Secondhand smoke: not so fast

Posted on May 20, 2003 by Ampersand

In the comments to my previous post, Alas reader Gar Lipow helpfully provided a link to the comments section of the British Medical Journal, where there are many substantial criticisms of the study I mentioned. Gar also pointed out the AMA’s very back-of-the-hand rejection of the same study (which is interesting more for how openly obnoxious it is than for providing any actual critique of the study).

Also, the study was funded by the tobacco industry, which does raise reasonable skepticism.

So, unfortunately, secondhand smoke may be harmful after all. Oh, well. On the bright side, I can go back to feeling morally superior to my smoking housemates (always a silver lining), who are killing me – KILLING ME! – with their selfish habits (choke! gasp! can’t breathe… mustn’t… pass… out…), and who also are making a mess on the floor near the coffee pot. Darn them smokers!

I’ll be interested to see what A.C. Douglas and The Light of Reason say about the critiques of this study..

This entry was posted in Site and Admin Stuff. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Secondhand smoke: not so fast

  1. bean says:
    May 20, 2003 at 1:14 pm

    Mess on the floor near the coffee pot? What’s that got to do with smoking?

  2. Ampersand says:
    May 20, 2003 at 1:23 pm

    Well, I haven’t noticed any of the non-smokers in our household making a mess on the floor near the coffeepot. Doesn’t correlation equal causation?

  3. bean says:
    May 20, 2003 at 1:30 pm

    LOL!!!

  4. Janis says:
    May 20, 2003 at 1:47 pm

    Yeah, it seemed fishy to me — there is just no way that sucking particulate matter into your lungs isn’t going to damage something. Secondhand smoke, smog, asbestos — it’s all solid material that shouldn’t be there.

  5. acdouglas says:
    May 20, 2003 at 1:53 pm

    I’ll be interested to see what A.C. Douglas and The Light of Reason say about the critiques of this study

    A.C. Douglas will have nothing to say about the posted critiques, preferring to wait for the response by either or both the BMJ and/or the study’s authors.

    The original ETS studies were so blatantly fraudulent I’d be stunned if the critiques stand after such a reply.

    ACD

  6. Steve Bates says:
    May 20, 2003 at 2:03 pm

    “… a mess on the floor near the coffeepot. Doesn’t correlation equal causation?” – Amp

    Shouldn’t that be, “percolation equals causation”?

  7. Al-Muhajabah says:
    May 20, 2003 at 4:55 pm

    I have to agree with Janis. The effects may be small, but how can there not be at least some negative effect from breathing in smoke?

Comments are closed.