Second hand smoke not as bad as we thought

[Underverse]

Okay back up.

First, I want to commend the author for bringing a lot of studies into this. However, because of an abundance of research in this area, it's quite easy to pick a few studies that support your hypothesis even when the majority of evidence is not in your favor.

For example; I typed 'secondhand smoke exposure' into google scholar and looked at results post-2016. I took the first three relevant studies. Here they are:

Meta-analysis of lung cancer risk in Japanese populations due to secondhand smoke exposure

Integrated meta-analysis of the impacts of secondhand smoke on the cardiovascular health of children

A Cochrane meta-analysis of the impacts of smoking bans as they relate to health outcomes caused by secondhand smoke

You might notice that all of these studies support the hypothesis that our author here is trying to dissolve. These are all very recent meta-analyses that have significantly more statistical power behind them than each of the papers the author cited. The value of the conclusions made by these researchers is therefore greater than the value of the conclusions made by this op-ed writer.

[Deleted]

"Heart attacks dropped less than expected" = "Second-hand smoke is not as bad".

Nice scientific hypothesis explanation right there.

[zenkai]

Good article with good science behind it.

TL;DR - there was study showing significant impact of second-hand smoke on heart attacks that was used as justification of banning second-hand smoke from public places, and results failed to replicate in later studies despite bans going through anyway. Cancer rate increase for second-hand smoke is also negligible.

Basically if you don't smoke yourself but someone around you did you shouldn't worry about it.

Second hand smoke not as bad as we thought

This is bullshit.

I had asthma as a child and I outgrew it, I had not been on medication in years. I went over to my brothers friend's house and my brother, his wife, his friend and his friend's wife we're all chain smoking. I tried to keep my distance but my eyes started itching, my throat was closing up, we end up having to leave. On the way home I we had to stop in at a pharmacy and grab some Primatene mist, an over the encounter asthma inhaler,used it and I was able to breath again, if that had not worked I would have went to the emergency room. I kept that inhaler until it expired, I haven't needed it sense. Smoking in an open area doesn't bother me so bad but if I had to be in an enclosed room again I know it would happen again.

Anyone who thinks second hand smoke won't hurt you just needs to look at the ceiling in any smokers home, it's usually brown from the tar.

[Skeppio]

As someone who had asthma as a kid, and a step-dad who smokes like a chimney, take your cancerous smog sticks and shove them up your ass.

[Afrospinach]

Banning indoor smoking was one of the best things to happen in my lifetime. Coming home after a night out was disgusting, smoke in your hair, clothes. I cannot believe people live like that.

[Shalcker]

There's been plenty more studies that have linked second hand smoke and cancer so...

Also touched in this article. Link seems dubious at best, with 1.2 to 1.4 times increase, or some bigger studies showing no increase at all. (compared to about 12 times higher cancer rate if you smoke yourself)

[Dhrizzle]

I was working in a pub when the UK smoking ban came into effect and after the first few weeks the consensus among smokers and non-smokers was almost universally one of approval. Smokers also liked the fact it helped them to smoke less on a night out, particularly if they were trying to quit.

[Dug]

Also touched in this article. Link seems dubious at best, with 1.2 to 1.4 times increase, or some bigger studies showing no increase at all. (compared to about 12 times higher cancer rate if you smoke yourself)

Cancer/Heart attacks are not the only concerns. As has been noted in the thread the smell is horrendous to non-smokers, clings to everything and those with asthma it has a near immediate effect on them that isn't really up to debate. I think keeping it out of indoors is a fine compromise as opposed to outright smoking ban everywhere, anytime.

[The One Percent]

I still don't want to smell the shit.

[Shalcker]

Who funded this research? This like this make me think the cigarette businesses are hurting as the number of smokers are declining each year. So putting out a study saying smoking isn't as bad for you as previously thought. Though this is not about direct smoking, an easy place to start is to get non smokers to not care about smokers as much as they do.

That is my skepticism.

It is not about "who is funding research" - science works by findings being replicated by independent groups, since that's generally how you weed out errors in methodology, data, or statistics for things already published.

Those particular findings that were hyped into ban to second-hand smoking failed to be replicated - despite people doing them firmly believing in "smoke bad", and now look like likely and fairly common statistical anomaly - in that heart attacks have fairly large variance with smoking or without it, and downward trend even without smoke ban.

[Jeezy911]

I'm skeptical of this research as it seems to coordinate with the timing of the pot legalization movement, which I support. It feels like there is an agenda here.

[HumbleDuck]

Smoking itself is bad enough to justify a ban like that.

[fooliuscaesar13]

Good article with good science behind it.

TL;DR - there was study showing significant impact of second-hand smoke on heart attacks that was used as justification of banning second-hand smoke from public places, and results failed to replicate in later studies despite bans going through anyway. Cancer rate increase for second-hand smoke is also negligible.

Basically if you don't smoke yourself but someone around you did you shouldn't worry about it.

My take on it is this:
Having worked in bars for most of my 20's and drank in bars since being (almost) legal, I never worried about second-hand smoke. For me personally - it's not about a lesser dose of shitty chemicals as much as it is I hate smelling like smoke. I kinda love - for that reason alone - that a smoking ban is actually a thing here in the US.

[Underverse]

It is not about "who is funding research" - science works by findings being replicated by independent groups, since that's generally how you weed out errors in methodology, data, or statistics for things already published.

Those particular findings that were hyped into ban to second-hand smoking failed to be replicated - despite people doing them firmly believing in "smoke bad", and now look like likely and fairly common statistical anomaly - in that heart attacks have fairly large variance with smoking or without it, and downward trend even without smoke ban.

Recent meta-analyses support the notion of public smoking bans. You can't just look at one small study, affirm that it probably doesn't present enough data to support legislation, and then extrapolate that there is no basis for legislation at all. You, and the author, are missing the bigger picture in a clear attempt to justify destructive behaviors.

[Deleted]

Fun fact: Alcohol would not be legal if it was discovered today. The hunt on smokers have been on for many years now- and the next target will be alcohol. Second hand wine fumes.
Brace yourself its going to be fun..

[zenkai]

Fun fact: Alcohol would not be legal if it was discovered today. The hunt on smokers have been on for many years now- and the next target will be alcohol. Second hand wine fumes.
Brace yourself its going to be fun..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohib..._United_States

[Docturphil]

While I would probably agree that second hand smoke is probably pretty harmless, it should probably still be banned in public places with designated areas for smoking. It still smells.

[Cerilis]

Yeah, whatever, I still dont want you to blow your cancer in my face.

[DSRilk]

If you're a non-smoker who visits a restaurant that permits smoking, no, you're not going to see much of a negative effect (other than smelling horrible and having trouble breathing while you're in it). However, for people who have to WORK in said environments, it's notably worse - same for people living in a house where smokers do so indoors. I don't know of any study that refutes the negative consequences of people in those conditions. Regardless, however, this goes into the whole "do what you want as long as it doesn't affect me" rule. Increasing cancer and heart attack rates aren't the only way in which smokers affect non-smokers in public places.

[Shalcker]

Recent meta-analyses support the notion of public smoking bans. You can't just look at one small study, affirm that it probably doesn't present enough data to support legislation, and then extrapolate that there is no basis for legislation at all. You, and the author, are missing the bigger picture in a clear attempt to justify destructive behaviors.

Sorry, but the reverse is actually true - one small study was presented as having enough data to support legislation, and then following bigger (MUCH bigger) and diverse studies, as well as studying results of actual bans going through failed to show same benefit as original study.

Basically it was touted as 60%! reduction in heart attacks (later revised to 40% by authors of that study) and now it looks like barely above statistical significance, or perhaps not having any effect on heart attacks at all when you account for pre-existing downward trend.