Talk:Passive smoking: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 02:27, 1 November 2021 edit24.228.128.119 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:28, 1 November 2021 edit undo24.228.128.119 (talk) Kind of redundant to the disclaimer belowNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
	{{Not a forum\|the risks of second-hand smoke}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes		{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes
	\|1={{WikiProject Medicine\|class=B\|importance=High}}		\|1={{WikiProject Medicine\|class=B\|importance=High}}

Revision as of 02:28, 1 November 2021

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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 article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Health and fitness High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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 (article contribs).

2013 Stanford study on the impact of passive smoking on lung cancer among women

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 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. 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".

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.

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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.146.49 (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Need I remind everyone of this quote from the article:

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. Oxford Journals: Annals of Oncology and get the following:

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.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Does *anyone* have a proper citation for this? The article I can find is:

Wang, A; Kubo; et al. (January 2015). "Active and passive smoking in relation to lung cancer incidence in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study prospective cohort". Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 26 (1): 221–30. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu470. PMID 25316260.

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 J.NCI (they've put one up I guess in the last two years), I don't find anything either. Jimw338 (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

2016 study on the impact of smoking bans on heart disease

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.Darkthlayli (talk) 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 correlation does not imply causation, 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.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:49, 4 October 2016 (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.Darkthlayli (talk) 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 Rka001 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Passive smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Passive smoking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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! 2409:4042:2E1F:FE5B:9571:54ED:1ED0:DDFD (talk) 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. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 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. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 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 think we should take it, and the requested addition is extremely inobtrusive from my point of view. Sirdog9002 (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: I'm closing this request while it's under discussion per Remember to change the answered no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Scene in Runaway Jury

Scene: Lonnie Shaver's fellow jurors request him not to secondhand smoke. Please create "Pop culture" section and mention this. Rizosome (talk) 05:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done. WP:FANCRUFT, not important to the subject. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2021 (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)

Categories: