[theapportioner]

El Blanco:

A Medline search turned up hundreds, if not thousands of articles relevant to secondhand smoke (aka passive, environmental tobacco smoke). A great majority seemed to say that extensive exposure to secondhand smoke is probably bad, though as epidemiology methods can be suspect, some letters questioned the methodology of certain articles and other articles disputed the link. Anyway, here's a link to PubMed so you can see for yourself (Ovid is a better search tool but unless you have a password or access to a library you can't use it, I don't believe): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

A few interesting articles. The last three pertain to biomarkers that are used to assess exposure from secondhand smoke. Didn't necessarily read all the abstracts (and certainly didn't read the articles!) so some of them may even contradict waht I've said. Hah!

1. He J, Vupputuri S, Allen K, Prerost MR, Hughes J, Whelton PK. Passive smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease - a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. N Engl J Med 1999;340:920-6.

2. 3. Wells AJ. Passive smoking as a cause of heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;24:546-54.

3. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence. BMJ 1997;315:973-80

4. Morabia A, Bernstein M, Heritier S, Khatchatrian N. Relation of breast cancer with passive and active exposure to tobacco smoke. Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:918-28

5. Davis JW, Shelton L, Watanabe IS, Arnold J. Passive smoking affects endothelium and platelets. Arch Intern Med 1989;149:386-9

6. Eisner MD. Environmental tobacco smoke and adult asthma. [Review] [51 refs] [Journal Article. Review. Review, Tutorial] Clinics in Chest Medicine. 23(4):749-61, 2002 Dec.

7. Peat JK. Keena V. Harakeh Z. Marks G. Parental smoking and respiratory tract infections in children. [Review] [41 refs] [Journal Article. Review. Review, Tutorial] Paediatric Respiratory Reviews. 2(3):207-13, 2001 Sep.

8. Landau LI. Parental smoking: asthma and wheezing illnesses in infants and children. [Review] [23 refs] [Journal Article. Review. Review, Tutorial] Paediatric Respiratory Reviews. 2(3):202-6, 2001 Sep

9. Johnson KC. Hu J. Mao Y. The Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. Lifetime residential and workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in never-smoking women, Canada 1994-97. [Journal Article] International Journal of Cancer. 93(6):902-6, 2001 Sep15.

10. Husgafvel-Pursiainen K. Boffetta P. Kannio A. Nyberg F. Pershagen G. Mukeria A. Constantinescu V. Fortes C. Benhamou S. p53 mutations and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in a multicenter study on lung cancer. [Journal Article. Multicenter Study] Cancer Research. 60(11):2906-11, 2000 Jun 1.

11. Preston AM, Rodriguez C, Rivera CE, Sahai H. Related Articles, Links Influence of environmental tobacco smoke on vitamin C status in children.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):167-72.

12. Preston AM, Rodriguez C, Rivera CE, Sahai H. Related Articles, Links

Influence of environmental tobacco smoke on vitamin C status in children.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):167-72.


Skulhedface: A moot point. Epidemiology is hardly an exact science, but every epidemiologist is conscious of the correlation v causation question. Freshman level stuff.

Or you might say that secondhand smoke contributed to giving you lung cancer, and the lung cancer was the CAUSE of death.

A stupid point. Years of alcohol abuse "contributes" to cirrhosis but doesn't "kill" you? It is a matter of degree, yes, but the conclusion of the scientific community is that there _is_ a strong correlation between secondhand smoke and various health problems. No agenda, just the cold hard facts. The Surgeon General, CDC, EPA, WHO, and many prominent scientists have gone on record saying it's bad.

Considering myself agendaless (I have enough unhealthy habits, and occasional exposure to carcinogens is the least of my worries), I am interested mostly in the facts. If the facts are unclear or in dispute, within reason we should always err on the worst-case scenario. Like how you would suit up before handlign monkeys, "just in case" they may be carring herpes. Public policy, in many instances, should follow similar precedents -- such as how restaurants can't serve you food touched with feces or how new homes can't contain asbestos.

I have tried to give an even-handed account of the issues here. Are there more zealous anti-tobacco people out there? Sure. I think they're annoying too, but I also think they are right.[/url]