Revision as of 23:05, 9 August 2021 editSirdog (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,867 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021: - Contribution to discussion on edit requestTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:27, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,670,187 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(44 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{Not a forum|the risks of second-hand smoke}} | |||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=High|hemonc=y}} | ||
{{WikiProject Health and fitness |importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health|importance=mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=mid}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{off topic warning}} | {{off topic warning}} | ||
Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
|archive = Talk:Passive smoking/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Passive smoking/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== | |||
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/Science,_Nature_and_Society_(Fall_2018) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2018-08-20 | end_date = 2018-12-05 }} | |||
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-08-20">20 August 2018</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2018-12-05">5 December 2018</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. | |||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 06:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} | |||
== 2013 Stanford study on the impact of passive smoking on lung cancer among women == | |||
== Merger proposal == | |||
I propose to merge ] into this article because everything that needs to be covered about sidestream smoke is also covered in this article. ] (]) 20:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
In 2013 the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published a study from a team at Stanford University which made world wide news. The study, by a large number of authors headed by Ange Wang, followed up a database of 76,304 women compiled in the 1990s, and found that while current and former smokers recorded much higher rates of lung cancer than non-smokers in the ensuing 15 years, there was no evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke led to a statistically significant increase in rates of lung cancer, other than for women who had been exposed to smoke in their home for 30 years or more. | |||
This merge seems reasonable to me. ] (]) 01:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
This was a startling finding, and an important one given the size of the database it drew on, and the fact that the NCI itself had published the study. I looked up this article on Misplaced Pages to find out the considered reactions of expert opinion to the study, and was astonished that in this long article there seemed to be no reference to the study at all. | |||
:I'd agree, except that ], at 137k, is ] and so having a separate article is warranted. ] (]) 16:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
This is a form of censorship which is completely alien to the spirit of Misplaced Pages (I speak as a regular donor). I don't look up Misplaced Pages to read propaganda, however well-intentioned. I look to Misplaced Pages to tell me the facts, but this article seems to ignore the scientific debate and present only one side, one version of "the facts". | |||
::'''Closing''', given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. ] (]) 10:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
== Title change proposal == | |||
I can only agree with the comments made by others on the talk page about this article. It is biased. It is unscientific: with good intentions, no doubt, but Misplaced Pages exists to promote knowledge, not good intentions. This is a lapse of Misplaced Pages's standards. | |||
With an increase in literature on third-hand smoke, the dichotomy between active and passive smoking seems less relevant. As such, I'd propose changing the beginning term to secondhand or second-hand smoke, which would move to passive smoking to one of the alternate terms. ] (]) 01:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
The study is entitled: "Active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in the Women's Health Intiative Observational Study prospective cohort". It was presented to the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago, and published later that year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (which unfortunately is not accessible from the institute's webpage). <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== page move == | |||
:Need I remind everyone of this quote from the article: {{talkquote|Despite the industry's awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke as early as the 1980s, the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products}} | |||
:Since the opposing lawyers got their hands on evidence of tobacco industry malfeasance, it has cost them hundreds of billions of dollars in damages. It must be getting closer to $1 trillion by now. | |||
:In this particular case, you can find the results of the study by Googling, e.g. and get the following: | |||
:{{talkquote|'''Conclusions:''' In this prospective cohort of postmenopausal women, active smoking significantly increased risk of all lung cancer subtypes; current smokers had significantly increased risk compared with FS. '''Among NS, prolonged passive adult home exposure tended to increase lung cancer risk'''. These data support continued need for smoking prevention and cessation interventions, passive smoking research, and further study of lung cancer risk factors in addition to smoking.}} | |||
:In other words, '''NOT''' "no evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke led to a statistically significant increase in rates of lung cancer". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all the other usual caveats regarding scientific research. Also, in the case of second-hand smoke the biggest problem is not lung cancer, which is something of a red herring incidental to the bigger risk of heart disease. As usual in smoking articles watch out for trolls and industry shills reinterpreting the experimental evidence for their own purposes.] (]) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Does *anyone* have a proper citation for this? The article I can find is: | |||
:::{{cite journal|last1=Wang|first1=A|last2=Kubo|display-authors=etal|title=Active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study prospective cohort.|journal=Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology|date=January 2015|volume=26|issue=1|pages=221-30|doi=10.1093/annonc/mdu470|pmid=25316260|url=https://academic.oup.com/annonc/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/annonc/mdu470}} | |||
::However, this was published in 2015, not 2013, and not in J. NCI (or maybe it changed it's nae to J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncology). Is there another article to which this discussion refers? | |||
::And on the webpage of (they've put one up I guess in the last two years), I don't find anything either. ] (]) 19:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
{{ping|Sjö}} the article introduces "passive smoking" but continues "secondhand smoking" c.f. Effects - there is no continuity ] (]) 19:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
== 2016 study on the impact of smoking bans on heart disease == | |||
:The term "secondhand smoke" refers to the smoke itself, while the term "passive smoking" refers to being subjected to the smoke. Hope that explains things. Anyway, that is no reason to move the article away from the ]. ] (]) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Second hand smoke is also common: as I indicated "smoking" is the action part of the subject - which is a generalized concept: smoking smoker (1) but means to ignite tobacco to make smoke to inhale for drug-use (2). So 1 is taken to mean 2. This I think is obvious and without contention. "Passive smoking" isn't therefore a fusion of two ideas successfully but is a confusion of the idea of (1) as I have shown, that by the fact of passive, no action smoking is occuring. Wouldn't you agree? whether or not "passive smoking" is the commonest version, which I'm not stating it isn't (although I don't see you've provided any indication of proof currently to support your claim). ] (]) 22:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:The participation in the habit-activity of the consumption of tobacco for it's psychoactive effects is by the application of sufficient heat to cause a state of ignition where-by smoke is created = smoking. ] (]) 22:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I can not understand what it is you are trying to say or what your argument is. But i guess that it is based on an ]; since "to smoke" is an active action where someone lights tobacco and inhales the smoke that means that any phrase that contains the verb "smoke" must use "smoke" in exactly that meaning. That is incorrect, and language does not work that way. ] (]) 05:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:An administrator reverted my response for legitimate reasons (as is shown in policy): ] ] (]) 02:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
:With regards to 19:21 "no continuity": this makes the introductory concept not the subject of the article - therefore a way to improve would be to impose "passive smoking" as the continuation instead of "second hand smoking" - the intro different to the contents term is conflictual for the reader. Evidently "As of 2003, "secondhand smoke" was the term most used to refer to other people's smoke in the English-language media." if true does indicate by your argument ] the article needs to be renamed. Although the relevant editor distorted the source so I deleted. ] (]) 02:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
== "]" listed at ] == | |||
Under the effects section, I added a recent large study from a peer-reviewed journal. Here it is - http://mcr.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/09/12/1077558716668646. Doc James deleted my edition on the grounds this was not a secondary source, despite the fact that it was a recent, large, peer-reviewed study that directly rebutted other studies referenced in this section (studies that were also NOT secondary sources). So I deleted said studies (I left the meta-analysis as that was a secondary source). Now THAT change was reverted. You can't have it both ways. Either high quality studies that are primary sources are allowed, or they are not. The deciding factor cannot be whether the study supports or rebuts your pre-conceived opinion on passive smoking. Please either restore my original edit or uphold my latest edit deleting the primary source.] (]) 14:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
:Yes, "recent", "primary" and "rebutted other studies" is considered to be a bad combination here, just as MEDRS says. There is clearly a need to update that section, but it should use the best available sources, such as {{PMID|26242915}} {{PMC|4526291}} {{DOI| 10.1186/s12889-015-2041-6}}. We don't really need to use a low value source to support the assertion that ], however: in the absence of time travel, nobody has yet proposed a plausible mechanism whereby a later-date reduction in disease might cause an earlier-date passage of legislation.] <small>]</small> 16:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6#Passive inhaling of tobacco smoke}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
::In what way is this a "low value source?" It comes from a peer reviewed journal and has a very large sample size - much larger than the studies it is rebutting. Moreover, it is not primarily making the point "correlation does not imply causation," but demonstrates that there is not even correlation across any kind of decent sample size. You cannot just exlude primary sources you don't like and leave ones that you do.] (]) 14:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Interesting read: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/secondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html ] (]) 19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024 == | |||
== External links modified == | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Passive smoking|answered=yes}} | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
Please add the missing <code><nowiki><ref></nowiki></code> tag here: | |||
<code><nowiki>The ] has identified reduction of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as key element for actions to encourage healthy child development.{{cite web|access-date=2024-06-12|title=WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC)|url=https://www.who.int/europe/teams/tobacco/who-framework-convention-on-tobacco-control-(who-fctc)|website=www.who.int}}</ref></nowiki></code> | |||
I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905172350/http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html to http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140212191352/http://www.nphp.gov.au/publications/legislation/smoke_passive.pdf to http://www.nphp.gov.au/publications/legislation/smoke_passive.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013185238/http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2063791182-1187.html to http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2063791182-1187.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126094031/http://gothamist.com/2011/05/18/smokers_just_daring_bloomberg_to_ti.php to http://gothamist.com/2011/05/18/smokers_just_daring_bloomberg_to_ti.php | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070905172350/http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html to http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/10/index.html | |||
. ] (]) 05:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified (January 2018) == | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
I have just modified 7 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911020755/http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/factsheets/Prevention/pdf/smoking.pdf to https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/factsheets/prevention/pdf/smoking.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716173310/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070914162226/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206182922/http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4101474 to http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4101474 | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061118145334/http://www.rjrt.com/smoking/summaryCover.asp to http://www.rjrt.com/smoking/summaryCover.asp | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104145317/http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=%2Fmadison.com%2Fhtml%2Farchive_files%2Fwsj%2F2005%2F09%2F25%2F0509240280.php to http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=%2Fmadison.com%2Fhtml%2Farchive_files%2Fwsj%2F2005%2F09%2F25%2F0509240280.php | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716173310/http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf to http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s176toba.pdf | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021 == | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Passive smoking|answered=no}} | |||
In the intro of the section 'effects' please add that "There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be harmful to health." This is supported by citation no. 133 from the CDC fact sheet Also additional sources are from: | |||
1) US surgeon general: | |||
2) The EPA: | |||
3) American Lung Association: | |||
4) American cancer society: | |||
5) Australian government Department of health: | |||
6) National Cancer Institute: | |||
Also in the same section's sub-section 'Cancer: General' , please add "Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals, of which hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer." | |||
source: citation no.133 from CDC: and from the American cancer society: | |||
Thank you! ] (]) 18:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
: Second part is done. I don't know if we really ''need'' the first sentence; it's not like the article implies otherwise. Leaving request open for another opinion. ] <small>(])</small> 20:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
::I find the first sentence about no risk-free level to be helpful information for readers. It looks supported by the sources. I'd probably support adding it. ––] <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:2px 5px;background:#0151D2;font-size:75%">]</span> 03:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
:: I can see benefits from both. On one hand the article's 3rd sentence screams that it's dangerous and so adding it may be superfluous. On the other, it can be imperative to clarify that the health detriment of the smoke isn't either "nothing" or "horrible disease". I would lean more so on adding it. If we can reasonably get away with further hammering home that smoking is bad, I we should take it, and the requested addition is extremely inobtrusive from my point of view. ](]) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
== Scene in ] == | |||
Scene: Lonnie Shaver's fellow jurors request him not to '''secondhand smoke'''. Please create "Pop culture" section and mention this. ] (]) 05:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC) | |||
: {{not done}}. ], not important to the subject. ] <small>(])</small> 20:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 21:27, 28 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Passive smoking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 35 days |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Passive smoking. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Passive smoking at the Reference desk. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Atomic1City*Blonde.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I propose to merge Sidestream smoke into this article because everything that needs to be covered about sidestream smoke is also covered in this article. Needforspeed888 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This merge seems reasonable to me. AdequateNBAfan (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd agree, except that Passive smoking, at 137k, is WP:TOOBIG and so having a separate article is warranted. Klbrain (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Closing, given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 10:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Title change proposal
With an increase in literature on third-hand smoke, the dichotomy between active and passive smoking seems less relevant. As such, I'd propose changing the beginning term to secondhand or second-hand smoke, which would move to passive smoking to one of the alternate terms. AdequateNBAfan (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
page move
@Sjö: the article introduces "passive smoking" but continues "secondhand smoking" c.f. Effects - there is no continuity Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- The term "secondhand smoke" refers to the smoke itself, while the term "passive smoking" refers to being subjected to the smoke. Hope that explains things. Anyway, that is no reason to move the article away from the WP:COMMONNAME. Sjö (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- Second hand smoke is also common: as I indicated "smoking" is the action part of the subject - which is a generalized concept: smoking smoker (1) but means to ignite tobacco to make smoke to inhale for drug-use (2). So 1 is taken to mean 2. This I think is obvious and without contention. "Passive smoking" isn't therefore a fusion of two ideas successfully but is a confusion of the idea of (1) as I have shown, that by the fact of passive, no action smoking is occuring. Wouldn't you agree? whether or not "passive smoking" is the commonest version, which I'm not stating it isn't (although I don't see you've provided any indication of proof currently to support your claim). Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- The participation in the habit-activity of the consumption of tobacco for it's psychoactive effects is by the application of sufficient heat to cause a state of ignition where-by smoke is created = smoking. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I can not understand what it is you are trying to say or what your argument is. But i guess that it is based on an etymological fallacy; since "to smoke" is an active action where someone lights tobacco and inhales the smoke that means that any phrase that contains the verb "smoke" must use "smoke" in exactly that meaning. That is incorrect, and language does not work that way. Sjö (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- An administrator reverted my response for legitimate reasons (as is shown in policy): User talk:Simpul skitsofreeneea#December 2023 Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- With regards to 19:21 "no continuity": this makes the introductory concept not the subject of the article - therefore a way to improve would be to impose "passive smoking" as the continuation instead of "second hand smoking" - the intro different to the contents term is conflictual for the reader. Evidently "As of 2003, "secondhand smoke" was the term most used to refer to other people's smoke in the English-language media." if true does indicate by your argument WP:UCRN the article needs to be renamed. Although the relevant editor distorted the source so I deleted. Simpul skitsofreeneea (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
"Passive inhaling of tobacco smoke" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Passive inhaling of tobacco smoke has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 6 § Passive inhaling of tobacco smoke until a consensus is reached. Sjö (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the missing <ref>
tag here:
The ] has identified reduction of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as key element for actions to encourage healthy child development.{{cite web|access-date=2024-06-12|title=WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC)|url=https://www.who.int/europe/teams/tobacco/who-framework-convention-on-tobacco-control-(who-fctc)|website=www.who.int}}</ref>
. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Done PianoDan (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- B-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- B-Class hematology-oncology articles
- Unknown-importance hematology-oncology articles
- Hematology-oncology task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Health and fitness articles
- High-importance Health and fitness articles
- WikiProject Health and fitness articles
- B-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
- Mid-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
- WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- Mid-importance Environment articles