Talk:Passive smoking/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Which is better passive smoking or second hand smoking? 

message: 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.)
It was not my intent to remove all criticisms of ETS science. I edited portions in an effort to better reflect accepted scientific consensus on ETS. 68.100.238.219
-- 'scientific consensus' is no science. It's science contaminated with political/financial interests. No objectivity guaranteed.
:: Consensus by non-politicized studies is that there are -no- dangerous effects of passive smoking in the long term for non-asthmatics. That's right militant anti-smokers, i'll be editing the controversy section soon with citied sources in the next couple of days. Also, should there be a section in the article about the rise of the second-hand smoke buzzword in the early to mid-nineties? Not sure how relevant it is to the topic at hand and it may take away from the NPOV of the atricle, it could on the other hand provide a useful perspective on the term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:Adding of sources would, of course, be welcome.  I personally would love to see a history section added, I don't think a history section would detract from NPOV at all. ONUnicorn 21:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism removed 

message: 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
This blog post does not reference the Helena study or its authors.  I'm restoring the Helena section.--Bwabes 23:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helena 

message: The article's been fairly static for some time now. Would anyone object if we took the POV tag off? If so, can you highlight which areas need adjustment? Nmg20 08:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's in pretty good shape JQ 11:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Pull the POV Tag Lordkazan 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending POV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation links at the top of page 

message: As noted, quoting sites like this (private websites summarising research from a tendentious viewpoint) is an important example of the things prohibited by  WP:No original research. Please be sure not to include material from this or similar sites in Wikipedia, unless the organisation being cited is notable in itself, and the material is labelled as describing its views (not the case for FORCES.org, which manages one hit on Google.  JQ 22:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.forces.org/evidence/financial-ties/index.htm A single source for every original study published concerning passive smoking]

message: 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, benzo[a]pyrene, 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.[citation needed]
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)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: 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 (talk · contribs)
::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 [so that i know i'm 100% healthy] 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Headaches? 

message: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-08-06-thirdhand-smoke-usat_x.htm
May be worthy of a mention.  violet/riga (t) 20:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thirdhand smoke 

message: Does anyone else think the "Enstrom and Kabat" portion of this article should be moved to under the controversy portion? Generally, if someone wants to look up secondhand smoke in an encyclopedia, they will want to know something about whether or not it is as dangerous as it is made out to be lately; not whether the American Cancer Society knows what they are talking about. If someone wants to look into the controversy and tred down the no-man's land of a debate, they will most likely scroll down to the controversy. Smokeresearcher 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this move. JQ 22:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with this too. Nmg20 14:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: thirded Lordkazan 16:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is done. Smokeresearcher 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: this article seems clearly biased towards the anti-tobacco companies. i think that not enough evidence is presented that condesending talk of big-tobacco companies should be in this article. either it should be changed or else a bias banner should be put on the top of this page. this is due to when reading this article, it does not seem like this issue is taken objectivly
:Would you be able to give some examples from the article to support your claim? If you do, we can try to make them less biased if appropriate. I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-tobacco companies", too - I don't know of any... Nmg20 15:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no anti-tobacco "companies" because all the anti-tobacco groups are non-profit. Most of them (at least all that I know of) are just about spreading some message, not about selling some product/service. That's like calling the American Cancer Society "Cancer-Cures for Less." Smokeresearcher 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue is taken objectively, the truth is just unmitigatedly against smokers Lordkazan 00:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: i have to agree that this article is somewhat biased. one of the main sentence that states that passive smoking is harmful was cited to an article by "Americans for Nonsmoker Rights". This is a group with obvious agenda, and i think that findings can be a bit skewed. Janechii 03:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A source merely being partisan doesn't instantly make them not a RS - nor does it make the article pov - the statement is absolutely undeniably true and a better citation should be found.  The Article is most CERTAINLY not POV - the FACTS just are overwhelmingly against smoking. Lordkazan 04:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Nonsmokers Rights site was only a secondary source, and shouldn't have been included. I've deleted it and given direct links to the primary sources. Obviously, it's important to go to primary sources wherever possible in an article like this. JQ 05:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias banner should be put on this page 

message: I was reading through this page and I gotta tell you, most of you are spilling out bullshit. If you want to bring forth a counter argument you must provide a scientific research article or finding that supports your theory. You can not simply say something like "anyone can see that" because that is not a proof and you just humiliate yourself. Please remember that the wikipedia talk pages are not forums and that the main rule of Wikipedia is Verifiability. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations in Talk Page 

message: The Helena study is 
:Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study, Richard P Sargent, Robert M Shepard, Stanton A Glantz.  BMJ  2004;328:977-980 (24 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.38055.715683.55 (published 5 April 2004) .  
Glantz responds to some criticism here.  I'll try to work this into the article unless someone else gets to it first. 67.117.130.181 15:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helena again 

message: The preamble of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control indicate that the parties which have ratified this international treaty recognize that "scientific evidence has unequivocally established that tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke cause death, disease and disability." (my emphasis) Article 8, in its first paragraph, repeats the same line specifically for passive smoking: "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability." In both cases, the adjective "scientific" is used to  qualify the evidence. As this international treaty has been signed by 168 countries and has been ratified as of December 23, 2006, by 142 countries, I would think that the text can be taken as a sufficiently reliable and authoritative reference for the use of the expression "scientific evidence" in the wikipedia article on passive smoking. 
To qualify the evidence as "statitiscal" instead of "scientific", as is proposed by Rosenkreuz is not appropriate for a number of reasons. The first and foremost is that it is reductionnist and does not do justice to the full extent and scope and comprehensiveness of the evidence which has accumulated over the last three decades about the harmful health effects of passive smoking. One of the best accounts of this evidence is given in the Final Opinion of Judge Gladys Kessler in the case United States of America vs. Philip Morris, et al.. Pages 1211-1238 provide an excellent account of the current state of knowledge about the health effects of passive smoking, of which I quote below a few characteristic passages:
3307. Evidence of the health risks of passive smoking is derived from many sources. It comes from knowledge of the health risks of active smoking, the carcinogenicity and toxicity of the components in mainstream and sidestream smoke, the evidence that nonsmokers absorb the disease causing components of tobacco smoke, and epidemiological studies that have assessed the association of passive exposure to tobacco smoke with disease outcomes.
3308. Conclusions about the causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and adverse health effects are based on the extensive evidence derived from both epidemiological and toxicological investigation of active smoking. Additionally, studies using biomarkers of exposure and dose, such as the nicotine-specific metabolite cotinine, document the absorption of known disease-causing components of secondhand smoke by exposed nonsmokers, confirming the observed associations of secondhand smoke with adverse health effects.
3349. Using the five criteria adopted by the Surgeon General as a framework for evaluating causality (see ¶3309, herein), scientists in the public health community view the accumulation of data to determine if a causal relationship exists. In this case, the overwhelming accumulation of data demonstrates that ETS causes disease.
3348. Since the 1986 Surgeon General's Report, every major scientific review and assessment of the science on passive smoking and its health effects has independently and consistently concluded that passive smoking causes disease and other adverse health effects in adults and children.
Another reason why the qualification "satistical" for the evidence is not appropriate is that it is POV. It is indeed the qualification used by the tobacco industry in their policy of denial of the causal link between exposure to secondhand smoke and diseases. For the industry, the link is not causal, it is simply "statistical", with a strong connotation given to the term to mean that it is coïncidental. The Final Opinion of Judge Gladys Kessler
shows that this stratagem was used as as early as in the 70s by the tobacco industry.
1978 Report of the Council for Tobacco Research-U.S.A., Inc. (“[T]he complex etiology of these constitutional diseases [cancer, heart disease, chronic pulmonary ailments] remains unraveled. These diseases have been associated statistically with smoking, but such associations are not proof of cause and effect.”).
  
I therefore plead that the term "statistical" be not accepted as a qualification and I would plead that many of the changes made by  Rosenkreuz be reverted, as they are PoV and seem to be aligned on the biased views of the tobacco industry or of fringe libertarian groups with also a very radical point of view on the subject.
Dessources 13:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to qualify the evidence that passive smoking causes diseases and other PoV changes made by Rosenkreuz

message: I am not a "phony moderator" as someone claimed.
I removed the passage as it is redundannt, and lessens the impact of the health information beneath. Moderation 13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict)  Hi there.  As a new editor to Wikipedia, you may not be aware of the role the the introduction section plays.  It is intended to give a brief overview of the rest of the article, summarising the key points of a particular subject.  As such, it is inevitable that it will reproduce material from the main body of the article.  Stating upfront that passive smoking is viewed as a health risk by the scientific community is exactly the sort of information that such a summary should contain.  As it happens, the portion of text you are repeatedly removing is both short and not a direct reproduction of later material.  To this end I am restoring it again.  Your POV may be that it lessens the impact of later health information, but given that you are being reverted by multiple editors that is hardly consensus.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundant passage removed

message: I just noticed an anonymous rebuttal to the use of "consensus" was removed as "irrelevant." Perhaps, on the topic of encylopediic summarization. However, that word is used quite a lot here, so I believe it is highly relevant to the topic in general. 
Business and political analysts have pointed out a number of problems with consensus decision-making. A too-strict requirement of consensus may effectively give a small self-interested minority group veto power over decisions. Decision by consensus may take an extremely long time to occur, and thus may be intolerable for urgent matters, e.g. those of executive decisions. In some cases, consensus decision-making may encourage groupthink, a situation in which people modify their opinions to reflect what they believe others want them to think, leading to a situation in which a group makes a decision that none of the members individually think is wise. It can also lead to a few dominant individuals making all decisions. Finally, consensus decision-making may fail in a situation where there simply is no agreement possible, and interests are irreconcilable.
Discuss.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlowingSmoke (talk • contribs).
:Hi BlowingSmoke! Please note that it is good practice to sign your posts. The use of consensus in the wiki process is best discussed in the context of the Wikipedia:Consensus article. Feel free to contribute to the discussion there. 
:Dessources 19:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concensorship

message: It's amazing how many people talk about "anti-tobacco fanatics" and their "junk science".  The scientific evidence has been reviewed by the Surgeon General of the United States and his conclusion is that there is no longer any debate possible.  The data clearly state that passive smoking causes and aggravates disease.  Now if there are any of those who disagree who are as well educated as the Surgeon General and if they have the staff to thoroughly examine all the evidence, then I might be willing to listen to their arguments.  
The tobacco industry in the US has been found guilty of rackteering; lying and deceiving the American public.  Why would you rather believe their arguments? Christo61````
71.72.217.102 08:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surgeon General says the data are unequivocal-good enough for me! 

message: Where was this photograph taken?  It is definitely not Ireland.
(I'm an Irishman)
This comment was added at 02:21 on 8th March 2007 by User:194.125.110.125. New comments go at the bottom of the page; four tildes like this ~~~~ will sign your name and datestamp your comments.
:I have no idea. Perhaps if you send a message to User:Mnbf9rca, who took the photo, he could help point you to whichever Irish pub it was taken in. Is it at all possible you haven't visited the pub and so don't recognise it...? Nmg20 09:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh - enjoy your weekend, then! Nmg20 22:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Could User:Tjmailzone%60, who has added the list of anti-smoking papers today (revision 113546897) please clarify what the SSRN is? Specifically, there's no evidence on reading papers like this that it's a peer-reviewed journal, and the tone treads a thin line between being populist and unscientific, IMHO. I'm not convinced these add anything to the article... Nmg20 14:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSRN papers