Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking' ?

[Dardedar]

Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation

By Geoffrey Lean
Sunday, 30 March 2008

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Independant UK
***

DAR
The title of this article didn't have a question mark but I couldn't bring myself to post it without inserting one. With the "?" mark, it is a really silly question. Without it, it is a really absurd claim. My respect for the Independent UK drops a little because they published this irresponsible fear mongering article which to most will appear to be saying something profound when it really isn't saying anything useful at all.

Read the article at the link if you like. I will quote and unpack all of the rest of it below.

I have been interested in this question for a long time. Ever since I bought my first cell phone in 1998. I noticed that after talking for as little as 10-15 minutes there was a considerable heating effect to my ear and side of my head. This was very concerning a little scary and uncomfortable. That was an analog phone which used and emitted several times more energy than the digital phones everyone uses now.

I conduct a lot of business on the phone. About four years ago I gave up my land line and went completely cellular. For years I subscribed to the newsletter "Microwave News." It was a very thorough review of the latest science examining the question of whether cell phones may be harmful to humans. The newsletter seemed to lean toward the idea they did, but it was very fair in it's analysis and reporting of the evidence. As I remember some pretty definitive evidence came through (showing there was not a link to health problems) and then I got board with the subject.

On to the claims in the article:

"Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos..."

DAR
The author blows his credibility in the first sentence. The debate about direct causation of cancer and a myriad of other health problems was over decades ago. I think smoking is credited with killing over 480,000 a year in the US alone. Wait, I'll check. Consider:

"Tobacco-related diseases are some of the biggest killers in the world today and are cited as one of the biggest cause of premature death in industrial countries. In the United States some 500,000 deaths per year are attributed to smoking-related diseases and a recent study estimated that as much as 1/3 of China's male population will have shortened life-spans due to smoking."
--Leslie Iverson, "Why do We Smoke?: The Physiology of Smoking" in Smoke, p. 320

As I remember, about 180,000 people, in the US alone, get lung cancer every year. Eighty percent of them got it from smoking. About 90% of them will die from it within 5 years. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million annually worldwide. --Link

And that doesn't even consider the heart attacks, obstructive pulmonary disease, birth defects and all of the other serious diseases caused by smoking.

Where are doctor Vini's numbers on those killed by cell phone radiation? He doesn't have them but predicts they will appear.

Here is a little blurb I posted in the Bob Park thread not long ago:

4. CELL PHONES: DANGEROUS EXPOSURE TO LARRY KING.
A grieving widower told Larry King his wife "held it against her head and talked all the time," (WN 29 Jan 93) . That interview set off the great cell phone panic. Now, 15 years later, Dr. King interviewed three neurosurgeons who said they don't hold cell phones against their heads. Can microwaves be the cause of mutant strands of DNA? Dr. King didn't ask, and the neurosurgeons probably didn't know. The answer:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/cont ... t/93/3/166

Now back to the article:

"Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced."

DAR
Well, we don't have definitive proof so there is nothing wrong with caution, especially with the kiddies. (I use a bluetooth headset when convenient. I still notice a little heating if I talk a long time with the phone against my head but it is a lot less than the old days.) But the fact that governments advise a behavior really doesn't tell us much. Governments are full of silly people who don't necessarily know much anything about the science and want to cover their backsides "just in case." I am open to good evidence showing cell phones cause harm. I am tired of the fear mongering claims suggesting that they harm us but we won't know until the future. Some of it is just fear of the unknown: radiation. People don't understand it. Similar to the microwave oven fear which still pops up.

From an old Bob Park blurb in 2000:

"3. WARNING - THIS DEVICE PRODUCES ACOUSTIC WAVES.
Just in time for the holidays, the British Department of Health is rushing out cell phone warning labels, taking to heart a recent report (WN 20 Oct 00) that recommends a "precautionary approach" to use by children, this despite finding no real evidence of a health risk." Link

Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

DAR
This is confusing. The article earlier says this is: "the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks" when in reality, it has not been "published." It is currently under review.

He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.

DAR
What someone believes "will be" proven in the future really doesn't count for much.

Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.

DAR
Just to show how out to lunch the title of this article is, consider:

"In the United States in the year 2005, it was estimated that there were 43,800 new cases of brain tumors (Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, Primary Brain Tumors in the United States, Statistical Report, 2005 - 2006),[1] which accounted for 1.4 percent of all cancers, 2.4 percent of all cancer deaths,..."

"...it is estimated that there are 13,000 deaths/year as a result of brain tumors."
--Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin 2000;50:7-33.

Compare that with the numbers for smoking given above.

"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke.

DAR
Yes, there is great potential for harm because of their widespread use. Where's the evidence of harm?

Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.

DAR
Okay, so we have five million people killed by smoking per year, give us the name of someone who has been killed by microwaves coming out of a cell phone. He can't. Yet we are to believe it silently kills more people than smoking? Idiocy.

Another blurb from Bob Park in 2001:

"2. CELL PHONES: NO DAMAGE TO DANES' BRAINS.
A study of more than 420,000 Danes, from 1982 through 1995, that was reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found no link between cell phone use and brain cancer. That should settle the issue, but it won't. As one famous Dane said four hundred years ago: "Methinks it is like a weasel." Dire EMF warnings continue to be issued. A local TV station just alerted people to beware of the metro - some subway cars have fields as high as a Gauss! That's no where near as deadly as the bubble gum stuck to the seat." Link

And now we get to the meat of the debunk. If the author of this article hadn't included this disclaimer he would really have been misleading:

Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".

DAR
That sounds about right to me. Vini seems like a lone crank.

I just got back from CA yesterday. They have signs all over announcing that you have to use a headset for your cell phone while driving. It takes effect July 1. That's a good thing. Driving while yapping on a cell phone does indeed kill people.

D.

[rubbar]

Okay, let us consider a few points of interest. (I'm no expert)

1. If Microwaves are the means of transmission then we should be more concerned about the kitchen appliance.

2. I'd chalk the heating effect up to the battery and the processor. Cell Phones have effectively become miniature computers and the processor is usually the number one source of heat in a computer.

3. Smoking doesn't kill people, people who smoke kill people. The real concern for cellular devices and health should come down, not to brains, but to those who use their cell phones whilst driving. When I ride my scooter the dominant number of drivers who nearly run me off the road are on a cell phone.

4. Bigger concern: Cell Phone Addiction, kinda like World of WarCrack. I'm sure some of you adults haven't seen the fits school kids throw or the pleads that they plead when a teacher (finally) takes the phone away.

If people would take just a little bit of time out of their day to think rationally then they would have realised that we would have been long gone by now because of our extensive use of microwaves in other applications. Also, are microwaves the method of transmission?

[Dardedar]

Pittsburgh cancer center warns of cell phone risks

By JENNIFER C. YATES and SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press

PITTSBURGH - The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer.

The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Herberman is basing his alarm on early unpublished data. He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now — especially when it comes to children.

"Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.

No other major academic cancer research institutions have sounded such an alarm about cell phone use. But Herberman's advice is sure to raise concern among many cell phone users and especially parents.

In the memo he sent to about 3,000 faculty and staff Wednesday, he says children should use cell phones only for emergencies because their brains are still developing.

Adults should keep the phone away from the head and use the speakerphone or a wireless headset, he says. He even warns against using cell phones in public places like a bus because it exposes others to the phone's electromagnetic fields.

The issue that concerns some scientists — though nowhere near a consensus — is electromagnetic radiation, especially its possible effects on children. It is not a major topic in conferences of brain specialists.

A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies — including some Herberman cites — with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes "we found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation by future studies."

Studies last year in France and Norway concluded the same thing.

"If there is a risk from these products — and at this point we do not know that there is — it is probably very small," the Food and Drug Administration says on an agency Web site.

Still, Herberman cites a "growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer."

"Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use," he wrote in his memo.

A driving force behind the memo was Devra Lee Davis, the director of the university's center for environmental oncology.

"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."

Of concern are the still unknown effects of more than a decade of cell phone use, with some studies raising alarms, said Davis, a former health adviser in the Clinton Administration.

She said 20 different groups have endorsed the advice the Pittsburgh cancer institute gave, and authorities in England, France and India have cautioned children's use of cell phones.

Herberman and Davis point to a massive ongoing research project known as Interphone, involving scientists in 13 nations, mostly in Europe. Results already published in peer-reviewed journals from this project aren't so alarming, but Herberman is citing work not yet published.

The published research focuses on more than 5,000 cases of brain tumors. The National Research Council in the U.S., which isn't participating in the Interphone project, reported in January that the brain tumor research had "selection bias." That means it relied on people with cancer to remember how often they used cell phones. It is not considered the most accurate research approach.

The largest published study, which appeared in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2006, tracked 420,000 Danish cell phone users, including thousands that had used the phones for more than 10 years. It found no increased risk of cancer among those using cell phones.

A French study based on Interphone research and published in 2007 concluded that regular cell phone users had "no significant increased risk" for three major types of nervous system tumors. It did note, however, that there was "the possibility of an increased risk among the heaviest users" for one type of brain tumor, but that needs to be verified in future research.

Earlier research also has found no connection.

Joshua E. Muscat of Penn State University, who has studied cancer and cell phones in other research projects partly funded by the cell phone industry, said there are at least a dozen studies that have found no cancer-cell phone link. He said a Swedish study cited by Herberman as support for his warning was biased and flawed.

More...

[tmiller51]

The part about warning people against using public cell phones in public places sounds a little hysterical to me. Because of the manner in which radio wave energy dissipates over distance, someone only three feet away from your phone is receiving a power level about one hundred times less than the power level being transmitted by the phone. In other words, the risk to the cell phone user, if there is one, is much much higher.

Tim

[Dardedar]

DAR
I agree Tim. I mainly posted the above article because it provides a good compilation of the evidence/studies showing cell phones, at least in the short term, seem to be safe. Those raising concerns seem to only have "we don't know yet" and "in the future we'll all be sorry." It's certainly okay to be cautious with the kiddies and for people who blab a lot, use a headset. It's more comfortable anyway.

D.

[Doug]

Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

DOUG
What if you smoke cell phones?

[Betsy]

I knew a guy who died from a brain tumor a few years ago - and he drank diet cokes constantly. Some people figured that the diet cokes must have caused his tumor. I just thought of that because of the grieving widow in the article who said her husband was using a cell phone all the time. Maybe her husband just drank too many diet cokes!

There was a program on this subject on 60 minutes or 20/20 or one of those, several years ago, and the conclusion was exactly what Darrel said - no known cases of cell phones causing anything. Wonder why this is even becoming an issue again? Maybe because of the bogus video of cell phones popping popcorn.

BTW, there are no known cases of anyone dying from secondhand cigarette smoke, either. Not one dead body. Which stands up to the same reason someone pointed out above about microwaves. If secondhand smoke really killed people, humans would have been dropping like flies back in the '60s and '70's when 75% of people smoked and they smoked at work, at school and in the grocery store (and everywhere else).

[Dardedar]

...no known cases of cell phones causing anything. Wonder why this is even becoming an issue again?

DAR
Because with regard to long term studies it's still a "don't know" and microwaves are still spooky to people. You can see them, like ghosts.

BTW, there are no known cases of anyone dying from secondhand cigarette smoke, either. Not one dead body.

DAR
If we have a dead body, due to say lung cancer, how would we know if the cancer was caused by second hand smoke? We would have to do some tests. These tests have been done. Are we to believe the following consensus is some kind of conspiracy?

Currently, there is widespread scientific consensus that exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful.[84] The link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization, including:

* The World Health Organization[85]
* The U.S. National Institutes of Health[86]
* The Centers for Disease Control[87]
* The United States Surgeon General[88]
* The U.S. National Cancer Institute[89]
* The United States Environmental Protection Agency[90]
* The California Environmental Protection Agency[3]
* The American Heart Association,[91] American Lung Association,[92] and American Cancer Society[93]
* The American Medical Association[94]
* The American Academy of Pediatrics[95]
* The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council[96]
* The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health[97]
* The governments of 151 nations have signed and ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which states that "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."[98]

LINK

Are we to believe the courts are in on it too?:

"Citing the tobacco industry's production of biased research and efforts to undermine scientific findings, the 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report concluded that the industry had "attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus... industry documents indicate that the tobacco industry has engaged in widespread activities... that have gone beyond the bounds of accepted scientific practice."[143] The U.S. District Court, in U.S.A. v. Philip Morris et al., found that "...despite their internal acknowledgment of the hazards of secondhand smoke, Defendants have fraudulently denied that ETS causes disease." [84]" --ibid, bold mine.

BETSY
If secondhand smoke really killed people, humans would have been dropping like flies back in the '60s and '70's when 75% of people smoked and they smoked at work, at school and in the grocery store (and everywhere else).

DAR
People have always dropped like flies but the trick is to see what causes the dropping. The amount of increased risk is debated but the fact that there is increased risk is even accepted by the cigarette companies, see below. Here is some standard information on this:

"Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (that is, in the case of cigarettes, a mixture of smoke released from the smoldering end of the cigarette and smoke exhaled by the smoker) causes the same problems as direct smoking, including heart disease,[5] cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and lung ailments such as COPD, bronchitis and asthma.[6] Specifically, meta-analyses have shown lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer, and those exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased risk of 16–19%.[7]

#5 ^ Boyle P, Autier P, Bartelink H et al. (2003). "European Code Against Cancer and scientific justification: third version (2003).". Ann Oncol. 14 (7): 973. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdg305. PMID 12853336.

#6 ^ Sasco AJ, Secretan MB, Straif K. (2004). "Tobacco smoking and cancer: a brief review of recent epidemiological evidence.". Lung Cancer 45 (Suppl 2): S3–9. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.07.998. PMID 15552776.

#7 ^ Taylor R et al (2001). "Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis.". Aust N Z J Public Health 25 (3): 203–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00564.x. PMID 11494987.
--ibid

But if we can't trust all of those guys for some reason, lets ask the two biggest American tobacco companies:

Philip Morris USA (site accessed on November 19, 2006)

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them.
We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (site accessed on November 19, 2006)
RJRT believes that individuals should rely on the conclusions of the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and other public health and medical officials when making decisions regarding smoking.

--ibid

If these cigarette companies have your facts on their side, why don't they agree with you Betsy? It makes no sense. While I think there has been some fudging going on, especially with regard to the projections of how many killed per year from second hand smoke (60,000 etc.), I think the claim that second hand smoke causes illness in a lot of people is very well established.

That the cigarette companies dishonestly fought the science for decades with regard to illness caused by smoking is not controversial.* For some time they continued a similar struggle on this issue of secondary smoke. Today they have pretty much given up, and for the same reason. They were wrong.

D.
-------------------------------
* Note: Many of these immoral public misinformation hacks were later employed by the anti-global warming industry to perform a similar task.

[JamesH]

All,

Cell phones may have one other hidden health hazard that very few people are aware of and that is the use of cell phones on planes. The FAA and FCC are looking into the use of cell phones on commercial aircraft and if there is any interference problems to the navigational or electrical equipment on the airplane. My opinion............I don't care! Although if they approve cell phones to be used on commercial aircraft it could become very, very dangerous when I am sitting next to some clown and I hear again "Oh my god I can't believe she did.............." or "yes I sold that for $1gazillion........." Ok I impressed buddy!

The danger here is my arms and hands may have this involuntary reflex action, maybe caused by the microwave radiation, that will cause them to reach out and wrap around the cell phone users neck and stop their ability to breath. This is linked to many other health problems such as the lungs, heart and brain stop working. Oh wait the cell phone users brain may not have been working before. Oh well, it shouldn't be to difficult to figure out at the autopsy.

If you get the idea that I hope they never approve cell phone use on commercial aircraft, you have guessed correctly.

[Dardedar]

BTW, there are no known cases of anyone dying from secondhand cigarette smoke, either. Not one dead body.

DAR
You know, I think your claim may be right. But it is a very curious way to state it. I think this may be an example of a statement being technically true, while at the same time being very misleading and, in the sense we are interested in the question of "does second hand smoke cause people to die" completely irrelevant (not on purpose of course). I really hate those because guys like Limbaugh traffic in them all the time. You have to unpack them to see what is going on, and the vast majority of people don't do this.

Just because we can't point to a single example of a dead body in particular, doesn't mean thousands are not dying from second hand smoke.

Let me see if I can figure this out and explain it.

Lets assume for the sake of argument this standard medical reference I gave earlier is approximately true:

"Specifically, meta-analyses have shown lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer, and those exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased risk of 16–19%."

I think about 180,000 people in the US die from lung cancer every year. That's about one out of every 1,600 people and 90% of them are smokers (for men). So if we take a pool of say Fayetteville with it's 60,000 people, we might expect something like 38 Fayetteville residents to die a year from lung cancer. Lets pretend we have 10,000 non-smoking residents living with a smoker or receiving a good dose of second hand smoke from their workplace. If those 10,000 people have a 1 in 1,600 chance of getting lung cancer that equals about 6.25 dead people. If we increase their risk 25%, I think we get 8.3 dead people.

But Betsy's right. We don't know who they are. We don't have one specific dead body we can point to. But we do get, on average, two more dead people in Fayetteville, per year.

Let's extrapolate for the nation.

If 1 in 1,600 normally get lung cancer, that's the 180,000 I mentioned per year. Let's say 10% of the nation is exposed to second hand smoke. That's 30 million people. That's 18,750 dead from that group normally. Adding 25% to this number gives me 4,687 extra dead bodies from second hand smoke. But we can't really know which ones they are. They are a statistic.

Now let me check an official estimate (I swear I didn't look in advance).

"Smoke from other people's cigarettes ("secondhand" smoke) causes lung cancer as well. Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, more than 50 of which cause cancer in people or animals. Every year, about 3,000 nonsmokers die from lung cancer due to secondhand smoke." --CDC

References for this claim:

# U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Women and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General (2001).
# U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General (1986).
# National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 10 (1999): Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
# National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Passive Smoking. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and Assessing Health Effects (1986).*
# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. (1992).
# International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans and their Supplements: A complete list. Involuntary Smoking Volume 83 (2002). (PDF 45 Kb)*

Center for Disease Control

Actually, we covered most of this exactly two years ago here. The last post in that thread was July 22, 2006. Happy Anniversary! Lets do it again in 2010 eh? In that thread, just when we were going to get into the details and have the chance of learning something new, you said this and quit:

"I've read all about this subject, formed my opinion, explained it to you and explained why and how I came to my conclusions, and that's really all I have to say about it."

I went back and read the whole thread. Sav tried his darnest to get you to answer two questions. On NWApolitics you deleted the whole thread on second hand smoke when it wasn't looking good!

If you ever get to where you want to consider the other side on this issue, and read material that doesn't agree with what you already believe this is a good place to start. It's not written by John Stossel or some other Libertarian zealot and gives you an overview of the main stream science on the issue. It represents millions of dollars in scientific research and you could read it in less than two minutes.

The wiki article on Passive Smoking is also very good, quite long, and has 144 references. I read it top to bottom.

Whatever you do, do not look at this study which came out in June!

Smoking causes middle-age mental decline.

Forgive me!

D.

[Betsy]

I'm well aware that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer and all sorts of other ailments. I base my conclusion on the fact that the EPA study which is the one everyone relies on when they say secondhand smoke kills people (it started at 3600 people a year, then became 65,000 people a year, then became hundreds of thousands a year, as the years passed - how do they do that? Because the numbers are all made up. Extrapolations.) AND, the source of their information was highly questionable. In fact, it was questionable because that's all they did - ask questions. The EPA sent questionnaires out to a relatively small sample (a few hundred people). Some of them weren't filled out by the subjects themselves, but by a family member or friend or neighbor or just whoever. They got the questionnaires back, and magically figured out that 3600 people in the US die every year from secondhand smoke. When the smoke free campaigns started, that number wasn't impressive enough so they figured out a way to justify making it 65,000 people, and then it somehow grew to a much higher number, all without explanation.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization did a 20-year-long study of over 1000 married couples in California when one of them smoked and the other did not. And remember, this study was done back in the day when people actually had ashtrays inside their houses!! Their conclusion was that living with a smoker made no difference, your odds of getting cancer were the same as everyone else.

What about people who don't smoke but get lung cancer? Well, maybe they used to smoke. Maybe they worked in an asbestos laden office building or high pollution area. Maybe they're genetically prone to getting lung cancer. Some of these people are around cigarette smoke sometimes; some are never around it. I do not know, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon that says being around cigarette smoke can kill you.

Now, as opposed to the 70s when 75% of people smoked and they did it everywhere, only 25% of people in the US smoke (percentages are approximate within 5%) and only outdoors. So, this is becoming (like Hillary) (HEE!) a moot issue. But I thought it was a good comparison to people running around saying microwaves are killing us! (the sky is falling!)

[Dardedar]

WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 25 Jul 08, Washington, DC

1. CANCER: WHAT EINSTEIN KNEW ABOUT CELL PHONES.
By now everyone has heard the news frenzy over Ronald Herberman, Director
of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, advising faculty and
staff to limit cell phone use because there is no proof that it’s not a
cancer risk. Nonsense! All cancer agents act by disrupting chemical
bonds. In a classic 2001 op-ed LBL physicist Robert Cahn explained that
Einstein won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that cell phones
can’t cause cancer. The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for
which Einstein won the prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible
spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also
cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone
radiation is 10,000 times weaker.

LINK

[Dardedar]

DAR
Now I have some time to respond to your points Betsy.

I'm well aware that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer and all sorts of other ailments.

DAR
Good.

BETSY
I base my conclusion on the fact that the EPA study which is the one everyone relies on when they say secondhand smoke kills people...

DAR
That's not even close to true. You're off by at least 49. Read this post carefully. You will see reference to 50 studies supporting the claim that secondhand smoke kills people.

BETSY
(it started at 3600 people a year, then became 65,000 people a year, then became hundreds of thousands a year, as the years passed - how do they do that? Because the numbers are all made up. Extrapolations.)

DAR
That's some really deep baloney Betsy. Even if you just read the above material I have provided you will see that the evidence line goes way deeper, wider and longer than one "EPA study... everyone relies on." How can you have read what I have posted above and say that?

I have cited the CDC which says 3,000. I am aware of no study claiming "hundreds of thousands a year." That's just exaggeration. I said I don't agree with the 60,000 numbers. Did you read the above link I gave which would take you about two minutes to read. Are you willing to invest 2 minutes in reading something that does not agree with your beliefs?

Extrapolations are not "numbers all made up."

BETSY
AND, the source of their information was highly questionable.

DAR
All of the scientific organizations I have referenced above are "highly questionable?" Then we have a real problem indeed.

BETSY
In fact, it was questionable because that's all they did - ask questions.

DAR
Do you have any references supporting your claim:

"...there are no known cases of anyone dying from secondhand cigarette smoke, either. Not one dead body."

And did you read my criticism of stating it in this slippery way? If the rate of lung cancer (and thus death) is increased among a group people exposed to second hand smoke, the fact that we can't know exactly which ones died from the passive smoke doesn't mean that a great many didn't die. And this number is not that difficult to calculated. And we have 50 studies going back decades, not one EPA study.

What about people who don't smoke but get lung cancer?

DAR
About one out of five cancer patients fall in this category. There are lots of other causes, natural background radiation (radon gas in your house), radioactive materials from coal plant fallout, genetic, cancer spreading from other parts of the body (not sure if that counts as lung cancer), other crap in the air. Second hand smoke puts a lot of carcinogenic crap in the air. I played in bars for 11 years. I know about smoky air.

I do not know, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon that says being around cigarette smoke can kill you.

DAR
Betsy, if the science supporting the conclusion that second hand smoke is a crock, based on politics and lies, then this is something that desperately needs to be debunked. Modern science has a real problem. I have presented rather extensive reference above (and more below) supporting the claim that people are dying from second hand smoke. Please provide me what you have supporting your claim. If you can make a good case you will convince me and I will go after this. We can do a big presentation on it.

Good science please. Not so much with the John Stossell rants, or right-wing editorial rants from conservative extremists who don't reference their claims or show they even have the background to understand how to interpret a scientific study.

I've shown you what I've got. What do you have? Pass it along.

D.
---------------------------
More.

How dangerous is passive smoking?

Excerpts...

"More than 50 studies on the health impacts of passive smoking have been carried out over the past 25 years, including a number of landmark studies providing significant evidence of passive smoking risks. Such work includes research by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health and the ACS.

Notable research includes a study published in the BMJ in 1997, conducted by Hackshaw and colleagues, which analysed 37 passive smoking studies and found a 24 per cent increase in lung cancer among people living with smokers. In fact, said the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), "Tobacco specific carcinogens found in the blood of non-smokers provided clear evidence of the effect of passive smoking."

Additionally, far more reliable data was obtained in the ACS Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) study, which was about 10 times larger than Dr. Enstrom's work. They enrolled patients in the 1980s, when fewer exposures to tobacco smoke outside the home existed, and therefore far less "background noise", and follow-up has been much better (over 99 per cent). The results unquestionably show an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease."

...
Dr. Harmon J. Eyre, national chief medical officer at ACS, said it's important to keep the study in perspective, and remember the wealth of information already available. "CPS-II [the positive study] is one of more than 50 studies now published that have shown non-smokers married to smokers have an increased risk of lung cancer," he said.

What's more, unlike the Enstrom work, "These studies have been scrutinised by multiple independent consensus committees, all of which certify their credibility. Most recently, the IARC reviewed the evidence and concluded secondhand or environmental tobacco smoke is carcinogenic to humans," he added.

As Dr. Vivienne Nathanson stressed, "There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks. In children, passive smoking increases the risk of pneumonia, bronchitis, and reduces lung growth, as well as both causing and worsening asthma."

With this in mind, the advice from all organisations remains the same - that regular exposure to passive smoke is harmful and should be avoided if possible. As well as causing lung cancer, it can trigger miscarriages and premature births, and is very harmful for babies and children, with links to cot death, asthma and other respiratory problems."

LINK Bold mine.

[Doug]

I'm well aware that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer and all sorts of other ailments. I base my conclusion on the fact that the EPA study which is the one everyone relies on when they say secondhand smoke kills people (it started at 3600 people a year, then became 65,000 people a year, then became hundreds of thousands a year, as the years passed - how do they do that? Because the numbers are all made up. Extrapolations.) AND, the source of their information was highly questionable.

DOUG
I remember when Penn & Teller did a Bullshit show on this topic, and they basically agreed with Betsy on this. They argued that there was one very questionable study that was the basis for all subsequent claims about secondhand smoke dangers. Later, I found that there were numerous other studies, as mentioned in this thread, going back a quarter century. (And just a couple of weeks after that Bullshit show aired, a major study on secondhand smoke was published showing that secondhand smoke is indeed dangerous.)

After that show and the one on PETA, I lost my enthusiasm for Penn & Teller's show.

[Dardedar]

After that show and the one on PETA, I lost my enthusiasm for Penn & Teller's show.

DAR
I agree. As I posted two years ago regarding this:

"I went along with this for a while after watching the Penn & Teller "Bullshit" show on second hand smoke. They made some good points about a bogus study that was being passed around. I am very skeptical of extrapolated estimates of tens of thousands of deaths. But I am also skeptical of some of the claims by libertarian Penn. I was at the skeptic conference in Vegas only six months ago when Penn was taken to task on the accuracy of some of the stuff they do on the Bullshit show. He said, roughly "yeah, if you want to bust me on the facts of the show, consider me busted". He went on to say it is entertainment. It's more than that, and they do a good job a lot of the time. But you have to check them, especially when it is something that coincides with his fervent libertarianism."

I like Stossel and Penn & Tellor, but when they cover things that conflict with their libertarian/Objectivist beliefs, they end up out in left field. It's like a religion and it makes them not be able to think straight.

There have been other shows where they have dropped the ball. Their show on recycling was ridiculous. It just made fun of people trying to follow increasingly strict recycling rules they made up.

I like Libertarians generally and agree with them on a lot of things, but they get a little zealous and dogmatic on too many things and this makes them get their facts wrong. I tried to subscribe to "Reason" magazine for a while but there was just too much constant spin.

D.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I was nosing around the KAUF website looking for something else and found this news article from a couple days ago:

***
Secondhand smoke raises spouse's stroke risk: study

(2008-07-29)

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nonsmokers married to smokers have a greatly increased chance of having strokes, according to a U.S. study published on Tuesday showing yet another hazard from secondhand smoke.

Being married to a smoker raised the stroke risk by 42 percent in people who have never smoked compared to those married to someone who never smoked, the researchers said.

This jumped to 72 percent for former smokers married to a current smoker, according to the study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Former smokers who were married to smokers had a stroke risk similar to people who themselves were smokers.

"Quitting smoking helps your own health and also the health of the people living with you," Maria Glymour of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and Columbia University in New York, who led the study, said in a telephone interview.

The study involved 16,225 people aged 50 and up who had never had a stroke. They were followed for an average of nine years.

Glymour said there is accumulating evidence about the number of health problems linked to secondhand smoke.

Previous research had suggested that secondhand smoke increases the risk of stroke, but Glymour said stroke risk has been studied more extensively in smokers than in people exposed to secondhand smoke.

People who breathe in secondhand smoke also have a higher risk of lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, respiratory tract infections and heart disease, among other conditions.

A 2006 U.S. surgeon general's report said secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or cancer-causing. These include formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.

For this study, smoking involved cigarettes and not pipes or cigars. It looked at health consequences for the spouses of smokers, but not at the long-term stroke risk in children of smokers due to secondhand smoke.

"We know that there are a lot of undesirable health consequences for kids, especially asthma and breathing problems that are exacerbated by secondhand smoke," Glymour said.

Link

DAR
Regarding the meat of this study, which is:

"Being married to a smoker raised the stroke risk by 42 percent in people who have never smoked..."

If you take the tens of millions of people who live with smokers, and raise their risk of stroke by 42%, you don't have to be good at math to see that this is going to kill and injure a lot of people. Definitely thousands.

Stats:

Stroke is the third leading cause of death, behind heart disease and cancer.

Each year, about 700,000 people suffer a stroke. About 500,000 of these are first attacks, and 200,000 are recurrent attacks.

Stroke killed 275,000 people in 2002 and accounted for about 1 of 16 deaths in the United States. Link

DAR
But you won't know which ones were killed by the second hand smoke. You won't "have one dead" body to point to.

[tmiller51]

Doing web searches on this topic returns a lot of hits about how heart attack rates have decreased in cities that have implemented smoking bans. This one examined specifically the heart attack rates for non-smokers:

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- People with no risk factors for heart disease can still experience heart attacks. An Indiana University study found that after a countywide smoking ban was implemented, hospital admissions for such heart attacks dropped 70 percent for non-smokers -- but not for smokers.

Full article here

Tim

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

If the Indiana study is replicated, that probably indicates that "2nd-hand smoke" is the culprit as far as heart attacks are concerned.

[Dardedar]

DAR
I just thought of something. Betsy's comment, which I originally had trouble with:

"...there are no known cases of anyone dying from secondhand cigarette smoke, either. Not one dead body."

Could also apply to smokers. When someone gets lung cancer and is a smoker, we don't know that it was caused by the smoking. About 1/5 of lung cancer recipients are non-smokers. But we do know smokers are much more likely to get it than non smokers. Four out of five lung cancer patients are smokers. But we don't know which ones got it from the smoking.

We have to extrapolate.

So Betsy's comment could also be "technically true" in one unimportant sense (but just as literally false in the sense we care about) if we adapt the comment to refer to smokers:

"...there are no known cases of anyone dying from cigarette smoke, either. Not one dead body."

I am trying to make the point that the statement is technically true, but at the same time profoundly misleading. Spun to the max. Just because we can't identify which exact person was killed by smoking (with a few possible extreme exceptions) doesn't mean:

a) there are no known cases of anyone dying
b) there is not one dead body

There are lots of both. And we can be quite sure of that apart from being able to point to specific dead bodies.

D.