Studies

Adams & Cotti Study, 2007

The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants

The impact on bars has 2 important factors

-smoking prevalence

-extreme weather conditions

This is a great read!!

Studies Part I

These exerpts are taken from Senator Tom Neuville's website indicating to his constituents why he has NOT VOTED FOR A STATEWIDE ban in Minnesota www.tomneuville.com/archives/119

From the Archives of Internal Medicine; Vol. 166 No.18 Oct. 9, 2006

"Lifetime Cumulative Exposure to Secondhand Smoke and Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Never Smokers"

Conclusions: "Exposure to SHS as declined sharply among nonsmokers in recent years. In the absence of high levels of recent exposure to SHS, cumulative lifetime exposure to SHS may not be as important a risk factor for MI as previously thought." link to entire article:

Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 11, No. 2, 59-82 (2002)

"Revisiting the Association between Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk"

"Whether or not a true risk exists, it is clear that this is not demonstrated by the overall evidence."

Dr. Michael Siegel - a medical doctor and public health offician who teaches at Boston University School of Medican who is outspoken agains smoking states "The Surgeon General is publicly claiming that brief exposure to second hand smoke increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer. But, no evidence is presented in the Surgeon General's report to support this claim."

Wall Street Journal, May 2003

Dr. Melvin First, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Heath at Harvard, regarding James Enstrom's findings that exposure to environmental smoke cannot be associated with increased risk of cancer and heart disease "comes as no surprise to me as I've authored, with my colleague, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (292:844-845, 1975) detailing the results of inconspicuous air samplings at restaurants, cocktail lounges, transportation terminals, etc. "to evaluate the health inplications for non-smokers" and found that the concentrations of tobacco smoke were equivalent to smoking about .004 cigarettes per hour while in these facilities. It should be recalled that smoking in public Places was normal and prevalent a quarter century ago. Nor am I surprised at the scurrilous responses of the concerned voluntary health associations. Publication of the paper cited above resulted in many angry voices on the phone wanting to learn the funding source, although it was noted that it was funded "by the Massachusetts Lung Association and its locat affiliates." This is another interesting tale - the Lung Association put our report in a drawer and never released it. It is also curious that none of the Surgeon General's reports ever mentioned this study. Nor am I surprised that an attempt is being made to trash Dr. Enstrom's conclusions because the study was funded in part by money from tobacco interested. Does this mean that all the researchers funded by anti-smoking agencies are biased in the opposite direction? I trust not. Such charges are deeply insulting to academics in good standing. For the record, I am a non-smoker and as a responsible health professional I do not advocate smoking." - Dr. Melvin First

Dr. Elizabeth Whelen, of the American Council on Science and Health states; "This "no threshold" proposition cannot withstand scientific scruiting." (referring to reports that there is no safe dose of second hand smoke). Even mainstream smoke, which is 100,000 time more concentrated than second hand smike, has a threshold. All of the individual carcinogens known - or claimed - to be in second hand smoke all have thresholds.

The National Cancer Institute 1998 report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), commissioned by the World Health Organization, found that "children were less likely to get lung cancer if both parents smoked than if neither smoked. (The RR was 0.78 for exposure to secondhand smoke during childhood)." The study also concluded: "ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. The OR (odds ratio) for exposure to spousal ETS was 1.15 (95% CI = 0.88 to 1.47). The OR for exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17, with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure"

2003 British Medical Journal Publication - "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Tobacco Related Mortality in a Prospective Study of Californians during 1960-98" - Dr. James E. Enstrom, PhD, MPH and Dr. Geoffrey C. Kabat

Then there's this study that still, as of this date, has Dr. James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, University of California, working to undo the smear campaign done by the American Cancer Society and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in rapid responses. "The attack has been largely due to the fact that we published politically incorrect null findings from a long-term study primarily funded by the ACS, but completed with a research award to UCLA from the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), a now defunct tobacco industry funded research organization".

It's interesting to note that this study was one of the largest studies ever done, covering 100,000 people over 38 years time.

Since this 2003 attack to professional discredit and ruin Dr. Enstrom, Dr. Enstrom is fighting back. You'll find this most enlightening.

http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/11

Samet, Thun, Glantz

Interesting that these 3 "scientists", who have long had their own agendas to create a smoke free society, were the Senior Scientific Editor, Reviewer and Contributing Editor, respectively, for the Surgeon General's Report.

Fatally flawed Surgeon General Report 2006 - Carmona

This report is the sole basis by the American Cancer Society for the Argument & Support for Issue 5 - the Ohio smoking ban.

His opening statements to the press were "There is no risk-free level of second smoke exposure", that "Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion" and that children exposed to secondhand smoke "Eventually, they'll develop cardiovascular and cancers over time".

The ACS finally found patsy who wanted the limelight, so they took his idiotically, vainly, carelessly made statements and used them to deceive Ohio voters. From Carmona, they used these 5 bullet items:

Secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, and lung disease in non smokers
There is no safe level of exposure
The only way to protect health is to eliminate smoking inside public places
Separate smoking sections do not protect health
Smoke-free policies do not harm business

Well, we already know the last bullet item is a lie. We have figures from Ohio to prove it (see Damage to Businesses). What about the statement "there is no safe level of exposure"? It might interest you to know that an official complaint on the Surgeon General's Report was filed with the Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity by Forces International for "deliberate scientific misconduct, misrepresentation, fabrication and falsification" www.forces.org/static_page/ori/ori_complaint.pdf

The ORI returned the complaint to Forces stating it was not within their jurisdiction. So we've included Forces' complaint in our Request for Congressional Hearing.

Let us remind you, this report is not a study. Rather, the Surgeon General "cherry picked" what reports he wanted to use, what reports he didn't want to use, and cut off reports from 2002 on to exclude Dr. Enstrom/Dr. Kabat's report. The Surgeon General's Report was a meta analysis.

Dr. Enstrom addresses this report in his "Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research: Combating Lysenko Pseudoscience". Dr. Enstrom states: "I examined the references used in Chapters 1-10..and the references in the appendix that were not used. Of 38 total references from 2003, 33 were used in Chapters 1-10 and only 5 were not used" (Enstrom's was one of the 5 not used). "Of the 71 references from 2004, 53 were used and 18 were not; of the 39 references from 2005, 26 were used and 13 were not used; of the 22 references from 2006, 7 were used and 15 were not". Interestingly, Dr. Enstrom notes Chapter 7, page 423 (SGR)reports Carmona as saying in his report "This chapter considers the full body of evidence on secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer published through 2002, the ending date for the systematic review of the epidemiologic studies". Why, if Carmona cites references to studies all the way up to 2006, does he limit his "full body of evidence" to publications through 2002?

Does he not use any of the data from the remaining 4 years? Hmm...Dr. Enstrom/Dr. Kabat's report is dated 2003. Carmona would have had to include that report, which was the largest and longest in terms of years studied to date. Because they omitted the Enstrom/Kabat report, the "worldwide relative risk (RR) of 1.21 (1.13-1.30) was reported on page 435." Had Carmona included the Enstrom/Kabat report, it would have substantially weakened the U.S. evidence. Enstrom's "own meta-analysis of all U.S. Spousal smoking studies yields a U.S. RR of 1.10 (1.00-1:21), which barely constitutes a relationship."

Support SB120:

Give Ohio the Exemptions Voted for in Issue 5 - Return Freedom of Choice & Let Free Market Drive the Decisions of Business Owners