Smoke and nonsense
Saturday, August 21, 2010 On Thursday BBC News asked me to comment on the results of new research from the United States. According to "physician-scientists" in New York, "Cigarette smoke causes harmful changes in the lungs even at the lowest levels".
The press release issued by New York- Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center continued:
Casual smokers may think that smoking a few cigarettes a week is "no big deal." But according to new research from physician-scientists at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, having an infrequent smoke, or being exposed to secondhand smoke, may be doing more harm than people may think. The findings may further support public smoking bans, say the authors.
According to a new study published today in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, being exposed to even low-levels of cigarette smoke may put people at risk for future lung disease, such as lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
To make their findings, Dr Ronald Crystal, senior author of the study, and his collaborators tested 121 people from three different categories: "nonsmokers," "active smokers" and "low exposure smokers."
Dr Crystal says that this is further evidence supporting the banning of smoking in public places, where non-smokers, and employees of businesses that allow smoking, are put at risk for future lung disease.
In the event, the BBC didn't run the story. Google it, however, and you'll find it quite easily elsewhere. Science Daily, for example, has it HERE.
For the record, my response was as follows:
"This research is based on a very small sample, 121 people, and the report is peppered with phrases suggesting that secondhand smoke "may be doing more harm" and "may put more people at risk".
"The results are clearly inconclusive and in no way justify the sort of comprehensive smoking bans the authors appear to support.
"Unless you are severely asthmatic, it is nonsense to say that no level of exposure to secondhand smoke is safe. You might as well say that there is is no safe level of exposure to any form of pollutant when we all know that in most cases the dose is the poison.
"Modern air filtration systems can remove over 90 per cent of the gasses and particles generated by tobacco smoke. That's how we should deal with the issue of tobacco smoke, not banning smoking in all public places."
Reader Comments (21)
"according to new research ........................"
One of those once-innocent-sounding little phrases/expressions that I scarcely ever noticed.
Until quite recently.
Together with Green, Enviromental, Carbon, Terrorism, and Global.
So why do I now find myself increasingly going into full-on, white-knuckled Attack Mode whenever I read or hear them these days ?
Perhaps it's just my Bullshit-Detection mechanism over-heating again (probably needs a new EU-Approved thermostat).
I'm sure some bearded TV psychologist has the answer.
Anyway, I'm off to buy my Lottery tickets.
I MAY be a multi-millionaire by Sunday.......................................
I do not think this can be taken seriously. The level of second hand smoke (SHS) exposure is minimal in non smokers, ranging from 0.009 of a cigarette per hour in a bar to 0.001 cig/hour at a bus stop. The dose is too low bring about permanent damage to DNA and from what I can see of the paper the p21 gene was not studied to see if it was active. The function of the p21 gene is to repair DNA damage. It also from what I can see does not state which genes are damaged.
On lung cancer to prove someone contracted it from SHS you would have to confirm that the p53 gene mutated by a guanine to thymine transversion and as of yet not one case has ever been given as an example.
Non smokers die of lung cancer because the EGFR or GPC5 genes mutate instead and is an entirley different aetiology (causation) from smoking. Also non smokers tend to die adenocarcinoma form of lung cancer. What causes the EGFR and/or GPC5 genes to mutate is unknown but the sexually transmitted HPV types 16 and 18 have been suggested, but the obsession with SHS hinders proper research.
Oh for Gods sake !! More crap!! full stop.
According to reeeesearch we have twenty billion germs living on us and in us. Take it they counted them. Sorry i'm in sarcy mood. So annoyed.
Dr Crystal and....
Co-authors of the study Yael Strulovici-Barel, Dr. Michael O'Mahony, Dr. Cynthia Gordon, Dr. Charleen Hollmann, Dr. Ann Tilley, Jacqueline Salit, Dr. Ben-Gary Harvey, all from NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell; Dr. Jason Mezey from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York and Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City; and Dr. Larsson Omberg from Cornell University.
QUACK, QUACK, QUAK, QUACK !
Stop being such an apologist and start fighting back.
Good respone Simon.
But I was suprised at your saying "...we all know that in most cases the dose is the poison.".
As far as I am aware, 'The Dose is the Poison' applies to every substance in the universe, not just most of them.
Just more of the same
The dose is the poison doesn’t make sense…because the term is…the dose makes the poison, which means something entirely different. This phrase refers to substances at low levels are safe but can become toxic at higher levels.
Why do you feel it’s necessary to comment whenever a new study pops up with this kind of bilge…you’re just playing knockdown. Why not just say this is more unsubstantiated rubbish from the same people.
Tell them you can’t be bothered to comment until they can furnish intrinsic scientific and medical evidence to back up their so called studies - only then would it be worthy of comment.
Dave A -
An illuminating response once again, and I really wish I was of a more scientific cast of mind.
But - as ever - we have to play the cards we are dealt.
Or do we ?
I've just stumbled upon BRUCE LIPTON'S amazing research into DNA and genetics in general, and in particular his notion, derived from his research into stem-cell responses, that the DNA of any organism tends to adapt readily to its environment - an argument which may (or may not) be relevant to the whole discussion of SHS.
(Although I'm increasingly convinced that the SHS issue has rather more to do with corrupted Theology than enlightened Science).
In addition, he seems to be interestingly sceptical of an emerging orthodoxy that one can only describe as Genetic Fatalism.
That said, I must confess a certain weakness for Intelligent Heresy.
Are you familiar with his work ?
Hi Martin,
To be honest no. I should of also added that the range of active smoking that does not affect your mortality, heart disease, lung cancer etc is in the range of 0.9 to 6.3 a day. So it is quite wrong to infer that such small doses will affect your health.
Getting very bored with smoking reviews ,any chance of some in depth
reports on traffic fumes for a change
Check this one out
One Yellow Cab (Base 5th Avenue New York)
In one day shift = 10560 smokers
Another little snippet about New York (Could be wrong)
Less than 1% visited bars on a regular basis( pre ban)
Only 6.9% of New Yorlers smoked
Bloombergs successful ban. ????????????????????????
Yankee Bullshit Spotter
All this study shows is that peer review is broken, Drawing biased conclusions unsuported by the data is not science, it is advocacy.
Dave A -
Your remark about the 'range' is interesting.
Back in the Seventies (before your time, I know), it was ROUTINELY said by doctors that 5 fags per day was essentially a 'safe' level - and it was only above that that you began to take chances with your health.
Needless to say, that was also an era in which wise GPs suggested you 'cut down' on your daily consumption if it seemed to be having an adverse affect.
Somewhere along the line, however, someone must have decided upon a policy of Zero Tolerance.
Hence the bone-headed intransigence of the medical profession today.
Yet another consequence of our malignant Target Culture,
I suspect...........................
I f cigarette smoke where as toxic as these quacks suggest I suspect all of us on this page would now already be dead .
Utter junk science.
At the instiute of Intensive Medical Reserch (IIMR) at Bentfield, Todmorden. After a multi million pound funding from the taxpayer, P J discovered that our eminent professors, scientists and doctors have no clue to the answer to Cancer. P J decided that when they do he might sit up and take notice.
Hadn't you realised Specky that we are all dead and communicating from 'The Other Side' - perhaps that is why no-one hears us?
Sorry, like Peter James, am in a really sarcy mood!
"peer review.................."
That's to say: doing some 'research' that supports your prejudice (and ignoring the bits that contradict it) , putting up a paper, then phoning around those among your mates and colleagues at Uni who agree with you, and getting them to append their monikers.
And if you're REALLY lucky, you get to read it out to a specially-invited audience at the Royal Society AND get a call from some 24 year-old chick at the 'Guardian'.
Job done !
And your 'work' is now Officially Infallible..................................
(And only a Crank or a Fool or Christopher Booker would dare challenge it)
And if you're REALLY, REALLY, REALLY lucky, you'll get a committee of brainless backbenchers - chaired by Lord Lucre - to grant THEIR seal of approval.
And THAT is how you turn Dross into Pure Gold !!
(Those Alchemists didn't have a bloody clue)
"P J discovered that our eminent professors, scientists and doctors have no clue to the answer to Cancer. ...................................."
Martin's Favourite Fantasy:
In the not-too-distant future, some maddeningly brilliant Molecular Biologist with the combined brain-power of Newton, Einstein and Stephen Fry, discovered that the Cure for Cancer lay in:
The Tobacco Plant !
(Modified so as to be especially efficacious when smoked)
I'd pay a million quid to see the Drug Companies and the Medical Fascists and the Head-Bangers at ASH finesse their way out of that one.
"Harmful changes in the lungs even at the lowest level"
Right. Precisely how harmful and at what level exactly? Who decided that there were changes and that they were harmful and that there was a level?
We see these things again and again, but we never see any precise facts. What I would like to know is precisely what the effect of the 'harmful changes in the lungs' AT THE LOWEST LEVEL is expected to be. Are we talking about an early death at the age 49 as opposed to 50? Or 99 as opposed to 100? Or 499 as opposed to 500? And what about the effect at the highest level? What exactly is the HIGHEST level?
The statement may well be true, but it may also be true that without some 'harmful' stuff in the air, one's immune system may not be as effective as it should be. Thus, it is quite possible that a variety of particulates in the air is beneficial, especially for the very young.
Going down to London from Manchester on the M6 on Friday last, we immediately hit a congestion (an accident, or something) at the start.Thousands of vehicles were inching along the motorway spewing out fumes. Later, we hit two further congestions. Lots more fumes. Is it possible that some of the people stuck in the traffic might die at the age of 81 rather than 82 because of these fumes? Well, yes it is, but who knows? Any studies concerning this matter could easily produce such findings. But is it not also possible that SOME people could live longer because the fumes? This may or may not be true. But what we can be sure of is that any such finding would be suppressed.
The correct response to these pseudo-scientific studies is: "I cannot possibly comment until the detailed facts have been published. We do not accept statements of this nature prima facie. We need the facts. When our 'experts' have had a chance to study the facts, then we will issue a press release. However, we must make it clear, that it is unacceptable that organisations can make spurious and unsubstantiated claims without publishing the facts".
In other words, do not accept their 'playing field'.
"I cannot possibly comment until the detailed facts have been published."
('Facts' - not dubious possibilities)
Yes, Junican, that IS the correct response.
But tell me: when was the last time you heard ANY of the Talking Heads from ANY of the organisations or ANY of the political parties make that perfectly sensible observation on ANY topic at all ?
Especially when there's a nice bit of Audience Approval to be had, just a sound-bite away................................................
I totally agree Junican and this is why I tend to believe the exact opposite these days of everything these so called experts say! There is no logic or undeniable facts about the dross they spew.
I have often wondered if the food we eat these days is seriously contaminated due to the fact that much of the cereal crops as well as the sheep and cattle are in fields alongside busy motorways and A roads. I am not a scientist, but logic tells me that the ground in these field must be contaminated by the fumes, so apart from contaminated air these animals are breathing, the grass they are eating must also be contaminated.
Whether this contamination is good for some and bad for others I could not possibly say, but logically my thoughts are that some people would come to no harm from this whilst others may well succumb to fatal illnesses, which could partially be to do with this contamination.
Who knows? To my logical way of thinking this is just as likely, if not more so, than the smoking issue!