I'm researching all of the studies done about the dangers of second hand smoke, and I've read on your site of the many studies that say that second hand smoke isn't really that dangerous.  But then I came across this news item about a World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer study that seems pretty comprehensive and concludes that second-hand smoke does have plenty of harmful effects!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2053840.stm

Do you have any kind of rebuttal to this study? Anything I can say to prove that second hand smoke isn't that dangerous to others? Or are they right, in fact?

Thank you!
Derrick

Thank you for writing, as you give us yet another opportunity to clarify a fundamental point. You, and other readers, seem to think that we show only "studies that say that second hand smoke isn't really that dangerous". That is not so. With the exception of a few studies that are unavailable to the public we refer to/report ALL the studies on second hand smoke. There really aren't that many. Many of the secondhand smoke studies are recycled to support specific political agendas.

The WHO IARC study you refer to is one of those. The press releases were sent to the media months before the study was actually released. In fact, the study is still unavailable to the public. The specific reason for which it was released is to counter a 15-year study issued by the IARC in 1998. That study examined a large population base in Europe directly. It's conclusion that secondhand smoke is not a hazard dismayed the WHO so the organization attempted to bury it. The latest IARC study "buries" the previous study while simultaneously transforming the thoroughly debunked methodology used by the EPA in its secondhand smoke report into a new incarnation that scientists aren't even allowed to see!

What is the problem, then? Simple NONE of the studies shows a risk elevation that is sufficient to raise concern; "public health" has just DECIDED to get concerned for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

At worse, SOME studies get to 40-50% risk increment; others show no risk increment at all.  Some even show a health benefit for those who are exposed to secondhand smoke.  The average is about 8-12% risk elevation. Now, we know for a fact that risk elevations smaller than 200% (some even say 300%) DO NOT PROVE that the risk even exists, due to the immense amount of variables, errors, biases, etc. present in studies that ask often the grandchildren of a long-dead person whether mom/dad was exposed to passive smoke, for how long, etc. These types of studies with such small risk increases are really prove nothing at all.

OK. You do not believe us. Who are we to say something like that, after all? Do you believe more authoritative sources, maybe? How about the National Cancer Institute? "In epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 [that is, 100% increment of risk] are considered small and usually very difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." (NCI, "Abortion and Possible Risks for Breast Cancer; Analysis and Inconsistencies", October 26, 1994).

Why the passive smoke hysteria, then? The answer is equally simple "public health" attacked small relative risk in the case of abortion causing breast cancer because liberal abortion rules are sacred among the "public health" establishment. Smaller relative risks aren't attacked in the context of second hand smoke -- and indeed, are touted -- because smoking is politically incorrect, and because the pharmaceutical giants foot the bills of antismoking activists and their junk science, to obtain an ever bigger share of public money for campaigns that induce "addicts" to quit smoking with smoking cessation "therapies", conveniently made available by Big Pharma at dear price. Get it?

The latest WHO/IARC "study"is just a recycled compendium (meta-analysis) of the same type of pre-existing junk science for passive smoke. And even after immense manipulations and massages to the databases, picking only the most significant (for their political purposes) data, what is the risk elevation? THIRTY PERCENT, far smaller than the 200% required to establish that a risk even exists!

To close (and this is very important, Derrick), don't be victim of the Inquisition-style reversed burden of proof. You don't have "to prove that second hand smoke isn't dangerous to others". YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE -- that is the first law of real science, perverted by the pandemic of the antismoking corruption we are fighting. IT IS THOSE WHO MAKE THE CLAIM WHO HAVE TO PROVE A POSITIVE, that is, that facts corroborate the claim -- read that second hand smoke hurts people. So far, an insignificant 30% risk elevation is ALL they could muster - and the methodology to get at that puny 30% is already quite manipulated, and very questionable. All the rest is just self-serving propaganda and state-promoted rhetoric.

We part with you with a recommendation buy Steven Milloy's Junk Science Judo - Self-Defence Against Health Scarers & Scams. It is all explained there, for smoking and for hundreds of other scares -- including the scam of the Smoking (active and passive) Attributable Fraction, used to calculate the non-existing "deaths" for passive smoke, and the questionable (and otherwise un-quantifiable) number of deaths for primary smoke. After reading that book, you'll know how junk science really works - and you can even create your own epidemic! Just do not forget to wear a white coat, first. Conning people on their health is the fastest-growing industry in the world. A significant job opportunity to consider today; you can make a lot of money fast -- if you can manage to silence your conscience.

Regards,