Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:27, 19 May 2006

Someone with a minute of spare time, please look over the following

The first line of the "Studies of Passive Smoking" section has some sort of typo and/or vandalism. I'm not sure what it's supposed to say, but there is definitely something wrong.--Cotixan 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I will, but you're awfully quick to claim both typo and vandalism. I've seen your type before...okay...It's either typo or vandalism, and it can't be both, and I doubt one small thing is the latter.--OleMurder 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is better passive smoking or second hand smoking?

Passive smoking is known to be called second hand smoke. I made searches in WHO-Web site. When I searched with the words "passive smoking," 3000 articles were found. With the words "second hand smoking," 7480 articles were found. And when I searched with the words "passive smoke," 2590 articles were found. On the other hand, with the words "second hand smoke," 5080 articles were found.

Is the words "second hand smoking" better for the title of this page than "passive smoking" ?

I would suggest that Environmental Tocacco Smoke would be a better title, since it is more precisely descriptive and a neutral expression. Second Hand Smoking and Passive Smoking are both designed to be pejorative. For that reason, ETS should be used.--Sudont 18:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a functional difference between the terms: Environmental Tobacco Smoke is just there, but Passive Smoking or Second Hand Smoking implies that it is inhaled by a nonsmoker. I favor the current title.--Zamia12 15:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Google's verdict: ...1 440 000 for "passive smoking". ...84 800 for "second-hand smoking".

WINNER: PASSIVE SMOKING. Settled! Breathe in the air, second hand smoke...--OleMurder 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism removed

Looks like someone (68.100.238.219) is trying to remove any criticism on ETS science from this page. This needs to be a balanced page, not an anti-smoking ad!

And this is balanced right now? It certainly wasn't before, but it hasn't gotten any better (the only difference being that it's shifted in favor of the other side.)

Bullshit?

Penn & Teller: Bullshit had a rather interesting take on Second Hand Smoke (Session 1 Episode 5 -- occassionally aired on SHOUTCast Internet TV, search for "Bullshit"), debunking various claims (in particular, stating that the EPA study was revealed to have been made up on the spot and the WHO study showing the opposite conclusion of what the press releas claimed). While I don't think an American TV show is the most trustworthy source of information, they seemed to have a point.

Anybody know whether the facts have changed since the original airing of that show?

Since the risks of active smoking are commonly blown out of proportion (which, of course, doesn't make it non-harmful to the smokers) I wouldn't be surprised if most of the anti-smoking hysteria is really only based on strong feelings against smoking (i.e. people who don't like smoking and feel offended by other people smoking).

PS: I'm a non-smoker, but that doesn't make me as much of a psycho as some of the 'Merkins that have apparently started the whole anti-passive-smoking trend. -- Ashmodai 11:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's still BS. Here's another analysis, this by Cecil Adams. Sudont 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No government report is "made up on the spot". They are extensively, exhaustively, even tediously reviewed, by layers of people. The 1992 EPA report was reviewed by 2 sets of outside scientists: ]. I know nothing about Penn and Teller but this claim is incredible.Zamia12 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a very selected reading of the evidence in this article. Many physician organizations have spoken-out again it and there is broad agreement that it is associated with harm, both from epidemiological perspective and a toxicological one. The article looks like it was written by a tobacco lobbyist. Nephron 06:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted some of the most clearly unsourced and NPOV claims, but the article needs a lot more work.JQ 12:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Started POV

When I first saw this article, it was completely from the POV of anti-smoking, with factual errors, selectively omitted informtion, and gross POV misinterpretation of study results showing a basic lack of understanding of statistics. The Osteen decision was derided by inserting the fact that he was previously a tabacco lobbyist, although his neutrality can't be honestly questioned since he has also ruled against the tobacco industry in another important case (whether it is a drug that can be regulated by the FDA). It also had a "Tobacco industry vs. everyone else" tone.

We are now in the process of achieving a balance, although there was apparently a reactionary swing in the other direction. It appears there is now a swing the other way since the paragraph on the WHO study showing no significant link has been cut.

I'll work on it when I find the time. I think the page needs to show the issue isn't settled, and show how agenda-driven studies are on both sides. Should probably put the studies with the basic criticism and facts in one place, and show (but not argue) the debate, naming all the players.

The claim that "the issue isn't settled" should be supported by reference to scientific studies, not the vagaries of US Court Decisions. The Osteen stuff should be in a section on political controversy. Certainly the Osteen decision fits into a "Tobacco industry vs everyone else" view, since the case was part of a campaign by the tobacco industry. JQ 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Osteen’s decision wasn’t some "vagarie of the court." It was a very specific 92 page document outlining significant fraud by the EPA.

Osteen's decision was overturned, so I would say "vagaries of US court decisions" is an apt description of the process as a whole, whichever side of it you take. JQ 22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It was only overturned because the case shouldn't have been handled by the court. The overturn did not touch the content of the decision....

I'd say it's far more than "apparent" that it has shifted to the other side. This page has turned into a battle ground between "pro-smokers" and "anti-smokers," and it needs to be cleaned up.

Helena

We need to remove the reference to the Helena study from this page as it is complete BS. Read expert Michael Siegel's comments on it: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/04/challenge-issued-to-anti-smoking_10.html

Politically Charged Terms

Expressions like "second-hand smoke" and "passive smoking" are politically charged terms. The preferred and politically neutral expression is "environmental tobacco smoke". In fact, I'd say much of the article rightly belongs under "Environmental Tobacco Smoke", and that the Passive Smoking article should be a discussion of the term itself, along with the other politically charged terms like Second-Hand Smoke, etc... The way it is set up now, ETS is, rightly so, a disambiguation page, but the link to "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" redirects you to "Tobacco Smoking", which doesn't discuss ETS at all. It seems to me that there should be an "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" page, containing the article now entitled "Passive Smoking", with a link to the political terms under the "Passive Smoking" page, and discussing them as such. After all, "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" is the preferred, neutral, "scientific" term, if you will, for what we're talking about. As it is, it's politically slanted in the anti-smoking direction.

This seems reasonable enough to me JQ 22:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

“Preferred” by whom? -Ahruman 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Preferred by people without a political agenda. Expressions like "second-hand smoke" were designed to be pejorative. An encyclpœdia is, ideally, neutral, dispassionate, and scientific.

"Junk science" is also a politcally charged term, created by people working for the tobacco industry and then enthusiastically adopted by anti-environmentalists, especially "Greenhouse skeptics."

I had no idea that "secondhand smoke" or "passive smoking" were politically loaded or that "environmental tobacco smoke" was even a term before I saw this. As a way of settling this issue, try looking up "secondhand smoke," which is the term I'm most familiar with myself, or "passive smoking," if you prefer that term, at www.dictionary.com; you'll find 3 entries for each, and no tag denoting that they are offensive. Then look up "environmental smoke" or "environmental tobacco smoke" at the same site, and you'll see that neither one has an entry in the dictionary. I can only conclude from this that E.T.S. isn’t encyclopedic because it isn’t standard English. I have no special grudge against those who do or do not smoke, but I’ll admit that I am tired of political correctness impeding the simple transfer of information and turning free discussion into an emotional minefield. Harkenbane 01:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

the scientific literature uses the terms "involuntary smoking", "passive smoking" and "sidestream smoke". Anlace 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought sidestream smoke referred only to the smoke coming from the cigarette (or pipe, cigar, whatever) itself, as opposed to the smoke exhaled by the smoker. Mainly used when a distinction between the two sources is useful or necessary. Both sidestream and exhaled smoke would be components of second hand, passive, or environmental, or whatever you want to call it smoke. ONUnicorn 19:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Unicorn, your distinction is totally correct. cheers. Anlace 19:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I changed the style of citations to a more acceptable superscript style.

We need citations for the section on risks to pets. I've added links where I think we need them.

Also concerning this section, I'm a bit dubious on the following

Quotes:

This indicates that the risk of developing cancer from second-hand smoke may be greater for cats than for humans, including children. ONE POSSIBLE REASON (emphasis added) is that the cat receives the cancer-causing agents both by inhaling and by grooming, or IT MAY (emphasis added) caused by factors unrelated to ETS.

THIS IS BECAUSE, IN THEORY, (emphasis added) a dog with a long nose has an extra filtering system in its nose, so it is more likely to develop nasal cancers, but because of this extra filtering system, tobacco smoke is less likely to reach its lungs and cause cancer there.

The emphasised parts are totally ridiculous. They maybe true, but we need citations. "This is because, in theory" does not not even make sense. It begins by implying it's a fact (This is because), then adds in theory, which shows it is not a fact. I have as much trouble with this statement as I do with people who say It's a fact, I think. I'm tempted to remove these all together, unless citations from a respectable source can back these up. Links for the reports should be easy to find, but this theorizing on why it may cause it has no place here.

Thanks - Welshy 16:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation links at the top of page

I propose that the red disambiguation links to a Sublime album and single be removed. They are not serving any purpose, and are unsightly. Also, the see also links should be moved to the proper space. GilliamJF 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I've removed them. The song link (Second-hand smoke) was poorly done, and I can't find a reference to the song on the Twiztd wiki page - Welshy 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dave Hitt original research

I have re-added the Dave Hitt link that critisizes the EPA/WHO report. It is not original research, but an examination of the studies.

If the person who removed the link can present an argument why it is original research, then please provide it.

Thanks - Welshy 13:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

An examination of studies, published on a personal website, constitutes original research in that "it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;" WP:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F

If you want to use this material go back to the published studies, and cite them.JQ 23:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Ok, sorry for the delay, but here's the begining of my rewrite. What follows is an illumination to my removal :)

1) environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)

That's the stuff you inhale, not the act of doing so (same for second-hand smoke)

2) Carcinogens that occur in secondhand tobacco smoke include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, benzopyrene, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and many others.

The source was in german, and I can't read german. Seeing as this is the English wikipedia, I removed it. Also, possible NPOV with the use of the word many

3) Numerous studies have suggested that passive smoking can be harmful to human health. The majority of the adverse health effects of ETS, such as reduced lung capacity, are extremely exaggerated, based on studies, funded by anti-smoking groups, that show effects so low they are barely measurable. Some research suggests that the risk of death from ETS is lower than otherwise predicted.

Seemed pretty irrelavent as much of that is expressed in the article to follow. Also, all of it is unsourced and obviously pov.

More to follow - Welshy 03:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Headaches?

No one argues against the fact that passive smoking causes headaches in many people. Shouldn't that be stated in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbaer (talk • contribs)

Uhm, no. Stand nearby a smoky fireplace and you'll experience the same thing. It's not related to the tabacco, but the smoke itself (it probably also has partially to do with the lack of oxygen in smokey air or something to that effect).

You could also add that passive smoking can cause your eyes to get a bit dry and irritated. Or that burning cigarettes are hot (litterally, the tip of a lit fag can burn through things or set them on fire).

And while we're stating the bloody obvious already, let's also add a note on George W Bush that he is a human being with two eyes, a nose, mouth and central nervous system.

But seriously, filling a closed room with smoke will cause headaches in people no matter WHAT you're burning. Most people, however, don't just spontaneously develop headaches just because someone in their vague viscinity is smoking in an outdoor environment. And if they do, they either have a serious health condition they should see a doctor about or a serious mental condition they should see a shrink about.

Blowing smoke into someone's face (which can cause headaches, even outdoors) is always considered rude, just like farting into someone's face or spitting in their general direction.

Even as a non-smoker I think including a notion like this would not exactly improve the article -- it would look more like someone tried to come up with reasons smoking is evil and just couldn't be bothered to try anymore. — Ashmodai

A doctor would like to have a discussion with you about that - because I am perfectly healthy and can run a 6-minute mile and have had more health tests done on me than you're ever likely to have in your entire life and I get headaches pretty fucking fast from open air exposure - probably has something to do with the fact that the threshold of sensory perception is WAAAAY above the threshold of toxicity for ETS. (Reason why I had all those tests is because my father was a research patient in familiar hyperparathyroidism and they were trying to determine if I had inherited the gene) Lordkazan 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but passive smoking gives me headaches. It didn't when I was a kid, but it does now and I know I'm not alone. Since the most recent controversial smoking laws regard smoke-filled rooms in restaurants, bars, pool halls, etc., this is highly relevant. I don't mind standing upwind from a smoker outside on a windy day - as I have many times - but I certainly mind being in the same room as one and getting a headache because the right to smoke is more respected than the right to not be harmed by someone else's intentional act. Whether the cause is tobacco, ash, or toxins really doesn't concern me, but the fact that this harm done by passive smoking is little-discussed is quite puzzling if it is, as you say, "bloody obvious." As is the fact that fireplaces, unlike smokers, have chimneys attached. Calbaer 21:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Allergies, Asthma

These more common and less controversial effects of second-hand smoke are not discussed in this article at all. The article is over-focused on the controversy surrounding studies which attempt to demonstrate the long term, more serious effects of second-hand smoke, such as cancer. Perhaps a section should be added on short-term effects?