Does this study threaten smoking in the home?
Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 13:08 BBC News reports:
Passive smoking 'damages children's arteries'
Odd, isn't it, that the harm occurred when both parents smoked. So it's alright if only one parent smokes?
I was asked to comment and I did:
"We must avoid scaremongering because damage to arteries could be caused by a number of factors including poor diet and other forms of air pollution.
"While it's sensible and considerate not to smoke around children in a small confined space it's far too easy to point the finger at smokers when the issue is extremely complicated."
It's fairly obvious what's going on. This the first (latest?) move towards a de facto ban on smoking in the home.
In response someone has tweeted:
BBC News - Passive smoking 'damages children's arteries'. Simon Clark @Forest_Smoking is a despicable man.
Charming.
Simon Clark
Recommended reading.
Smoking bans in the home: the next logical step (Velvet Glove Iron Fist)
Chris Snowdon has in turn linked to this post:
Science and politics: the case of passive smoking (Lee Jones)
Reader Comments (13)
Foundation Stones Being Nicely Laid
We always knew this would be the next logical step after going into private vehicles. The prohibition band-wagon is beautifully on course. This will quite naturally be accompanied by some wretch hiding in your garden behind a bush photographing you smoking in your own home in front of your children, and then passing this on to local GPs and Dentists who will then refuse smokers treatment when the time comes.
This whole stinking rotten carnival will keep rolling along until there’s nothing left to go after. We don’t have a big enough stick to beat these bastards with, which is bigger than the one they have fun beating us with.
Our only hope is that UKIP will pick up a massive number of votes from smokers and tolerant non smokers and use this support as a lever when the next election comes along. It looks increasingly likely that the Conservatives will not achieve an overall majority, in which case they will need the help of Nigel Farage.
Nigel Farage will have to make clear to smoking voters who might want to vote for a party other than the usual three, that he intends to push for a repeal of the smoking ban before he gives his unqualified support. My only concern here is that recently I saw a photo of him using an ecig. I therefore hope he won’t abandon us smokers, which would be an unforgivable betrayal.
I would like to think that Forest will ask Nigel Farage for his clarity on this. If he is unequivocal on this and that his price would be either a very strong amendment or a full repeal (my preferred option) which is something he won’t back down on – then I’m sure Forest will help swing many votes his way.
"Odd, isn't it, that the harm occurred when both parents smoked. So it's alright if only one parent smokes?"
It's a nonsense study- I haven't read the original, but based on the way it is being reported two moderate smokers (say 15 a day( are somehow worse than one heavy (60+) smoker and one non-smoker. Huh?
In fact, looking at the way those numbers break down (non + non = OK; smoker + non = OK; smoker + smoker = harm) I'd say we were looking at some sort of classic Mendelian trait here!
Since the smoking ban in Scotland I have been following this and other libertarian/pro-choice blogs as I believe that we should be aware just how governments and citizens world-wide are being manipulated and coerced by non-elected quangos and faux charities. I have to say though that over the years I've increasingly felt that I am reading a narrative of the unstoppable advance of ever growing state bullying and that, ultimately there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Are there any organisations, or individuals, with balls who are actually achieving anything in the way of resistance to this development? I'm not aware of any. Does Forest et al serve any purpose rather than to chronicle the relentless depressing triumphs of ASH and it's fellow travellers? I make no apology for expressing negative feelings as I'm wondering if it's worth-while continuing to read blogs such as this? Banning smoking is one's one home appears such a horrible certainty now.
from the study:
However, parental smoking was assessed using a binary questionnaire (yes or no), and objective measures of ETS exposure (such as serum cotinine levels) were not available. Furthermore, ETS exposure during childhood was assessed at a single time point in the CDAH Study, and at two time points (3 years apart) in the Young Finns Study. Thus, the cumulative dose–response effect of ETS exposure during childhood on adult vascular health could not be easily assessed.
and
The adjusted difference in mean maximum carotid IMT between those exposed to both parents smoking and no exposure was 0.015 mm.
That's one and a half hundredth of a millimeter!
The authors calculate that this translates to 3.3 additional years of vascular ageing.
So one year of age corresponds to roughly 5 thousandth of a mm. The study follow-up was done after 25 years. That makes an increase of 0.125 mm, due to age even when not accounting for ETS exposure.
Can "age" directly be derived from the carotid IMT? Does age predict shorter life?
A comment from ACSH: "ACSH’s Dr. Gil Ross had this perspective: “While neither 0.015 mm nor 3.3 years might seem of major import, especially given the lack of actual outcome data, ..."
A very carefully formulated opinion about the results of the study, trying not to offend anti-tobacco and to help ACSH's cause.
Source: http://acsh.org/2014/03/study-arterial-narrowing-worse-parents-smoked-years-ago/
This study shouldn't threaten anything and had it been about almost anything else would not have seen the light of day. How any journal can publish this type of bilge and be taken seriously is beyond me and therein lies the problem. This paper would be of no threat to anyone if we lived in a society that valued scientific integrity and that responded proportionally and rationally to information input. Unfortunately we don't so we can look forward to smokers being further marginalized based on evidence that no self respecting scientist would ever dare to publish. Even the title is misleading as it implies that general exposure to parental smoking is detrimental without mentioning that this magically happens only if two parents smoke. It would be hard to make up anything more ridiculous but the BBC lapped it up.
benpal,
Did you see this missive from ACSH:
http://acsh.org/2013/12/two-stories-one-link-found-secondhand-smoke-lung-cancer-one-seems-care/
Thanks Fredrik. No, didn't see this.
Sunex, It’s certainly worthwhile smokers reading blogs like these, if for no other reason than because it’s the only place left where were can smoke in comfort and meet and enjoy casual conversations with other smokers (and tolerant non-smokers). True, the conversations are usually about smoking and the smoking ban and proposed further restrictions etc, but that’s because we all have that in common. I’d guess that if you checked out a few fishing blogs or model-making blogs or hairdressing blogs you’d find that most exchanges focused around those subjects almost exclusively, too – I suspect that there aren’t very many comments on Mumsnet that don’t involve children or parenthood one way or another.
But there is another, more useful, function to blogs like these. I’ve been amazed how much information is exchanged on them about science, about statistics, about the latest research, about the media, about politics and about “health professionals” and about hanger-on fake charities. And by learning about those things in relation to smoking, it’s opened my eyes to how these things are being similarly applied/manipulated in relation to other areas of life, too. The anti-smoking movement and the smoking ban has set so many new precedents in health policy, in law and in terms of social attitudes that, having been on the receiving end, it’s easy to spot when the same tactics are being applied elsewhere, even when we smokers aren’t the target for a change. Not to mention getting some pretty detailed information about who is likely to be working in our interests as smokers and who has openly admitted that they are firmly against us and have no interest in defending us against (or, worse still, actively supporting) further vilification, bullying and prejudice.
True, there is a lack of coherent action, apart from sterling efforts by Simon and a few notable others, taking part in press, radio and TV debates and discussions elsewhere (as per his recent post), and I do think that we (smokers and tolerant non-smokers) urgently need a leader figure behind whom we can align who is brave enough to stick his/her head above the parapet and shout “enough is enough,” but I think that’s still a way off, because the odds are still stacked against us; the public still (by and large) believe the myths perpetuated by Tobacco Control, and the puritans in the health movement still have the ear of those in power. It isn’t possible just to sweep away the drip-fed and well-swallowed propaganda of four decades in just a few short years, but the signs are there that the tide is gradually turning. Fewer and fewer people now believe self-proclaimed “experts” in their new declarations, and as time progresses and those experts become ever-more ludicrous and extreme they will lose support more and more quickly and in increasing numbers. And as more and more people realise that many of these “experts” are not actually experts at all, more and more of them will come to recognise that they are being lied to now and, more importantly perhaps, that they have been lied to for the last 40 years by the very same people. Then, and only then, will it be possible for someone (or some group) to stand squarely up to these people and call a halt. And then, precisely because of the unity of blogs like these, they will carry the rest of us with them. Our day will come, I promise you, so stick with us.
This is pure Junk science, I have checked the background to this article produced by the Menzies Research Institute Tasmania, it consists of two studies the Young Finns Study in Finland and the Childhood Determinants of Adult Health study in Australia, very poor cohort studies, which were not designed and do not have the analytical scope to produce the anology that Dr Gall suggests from Menzies. Here is what Dave Copeland wrote on this Dr I have not checked this out, but am sure Dave C will have. "Dr' Gall an independent scientist trying to search out the truth? Far from it! After a little research, we find that 'Dr' Gall is yet another paid up lackey of the tobacco control industry".
"Since 2004, she has received over $3.5 million dollars in research funding. She has worked with the Tasmanian Government on smoking policies and has been a board member for Quit Tasmania for many years. She is also a member of the Tobacco Special Interest Group, co-ordinating advocacy around tobacco in Tasmania...so...no conflict of interest there then"!
Thanks for continuing to stick up for us Simon even in the face of abuse. It takes courage.
As for the propaganda report. Yes. It is the first step of a few more to come before "something must be done" to stop people using a legal product in their own homes. What next? Frosties? Will we have food police checking our fridges? Probably and particularly if Labour gets in to power.
Of course it's also the first step too towards outright criminalisation of legitimate tobacco consumers simply in possession of tobacco. After all, if smokers are banned from smoking anywhere then "the next logical step" is to make the product illegal.
The Smokerphobics are now at a dangerously hysterical level and something really must be done about the hate campaigning.
Hi Benpal. Thank you for taking the time to write such a considered response to my post, it's much appreciated. After reading your comments I will certainly stick with reading and participating in blogs such as this one. I was so wrapped up in despondency at the time that I neglected to add that I've always valued Simon's dedication and energy in fighting on our behalf (sometimes pitted against some awful people). As you say there is still some way to go yet so I suppose patience and persistence are the key notes pro tem.
Sunex, if it's any consolation, I've never smoked (and never will) but I follow blogs like this. Think I picked up on another blog years back (possibly Chris Snowden) because he covered the rise of a new alcohol prohibition, became more aware of neo-puritanism in general amongst powerful state-funded bodies and sort of drifted into the smoking rows.
Like you, I'm watching this from another country which is likely to follow English practice and scratching my head in amazement. Years back I happily shared work staff rooms with smokers and reached amicable solutions about who sat closest to the open window or door, etc. Never understood why grown adults can't just do that without state sticks & carrots.
While I'm a civil libertarian the issue hasn't directly affected me, so I haven't campaigned - that's your job. But because I talk about what I see here, and am known locally as the kind of guy who sticks up for underdogs, word gets around, and folk like me are increasingly irritated at being treated like infants by civil servants who are, ironically, half our age and with little or none of our life experience.
You start the petitions, we'll sign them. Get stuck in, and good luck.