down in the mud with...(my) type" (though the description may, to some, seem to have negative connotations). It's also somewhat ironic (to say the least) that someone warn me about personal attacks while in the same post implying that I am neither rational nor reasonable, I am defeated, and -- believe it or not -- to shut up because I am "wrong, plain and simple". In the past, I have also been called unintelligent (ha), a hypocrite (with religious connotations, including the quotation of Holy Scripture (how low can we really go?)), devious, a "sock", and a few otherwise unsavory descriptives. To the best of my recollection, though, I've not been called an extremist. That would be a personal attack.

I am here because the article is in violation of WP:NPOV. The deliberate, baseless suppression of qualified, reliable sources (including the WHO) is not acceptable. Neither is the presentation of an opposing view in a purely pejorative sense.

Others are not satisfied to state the truth about an opposing view -- that it is not held by the majority, is contrary to scientific consensus, and is often financed by the tobacco industry (because of economic interests...imagine that). The inclusion of this information is most proper, and one would be derilect (or dishonest) to omit it.

Rather, the article is fashioned to the liking of extremists who, among other things, manipulate the text accordingly. In short, there is a concerted, continuous effort to portray the opposing view as sinister, evil, irresponsible, absurd, and/or fraudulent. This is mainly achieved through emphasis, structure/order, selectivity, and duplication. A specific example would include putting Davey Smith's commentary (a quote mined to the editor's liking, and arguably out of context) in the same sentence as the summary of a major study.

There is also an insistence that claims be stated factually ("Current scientific evidence shows...") rather than attributing to the source (i.e. "According to major health organizations...").

There has been some effort lately to portray the article on Passive smoking as what would be more appropriately titled: "The Scientific Community's View on Passive Smoking." This is not the purpose of the article, as is clearly demonstrated by the inclusion of data from Gallup (which itself is manipulated for effectiveness, as I have pointed out on at least two occasions). Were this particular aspect of the article disputed, I have a hunch that the resolution (if one were ever reached) would be to simply delete the Gallup section. This would follow along the lines of the "de-Kessler-ization" of the article. Everyone knows that mentioning the judge's name would "obfuscate the fact that this was a court decision." Chido6d (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"The deliberate, baseless suppression..." POV, and assumes the motives of third parties.
"Others are not satisfied to state the truth..." accusation-by-implication, assumes the motives of third parties, and sets up the poster as the Arbiter-of-Truth.
"The inclusion of this information is most proper, and one would be derilect [sic] (or dishonest) to omit it." POV, flies in the face of the evidence on this talk page that plenty of editors disagree with the statement, accusation-by-implication again (twice), and Arbiter-of-Truth ("is most proper", "one would be").
"the article is fashioned to the liking of extremists" direct accusation, POV, followed up by accusations of manipulation of the text which are, as usual, not backed up by any examples.
"there is a concerted, continuous effort to portray the opposing view as sinister, evil, irresponsible, absurd, and/or fraudulent." Extraordinary for its lack of insight.
I should not have posted in anger, but enough is enough. Nmg20 (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Posting in anger is one thing; not understanding my post is another, and misrepresentation is yet another. I'm particularly concerned with the lack of understanding. From your post, you imply we should NOT include information that you embrace (which is certainly not true), probably because you were so angry that you failed to tie that paragraph with the next. I'm also curious as to why you say "not backed up by any examples" when I did just that. We do agree that enough is enough. Chido6d (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to imply that the EK study was funded by the tobacco industry. I understand that most of it was funded by the American Cancer Society until it realised that the results would be unfavourable to it's objectives. If any of you have evidence to the contrary, I am interested to hear it. 130.88.16.205 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lifted from a recent dicussion on Talk:Lung cancer:
Its methodological flaws have been pointed up extensively, Enstrom's relationship with the tobacco industry formed the basis of another peer-reviewed article (PMID 15791022), and the Enstrom/Kabat BMJ paper was specifically cited in a U.S. District Court racketeering decision against the tobacco industry as an example of how the tobacco industry and its paid consultants published biased research (pp. 1380-1383).Nmg20 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I'm not much impressed by an article by Glanz in the Journal of Tobacco Control - peer reviewed or not - but I was unaware of the legal documents. I shall read them in conjunction with Enstrom's recent article defending himself. As to the methodological flaws you bring up. Were they pointed out extensively in a peer-reviewed article? I have not gone back and and looked, but I seem to remember Glanz was one of the major critics on the crazy rapid reponse page. I've taught probability and statistics for 25 years but I've never come across anything like that before. Personally I would back the statistical competence of the editor of the BMJ and the referees against that of Glanz, who I don't think even claims to be a statistician. If you feel the need to mention that Glanz's article is peer-reviewed then you should accept the validity of the peer-reviewing of Enstrom's. I think we have got to the nub of the problem, This is not a scientific debate but a religious war. I have a suggestion which might create an article worth reading. There are a small number of you editing this page, who seem, for whatever reason, to be on an antismoking mission: including yourself, Mastcell and Dessources; and Chido6d, Tim85, myself and a couple of others who think this page may as well have been written by ASH. Each side should write it's own view of each topic. Readers can then make up their own minds. This will discourage complete nonsense. For example, in an earlier post I pointed out that the Scottish heart attack study effectively doesn't exist. My method would ensure that there would be no reference to it. It is a bit like pendulum arbitration. The two sides are inevitably forced closer together or risk ridicule. 130.88.16.205 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're unimpressed. However, Wikipedia is not a debate forum in which we go back and forth about the risks of passive smoking. This is spelled out in more detail in the talk page guidelines and the neutral point of view policy. Specifically, the page reflects views in proportion to their representation among experts in the field, as spelled out here. If anything, the small handful of dissenters receive undue weight here, in comparison to the weight of scientific consensus on the risks of passive smoking. We are not going to create two separate versions of the article; at least, I'm not interested in such an exercise, as developing an article which unduly highlights the view of a tiny minority seems to be a means of making an end-run around consensus and policy. I'm not familiar with the details of the Scottish study; if it has been retracted, or never submitted, then rather than bloviating please provide a reliable source to that effect and we'll update the article accordingly. MastCell Talk 17:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mastcell: if the Scottish was retracted or whatever, let's see the proof, and then update the article accordingly. Yilloslime (t) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. You're not much impressed by Glanz's article in the Journal of Tobacco Control, I'm not much impressed by Enstrom's "I'm-great-honestly-leave-me-alone" effort in 'Epidemiol Perspect Innov' (PMID 17927827). Swings and roundabouts. It doesn't mean I or any of the other small number of people you accuse of being on an "antismoking mission" actually are, just that in my opinion an honest researcher who's aware of the intrinsic statistical uncertainty of single pieces of research would see no benefit to their career or to their academic integrity to continuing to try to prop up a dodgy bit of work in the face of concerted opposition from - well, basically everyone else, including the former editor of the BMJ (whose statistical competence I am glad you back) when he said in the accompanying editorial that "they may overemphasise the negative nature of their findings". Unless Enstrom was less interested in honest research than in, say, getting huge wads of cash to be an industry shill. On which note, perhaps you'll find this letter, from James Enstrom to Philip Morris requesting a large research grant "to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking" more convincing regarding the funding of the study?
Finally, I absolutely don't agree that "each side should write its own view of the topic", and thankfully nor does Wikipedia (WP:BATTLE, WP:DEMOCRACY). If you want to suggest "pendulum arbitration", you need to do it to whoever writes wikipedia policy. Nmg20 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
BMJ Editor Richard Smith and contributor Dr. George Davey Smith are two different people. The BMJ Editor did not write the article you cite. I kindly ask that you pay more attention if you wish to continue your contributions to this forum. The misunderstandings, false accusations, hasty reverts and the like continue to occur on a regular basis (as this page and an examination of the article history will show), and they are not helpful at all.
The author of the article you cite is clearly unconvinced that passive smoking increases the risk of disease, but a quote has been mined and is presented out of context in the interest of POV. The newbie is correct that a small group of editors (you may count them on one hand, but he forgot about Yilloslime and JQ) have formed a pseudo-consensus and control the article -- in large part because they have driven away the dissenters.
It is audacious, and frankly offensive, that a few of you would bring up the Wikipedia pillars (especially neutral point of view policy). It is against this policy to suppress information from reliable sources and present a view pejoritavely that is different than your own under the guise of an abusive interpretation of WP:WEIGHT. But since your POV is unconvincing (that is, utter nonsense) when the raw data is considered, I suppose this is what you must do.
I would point out to the newbie that we attempted to create a small section in order to fairly present the opposing view. This attempt was unsuccessful. It was not sufficient that it would be clear (from the rest of the article and the context) that the opposing view was held by a minority, and that it was contrary to major "health" organizations.
That being said, it is pretty clear that the article (for now) isn't going to change. For this reason and others, an article on The Anti-Tobacco Movement is forthcoming. Chido6d (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Before you spend too much time developing a POV fork, please be aware that trying to create a new article emphasizing one aspect of a controversy, as an end-run around consensus, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT, is not going to be successful. MastCell Talk 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice and your concern for my time (why you'd care about the latter is beyond me). But since you don't control Wikipedia, you don't define success, and are mistaken (once again) about my intentions, I will take your comments in context and consider the source.
Actually, I would hope that the new article will focus more on historical and timeline information than anything else (such as Germany in the 1930's and 1940's). It should not be a forum for pro-tobacco zealots, nor should it be an article against the so-called scientific consensus (though it would probably examine several aspects of it). By no means would it be a POV fork. Chido6d (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You stated that you're creating the article because you've failed to get your way here ("...it is pretty clear that the article (for now) isn't going to change. For this reason and others, an article on The Anti-Tobacco Movement is forthcoming.") That is the definition of a POV fork. Your stated focus on Nazi Germany, a common well-poisoning ploy of "pro-tobacco zealots", also belies your comments above. MastCell Talk 07:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Lets try to stick to WP:SHUN and avoid feeding trolls. As I recall that's what we decided to do a couple months ago, and in my opinion it's been pretty effective. Yilloslime (t) 16:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
True enough. MastCell Talk 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to bite my tongue over Chido's post above in the light of MastCell's and Yilloslime's just here. Except to marvel at his continued ability to talk about "a small group of editors" who are anti-smoking while still being able to use "we", as in "we attempted to create a small section", when he means "I". Nmg20 (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attacks, such as calling me a "troll", are uncalled for yet equally unsurprising. I suppose it never crossed Nmg20's mind, while biting his tongue, to thank me for educating him on the identity of Dr. George Davey Smith (for the second or third time, I believe), or to note that there were at least three (3) drafts for the proposed new section (hardly a project solely of my own doing). When one's arguments are shallow, empty and clearly not credible to the reasonably intelligent, it doesn't suprise me that one would stoop to name calling and brand one's dissenters as only trying to disrupt.

It has been said here - and I agree - that this article is not the proper place to document the history of (and information about) the anti-tobacco movement and efforts toward tobacco control. The new article is intended to be more about history and purpose than about science. It would not be a "fork".

Wikipedia is quickly becoming a source of information for virtually everything, and this kind of information certainly merits inclusion. In fact, a professional wrestler of old, "Haystacks Calhoun", crossed my mind the other day, and I knew where to go to find out more.

When I said "for this reason and others", my focus was on the "others". I suggest that this is yet another failed attempt at reading my mind; I also continue to find it mind boggling that anyone would be so concerned about the creation of an alleged "POV fork" while continuing to blatantly undermine the other policies intended to govern this site. A running list of information suppressed in this article for no good reason, as well as pejoritive nonsense, is becoming voluminous. Chido6d (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Chido, you're a real knight-in-shining-armour on the avoiding-namecalling front. We're lucky to have you. Nmg20 (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Scottish study

To go back to the Scottish study raised by the anon IP above: looking again at the article, I see that we mention (under "Short-term effects") a list of places where heart-attack admissions dropped after smoking bans were implemented, including Scotland. Most of these, however, are currently unsourced. I removed the unsourced ones, including Scotland. We can put them back when good sources are found, but they shouldn't be in there till we have the sources. Is the Scottish study mentioned elsewhere in the article that I missed? MastCell Talk 20:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was the anon IP. From now on I am writing under the name Otis66. Otis66 (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
A sufficiently reliable source for the Scottish result might be given by [3]. This is a press release by the Scottish Government. It refers to a research paper presented in September 2007 at the international conference "Towards a smokefree society" held in Endinburgh, but which is, I presume, not yet available in printed form.
--Dessources (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
While the Scottish government is a reliable source, I would favor waiting until the article is published in the peer-reviewed medical literature before we cite it here. The bar for presenting results at conferences, even very respectable conferences, is generally lower than the bar for publishing one's results in the literature. MastCell Talk 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Let us wait. --Dessources (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Increased Lung Cancer in Mice?

Studies between smoking/non-smoking spouses aside, most articles and studies that talk of the direct relation between ETS and Lung Cancer reference the Surgeon General's 2006 The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke, which in turn references a number of Dr. Hanspeter Witschi's studies. Those studies show an RR of 1.3 for 73 mg/m3 of total suspended particulates, up to an RR of 2.8 for 137 mg/m3 of total suspended particulates. Ok, fair enough, I said to myself. So is a smoky bar closer to 73 mg/m3 or 137 mg/m3? Strangely, the Surgeon General's report measures bar smoke in micrograms of nicotine/cubic meter and says nothing of suspended particulates. When trying to find a way to compare μg/m3 of nicotine to mg/m3 of particulates, I came across Repace, J.L., Lowrey, A.H. Indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke, and public health. Science 208: 464, l980 which measured an average of 16.72 mg of particulate matter per cigarette. Which made my heart go out to all those poor bartenders in 1 cubic meter bars with patrons who constantly smoke at least 5 cigarettes in less time than it takes the air to recirculate, because their chance of getting a specific, rare, naturally occurring type of tumor is about 30% higher than all those health nuts and anti-smoking zealots. But I realized this constitutes original research, so I can't do much more than post it on the talk page, whine a little, and ask if anyone's found anything similar to Witschi's studies that directly compares ETS with cancer... Aron.Foster (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm failing to see what your post has to do with mice, but what you are looking for is here. It's really not original research, but it's a curious thing that air quality is irrelevant. All that matters is whether or not tobacco smoking is taking place. And since there is "no safe level", then all levels are harmful (no matter how small). Got it? Good. Chido6d (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The key sentence in that press release is the last one: funded by the Center For Indoor Air Research (CIAR). Jenkins, the study author, was described as an "external resource" by Philip Morris, who apparently reviewed his manuscript prior to publication (see the Philip Morris "tactics" sheet here). The Oak Ridge studies were specifically criticized as an example of the CIAR's deleterious effect on scientific objectivity (PMID 8784687). MastCell Talk 06:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really surprised that you think the "key sentence" is the last one, but it's unfortunate. There is a lot of good information there. Even if you only believe the JAMA study, RSP levels of 117-348 mcg/c3 are just a tiny fraction of the OSHA standard. I believe that air quality measurement should be the norm, rather than asking sick people how many cigarettes or cigars were in the same room with them over the course of 50 years. But I'm not being paid big bucks by the pharmaceutical companies to call the shots.
I think the study would be a great addition to the article, in the scope of the debate and for informational purposes. But since ad hominem attacks rule the day here (and elsewhere), I will digress.
Even your sources state that some of the CIAR research was submitted for peer review. I, too, would be suspects of the research that was only reviewed internally. Still, since you can't argue with the data, I guess there has to be some reason to dismiss it out of hand -- no matter how frivolous. Chido6d (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chido6d, one must be suspicious of any study whose final report is a PowerPoint presentation (it's available for download on their website). As for what it has to do with mice, I'd point you towards Animal Testing on Rodents. It's very difficult to determine causation from Epidemiological studies. The smoking/non-smoking spouse studies will only ever be able to determine correlation, unless you go by the EPA's 7 point system of "correlation + we can't think of any reason why not = causation".

You say "air quality is irrelevant", which is exactly the stance on this subject that makes me so upset. The amount of smoke in the air is everything! Witschi et al. showed unequivocally that an increase in the amount of smoke leads to an increase in tumors. Which prompts one to ask "What's the increased risk in an average bar or smoking workplace?"

As for "no safe level", there's a safe level for mercury in your drinking water and a safe level for gamma radiation, so I have a very hard time swallowing that there isn't one for smoke. We shouldn't be looking to remove all risk, but to find an acceptable level. Do you actually want to Nerf the world? The 2006 Surgeon General's report said it best:

The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist, thus implying that any exposure carries some risk.

Got that? From "suggests" and "may not" to definitive risk without a breath inbetween. Sadly, this type of logic is swallowed whole by most people, yourself apparently included.

If comparing quantities of ETS in the lab studies that show increased risk with average quantities of ETS in bars, restaurants, workplaces, and homes isn't original research, then I'd like to add that section to the main page. Aron.Foster (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you were being sarcastic Chido6d, I totally missed it. You know that doesn't translate well into text?Aron.Foster (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It's so outlandish that I thought the sarcasm would be obvious. Chido6d (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It is original research to synthesize two primary-source studies to advance a third position or argument, which is what it sounds like you're suggesting (though if you could re-post links to the 2 sources for convenience it might be clearer). As to ad hominem, this has come up hundreds of times before. Since there is well-sourced and documented evidence of tobacco companies manipulating the research they fund (CIAR in particular), and well-documented evidence that tobacco-company-funded studies are somewhere around 88 times more likely than non-industry studies to "exonerate" passive smoking, the source of funding is relevant and not ad hominem. MastCell Talk 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chido6d: outlandish positions on the internet, even on wikipedia, can't always be discarded as sarcasm. I met a man online the other day who actually planned to vote for Hillary! Could you believe such a thing?

MastCell: I'm looking at the 2006 Surgeon General's report here [[4]], specifically Chapter 2 and Table 2.2. Yesterday I found the data I was originally looking for in US Environmental Protection Agency's Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer and other disorders here [[5]] in figures 3.1 and 3.2. Regretfully, I haven't been able to find any of the Witschi et al. reports (1997-2000) for free online. Nor have I been able to find any other inhalation studies on mice.

I'll admit that the reason I started looking into this subject was because I was frustrated I could no longer smoke in bars in Ohio. I also saw the Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episode on ETS, which got me more frustrated. I read a lot of the literature and concluded that ETS is undeniably harmful to humans (to my credit, that's not what I entered the issue believing), that the tobacco companies have done some shady if not downright amoral things on the science of the issue, and that there's a widespread misunderstanding of the level of risk ETS poses. The statistical fallacies made in #Misleading are the most readily available example. The only position I am advocating is an increase in the ease of finding the actual risk of ETS according to trustworthy scientific literature so that policy makers can make an informed decision on the issue. It took me a long time and a lot of digging to find a report on regular smoking that didn't fluff up the issue* so I'm not hopeful for second hand smoke.

* The relative risk of all-cause mortality of smokers versus non-smokers (surprisingly constant over age and different reports) is about 2. That, in my mind, is the clearest answer to "How unhealthy is cigarette smoking?" and, coupled with an understanding of the non-lethal negative effects of smoking, is required to make an informed decision as to whether or not one should smoke. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The relative risk of cardiovascular mortality and lung cancer associated with secondhand smoke exposure is actually fairly consistent in large studies: the RR is about 1.3 for cardiovascular mortality and about 1.2 for lung cancer. Check the National Cancer Institute's executive summary of the evidence here (see page ES-3, paragraph 2). These relative risks are fairly small, but given the ubiquity of exposure, the absolute impact in terms of deaths caused by secondhand smoke can actually be quite substantial, as described in the summary and elsewhere. The information is out there and available to decision-makers. MastCell Talk 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For lung cancer, yep, RR of 1.2 is generally accepted. Am I odd for believing that's misleading? It sounds like working in a smoking environment is 20% more dangerous than a non-smoking one, and I worry policy is being made on that assumption. It actually means that the chance of getting a rare, naturally occurring type of cancer is increased 20%. IMO, the increased risk of lung cancer from ETS is far below many other acceptable risks—I would compare smoking bans and lung cancer with lowering the speed limit 5 mph.

Chapter 8 subsection Controlling for Confounding, starting page 517 of the Surgeon General's 2006 report, raises some interesting points on cardiovascular mortality. There are strong correlations between exposure to ETS and other factors known to increase the risk of heart attack. Lots of factors. Figure 8.1 shows 16 studies, only 5 of which have the bottom of their 95% CI's above RR 1, and notes elsewhere that many of those 16 studies didn't control for those factors. That doesn't prove or disprove anything, but it does raise some interesting questions that are all too often overlooked when quoting "55,000 myocardial infarction deaths because of ETS". It comes down to the question "People who have a smoking spouse or work in a smoking environment more likely to make lifestyle choices that put them at greater risk for heart attack; do you believe that current studies have sufficiently controlled for and eliminated those factors when assessing the increased risk of ETS?" And I don't think the level of human knowledge on the issue is at a point where either answer can be written off as idiocy or unfounded by the other party. Aron.Foster (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously welcome to form your own opinion based on your reading of the literature, though I don't see how a clearly stated relative risk of 1.2 is "misleading", nor would I overlook the difference between relative and absolute risk highlighted in the source above. In any case, though, views in the article are represented not in proportion to the number of Wikipedia editors who hold them, but in proportion to their representation among experts in the field. However, if we anywhere in the article refer to a view as "idiocy", then let's change that. MastCell Talk 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you're right, maybe I was treating this too much like a forum, but I believe I made some good points. A few anonymous users have already (poorly) altered the article to more clearly express actual risk, so there are obviously more people than just me who believe this important information should be included. If you disagree, let's talk about it (this is the talk page, after all) rather than just deleting it. Aron.Foster (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolute risk is already expressed, in terms of absolute numbers of deaths annually related to passive smoking in a given country. What else did you have in mind? MastCell Talk 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size of reduction in hospital admissions following ban (Dinno & Glantz 2007)

Briefly, there have now been repeated attempts to change the figure of 25% to 11% in the article, the most recent here. These are basically vandalism - the article actually quotes 27%, which is the figure I've now reverted it to. The exact text is:
Page 10 of the commentary reads: "Now that there are 4 similar studies, it is possible to pool them to obtain an overall estimate of the effects of smokefree ordinances on hospital admissions for coronary heart disease. The effect size estimates for the different studies are heterogeneous (Qdf=3=28.30, pb0.001), so we used a random effects meta-analysis using the meta package for Stata version 9.2. Overall, these four studies indicate that smokefree laws were associated with a 27% reduction (RR .73; CI 0.56, 0.89) in heart disease hospital admissions." None of the individual relative risks for those studies (in table 1) included 1.0, and only the *lowest* was 0.89 (consistent with an 11% reduction). These are also graphically represented in figure 1 - in short, if you've read the article, it would be impossible to come away with the impression that 11% was the figure the study came up with.
I've amended the wording to make clear the first reference is not solely the Italian study; it'd be great if this data could now remain accurate in the article. Nmg20 (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the American Heart Association says 27%, not 11%. But is there somewhere in that study where the account for the fact that smokers smoke less after smoking bans, therefore have a lower risk of heart attack? Because they don't mention that in the link provided... Aron.Foster (talk) 02:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the focus on these small studies when there is data available for whole countries? Heart attack admissions for Scotland, both before and after the smoking ban, are public knowledge. Nobody is going to get a peer-reviewed paper out of quoting them, but several authors have commented on them. eg Blastland and Dilnott, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stm and http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3085272.ece. Surely you answer the question of whether smoking bans cause a drop in heart attack admissions by looking up the statistics for heart attack admissions? Statistical inference is necessary only when data for whole populations is not available. Second, why is there a section on smoking bans? Doesn't this go against the guidelines, as there is already a separate page for smoking bans? Why not just refer to that page? Also I don't agree with picking out opinion polls. In the UK there have been countless polls on the smoking ban and the results depend on exactly what question is asked.Otis66 (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The older text mentionned the Piedmont study, and clamed that the reduction was 25%. The linked page with the abstract of the original article clearly states that it was 11%, and not 25%, and only among under 60 year olds, since the full study shows heart attacks actually augmented in the general population in Piedmont after the ban. Correcting an incorrect number in accordance with the link you actually provided certainly is NOT vandalism. Unfortunately the Glantz "metanalysis" isn't available on the web.

Who has tampered with the heading to this section? It does not not now appear as a separate section. Please can it be replaced. Otis66 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The smoking ban section should be brief, with a quick summary and a pointer to the main article on smoking bans (which, incidentally, needs work). As to the Scottish study, it's not entirely clear. While your point about statistical inference is valid, it should be balanced with the issue of coding accuracy - the national data was based on discharge coding (a notoriously iffy source), while the StopIt study was apparently based on more direct assessment of smoking and MI's. Still, there seem to be enough questions about the Scottish data that it would be best to draw no conclusions here about it - certainly not until the real world have decided what conclusions to draw. MastCell Talk 19:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The study in question is a meta-analysis including over 8,000 people. That's not small. Nor, of course, is it conclusive - but it's a decent start. It is available on the web if you subscribe to the relevant journals. If you don't, go to a medical or university library and see if they can dig up a paper copy for you. The Piedmont study is one of four included in the meta-analysis, and its findings are as you saw them on the abstract page. However, the meta-analysis is, per WP:MEDRS, a better source than one of the studies it includes. The Glantz study was and remains the reference attached to the 27% figure, because that's what the article says - as in the section I reproduced above. End of story.
Regarding those news stories - how seriously am I supposed to take Michael Blastland (co-author of one book with a silly title) when he comes up with such damning indictments of the smoking ban as "This seems to demonstrate significant variability around the trend, suggesting that last year's 8% drop might even be the result of chance. It is conceivable, although perhaps unlikely, that the smoking ban had no effect at all." That's not exactly hard-hitting, is it? Nmg20 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to denialist's position in summary

MastCell has modified the summary of the article, which had been around for months, replacing "Current scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability" with "The risks associated with passive smoking have been the subject of debate and controversy, much of it generated by the tobacco industry. There is currently a scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." I do not think this is an improvement, and I think this is making a huge concession to the denialist's view on passive smoking, in two ways. First, it gives the "controversy" a status of recognition that it does not deserve, as if this had been a genuine scientific controversy, while we now know it was uniquely engineered by the tobacco industry, directly or via scientists under the influence of the tobacco industry or mislead by the industry's propaganda. Second, it seems to indicate that the controversy was generated in part by the tobacco industry, while actually the whole controversy on the general toxicity of passive smoking can always be traced down to the tobacco industry, directly or indirectly. There was discussion about points of details, which could be controversial (such as whether passive smoking causes breast cancer), but this is very different from the type of generic controversy implied by MastCell's text. I did a check with other articles on topics which are also the subject of denialism: 9/11, AIDS, Holocaust, Evolution. None of these contain in their summaries references to the controversies launched by denialists against the scientific consensus. I do not see why passive smoking should be an exception. Sorry, MastCell, but I think the text should be reverted to its previous version.

--Dessources (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement over what was there, but it's still POV for two reasons. The first you mention (in your own extreme and biased way), and the second is the swipe at the tobacco industry.
Better yet, and in harmony with NPOV, I think the opener could be further improved by deleting the first sentence and including the second: "There is currently a scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." This is a factual statement.
By the way, what is a denialist? The labeling is not particularly helpful, and it should be defined. Could a denialist be one who:
  • Denies that there is a "scientific consensus" on passive smoking
  • Denies that passive smoking is harmful, or believes that the alleged dangers are grossly exaggerated (among the general population)
  • Denies that the alleged dangers of passive smoking are controversial (among the general population)
  • Denies that well over 80% of the studies on passive smoking fail to find a statistically significant link between passive smoking and disease
Thanks.
Chido6d (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree it was better as it was before. Nmg20 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on death of waitress

The following text has been in and out of the article.

In 2008 ScienceDaily reported on a case study confirming that the death of a Michigan woman was the result of acute asthma associated with environmental tobacco smoke. Death Of Waitress Linked To Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Case Study Shows

Let's leave it out for now and discuss modifying/including it here.

I don't think it has any place in this article. She was an asthmatic. We don't write about heart attack victims on the exercise page, regardless of the spin the media puts on it. Aron.Foster (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong in the "controversy" section, where it appears outright inflammatory and sensationalist. I could see it fitting in as a few words and a ref under "Long-term effects" next to asthma there - perhaps as "and acute exacerbations of asthma" with the ref? Nmg20 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't care where you put it but I don't think it should be removed outright. It's clear that it is relevant to passive smoking. And I'm not sure why someone's opinion on whether it's "spin" isn't really relevant to the discussion. We don't put heart attacks as an exercise controversy, but it's not controversial that activity can cause a heart attack. From the article:

“This is the first reported acute asthma death associated with work-related ETS,” said Kenneth Rosenman, an MSU professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. “Recent studies of air quality and asthma among bar and restaurant workers before and after smoking bans support this association.” In 2006, the surgeon general’s report concluded that ETS causes coronary heart disease, lung cancer and premature death. But at that time there was little hard evidence linking ETS to the exacerbation of asthma in adults.

Athene cunicularia(talk) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've included it in the short-term effects section (where on reflection it obviously fits more tidily given that it's an acute event), and have changed the reference from a newspaper report to the actual case report in the literature per WP:MEDRS. Hope that suits everyone. Nmg20 (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with that. I think that it is relevant enough to be included here, but sorry for the misplacement.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all, and thanks for finding the article!
Still interested to hear from other editors about this - my line is that although the article title is itself a bit inflammatory, it's probably in the context of the journal inflammatory in an industrial-lawsuit kind of way. In any event it fits the peer-reviewed, published respectably etc. criteria, and I think now it's clear it is an isolated but possibly indicative case report it's a good addition. Thoughts? Nmg20 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it really that inflammatory? I didn't pick up on that at all, but I could've just missed something. :) My intent was to include the article because it seemed relevant to passive smoking.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Good find on the actual case report. Titling a report "How many deaths will it take?" is inflamatory in my book, but Nmg20 is right that since it's peer reviewed and published in a major journal, it's acceptable. It's a shame one must pay to read the study. Aron.Foster (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was thinking only of "Death Of Waitress Linked To Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Case Study Shows".Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The article is most suitable for inclusion, though its title screams advocacy. "How many deaths will it take?" begs the question, "To do what? Convince people to take needed medication as prescribed? Eradicate all things that may trigger a deadly asthma attack, such as cats, perfume and -- yes -- even smoke?"
The key is to include the source appropriately and in an unbiased way. For the record, in a rare moment of agreement, I wish to endorse the contribution of Nmg20 for upgrading the source and locating a very fitting place to put this information.
I would like to make a minor edit, though, and change "triggered" to "associated with." Chido6d (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Chido. Not sure I agree with the change - although the conclusion of the abstract uses "associated with" to link passive smoking and asthma attacks, it's pretty clear that - in the opinion of the authors - the woman's death was directly due to passive smoke exposure. Quote: "The waitress collapsed at the bar where she worked and was declared dead shortly thereafter. Evaluation of the circumstances of her death and her medical history concluded that her death was from acute asthma due to environmental tobacco smoke at work." I'm not too fussed about it, however. Nmg20 (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia reviewed at FORCES

There's a piece critical of this article at FORCES [6]. This may or may not presage arrival of some new POV warriors on this page.JQ (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. People who are prevented from spamming their pet website and prevented from abusing Wikipedia to advance their contrarian agenda complain that it's biased. In other news, the sun rises in the east again. :) MastCell Talk 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Lord knows we don't need any more POV warriors on this page. This all makes me wonder who the "Forces Five" are (not counting Dave Hitt, of course). I would have thought they would send more intelligent folk. Is this the basis for the recruiting tag?
Nevertheless, while I agree with about 49.9% (yes, just under 50%) of what the article says, I would not go so far as to say that those with whom I disagree have been "planted" here and are funded by pharmaceutical groups.
It is well known that I oppose the suppression of some sources and information (on baseless grounds), and an obvious, deliberate attempt to frame a view other than "scientific consensus" entirely in the pejorative.
All of this would be fine if it didn't clearly violate NPOV and fairness of tone in particular. I think the problem lies more in what Wikipedia claims to be than what it actually is.
Chido6d (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the {{recruiting}} tag, as we haven't seen any particular increase in inappropriate editing of the article in the month since User:John Quiggin noted the FORCES article. It seems self-evident to me that it was appropriate to add it at the time, however, and that we should restore it should the article suffer any influx of new POV editors in the future. Nmg20 (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using Wikipedia to reactivate old tobacco industry propaganda

The newly added section entitled "Exposure to ETS as cigarette equivalents" reactivates old propaganda, or rather disinformation, of the tobacco industry. The notion of "cigarette equivalent" as a measurement of exposure to tobacco smoke has been one of the techniques most systematically used by the tobacco industry to minimize, or even trivialize, the risk of exposure to tobacco smoke, by stating that the risk associated with such exposure is equivalent to the risk associated with actively smoking an extraordinarily minute fraction of a cigarette. Most of the results quoted by the industry were actually produced by scientists paid by it, and were part of the fraudulent plot which has been brought to light by the public release of millions of previously secret tobacco industry documents and which has been confounded in the courts of various countries.

The misleading use of the notion of cigarette equivalent was already denounced back in 1994 in an editorial of the New York Times. In his 2006 Report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, the US Surgeon General clearly indicated the limitations of the notion of cigarette equivalent - and this explains why he does not use it in the report:

"The underlying concept of deriving a “cigarette equivalent” risk factor for CHD [the greatest risk associated with ETS] from secondhand smoke exposure by linear extrapolation appears biologically inappropriate [...]. Furthermore, calculating equivalence based on relative exposures to nicotine or to its metabolite cotinine may not be biologically appropriate because the particular components of secondhand smoke that are most relevant for an increased risk of CHD have not yet been identified. [...] Constituents besides nicotine may play a more important role in the damaging effects of secondhand smoke. Additionally, some of the mechanisms linking tobacco smoke exposure to CHD risk appear to have nonlinear relationships with dose." (Chapter 8, p. 520)

The section added by Chido6d raises several other issues. Let us look separately at the two paragraphs of the section, starting with the first:

Some research methods require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS. Using relative risk estimates for ETS exposure, The National Cancer Institute concluded that cigarette equivalents for ETS exposure range from 0.1 to 1.0, with the most likely number being 0.2 (or two-tenths of one cigarette per day).

The leading statement ("Some research methods require en estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS") is not backed by the paper by Jay H. Lubin, which is referenced as the source for the paragraph. Actually, in its draft response to the New York Times editorial, the tobacco industry suggested that the use of ‘’cigarette equivalent’’ was motivated by an opposite purpose (assuming, for the sake of the argument, that we can take their explanation at face value): “The notion of a cigarette equivalent is used, because it is not very meaningful to the non-scientist to hear that the average nonsmoker' s exposure to nicotine in the workplace, a restaurant or other public venue is about ‘one microgram per cubic meter per hour’.” Therefore, starting the paragraph with “Some research methods require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS” provides a scientific justification that is not deserved.

The next sentence states that, "Using relative risk estimates for ETS exposure, the National Cancer Institute concluded that…" (my emphasis) One gets the feeling that what follows is an official statement made by the NCI in one of its substantial reports or monographs. Looking at it more closely, one sees that this is not the case. The source that is referenced here is not an official statement made by the NCI. It is taken from an article written by Jay H. Lubin, a scientists working for the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics at NCI, based on a presentation he had made in July 1998 at a workshop. The best source to find the official position of NCI on ETS is its Monograph 10: Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke published in November 1999. Although this monograph dedicates a whole chapter to "Exposure Measurement and Prevalence", there is no trace in it of any notion of "cigarette equivalent".

Finally, the conclusion which is attributed to the NCI in the first paragraph is also misleading. Indeed, it states that ETS exposure ranges between 0.1 to 1, with the most likely number being 0.2. This gives the impression that 0.1 is the lower bound of the range and 1 its upper bound, while 0.2 would be the mean value. This is plain wrong. First, it should be noted that ETS exposure varies greatly depending on the particular context, some people being indeed exposed to very little ETS (although still running a risk) and others, particularly in the hospitality industry being exposed (assuming no smoking ban) to amount of ETS that may be orders of magnitude greater. Second, the point Jay Rubin makes is that, in order to be subjected to an increase of 27% of the risk of lung cancer, one only needs to be exposed to the "equivalent" of between 0.1. to 1 smoked cigarette, with the most likely quantity being 0.2. But this does not preclude the fact that many people are exposed to far greater quantities of smoke and are subjected to a far greater increased risk of lung cancer. Furthermore, this only refers to lung cancer, not to the highest cause of mortality and morbidity attributable to passive smoking, CHD.

We see why this first paragraph is very misleading. I do not say that the issue raised by Jay H. Lubin is wrong, but it is of little relevance and would require, to avoid being misinterpreted, an explanation to a level of detail that would be out of place in this Wikipedia article.

Let us now address the second paragraph:

Similarly, on the basis of urinary cotinine concentrations, the National Research Council concluded that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb the equivalent of 0.1 to 1.0 cigarette per day. The National Research Council also found that blood and urine samples analyzed for vapor phase nicotine indicate that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb about 1% of the tobacco combustion products absorbed by active smokers.

It is interesting, first, to examine the reference used as the source for this statement. The source is a webpage on the CDC website, reproducing the Current Intelligence Bulletin, number 54, issued in 1991 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), CDC. This webpage contains the following two sentences: "On the basis of urinary cotinine concentrations, the [NRC 1986] concluded that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb the equivalent of 0.1 to 1.0 cigarette per day." and "Blood and urine samples analyzed for vapor phase nicotine indicate that nonsmokers exposed to ETS absorb about 1% of the tobacco combustion products absorbed by active smokers [NRC 1986; DHHS 1986]." The two sentences are reproduced almost verbatim in Chido6d’s second paragraph. NIOSH is not, however, the real source for these two sentences, which are attributed to other sources, notably a report produced in 1986 by the National Research Council [NRC 1986] and, accessorily, the 1986 Surgeon General’s Report on Involuntary Smoking [DHHD 1986].

The NRC 1986 report is entitled Environmental Tobacco Smoke – Measuring Exposures and Assessing health Effects. I found a copy of it among the tobacco industry documents [7]. The only "conclusion" found in the report is the following: "Generally, the mean concentration of nicotine and cotinine in the plasma or urine of nonsmokers exposed to ETS are about 1 percent of the mean values observed in active smokers." (pp 5-6) However, the report acknowledges that the state of science at the time was insufficient to make a firm conclusion on this subject, and made the following recommendation: "Absorption, metabolism, and excretion of ETS constituents, including nicotine, need to be carefully studied in order to evaluate whether there are differences between smokers and nonsmokers in these factors. Further epidemiologic studies using biological markers are needed to quantify exposure-dose relationships in nonsmokers." (p. 6)

Confining oneself, in 2008, to digging up (and misrepresenting) a "result" from a 1986 report, ignoring the fact that the report presents the result with great caution and proposes that further research be conducted, and acting as if no valid research had taken place since then, is not what is expected on Wikipedia. It seems that this actually provides a flagrant illustration of "cherry picking", a criticism that Chido6d has often used against other editors.

Finally, if other editors were to insist that a section be included on the concept of cigarette equivalent, then a very recent result, published a few weeks ago in the Swiss Medical Review (Revue Médical Suisse) (see [8]), should be included – still making all the reservations that are needed. Using a new nicotine monitor (MoNIC), developed specially by the Occupational Health University of Lausanne (IST), Swiss researchers have measured the level of exposure of various categories of non-smoking people in Switzerland, a country where passive smoking is still prevalent in most public and work places. They found that only 5% of the population of non-smokers is exposed to very low doses of ETS (< 0.2 cig. equivalent/day). Over 90% of the population is exposed to higher doses, going from 1-2 cigarettes per day to over 10 cigarettes per day. Workers in the hospitality industry are exposed to very high doses, from 15 cig. equivalent/day to 38 cig. equivalent/day. The results of the nicotine monitor were cross-checked with a measure of nicotine and cotinine found in saliva. This study shows that, should one insist to use the concept of cigarette equivalent per day, in spite of its limitations, the real figures reveal much higher levels of exposure than the results picked and distorted by Chido6d.

I have deleted the section. If someone insists to have it anyway, it will have to be completely redesigned to meet the NPOV rule.

--Dessources (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

CDC and NIOSH are pushers of tobacco industry propaganda? Well, the section is back for you to twist and deform to your POV. Chido6d (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
What is typical of industry propaganda is to dig up very old statements from an official agency, take them out of their context, distort them to suit the industry's line and present them as if they were the current official position of the agency. Neither CDC, nor NIOSH (a subsidiary of CDC), currently support the concept of cigarette equivalent. On the contrary, they warn against using this concept. The Surgeon General's statement quoted above represents the official position of CDC (and NIOSH) on this issue (note that the Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking is produced by CDC).
--Dessources (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Dessources has pretty comprehensively demolished the idea this should stay in the article as-is, and a 2-sentence accusation of twisting and POV doesn't really even dent that. This looks in the light of what's posted above to be more a footnote in the annals of industry attempts to undermine or distract from legitimate science... Nmg20 (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, quote mining is more typical of creationists than of tobacco hacks. One thing that fascinates me about Wikipedia is the apparent hierarchy of discreditableness among different kinds of delusionists/denialists even though in real life, there's a lot of overlap. AGW delusionists are furious when you point out the origins of many of their leading figures, and standard lines of argument in the tobacco lobby. Tobacco lobby types usually disliked being lumped in with creationists, and they all hate being tied to AIDS reappraisal. Yet the arguments are exactly the same, with all the same wikidodges being employed. About the only genuinely consistent person on the antiscience side is Tom Bethell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Quiggin (talk • contribs)
I wasn't trying to "dent that". I cannot possibly spend precious time responding to complete nonsense; I must do so (if I so choose) when I have absolutely nothing else to do. There are, though, some inconsistencies (to put it very kindly) that I will soon point out.
It did suddenly dawn on me that JQ's seeming attempt to get under some people's skin through name-calling and belittling doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either. The AIDS "denialists" appear to ignore or contradict solid, statistically significant raw data. Creationism (though some creationists claim to have proof of their position) is based largely on religious faith.
That's not a lot of overlap. Chido6d (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The scientific community begs to differ with you about passive smoking denial's ignoring/contradicting "solid, statistically significant raw data", Chido6d. And once again, by specifically accusing JQ of name-calling and belittling, despite the fact that he, er, didn't mention any names in his message, you're exhibiting some pretty breathtaking hypocrisy. Nmg20 (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


I was beginning to see a glimmer of hope, since Nmg20 and I seemed for a moment to be working well together (regarding the death due to asthma attack, where I endorsed his work, and his kind/generous upgrading of the source for my latest contribution). We are, unfortunately, back to reality.

Dessources, you obviously put a lot of work into your explanation. In a certain sense it is respected and appreciated, but you could have saved a lot of time and effort by simply erasing the section and stating that you find it’s implications to be at odds with your agenda and your point of view. You may have wished to add that you were, once again, engaging in mind reading and fretting over how the reader may interpret what he/she reads. This has become a pattern. It is fair enough that you would question the notion of cigarette equivalence, but to throw out an unsigned editorial from the New York Times as evidence is not very convincing. Without question, and not surprisingly, Dick Carmona would reject cigarette equivalence. After all, he has stated unequivocally that “there is no safe level” of exposure to ETS. I do take issue with your criticism of my summary:

Some research methods require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS.

What the source actually said was this (emphasis mine):

Estimates of lung cancer in nonsmokers due to exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)…may be based on a) models developed using the full range of data in smokers; b) models developed using data restricted to smokers with a low smoking rate, for example, 10 cigarettes per day; c) models developed using data from studies of residential exposure to ETS of nonsmokers, with exposures based on smoking rates of spouses; and d) models using data from studies of occupational exposure to ETS of nonsmokers. Methods a and b require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS as well as assumptions on the cigarette equivalent dose to target cells from ETS and on the comparability of lung cancer risk per unit dose from smokers and nonsmokers.

This resulted in the following response:

The leading statement…is not backed by the paper by Jay H. Lubin…Starting the paragraph with “Some research methods require an estimate of cigarette equivalent exposure for ETS” provides a scientific justification that is not deserved.

Please explain.

The point about the reference to the NCI is well taken. Perhaps you could have clarified or named Dr. Lubin, in the same fashion as you advocated the identification of Judge Gladys Kessler. Or, you could just erase the whole thing.

There is nothing wrong with the second paragraph, either. Your ‘’quote mining’’ basically says that they recommend further study to better understand the meaning of the results. This does not negate the study’s data - sorry.

So, what more do we have? Take a look at the following spiteful accusations:

  • I dug the sources up
  • I misrepresented the results
  • I ignored important information
  • I was “acting as if no valid research had taken place since then” (I love that one), and
  • I was flagrantly cherry-picking.

The whole thing sounds eerily similar to an indictment against the EPA about 15 years ago.

I cannot finish without mentioning what a complete joke the Swiss study was. Is it really going to be published in a Journal? The nicotine monitors were “gracefully” distributed by the CIPRET Valais (Center of Information and Prevention of the Addiction to Smoking) as part of a campaign entitled "Smoked passive, we suffer from it, we die from it." The stated objective (before undertaking the project) was to "inform clearly…the population of the dangerousness of the passive smoke." [9] (Grammatical errors not mine.)

That sounds a bit like committing to a conclusion before even starting the research…kinda like the EPA did. Is that why you suggested including it? Chido6d (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Can someone distill the essence of this latest argument into a useable precis so that the rest of us can comment? MastCell Talk 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me, would you like some Grey Poupon and a distilled water with that, Mr. Precis? Chido6d (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm asking that you drop the snarkiness and outline the issue briefly, and that Dessources do the same. That would be the tack that a constructive, good-faith contributor would take. If you want to keep using this talk page to take potshots at the EPA and Richard Carmona, then you will likely remain irrelevant. Is that better? MastCell Talk 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, aside from your potshot about "remain(ing) irrelevant".
I'll get on it tomorrow. Chido6d (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As regards your comment on the Swiss study, can I suggest that you need to radically revise your thinking before you are going to make useful contributions here. As the article states, the question "does passive smoking cause cancer and other forms of health damage" is settled (Hint:The answer starts with "Y"), so the notion that a research project beginning from that premise is "committing to a conclusion before even starting the research" is about as sensible as suggesting that a research project in geography should start from an agnostic position regarding the shape of the earth. Long experience suggests to me that you are unlikely to make a useful contribution to this page until you accept the conclusions of scientific research on this topic.JQ (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh my. The last time I checked, Wikipedia's pillars didn't require a litmus test for one's personal point of view. Maybe I should revisit and see if things have changed. Similarly, I'm not certain that being arrogant and patronizing makes for a good editor, because it's neither persuasive nor conducive to good faith. Maybe that, too, has changed.
Your suggestion is rejected until there is evidence beyond a weak association that fails to reach statistical significance (in other words, never).
MastCell, here is what I was saying. Don't be mistaken; I have no real hope of coming to mutual agreement even on the meaning of neutrality.
The addition would have been out of place if commentary would have been added. I don't recall reading anywhere anything like "this means that the risk is itty-bitty, too."
Once again, information is being suppressed simply for not fitting into one's own agenda. I will add this to the running list, which is quite lengthy as you might imagine.
There's also way too much mind reading going on. One can't help but to think that things in here border on the bizzare. A contribution, straight from the source and without commentary, is railed against as original research and/or propaganda that was dug up out of unseemly places in order to mislead. In my life, I don't recall meeting many people who make such grand assumptions with little or no evidence (thank God).
Desources also said that the source did not offer a scientific justification for determining cigarette equivalence. Whether or not there is justification in fact, the source said there was.
A proper response would have been to add information if necessary.
If anyone believes that CIPRET could conduct a fair evaluation, he/she likely also believes their finding that some occupations offer their nonsmoking employees the equivalent of one cigarette every 12 or 13 minutes, simply by being in the same room where others are smoking. It would be difficult to even (actively) smoke that many cigarettes.
And if you believe all that, I will sell you a large southern island. For cheap. Chido6d (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information Under Suppression

For a while now, I've recognized the need to outline the bias of this article in a systematic way. The following table is by no means exhaustive, and deals only with the information that is currently under suppression.

There are many other issues with the article, such as abuse of sources, bullying of editors, misinformation and purposely framing other viewpoints in the pejorative, which I may be able to address at a later date. This is probably not a final version of the table (it's more like a draft).

For those who come into this forum and would like to edit, I hope that the following work is enough to convince you not to waste your time.

I've not included links to everything (yet), but I encourage anyone who wants to know more to use a search engine and/or consult the history and talk pages.

I intend to update this table as needed, and I also intend to pull it from archives (whenever this is done) in order to keep it on the current page. Thanks. Chido6d (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Under Suppression Comment Reason given for Suppression (if known)
Major conclusions of the 1998 World Health Organization report on ETS This major study found no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. The study also found no detectable risk after cessation to exposure of ETS. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that these two findings are not controversial, and therefore do not have a place in the controversy section. Attempts to rename the section appropriately and to include this information elsewhere have both been thwarted.
Editor Richard Smith’s comments on the Enstrom/Kabat study published in the British Medical Journal In a letter written in 2003 and published in the British Medical Journal, the Editor of the BMJ commented on the uproar caused by publication of the Enstrom/Kabat study. He defended the BMJ’s decision to publish the study, calling the same study "a useful contribution to an important debate." Of passive smoking, he said, "We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered." Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the Editor’s letter was solely a response to blog postings (though he did not limit his comments to Rapid Responses), and is therefore not relevant.
Congressional Research Service Report on the 1992 EPA study The U.S. Congress reviewed the 1992 EPA study on ETS, and subsequently issued a report that cast doubt on the EPA’s classification of ETS as a carcinogen. Unknown
The identity of District Court Judge Gladys Kessler Judge Kessler ruled against the tobacco industry in a recent racketeering case. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that identifying the judge would "obfuscate the fact that this was a court decision", while in fact Ms. Kessler made the decision and handed down the ruling on her own.
Comments of Dr. George Davey Smith Dr. Smith wrote an article in the BMJ, which analyzed the Enstrom/Kabat study. Dr. Smith called the risk of exposure to ETS "small", and said that the impact of exposure to ETS remains under dispute. Activist Wikipedia editors have suppressed the comments mentioned, while including his comment that Enstrom and Kabat "may (have) overemphasized the negative nature of their findings." Unknown, apart from pure, unadulterated bias and selectivity.
"Where’s the Consensus on Secondhand Smoke?" published by the Heartland Institute. Published in November of 2007, the article is harshly critical of the report by the former U.S. Surgeon General. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the Heartland Institute (a non-profit organization) is not a reliable source, and claim that the Institute has ties to the tobacco industry.
Link to the Scientific Integrity Institute Website where Dr. James Enstrom explains his work, questions conclusions on ETS and defends himself against his critics. Activist Wikipedia editors claim (for unknown reasons) that this website does not merit inclusion (though they leave untouched a link to "Tobacco Scam").
Article from Skin and Allergy News: "Is the Public Health Message on Secondhand Smoke Based on Science?" Published in February 2007. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the article implies a debate that does not exist.
The British House of Lords Report on Risk Management The Report questioned the size of the risk of exposure to ETS, and whether the risk was large enough to justify the banning of smoking in privately owned places that are open to the public. Unknown
Reanalysis of Epidemiological Evidence on Lung Cancer and Passive Smoking by J. B. Copas Concluded that the risk of exposure to ETS is overstated due to publication bias. Unknown
Center for Disease Control Report on ETS as cigarette equivalence The report concluded (in brief) that non-smokers were exposed to the equivalent of about 0.2 cigarettes per day. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the information is "old tobacco industry propaganda", and that a report by CIPRET (an activist organization) claims that non-smoking workers are exposed to the equivalent of up to 38 cigarettes per shift.
Studies and data on RSP’s as related to Permissible Exposure Limits The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (a part of the U.S. Department of Energy) conducted a study on ETS, concluding that various chemical and particulate matter was not observed at levels known to be dangerous. Activist Wikipedia editors claim that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.
POV tag A number of editors coming in to contribute to the article (or comment on it) have expressed concern about the bias of the article. When the POV tag has been placed, activist Wikipedia editors have removed it repeatedly, claiming that there is a "consensus" that the article is not in violation of NPOV. Unknown, though one could easily conclude that the activist editors prefer not to acknowledge the controversy outlined here.
Sigh. Is it that time again? Are you hoping for a new set of editors, who will be more responsive to this sort of approach? Or hoping that people will get tired of hearing you push the same arguments and POV again and again and just give up? Or do you honestly believe that your approach - demanding undue weight for a discredited tobacco-industry/denialist perspective while branding any editor who disagrees as an anti-smoking zealot, will actually work this time around in a collaborative environment? MastCell Talk 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No. The purpose of the table is clearly stated at the beginning: "to outline the bias of this article in a systematic way." Another purpose, in part, is to actually help preserve your propaganda piece. Perhaps you read too quickly; a warning precedes the table advising potential editors to not waste their time. This is hardly a call for a bunch of new editors to take interest and/or action. Chido6d (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Well, if its only purpose is to express your frustration and warn other users away from actually editing and improving the article, then it ought to be removed as an abuse of the article talk page. I'll move it to your userspace momentarily. MastCell Talk 19:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate this must have been a bit of work for you, it's just rehashing lots of old discussions from this page in which you have by and large been the only proponent of your point of view, Chido, and as in those discussions rather than accepting this is because yours is the minority viewpoint you choose to brand everyone else "activist". In addition you leave out all the evidence myself and other editors have provided: there is an entire section of this talk page, a little higher up, which User:Dessources devoted to explaining exactly why the concept of a 'cigarette equivalent' was flawed, and it's extensively referenced, and it was supported by three other editors. Your view was supported by, er, none.
If you have any new supporting data you feel is valid, by all means let's discuss it - otherwise you're just bringing up arguments out of context because the context tends to be damning of your point of view. Nmg20 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of difference in exposing the bias in an organized fashion and merely expressing frustration. The latter accusation is simply not true. Pointing out the bias, even if on a talk page, is an improvement of the article in and of itself (via discussion). It's also not really rehashing old debates. There is no new proposal that this information be included in the article.

Regarding the statement that I am by and large the only proponent of another view, I have also considered assembling a list of other editors that have been shouted down and/or driven away. They far outnumber the five or six activist editors that come to mind.

In fairness, I acknowledge that I could not extensively rehash all arguments for or against the use of a certain source. The table is only a snapshot or a summary, and the rest of the discussion is, of course, here for the record. That being said, I believe all statements to be accurate. By no means is the information intended to be deceptive.

I have no plans at this time to introduce any new supporting data. The likelihood of suppression is just too high. Chido6d (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you seem you to realize that you are beating a dead horse. While we may disagree on how or why the horse has died, I hope we can agree that the best course of action in times like these is to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Yilloslime (t) 04:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I like that - "shouted down" and "suppressed" are so egosyntonic. Certainly preferable to the alternate hypothesis that Chido's failure to advance his minoritarian POV at every level of Wikipedia's dispute-resolution pathway is due to the fact that it is simply incorrect, inaccurate, or out of line with basic Wikipedia policy. Actually, another admin said it best - see #1 on the list. MastCell Talk 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Good article...I think #35 and #39 are applicable here, and with that I'll refrain. Chido6d (talk) 02:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SHS Causing Death

Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.

Surely, this is incorrect. I've been exposed to second-hand smoke on numerous occasions, but I'm still more likely to die of something other than a smoking-related illness. I suggest changing this sentence to either:

Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke can cause death, disease and disability.

or, perhaps better:

Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke increases the risk of death, disease and disability by smoke-realted causes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedd (talk • contribs)

I think most readers will understand causes to mean "increases the risk of", but I don't see a problem with

Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke increases the risk of death, disease and disability.

It's a good idea not to change the summary until others have had a chance to comment, so I'll wait for that to happen.JQ (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that "increases the risk of" is a better way of phrasing this, so I'd be fine with the change. Secondhand smoke does cause death, disease, and disability on a population level, but it's probably most accurate to say that it "increases the risk" for an individual. MastCell Talk 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with this change. This is, to my mind, obviously referring to causation at a population level: Tedd is right to suggest it would be absurd to say that anyone exposed to passive smoke will suffer death, disability, etc., but it's equally absurd to suggest passive smoke doesn't cause these things in the population.
So while I'm happy to go with the majority view here, my worry is that this is an unnecessary dilution of the point and that it will be taken as an indicator that all other instances of "cause" should become "increases the risk of" - and that I would oppose more firmly. Nmg20 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We might could rephrase to make sure that the sentence cannot be read as "after a single exposure to second hand smoke, everyone immediately suffers ...", but "cause" is precisely the wording used by the cited sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Have some mention about passive smoking in Nazi Germany?

Hear me out first. I read in Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germanythat the term "passive smoking" was first coined in the 1930s in Nazi Germany. It just so happens that Nazi Germany was the first nation to enact strict anti-smoking laws. I think this should have some place in the article. Discuss. 69.208.228.193 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this before, and decided against it. Yilloslime (t) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It does currently feature in the smoking ban and tobacco smoking articles, and has its own article as above. Nmg20 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps detailed coverage in those 3 articles represents sufficient weight for the fact that zOMG THE NAZIS were involved with secondhand smoke. MastCell Talk 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)