Why only smoking? Let's ban drinking in public places

[sasguru]

Well, several studies have pretty much conclusively explained the link between secondary smoking and cancer.... or related respitory diseases.

Actually no. Please point me to a scientific study that shows this. There is no doubt about the link between primary smoking and cancer, COPD, heart disease etc.
But passsive smoking, no.

[zathras]

Actually no. Please point me to a scientific study that shows this. There is no doubt about the link between primary smoking and cancer, COPD, heart disease etc.
But passsive smoking, no.

Well you asked for it

http://www.greenfacts.org/tobacco/ca...-tobacco-1.htm

6.1. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is an increased risk of lung cancer for people who have never smoked but who have been exposed to tobacco smoke, e.g. spouses of smokers and non-smokers exposed at the workplace. However, the risk is much smaller than for active smokers. More...
.
.
.
6.3. Studies on laboratory animals support the evidence that passive smoking can cause cancer in humans and there is some data suggesting that dogs living in smoking households also have an increased risk for certain cancers.
.
.
.
7.1. Passive smoking can cause coronary heart disease and chronic respiratory symptoms. More...

7.2. Though passive smoking does not seem to affect body weight, fertility and age at menopause of women, the birth weight of babies born to passive smokers may be lower than those born to non-smokers. More...

7.3. Similar to active smokers, passive smokers have harmful substances and breakdown products of tobacco smoke in their body, which can cause cell damage and lung cancer. More...

7.4. Test animals exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke show a range of adverse effects, including DNA damage, altered metabolism, reduced birth weight, as well as diseases of the arteries and the respiratory system.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html

How does this affect the passive smoker?

Some of the immediate effects of passive smoking include eye irritation, headache, cough, sore throat, dizziness and nausea. Adults with asthma can experience a significant decline in lung function when exposed, while new cases of asthma may be induced in children whose parents smoke. Short term exposure to tobacco smoke also has a measurable effect on the heart in non-smokers. Just 30 minutes exposure is enough to reduce coronary blood flow. [3]



In the longer term, passive smokers suffer an increased risk of a range of smoking-related diseases. Non-smokers who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, have a 25 per cent increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. [4] A major review by the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children. [5] A more recent review of the evidence by SCOTH found that the conclusions of its initial report still stand i.e. that there is a “causal effect of exposure to secondhand smoke on the risks of lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and a strong link to adverse effects in children”. [6] A review of the risks of cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) noted that “the evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers”. [7] A study published in the British Medical Journal suggests that previous studies of the effects of passive smoking on the risk of heart disease may have been under-estimated. The researchers found that blood cotinine levels among non-smokers were associated with a 50-60% increased risk of heart disease. [8]

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER

IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans

http://www-cie.iarc.fr/htdocs/indexes/vol83index.html

Involuntary (or passive) smoking is exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke, which is a mixture of exhaled mainstream smoke and sidestream smoke released from the smouldering cigarette or other smoking device (cigar, pipe, bidi, etc.) and diluted with ambient air. Involuntary smoking involves inhaling carcinogens, as well as other toxic components, that are present in secondhand tobacco smoke. Secondhand tobacco smoke is sometimes referred to as ‘environmental’ tobacco smoke. 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.

Secondhand tobacco smoke consists of a gas phase and a particulate phase; it changes during its dilution and distribution in the environment and upon ageing. The concentrations of respirable particles may be elevated substantially in enclosed spaces containing secondhand tobacco smoke. The composition of tobacco smoke inhaled involuntarily is variable quantitatively and depends on the smoking patterns of the smokers who are producing the smoke as well as the composition and design of the cigarettes or other smoking devices. The secondhand tobacco smoke produced by smoking cigarettes has been most intensively studied.

Secondhand tobacco smoke contains nicotine as well as carcinogens and toxins. Nicotine concentrations in the air in homes of smokers and in workplaces where smoking is permitted typically range on average from 2 to 10 micrograms/m3.

5.2 Human carcinogenicity data

Lung cancer

Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer. As noted in the previous IARC Monograph on tobacco smoking, this implies that there will be some risk of lung cancer from exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.

More than 50 studies of involuntary smoking and lung cancer risk in never-smokers, especially spouses of smokers, have been published during the last 25 years. These studies have been carried out in many countries. Most showed an increased risk, especially for persons with higher exposures. To evaluate the information collectively, in particular from those studies with a limited number of cases, meta-analyses have been conducted in which the relative risk estimates from the individual studies are pooled together. These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding. The excess risk increases with increasing exposure. Furthermore, other published meta-analyses of lung cancer in never-smokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke at the workplace have found a statistically significant increase in risk of 12–19%. This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never-smokers. The magnitudes of the observed risks are reasonably consistent with predictions based on studies of active smoking in many populations.

Breast cancer

The collective evidence on breast cancer risk associated with involuntary exposure of never-smokers to tobacco smoke is inconsistent. Although four of the 10 case–control studies found statistically significant increases in risks, prospective cohort studies as a whole and, particularly, the two large cohort studies in the USA of nurses and of volunteers in the Cancer Prevention Study II provided no support for a causal relation between involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke and breast cancer in never-smokers. The lack of a positive dose–response also argues against a causal interpretation of these findings. Finally, the lack of an association of breast cancer with active smoking weighs heavily against the possibility that involuntary smoking increases the risk for breast cancer, as no data are available to establish that different mechanisms of carcinogenic action operate at the different dose levels of active and of involuntary smoking.

[sasguru]

Well I have some experience in the epidemiological (study of the causes of diseases) area.

In the links above you can ignore the first 2 links. They have an axe to grind and make assertions without evidence.

Only the WHO link mentions meta analyses - which are studies of studies. These conclude that spouses of smokers face up to 30% increased risk (of what in particular?) after controlling for SOME confounding variables. And workers in smoky environments increased risks just under 20%. If true, the workers figure is hardly massive is it? I bet the risk of living in a city like London (car fumes, smog etc) is greater.

The whole issue has been blown up by the fascist anti-smoking industry. Why is the Japanese lung cancer rate a quarter of here, even though more people smoke there?