Another Study NO Cancer Link

[TommyBB]

From the blog Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

“We’ve gotten smoking out of bars and restaurants on the basis of the fact that you and I and other nonsmokers don’t want to die,” said Silvestri. “The reality is, we probably won’t.”


Take that in for a moment. Contrast that little admission with the quackery of Stanton Glantz who has spent the last few days implying that one minute of secondhand smoke 'exposure' could be lethal. Contrast it with the BMA's assertion that "there is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer" (a quote made in response to yet another study that showed no such relationship.)

Wow. We knew that, already.

A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.


Awkward.

Investigators from Stanford and other research centers looked at data from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI-OS). Among 93,676 women aged 50–79 years at enrollment, the study had complete smoking and covariate data (including passive smoking exposure in childhood, adult home, and work) for 76,304 participants. Of those, 901 developed lung cancer over 10.5 mean years of follow-up.

The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers, and the relationship for both current and former smokers depended on level of exposure. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk. The only category of exposure that showed a trend toward increased risk was living in the same house with a smoker for 30 years or more. In that group, the hazard ratio for developing lung cancer was 1.61, but the confidence interval included 1.00, making the finding of only borderline statistical significance.


There's no such thing as borderline statistical significance. It's either significant or its not, and if it includes 1.0, it's not. It will be interesting to see the full results when they are published, but judging by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute report, it appears that this major cohort study did not find any statistically meaningful association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in the home, in the workplace or in childhood. Even if we disregard statistical significance (and why would we?), it seems that only decades of chronic exposure in the home might, at most, have an extremely modest effect on lung cancer risk. There is nothing to indicate the slightest risk to those who work in or patronise the bars and restaurants which have been forced to ban smoking.

This should not be particularly surprising. Very few passive smoking/lung cancer studies are published these days compared to the glut of the 1980s and 1990s, but the handful that have appeared in recent years continue to support the null hypothesis. For all the campaigners' talk of "overwhelming evidence", the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer has always been very shaky. It tends to be the smaller, case-control studies which find the associations while the larger, cohort studies do not (and, as the JNCI report notes, case-control studies "can suffer from recall bias: People who develop a disease that might be related to passive smoking are more likely to recall being exposed to passive smoking.")

Link to Entry

[macsauce13]

If only it would receive some press.

[BigJohn]

The actual findings will be very cool to see.
Words like "16 times" and "4 times" sound so HUGE! After all, 4 times a million dollars is, well, LOTTO worthy...

but 4 times 1 cent = 4 cents.

[tonycsmoke]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

The actual findings will be very cool to see.
Words like "16 times" and "4 times" sound so HUGE! After all, 4 times a million dollars is, well, LOTTO worthy...

but 4 times 1 cent = 4 cents.

The correct way to look at is this: If you buy a second lottery ticket, you have increased your chances of winning by 100%. Not that your chances are 100% (absolute risk), just that your one in a million is now two in a million (comparative risk). That is how they scare the public. Even if they could prove a 30% increase in lung cancer from SHS, it still isn't shit.

[Briandg]

and in other news, more than 30 years after widespread release, the artificial sweetener has once again been found to be harmless.

[CSMAnderson]

Why is it when study after study shows second hand smoke is harmless but doesn't get reported. It's like the governments health care plan is not working or works very poorly, it's not getting widely reported either. I guess you call it selective reporting.

[tonycsmoke]

Originally Posted by CSMAnderson

Why is it when study after study shows second hand smoke is harmless but doesn't get reported. It's like the governments health care plan is not working or works very poorly, it's not getting widely reported either. I guess you call it selective reporting.

Because Anti-tobacco has done a good job of painting the picture. They are the good guys who valiantly give up a normal life to fight the evil tobacco companies that murder it's customers for profit. Therefore, any action they take on behalf the public is good and beyond reproach.

also - reporting that something doesn't have an effect isn't as sexy as saying "millions will die".

[beevod]

Anyone remember alar? Oooh, don't eat that apple.

[CJ3]

Originally Posted by beevod

Oooh, don't eat that apple.

Did someone mention sin, or was that Mencken's definition of Puritanism?

[grtrx]

alar was pulled from the market so that might be why you don't here from it

sometimes things don't get reported becuase they aren't newsworthy, but car chases, celebs in rehab, atheletes caught with their pants around their knees and cats playing pianos are newsworthy. I am not syaing it is right, it is the way the media work,