I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

[thaiboxerken]

I think the problem here is that you ASSUME that second-hand smoke is dangerous simply because smoking is dangerous. Being a skeptic, I won't jump to that conclusion. Since there is no evidence to support your claim, I don't believe your assumption. Since there have been many studies done and none have shown that second-hand smoke is dangerous, I still don't believe you.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Also, this "equivalent" dosage does not equate to actually smoking 4 cigarettes a day. The dosage is not cumulative.

How do you know this? Why is normal smoking cumulative, but second hand smoking is not?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Since there is no evidence to support your claim, I don't believe your assumption. Since there have been many studies done and none have shown that second-hand smoke is dangerous, I still don't believe you.

And you believe this why? Because Penn and Teller told you?

How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke?
Alistair Woodward, Murray Laugesen
Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, Wellington South, New Zealand, b Health New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand 2001

The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke
A K Hackshaw, M R Law N J Wald
Department of Environmental and Preventive Medicine, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, St Bartholomew’s and Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London 1997

Passive smoking at work: the short-term cost
Sarah M McGhee, Pemane Adab, Anthony J Hedley, Tai Hing Lam, Lai Ming Ho, Richard Fielding, Chit Ming Wong
Department of Community Medicine, University of Hong Kong, 2000

Just a sample. You can get the full texts from the British Medical Journal. Your mission: to discredit them.

 

[Segnosaur]

But there are thresholds for carcinogens.

Is that accurate in a biological sense, or just a statistical sense?

For example, in your floridated water example, its possible that even the tiny quantities they add does contribute to cancer, but statistically its such a small amount, and its outweighted by other health benefits (e.g. fewer deaths from complications from dental procedures due to cavities, etc.)

However, even if the chance of other diseases (cancer, cardio vascular, respritory, etc.) only increases 0.01% from second hand smoke (and that is statistically insignificant) there is no medical "benefit" to the person exposed to the second hand smoke.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Yes, there are thresholds at which some toxins can be metabolised. But no threshold has ever been found for tobacco carcinogens.

The EPA report which P&T slagged off claims that tobacco contains carcinogens with no threshold. It may be that there does turn out to be a threshold, but it may be lower than the level experienced in a workplace. It might also turn out to be higher, but in the meantime it seems some smokers are willing to gamble with other people's lives as well as their own.

Also, a 1983 Surgeon General's report noted that there was no evidence for a threshold in respect of tobacco exposure and heart disease. Granted that's 20 years old, but do you have any more recent evidence of a threshold?

 

[epepke]

Which soundbite are you thinking of? I must have missed it, but I'll be glad to review the show after you point it out to me, and come back here, and admit I was wrong.

I don't have the recording, and I could be wrong as well, but it was one of the first interviews with a fairly lanky guy from a marijuana advocacy group.

That's not death from marijuana. At best, it's death from prolonged smoke inhlation.

Ah, now I understand you.

Simple. I can destroy that point in one sentence: YOU DON'T HAVE TO SMOKE IT.

Yep. And, if you don't smoke it, it's probably fine. No argument from me. In fact, I said as much several messages ago.

But since you have the tape, perhaps you could count the number of times it showed people smoking marijuana versus eating or vaporizing or whatever the stuff. Were those patients sitting around and breathing metered doses out of an inhaler or ventilator? No. They were passing around a bag of smoke and supercharging each other. This is medicine? I've never had any medical professional let me put my mouth on something that someone else had put their mouth on, let alone encourage it.

I don't remember a single instance in the show where marijuana was presented in any other context than the context of smoking. In fact, after I started becoming irritated, I watched the show intensely in the hopes that someone might point out that there were other ways of consuming marijuana or the active ingredients therein other than by lighting up. I didn't force Penn and Teller to present marijuana exclusvely that way. That's why it irritated me.

 

[epepke]

The EPA report which P&T slagged off claims that tobacco contains carcinogens with no threshold. It may be that there does turn out to be a threshold, but it may be lower than the level experienced in a workplace. It might also turn out to be higher, but in the meantime it seems some smokers are willing to gamble with other people's lives as well as their own.

You've put it well. I don't know how much damage second-hand smoke does, although it did play holy hell with my asthma when I was a kid and put me pretty close to anaphylactic shock a few times.

It's quite reasonable to decide, on the basis of evidence, that second-hand smoke is probably not harmful enough to warrant measures like banning it from bars, or on the other hand, that it is. Reasonable people can disagree on these matters.

It's the whole default beliefs thing and the bifurcation that results. Just substitute "ephedra" for "marijuana" (or even "homeopathy," which is just water) and watch how many "skeptics" instantly flip and assume a polarized default of "harm" rather than a default of "harmlessness."

I like Penn & Teller, and I support legalization of most drugs, including marijuna. The thing, then, that makes me particularly irrated at these things is probably the same thing that makes other people try to gloss over them.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, there are thresholds at which some toxins can be metabolised. But no threshold has ever been found for tobacco carcinogens.

The EPA report which P&T slagged off claims that tobacco contains carcinogens with no threshold. It may be that there does turn out to be a threshold, but it may be lower than the level experienced in a workplace. It might also turn out to be higher, but in the meantime it seems some smokers are willing to gamble with other people's lives as well as their own.

Also, a 1983 Surgeon General's report noted that there was no evidence for a threshold in respect of tobacco exposure and heart disease. Granted that's 20 years old, but do you have any more recent evidence of a threshold?

Read this. It's by far the most extensive study ever done on the matter.

 

[thaiboxerken]

How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke?
Alistair Woodward, Murray Laugesen
Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, Wellington South, New Zealand, b Health New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand 2001

The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke
A K Hackshaw, M R Law N J Wald
Department of Environmental and Preventive Medicine, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, St Bartholomew’s and Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London 1997

Passive smoking at work: the short-term cost
Sarah M McGhee, Pemane Adab, Anthony J Hedley, Tai Hing Lam, Lai Ming Ho, Richard Fielding, Chit Ming Wong
Department of Community Medicine, University of Hong Kong, 2000


Like a believer, you cite studies, yet you don't cite anything within the study to support your claim. What are the conclusions of these studies?

It's the whole default beliefs thing and the bifurcation that results. Just substitute "ephedra" for "marijuana" (or even "homeopathy," which is just water) and watch how many "skeptics" instantly flip and assume a polarized default of "harm" rather than a default of "harmlessness."

I don't think such drugs should be banned or illegal, they should be regulate. For example, the side-effects of ephedra should be printed on the package.

The banning of smoking is BS, it's based on BS studies and is the direct result of non-smokers trying to legislate behavior against a thing they don't like to smell.

I think fat people are gross, but I don't see a need to pass a law against overeating.

 

[WildCat]

Does everyone here realize why marijuana was banned in the first place? It was because the primary users of it were Mexicans and blacks.

Marijuana was next. It was well known that the Mexican soldiers who fought America during the war with Spain smoked marijuana. Poncho Villa, A Mexican general, was considered a nemesis for the behavior of his troops, who were known to be especially rowdy. They were also known to be heavy marijuana smokers, as the original lyrics to the song `la cucaracha' show. (The song was originally about a Mexican soldier who refused to march until he was provided with some marijuana.)

After the war had ended and Mexicans had begun to immigrate into the South Eastern United States, there were relatively few race problems. There were plenty of jobs in agriculture and industry and Mexicans were willing to work cheap. Once the depression hit and jobs became scarce, however, Mexicans suddenly became a public nuisance. It was said by politicians (who were trying to please the White working class) that Mexicans were responsible for a violent crime wave. Police statistics showed nothing of the sort -- in fact Mexicans were involved in less crime than Whites. Marijuana, of course, got the blame for this phony outbreak of crime and health problems, and so many of these states made laws against using cannabis. (In the Northern states, marijuana was also associated with Black jazz musicians.)

In other words, it was made illegal primarily to give police another reason to arrest and harass Mexicans and blacks!

It wasn't banned because of health effects. The US government has been searching for these alleged health effects for nearly 80 years now, with nothing but "may be's" and "might be's" to show for it.

As skeptics, does it make sense to ban something that has been in use all over the world for thousands of years, and then look for reasons why?

I'll tell you what the undeniable consequences are for making it ilegal: The enrichment and proliferation of violent street gangs who derive their income from distributing an illegal substance, turning many neighborhoods into war zones over drug turf. Billions of dollars spent on law enforcement and prisons to sustain a ban on something that might be mildly harmful. and thousands of dead victims of the drug distribution violence, many of them innocents caught in the crossfire.

Is it worth it?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke?
Alistair Woodward, Murray Laugesen
Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, Wellington South, New Zealand, b Health New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand 2001

Conclusion: "Attributable risk estimates provide an indication for policy makers and health educators of the magnitude of a health problem; they are not precise predictions. As a cause of death in New Zealand, we estimate that second hand smoke lies between melanoma of the skin (200 deaths per year) and road crashes (about 500 deaths per year)."
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/4/383

The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke
A K Hackshaw, M R Law N J Wald
Department of Environmental and Preventive Medicine, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, St Bartholomew’s and Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London 1997

Results: "The excess risk of lung cancer was 24% (95% confidence interval 13% to 36%) in non-smokers who lived with a smoker (P<0.001). Adjustment for the effects of bias (positive and negative) and dietary confounding had little overall effect; the adjusted excess risk was 26% (7% to 47%). The dose-response relation of the risk of lung cancer with both the number of cigarettes smoked by the spouse and the duration of exposure was significant. The excess risk derived by linear extrapolation from that in smokers was 19%, similar to the direct estimate of 26%."
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...e41b253a15e7fed54c1974fc&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Passive smoking at work: the short-term cost
Sarah M McGhee, Pemane Adab, Anthony J Hedley, Tai Hing Lam, Lai Ming Ho, Richard Fielding, Chit Ming Wong
Department of Community Medicine, University of Hong Kong, 2000

Conclusion: "The exposure of healthy adults to passive smoking at work is related to utilisation of health care services and extra time off work. This results in costs to the health services, to employers and to those exposed."

http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/con...fa8f4c89ffbeeda0a0b2bee1&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

[TheBoyPaj]

The banning of smoking is BS, it's based on BS studies and is the direct result of non-smokers trying to legislate behavior against a thing they don't like to smell.

You have never read the studies or seen the conclusions, yet you already claim they are BS. Yep, that's real critical thinking for you.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

I think fat people are gross, but I don't see a need to pass a law against overeating.

Seeing fat people doesn't give ME heart disease.

 

[thaiboxerken]

As a cause of death in New Zealand, we estimate that second hand smoke lies between melanoma of the skin (200 deaths per year) and road crashes (about 500 deaths per year)."

he excess risk derived by linear extrapolation from that in smokers was 19%, similar to the direct estimate of 26%."

"The exposure of healthy adults to passive smoking at work is related to utilisation of health care services and extra time off work. This results in costs to the health services, to employers and to those exposed."

No wonder you didn't publish the results, they show INSIGNIFICANT numbers.

Seeing fat people doesn't give ME heart disease.

And second-hand smoke doesn't cause you to have cancer.

 

[WildCat]

However, even if the chance of other diseases (cancer, cardio vascular, respritory, etc.) only increases 0.01% from second hand smoke (and that is statistically insignificant) there is no medical "benefit" to the person exposed to the second hand smoke.

But a substance shouldn't have to have a medical benefit to be legal.

And you are exposed to trace amounts of a myriad of carcinogenic substances every single day.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

No wonder you didn't publish the results, they show INSIGNIFICANT numbers.

According to you.

And second-hand smoke doesn't cause you to have cancer.

Thanks, but I won't take your word for that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

According to you.

So what percentage is 200 to 500 people in comparison to the population of New Zealand?!


Thanks, but I won't take your word for that.

Of course not, you already have a belief that you will hang on to faithfully.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

0.014 % or thereabouts. Equivalent to about 40,000 people in the USA each year. Maybe not significant to you, but to the people who die?

I mean, maybe they shouldn't legislate for road safety since that has a similar death rate.

Of course not, you already have a belief that you will hang on to faithfully.

As do you, it seems.

 

[Chanileslie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm irritated by Penn and Teller

That's a pretty bold or prevaricous claim.

Wow, pretty bold to call me a liar, aren't you? Is it perhaps because you didn't understand what I said? The smoke is merely a means in cigarrette to deliver the carginogens that are inherent in tobacco. So, those who claim just because marijuana is smoked and cigarrettes are smoked, one will end up with the same results.

People die from cancer from inhaling any number of substances. Asbestos dust. The vapors of roofing products. The vapor of burning wood.

That is true, and I don't deny it, but I never claimed that only tobacco has carginogen in it. But to make a correlation from one thing to another because they have similar properties is not appropriate without evidence that that shared property is actually at fault, in this case the smoke. The smoke from cigarette's is a means of transfer of the carginogens in tobacco, which marijuana may or may not lack.

And, of course, people die directly from smoke inhalation.

Yes, from suffocation because as I already stated that the lungs are not really equipped to deal with smoke, and especially large amounts of smoke that one inhales if one were trapped in a burning building.

When enough people die of it, and there is a clear enough link, somebody studies the substances and finds carcinogens in them. One of the links I posted showed levels of a certain carcinogen in marijuana smoke and also evidence of precancerous conditions in marijuana-smokers.

What I get from this is that, it's a pretty good bet that inhaling a lot of smoke and/or dust is bad for you, and that it's also a pretty good bet that marijuana smoke does it, too.

I have already stated that.

Provisionally, then, while I would not declare marijuana partcularly harmful, nor would I support those who claim that it must somehow be harmless by default.

I did not claim this either. I stated that cancer caused by smoking cigarettes is caused by the carginogens in tobacco not necessarily the smoke that is used as a means of transfer.

In order to really understand what is the cause and what is the effect, we must deal with facts on correlations without causations, myths and misunderstandings.

Even smoking five cigarettes a day is not significantly associated with an increased risk of cancer or heart disease. It's a matter of dosage and intensity over time. Maybe smoking one joint a day is perfectly safe. But also, maybe not.

And how is one really to tell, anyway? Prepared joints in the Netherlands usually have some tobacco in them. So, you could always say, "ah, well, it was really the tobacco, see?"

And yes, you could. Or you could claim it is something else. Or you could just ignore the facts and blame in on something else all together, and that will get you absoluetly no where.

 

[WildCat]

How many deaths are caused by second hand cigarette smoke?
Alistair Woodward, Murray Laugesen
Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, Wellington South, New Zealand, b Health New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand 2001

Conclusion: "Attributable risk estimates provide an indication for policy makers and health educators of the magnitude of a health problem; they are not precise predictions. As a cause of death in New Zealand, we estimate that second hand smoke lies between melanoma of the skin (200 deaths per year) and road crashes (about 500 deaths per year)."
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/4/383

From your link:

Information on disease risks from SHS was sought by searching the scientific literature using key words "tobacco smoke pollution", "second hand smoke", "environmental tobacco smoke", and "passive smoking". We used Medline, bibliographies of major reviews in the field, and discussions with colleagues. Smoking rates in the New Zealand population were obtained from reports on New Zealand censuses and other historical survey data.8 Estimates of current exposures to SHS were based on a national survey conducted in 1996 for the Ministry of Health.9 The New Zealand Health Information Service provided rates and numbers of deaths in New Zealand by cause.10

We used "no exposure to SHS" as the counterfactual and calculated population attributable risk (PAR) using the standard formula11:

Wow! So much potential for error in that formula at best and fudged data at worst. this study is virtually meaningless. The formula appears to have weights and values assigned to the risks that are pulled out of thin air.

This is not the stuff of good science.