Joe Jackson on Smoking & Second Hand Smoke

[UncaYimmy]

Just working my way through this, but so far it's an interesting read. Joe Jackson, the singer/songwriter, tackles the issues of smoking and second-hand smoke.

http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf

From what I can tell of the research, the second-hand smoke risk is a smoke screen used by people who just don't like smoking.

[Perpetual Student]

The effects of second hand smoke may be somewhat exaggerated by anti-smoking activists, but this guy is off base when it comes to the hazards of smoking. Mortality and morbidity studies have unequivocally demonstrated dramatic consequences to life and health. He doesn't know what he's talking about!

[UncaYimmy]

The effects of second hand smoke may be somewhat exaggerated by anti-smoking activists, but this guy is off base when it comes to the hazards of smoking. Mortality and morbidity studies have unequivocally demonstrated dramatic consequences to life and health. He doesn't know what he's talking about!

Specifically?

See also:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

[quixotecoyote]

Specifically?

See also:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

There are a dozen things wrong with that article, but I think a quote from that article can just attest to the bias and save time:

I feel like the Fox Network (a bastion of truth in a sea of liberalism)

[UncaYimmy]

There are a dozen things wrong with that article, but I think a quote from that article can just attest to the bias and save time:

Specifically?

Look, I have no doubt there's bias on both sides. Trying to get a handle on the data is tough.

[alfalfafour]

Specifically?

Look, I have no doubt there's bias on both sides. Trying to get a handle on the data is tough.

I think it is an addiction and a personal choice. I am smoker, and have been a hard core addict since studying Native American Sprituality in the seventies.

Yes, it is unhealthy.

Yes, it is addictive.

No, I don't recommend it, but then I also don't recommenend becoming a Catholic Priest or a Native Shaman.

In the case of the Shaman, the demons might kill you before the smoking does. In the case of the Preist, why would the demons kill one of their hardest working advocates?

[Perpetual Student]

The Society of Actuaries and the American Academy of Actuaries have done exhaustive studies on morbidity and mortality of smokers vs. non-smokers. The results have been devastating. Take a look at the mortality ratios on page 10 of the following Society of Actuaries study: http://www.actuary.org/life/cso/appendix_k1_jun02.pdf
The evidence and data are quite ample. You can easily research it yourself.

[meow]

The effects of second hand smoke may be somewhat exaggerated by anti-smoking activists, but this guy is off base when it comes to the hazards of smoking. Mortality and morbidity studies have unequivocally demonstrated dramatic consequences to life and health. He doesn't know what he's talking about!


:sftrue

[UncaYimmy]

The Society of Actuaries and the American Academy of Actuaries have done exhaustive studies on morbidity and mortality of smokers vs. non-smokers. The results have been devastating. Take a look at the mortality ratios on page 10 of the following Society of Actuaries study: http://www.actuary.org/life/cso/appendix_k1_jun02.pdf
The evidence and data are quite ample. You can easily research it yourself.

You still have pointed out what specifically was incorrect. Yes, there appears to be a statistical correlation with smoking and dying younger. The article I cited said, "Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information." Joe Jackson's article concedes a statistical link.

Interpreting that link is not so easy. Defining it is even harder.

Looking at death statistics, accidental deaths rank pretty closely with all respiratory cancer deaths (http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Age%20adjusted%20death%20rates%20for%20113%20selec ted%20causes%20by%20race%20and%20sex%202005.html).

Your article cites a death rate for smokers versus non-smokers. But they agree with my assessment that it's not that simple:
The largest obstacle to overcome is isolating the effect of smoking status by itself. Smoking is correlated with socio-economic status. In general, smokers are more prevalent in lower socio-economic classes and buy smaller policies. These smaller policies are screened with relatively fewer underwriting requirements.
These complications mean that we must look to include as much information as possible and be very careful to avoid attributing mortality differences to smoking status when other contributing factors may be present as well.

So if you're going to say there are a dozen mistakes, then point out a few.

[a_unique_person]

If you're going to drink, don't vomit it up in my face. If you smoke, don't blow it out so I have to breathe it in.

[Perpetual Student]

You still have pointed out what specifically was incorrect. Yes, there appears to be a statistical correlation with smoking and dying younger. The article I cited said, "Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information." Joe Jackson's article concedes a statistical link.

Interpreting that link is not so easy. Defining it is even harder.

Looking at death statistics, accidental deaths rank pretty closely with all respiratory cancer deaths (http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/Age%20adjusted%20death%20rates%20for%20113%20selec ted%20causes%20by%20race%20and%20sex%202005.html).

Your article cites a death rate for smokers versus non-smokers. But they agree with my assessment that it's not that simple:

So if you're going to say there are a dozen mistakes, then point out a few.

I did not say he made a dozen mistakes; it may have been three, ten or two dozen; I'm not interested in counting.
Hey, I have been studying this evidence for decades; it is without a doubt decisive and conclusive! Smoking kills people and makes them sick -- big time! I don't care to waste my time defending the obvious. It would be like defending the heliocentric solar system to a flat earth cultist. Do your own research, smoke your brains out or not. I'm done here.

[Seanette]

Just working my way through this, but so far it's an interesting read. Joe Jackson, the singer/songwriter, tackles the issues of smoking and second-hand smoke.

http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf

From what I can tell of the research, the second-hand smoke risk is a smoke screen used by people who just don't like smoking.

And don't we all consider singers and songwriters to be medical authorities and believe whatever they choose to state, without actually, say, consulting people who actually study these things for a living???

Celebrities really need to quit posturing as authorities on medicine, politics, etc.

[UncaYimmy]

I did not say he made a dozen mistakes; it may have been three, ten or two dozen; I'm not interested in counting.
Hey, I have been studying this evidence for decades; it is without a doubt decisive and conclusive! Smoking kills people and makes them sick -- big time! I don't care to waste my time defending the obvious. It would be like defending the heliocentric solar system to a flat earth cultist. Do your own research, smoke your brains out or not. I'm done here.

Nobody said that smoking was not statistically correlated with illness. The issue is the definition of "big time" as you put it. I'm actually more interested in the second hand smoke issue. We got sidetracked with smokers because you said the data was wrong. If you choose not to elaborate, fine by me. The CDC says that about 20% of people smoke and that 20% of deaths are smoking related. I'm curious about that number.

But what about second hand smoke? Is it really as bad as they make it out to be? Seems to me like it's only a 20% to 30% increase for spouses living with smokers. Is that enough to justify repeatedly warning people that there's no known safe level of exposure to second hand smoke? Am I really at risk going to a happy hour, sitting in the non-smoking section, and getting a few whiffs?

[UncaYimmy]

And don't we all consider singers and songwriters to be medical authorities and believe whatever they choose to state, without actually, say, consulting people who actually study these things for a living???

Celebrities really need to quit posturing as authorities on medicine, politics, etc.

Yeh. It would be better if they just posted here.

[politas]

But what about second hand smoke? Is it really as bad as they make it out to be? Seems to me like it's only a 20% to 30% increase for spouses living with smokers. Is that enough to justify repeatedly warning people that there's no known safe level of exposure to second hand smoke? Am I really at risk going to a happy hour, sitting in the non-smoking section, and getting a few whiffs?The problem of second hand smopke is not so bad for spouses or people getting an occasional whiff of smoke. That's just unpleasant.

However, people working in environments where people are allowed to smoke typically end up getting a constant low-level exposure to smoke (and it's not just the stuff blown out, there's the stuff coming off the end of the cigarettes while not being sucked on) for hours a day. It's like the difference between getting an occasional exposure of acid fumes while adjusting your pool's Ph level, as opposed to working in a chemical factory.

The risks are also multiplied for infants. With their lungs being smaller and still growing, anything that damages them can have serious repercussions throughout their life.

[jhunter1163]

From the "Irony" section:

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/joe+jackson/cancer_20072747.html

[fls]

Just working my way through this, but so far it's an interesting read. Joe Jackson, the singer/songwriter, tackles the issues of smoking and second-hand smoke.

http://www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf

From what I can tell of the research, the second-hand smoke risk is a smoke screen used by people who just don't like smoking.

It doesn't occur to you that someone, without knowledge or experience and who states upfront that they are looking to support a bias, is not willing or capable of accurately representing the available information? Why take the information at face value and depend upon others to correct it for you?

Linda

[Professor Yaffle]

Background To calculate a pooled estimate of relative risk (RR) of lung cancer associated with exposure to passive smoking in never smoking women exposed to smoking spouses. This study is an updated meta-analysis that also assesses the differences between estimated risks according to continent and study type using meta-regression.
Methods From a total of 101 primary studies, 55 studies are included in this meta-analysis, of which, 7 are cohort studies, 25 population-based case-control and 23 non-population-based case-control studies. Twenty previously published meta-analyses are also reviewed. Fixed and random effect models and meta-regression are used to obtain pooled estimates of RR and P-value functions are used to demonstrate consistency of results.
Results The pooled RR for never-smoking women exposed to passive smoking from spouses is 1.27 (95% CI 1.17–1.37). The RR for North America is 1.15 (95% CI 1.03–1.28), Asia, 1.31 (95% CI 1.16–1.48) and Europe, 1.31 (1.24–1.52). Sequential cumulative meta-analysis shows no trend. There is no strong evidence of publication bias.
Conclusions The abundance of evidence, consistency of finding across continent and study type, dose–response relationship and biological plausibility, overwhelmingly support the existence of a causal relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/36/5/1048

[Aepervius]

UncaYimmy are you trying to tell us you disbelieve the direct link between smoking and lung cancer ?