Is the claim that second hand smoke is a Class A carcinogen based on "phony science"?

One of the local columnists actually made that claim and, since I kind of have to get to work pretty soon, I thought someone here might have some information to refute his claims. I will do more research when I get home tonight but I thought one of you might have some resources for me to investigate. Any suggestions?

<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=second+hand+smoke+statistics&aq=t&oq=second+hand+smoke+>

Did you even bother to try Google?

"The simple overall comparison of risks in ever vs. never exposed to spousal smoking tends to hide true increases in risk in two ways. First, it categorizes many women as never exposed who actually received exposure from sources other than spousal smoking. It also includes some women as exposed who actually received little exposure from their husband's smoking. One way to correct for this latter case is to look at the women whose husbands smoked the most. When one looks at the 17 studies that examined cancer effects based on the level of exposure of the subjects, every study found an increased lung cancer risk among those subjects who were most exposed. Nine were statistically significant. The probability of 9 out of 17 studies showing statistically significant results occurring by chance is less than 1 in ten million.

Probably the most important finding for a causal relationship is one of increasing response with increasing exposure, since such associations cannot usually be explained by other factors. Such exposure-response trends were seen in all 14 studies that examined the relationship between level of exposure and effect. In 10 of the studies the trends were statistically significant. The probability of this happening by chance is less than 1 in a billion."


It is unprecedented for such a consistency of results to be seen in epidemiology studies of cancer from environmental levels of a pollutant. One reason is that it is extremely difficult to detect an effect when virtually everyone is exposed, as is the case with secondhand smoke. However, consistent increased risks for those most exposed and consistent trends of increasing exposure showing an increasing effect provide strong evidence that secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers."
http://www.visiblemeasures.com/visible.php?page=team

The next time somebody makes this claim, a "sorry but that is total bullshit" would be sufficient.

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2007/04/18/

Tesha

all the 'global warming is bunk' scientists have yet to move into their new positions.

a religious fanatic any day but........ As a Teen in the 60's I worked in an lens inspector. We were handed lens on asbestos squares pilled to the ceiling to inspect. (obviously too poor for college. I did this job for years. The asbestos cloud was so thick you could not see your fellow worker. Yet, any health problem I may or may not encounter will be the fault of my smoking, thank the lord my parents didn't smoke due to religious fanaticism or they could be the blame. Never once will science take "in total" my (or anyone else's life) as a factor for cancer, etc. Yeah, I smoke but have told my children of the total neglect of science to look at the "possible" cause of any ailment I may encounter. Science is the best we have but even they have a lOOOOOOOng way to go to prove their theories IMHO.

However, I think the person who got lung desease from second hand smoke would have to be in a confined area and exposed to it continuously over a long period of time (not just occasionally).

lung cancer is 12.5% (im not sure, but i suspect that is for long term, high level exposure. ie. barmaid)

My recollection is that for population studies of this nature, any signal less than 33% is considered (at best) weak.

You'll improve your health more by walking a yard further from the kerb, than by telling grandpa to take his stinky pipe outside.

But then again, All class A means is that there is no safe level of exposure.

Some nasties our bodies can cope with so long as we don't hit it with too much too fast.

Class A's like Radon, Asbestos, benzene and so on have no 100% safe level. One atom, one fiber, one molecule in the wrong place at the wrong time is all it takes.

All this classification of SHS does is acknowledge that it contains trace amounts of numerous other Class A's. But it also dilutes the impact of that classification. By the same logic as this argument, BBQ'ed meat is a Class A carcinogen. As are numerous other things we expose ourselves to every day. Sometimes through choice and sometimes unavoidably.

Life is carcinogenic.