I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

[Segnosaur]

But do you think there is a possibility that it could be dangerous?

Sure, it could. So can driving a car.

But driving a car provides certain benefits, such as transportation to work. Breathing in second hand smoke provides no such benefit.

I don't think you took the question seriously though so I will ask it again....

Do you think there is any possibility that the chemicals in second hand smoke might cause health problems or death?

Nope, but it's upon the anti-smokers to give some evidence that secondhand smoke is dangerous. With as many smokers as there are in the world, there should be some evidence of it being dangerous, if it truly were.

Not if the only thing you're looking for is statistics, when the overall risk is statistically insignificant but chemically possible.

Yes, and some mediums might talk to the dead at random times. I don't have any way to test that.

But there is no scientific basis for assuming people can talk to the dead. There is, however, evidence that chemicals in cigarettes can harm people.

One thing I'm wondering though... If some studies showed a risk, and some showed no risk, then if second hand smoke were truely safe, then shouldn't there be at least some studies that show second hand smoke to be beneficial?

That makes absolutely no sense. Just because a substance isn't shown to be beneficial doesn't mean that it is dangerous. It is more likely in the middle ground, the inert area.

You're not understanding me...

Lets say 5 studies were done, 2 which showed second hand smoke was a hazard, 3 which showed no effect. People combine the 2 studies but ignore the ones showing no effect. (I think that was the criticism leveled against the EPA study.)

Now, if there really were no effect to second hand smoke, and the 2 showing a problem were just a statistical abberation, you'd also expect at least a few studies to show a 'negative' coorealation; in other words, people exposed to second hand smoke having fewer problems than those not exposed.

On one hand, you say that no risk is acceptable.

False, my statement is more one that asserts that no risk has been shown.

Your exact statement was: I think zero and 6 billion is an acceptible risk. I assumed that you meant that no risk is acceptable, but I guess I was wrong.

If that's the case, then answer the question... What do you consider is an acceptable risk? 1 death in 1,000? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1 million?

Or are you going to avoid the question?

(and please, none of this "there is no risk" B.S.... I asked a simple question... please give me a simple answer.)

If your proof that second hand smoke is non-dangerous is based on statistics only, then you have to determine the statistical threshold (lets say 1%, just to pick a number), and say "I think a risk to 1% of the population is acceptable".

False, if the statistics show insignificant results, that means we really don't know what that statistical threshold is. They are unreliable as a source of information at that point. The 1 in 1000 or 10000 in the few studies could simply be an anomoly or an error. It is up to scientists to determine what is a significant result, not you or I.

Actually the 'threshold' is likely determined by statistics only (not by scientists saying "I think this number is significant", and that threshold depends only on the sample size. The more samples taken, the smaller the margin of error.

It is possible for there to be an effect, but the sample size is not large enough to make a conclusion.

But not on service animals. I guess it's ok to endanger people if you have a seeing eye dog. Really, the cat dander example was a poor one. I'll change my anology to cologne. Some people are allergic to cologne, should there be legislation against the wearing of cologne because of this?

Although there is a problem with alergies to cologne (and alergies to food, etc.), I do think there is a difference, both in the amount of chemicals released (I'm assuming more toxins are given off in smoking a cigarette than exist in your average cologne application), variety (There may be 30% of people who would want to smoke; however, I doubt the same number would be wearing the same cologne) and convenience (its easier to identify smokers than cologne wearers)

I believe that there are cases where a line can and should be drawn, based on risks, rewards and convience. I don't necessarily think that all situations can be reduced to an 'all or nothing' scenario (i.e. Allow all stinky stuff, including colognes and smoking or don't allow any, no middle ground.)

If you are arguing about freedom to run an establishment any way you choose, then why aren't you arguing that restaurants should be able to block off fire exits if they want, as long as they put up a sign saying "our fire exit is blocked off" if they want?

I think that would be completely appropriate for an owner to do.

Or the right to ignore health codes because they don't want government interferience? As long as they post the appropriate warning signs everything's ok, right?

Yes I would. If a restaurant owner puts up a sign that says "we serve dog poop and eating it will cause sickness", then I feel that dog poop can be on the menu and served.

That's the first time you've admitted to having a more, well, libertarian position on businesses. I can at least respect that position, even if I disagree with it. (The last time you mentioned it, you didn't indicate that you thought all regulations should be dispanded.) Now, are you going to start demanding the government get rid of all fire and health regulations? What about allowing restaurants to discriminate against minorities? Or is smoking the only think that you're willing to stand up for?

And, do you think the rest of the population will agree with you, with the idea that all businesses should be deregulated?

And are you channeling the spirit of Shanek?

But with second hand smoke, there's some reason to be suspicious, since many of the same chemicals which do cause death in smokers do appear in second hand smoke.

Only to those that don't understand that it's dosage that really matters.

Are you a biochemist? Do you have some deep understanding of the effect of low dosages of second hand smoke chemicals on the human body? Do you know how every chemical in the body gets metabolised?

If you do, please enlighten me.

How does the body prevent increases in carbon monoxide in the blood? How does the body keep any nicotine that might be taken in in second hand smoke from actually interacting with any actual tissues? What about the actual smoke particles, does the body manage to filter them out before they actually get into the lungs?

I think that if it's statistically insignificant, then chances are that it's not real.

You may be right. There may not be a risk at all. Every individual on the planet may be able to instantatly metabolise second hand smoke instantly with no possible risk. But I also recognize that the chemicals in cigarette smoke are, well, rather nasty.

Perhaps in 10 or 20 years, we'll have a better idea of how various chemicals interact in the body.

Its a question of risk versus rewards. The risks of being exposed to second hand smoke may or may not be zero, but if they're not zero, you could die. On the other hand, there is no real 'reward' for the person being exposed.

 

[Segnosaur]

Smoking laws had an effect on businesses in CA. Unfortunately I have never been able to locate a 'formal' study (except for one half-assed study that was heavily biased pro-smoking which doesn't count), but for over 2 years after the passage, there were numerous articles in the LA Times as well as the local rag about bars going out of business, and blaming the smoking laws. Valid? I don't know, but it appeared to be to me. Resturants and bars are a tough business anyway, and many fail regardless. Still, I recall coverage of more than a few old businesses shutting down due to loss of revenue.

I've seen studies on both sides of the issue, some that say that business is seriously hurt, other which say that after an initial decrease, eventually business returns to the level close to (and in some cases exceeding) the initial level. (However, I do realize that reports on both sides of the issue are likely to be biased.)

However, one thing that I've noticed here in Ottawa, where they recently implemented a ban... it seems like in pretty much every case where a restaurant or bar closed after the smoking law was introduced, another restaurant opened up at the same location.

(The city could have helped ease the problems, perhaps by introducing the ban in the summer months when smokers can go outside rather than the winter; that would at least give time for the smokers and restaurant owners to adjust.)

Restaurants in Ottawa (which bans smoking) are in direct competition with restaurants in Hull (which is adjacent to Ottawa and still allows smoking). I've been in restaurants in both cities, and I don't notice any fewer people in the Ottawa restaurants.

Yah, not exactly a scientific study though.

Edited to add: Found some statistics regarding the Ottawa situation: See: http://www.cctc.ca/NCTH_new.nsf/webFiles/BC59533DB37D110485256DBF005F17A1/$File/KPMG Report.pdf

- Increase in employment in the restaurant industry since the anti-smoking bylaw was enacted: 6.5%
- Increase in number of restaurants: 3.6%

More restaurants, more people working in them.

(Note: there are a couple of problems with the study... it does overstate health risks involved with second hand smoke, and the study was taken around the time of 9/11 and the tech meltdown. Still, it does go to show that the effects on business are not really that bad.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you think there is any possibility that the chemicals in second hand smoke might cause health problems or death?

Possible, yes. Probable, no. Until there is actual evidence that it does cause harm or death, then it should not be legislated against.


Not if the only thing you're looking for is statistics, when the overall risk is statistically insignificant but chemically possible.

That's your opinion. I don't share that view because rather than go with what's chemically possible, I'd rather legislate on what's actually evident.


But there is no scientific basis for assuming people can talk to the dead. There is, however, evidence that chemicals in cigarettes can harm people.

Not from secondhand smoke. Dosage makes a poison toxic.


Now, if there really were no effect to second hand smoke, and the 2 showing a problem were just a statistical abberation, you'd also expect at least a few studies to show a 'negative' coorealation; in other words, people exposed to second hand smoke having fewer problems than those not exposed.

False, just because you think that an abberation would cause positive effects to show up doesn't make it so. The reality is that analysis of the studies show that one cannot make any conclusions on the effect of secondhand smoke other than "we don't know". I'd rather not legislate based on that ignorance.

The EPA had an agenda, that is they had a conclusion and they wanted to "prove" that secondhand smoke is harmful. They stacked the deck to make it seem that it was. Maybe there were some "positive" erroneous effects, those positives would've been seen as errors and filtered out automatically. Do you know if there were any error positive effects? I certainly don't. All I know is that the EPA used junk-science. We shouldn't be legislating based on junk-science.

If that's the case, then answer the question... What do you consider is an acceptable risk? 1 death in 1,000? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1 million?
Or are you going to avoid the question?

I don't know. It's irrelevant.


It is possible for there to be an effect, but the sample size is not large enough to make a conclusion.

No conclusion. Good, then why legislate based on that ignorance?


Although there is a problem with alergies to cologne (and alergies to food, etc.), I do think there is a difference, both in the amount of chemicals released (I'm assuming more toxins are given off in smoking a cigarette than exist in your average cologne application), variety (There may be 30% of people who would want to smoke; however, I doubt the same number would be wearing the same cologne) and convenience (its easier to identify smokers than cologne wearers)

So then where do you draw the line? How many people have to die from secondhand cologne before you think it should be legislated against?


I believe that there are cases where a line can and should be drawn, based on risks, rewards and convience. I don't necessarily think that all situations can be reduced to an 'all or nothing' scenario (i.e. Allow all stinky stuff, including colognes and smoking or don't allow any, no middle ground.)

I agree there should be a line. However, if there are no known cases of death involved with secondhand smoking.. what are you drawing the line based on?!


Now, are you going to start demanding the government get rid of all fire and health regulations?

No. I think such things should be regulated, however if a person or business wants to "opt out", they should have to post signs and warnings.

What about allowing restaurants to discriminate against minorities?

Yes, they should have to hang a sign too. Racism isn't very good for business.

Or is smoking the only think that you're willing to stand up for?

LOL. I stand up for many individual rights and business rights.

And, do you think the rest of the population will agree with you, with the idea that all businesses should be deregulated?

Probably not, but the majority of people are stupid.

Are you a biochemist? Do you have some deep understanding of the effect of low dosages of second hand smoke chemicals on the human body? Do you know how every chemical in the body gets metabolised?

Nope. Do you? Better yet, do you have evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful?

If you do, please enlighten me.


How does the body prevent increases in carbon monoxide in the blood? How does the body keep any nicotine that might be taken in in second hand smoke from actually interacting with any actual tissues? What about the actual smoke particles, does the body manage to filter them out before they actually get into the lungs?


All good questions that I think scientists and doctors are actually trying to understand. You appeal to ignorance very, very often. I'm not saying that I know secondhand smoke is not dangerous, I'm saying that there isn't sufficient grounds to say that it is dangerous. We shouldn't be legislating based on ignorance.


Its a question of risk versus rewards. The risks of being exposed to second hand smoke may or may not be zero, but if they're not zero, you could die. On the other hand, there is no real 'reward' for the person being exposed.

So everything a person does should be rewarding to those around them? If they aren't rewarding to others, then there should be no risk to the other people?!

When I take a jog, I run the risk of maybe tripping into a person and causing them to fall into the street and get killed. There is no reward to the other person for my jogging, it might even annoy the other person to see me jogging, but since there is a risk to others, jogging should be illegal, right?

 

[Segnosaur]

But there is no scientific basis for assuming people can talk to the dead. There is, however, evidence that chemicals in cigarettes can harm people.

Not from secondhand smoke. Dosage makes a poison toxic.

Yes, dosage is important. But we don't know what dosage of second hand smoke is safe. Is it a gradual curve which approaches but never quite reaches zero? Or does it hit a wall where the dosage drops to zero at some point?

Now, if there really were no effect to second hand smoke, and the 2 showing a problem were just a statistical abberation, you'd also expect at least a few studies to show a 'negative' coorealation; in other words, people exposed to second hand smoke having fewer problems than those not exposed.

False, just because you think that an abberation would cause positive effects to show up doesn't make it so. The reality is that analysis of the studies show that one cannot make any conclusions on the effect of secondhand smoke other than "we don't know". I'd rather not legislate based on that ignorance.

Actually, statistically you would expect it. If you look at something like life expectancy, the real average will gather around a certain median; If a sample is taken of people who, for example are exposed to second hand smoke, it is possible that, by chance, a variation will show up even if there is no effect. If there truly is no effect, then there is just as much chance that the sample medium will show average life expectency to be higher for second-hand smokers as it is for the life expectancy to be lower for second hand smokers.

Now, there have been many studies done, some showing health risks, some showing none. (I believe the EPA study was a meta-study that looked at other studies.) If the ones showing the risk were just outliers, then you'd also expect some outliers on the other side (given the number of studies that have actually been done.)

The EPA had an agenda, that is they had a conclusion and they wanted to "prove" that secondhand smoke is harmful.

They may have had an agenda. But then, I've also seen other studies which do show health risks. These studies were not done by the EPA. The researchers who did them may have been biased too. But on the other hand, the researchers who find negative results may also be biased.

If that's the case, then answer the question... What do you consider is an acceptable risk? 1 death in 1,000? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 1 million?
Or are you going to avoid the question?

I don't know. It's irrelevant.

I'm extremely disappointed. Normally I respect your opinions and consider you a worthwhile poster.

But, I had asked what you thought an acceptable risk was, and asked for a simple answer. I expected a little bit more from you. A simple number.

Now, are you going to start demanding the government get rid of all fire and health regulations?

No. I think such things should be regulated, however if a person or business wants to "opt out", they should have to post signs and warnings.
[/B]

Make up your mind. Either there should be government regulations or there should not be.

Its a question of risk versus rewards. The risks of being exposed to second hand smoke may or may not be zero, but if they're not zero, you could die. On the other hand, there is no real 'reward' for the person being exposed.

So everything a person does should be rewarding to those around them? If they aren't rewarding to others, then there should be no risk to the other people?!

When I take a jog, I run the risk of maybe tripping into a person and causing them to fall into the street and get killed. There is no reward to the other person for my jogging, it might even annoy the other person to see me jogging, but since there is a risk to others, jogging should be illegal, right?

But when you jog, you gain the 'reward' of better health.

And there's also the possibility of rewards to the other person (such as increased business productivity, lower overall health care costs, etc.) by you jogging, which outweighs the risks involved.

If I, as a non-smoker, go into a restaurant that allows smoking, I would not gain any benefit from exposing myself to second hand smoke. (Yes, I would get the 'reward' of food, but its the exposure to smoke that I'm talking about.) I could be risking my life by doing so, even if the risk is only 0.00001%.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But, I had asked what you thought an acceptable risk was, and asked for a simple answer. I expected a little bit more from you. A simple number.

Really? Then I'll ask you the exact same question, what do you consider an acceptable risk?

Make up your mind. Either there should be government regulations or there should not be.

There should be government guidelines.

Now, there have been many studies done, some showing health risks, some showing none. (I believe the EPA study was a meta-study that looked at other studies.) If the ones showing the risk were just outliers, then you'd also expect some outliers on the other side (given the number of studies that have actually been done.)

I don't agree at all. Negative anomolies don't have to have positive anomolies to be considered anomolies.

But when you jog, you gain the 'reward' of better health.

Smokers gain a reward of pleasure. People around the smoker don't really gain a reward, and neither do those around a jogger.

And there's also the possibility of rewards to the other person (such as increased business productivity, lower overall health care costs, etc.) by you jogging, which outweighs the risks involved.

So now you're talking about indirect activities too? Ok, then maybe obese people should be fined as well. Over eating doesn't reward anyone but the overeater.

If I, as a non-smoker, go into a restaurant that allows smoking, I would not gain any benefit from exposing myself to second hand smoke. (Yes, I would get the 'reward' of food, but its the exposure to smoke that I'm talking about.) I could be risking my life by doing so, even if the risk is only 0.00001%.

Well then, moving to the obesity analogy. I don't gain any reward eating at a restaurant with a fat person, but there is a risk to being trampled, even if it is only 0.00001%.

Obese people cause health care costs to go up as well. Where is the risk/reward ratio at for overeating?

 

[Segnosaur]

But, I had asked what you thought an acceptable risk was, and asked for a simple answer. I expected a little bit more from you. A simple number.

Really? Then I'll ask you the exact same question, what do you consider an acceptable risk?

Given that there is no benefit to the non-smoker to the exposure to second hand smoke (at least none that i can see), if all other factors were kept the same, then I'd say one death (of an otherwise healthy individual) from factors related to second hand smoke (either from a tiny elevation in the risk of cancer, or from respiratory disorders) would be too much.

So what is your number?

Make up your mind. Either there should be government regulations or there should not be.

There should be government guidelines.

So now you're saying government interference in business is fine, but only in areas that you see as acceptable?

What are your limits?

If the ones showing the risk were just outliers, then you'd also expect some outliers on the other side (given the number of studies that have actually been done.)

I don't agree at all. Negative anomolies don't have to have positive anomolies to be considered anomolies.

You woudln't have to have negative anomilies, I'm just saying statistically you'd expect it.

If someone claimed they could guess the outcome of a coin flip, and they guessed 10 times, you'd expect them to get around 5 right. If they repeat the experiment many times, and they usually get 5 right, but sometimes get 6, 7 or 8 right, those values could be outliers, but statistically you'd also expect them to get 2, 3 or 4 right on occasion. However, if none of these below-5 experiments happen, then there is something strange going on.

Same with second-hand smoke. Some tests showed an effect, some showed no effect. The fact that no tests (that I'm aware of) have showed that second hand smoke makes a person healthier is a bit curious.

But when you jog, you gain the 'reward' of better health.

Smokers gain a reward of pleasure. People around the smoker don't really gain a reward, and neither do those around a jogger.

But since its the non-smoker who runs the risk (of getting cancer or other diseases) then its only their rewards that I'm concerned about.

And there's also the possibility of rewards to the other person (such as increased business productivity, lower overall health care costs, etc.) by you jogging, which outweighs the risks involved.

So now you're talking about indirect activities too?

I would like to think that I consider all factors when I weigh risks and rewards, even indirect ones.

Its for the same reason that I support things like seatbelt laws and helmet laws for motorcycles. Yes, people should be allowed the freedom to do what they want, but people not wearing a seatbelt tend to sustain more serious injuries when they get into accidents, and as long as ambulances and hospitals are at least partly tax-payer funded, increases in expenses from caring for their injuries due to their refusal to wear seatbelts does affect me. (Sorry to get off track a bit, but I just wanted to give an example of how risks and rewards don't necessarily have to be direct.)

Well then, moving to the obesity analogy. I don't gain any reward eating at a restaurant with a fat person, but there is a risk to being trampled, even if it is only 0.00001%.

First of all, you insult victims of the holocaust by equating anti-smoking bylaws with persecution under the Nazis. Then, you somehow suggest that fat people are likely to trample you, like they're some sort of mindless animal.

Well, you certainly won't win any awards for being politcally correct.

Obese people cause health care costs to go up as well. Where is the risk/reward ratio at for overeating?

If you ignore the rather insulting possibility of obese people 'trampelling' others, then the risks for the non-overeater are probably just financial (and relatively minor at that)... a small increase in health care costs, etc.

 

[Nigel]

bumped for my good pal thaiboxerken

 

[Bearguin]

I apologize if this has been mentioned, but this thread is too long to read. The Skeptics Dictionary Newsletter has some info on Second Hand Smoke.

http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter41.html

 

[rastamonte]

I apologize if this has been mentioned, but this thread is too long to read. The Skeptics Dictionary Newsletter has some info on Second Hand Smoke.

http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter41.html

Gods Advocate,
Thank you for posting this link.
- rastamonte

 

[Marvel Frozen]

From http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter41.html :

For those regularly exposed to ETS, the death rate from lung cancer is 1 in 80,000. For those not exposed, it is 1 in 100,000.

From a quick Google search, I've found that approximately 2% (1 in 50) of deaths are caused by lung cancer. Where did they get the ludicrously low number of 1 in 100,000?