Second Hand Smoke
Essay Preview: Second Hand Smoke
Report this essay
Smoking Conspiracy: Second Hand Smoke
Viewers Comments
NONSURGEON GENERALS WARNING: There is no association between lung cancer and ETS exposure!
Every study used by the anti-smoking group on second hand smoke has been proven to be flawed and the data manipulated. A comprehensive list of these studies is illustrated in the Environmental Protection Agency document EPA/600/6-90/006F, page 5-28 and 5-29.
Writing in the National Post (Mar 25, 2000) Steven J. Milloy said,
“There is no controversy over whether second-hand smoke can be a nuisance. But scientific studies purporting to link second-hand smoke with health effects are invariably controversial. The Health Canada study is no different. . . The statistical associations in the Health Canada study are weak. And it has other shortcomings. Smoking itself is not an established risk factor for breast cancer. . . In the financial world, legal remedies exist for data omission and other fraudulent hijinks. Sadly, no system of accountability disciplines rogue government agencies and their scientists who put political agendas — such as the anti-tobacco jihad — ahead of sound science.”
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Lorraine Mooney said, “the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all.”
In fact, no study supports the anti-smokers claims, even after being manipulated. But, they defend their second hand smoke propaganda because it effectively serves their purpose of advancing their socialist goals.
“For the Children”
The popular socialist plea today is, “for the children,” and the anti-smoking propagandists have played this card to the hilt. They tell you, for example, that the incidence of children with asthma is going up because of smoking.
If the increased incidence of children with asthma is going up because of smoking, why is it that when fewer people smoke according to their statistics, then more children develop asthma? Duh?? Their arguments may sound good (“for the children”), but they are total nonsense.
Second hand smoke does not cause Asthma. There are no allergens, protein or protein-carbohydrate complexes, present in tobacco smoke to cause attacks either. But, asthma attacks can be psychosomatic. And, thanks to the anti-smoking group and the media, a child who has been told that tobacco smoke triggers an asthma attack possibly will have an attack if tobacco smoke is visible. (Numerous clinical trials have shown that no attacks occur if children do not know that they are in the presence of tobacco smoke.)
Its been said that if you tell people a lie often enough, they will begin to believe it.
That maxim has worked well in the anti-tobacco propaganda campaign. Today you will find many people who have bought in to this lie – theyve taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. They gleefully accept misleading statistics and lies from a highly suspect government agency despite volumes of self serving and flawed data.
It has been claimed, for example, that from 37,000 to 53,000 people die from smoking related disease caused by other peoples smoke each year. Further, they have proclaimed that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a health risk that affects about 150,000 to 300,000 children.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) nearly 9 out of 10 nonsmoking Americans are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke as measured by the levels of cotinine in their blood. The data, reported by the CDC in the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows measurable levels of cotinine in the blood of 88% of all nontobacco users. The presence of cotinine, a chemical the body metabolizes from nicotine, is documentation that a person has been exposed to tobacco smoke.
In 1992, EPA completed a major assessment of the respiratory health risks of ETS (Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders EPA/600/6-90/006F).
The report concludes that exposure to ETS is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children.
The EPA claims ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (LRIs) such as bronchitis and pneumonia, estimating that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS.
ETS exposure is causally associated with increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and a small but significant reduction in lung function.
ETS exposure is causally associated with additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma, estimating that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.
ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.
Sounds terrible, doesnt it?
Problem is Its Not True!
Click Here to See Why
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is hundreds or thousands of times as dilute as mainstream smoke. Casual exposure to ETS (say a couple of hours per week in a bar) exposes the non-smoker to perhaps one ten-thousandth of what a smoker gets. Although the amount that gets into the bloodstream might be measurable in a laboratory, the effect on the exposee would be difficult or impossible to detect. Other factors such as the drinks our poor non-smoker consumed while in the bar will potentially have far worse effects than the second-hand smoke they inhaled.
In truth, there here is no association between lung cancer and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), regardless of whether the source is spousal smoking or workplace ETS.
In a report titled, “Cigarette Taxes to Fund Health Care Reform: An