Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Chris Marshall: Last orders for city pubs?

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 August 2009
FIGHT your way to the bar for an over-priced pint during the Festival and you may struggle to believe that the country's pub trade is not enjoying the rudest of health.
But with pubs in Scotland closing at the rate of six a week, calls are growing for action to be taken to protect licensed traders before it's too late.

The economic hangover of the smoking ban and the effects of the recession have both been blame
d for fewer people going to pubs, but it is clear the supermarkets and a growing culture of drinking at home are the real cause for the decline.

Pub landlords say their livelihoods are coming under increasing threat from the supermarkets chains, who not only stock cheap booze, but are also beginning to market drink and meal deals as a cheap night in.

So worried are the nations publicans that the Scottish Licensed Traders' Association is calling for minimum pricing for alcohol in the hope of preventing supermarkets using drink as a loss-leader.

Colin Wilkinson, secretary of the SLTA, says thousands of jobs could be lost across the industry in the coming years unless something is done to halt the decline.

"Cheap drink in supermarkets is killing the trade off," he says. "What we're pushing for is a minimum price on alcohol. At the moment, 45 per cent of all alcohol is sold through the supermarkets and that's part of the reason why six pubs a week are closing in Scotland, 54 across the UK.

"People are turning to supermarkets, and the supermarkets are now promoting these have a meal and a drink for a tenner deals, which are encouraging people to stay at home."

Midlothian MP David Hamilton is among those calling for beer duty to be reformed to help support pubs and clubs.

At present, the duty is charged at a flat rate regardless of how or where the beer is sold.

Mr Hamilton is calling on the government to press for a change in European law that would see draught beer taxed at a different level from that which is sold in shops.

"Pubs up and down the country are struggling with the recession and the unfair competition from supermarkets who often sell beers as a loss-leader," he says.

"If pubs were charged a lower rate of duty then the playing field would be levelled. I believe that we must do more to support pubs and clubs which make such an important contribution to our communities.

"The tariffs on beer are exactly the same whether it be pre-packed or draught beer. It is European legislation that is stopping us from recognising the difference. Surely as a government we can go to our Labour MEPs and, indeed, to governments across Europe to get rid of that tariff, because that is what is closing a number of pubs at the present time."

Moves to reduce the level of tax charged on draught beer are being backed by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), which says around 90p of every pint goes in beer duty, VAT and employment tax.

Mike Benner, CAMRA's chief executive, says: "A lower rate of duty on draught beer sold in pubs would represent a golden opportunity for the government to address the disparity between supermarket and pub prices, a problem directly associated with pub closures.

"This proposal would encourage a shift in alcohol consumption back to the regulated environment offered by well-run community pubs. This proposal would also stem the loss of community pubs and thereby reverse the decline of community life."

He adds: "CAMRA first raised the need for a lower rate of duty in pubs in a submission to the Parliamentary Beer Group's Community Pub Inquiry back in 2006, and we are delighted that this novel idea has the full backing of the influential Parliamentary Beer Group.

"An average pint of beer sold in the pub causes the consumer to swallow around 90 pence per pint in beer duty, VAT and employment tax revenue, and if community pubs are to survive, then the excessive tax burden they face must be reduced."

But while taxes play their part, the role of the recession cannot be underestimated. Bars and restaurants are usually the first to suffer in any economic downturn and Edinburgh has not been immune from the slowdown.

There is also evidence that the smoking ban has had a negative effect on the number of people going to the pub, even though the important health benefits surely outweigh any financial damage done to publicans.

What is clear is that like independent retailers before them, pubs face being squeezed out by the all-too-powerful hand of the big four supermarket chains.

Perhaps taking action now will prevent many more bars calling last orders for the final time in the months to come.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 August 2009 9:12 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

BeeGee,

17/08/2009 11:23:54
Supermarkets have always sold their drinks cheaper than bars as a result of bulk purchase,therefore that in itself should be discounted from the article.

The Hospitality Sector is their own victim here by not taking on the Government who repeatedly interfere in the running of a Private Business. Until they wake up and take their future into their own hands, the sector will remain in terminal decline.

2

english charlie,

17/08/2009 11:35:34
'but it is clear the supermarkets and a growing culture of drinking at home are the real cause for the decline'.
Supermarkets have sold cheaper alcohol for years and the culture of drinking at home increased after the smoking ban.
3

Belinda-2,

17/08/2009 11:47:34
Mr Mitchell suggests that the smoking ban may have deterred some people from going to the pub. So if they are staying home and smoking there, where are the so-called health benefits? Unprovable and unreasonable claims about health benefits don't outweigh damage done by extreme laws.

I haven't seen anyone else concluding that 'bars and restaurants are usually the first to suffer in any economic downturn.'
4

Tynietiger,

17/08/2009 11:59:58
That's why Scottish government's plans for minimum pricing should be supported.
5

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 12:15:03
Belinda - there's plenty of evidence that bars and restaurants are quick to suffer in an economic downturn. As people's disposable income falls, so they choose to spend less on non-essential items.

If the smoking ban had been the main cause of our pubs' ills, the rate of pub closures would have increased dramatically soon after our smoking laws were introduced in March 2006. It didn't. Sure, some pubs did suffer - I'm not denying that. But some also saw trade increase.

Tynietiger is right that the proposals for minimum pricing should help our pubs.
6

english charlie,

17/08/2009 12:32:44
Data, taken since the beginning of the recession in 2007, includes:
CIGARETTE sales up 35.7 per cent,
BEER sales up 11 per cent,
READY MEAL sales up 18 per cent,
JUNK FOOD sales up 17 per cent
7

Destroy the Planet,

17/08/2009 12:37:50
Drugs are the new beer
8

Graham P,

Edinburgh 17/08/2009 13:07:47
#3 Belinda-2: "Mr Mitchell suggests that the smoking ban may have deterred some people from going to the pub. So if they are staying home and smoking there, where are the so-called health benefits?"

Because, of course, smokers' houses contain just as many other customers and bar staff as the average pub, don't they?
9

Belinda-2,

17/08/2009 13:09:11
Rollo, I don't believe there has been any previous carnage comparable to this one in the pub industry. A drink, a conversation and a smoke are not expensive ways to spend a few hours if you are hard up.

The other factors are all relevant but the major escalation in pub closures in England started before the recession. As you know I have many other grounds for opposing the ban in any case.

The smoking ban has caused a great number of small independent wet-led pubs to suffer by rendering them unfit for purpose.
10

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 13:21:00
Well Belinda, at least I agree with you when you say "I don't believe there has been any previous carnage comparable to this one in the pub industry".

You say "the major escalation in pub closures in England started before the recession". True, if you are using "recession" in its technical term (two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth). But the economic slowdown and credit crunch also started before the recession.

And the major escalation in pub closures in Scotland started a long time after our smoking laws were introduced. It too coincided with the economic slowdown and credit crunch, and a range of associated factors all unrelated to the smoking laws (e.g. rising cost of supplies; difficulty in obtaining credit from banks; hardened stance by PubCos; falling sales).
11

banhater,

17/08/2009 14:41:07
Usual nonsense from Rollo(are you paid by the post/or just salaried) Tommassi.

The BBPA cited the ban as a direct cause of 6000 closures by 2012. The chancellor himself admitted it was adirect cause of the carnage. He offered a pubs a different tariff of rates due to the drastic change in trading conditions caused by the ban. Nothing to do with supermarkets or the recession. Supermarkets are just exploiting the fact that more people stay at home smoke, drink, and eat with the kids.

I bet publicans are more concerned about the health of their bank balAnce than breathing in heavily diluted wisps of smoke. Only those who dont visit pubs caused for a ban. They got what they wanted but the hordes of non-smokers ready to visit pubs was as mythical as passive smoke being the reason for the ban in the first place.
Nice objective reporting(not) as usual from The Scotsman.
12

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 14:54:51
Thank you banhater for your myopic post. I see how you are desperately trying to pretend that only the smoking laws lie behind the problems that pubs face - even though publicans themselves say otherwise.

Would you like to give weblinks to these claims you refer to by the BBPA and chancellor?
13

Belinda-2,

17/08/2009 15:24:07
Stating that the Chancellor admitted that the ban was such a serious part of the problem that he agreed to rerating pubs is myopic (in Rollo's world). Yes of course there were other factors but the most loyal and experienced element of the customer base have been consigned to shivering outside.

You still haven't explained how some customers staying at home because of the ban (which Chris Mitchell acknowledges) improves the nation's health.
14

Sedov,

17/08/2009 15:45:49
I like Witherspoon pubs who were first to ban smoking. It does not seem to have affected them as they seem to be always pretty busy.
That's cos they are comfortable, reasonably priced, offer decent cheap meals and have no loud music. - Maybe other pubs should take notice.
15

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 16:17:45
Belinda - It is myopic to believe that the smoking laws are the only/major reason why pubs are suffering. Perhaps you, like Banhater, could offer links for your claims about the Chancellor.

The smoking laws are protecting staff and other patrons within enclosed public places. Smokers are more likely to smoke with consideration to the welfare of their own family than to strangers. Tables 6.1 and 6.2 of the latest ONS survey (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/smoking2008-9.pdf) shows that smoking is increasingly restricted in people's homes. Even for smokers, smoking is allowed anywhere only in around one-quarter of homes.
16

english charlie,

17/08/2009 16:26:49
Rollo. Too many ASSUMPTIONS again.
You say 'As people's disposable income falls, so they choose to spend less on non-essential items'.
Yet Data, taken since the beginning of the recession in 2007, includes:
CIGARETTE sales up 35.7 per cent,
BEER sales up 11 per cent,
READY MEAL sales up 18 per cent,
JUNK FOOD sales up 17 per cent
17

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 16:51:29
And your source is....?
18

Belinda-2,

17/08/2009 17:18:53
Evidence please for that nonsense about only 25 per cent of smokers' homes allowing smoking?

It is not myopic to believe that smoking bans are the main cause of many pubs to suffer. You really haven't got it, have you? Many mokers resent the ban as entirely unjust, it denies free will (smokers' clubs are not allowed on the incredible grounds that someone would have to service them, regardless that such a person would more than likely be a club member or sympathiser), and even though smokers pay full council tax for local facilities and income tax for national facilities their needs are deliberately kept out of the reckoning.

Even if they didn't resent it, it would make absolutely no sense for groups of smokers who normally socialise together to go to venues where they would have to spend more than half the time outside, disrupting conversations, exposing themselves to the weather, when they could be enjoying the convivial surroundings of somebody's living room. Of course supermarket prices have paid a part but we never heard them talked about before the smoking ban excluded the core customer base.

No I am not looking for references for you. There was a revaulation of rates in 2008, and one MP (Eric Pickles?) got into a tizzy because landlords were not properly informed that they would be entitled to it. Find it yourself. :) And the bit about smokers being forced out of their own homes too.


19

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 17:29:37
Belinda - if you are going to make claims, it is up to you to substantiate them. I gave you the source of the 25% figure (24% actually) in post 15 - table 6.2.

Like I have already said, I accept that the smoking laws have had a negative effect on some pubs. But if you bother to listen to those in the trade, the industry as a whole has been hit by several other factors which have been more damaging than the smoking laws. Check out this thread, for instance: http://www.thepublican.com/comments.asp?storycode=62235

Smokers retain free will. They can choose to stay inside a pub with a drink. Or if the desire or need for nicotine gets too strong, all they need do is pop outside for a few minutes. They retain their right to smoke. And nobody else has to endure their harmful and irritating tobacco smoke.
20

Another Whitewash,

Hamilton 17/08/2009 17:57:23
Let’s face reality, who wants to stand out in the rain and wind, spend money only to be treated like a second class citizen? Smokers might make 25% of the adult population but were 50% of pub goers. Simple answer is smokers are boycotting pubs. Last time I was in my local it was fair Saturday at 11pm and there were 5 people in the pub, the place was like a dentist waiting room. Seriously I believe our puritan government wanted to close the pubs and has used the smoking ban to accomplish this.
21

english charlie,

17/08/2009 18:22:08
Rollo. Too many ASSUMPTIONS again.
You say 'As people's disposable income falls, so they choose to spend less on non-essential items'.
Yet Data, taken since the beginning of the recession in 2007, includes:
CIGARETTE sales up 35.7 per cent,
BEER sales up 11 per cent,
READY MEAL sales up 18 per cent,
JUNK FOOD sales up 17 per cent
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/453423/SO-CIG-OF-CRUNCH-Cigarette-amp-booze-sales-UP-in-UK.html
22

Belinda-2,

17/08/2009 18:42:50
Rollo, I am not going to persuade you by spending time looking for a reference but what I say is a matter of historical record. Ignore it if you wish.

What if I don't agree with the industry, as far as I am concerned they are ignoring the elephant in the room, possibly because they are controlled by wealthier operators ... I don't oppose the ban because it has damaged trade (although damage was inevitable) but because it is manifestly unjust.

AS for this nonsense about it is easy for smokers to pop outside for a smoke. In your world smokers might go round in ones and twos. In my world they exist in networks of friends and if a bunch of 15 of them like spending time together and 11 of them smoke it makes no sense whatsoever to go to the pub in the first place.
23

Iris Beltram,

Madhouse 17/08/2009 19:56:52
Funny how a new 'culture' of staying at home has occured when the smoking ban began.
Nobody I know goes to a pub any more and are quite happy drinking and smoking at home in comfort. The non=smokers are also staying away from pubs as they are soulless places that are almost empty. Strange how these non-smokers go to smokers houses and are quite happy to do so !! Thing is, they were quite happy before the ban to stand with smoking friends in a pub.
It was the rabid anti social anti-smokers that created this ban pretending that most people wanted it. What rubbish.
24

Iris Beltram,

Madhouse 17/08/2009 21:11:01
The rabid antis state that it's not a problem for smokers to 'pop' outside.
Our local British Legion has many members in their 80's and 90's that are smokers (Yes, they are still alive !!) Remember the 'boys' that fought for 6 years 1939-1945 for OUR freedoms.
Well, they do find it difficult at times to 'pop' anywhere. Some being wheelchair users and some with old bones. So 'popping' is not an option especially when they go to the club in mid winter for a nice beer and cigarette with old friends. They have smoked for 65 years plus and find it unreasonable that they have to stand out in the street now to enjoy a legal habit that 80% of the members indulge in. All the bar staff at the local Legion club are smokers and this is a very strange state of affairs when the customers and staff all want to smoke in the club and cannot.
25

english charlie,

17/08/2009 21:26:33
Iris. Not only have thouands of pubs closed, but near on 100 clubs have also closed.
26

soapy1,

Rainworth 17/08/2009 21:29:07
Judging by the ratio of posters pro and anti smoking ban, the claim that the majority of people support the smoking ban is as false as the grounds which launched it!

This legislation is unjust, lawfully, morally and economically unjust. The removal of one persons freedom is the removal of freedom for all smoker and non smoker alike, as stated non smokers are deserting pubs for cheap supermarket beer and socialising at home in droves.

I like pubs, I could have a beer, a smoke, good company and put the world to rights.

I can legally brew my own beer, grow my own tobbacco, cure it, smoke it (as long as I do not sell tobacco or beer it is legal) and invite friends home for the righting of the world for a lot less than an evening in a pub.

You tell me why I should deny a landlord his or her freedom to earn a living on the sayso of a very small minority?

Why should I as an equal paying customer pay for a second class service because of my lifestyle?

Give me a well ventilated room where children are denied access, where I am served by someone who shares my lifestyle where I can put the world to rights with like minded people (or not, debate is good for the soul)where non smokers are free to consider the alleged risks for themselves, to come in or not according to their own free will.

The Landlord would earn a living, smokers would return to the pubs if they want what the pub offers, children would not be allegedly affected by smoke, neither would non smokers unlees by choice, what could be fairer than that?

As always a smoker has offered a solution, watch now the resident anti smoker may well try to demolish it and offer nothing in return.
27

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 22:31:25
Chas: Your claims are completely wrong. Your figures do not refer to total changes in sales. If you’d read the News of the World article properly, you’d see the figures relate to changes in sales from online supermarket sales.

Why are the changes occurring? The NotW article tells you. The change in cigarette sales “is down to cash-strapped smokers buying cartons of 200 cigs as part of their weekly shop rather than a pack of 20 on an evening out.”
The change in booze “is partly because Brits are drinking at home rather than going to the pub in order to try and save the pennies.”
The article also says that “Families are also stocking up on ready meals because they have stopped eating out as the credit crunch bites.”
In other words, people are spending more on booze and ready meals from supermarkets instead of going out to eat and drink, in large part because of the credit crunch and recession.

So thank you Chas. Inadvertently, you have made my point for me.
28

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 22:34:38
Belinda: You are entitled to your own view, of course. But your argument depends on evidence which you can’t even point to, and to challenging the views of the industry with no good reason other than because you say so.

Is it any wonder you can’t persuade me to change my mind?
29

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 22:41:32
Iris says: “Funny how a new 'culture' of staying at home has occured when the smoking ban began.”

Not in Scotland, it didn’t. Most of the pub industry in Scotland was doing alright for a good 18 months or so after our smoking laws came into force. Rather suggests you’re wrong to pin all the blame on the smoking laws, doesn’t it????
30

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 22:45:48
Soapy says “Judging by the ratio of posters pro and anti smoking ban, the claim that the majority of people support the smoking ban is as false as the grounds which launched it!”

Hardly. Looking at the people from the Lothians who have commented on this board, 3 people (Tynietiger, Graham P and myself) support the smoking laws. Only Belinda opposes them. That’s a 75% majority in favour of the new laws.
31

english charlie,

17/08/2009 23:01:26
Rollo. It is common knowledge that if a smoker buys 200 fags instead of 20 at a time they will smoke more. The same goes for buying alcohol and food in bulk.
You don't like the truth when it goes against your ASSUMPTIONS. Try harder.
32

Belinda-2,

17/08/2009 23:17:04
It may surprise you that I am not trying to change your mind Rollo. That is why I am not following up references. Also I have already explained that the economic damage caused by the ban is incidental to the reasons I oppose it. I pointed out that large groups of friends who smoke have far less reason to go to bars now, a fact that should be completely obvious to anyone. You ignore it, because it doesn't suit your view that smokers are incapable of making sensible decisions in order to spend time with friends and relatives in a reasonable degree of comfort.
33

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 23:18:43
Chas: You're making your own assumptions.

Did you not read my post? No assumptions from me. I was quoting from the very article you cited to make my case for me.

It's not my fault if you insist on shooting yourself in the foot.
34

Rollo Tommasi,

17/08/2009 23:28:04
Belinda - I'm not ignoring your points. Yes, some groups of people spent less time in pubs as a result of the smoking laws. But the laws attracted new punters too. You're just focusing on the people who spent less time in pubs instead of the whole picture.

My point is that, before the economic problems began, Scotland's pub industry as a whole was doing okay. Some pubs benefited from the smoking laws, some suffered and many remained largely unchanged. That wouldn't have happened if all the smoking punters quit the pubs and no new patrons took their place.

35

Belinda-2,

17/08/2009 23:43:12
It may be the pub trade has suffered less in Scotland than in England Rollo, I don't know. I would not deny that some businesses have seen benefits.

I am focussing on the people who don't come any more to bars (and there are many) because they are the ones that have been excluded by the law from reasonable conditions for participating in social interaction of their own choosing (and many non-smokers agree that *never* being allowed shelter while smoking in public places is unreasonable and uncivilised). You seem determined to deny that simple point of principle.
36

helend498,

17/08/2009 23:49:02
The Chancellor did blame the smoking ban as having an affect on pub closures in December 2008:

"Chancellor Alistair Darling has admitted the smoking ban is forcing pubs out of business – and immediately come under fire from Preston landlords.

This year alone, 27 pubs in the city have closed, and licensees blame not only the "disastrous" ban, but also the high duty levied by the Government on alcohol.

Mr Darling told journalists at Westminster "there is no doubt the smoking ban made a difference" in killing off boozers after the British Beer and Pub Association told MPs the number of failing pubs is now "accelerating rapidly."

This is the link if Rollo doesn't believe that the Chancellor said it:
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Darling-Smoking-ban-is-closing.4782600.jp
37

Seasider,

blackpool 18/08/2009 00:18:25
Rollo,
You don,t get it do you ?I am one of those who do not go to pubs or restaurants or cafes anymore unless it,s a pleasant day and you can sit outside BECAUSE of the Ban !,alcohol and smoking go together ,always have done and always will, like fish and chips the two tastes compliment one another and the comment about the recession keeping people at home that,s nonsense ,I remember well the recession in the early nineties when mortgage interest rates were over15%, NO pubs in my town closed they were all doing reasonably well !
I used to go to the pub before the ban and have a few pints and smoke like most people which would cost about a tenner so the only people benefitting from drinking at home would be binge drinkers ,but they are not staying at home to binge they are staying home to smoke along with a couple of drinks and relax ,not going in and out of a pub all night ?
38

Thomas Laprade,

Thunder Bay, Canada 18/08/2009 02:14:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1-bX2SmU-c&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbanthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F11%2Fsecond-hand-smoke-bs%2F&feature=player_embedded
39

Fredrik Eich,

Brighton 18/08/2009 05:36:42
"Smokers retain free will. They can choose to stay inside a pub with a drink. Or if the desire or need for nicotine gets too strong, all they need do is pop outside for a few minutes. They retain their right to smoke." - Rollo.
Rollo, how very kind of you!
What a wonderful set of options to exercise free will with!
Lets say to people who drink that all they "drinkers" have to do is drink outside - excercise their free will. They retain their right to drink. That way the rest of us will not have to put up with their bad habits. If the desire or need for booze gets to strong all they, "drinkers", need do is "pop outside" for a few minutes - it's not a problem! Let's give "drinkers" the same "free will" as "smokers" and when pubs start going to the wall, let's just say nobody else has to endure their "harmful" and irritating drinking. Let us all sit in pubs, eat olives, drink hot chocolate in lovely booze free and smoke free pubs. Lets just say it's for reasons of public health and that it is just rotten,rotten luck that pubs are doing so badly.
Check out this thread, for instance:
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=16&storycode=64709&c=3
40

soapy1,

Rainworth 18/08/2009 06:32:31
I seem to recall that Scotland is still part of the United kingdom, that you frequently post in English papers Rollo Sauce for the goose Rollo is sauce for the gander even allowing for that the ratio is the similar. I note though that you have no desire to forward a solution but are content to trash those who do.
41

Rollo Tommasi,

18/08/2009 07:51:21
Belinda, Fredrik, Seasider and Soapy complain that I am not considering a compromise solution which allows smokers to smoke inside pubs. What solution, exactly? There is no obvious workable solution which allows some indoor smoking and would also both protect the health of punters and bar staff and be agreeable to publicans. Freedom2Choose hasn’t been able to identify any such “ideal” solution, as far as I can see. Nor has the “Save Our Pubs and Clubs” lobby.

42

english charlie,

18/08/2009 07:51:33
Rollo. It is only you who makes ASSUMPTIONS. You said 'As people's disposable income falls, so they choose to spend less on non-essential items', but I have shown you that people are spending more on non-essentials items.
43

Rollo Tommasi,

18/08/2009 07:56:29
Helen – Thank you. Your post makes my point for me. Alistair Darling said “"There is no doubt the smoking ban has made a difference. There is whole range of things that are making a difference."

I am happy to accept that remark, as you are. The smoking laws are one of a whole range of causes which are causing problems for pubs. NOT the main cause, note. Just one of many causes.

But it is VERY different from what Belinda was saying at post 13 that “the Chancellor admitted that the ban was such a serious part of the problem that he agreed to rerating pubs”.
44

Rollo Tommasi,

18/08/2009 08:07:41
Fredrik – I thought you would realise that with free will comes responsibility, not to exercise that free will in a way that harms or irritates other people. It is the way we have always been taught to live our lives in other respects – e.g. how we drive; how much noise we make; when and where we get intimate with a loved one or a new special friend.

But for some reason, smokers didn’t have to abide by this principle in the past. They could smoke wherever and whenever they wanted, and to hang with the effect their smoking had on other people. Now at last, the principle also applies to them: they can smoke, but they should do so in a way which does not harm or irritate other people. Asking smokers to go outside to smoke is not a punishment to them; it is the easiest way to allow them the right to smoke without causing harm and irritation to other pub goers and pub staff.

I really don’t know what point you’re trying to make from the article you cite. The author of the article is not a publican. Nor, as far as I can tell, are any of the people giving comments (most are smoking rights lobbyists), with the exception of SteveW, who is a publican and who makes the same points that I do.
45

Rollo Tommasi,

18/08/2009 08:13:03
Wrong Chas. People are spending less on non-essential items overall. Which is why, for instance, they are buying ready meals or getting pizzas from Dominos instead of going out for a restaurant meal. It costs them less overall.

That's not just me talking. The very article you quoted says the same thing. Are you now trying to pretend that article doesn't exist?

You really should stop shooting yourself in the foot.
46

english charlie,

18/08/2009 08:42:58
Rollo. The story is about pubs. Are people spending more or less on cigarettes and beer? YES. Stop making a fool of yourself.
47

Rollo Tommasi,

18/08/2009 08:52:23
Chas - Just look at your own post 16 - you were not limiting the discussion to cigarettes and beer.

I'm not arguing with you any more, as you always forget even what you post yourself.

48

soapy1,

Rainworth 18/08/2009 09:05:26
Absolute rubbish Rollo how can offering a free choice not be be an viable option? If I were to demand that anything that contained any carcinagen be banned you would be among the first to condemn me for denying free choice to use those products, especially when it involves the motor car which is not essential as poeple got along very well without them for millenia and are as allegedly responsible for Cancer as smoke, alcohol ham sandwiches, bacon sandwiches are! definate double standards on your part.

Your objection to free choice is purely on the grounds that every thing said about the majority wanting the ban would be proved a lie, that your vaunted science would not be believed.

You will not put forward any other proposal because their is no other reasonable proposal to be put forward and you know it. I told you a long time ago your case is lost, a pyrric victory at best. You are wrong, the ban is wrong you know it, I know it and it appears do the majority of posters here know it.

The recent lies regarding the costs of banning the display of cigarettes is the beginning of the end Rollo.
If the anti smoking lobby have lied about that what else have they lied about?
The Majority in favour of the ban perhaps?
The real reasons for the smoking ban even?
Even the DoH are giving ASH a wide berth on this issue why then would anyone believe anything any anti says in connection with smoking when they have been caught lying to push legislation through and that makes the entire smoking legislation suspect. You may not accept that but there are many out there who do and more joining them.

49

Fredrik Eich,

Brighton 18/08/2009 09:19:08
"But for some reason, smokers didn’t have to abide by this principle in the past. They could smoke wherever and whenever they wanted, and to hang with the effect their smoking had on other people." - Rollo.
Rollo,
I am, again, not sure what you are talking about. Your sounding like an anti. I could not smoke where I wanted because I could not smoke in smoke free places. I avoided smoke free restaurants, smoke free pubs and all smoke free areas like the clap. I never went in to them, so what principle was I breaking? You are not making sense. You do remember how unpopular smoke free pubs were don't you? If you made the mistake of going into popular smoking pubs, it's a bit rum to accuse those customers of non compliance to a principle which they avoided by not going to in the smokefree ones in the first place.
50

english charlie,

18/08/2009 09:39:51
Rollo. 'I'm not arguing with you any more', because you know that you are totally wrong and won't admit it.
51

Belinda-2,

18/08/2009 10:43:35
#43

Rollo, you just won't give up. 'There is no doubt that the smoking ban has made a difference' is not different from 'The chaancellor agreed that the smoking ban was such a serious part of the problem that he agreed to rerating pubs.' If he had not agreed that the smoking ban made such an obvious difference he would not have agreed to rerate the pubs. Nobody is denying the problem is complex, you are just nitpicking by saying that we insist the smoking ban is all that has made a difference. (You can see quite well the absolute difference to many individuals just by reading posts.)

As for a solution, we advocate air quality standards, which would involve measuring air quality and if the standard were found to be breached, the air could be cleaned or the source of contamination otherwise dealt with. It may not suit you because you don't like people to be able to choose but scientists don't learn to measure air quality for nothing. A large part of measuring air quality is ensuring safe working conditions in environments far more toxic than a pub. Enforcing air quality standards would be a far more suitable activity for environmental health personnel than landing people with fixed penalty notices. The focus would be on improving air quality rather than the state punishing citizens for a lawful activity.

Of course such a regime would not attach the same stigma to smoking but many people hate that aspect of the smoking ban anyway.
52

tug f wilson,

18/08/2009 11:46:29
Lets face it the smoking ban has been a huge failure,anyone who thinks the smoking ban is not the reason smokers stay away from our Pubs and Clubs or say that has not had a massive impact on the trade, is a fool,it is time for the pubs and clubs to have their own say, Smoking or non smoking, then we will see just how the Hospitality Industry makes out.
53

Rollo Tommasi,

18/08/2009 22:01:57
Soapy: Kindly define what you mean by “free choice”. What alternative do you propose which would protect pubgoers and staff from tobacco smoke and would be acceptable to the pub industry?

You try to compare passive smoking with other risks. But I don’t know of any risk to the health of other people from eating ham or bacon. The law already limits the pollution of vehicles as far as reasonably possible – and those limits continue to tighten as technology improves. And the law already rules illegal any alcohol-induced behaviour which causes grief to other people.

I’ve read the evidence about the risks to health of passive smoking. I’ve also read what Freedom2Choose has to say about the risks, most of which is based on ill-considered nonsense The risks of passive smoking to health are real – as the great majority of medical experts will tell you.
54

Rollo Tommasi,

18/08/2009 22:05:23
Fredrik – my point is that the law gave smokers the right to smoke with impunity. Sure, some premises imposed restrictions of their own. But in the eyes of the law, smoking was considered a unique right. Unique in that, unlike with other rights, the law wasn’t concerned if other people were harmed or irritated by the effects of smokers indulging in their habit.

Thank goodness there is now a level playing field – especially since passive smoking is harmful as well as irritating.
55

Rollo Tommasi,

18/08/2009 22:17:22
Belinda – I’m happy not to argue any more on the scale of effects of smoking on the pub trade.

Thank you for clarifying that you have a position which you (and presumably F2C) favour – air quality standards. I hope you don’t mind if I ask a few questions – I genuinely want to know more about what you have in mind. I ask these questions because I have heard mention made of this solution a few times, but I have never seen a proper explanation of how it would work.

How would an air quality standard work? Would smoking be restricted to enclosed rooms? If so, how would they remain enclosed and how would staff in them be protected? How much would your option cost to install? How much would it cost to operate? How much maintenance would be required (e.g. how often would filters have to be replaced)? How often would premises have to be visited to ensure ventilation/filtration equipment was both continuously switched on during opening hours and well maintained? Who would be expected to bear the cost of this?

Forgive me for turning you and your fellow F2C members against each other. But you are not consistent in what you are looking for. You argue in favour of a “air quality standard”. Soapy isn’t specific about what he wants. Tug appears to call for publicans to have freedom to allow smoking wherever they want. And on the F2C website, Colin Grainger is praising an article by Joe Jackson, including another call to allow publicans to allow smoking wherever they want.

You may say that different people may have different views, and I accept that. But the fact is that there is no clear alternative to the present laws which all reasonable people can stand behind. All of the alternative options are fundamentally flawed in their own ways – because they don’t adequately protect pub-goers or staff, or they would be deeply unpopular with the pub trade, or both.
56

ChrisUK,

18/08/2009 23:38:33
I believe the suggestions made have more than adequate room for debate, even if others don't.

Air Quality Standards need to be addressed as they aren't expensive to introduce and are extremely effective as everyone in the Air Quality Management industry knows. Just google it and you'll soon see how cheap, effective and easy it is to install.

Private property rights need to be addressed here as well. A privately owned members club or a privately owned pub is not a public place. The members or the owners decide who they allow to frequent, employ, refuse admission to, or ban. No-one is under force to work there or visit the place if they do not wish to.

I would like to know why these options (amongst many others) that are operating very well in other countries that have implemented smoking restrictions (rather than blanket bans) have been entirely dismissed in this country.

57

Belinda-2,

18/08/2009 23:48:27
Like the smoking ban is flawless and was brought about with full agreement from the pub trade? Right Rollo.

You are not going to turn F2C members against each other, but thank you for your concern.

Why do you say the all the available options to the present arrangments are flawed when you know so little about ours?



58

__-Steve-__,

19/08/2009 00:15:21
Rollooooooooo, this is where you've been hiding !!

Still making up stuff and talking bigoted rubbish I see. Well I suppose there's always one in any crowd.

The Freedom To Choose policy is quite simple (the clue is in the name). As you know full well (because I educated you about science the last time we spoke) SHS is harmless, be that as it may there are some people that think the government is here to provide odour free entertainment on private property (such as yourself). However in a free society market forces should decide and if there truly was a market for non smoking pubs - well there wouldn't have been a need for a ban in the first place would there?

Now politicians can make up all kinds of excuses for pub closures and politically correct pub organisations can agree with them (I remember my local landlord looking forward to the ban and all the none smoking customers he was promised - within 6 months of the ban he had laid off all his staff and the pub finally closed down within a year). The facts remain the facts though; pubs were immediately effected by the ban and the antis blamed the British weather, pubs started closing at a rate of 4 a day in the middle of the first winter of the ban and the antis blamed cheap supermarket beer (which had been cheap for at least 10 years before the ban), then closures went up to 5 a day and the antis blamed the pubcos for high rents (which were high before the ban as well), then closures went up to 6 a day and the antis blamed the recession. Well I might agree that the extra 1 a day was a result of the recession except for one very inconvenient fact for Anti; the pub trade actually peaked during the 70's recession.

So you can blame the decimation of the British pub on whatever you like just be careful not to bump into the elephant in the room ;)

PS, if you want to learn about air quality take a look at the Florida hospitals they have equipped rooms to protect staff against bio terrorist attacks and nasty t
59

soapy1,

Rainworth 19/08/2009 00:19:37
Free choice Rollo there seems to be little point in your debating freedom issues if you do not know what free choice is!

Apparently you don't read The Scotsman either as the sources for Ham sandwiches causing cancer come from this very paper, indeed there is a parallel thread running on this site!

Anything with carcinagens is comparable to cigarette smoke, tomatos for instance share some of the same carcinagens should we ban tomatos too? they all allegedly cause cancer of one sort or another, how about Milk Rollo that too is alledged to promote cancer.

I know lets campaign to stop those who have infectious diseases from going out, and those who have had contact with them, one flu sufferer can could wipe out a factory or pub, the government says flu kills lets ban flu sufferers, save a few lives wouldn't you agree Rollo! You do want to save lives don't you Rollo?

Actually I confess it's a stupid idea! I'd be hard pressed to find a single person posting here who would agree with that flu drivel! Yet you persist with the same argument against smokers it is equally stupid Rollo, it is harming children by putting their parents on the poverty line and you say its to protect them! Some protection Rollo, What about the poor children in care, some councils would rather have criminals fostering than smokers, does that help children, does that give them the love, comfort and safety they so desperatly need Rollo?

It seems to me that this ban is doing far more harm than good, it is not protecting the people it is supposed to protect, most bar staff still smoke, how are they protected Rollo, Children see smokers clustered on the streets a far better advertisement than any the tobacco industry could dream up an dthe law created it! evry time ASH and CRUK raise the issue they advertise smoking little wonder more cigarettes ar ebeing sold than ever. How many thousands of children who stay up beyond the watershed see the anti smoking adverts, How many of them take th
60

soapy1,

19/08/2009 00:20:40
How many of them take the teenage view that if adults say its bad it must be ok then start smoking, or drinking the best advert for for doing something is to tell people they can't do it! They'll try because an adult says no it's not good for you, every parent has been through this tell them no and they want it more.

If so many lives were not adversely affected it would be perfect material for Yes Ministe, wait a minute it was!
61

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 08:16:49
Belinda/ChrisUK: I asked a series of entirely reasonable questions about an “air quality standard”. I see that neither of you have begun to answer these. ChrisUK argues that they aren’t expensive to install – but he doesn’t consider the costs associated with constructing a separate smoking room where this would be necessary. And he doesn’t explain how long this equipment stays effective before requiring maintenance and replacement parts. Nor does he consider the other issues I raised. As I say – I am genuinely interested in knowing what lies behind this proposal

ChrisUK also raises the old chestnut of a pub being private property. Chris, it’s a nonsense argument - even private properties are subject to the law. And the law doesn’t allow people to sell alcohol on their private property, unless they get a public license. Even in that case, the publican is only allowed to sell alcohol provided they abide by the law and terms of their license. So, for example, the law and licensing conditions set requirements for publicans on a range of issues, such as opening hours, not serving intoxicated people or under-age children, fire escapes, hygiene standards, employment conditions….and not allowing smoking indoors. The publican is allowed to set additional restrictions of their own if they wish – provided they abide by these legal requirements.

And, for the benefit of both ChrisUK and Belinda, it’s not enough to say that people can just choose whether or not to work in a particular place and accept the working conditions they face. The Piper Alpha tragedy in 1988 rightly led to major changes in health and safety conditions on our oil platforms. Voluntary arrangements were absolutely unacceptable. Premature lung cancer and heart disease deaths from passive smoking amount to the equivalent of almost 40 Piper Alphas each year (5200 deaths, Jamrozik). So don’t pretend it is not a major public health issue which needs to be seriously addressed.
62

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 08:17:06
Well, hello Steve. I remember the one occasion where you and I sparred. You displayed a highly self-confident but faux understanding of scientific issues, together with a tactic of resorting to frequent personal insults to cover up shortcomings in your arguments. It will be interesting to see how you perform on an independently moderated board, where personal abuse will not be tolerated.

Your claim that “SHS is harmless” is of course ludicrous. And I’ve already dealt with the other issues you raise – by pointing to how the pub industry in Scotland managed pretty well when the smoking laws here were introduced in March 2006. Some lost trade, but others gained trade and many were not significantly affected. Very different from what happened in England, where the introduction of its smoking laws coincided with the start of the economic downturn.
63

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 08:17:20
Soapy –Once again, you fail to distinguish about risks to YOURSELF and risks to OTHER people. If you eat heaps of ham or down bottles of milk, you may be risking your own health, but you are not placing the health of people around you at risk. Notice how I have never argued that smokers shouldn’t be allowed to smoke – my concern is that they don’t indulge in their habit in enclosed public places where their tobacco fumes can harm people around them.

You’re entitled to your view that the smoking laws are not protecting you. I disagree. Strongly.
64

__-Steve-__,

19/08/2009 08:59:52
Rollo

You never were the sharpest tool in the box. Firstly as we discovered last time (after you tried to tell me that adding bad studies together made a good one) there is nothing to protect anyone from.

Secondly if you still think the dosage you receive from SHS is large enough to be harmful then many of the things you do hurt others; for example the risk of cancer from mobile phones has been shown in several studies to be 150 times greater than the junk studies for SHS. Yet numpties like you will happily sit next to someone on the phone but run a mile from a bit of smoke.

And yes, cooking your bacon sandwich releases more formaldehyde than a room full of smokers. Still at least the smoking ban means you don't have to wash your cardigan after a night out so its not all bad for you.
65

soapy1,

Rainworth 19/08/2009 09:16:27
Rollo the removal of freedom for one is the removal of freedom to all there is no escaping that principle, only tyrants would impose it, only fools would endorse it!
By banning smoking in pubs the freedom of non smokers to walk down the street without wading through clouds of smoke has been removed, the freedom of smokers to enjoy the company of their peers in the comfort of their own facilities has been removed has been removed, the freedom of landlords to provide civilised facilities for smokers and while retaining facilities for non smokers has been removed.
All of these people have had their freedoms removed Rollo and that just scratches the surface, this bill has directly led to a campaign against anyone who enjoys a drink, the same freedoms are being stolen from them too, the same blueprint that deny smokers their freedom is being used to deny drinkers theirs. The obese are next in line just as the war on drinkers was predicted so it will be with the obese, their freedom to eat as they choose will be denied, the illegal imprisonment of Scotlands schoolchildren at lunchtimes prove that it is already under way, another freedom removed Rollo and you and people like you support the removal of all freedoms the most important of which is the freedom to decide for yourself, free thinking Rollo, how long before the freedom of you and I to debate on forums like this is removed?

That is the real battle Rollo, not smoking, not drinking, not eating but freedom, you are are either pro freedom or anti freedom there is no freedom for this and not for that, just freedom, remove one mans freedom and you remove the freedom of all men.
66

Belinda-2,

19/08/2009 10:57:29
Rollo the point of an air quality standard is that toxins in the air are measured. It would be premature to speculate about the smoking arrangements in a bar or where people are allowed to sit or work before establishing 1) that the air contains toxins that exceed permissible levels; 2) that the dangerous toxins can be traced to tobacco smoke. Even at that stage air cleaning has moved on and continues to move on because air borne toxins are present in every working environment and must be dealt with.

As for the frequency of checks and filter changes on the equipment, this would depend on the equipment and the local severity of air pollution problems in the pubs. The basis of the issue is that the toxins in the air must remain below permissible levels and tests need to be frequent enough to ensure this. The inspections are undertaken by the local authority, like any environmental health inspection, and the equipment is a business expense.

67

english charlie,

19/08/2009 11:42:36
'Medical experts' until recently ASSUMED that smoking was the main cause of oral cancer, but have now discovered that oral cancer has increased, while smoking has decreased and drinking alcohol has increased. These 'medical experts' are now ASSUMING that alcohol is the main cause of oral cancer. I'm no medical expert', but I ASSUME that drinking water is a bigger cause of oral cancer, because over 99% of those with oral cancer have drunk water.
68

english charlie,

19/08/2009 13:59:21
If the smoking ban in pubs is a health issue, then all pubs should be closed to the public, because of the swine flu epidemic. Passive smoking has never been proven to have killed anybody, but swine flu is killing people all over the world. One sneeze and everybody can be killed.
69

Belinda-2,

19/08/2009 14:39:59
Rollo I don't think even Jamrozik would say that passive smoking kills hospitality workers with anything like the degree of certainty that burning oil rigs kill oil rig workers. His language is 'could,' 'might,' 'possibly'. There is nothing hypothetical about the Piper Alpha deaths, or the mess you are in when you find yourself on a burning oil rig in the middle of the ocean with no means of escape.

Comparing a burning oil rig with a thriving pub with smoking allowed makes chalk and cheese look almost identical.

I absolutely agree with you that proper safety provisions must be made against reasonable hazards, especially when workers are effectively trapped in their working environments. But mandatory provisions must be against known risks, not hypothetical ones.

Jamrozik's study shows absolutely no interest in what causes premature death. All he wishes to do is show that premature death is caused by secondary smoking. It is hardly what you would call objective, or open minded. The rapid responses give pertinent criticisms of his study http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812.

70

__-Steve-__,

19/08/2009 17:55:50
Rolloooooooooooooooooo, don't run away again, I was just starting to have fun!! Tell me all about my "faux understanding of scientific issues" lol. Tell me again how 4 studies that show 1% risk can be added together to make 4% risk, it was so funny last time.

Come back N play. :o) I haven't laughed so much since your mates at the Antis Smoking Hate group said passive smoke could kill a man in 30 minutes. Don't you feel even slightly embarrassed supporting them?
71

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 19:07:17
Steve - No references to bad studies from me. I've been discussing drawing lessons from good studies.

Jamrozik estimated around 1,400 premature lung cancer deaths attributable to passive smoking. You claim mobile phones present a 150-fold risk. Really? I'm not aware of 200k deaths in the UK from exposure to other people's mobile phones. That's 1 in 3 deaths in the UK!
72

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 19:10:02
Belinda - What would "permissible levels" be? PELs wouldn't cover the issue. PELs were developed by OSHA in the US. But OSHA themselves state that passive smoking is harmful even though it contains no individual chemical exceeding PEL thresholds.

How would you solution protect me if friends and I went to a pub, located ourselves in an area with no smokers, only to find that others then stand next to us and light up?
73

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 19:12:57
Soapy: I don't understand your freedom. I have tried to explain that all of our freedoms come with corresponding responsibilities. You fail to realise this.

Your freedom to drive is restricted by law. So too is your freedom to relieve yourself when the urge hits you.

Proper freedoms come with responsibilities. Freedom without responsibilities is anarchy.
74

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 19:17:11
Belinda - What proof do you need to witness before you will accept that passive smoking kills? Jamrozik was cleat that passive smoking kills. He was also definite about the range of attributable deaths. What he couldn't give was a precise number of deaths, accurate to the nearest "1". That's why he used conditional language.

Passive smoking is a known risk.
75

__-Steve-__,

19/08/2009 19:51:30
Rollieeeeeeee, you came back. :)

Ok, now tell me about these "good studies" you have been drawing lessons from. Do these studies know what they are measuring rather than relying on self guessed lifetime smoke exposure limits? I can't wait to see them :) Name one for me Rollo, you can make up in your head how it works like you did last time.

To tell the truth (yes I know that is an odd concept to you)I'm not claiming anything, I'm just quoting from the same statistics you bigots live by.

Ok so Jamrozik plucked from thin air around 1,400 premature lung cancer deaths attributable to passive smoking based on peoples guesses of how much smoke they inhaled during their lives and ignoring anything else they inhaled. Now are you saying that mobile phone studies are junk because that would make your passive smoke stories ridiculous? I'm glad you brought this up:

Would you like links that show the mobile phone studies? After you have read them will you either admit that they are junk or that passive smoke studies are junk because clearly they can't both be right. You can perhaps try to explain to us which one is wrong.

Are you prepared to risk your anti smoking reputation by either claiming a ludicrous amount of deaths from mobile phones or by admitting that the anti smoking movement lie through their teeth?

Come on Rollo be a man, it's crunch time.

76

Belinda-2,

19/08/2009 19:54:02
Risks do not kill as a matter of routine. They might kill (like crossing the road) but death is not a certainty (like when you step off the Empire State Building. This is not courting risk but committing suicide, there is a difference). Passive smoking is a risk like almost everything including getting out of bed (especially to the very fragile). But you cannot legislate against risk. It is a fact of life.

It will take far more than Jamrozik's conviction to persuade me that passive smoke kills. His beliefs are not evidence. They have not named a single person who died of it (except Roy Castle and he doesn't count).

As for PELs, it seems to me that if OSHA designed permissible exposure levels and then said that secondary smoke was dangerous in spite of being well within the exposure levels there are three possibilities: 1) they were misquoted; 2) they were playing politics; 3) they miscalculated the permissible exposure levels. The whole point of exposure levels is that they define what is safe. It is Repace-esque to say that something satisfies safety levels but is, uniquely, still hazardous enough to kill you.

I am not qualified to specify exposure levels.
77

__-Steve-__,

19/08/2009 19:56:41
Rollo says "But OSHA themselves state that passive smoking is harmful even though it contains no individual chemical exceeding PEL thresholds."

hmmmmmm, so you believe that passive smoke is harmful even though the antis at OSHA are forced to admit that nothing in passive smoke reaches harmful levels.

Enlighten us Rollo, if nothing in it is harmful how does it harm people? is it magic?
78

soapy1,

Rainworth 19/08/2009 20:14:08
The responsibilty as to whether a non smoker knowingly enters a smokers establishment rests solely with the non smoker. The non smokers will have freely evaluated the alleged risk for themselves then chose, rejecting or accepting the alleged risk thus satisfying your criteria, no different to the decision of where and when to cross a road, or are you telling me that people are incapable of making that decision too?

79

__-Steve-__,

19/08/2009 20:19:12
Belinda, if all Rollo can quote is Jamrozik you've really got nothing to worry about. Jamrozik was a vicious anti way before he even did a study on it.

The 1400 deaths was completely made up when he arbitrarily tripled cotinine levels in bar workers and then extrapolated from that the worst anti smoking scare figures into deaths; this was highly criticised at the time because his made up results meant that passive smokers were more at risk than active smokers lol.

The study he did before that was even worse. A postal questionnaire to the relatives of 100 dead people asking how much passive smoke the dead relative inhaled.
Are these the "good studies" you told me about Rollo?
80

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 22:53:19
Steve – There are scores of studies, developed using reasonable and solid questionnaires. Those surveys can give a perfectly accurate account of the general level of exposure to second hand smoke which participants faced over a period of years. Fontham (1997) is the largest study, if you care to comment on that.

Your argument is based on the assumption that studies identify people who have got lung cancer and then ask about their lifetime exposure. Many do this, but not all. Cohort studies track a large group of people for years, so details of their levels of exposure are noted on a regular basis, whether or not they end up with lung cancer. Cardenas is a cohort study, developed using detailed information from the CPS-II programme. Its results closely reflect those of case-control studies.

You seem determined to try to rule any study into passive smoking as null and void. Does this view extend to studies about the dangers of vehicle exhaust emissions? After all, our knowledge about the dangers of that is based on the very same type of epidemiological evidence – surveys and all. Or do you just object to passive smoking studies because you don’t like the results? Tell me, how would YOU design a study to test the risks of passive smoking, if none of the existing studies are good enough for you?
81

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 22:53:53
While Steve and Belinda might want to pretend that Jamrozik’s figures were plucked from the air, they were in fact drawn from the accumulated evidence about the health risks from passive smoking. His total of 7,000 lung cancer and heart disease deaths attributable to passive smoking come from recognised relative risks of 1.24 and 1.30 respectively. I’ve not read any challenge about how Jamrozik calculated those totals. Can you provide any?

Belinda describes Jamrozik’s work as “beliefs”, when in fact it was calculations drawn directly from established evidence. Tell me Belinda, exactly what part(s) of his methodology do you disagree with and why?

Steve raises a criticism about Jamrozik’s work – but that had nothing to do with the calculation of the total numbers of deaths. The issue you raise dealt with a separate calculation – i.e. how many of those total deaths occurred to people working in the pub/hospitality trades.

And yes Steve, I’m happy to look at your mobile phone material.
82

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 22:57:50
Belinda is increasingly resorting to the nonsense comments of the myopic pro-smoker.

Here you bring in the old "can you name someone who died from passive smoking"?

Here are my questions for you.

(1) Can you name 3 medical professionals who argue that something is not hazardous to health unless it is referred to on a death certificate?

(2) Can you name anybody who died from lung cancer brought about from exposure to vehicle exhaust emissions or radon gas? No? Does that mean they're safe?
83

Rollo Tommasi,

19/08/2009 23:04:17
The issue of PELs is another area where the pro-smokers have resorted to misquoting and deceit. For example, your very own (I believe) Harleyrider frequently refers to a letter from Greg Watchman of OSHA to Dr Leroy J Pletten, which states that the components of second hand smoke don’t breach individual PELs. Only pro-smokers ALWAYS ignore the rest of that letter, in particular the following sentences:

“The more central concern of the Agency is that synergism of the chemicals in tobacco smoke may lead to adverse health effects even though the PELs are often not exceeded. The Agency published in a proposed rule in April of 1994 that it is of the opinion that lung cancer and heart disease are major health concerns in nonsmoking workers chronically exposed to ETS.”

That is why I say that OSHA regards passive smoke as harmful. Its view is based on scientific expertise. It is concerned about the collective effects of the chemicals in tobacco smoke, which may differ from their individual effects.

Belinda - does your proposed Air Quality Standard address the synergistic effects of the chemicals in tobacco smoke?
84

Belinda-2,

19/08/2009 23:44:53
Where did I say anything about death certificates?

I do not have the relevant training, but my understanding of air testing is that it measures the contaminants in a mix of air such as found in a bar. The tests are not on the individual toxins but on the air as found, and so the toxicity of any combinations of chemicals will be likewise tested.

This would seem easier than isolating and measuring the toxicity of each of the toxic constituents of smoke. You just take the air that people will be breathing and test that.

I am not acquainted with the epidemiology around road traffic or radon pollution but the concentrations are obviously very relevant in any area where they are alleged to affect people.

It's kind of you to mention other potential causes of lung cancer. The fact is that we are encouraged at present to think of all malady as 'lifestyle related', nobody talks of radon-related diseases. The fact is that people die generally from lung cancer from their fifties and upwards. Some may have been smokers, and also some exposed to radon, many exposed to diesel, many exposed to genetic factors, other pollutants. There is an infinite number of contributing factors. But it's all smoking related this and that, and the Scottish CMO told us that the smoking ban would lead to the end of lung cancer within a generation. (But of course it's only 'pro-smokers' who say misleading things.)
85

__-Steve-__,

20/08/2009 06:25:27
Quite a few points there Rollo; first let's deal with Fontham:

"Passive Smoke and Lung Cancer" Published in the Lancet - Result --- No Risk.

"The Relation of Passive Smoke to Lung Cancer" published by Cancer Research - Result --- No Risk

"Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Non Smoking Women" Published in Jama - Result --- No Risk

"Lung Cancer In Non Smoking Women" Published by Cancer Epidemiol - Result --- Increased risk 1.29 (1.03-1.62)

The last one was heavily criticised after demonstrating serious misclassification bias, failure to use never smoking women in the control groups, biased collection of data and biased selection of lung cancer types. cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/reprint/1/4/331.pdf

Not particularly compelling evidence then Rollo.

86

__-Steve-__,

20/08/2009 06:37:25
Your second one Rollo seems to be making my point for me:

"Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Mortality in the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study II | Cardenas V, et al." Published by Cancer Causes Control - Result --- No risk.

Read it again Rollo - Result --- No Risk.

You say that "Its results closely reflect those of case-control studies.". Yes they do Rollo so I am in complete agreement with you; 83% of all the studies into ETS show no risk, as you know full well.
87

__-Steve-__,

20/08/2009 07:07:54
To answer your other general comments Rollo:

I am not "determined to try to rule any study into passive smoking as null and void." I merely pointed out that none of them can quantify what it is they have measured. Single point data obtained from bio markers or self reported guesses is far from scientific.

This view extends to any epidemiological study that makes claims of causation without adherence to the scientific method. If you read the daily newspapers you will be familiar with this concept because they would have us believe that the things that cause cancer change daily !

"Our knowledge of car fumes" is most certainly not "based on the very same type of epidemiological evidence". The measurable components of car fumes can easily exceed known and published safe levels. If you doubt this I will sit in a locked garage full of chain smokers while you sit in a locked garage with your car running and we'll see who is the healthiest after a couple of hours.

Of course I don't "object to passive smoking studies because I don’t like the results" Why would I? The results are in my favour, 83% of them say NO RISK. I object to them because they don't know what they have measured, the results are not repeatable according to the scientific method, no plausible biological mechanism can be demonstrated and they all ignore known confounders.

Finally to answer your question of how I would design a study - Easy, statistics cannot demonstrate causation they can only ever infer it, so to test that hypothesis I would attempt to reproduce the results in a Laboratory.

Oh but wait, that's already been done and they couldn't reproduce the results ! In fact they subjected millions of family pets to thousands of times the normal human doses of passive smoke and still couldn't do it.
88

__-Steve-__,

20/08/2009 07:59:57
Rollo, "Steve and Belinda" don't have to "pretend that Jamrozik's figures were plucked from the air" the evidence leads to only that conclusion.

He chose a figure of relative risk that is an unproven and highly disputed figure in the first place and then he trebled it. His justification for doing this was that he claimed bar workers saliva contained 3 times more cotinine than non smoking spouses. His new result for lung cancer risk was then 2.52 which presents a few problems. First and foremost none of the studies into passive smoke have ever given a result anywhere near as high as that. Second, his new result was so high it was even higher than the average risk for direct smokers. Third there is no biological evidence that a short term tripling of cotinine in saliva results in a tripling of lifetime risk, so he was comparing apples with oranges. Fourth, the cotinine level in the saliva of direct smokers is hundreds of times greater and if you followed Jamrozik's same logic of simply multiplying the risk, then the risk for smokers would make cigarettes more lethal than almost any substance known to man.

If you believe Jamrozik then you are also stating that you believe passive smoking is more harmful than direct smoking which is ridiculous unless you can explain how a substance becomes more harmful with less exposure !

The only other conclusion is that his study was rubbish and he plucked the figures from thin air.
89

Rollo Tommasi,

20/08/2009 08:14:23
Well done Steve. You find one single, solitary criticism of Fontham’s work (an earlier stage of her 1994 report, which is what I had in mind). But Fontham saw off this solitary challenger: http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2501118070-8073.html.

But your comments reveal the completely bizarre premise you work on. In your world, any study which does not show a statistically significant positive association presents “no risk”. That is nonsense and is not shared with the professional scientific community. The great majority of studies show an increased risk of harm from passive smoking. Some (the 17% you refer to) produce statistically significant results. The others are not conclusive, but are still suggestive of harm. Pulled together, these consistent results build up a clear picture about the dangers of passive smoking.

Fontham’s 1994 study concluded “Exposure to ETS in adult life increases risk of lung cancer in lifelong non-smokers.” If you are right and I am wrong, there must be loads of published articles and letters arguing that her conclusions are unjustified. Where are they? And where are the loads of published articles and letters criticising the value of studies built on the model she used?

Animal tests do not provide an alternative. First, it is notoriously difficult to develop an animal test in a way which accurately represents the long-term risk to health of exposure to secondhand smoke. Second, animal testing only reveals if a risk exists. You still need epidemiological evidence to measure the size of that risk.

Your comments on vehicle exhaust emissions are interesting. Scientists’ understanding about how many people may die of lung cancer attributable to these emissions is based on epidemiological evidence. Nothing else will give them that information.

I see you’ve chosen not to pursue your criticism of Jamrozik's total figures - only his separate calculation of the subset of hospitality workers. I take it you haven’t been abl
90

Rollo Tommasi,

20/08/2009 08:14:57
I see you’ve chosen not to pursue your criticism of Jamrozik's total figures - only his separate calculation of the subset of hospitality workers. I take it you haven’t been able to establish fault in how he calculated his total number of deaths.
91

__-Steve-__,

20/08/2009 08:18:38
Finally Rollo let's address your rubbish about PEL's.

You readily admit that the individual particles in smoke are not harmful. Please show me where the theory of a synergistic effect of the particles in smoke that makes them harmful is demonstrated. Please show me where the biological mechanism that leads to this miracle is scientifically tested.

Given that all of the particles of interest in smoke are present in the air from other sources please explain why this synergistic affect only apparently takes place dependant upon their source.

This whole "synergistic effect" nonsense is made up by anti smoking advocates who were faced with a really big problem; nothing in smoke is anywhere near harmful in the doses experienced by passive smokers, the passive smoke myths were dead in the water unless they could come up with something. The theory that particles from smoke behave differently than the very same particles from other sources and magically become more harmful has absolutely no basis in science.

As for an air quality standard - it really doesn't need to address the issue of magic particles. Air management systems can easily and scientifically demonstrably make indoor air cleaner than outdoor air so there is absolutely no reason to send anyone outside.
92

Rollo Tommasi,

20/08/2009 08:27:36
Steve says: "This whole "synergistic effect" nonsense is made up by anti smoking advocates".

Wrong, Steve. Those are OSHA's words.
93

__-Steve-__,

20/08/2009 08:52:46
LMAO Rollo, you are really clutching at straws as well as making stuff up again and pretending you know anything about epidemiology and science other than what you copy/paste from hate filled anti smoking websites.

The fact that Fontham defended herself doesn't change the facts. Did you expect her not to defend it? She didn't answer all of the faults and as part of her defence she said "The association between active smoking and lung cancer is well established for all lung cancers" So not only are her results biased by a predetermined starting point she also makes the assumption that from this she can presume that selection of only one type of lung cancer (the one that happened to give the highest result) is appropriate for passive smoke.

A huge and biased leap of faith.

LOL at "My bizarre world", either a study shows risk or it doesn't! 83% of passive smoke studies don't show risk. Your understanding of statistics is as awful as ever. You can continue to make things up in your head all you want but it doesn't alter the facts again.

I remember our last conversation months ago went exactly like this one. You pretended you knew what you were talking about and made things up in your head so I recommended some books to you on basic statistical analysis, then you disappeared. I guess you never read them LOL.

For interest; tell me Rollo, how would you analyse the width of the interval? What is the data contained in the interval? Why do we have the interval, if like you say, only a single point of data is relevant?

And I really, really can't believe you are still spouting the same rubbish about adding studies together LOL. Tell me Rollo, if there are 4 studies that all show 1% of the population have a cold and you add them all together do you think that 4% of the population have got a cold lol?

Tell me again, what does it mean when you add statistical studies together and get a different result?

"Statistics according to Rollo - Law 1, add together a
94

__-Steve-__,

20/08/2009 09:10:28
Rollo said - "Wrong, Steve. Those are OSHA's words"

And is that the only evidence you have to give me about the magic particle theory you put forward? - "It came from OSHA so it must be true!"

Where's the evidence I asked for?

95

__-Steve-__,

20/08/2009 09:45:55
Rollo said "I see you’ve chosen not to pursue your criticism of Jamrozik's total figures - only his separate calculation of the subset of hospitality workers."

Rollo, Jamrozik is an outspoken and active anti smoking advocate who plucked figures from thin air to make a ridiculous claim that passive smoking was more harmful than active smoking.

Why would you expect me to believe that the estimates of deaths based on assumed risks from flawed studies calculated by a biased and outspoken anti smoker who makes unscientific and silly claims are anything other than anti smoking junk?
96

soapy1,

Rainworth 20/08/2009 11:58:55
I see you have no desire to comment on personal responsibility or freedom, I accept both your right not comment further and your tacit agreement by doing so, your surrender on this issue confirms that you know there is no possible defense for the removal of freedom of choice in any mattter whether it be smoking, drinking or eating.

I am not required to convince you personally of anything merely get my point of view across and allow others the freedom to think for themselves, this is why your cause is lost Rollo, you are long on rhetoric and dogma but woefully short on solutions. This is why the health acts will be ammended or even repealed because there was never a fair equitable solution for all parties involved.

No doubt our paths will cross again, until then fair winds and a following sea.
97

Rollo Tommasi,

20/08/2009 19:19:01
Oh. Poor Soapy’s feeling neglected. Why do I not like a situation of having smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs?

First, because people have to work in them. The right not to have to breathe second hand smoke is a health and safety matter. Other employees in enclosed public places (shops, cafes, trains, etc) enjoy that protection. Health and safety laws are applied universally elsewhere. So for instance, they apply to all construction sites – you don’t get some that are exempt. Again, why should pubs be any different?

Then there’s another issue. Who would decide which pubs should be smoking and which non-smoking? How would they do that? How would the system be run fairly to all parties? Notice how publicans are not calling for pubs to be split into smoking and non-smoking versions. Why do you think that is?

I'd actually be interested in your views, because I've not yet seen anyone deal with these issues.

PS. I talked earlier about smokers having responsibilities as well as rights. You chose not to respond to that point. Do you agree that smokers have responsibilities too?
98

Rollo Tommasi,

20/08/2009 19:19:55
Oh dear Steve. I don’t know where to begin with your comments.

Fontham study – She did deal with all of Mantel’s comments and it seems he never responded. She dealt with the adenocarcinoma point towards the end of her response, stating that adenocarcinoma accounted for as much as 78% of lung cancers in never-smoking women and the different compositions of mainstream and sidestream smoke could explain this phenomenon.

You persist in maintaining this ludicrous fiction that a study in which the confidence interval straddles the 1.0 represents “no risk”. Where’s your evidence? As I said in a previous post, Fontham (not to mention other researchers) have stated that the results of their studies support the conclusion that long-term exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer – even where the CI straddles 1.0. If you’re right, there should be waves of published articles and letters criticising these conclusions. So where are they?

And, as I asked you before, where are all the published articles and letters criticising the survey-based research model which Fontham used? You’ve gone very silent on that one.
99

Rollo Tommasi,

20/08/2009 19:20:18
Maybe it’s because you don’t understand the issues, or maybe it’s because you just want to be awkward. But I have never suggested that the collective risk of 4 studies showing 1% risk is 4%.

I laughed when I read your claim that a statement from OSHA is not acceptable “evidence” about PELs. Let me remind you that OSHA developed the PELs. OSHA understands the purpose of PELs, their value and their limitations. So if OSHA states that PELs should not be treated as the only factors determining the danger of secondhand smoke, then that is first class evidence.

Finally you move onto Jamrozik. Now his report set out the working behind his calculations about total passive smoking related deaths clearly. So do you challenge his conclusions on these calculations? No! All you offer is an ad hominem attack on him personally. Not the best way to further your case….
100

soapy1,

20/08/2009 21:55:47
see 78 Rollo, I dealt with personal responsibility there, if a non smoker chooses to enter an smoking establishment then the responsibility is theirs not the smokers,

Should a smoker choose to enter a non smoking premises then the personal responsibility is on the smoker not to smoke inside the premises that is reasonable and fair to both parties.

As smoking venues would be known as such employees would either be smokers anyway or would have acccepted personal responsibility when they accepted the position offered in the knowledge of the alleged risks involved.

If as you claim publicans do not want a choice between smoking and non smoking pubs then there is no issue for you to be raising is there?

However free choice by the landlords would be the fairest solution, by now there will a number of landlords who would prefer to run non smoking operations, I see no reason to dictate that anyone who wished to run a smoke free pub should not do so.

Remove the restriction and see what percentage actually do choose to go smoking

Equally valid could be the licensing of smokers pubs while personally I do not favour such schemes I have no objection to a trial of the scheme after all if it is not tried as a solution how could we know if it would work or not? I may even reconsider my position if they did. Perhaps the independant pubs should be allowed to evaluate the scheme?

AS far as Health and safety is concerned they seem to agree that with proper ventilation the air quality in pubs is better than air on the street and that was prior to the smoking ban, no one has yet disagreed that modern ventilation systems are capable of removing substances with particuate sizes microns smaller than cigarette smoke like radiation, Tabun, VX, Sarin, Zyklon'B' Anthrax Smallpox et al. given that some of these villains like Tabun, Sarin and VX kill immediately both by contact and inhalation, that Zklon 'B' takes longer (about 20 minutes) Radiation, Anthrax and Smallpox
101

soapy1,

20/08/2009 21:57:41
can take days or even weeks! On balance a little smoke is not an issue at all to these systems.

Pubs and clubs should be different because they are the one place that smokers and non smokers interact socially, both sides have a right to equality under social conditions, you will note that I do not include restaurants cafes and shopping malls, these places as you are aware are more commonly frequented by children, I would suggest that as adult venues children should not on the premises the issue of children seeing or suffering smoke inhalation would not arise, the ventilation system would have removed 98% of carcinagens from the air anyway but adults do need time away from their broods in a social setting it is good both for them and their children.

I hope that your employment does not depend on the use of sarcasm, frankly you are no good at it but I thank you for the laugh anyway.
102

Rollo Tommasi,

20/08/2009 23:04:14
Thanks Soapy. You're reiterating a message I gave Belinda earlier. There is no obvious alternative to the present laws. If there were, many people would stand behind it. But Belinda talks about imposing an Air Quality Standard on pubs (although I still don't know what that means, because the questions I asked before remain unanswered). While you argue that the choice should lie with the publican - i.e. the old ways, which hardly anyone in Scotland or the rest of the UK wants any more.

You say a trial of smokers' pubs could be introduced. I asked you a few questions about how that might work in post 97. What do you say in response to those?

You say a ventilation system would clear smoke. Let me repeat the questions I asked of Belinda at post 55, which she couldn't answer. How would an air quality standard work? Would smoking be restricted to enclosed rooms? If so, how would they remain enclosed and how would staff in them be protected? How much would your option cost to install? How much would it cost to operate? How much maintenance would be required (e.g. how often would filters have to be replaced)? How often would premises have to be visited to ensure ventilation/filtration equipment was both continuously switched on during opening hours and well maintained? Who would be expected to bear the cost of this?

And here's another question I asked at post 72, again unanswered: How would an air quality standard protect my friends and me if we went to a pub, located ourselves in an area with no smokers, only to find that others then stand next to us and light up?

As for your last comment, pubs are not different. The hazards within passive smoke do not discriminate between shops, cinemas, public transport and pubs. They apply just as much in a pub as elsewhere.
103

__-Steve-__,

20/08/2009 23:35:41
Well Rollo, I think I can safely say I have never spoken to anyone so willing to keep up a story no matter how daft they make themselves look.

Like last time I will give you a basic lesson in statistics (and like last time you'll probably ignore it and carry on with your own version of statistics lol)

A very basic guide from childrens-mercy.org/stats/model/confidence.asp

I Quote:

"When you see a confidence interval in a published medical report, you should look for two things. First, does the interval contain a value that implies no change or no effect? For example, with a confidence interval for a difference look to see whether that interval includes zero. With a confidence interval for a ratio, look to see whether that interval contains one."

AN INTERVAL THAT CONTAINS 1 IMPLIES NO EFFECT

Now are you going to quit making things up and pretending you know what you are talking about Rollo?
104

Belinda-2,

20/08/2009 23:36:34
Rollo says, 'Why do I not like a situation of having smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs? First, because people have to work in them.The right not to have to breathe second hand smoke is a health and safety matter.'

That is because you equate pubs with burning oil rigs, Rollo: or to be less dramatic, how about some other work scenarios that present safety risks of a much higher order. http://www.freedom2choose.info/news1.php?id=1055. Or what about http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/nsukrept.pdf, where they talk about the cases of cancer in employees at National Semiconductor in Inverclyde. Unlike the passive smoking theory they are dealing with *actual cases of cancer* ... they know exactly how many there are because they are employees who have become sick: not ten years after retirement but actually while in service.

As for people having 'protection' from smoke, as usual you are considering things only from the anti-smoker's point of view. From many other people's point of view having nowhere enclosed where smokers may shelter is a downright nuisance, not least the smokers themselves.

Your real problem is that you are obsessed with the hazards of smoke to the exclusion of everything else. You can be dismissive of air clraning systems if you wish but they remove all pollutants, not only smoke. We are proposing a system that tests air safety and the installation of equipment that cleans it, and all you are worried about is smoke, which is a tiny part of the problem.
105

Belinda-2,

20/08/2009 23:49:23
Said Rollo, 'I laughed when I read your claim that a statement from OSHA is not acceptable “evidence” about PELs. Let me remind you that OSHA developed the PELs. OSHA understands the purpose of PELs, their value and their limitations. So if OSHA states that PELs should not be treated as the only factors determining the danger of secondhand smoke, then that is first class evidence.'

OHSA designs a system of testing air safety based on permissible exposure levels and then finds that nothing in tobacco smoke exceeds those levels, but still claims that smoke is dangerous. Is this right? If so, it seems to me that OSHA is trying to move the goal posts. If something does not exceed permitted exposure levels, it is not dangerous. It really is that simple.

OSHA understands the purpose of PELs, does it? Well can you possibly explain their version of it in layman's terms? It sets an acceptable concentration of toxins in the air (except in the presence of secondary smoke, where the levels of toxicity fall way below the PELs but don't touch it anyway because it can kill you within half an hour).

I doubt it. I don't think they are as clever as you think they are Rollo.
106

Belinda-2,

21/08/2009 00:05:45
Rollo. I did answer your questions but you didn't like the answers. I'll try again in the light of subsequent posts.

How would an air quality standard work?
The air within a public establishment would be tested to see if it contained any toxins that exceed permitted levels. If toxins are found (with or without smoking) they can be identified and removed.

Establishments would be required to be 'clean' (with smoking allowed) before being open to the public. Air would have to be clean throughout establishments whether smoking or not. Staff have no need of protection. Nor do you and your friends.

Installation and maintenance of the systems would be a bueiness cost. There may be some premises that do not need them, because of the efficiency of existing systmes. It would depend on the severity of the problem.

The important thing is maintaining air quality (which concerns all toxins and not simply tobacco smoke). It would also involve Environmental officers in systems that work to improve the air (not just remove the smoke) rather than pester people with on the spot fines.

Since their real remit is environmental improvement this would be an improvement, don't you think?
107

Rollo Tommasi,

21/08/2009 00:07:49
Thank you Belinda for those links. I actually think they prove my point. Which is, in whatever field of work we are in, we have a reasonable right to expect that our health and safety will be taken seriously. So it is good that HSE investigated NSUK and recommended urgent further investigations. And all the people who work in jobs listed by Phil Johnson – as well as pub staff – should be able to expect that their working environment should be as safe as reasonably possible.

You will understand why I am sceptical (not condemning, note) of an air quality standard when nobody seems to be able to explain exactly how it would work in practice.

As for your other comments, nobody is trying to deny smokers a right of shelter. All that is being asked of smokers is to exercise a choice of either staying in enclosed public places and not smoking, or going outside if they need to smoke,

I have to say, I would treat your comments with a bit more sympathy if you didn’t continue to talk of passive smoking-related deaths as “hypothetical”. As I’ve already said, they’re as real as lung cancer deaths attributable to radon or vehicle exhaust emissions. You keep using the term “hypothetical” in an effort to fool yourself into thinking that passive smoking is harmless. Well, the evidence is strong that it is harmful. And just supposing the issue did lie in the balance about whether passive smoking killed or not….. would you want to smoke in enclosed public places in front of other people, given you knew that your actions could harm them?

As for PELs, I am explaining what OSHA state about the PELs which they themselves developed. PELs relate to the allowable threshold from exposure to a SINGLE chemical. OSHA themselves state that PELs alone should not be used to assess how safe is tobacco smoke, which contains a cocktail of different chemicals.

Are you really trying to suggest that Steve’s views about the role and limitations of PELs should be regarded as more
108

Rollo Tommasi,

21/08/2009 00:09:50
Are you really trying to suggest that Steve’s views about the role and limitations of PELs should be regarded as more definitive than the views of OSHA, who developed the PELs?

PS Have now seen your post 106 too. Will return to that later, but may not be tonight.
109

Rollo Tommasi,

21/08/2009 00:24:12
Well Steve, haven’t you been creative with your references?

You quote a paragraph from the article you cite. Then you proudly claim – only not in quotes this time – “AN INTERVAL THAT CONTAINS 1 IMPLIES NO EFFECT”.

So why is your last statement not in quotes? It’s because the website said NO SUCH THING!

This is what the website actually said: The interval shown below [i.e. including the null value] implies no statistically significant change.

There is a world of difference between “no statistically significant change” and “no effect”. Positive but statistically insignificant results are not conclusive of harm in themselves. But they are suggestive of harm and are relevant issues for consideration in the context of other evidence.

In the case of passive smoking the context of other evidence takes the form of scores of studies which overwhelmingly associate exposure to secondhand smoke with added risk of lung cancer. The combined effect of this evidence is powerful.

So have you any more sources to justify your claim? After all, there are so many studies which state that their results support the conclusion that passive smoking is harmful. Surely, if you are right, there must be a raft of articles and letters which decry studies which reach these conclusions based on statistically insignificant findings?
110

Belinda-2,

21/08/2009 00:46:05
I am not looking for your sympathy Rollo. The alleged deaths are hypothetical, unlike the ones observed at Inverclyde. They cannot prove causation by questionnaires, mathematical models or other magical tricks. Certainly they cannot prove it is dangerous enough to warrant everybody in the land losing any discretion over the issue.

Regardless of OSHA's views, it should be possible to text the toxicity of air.

Do you demand protection from every kind of risk, or is it only those risks associated with smoking that you don't like?


111

__-Steve-__,

21/08/2009 01:20:20
Wow, I have met some stupid antis in my time but Rollo I must admit that you are the cream of the crop.

I show you proof in black and white that says "does the interval contain a value that implies no change or no effect? With a confidence interval for a ratio, look to see whether that interval contains one."

And you deny it says it lol.

Intervals that contain the value of 1 show no risk Rollo, you just made it up in your head when you told everyone they didn't.

Don't you feel even slightly embarrassed?

So, as you know, 83% of the passive smoke studies have a confidence interval that contains one and now everyone who reads this thread with more than a CSE in colouring in knows that 83% of the studies show no risk. They also know that you make things up and keep repeating them even when you get caught out.

This is too funny.

Go on, say it again it might become true lol. or you could perhaps tell us again how taking studies that show no risk and adding them together makes them show risk lol, that was funny as well.



112

Rollo Tommasi,

21/08/2009 09:10:09
Belinda – Thank you for your post 106. I do note what you say about how an air quality standard would work.

But your post does raise other questions. How and when would air quality be measured? It is one thing measuring air quality when a pub is closed, or in one specific point in the pub. But it is another thing entirely to be able to show that air quality throughout a pub is safe when there may be lit cigarettes sprinkled across the building. Hence the question about whether my friends and I would be safe if someone decided to light up next to us.

As other posts you’ve made indicate, your model appears to be based on the assumption that, provided the equivalent of individual PELs are not breached, then the air is safe. But that is a false assumption.

As I understand it, ventilated smoking rooms are allowed in Italy. But take up of this option has been low, because of the costs of creating a smoking room, and installing and maintaining the equipment. So how realistic are the business costs involved?

And I note what you say about Environmental Health Officers. But whether their role is to fine breaching pubs or work to support better air quality, their costs still have to be paid for somehow. Who should do so?

As for your post 110, I disagree entirely. The deaths I am talking about are just as real as the deaths in Inverclyde. People die from lung cancer in the real world. The question is – what causes that lung cancer? Scores of studies show that exposure to SHS is one cause. HSE investigated whether the working conditions at National Semiconductors might be another cause. Note how HSE didn’t come to any firm conclusions about what caused cancers in that case – simply that there was enough just cause to warrant further urgent investigations. Funny how you are prepared to accept its working conditions as a cause on the basis of a single study but you refuse to accept the risks of passive smoking – even though scores of studies highlight
113

Rollo Tommasi,

21/08/2009 09:10:39
(Contd...)

Funny how you are prepared to accept its working conditions as a cause on the basis of a single study but you refuse to accept the risks of passive smoking – even though scores of studies highlight the harm it can cause.

At the end of the day, the best available evidence (which is strong) shows that passive smoking lies behind thousands of premature lung cancer and heart disease deaths in the UK each year. You’re determined to pretend that must be false, because the ramifications of accepting that truth would destroy your case about allowing smoking in enclosed public places.
114

Rollo Tommasi,

21/08/2009 09:20:10
Oh dear, Steve – you are struggling! Your last post 111 was simply a desperate attempt to deflect attention after being caught in “an economy with the truth”.

You pointed to one paragraph in your previous post. But you didn’t point to any statement which said that any study where the confidence interval straddles 1 “implies no effect”. BECAUSE THE ARTICLE DIDN’T SAY IT!! In fact the article supported my interpretation of the evidence.

And it seems you can’t find any articles or letters elsewhere which might support your ludicrous claim. You’ve gone very silent there, Steve!

And you’ve also gone very silent on the other points we were discussing. So you’ve nothing on which to challenge Jamrozik’s calculations about the total number of passive smoking related deaths. And you’ve nothing on which to claim that OSHA accepts that PELs should be treated as the only factor to determine if tobacco smoke is safe. And you’ve no articles or letters to support your empty claim that the research model that Fontham used was fundamentally flawed.

What have you got, Steve??
115

__-Steve-__,

21/08/2009 10:41:36
Jeez, First you deny the link I gave says what it says, now you have obviously read it again so your excuse changes to "it doesn't say that in any studies". Rollo why the hell would a study give lessons on basic statistical analysis? The link I gave you was from a professor of statistics are you saying he is wrong lol?

After that weak attempt you then quickly change the subject.

You wanted another link: ok here ya go: books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z6HYjMHs4P4C&pg=PT323&lpg=PT323&d#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Oops, bad news again rollo, page 296 tells you TWICE that you make things up in your head lol. It will also educate you about small significant risks which is more bad news for you antis.

Now are you going to tell me that book doesn't say "When evaluating relative risks and odds ratios, if the 95% confidence interval contains the value of 1, we must conclude that there is no significant effect"?

It also says, on the very same page, "if the confidence interval includes 1 within its range, then there is no difference between the control and experiment groups".

So here it is in black and white again Rollo; 83% of passive smoke studies have 1 in their interval so they show no difference/no effect.

83% of all studies into passive smoke show no effect on non smokers Rollo, boy that must really gripe you.
116

__-Steve-__,

21/08/2009 10:46:03
I'll split the above link in two for you Rollo because it doesn't fit on the page:

books.google.co.uk/books?id=Z6HYj
MHs4P4C&pg=PT323&lpg=PT323&d#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Happy reading :o)
117

soapy1,

Rainworth 21/08/2009 10:49:17
Your question at 72 was an addressed question I cannot speak for Belinda nor would I presume to do so, I have previously stated that is no reason why tests on air quality cannot be carried during the pubs inspections.

As for filter changes they come under maintainence, the companies that fit them also provide maintenance schedules as part of the contract as they always have so there is no issue there. One can tell by the many odours in pubs today that ventilation is not used therefore the air quality is likely to be lower thatn on the street, a marked diference to when smoking was alowed in pubs, so back in the day air quality was much better the risks of catching airborne viruses was much lower than today when the possibility of catching something like Swine Flu is much greater unless modern ventilation which is far more capable is used, Even in the late 50's they were capble of filtering out Zylon 'B' and radiation although they were mainly for miltary use.

To be honest you are now stonewalling you know the arguments put to are reasonable and fair, you know that your cause is lost, that you have no argument against smoking pubs or ventilation, your despration shows Rollo in your comments once reasoned arguments are now just nit picking, more people are beginning to notice Rollo more people are realising that this is not about smoking, by using the same tactics on drinkers and obese the evidence is mounting by the day it is simply a minority forcing its will on the majority once the smokers drinkers and the obese finally unite and they will they will represent the majority of this countries people who will demand their freedom back and if they have to sack every politician in the country until they do that is what will happen. The anti smoking lobby's days are numbered Rollo.

As gallant as your rearguard action is you will share the same fate as HMS Gloworm, Ardent, Acaster and the little AMC Rawalpindi under Captain Kennedy who took on the battle cruiser
118

Belinda-2,

21/08/2009 11:03:55
Rollo, are you seriously trying to tell me that there is no way to test whether air contains toxins, and no air cleaning system is capable of extracting pollutions. You go on and on about smoking as if smoking were the only air pollutant known to man. What do they use in any area in which air safety is paramount: operating theatres for example?

You keep coming back to OSHA as well. I never brought them into the equation, but you brought them into it after I mentioned permitted exposure levels, which is their expression.

There is nothing that will persuade me that a gaseous mix containing nothing that exceeds permitted exposure levels is dangerous. If chemicals combine to produce a lethal mix, this will be evident in any air testing designed to test air safety.

You are throwing up various other challenges. The basic point is that air in recreational (and other) venues must be tested and if necessary cleaned, and if it passes the test after being cleaned (with smoking present of course), there is no basis for banning smoking. It has the benefit that not only will the air be cleaned of smoke but also of toxic substances from other sources, but you don't believe in the other ones which is why you keep bringing the conversation back to smoking.

It goes without saying that if we wish to test the air in a smoking environment then smoking must be allowed in order that the testing should take place. Some of your other questions are unanswerable at present, i.e. the frequency of testing and the cost of the equipment (if needed) as that will obviously depend on local conditions.

Costs of monitoring? LA. Costs of equipment: business expense. You may well feel that they won't want to invest in it but it's not your call. They might prefer it to having to exclude their own customers and going bankrupt as a result.
119

__-Steve-__,

21/08/2009 11:08:54
Now to your other rubbish.

I answered fully the other points you make, you just choose to live in denial.

Jamrozik ignored 83% of the evidence and picked an anti smoking starting point, he made an estimate based on an assumption and arbitrarily tripled risk factors. If you took his fairy tale back to 1958 when 85% of men smoked and every building, taxi, bus and train in the land was an unventilated smoke chamber the entire population would have been wiped out. Of course as a bigoted anti you don't want to let any of these facts get in the way of a big scary number do you?

I never claimed that "OSHA PEL's should be treated as the only factor to determine if tobacco smoke is safe."
You just made that up in your head again, the OSHA PEL's are just a little piece in the mountain of evidence.

And I gave you evidence of the criticism of Fontham you just chose to dismiss it and without a single shred of evidence of your own state that the criticism was wrong. Apart from that 3 of the 4 studies from Fontham showed no risk from passive smoke. So can we see your "letters and reports" that show the first 3 studies were wrong but the fourth one was right?
120

soapy1,

21/08/2009 11:09:15
Scharnhorst, heroic but futile actions at first sight.

The men aboard those ships fought for freedom, they fought for their lifestyles that is the difference between those heroes and you, not to remove the freedoms of others, to demean and villify a quarter of their own countrymen as the anti smoking lobby do, and by supporting the anti smoking lobby that is what you are doing their is no evidence that ASh's paper deaths are occouring, cancer has many causes any one of which or combintion of may trigger it given the ever growing causes list Rollo sooner or later someone will realise that it is a natural thing another way that nature maintains a balance between population and the support this planet is able to provide, we are born and we will all eventually die that cannot change Rollo the claim that stopping smoking smoking will prevent you from dying is a fallacy, even a legally proscribed way of crossing roads will not prevent death on the roads so it is with smoking regulation. I cannot, I will not accept anyone removing my freedom of choice of my lifestyle smoking pubs will allow me and people like me to our lives as we desire non smoking will allow non smokers to live theirs, an dif some choose to flit between the two they are free to do so having assessed the alleged risks for themselves and made their decision freely and not having had it made for them. that is freedom of choice.
121

Rollo Tommasi,

21/08/2009 23:30:59
Steve: Are you actually reading the articles you’re citing? Both the articles correctly state that if a study’s results have a confidence interval which includes the value 1.0, then we would conclude that the effect is not “statistically significant”.

Nowhere does either article state that the conclusion to be drawn is that there is “no effect” or “no risk”.

I repeat: “Not statistically significant” is not the same as “no risk”.

In fact, the great majority of studies which you say show “no effect” actually are consistent with passive smoking presenting a risk to health. Such as the Fontham studies you refer to. Each of these studies is not conclusive in itself, but it adds in its own way to the overall picture which shows a clear risk.

Why don’t you show me evidence that you are right to conclude from these studies that passive smoking presents “no risk”?

And your comments about Jamrozik are utterly wrong. Where on earth did you get the idea that he ignored 83% of the evidence? That’s absolute nonsense. He based his calculations on large-scale meta-analyses of available evidence. And, as I keep saying (and you keep ignoring), the criticism you make about his supposed tripling of risk factor is a complete red herring. Even if your claim were true, it had NOTHING to do with his calculation about the total number of deaths. So your 1958 story is completely off-the-wall.
122

Rollo Tommasi,

21/08/2009 23:45:00
Belinda – Let me explain why I keep referring to OSHA. When pro-smokers describe what the threshold of safe air is, they do one of two things. They either misquote HSE – by wrongly claiming that HSE stated that they cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS (when they actually said no such thing). Or they argue that as long as chemicals in air fall within OSHA’s PEL levels, then they are safe. Both claims are totally wrong, which is why both OSHA and HSE support action to protect people from the effects of second-hand smoke.

If your Air Quality Standard cleaned other substances out of the air, then that is a bonus. But unless it also ensures that the harm from secondhand smoke is removed, then it serves no purpose. And, because pro-smokers have been so fast and loose with their claims about when air is safe from secondhand smoke, I have no grounds to believe that the Standard would actually ensure that all the harmful elements in secondhand smoke were removed.

You say there is nothing that will persuade you otherwise. Fine, I accept that. But the onus is on you to have such a strong and convincing argument about the effectiveness of your standard that it would be accepted by the scientific and medical communities. That is not kow-towing to science. Whatever you might say, most of them are both more knowledgeable and more objective than those of us who take part in these boards. And a flimsy case about the merits of an Air Quality Standard, built to a large extent on assumptions and hopes, rightly will not persuade them.

I also don’t know if councils would accept the cost of monitoring this standard. As I understand it (and I may have this wrong), the cost of licensing boards is paid for by license fees. The taxpayer is not expected to contribute to the cost. Why should it be any different for overseeing this Air Quality Standard?
123

Rollo Tommasi,

21/08/2009 23:47:18
Soapy - You're living in a world of your own. People in this country have always accepted that with rights come responsibilities about how we use those rights.

You seem to be the exception who thinks that freedoms come without responsibilities. Our forces past and present fought for a liberal democracy, not a state of anarchy.
124

Belinda-2,

22/08/2009 00:17:26
Except that I never brought up the OSHA PELs, you did. Nor did I quote the HSE. You are still expecting me to believe that tested air, found to contain no toxins that exceed permitted levels, is still dangerous because it contains smoke.

I did not suggest using the specific PELs that OSHA thinks somehow do not satisfactorily indicate the perils of secondary smoke. I want a system that does test the air for any toxic contiminant. You still haven't explained how the toxicity of tobacco smoke cannot be measured. It seems quite incredible and suggests the tobacco smoke is really remarkably poisonous and also possibly magic as it defies all attempts to measure and remove it.

You say: 'If your Air Quality Standard cleaned other substances out of the air, then that is a bonus. But unless it also ensures that the harm from secondhand smoke is removed, then it serves no purpose.' Nul points, Rollo. An air quality standard doesn't clean things. It is a standard, not a cleaning device. The second sentence is even more extraordinary. You suggest that even if every other toxin were removed out of the air except those contained in tobacco smoke (back to that magical substance again!!!!) there is no point cleaning the air, because the toxins from smoke would remain.

Air cleaning systems don't pick and choose which toxins they clean out of the air. They just clean the air. Toxins in smoke are not unique to smoke and will respond to an air cleaning system in the same way as any other toxin.

'because pro-smokers have been so fast and loose with their claims about when air is safe from secondhand smoke, I have no grounds to believe that the Standard would actually ensure that all the harmful elements in secondhand smoke were removed.'

What has the effectiveness of an air cleaning system to do with the claims of so called pro-smokers about the safety of secondary smoke? A standard is a standard.

125

Belinda-2,

22/08/2009 00:25:00
ctd: a standard is a standard. It requires absence of toxins before it is met. THe equipment used to clean the air to this standard removes the toxins indisriminately.
126

Rollo Tommasi,

22/08/2009 02:12:13
Belinda - That's right - you didn't mention OSHA or HSE. But that was not my point.

Your entire solution is based upon there being a standard - an acceptable threshold, if you like, of air quality. Yet you never mention where this threshold should be set. All you say is "A standard is a standard". Wrong. A standard has to be set at some threshold above which the results are satisfactory and below which the results are not.

My point was that, when I have seen pro-smokers have spoken of clean air before, it has always been by either misquoting HSE on secondhand smoke or by applying OSHA's PELs wrongly. This gives me great cause to doubt whether F2C's definition of "clean" air would in fact get rid of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. There is simply an assumption that it would, based on the line that filtration equipment can get rid of pollutants which have nothing to do with secondhand smoke (as per Soapy's post 100). You yourself say "Toxins in smoke are not unique to smoke and will respond to an air cleaning system in the same way as any other toxin" without having grounds to know if that is true.

To use the example I offered before, how would the Air Quality Standard apply if a group of people came to near where friends and I were and started smoking? Would the Standard be applied to the area of the pub where we were standing or sitting? What filtration equipment would clean the air so fact as to avoid secondhand smoke entering our noses?

Okay, I used loose wording in my previous posting. "If your Air Quality Standard cleaned other substances out of the air, then that is a bonus." should read "If your Air Quality Standard ensured that other substances were cleaned out of the air, then that is a bonus. But my point - including the second sentence you appear not to like - remains the same.
127

Rollo Tommasi,

22/08/2009 02:15:16
Sorry - have now noticed you say "a standard is a standard. It requires absence of toxins before it is met. THe equipment used to clean the air to this standard removes the toxins indiscriminately."

But that does even more to beg the question about whether the standard could apply in the example I gave, to ensure that my friends and I were not exposed to secondhand smoke.
128

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2009 08:56:31
Oh Rollo, How I wish the whole country would read this thread so that they could see how Antis work. Even in the face of indisputable evidence that tells the world in black and white that you're a liar, all you can do is lie through your teeth some more and deny it says what everyone can clearly see that it does. Then you throw in your silly theory about adding them together LOL.

Not even the laws of mathematics can get in the way of your obsession can they Rollo?

I understand that there are still some people around that swear blind the world is flat so I'm not completely surprised that you live in denial. You ought to get our more.

129

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2009 09:28:09
Rollo :o)

Your comments to Belinda at 122 start off with another lie, no surprise there then. HSE do state in HSE OC 255/15, that they can't find any evidence to link passive smoke with disease. Here it is: web.archive.org/web/20061110075518/http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/oc/200-299/255_15.pdf

Also you make stuff up again about an air quality standard. Go look at the Florida hospitals, they have installed air management to protect staff from bio hazards such as anthrax from as little as $500 and the cost of monitoring a standard would be minimal compared to the cost of enforcing a smoking ban. The air inside would be much cleaner than the air outside; you wouldn't even have to wash your cardigan after a night out lol.

Now tell us all again how all those statisticians are wrong and Rollo is right lol.
130

Rollo Tommasi,

22/08/2009 10:13:30
Steve - 128 and 129 are utterly wrong. I'll tell you why 128 is wrong later.

But you are totally misquoting the health and Safety Executive. They do not say "they can't find any evidence to link passive smoke with disease". What they actually say is that they can't produce evidence which would enable them to say HOW MUCH a person's risk of disease will increase by from a particular level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Note how the guidance you refer to also says:

"There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban."

Funny how you pro-smokers always seem to ignore that sentence. Not to mention igmoring this sentence too:

"HSE wishes to cooperate with and support LAs charged with enforcing the law on smoking in HSE-enforced premises."

Not exactly the words of a body unconvinced about the harm of passive smoking, is it?
131

Belinda-2,

22/08/2009 10:33:25
Rollo: 'A standard has to be set at some threshold above which the results are satisfactory and below which the results are not.' Where else did you think I might set it?

Do toxins wear little badges that say 'I am a product of secondary smoke', or 'I am a product of exhaust fumes from the car park outside', or whatever so that the air cleaning equipment knows which toxins to take out? I really don't get this idea that the toxins in smoke are different from the toxins from anywhere else. It all just gets mixed up.

There are solutions already for different air pollution problems as both Steve and Soapy have pointed out. (We weren't going to construct our own patent model toxin remover btw, Rollo ... the F2C air cleaning system extraoardinaire! I would agree you might have some grounds for anxiety if we were!) No, our solutions are already there, in industrial, health and military sectors, they may need adaptation for the hospitality sector. But they exist and they deal with known hazards that will actually shorten your immmediate lifespan.

With a standard and effective equipment in place you and your friends need have no cause for anxiety. But it is likely that even the sight of people smoking will disturb you. The air will be safer than it is now because of the standards, because health and safety will have been attended to properly in a way it isn't at the moment. No one gives a stuff about air quality in pubs now because they consider that the smoking ban magicked all the danger away: in spite of the staleness and the air fresheners and other air borne muck that still abounds.
132

Belinda-2,

22/08/2009 10:45:37
'HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases.'

I do not agree with your reading of this sentence Rollo, especially when it goes on to say that 'inspectors are urged to exercise caution in considering any formal enforcement action in relation to SHS'. It does not say that there is an established link and they are weak on epidemiological evidence to support it.
133

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2009 11:04:37
Lol, I can't wait for you to tell me why the professional statisticians are wrong and you are right Rollo. Keep searching Google but it might take you a while to find a book that changes the laws of mathematics to suit the anti smoking crusade.

It's amazing that I produce documents that state in black and white you are lying and the only defence you have is to keep saying "No it doesn't" LOLOLOLOLOLOL Do you think everyone is stupid Rollo and won't see exactly what you are?

The very fact that the HSE document says they can't produce any evidence of SHS harm but then goes on to say there is no way to protect people demonstrates perfectly the methods of anti smoking - Don't let the fact that there's no evidence get in the way.

And what is a pro-smoker by the way? There is no opposite extreme to an anti smoker Rollo, that is all in your head as well. Unless of course you can point me to anyone who is campaigning to increase the number of smokers and to force smoking in every building in the land by legislation.

It's such a pity that so few people will see this thread and discover what the anti smoking movement really are. Pathological liars with an obsessive desire to force society into their own view of Utopia.
134

Rollo Tommasi,

22/08/2009 15:14:07
Steve: I said I’d come back to you on post 128.

You were supposed to be providing evidence which shows that where a confidence interval straddles 1.0, then there is “no effect” or “no risk”. You haven’t.

What you have done is provide links to material which refers to studies having “no statistical significance”. You are then trying to pretend that “no statistical significance” means the same as “no risk” or “no effect”. Your pretence is far off the mark. Want proof? Read this (from http://onlinestatbook.com/chapter9/sign_conf.html). It states:

“If the 95% confidence interval contains zero (more precisely, the parameter value specified in the null hypothesis), then the effect will not be significant at the 0.05 level. Looking at non-significant effects in terms of confidence intervals makes clear why the null hypothesis should not be accepted when it is not rejected: Every value in the confidence interval is a plausible value of the parameter. Since zero is in the interval, it cannot be rejected. However, there is an infinite number of values in the interval (assuming continuous measurement), and none of them can be rejected either.”

In other words, any value within the confidence interval can plausibly reflect the actual risk. If the confidence interval straddles 1, then “no effect” is one of the plausible answers. But it is not the only one. As the article states, none of the values higher than 1 can be rejected. So it is utterly WRONG to claim that “no statistical significance” means “no risk” or “no effect”.

In fact, where the confidence interval is weighted above 1 (as it is in the great majority of passive smoking studies), then it is much more likely that the actual risk is higher. That is why studies like Fontham’s earlier articles (which culminated in her 1994 work – not 1997 like I said earlier) concluded on the basis of a not statistically significant result that the findings supported a conclusion that passive smoking is harmfu
135

Rollo Tommasi,

22/08/2009 15:14:37
(Contd...)

In fact, where the confidence interval is weighted above 1 (as it is in the great majority of passive smoking studies), then it is much more likely that the actual risk is higher. That is why studies like Fontham’s earlier articles (which culminated in her 1994 work – not 1997 like I said earlier) concluded on the basis of a not statistically significant result that the findings supported a conclusion that passive smoking is harmful. That is why other studies state the same thing. And that is why you are having such enormous difficulty finding anything anywhere that will back up your nonsensical claim to the contrary.

So now it’s up to you. If you really want to believe that “no statistical significance” means the same as “no risk” or “no effect”, then I look forward to seeing your evidence.
136

Rollo Tommasi,

22/08/2009 15:22:25
Belinda and Steve - You really ought to read the HSE guidance properly. It does not say anything like “they can't produce any evidence of SHS harm”.

The clue is in the preceding sentence, which says “The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish.” Note the term “individual circumstances of exposure to risk”.

HSE are satisfied about the general risk to public health of secondhand smoke. That is why they say “There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban.”

What they cannot do with the evidence is estimate accurately how much the risk of a particular individual has increased as a result of the amount of secondhand smoke to which they personally have been exposed.

If F2C thinks differently, why don’t they ask HSE for its own interpretation, instead of deliberately applying the most negative interpretation you think you can get away with, without regard for their true intent.
137

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2009 17:59:58
So lets sum up:

Rollo made up in his head that statistical results that include the value of 1 still demonstrate harm from SHS.

I give links to 3 experts in black and white saying if the result includes the value 1 there is no difference/ no change/ no effect.

Rollo says: "No they didn't" LOLOLOLOLOL

Now he tries to claim that because a value of 1 is insignificant that makes him right LMAO.

okey dokey rollie, 83% of all SHS studies show no difference, change, effect and are not significant.

Rollo lied through his teeth claiming that HSE did not say they "cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of SHS with specific diseases" I gave the link where HSE say those words in black and white.

Rollo says: "No it doesn't" LOLOLOLOLOLOL

I've had more intelligent conversations with a 3 year old!!

As for the rest of the garbage you just made up in your last post, please provide proof of one statistician that says a study demonstrates risk even if it contains the value of one.

While you are looking here is a fifth one that says your a liar: shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/units/systrev/advdis.htm

"An inconclusive trial, where the confidence intervals are wide and cross 1, so it is impossible to draw conclusions"

Now we have 5 experts :o), no difference, no effect, no change, insignificant and impossible to draw conclusions. LMAO
138

Rollo Tommasi,

22/08/2009 18:37:46
Ha ha ha Steve! You really have scored an own goal with your latest reference.

Let’s repeat what it states:

“In publication bias, you must distinguish between two issues:

1. A genuinely negative trial, where an examination of the confidence interval will exclude the option of a clinically significant effect of the intervention, or a clinically significant improvement over existing treatments.

2. An inconclusive trial, where the confidence intervals are wide and cross 1, so it is impossible to draw conclusions over the intervention’s effectiveness.”

Your claim of “no risk” would be the conclusion to be drawn from a “genuinely negative trial” (i.e. issue 1). But it would not be the conclusion from an “inconclusive trial” (i.e. issue 2) because it would be impossible to draw conclusions as to whether there was a risk or not.

ALL of the citations have supported MY argument about non-statistically significant results. NOT ONE has stated that in these cases, a statistician should draw a firm conclusion of “no risk”.

I don’t need to refer to any statisticians – you have done all my work for me!!!

And that makes it a lie for you to claim “83% of all SHS studies show no difference, change, effect”. The only bit of your statement which is correct is that they are not significant (in statistical terms, and if considered in isolation).

And your failure to comprehend extends to your interpretation of HSE guidance too.

Get a grip Steve!!
139

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2009 20:06:59
Still in denial I see Rollo. The laws of mathematics are a real pain for you antis aren't they lol

Read what it says again. "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS"

What you are now asking is for me to prove a negative; nice try but get up earlier.

Some more education for you: studies compare two groups, one that is exposed to something and one that isn't (the study group and the control group); Ratios are used to show increases (or decreases) in risk from that exposure. A ratio of 1:0 means that there is no difference in risk between the two groups. The fact that 83% of the passive smoke studies show no risk means that there is no increase (or decrease) in risk between the study group and the control group.

And to correct your early post; intervals represent the margin of error and any point within the interval is EQUALLY likely to be the right one (which is why they call it a point estimate), this is exactly why our second expert said "we must conclude no change" if the interval contains one. A 95% CI means that if you repeated the study 100 times he would expect the result to fall ANYWHERE in the width 95 times.

I repeat - Show us any book/article on statistics that says "studies that contain one in the interval demonstrate increased risk" as you claimed, instead of making things up, challenging me to prove a negative or just saying "No it doesn't".

And while your at it find one that says adding together things that show nothing, shows something lol.

140

Belinda-2,

22/08/2009 23:09:59
Rollo: 'you are totally misquoting the health and Safety Executive. They do not say "they can't find any evidence to link passive smoke with disease". What they actually say is that they can't produce evidence which would enable them to say HOW MUCH a person's risk of disease will increase by from a particular level of exposure to secondhand smoke.'

I think your blocks should say 'HOW MUCH IF AT ALL'. They have not produced any evidence to support an elevated risk.

Well that is hardly cause of surprise ... another agency that would like to find evidence that passive smoke kills, but can't produce it. And it might have stated the only way to protect people from smoke is to ban smoking, but they never suggested such a solution independently before government departments insisted on it.

You suggest we should get HSE's own interpretation (of its own words?). But we are not arguing about the views of HSE about whether there ought be evidence, but of whether there is evidence, that secondary smoke causes harm. HSE says they cannot produce evidence.
141

Rollo Tommasi,

22/08/2009 23:57:28
Steve – Do you not understand what you are reading? Are you plain confused? Or are you deliberately saying nonsense for the sake of debate?

You rightly point to the sentence which says “It is impossible to draw conclusions”. You occasionally make accurate comments, like “A 95% CI means that if you repeated the study 100 times he would expect the result to fall ANYWHERE in the width 95 times.” So far so good.

But then you go and ruin your credibility by spouting nonsense which reverses your own position!! After saying it is impossible to draw conclusions in these cases, you then draw your own conclusions that there must be no risk. And after saying that the actual result could fall anywhere in the confidence interval bandwidth, you then conclude that if a CI includes 1.0, then the real risk must lie at 1.0 and nowhere else in the bandwidth!!

NOTHING you have shown me provides ANYTHING which allows you to reach that conclusion.

And, to try to make your position easier, you misquote me. I had not said “"studies that contain one in the interval demonstrate increased risk". I have said they CAN SUGGEST increased risk – depending on the relative risk and whether the CI is weighted above 1.0. I would never try to prove the dangers of passive smoking on the basis of only one of these studies. But when numerous studies are brought together, they collectively tell a strong a clear story that passive smoking IS harmful.

Are these subtleties of argument beyond you? Or are you capable of grasping the significant difference between what I am arguing and what you are claiming I am arguing?
142

__-Steve-__,

22/08/2009 23:58:24
Of course the HSE say they cannot produce evidence Belinda. You see, unlike our good friend Rollo, the HSE are not daft enough to stand up and challenge the laws of mathematics.

They know that if the margin of error in a statistical study contains the value 1 (no difference between the exposed group and the non exposed group) Then no risk has been demonstrated.

Of course if Rollo worked for the HSE he would no doubt stand up and say - "Yes it has!" lol

And, as if further proof were needed, if the health and safety executive DID think that there was evidence they would have been duty bound to ban smoking long ago under the existing health and safety at work act.
143

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 00:12:42
Belinda/Steve – When the smoking bills were going through the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments, the HSE undertook work on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission (the 2 bodies have now merged). At the time, the Commission was responsible for advising government on health and safety matters and for research on these issues.

This is the Commission’s views about whether passive smoking is harmful (http://www.smokefreeaction.org.uk/archive/pdfs/Lords%20report%20stage%20brief.pdf – at para 43):

“Bill Callaghan, Chair of the Health and Safety Commission, wrote to Patricia Hewitt
during the consultation on the Bill calling for exemptions for pubs and clubs to be
dropped. A paper approved by the HSC at its meeting on 27th July 2005 stated that:

“The arguments for a wider ban in all licensed premised are these:

• The science: SCOTH [the Government’s Scientific Committee on Tobacco and
Health] is clear that second hand smoke is harmful. The Government’s proposals
appear to be at odds with equality in public health.

• Better regulation: for regulation to be effective it must be capable of ready application
by those to whom it is addressed. Differing restrictions in the UK will lead to confusion
and lessen benefits. A uniform approach to smoking will be easier for employers,
employees and the public to understand and comply with…

• Effective enforcement: a simpler regime, with fewer and less complex exemptions,
will aid enforcement by the Local Authorities.”"

In other words, the Commission (and by default the HSE too, since it worked to the Commission) could produce evidence which satisfied them that passive smoking is harmful – and that evidence is the SCOTH reports. That letter from Callaghan to Hewitt was written a year before HSE produced its OC/255/15 guidance. So, when it published that guidance, HSE knew it could produce evidence showing how passive smoking is harmful.

Further proof that your interpretation of that HSE guidance i
144

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 00:13:49
Further proof that your interpretation of that HSE guidance is well off-the-mark.
145

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 00:17:40
OMG!

Rollo I see I need to explain this in very simple terms for you: Let's try an example:

You want to see if passive smoke causes lung cancer so you gather two groups of people. Non smokers who have smoking spouses (the study group) and non smokers who have non smoking spouses (the control group). Following it so far? Then you see if people who live with smokers get lung cancer more than those who live with non smokers.

The results come in and the margin of error contains the value of 1, which as we've seen from the writing of 5 experts pasted onto this thread means that the only conclusion is there was no difference between your two groups. So what has this study shown Rollo?

That's right Einstein, that in this study those non smokers who lived with smokers apparently had NO RISK from their exposure to passive smoke when compared to the non smokers who lived with other non smokers.

Has it sunk in yet?

Now, for the third time of asking, answer my question: Please provide evidence for your claim that studies that contain the value of 1 show risk.

I guess you're struggling a bit on that one Rollo.


146

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 00:24:48
You're very good at changing the subject Rollo when you get caught out lying.

You told Belinda that the HSE didn't say they couldn't produce evidence. I produced the document that showed you were lying. Now you try to wriggle out of that by saying someone at the HSE supported the SCOTH report. That doesn't change the fact you lied.

I'll get to the SCOTH fairy tale another time; for now give us the proof I asked for to back up your claim that all those experts are wrong and you are right.
147

Belinda-2,

23/08/2009 09:26:47
I already said that I don't care what their views are: they could not produce evidence of an elevated risk, never mind evidence of how great it was. They also made no independent recommendations of a blanket smoking ban before the smoking ban issue was raised by government as a serious policy option.

Their response is more to do with ease of administration than any real preoccupation with the health effects of secondary smoke.

'I have said they CAN SUGGEST increased risk' ... so what's the big deal Rollo. Is this you once again being unable to distinguish between a thriving pub and the ignited Piper Apha oil platform? Or National Semiconductor, where an abnormally high concentration of people were observed to fall sick? I heard the National Semiconductor issue raised in a File on Four broadcast years after the initial report, lamenting on the lack of action since the problem came to light. This in a case where they can count and name the bodies.
148

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 11:51:03
Steve – You do not deserve the time I am giving to preparing this response – since you have given NOTHING to substantiate your false claim that “no statistical significance” always equals “no risk”.

But consider these 5 points.

Number 1. One of your own-goal citations (http://shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/units/systrev/advdis.htm). As I mentioned in post 138, it states:

“In publication bias, you must distinguish between two issues:

1. A genuinely negative trial, where an examination of the confidence interval will exclude the option of a clinically significant effect of the intervention, or a clinically significant improvement over existing treatments.

2. An inconclusive trial, where the confidence intervals are wide and cross 1, so it is impossible to draw conclusions over the intervention’s effectiveness.”

Your claim of “no risk” would be the conclusion to be drawn from a “genuinely negative trial” (i.e. issue 1). But it would not be the conclusion from an “inconclusive trial” (i.e. issue 2) because it would be impossible to draw conclusions as to whether there was a risk or not.

Number 2: Something I cited at post 134 but you chose to ignore (http://onlinestatbook.com/chapter9/sign_conf.html):

“If the 95% confidence interval contains zero (more precisely, the parameter value specified in the null hypothesis), then the effect will not be significant at the 0.05 level. Looking at non-significant effects in terms of confidence intervals makes clear why the null hypothesis should not be accepted when it is not rejected: Every value in the confidence interval is a plausible value of the parameter. Since zero is in the interval, it cannot be rejected. However, there is an infinite number of values in the interval (assuming continuous measurement), and none of them can be rejected either.”

In other words, any value within the confidence interval can plausibly reflect the actual risk. If the confidence interval straddles 1, then “no effect” is one of t
149

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 11:51:31
In other words, any value within the confidence interval can plausibly reflect the actual risk. If the confidence interval straddles 1, then “no effect” is one of the plausible answers. But it is not the only one. As the article states, none of the values higher than 1 can be rejected. So it is utterly WRONG to claim that “no statistical significance” means “no risk” or “no effect”. In fact, where the confidence interval is weighted above 1 (as it is in the great majority of passive smoking studies), then it is much more likely that the actual risk is higher.
150

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 11:52:41
Number 3: A BMJ article on how to read a statistical paper must give a good insight (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7105/422). It takes an example of a trial into the effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, which came up with the results that “The ACE inhibitor group had a 5% (95% CI -1.2% to 12%) higher survival."

It then states: “In this particular example, the 95% confidence interval overlaps zero difference and, if we were expressing the result as a dichotomy (that is, is the hypothesis "proved" or "disproved"?) we would classify it as a negative trial. [i.e. YOUR position]. Yet as Guyatt and colleagues argue, there probably is a real difference, and it probably lies closer to 5% than either -1.2% or 12%. A more useful conclusion from these results is that "all else being equal, an ACE inhibitor is the appropriate choice for patients with heart failure, but the strength of that inference is weak.""

How can that possibly be if your rule that “any negative trial equals no effect” was right?

This article then describes the kinds of circumstance in which a negative trial should be viewed as having no effect. This standard is wherever the upper 95% confidence interval would be clinically important. If not, then the study can be viewed as showing no effect. Otherwise, the negative trial is not definitive, so an assumption of “no effect” should not be drawn.

Let’s look at some passive smoking studies to get a sense of where the confidence intervals lie. Well, in small studies the upper 95% confidence interval soars into the sky. For example, 3.5 (Jee, 1999); 4.0 (Johnson, 2001); 3.9 (She, 1998). And in larger studies the upper intervals are clearly clinically significant AND the CI is heavily weighted ABOVE 1.0. For example, 0.8–1.6 (Cardenas, 1997); 0.8–3.0 (Stockwell, 1992); 0.8-1.7 (Sun, 1996). So there is little doubt that, according to these principles, the results of passive smoking studies should not be written off as showing “no effect”.
151

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 11:53:41
Number 4: There is an actual name for the kind of conclusion you reach. Statisticians call it a “Type II error”. It is well described here:

“A trial may thus show no significant treatment effect when in reality such an effect exists—that is, it may produce a false negative result. In this case we are dealing with a type II error, whose probability of occurrence can be calculated for a given difference in treatment effect, study size, and significance level” (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7119/1371?ijkey=56e76871c0af23ff41bc08edb84a947f344402a0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha#Historical_notes)

Number 5: YOU STILL HAVE NOT PRODUCED ONE SINGLE IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM THAT “NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT” ALWAYS MEANS “NO EFFECT”/”NO RISK”.

All you are providing in this debate is a combination of bluff and bluster and a total misunderstanding of a few articles you have cited (which actually argue AGAINST your case).

Time for you to offer some more definitive arguments Steve.

If you can.
152

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 12:23:58
LOLOLOL. Do you think everyone is too stupid to spot your attempts to deflect the fact you told lies Rollo?

Ok, that article was discussing the problems of publication bias and the use of meta analysis that contain the value of 1 because you cannot draw conclusions about the effect of any given intervention in the trial; Why would this be Rollo? That's right, if the results contain 1 no effect has been demonstrated.

Ok, here it is explained pretty much as simple as it gets:

From my previous example, If a study shows that people exposed to passive get more lung cancer than those who are NOT exposed what might that infer? Risk of course.

So if the study showed the opposite - people exposed to smoke don't get any more lung cancer than those NOT exposed (no effect) what does that infer Rollo?

DOH!

What you are trying to claim is that the only way to show no inferred risk would be to have a significantly negative result. Well that wouldn't infer no risk, that would infer a protective effect.

So far you have tried to cover your lies, first by denying what was written in black and white, then by inventing your own laws of mathematics, then by challenging me to prove a negative then by playing on words and now by making stuff up again.
153

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 12:33:32
Belinda / Steve: Steve accuses me of lying. I can assure him I am not. Steve’s behaviour reflects either lying on his part or a complete failure to understand a document.

Steve said “You told Belinda that the HSE didn't say they couldn't produce evidence.” I clearly explained in post 136 that there are two distinct issues here, which you two either don’t get or just choose not to understand.

The first issue is whether passive smoking presents a general risk to the health of the public. Both HSE and the Health and Safety Commission are clear that it DOES present such a risk. HSE/HSC don’t need to undertake their own analysis to decide this – they simply have to consider the evidence from other sources and decide it that is sufficient to reach a clear view. They did so, and considered the evaluation of the overall evidence by SCOTH as providing convincing evidence that passive smoking is harmful to public health.

So in other words, Belinda is wrong. HSE/HSC DID provide evidence about the risk of passive smoking to public health – namely the SCOTH report.

The second issue is whether, in a specific case where a particular individual succumbs to lung cancer or heart disease, HSE can use epidemiological evidence to show whether that individual’s disease was caused by exposure to passive smoking and, if so, to what extent. It was in answer to that issue that HSE said they cannot use epidemiological evidence. And that is no surprise. Epidemiological evidence is really useful at identifying risks to the population at large or to a group of people. But it is not intended to offer definitive evidence on the risks to a particular individual.

I would have thought this distinction should be pretty clear.

And Belinda – your distinction about passive smoking deaths and deaths among national Semiconductor workers is strange. The hundreds of thousands of deaths of people from heart disease and lung cancer each year are just as real as the deaths among Nati
154

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 12:42:33
Steve - You really ought to spend less time LOLing and more time finding out about this subject.

So where are your responses to my points 1 to 4? Nowhere to be found.

And where is your own evidence to back up your ludicrous claims? Again, utter silence.

In case you hadn't noticed, my evidence shows there may be some circumstances in which a negative result does show no effect (notably where even results at the high confidence interval would not achieve a clinically significant effect).

But you are trying to apply a simplistic rule that in any case a negative result = no effect. As I have shown, your simplistic rule is not supported by the evidence and if you tried to apply it in practice you would be committing any number of Type II errors.

Why don't you try to read a bit about this subject before embarrassing yourself with more nonsense?
155

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 13:00:17
Right as for your made up explanation of statistics.

Every point of data in the interval is plausible AND equally likely therefore the null hypothesis cannot be rejected if the value of 1 is in the interval. Exactly what all our experts have been saying. If the interval contains 1 then the results show no effect.

You then state "it is utterly WRONG to claim that “no statistical significance” means “no risk” or “no effect”. Excuse me if I fall off the chair laughing.

Despite the evidence of 5 experts you still make stuff up and say they are wrong lol. If I were you I would write to them and tell them your new theories of mathematics. JEEZ.
156

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 13:14:30
LOL rollooooooooo,

miles of copy and paste interspersed with made up mathematics.

Please show us how equal likelihood is "weighted" in one direction LOLOLOLOL?

Please give the evidence I have asked for umpteen times, show us one statistician that says an interval containing 1 can still show risk. (Your first lie and the one you just keep repeating despite having the written proof of 5 experts telling you otherwise).

Lastly tell us IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what a type II error is and why you think all these experts didn't spot it LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

And then in the true style of a ten year old, you try to cover up all of the lies you have been caught out on by calling me a liar LOL.

What next? Are you going to stick your tongue out and sing "na na na na na na" LMAO

Oh how I wish everyone could read this thread.

157

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 13:29:10
LOL Rollo you make me LOL all the time because your obsession knows no bounds.

you said your- "evidence shows there may be some circumstances in which a negative result does show no effect." javascript:__doPostBack('wctlAddComment1$ctl00$btnPost','')
Post Comment

OOPS, Rollo is making stuff up again. A negative result doesn't show no risk lol it shows a protective effect.

I would recommend a junior school course on mathematics Rollo, ratios aren't too difficult to understand.

LOLOLOLOL

158

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 14:25:51
Good grief Steve. You really have no idea, have you?

I gave you 4 separate sources in posts 148-151. You’ve not offered comments on any of them.

I have now asked you numerous times to provide evidence that a non-statistically significant result always means “no effect” or “no risk”. Every single time you have failed to do so.

You have produced 5 pieces of evidence which say that, if a result has a CI which includes 1.0, then it is not statistically significant. That is fine. I agree with that (as I have now said on several occasions).

But you then read “not statistically significant” as being interchangeable with “no effect” or “no risk”. That is COMPLETE NONSENSE. The terms are completely different, as I have already explained to you.

And as for your comment about “negative result”, I was using that term in the same sense as George Davey Smith in the 4th article I referred to in past 151. It is not negative results which show a protective result – it is positively protective results.

I almost feel sorry for you – not being able to find any professional expert who will agree with your claim that any non-statistically significant result must automatically mean “no effect” or “no risk”.

But if you insist on clinging to your nonsense position and ignoring all the evidence around you, then you’re just setting yourself up to be laughed at.
159

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 15:15:15
The 5 experts say clearly in black and white that there is no effect You can continue to lie and say "No they don't" but that just makes you look like a pillock.

You think a negative ratio shows no effect.
You think a ratio of 1 shows risk.
You think a ratio above 1 also shows risk.
You think adding studies together that show nothing will show something.
You think that unique figures of equal likelihood can be weighted one way.
You think that statistical insignificance means something other than no effect.

With those silly made up stories it's easy to see why you became an anti smoker lol.




160

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 15:19:35
Steve - the 5 studies say no such thing. They say "no statistical significance". But NONE of them say "no effect" or "no risk".

If there were, I am sure you would be quoting them.

Funny how you are not......
161

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 16:20:36
Rollo, do you have a problem with short term memory as well?

I have been quoting them throughout this thread, scroll up to comment 103 and 115 lol.

They say "NO EFFECT", "NO DIFFERENCE", "NO CHANGE". Do you think that people can't read?

And why are you jabbering on about statistical significance? Not statistically significant, just means that the results are not inconsistent with the null hypothesis. i.e. no effect/no change/no difference.

Now you can keep saying "No it doesn't" for a month of Sunday's, or you can keep telling us the world is flat and that black is white. But you will just make people laugh.
162

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 17:31:23
So, we can use your terminology if you like Rollo.

Almost all of the studies into passive smoke show no statistically significant risk

More than 8 out of 10 scientists agree, the alleged harm from passive smoke is not statistically significant.

Wow, thanks for giving me these ideas Rollo, I'll get them up on Freedom To Choose, would you like credit for them ?
163

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 18:27:14
Okay Steve. Let’s take the articles you refer to in your posts 103 and 115, one by one.

Post 103: This article talks about “statistical significance” and clinical significance”. It states (as we both agree) that “a confidence interval that contains the null value….implies no statistically significant change”. But it does NOT state that a confidence interval that contains the null value implies (let alone definitely means) “no effect”.

The article goes on to explain why you cannot just assume that “no statistical significance” always means “no effect”. In fact, it is only where a study’s results are NEITHER statistically significant NOR clinically significant that “you have clear and convincing evidence to keep doing things the same way”. A set of results which are not statistically significant but which are clinically significant COULD show an effect – but the sample size of the study is too small to allow a clear view.

So it is only where a study’s results are NEITHER statistically significant NOR clinically significant that you can claim “no effect”. There is NOTHING in this article which states that a non statistically significant result always means “no effect”.

Post 115: This book extract is even more blunt in torpedoing your claim that no statistical significance always means no effect. It states that if the confidence interval includes 1 in its range “we cannot exclude the possibility that there is no difference between the two groups”. Note: The book does not say “there is no effect”. All it states is that “we cannot exclude the possibility that there is no effect”.

So your references do not back up your feeble argument one iota. No matter how much you try to repeat your ropey claim, “not statistically significant” has a different meaning from “no effect”. The two terms are not the same thing.
164

Belinda-2,

23/08/2009 18:32:49
The association of sickness with work at National Semiconductor was clearly visible to observers at the plant. Sure, in the general population lots of people die of lung cancer and heart disease. The heart, brain and lungs are crucial organs in the body and it would be odd if their malfunctioning didn't cause many if not most of the deaths. Associating them with the effects of secondary smoke seems only to yield effects that are 'not statistically significant', but nonetheless to lead to drastic policy options.

The threat of secondary smoke is overplayed and the damage of smoking bans is underplayed.
165

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 18:38:25
As for your post 162, try that line on a statistician and watch them laugh.

Also try that line on a court lawyer and see how they react. In a criminal trial, the court considers the total quality of the evidence. It does not reach a decision based on how many pieces of evidence would prove guilt by themselves. So for example, if the prosecution can show one piece of evidence (a bullet inside a body), another piece of evidence (the gun from which it was fired) and a third piece of evidence (the accused's fingerprints on the gun), then the overall quality of evidence is compelling. But what if the prosecution had to play by a rule where these pieces of evidence were only treated as satisfactory if it could prove guilt without the need for any other evidence? The criminal law system would break down and thousands of criminals would get off. Well, your % of studies which are statistically significant" test does the same thing as that test would do, because it assumes that each piece of evidence should only be considered in isolation and not looked at alongside other evidence. That is clearly wrong.

The relevant issue is not what each individual study says. It is what the totality of the evidence demonstrates. And numerous meta-analyses of available evidence have pulled together available evidence and have shown that passive smoking is harmful.
166

Rollo Tommasi,

23/08/2009 18:40:50
"The threat of secondary smoke is overplayed and the damage of smoking bans is underplayed."

For someone who claims not to proffer opinions until they have considered an issue closely, that is a very bold statement for you to make Belinda.

Where is your supporting evidence, particularly about the threat of secondary smoke (since this is what we've been debating)?
167

Belinda-2,

23/08/2009 19:09:03
You said it yourself Rollo, 83 per cent of the studies show no statistically significant results!

'For someone who claims not to proffer opinions until they have considered an issue closely' ... did I claim that?

Your analogy about the law does not hold, Rollo. You are only considering one aspect of each population if you are only trying to establish that secondary smoke caused x cases of lung cancer in a specific population. It would only work if you ruled out all the factors in each population: genetic, environmental, etc. as well as explaining why secondary smoke was a likely factor in those cases of lung cancer. There would be some other evidence worth considering.

I am not a very prolific reader of studies but I did notice that Jamrozik's introduction (as indeed that of Jill Pell) suggested smoking bans were very much in the minds of the researchers. They were trying to establish a policy direction, not trying to establish why people died.

Your comparison is like judging hundreds of murder cases on a single identical piece of evidence. It is like picking on somebody in each scenario known to be in a gun club and accusing them of murder without even finding a bullet in someone's body or their fingerprints on the gun.
168

__-Steve-__,

23/08/2009 20:59:47
Rollo,

Everyone can see what the evidence said and that you just make things up, so I'm happy :o)

Just don't forget:

More than 8 out of 10 scientists agree, the alleged harm from passive smoke is not statistically significant.

LOL

169

Rollo Tommasi,

24/08/2009 00:06:33
Belinda – My reference to your proffering views was based in part on your comments on posts 6 & 74, here you acknowledged not being acquainted with a couple of issues (and my comment was not intended as a criticism of your saying that).

It just seems strange that you are so prepared to make a brazen (and wrong) comment like “the threat of secondary smoke is overplayed”. You offer no evidence to back up this claim – simply suggestions that other factors might also be in play and questions about the motives of authors.

As far as other factors are concerned, if you read studies, you would see how they go to some lengths to rule out other potential risk factors. Check out this recent meta-analysis for instance, which discusses potential risk factors in some detail and demonstrates why their effect on overall results is modest: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dym158v1#B51.

You can’t have read Jamrozik’s report properly. If you had, you would know that he did not conduct his own epidemiological study to establish whether passive smoking is harmful. The purpose of his research was to take the prevailing results of previous epidemiological studies and translate relative risks from these into actual figures, in terms of numbers of deaths in the UK each year. Jamrozik’s starting point therefore had to be that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risks of death by lung cancer or heart disease!!

You claim my comparison is like judging hundreds of murder cases on a single identical piece of evidence. Far from it. When did I say that the risks of passive smoking can be proved from the results of a single study? The evidence comes from the scores of studies which together paint a compelling argument about the risks of passive smoking, because the studies corroborate each other.

For these reasons and more, my analogy about the law holds very well, thank you.
170

Rollo Tommasi,

24/08/2009 00:12:57
Don’t worry Steve. If any neutral reader is checking this board, I am VERY happy for them to consider the evidence for themselves and make up their own mind.

They will see that I have backed up my case with compelling evidence.

They will see that you have offered a few studies which don’t even say what you claim they say!

They will see how I have demonstrated how these articles don't say what you claim they say.

They will see that, when challenged on this, you run away and fail to give any explanation as to how these articles could possibly state that “no statistical significance” means the same as “no effect”.

And they will see how cowardly you have been by failing to acknowledge the shortcomings in your argument.

And they will wonder how you can LOL if you are seriously trying to argue that the smoking laws should be overturned, based on the puny and pathetic arguments you’ve been able to muster here.
171

__-Steve-__,

24/08/2009 08:08:15
Lol Rollo,

It doesn't matter because no one will ever read to the end of this thread, you have spent the last 4 days boring them all to death with your evidence of "No it doesn't", in the face of indisputable written evidence.

At the end of it all you argue that there is no statistically significant risk, which is what I said in the first place LOL. No Risk Rollo.

Go on Rollo, you know you want to - say "No I didn't"

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
172

Rollo Tommasi,

24/08/2009 08:16:39
So Steve continues his fiction that "not statistically significant" means "no risk". Not that he has ever been able to provide any evidence to support his cause of course. And it is the study results which are not statistically significant, not the risks.

Thank you Steve. You continue to prove what I said in my last post:

"They will see that, when challenged on this, you run away and fail to give any explanation as to how these articles could possibly state that “no statistical significance” means the same as “no effect”."
173

__-Steve-__,

24/08/2009 08:23:05
Rollo Said:

"The purpose of Jamrozik's research was to take the prevailing results of previous epidemiological studies and translate relative risks from these into actual figures, in terms of numbers of deaths in the UK each year."

After ignoring the fact that 83% of the studies said no risk and arbitrarily tripling the risk of a made up anti smoking figure. His results were so silly that they meant that passive smoke was more harmful than direct smoking LOL, so basically he said that Smoking protected you from passive smoke LMAO.


Rollo then said -

"Jamrozik’s starting point therefore had to be that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risks of death by lung cancer or heart disease!!"

Of course it did Lol, he is a professional anti smoker who, like you say, set out to produce a big scary number of deaths and he wasn't about to let the facts get in the way.

Pretty much the same as you Rollie.

:o)

174

Rollo Tommasi,

24/08/2009 08:32:22
Steve:

I have already explained that Jamrozik used well established figures for relative risk which closely reflect figures obtained by several comprehensive meta-analyses of available evidence.

No answer to that point from you.

I have also explained that your dodgy claim about the tripling of risk is in any case a red herring, because it had nothing to do with Jamrozik's calculation of total deaths.

No response to that point from you either.

I asked you to explain exactly how and why you think Jamrozik's calculation of total deaths was wrong.

Not a whisper from you.

When it comes to evidence to support your claims, you really are an empty vessel.

You carry on repeating your nonsense lines if you want. You're not persuading anyone.
175

__-Steve-__,

24/08/2009 08:34:19
Rollo said "So Steve continues his fiction that "not statistically significant" means "no risk"."

LOL

Here's some more written evidence for ya Rollie:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ceuq9P4hLJMC&pg=RA1-PT447&lpg=RA1-PT447&dq=#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The second study on the page includes 1 in the interval and what does the result say Rollo?

No statistically significant risk.

Come on then, make yourself look silly again and say "No it doesn't" LOL
176

__-Steve-__,

24/08/2009 08:41:30
Jesus Rollo, you need to see a doctor my friend.

I have answered all of the garbage you spout about the anti smoker Jamrozik and all you have ever said is "No it doesn't". You even said it yourself - he took an anti smoking figure and compiled a report with the goal of showing passive smoke harm. No bias there then !!

So tell us Rollo, how is passive smoke possibly more harmful than active smoke, do the particles magically get more harmful the more of them you inhale?
177

Belinda-2,

24/08/2009 09:52:31
Rollo

I was referring to your anxiety to claim that lung cancer in non-smokers by exposure to secondary smoke to the exclusion of all other causes.

The study you link to does not discuss the possibility of confounding factors in detail. It mentions only two confounding factors ('indoor air pollution' and diet) excluding and excludes outdoor pollution (significant in cities), workplace pollution (which I understand to be different from domestic air pollution), or any genetic influences. Assessing exposure by questionnaires seems to be a very difficult exercise since its accuracy is threatened by the way questions are worded and by recall bias.

The study states that since smoke was classified as a Class A and since that time establishing the links between secondary smoke and lung cancer has been the most popular research activity. Call me a cynic, but I am puzzled about why so much effort and money has gone into studies that show virtually the same thing: tiny (negligible) positive or neutral results; and do they all insist, like this one, that 'Ventilation [the tobacco industry solution]Doesn't Work' and 'The preferable public health policy is still a total ban on smoking in public areas'?

178

__-Steve-__,

24/08/2009 10:15:14
Can you see a pattern here Belinda?

Statisticians say the studies show no effect, difference, change, significant risk. The antis say "No they don't".

Toxicologists say a substance can't become more harmful the smaller the dosage gets. The antis say "No they don't".

The HSE says they can't produce any evidence. The antis say "No they don't".

Engineers say ventilation can easily and cheaply remove any perceived harm. The antis say "No they don't".

The anti smoking bible must instruct its worshipers that if someone quotes what an expert says against their claims then repeat loud and clear - "No they don't" LOL

179

Belinda-2,

24/08/2009 10:49:38
Is he really saying that the only airborne contimanant that might lead to lung cancer in non-smokers is ETS?

Most of the material relates to spousal studies, yet the paper still concludes that workplace smoking bans are the 'preferred' solution, because of the levels of workplace/public exposure in 'some countries'.

They also dismiss ventilation: 'But this does not prevent exposure of workers in these areas to passive smoking.' Oh-oh. More magic. No evidence. Do they believe that any airborne toxins are capable of removal using ventilation? Or that only tobacco related toxins cause cancer. It seems to be an article of faith that toxins cannot be removed by air cleaning systems that are designed to do just that.
180

__-Steve-__,

24/08/2009 11:22:44
Belinda,

I give him half a dozen written pieces of evidence from experts that clearly state there is no difference in effect between those who are exposed and those who aren't and rollo denies it.

I give the HSE evidence also written in black and white and he denies that as well.

He then dribbles on about me not producing evidence. The man's a fruitcake.

With ventilation the antis are divided. ASH UK argued that effective systems would be too expensive and so there should be a "level playing field" to protect small pubs (what a joke that turned out to be) whereas ASH in the US just say ventilation doesn't work LOL.

Inexpensive ventilation is used widely in industry; the HSE insist on it to protect workers from truly deadly substances in chemical plants, laboratories, factories and hospitals.

It seems then (according to Antis) that the magic particles (presumably made magic by the evil tobacco industry so they can kill lots of non smokers) not only get more harmful the fewer of them you inhale but they are so magic that they can trick a ventilation system.

The antis don't worry that their theories defy all the laws of mathematics, toxicology, biology and physics as Rollo has amply demonstrated throughout this discussion.

As Rollo would have us believe - 0 + 0 + 0 = 6942 LOL

181

Belinda-2,

24/08/2009 11:30:14
Steve

Rollo is less than clear about whether ALL toxins don't respond to ventilation or only the magical tobacco ones. Indeed I suggested that tobacco toxins might identify themselves by wearing badges in order to escape the wily ventilation systems.

(I think Rollo might have thought I was being frivolous because he hasn't responded.)
182

__-Steve-__,

24/08/2009 11:52:24
That's because the antis have no answer other than "No it doesn't" Belinda.

Their theory is so bad it even contradicts their other theories lol.

The readily admit (as Rollo has done here) that nothing in passive smoke exceeds harmful levels so they come up with a "symbiotic relationship" that is to say that the combined sum of all the particles (Antis love adding things together as Rollo has also demonstrated) does exceed harmful levels.

Conversely, they also state that ventilation doesn't work because it cannot remove every single particle.

So, these particles are presumably so magic that they can achieve reverse symbiosis, not only do they transform into harmful particles when a lot of them gang up together but also they can transform themselves into harmful particles when nearly all of them are removed.

The world according to Anti is a weird and wonderful place indeed !
183

Rollo Tommasi,

24/08/2009 19:16:47
Belinda, Steve – Hope you’ve had an enjoyable chat between yourselves. Time for me to offer some enlightenment. Looks like you need it.

1. Relevance of “not statistically significant” results. The best evidence I can point to is evidence which Steve himself presented. His link at 103 states that it is only where a study’s results are NEITHER statistically significant NOR clinically significant that you can claim “no effect”. And his link at post 115 states that if the confidence interval includes 1 in its range “we cannot exclude the possibility that there is no difference between the two groups”.

So neither these nor any other articles cited by Steve back up his claim that a non-statistically significant results equals “no effect”. In fact he can’t even point to the phrase “no effect” in these articles!!

2. HSE document. Steve and Belinda are still desperately trying to pretend that something HSE said applies to more than individual circumstances of exposure to risk, even though HSE stated those very words - “individual circumstances of exposure to risk” - about the phrase at issue.

What is more remarkable is that Steve and Belinda desperately try to ignore statements which clearly show HSE’s support for the new smoking laws. The HSE guidance states that "There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban." Evidence by the Health & Safety Commission stated “The arguments for a wider ban in all licensed premised are these….The science: SCOTH [the Government’s Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health] is clear that second hand smoke is harmful.”

3. Jamrozik. Steve and Belinda desperately try to taint his study. But their ridiculous comments are the work of people who clearly haven’t read the report properly for themselves. Their accusations betray their lack of understanding about his report.

4. An Air Quality Standard. Apparently, by asking questions about how this w
184

Rollo Tommasi,

24/08/2009 19:17:03
Contd....

4. An Air Quality Standard. Apparently, by asking questions about how this would work I am dismissing this option. Well it seems my questions are reasonable ones, as they are not getting any replies. If an Air Quality Standard was introduced, what filtration equipment could ensure that any smoke released from a cigarette was neutralised before it was inhaled by an person sitting or standing around the smoker? No response from you guys.

It appears this Air Quality Standard option isn’t even trusted within F2C. As I said before, I recognise that different members may have different views, but I would have expected some loyalty to the party line from Colin Grainger (the F2C Chairman, at least according to your website). But even today I see Colin arguing for a return to the deeply unpopular old laws (full freedom of choice for landlords) – no mention of an Air Quality Standard by him.

And in that same story Joe Jackson bemoans any suggestion that enclosed smoking rooms be introduced. That’s quite a problem for you pro-smokers – you just don’t know what you want.
185

Rollo Tommasi,

24/08/2009 19:23:47
Here's the link to Colin and Joe's comments, by the way....http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/taking-liberties/2009/8/23/joe-jackson-greetings-from-berlin.html#comments

186

__-Steve-__,

25/08/2009 00:31:56
Well I would love to say I'm surprised Rollo but of course I'm not. Faced with more written irrefutable evidence stating the truth and I quote "No statistically significant risk" you issue your stock response of "no it doesn't".

I've lost count, is that 7 expert statements now Rollo?

Again you lie, the evidence given at 103 says - "does the interval contain a value that implies no change or no effect? For example, with a confidence interval for a ratio, look to see whether that interval contains one."

Words 12 and 13 in the quote say "No effect" Now please don't say yet again "No it doesn't", because my sides might split.

What would be the point of giving you the evidence of air filtration Rollo? You would just deny it says what it says lol But if your magic particle theory is right I bet there's a lot of innocent people dropping dead at work because they rely totally on air management systems.

And what's this rubbish about "deeply unpopular old laws" LOL, there was never a law that allowed people to smoke indoors, that's another one of your made up stories. You don't need a law to provide freedom of choice you only need laws to oppress it.

And if the situation before the ban was "deeply unpopular" why did we need a ban in the first place lol?

Ok, I'll humour you, let's overturn the ban tomorrow and see just how "deeply unpopular" the old way was? Whadda ya say?

Now, on one hand the antis say direct smoking takes 50 years to harm the smoker (Peto 2001) and on the other we have Rollo saying he wants the state to protect him in someone else's pub from a wisp of smoke passing his nose. If you are scared of magic particles that get infinitely more harmful with less exposure then go to one of the "deeply popular" non smoking pubs that you infer would be available in a free market.

We've never wanted "enclosed smoking rooms" Rollo, We want enclosed anti smoking rooms so that the two of you can sit in there like you used to in the old non smoking
187

__-Steve-__,

25/08/2009 00:33:00
sections. It's for your own good, so that you don't have to wash your clothes.
188

Belinda-2,

25/08/2009 00:33:02
1. well I can't really speak about confidence intervals that straddle 1, although it seems to me that they include negative values that cancel out positive values. In this case the result must be as near to insignificant in real terms as it is possible to get.

2. I am not trying to prove anything about the HSE, Rollo, you have tried to force that on me throughout the debate. It is precisely the failure to provide any evidence about individual circumstances of exposure that makes the whole fairy tale so unconvincing.

3. The last article I made comment on was not Jamrozik, but the Oxford Journals piece, which you have not addressed (#177 and #181).

4. Air quality: I am not the only one who has failed to answer questions here. What justifies the Oxford journal paper claiming that ventilation would not work? Do you believe that ventilation does not work at all, or just that it does not work re secondary smoke? I have already answered about you and your friends at #131. Further than that I cannot go because I am not familiar with all the available air cleaning systems. You may not like the comment but there is no need to claim that I have made no attempt to answer your question.

Thank you for pointing out that our website is not up to date. Colin is not the current Chairperson.

We are not responsible for the views of people you term 'pro smokers'. Considering the millions of smokers (and sympathetic non-smokers) who inhabit this country, we cannot speak for all of them. However I think I can say with confidence that enclosed smoking rooms has never been part of our strategy.
189

__-Steve-__,

25/08/2009 02:20:38
The confidence intervals are quite simple Belinda. Rollo keeps lying by saying none of the evidence I produced says "no effect", where in reality they all say no effect or no change or no difference or no statistically significant risk. This is a big problem for Rollo because it proves that 83% of the passive smoke studies show no difference in risk between people who are exposed and people who aren't. He will go to any lengths to deny that; even if God came down and said it Rollo would say "No they don't".

The Anti Smoking Hate group are the first ones I heard use the term "pro smoker". In order to discredit anyone who disagrees they need to portray them as an opposite extreme. In reality they are the only extremists, their goal is to force everyone in the world to quit smoking, there is no opposite to that, no-one in the world is campaigning to force everyone in the world to become a smoker.

He is trying to twist the HSE argument and lead you down the road. It started with him lying about what the HSE said, when I produced the document where they said it his defence was "No it doesn't", now he's trying to put words in your mouth and change the subject.

He knows that F2C never had a policy for enclosed rooms, it's just the latest thing he made up to divert attention from his shortcomings.
190

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 08:46:34
1 Statistical significance. All the lies are coming from Steve. Seven references he’s offered (apparently). Yet none of them says what he claims they say. Of all these 7, he totally ignores 6 (presumably because he knows he’s nothing to offer). On the seventh, his feeble claims are clearly wrong.

Yes, that article does refer to “no effect”. But as part of a question, not a statement. Even the question doesn’t help Steve’s cause. Steve claims that “no statistical significance” automatically means “no effect” (he has to claim this, otherwise his ropey 83% of studies show no effect claim is torpedoed). But the question asks when “no effect” can be “IMPLIED”. Nothing in that question which shows that there is a clear inference to be drawn universally whenever a study shows no statistical significance.

But let’s also look at how this article answers the question. It makes clear that statistical significance alone does not enable you to draw firm conclusions. So that TOTALLY torpedos Steve’s claim. It says that it is only where a study’s results show BOTH no statistical significance AND no clinical significance that you have “no effect” (or as the article puts it, “you have clear and convincing evidence to keep doing things the same way”). Most passive smoking studies are clinically SIGNIFICANT (given the high upper reaches of their 95% confidence intervals). In response to that, the article states “you should consider the possibility that the sample size is too small”. That’s where meta-analyses come in. They pool the results of different studies together, which has the effect of narrowing the confidence interval (as Steve’s article states you should expect to see – “larger sample sizes provide greater precision (that is, narrower confidence intervals)”).

2 HSE guidance. Steve has nothing more to offer on this, I see. Belinda says that the arguments about passive smoking are unconvincing because they cannot be used to assess individual circums
191

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 08:46:54
2 HSE guidance. Steve has nothing more to offer on this, I see. Belinda says that the arguments about passive smoking are unconvincing because they cannot be used to assess individual circumstances of exposure. Fair enough, she’s entitled to that viewpoint – provided she does not continue to falsely claim that HSE states it cannot point to epidemiological evidence about general risk to public health – because there clearly is and the HSC clearly has (as set out in the 2004 SCOTH report). She also has to accept that much of what we know about dangers to public health come from epidemiological studies (e.g. our understanding that vehicle exhaust emissions and radon can cause lung cancer). If she disputes the validity of epidemiology for passive smoking, she must be consistent and also dispute its validity in other fields.

3 Jamrozik. Steve has nothing more to say about his study (notice a recurring theme here….?). Nor has Belinda. Have you run out of criticisms you can make up?

As for other potential factors, here’s a quote from p.444 of the US Surgeon General’s report (2006):

“there are few true potential confounders for studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer (Kawachi and Colditz 1996). Although many of the earlier studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer did not consider lifestyle variables such as diet in the statistical analysis, most of the larger studies published since the 1990s have accounted for these factors and have found that the effect of secondhand smoke remained after adjusting for them (Stockwell et al. 1992; Fontham et al. 1994; Cardenas et al. 1997; Boffetta et al. 1998; Jöckel et al. 1998; Nyberg et al. 1998a; Zhong et al. 1999; Kreuzer et al. 2000; Lee et al. 2000; Wang et al. 2000; Seow et al. 2002).”

4 Ventilation/air filtration. Surprise surprise, Steve offers no further evidence on this issue either. Belinda refers back to her post 131 and asks if I believe that ventilation does not work at all, or just that it doe
192

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 08:47:10
4 Ventilation/air filtration. Surprise surprise, Steve offers no further evidence on this issue either. Belinda refers back to her post 131 and asks if I believe that ventilation does not work at all, or just that it does not work re secondary smoke. Maybe I should have clarified my earlier questions slightly. My understanding of air filtration equipment is that it removes contaminants found in the air. That’s fine with dealing with a regular background level of contamination (whatever that may be).

I have a specific concern about secondhand smoke because when a pub is open, the big issue would be NOT background contamination but neutralising all the new secondhand smoke which was being generated there and then. I asked Belinda if the technology could safeguard others from the risks of passive smoking. She said yes in post 131. But I do not see how any technology can neutralise secondhand smoke leaving a lit cigarette before it is inhaled by staff and punters nearby. How does all the smoke make its way to the filtration equipment before it finds someone’s nose? And nobody has been able to answer that question.

Your views about enclosed smoking rooms are interesting. The latest ONS survey shows 75% public support for the new smoking laws in pubs (including almost 50% support from smokers). When I’ve mentioned this to other F2C members they complain about the survey, because it only offers the pubic a choice of new laws or the old situation (no restrictions). They say that people surveyed should be offered other choices too – and they usually at that point refer to the option of enclosed smoking rooms.

So I am grateful for the clarification that F2C does not support the option of separate smoking rooms.
193

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 09:09:04
Oops - unfortunate typo in post 192. There is a word in the 3rd para which should be "public"!!
194

Belinda-2,

25/08/2009 09:40:56
What about a solution that attacks particles in situ, rather than relying on ventilation: http://www.avianfludefence.com/Display.aspx?MasterId=88aa32ff-62b1-4cc1-a02b-ce26aea445c7&NavigationId=827&PrintFriendly=True.
195

__-Steve-__,

25/08/2009 13:15:20
Lol see what I mean Belinda,

First he spends 4 days denying what the experts say, then he admits it but claims that when they say no effect or no statistically significant risk they don't really mean that they mean something else. Then he dribbles on for a fortnight trying to change the subject.

Rollo, I don't care if 75% of people support restrictions on smoking after 4 decades of anti smoking health scares and lies; last time I checked we lived in a representative democracy not a majority rule. So I go back to my point; if you think that smoking pubs are truly "deeply unpopular" then you have nothing to worry about do you? Because you will have 75% of the pubs to choose from in a free market.

Now as for your concerns for your nose. As I said, if you are daft enough to think a wisp of it can hurt you then go to one of the many non smoking pubs you claim will be around. Also explain the following:

Having told us that the particles in passive smoke are not harmful by themselves but they become harmful by symbiotic effect how do you explain that they are still harmful when there are much fewer of them in the room than there would be if smoking was not even taking place?

Which is it? Do they become harmful when there are a lot of different particles combined or do they become harmful by symbiotic magic when virtually all of them are removed?

Also, since you antis claim it takes 50 years to harm a smoker, what magic particles can you show us to back up your daft theory that a wisp floating past your nose can harm you?

Confounders. Lol I did have to chuckle at your comments. I am glad to see that you admit that anti smoking researchers start from the silly basis that if you get lung cancer then smoke caused it thus allowing them to ignore all other known and unknown risks. And even when they do that 83% of all the studies still show no statistically significant risk LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Then along come the Anti Smoking Hate group (ASH) with their fi
196

__-Steve-__,

25/08/2009 13:17:26
financial partners who sell NRT to advise the government, they cherry pick the data, add apples and oranges together and pluck out a figure of 1.24 increased risk. Not only is that figure contrary to all of the evidence but it is also a relative figure which is misused for health scare headlines to promote their anti smoking agenda.

Thanks for pointing it out Rollo.

:o)
197

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 18:14:11
Belinda: Thanks for the link. And, as I say, it’s not clear that any equipment could neutralise the effects of secondhand smoke between leaving the cigarette and being inhaled by people nearby.

I’m not trying to be obstructive and I’m not trying to say these options definitely won’t work when they potentially could. But the fact is that neither you nor I know for sure. If it was clear that this technology removed the risk of inhaling harmful secondhand smoke and that it would do so in practice (e.g. little need for maintenance; landlords would actually keep the equipment switched on) then I wouldn’t oppose it in principle.
198

Belinda-2,

25/08/2009 18:30:46
The only way to find out would be to try it out, Rollo: and to agree on criteria for success. Now that might be quite challenging!!
199

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 18:36:39
From one extreme to another. At least Belinda tries to debate the issues on their merits. Steve however relies on a combination of denial, obfuscation and downright nonsense.

First the denial. I take it you have now given up on your long-standing but feeble attempt to claim that “not statistically significant” means the same as “no effect”. And the fact you’ve again failed to mention Jamrozik makes clear that you have no complaint about how he calculated his total number of deaths.

As far as smoking vs non-smoking pubs are concerned, there is a difference between punters like myself choosing whether to go into a non-smoking pub or not, and pub workers who have to put up with smoky conditions. You may argue that people can choose whether or not to work in such conditions. But our health and safety laws don’t work like that. They apply minimum safety requirements to all construction sites and all oil platforms, for instance. It is not a valid reason for some employers to try to weasel out of these minimum protections with an excuse that staff don’t need to work there.

I’ve explained my views and questions about how effectively filtration equipment can prevent punters from having to inhale passive smoke in pubs clearly. If you choose deliberately to misinterpret my comments, I’m not going to grace your remarks with a response.

And your remarks about confounders and relative risk are outrageously wrong. It’s an absolute fabriacation for you to claim that “smoking researchers start from the silly basis that if you get lung cancer then smoke caused it”. I see you provide no evidence to back up this nonsense claim.

In fact, smoking studies have considered potential confounders. Most researchers (with the exception of PN Lee) have concluded that these potential confounders do not materially affect the scale of the relative risk of passive smoking. True to form, you provide absolutely no evidence to back up your accusation here either.

You clai
200

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 18:37:36
(Contd...)

You claim ASH “pluck out” the 1.24 relative risk claim. Wrong again Steve. The risk factors emerge from several meta-analyses – including Hackshaw et al (1997), SCOTH (1998 & 2004), SCOTH (2004), the US Surgeon General (2006) and Taylor et al (2007).

You claim they “cherry pick” data. Oh yeah? Where’s your evidence?

You claim they “add apples and oranges”. Oh yeah? Again, where’s your evidence?

You claim a relative risk of 1.24 is “contrary to all of the evidence” and “misused”. Oh yeah? Once more Steve, where’s your evidence?

Your postings are a tissue of fabrications and accusations that you cannot substantiate. Is this all you have to offer?
201

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 18:39:46
All of which might be easier Belinda if other countries with supposedly more liberal public smoking regimes tried out your suggested approach for themselves.

Does the fact that none have (as far as I know) not suggest that your proposal is not so workable in practice?
202

Belinda-2,

25/08/2009 19:41:11
201

Does the fact that no so-called liberal regimes have tried out the air quality standards mean that they are 'unworkable'? No, why should it? What is unworkable about testing air quality, when it is done in other environments where a failure in air safety would have potentially fatal consequences (in the immediate term).

I agree that 'the workers don't have to work here' is not an excuse for employers to ignore health & safety regulations. We hear situations where people's jobs depend on their willingness to put themselves at extreme risk without the protection of any authority. The problem is that people have different ideas about what is an acceptable risk, and when there should be regulations about the risk. Surely you recognise that people differ in their views about what is an acceptable risk - this thread is evidence of that in itself. At some point someone will propose a H&S measure that you feel to be inappropriate and over the top.

If your concern is about workers, why the huge concern about you and your friends as customers?

There are also such things as air curtains. I heard about a warehouse where a chilled room in sub zero termperatures (for storing meat) was divided from a working area for staff at normal room temperature by nothing more than an air curtain. The workers were in complete comfort. This is anecdotal so I would have to find a reference for it but an adaptation of it could be situated over a bar.
203

__-Steve-__,

25/08/2009 20:00:33
Lol, you're whole world is shattered Rollo.

My evidence is posted throughout this thread interspersed with your defence of "No it doesn't".

83% of the studies say no statistically significant risk Rollo, get over it. The evidence of 7 experts pasted on this thread proves it beyond all doubt to anyone not living in denial.

The only thing you state that has any place in reality is that I didn't provide evidence that the made up risk of 1.24 is "misused". You're right I didn't, I was saving that one.

So tell us Rollo, when the antis cherry pick the data and abuse meta analysis (as the "No conclusions can be drawn" evidence I provided shows) to claim a 24% increased risk from passive smoke I have a couple of questions.

1. 24% more likely than who?

2. 24% more likely than what?

P.S I'm still waiting for you to show me one statistician that says an interval containing one still shows risk. Was that a bit tough Rollo? I think that's 7 or 8 time you've ignored it now.

204

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 22:33:19
Belinda – My last comment was slightly tongue in cheek but it did have a serious point within it. That is, while it is often claimed that the UK nations have particularly draconian laws restricting smoking in public places (with people like Steve blaming ASH for supposed lies) actually most of the rest of Europe either has or is likely soon to have similar laws. So presumably lots of countries have already considered your option but none has taken it up. When neither you nor I know for sure how effective your preferred option might be at removing the risks of secondhand smoke, doesn’t the fact that your preferred option hasn’t been adopted in other countries tell an interesting story?

As far as HSE is concerned, I accept that different people will have different thresholds about what does and does not represent reasonably regulation. But I really don’t think that applies in this case. Because pubs are subject to our smoking laws, it means that pub workers enjoy the same protections as other workers in shops, restaurants, public transport, offices, etc. And that is surely right – there is no reason why pub workers should be entitled to less protection than other workers.

You ask “If your concern is about workers, why the huge concern about you and your friends as customers?” Actually, my concern is for anyone within a pub, worker or customer, friend or stranger. I used the analogy of my friends and I earlier (a) to show that tobacco smoke doesn’t have far to travel from cigarette end to someone’s nose and to question how filtration equipment can neutralise it in that time, and (b) to show that it’s not always easy for a non-smoker to find a smokefree spot in a pub – as smokers could arrive after them and light up.

I can’t speak definitively about air curtain technology either. But I recall seeing smoking booths surrounded by air curtains set up at Edinburgh and Frankfurt Airports. They certainly reduced the obvious smell of tobacco smoke (of course i
205

Belinda-2,

25/08/2009 22:46:23
'So presumably lots of countries have already considered your option but none has taken it up.' No presumably about it Rollo, show me where it has happened and I will pay attention. From my recollection they had a different approach in Netherlands where they took the government to court on property rights, and they are taking to the streets in Turkey. None of this means that they have considered air quality standards and rejected them or indeed considered them at all.

'As far as HSE is concerned, I accept that different people will have different thresholds about what does and does not represent reasonably regulation. But I really don’t think that applies in this case.' Why not? There will be a sliding scale between the risks you consider acceptable and the risks you don't. To me, the risk posed by secondary smoke falls into the negligible category. Are there any risks at work you would consider negligible? Can you legislate against every risk?

I know for a fact that many people would consider that the risks of secondary smoke are in the negligible category. Most people would be content with a higher level of protection from background pollution, and not concern themselves with the odd wisp of smoke. The equipment I pointed out to you is not filtration equipment, btw: it does not depend on toxins reaching the equipment reaching it.
206

Belinda-2,

25/08/2009 22:47:19
your last post truncated.
207

Belinda-2,

25/08/2009 22:49:34
Furthermore I asked you why air quality testing should fail in pubs when it cannot be allowed to fail in other industrial and military situations?
208

Belinda-2,

25/08/2009 23:01:45
Try answering post #179, especially para 3.
209

Rollo Tommasi,

25/08/2009 23:23:47
Here's the rest of the truncated post:

I can’t speak definitively about air curtain technology either. But I recall seeing smoking booths surrounded by air curtains set up at Edinburgh and Frankfurt Airports. They certainly reduced the obvious smell of tobacco smoke (of course it is difficult to know whether contaminants dissipate sooner, later or at the same time as the noticeable smell of smoke). But they were not totally effective, particularly at Frankfurt as I recall – and airport buildings are larger and airier than most pubs.

Post 207 - I dealt with this in 192 para 2. There is a big difference between dealing with background contaminants in the air and what would be required for pubs - quickly neutralising contaminants being released by any number of lit cigarettes there and then.

Post 208 - The issues are the same, whether we are talking about filtration, air curtains or ventilation. Will the remedy be effective? Is it practical for landlords? Will it give pubgoers and staff the assurance of protection? Neither you nor i have firm answers to these questions.

210

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2009 00:03:14
Rollo said - "I can’t speak definitively about air curtain technology either."

I can see that Rollo, any joy answering my questions yet or are you still Googling?

Rollo said - "Actually, my concern is for anyone within a pub, worker or customer, friend or stranger."

That's very good of you Rollo but what if they don't want your concern? Not everyone is gullible, not everyone wants to live long enough to wear nappies again and not everyone wants to have their social lives dictated by a healthist that makes things up.

Rollo said - "tobacco smoke doesn’t have far to travel from cigarette end to someone’s nose and to question how filtration equipment can neutralise it in that time"

Are you seriously trying to tell us that a wisp of smoke needs "neutralising"? Why aren't we all dead Rollo?

Have you ever walked down a high street? How many wisps of car fumes pass your delicate nose? How many of those fumes enter the pub you are sitting in? Aren't you concerned for everyone in the pub? After all car fumes are really deadly, let's face it you never hear of anyone locking themselves in a garage with a lit cigarette when they want to end it all.


211

Belinda-2,

26/08/2009 00:09:36
On the distinction between background pollution and pollution arising while work is in progress. I find it hard to believe that air cleaning systems have to clean only background pollution and not pollution produced at the work site while the site is occupied by workers, just like cigarettes being lit while bar staff are on duty.

You seem willing to give some credence to the idea that an Air Quality Standard might alleviate the situation to the extent that it would allow smokers some indoor recreational space, but say that we 'don't know the answers' regarding the effectiveness or acceptability of this solutions. I suppose you are now suggesting that testing them would be unethical!

We do have a view about how to resolve differences about smoking in enclosed public places, based on air quality standards. It is not yet perfectly worked out in every detail, but it might enable licensed premises to cater for smokers, who in many places have been their main customer base for decades.

Would you not agree that the only way to find out is to try it and see?
212

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2009 00:16:20
Now more on this "passing your nose" thing:

You admitted earlier that nothing in smoke is harmful in the dosages in everyday situations but you claimed that there was a symbiotic effect.

That is to say that although in any conceivable situation the dosage of any given substance is thousands of times below known safe levels the effect of all the different substances combined can exceed safe levels.

This is quite contrary to your "nose" theory; no longer does it take a room full of smokers continually saturating the air with smoke to raise the dosages enough to put them above safe levels, now you claim that a single tiny dosage passing your nose on its way out of the building is harmful.

Is this the magical "reverse symbiotic effect" where substances become more harmful the smaller the dosage gets Rollo?

Please give us any scientific literature that demonstrates this nonsense.
213

Rollo Tommasi,

26/08/2009 00:18:45
Steve – I have already dealt with most of your points. I will go through them again – and I make no apology for repeating things I have already said. Perhaps after that you will do me the courtesy of addressing the many points I have raised of you which you have continued to ignore.

You regularly repeat that 83% of passive smoking studies do not show statistically significant results. I don’t know the actual figure but I’m happy to acknowledge that most studies are not statistically significant in their own right.

But what does this mean? You continue to adhere to a claim that it means that these studies should be interpreted as showing “no effect”. I absolutely disagree. To repeat what I have said before at post 134 the Online Statistics webpage says: “If the 95% confidence interval contains zero (more precisely, the parameter value specified in the null hypothesis), then the effect will not be significant at the 0.05 level. Looking at non-significant effects in terms of confidence intervals makes clear why the null hypothesis should not be accepted when it is not rejected: Every value in the confidence interval is a plausible value of the parameter. Since zero is in the interval, it cannot be rejected. However, there is an infinite number of values in the interval (assuming continuous measurement), and none of them can be rejected either.”

In other words, any value within the confidence interval can plausibly reflect the actual risk. If the confidence interval straddles 1, then “no effect” is one of the plausible answers. But it is not the only one. As the article states, none of the values higher than 1 can be rejected.

You also quote the Children’s Mercy website. It says that it is only where a study’s results show BOTH no statistical significance AND no clinical significance that you have “no effect” (or as the article puts it, “you have clear and convincing evidence to keep doing things the same way”). Most passive smoking studies are clinic
214

Rollo Tommasi,

26/08/2009 00:19:21
(Contd...)

Most passive smoking studies are clinically SIGNIFICANT (given the high upper reaches of their 95% confidence intervals). In response to that, the article states “you should consider the possibility that the sample size is too small”.

So both these articles show that you should not draw firm conclusions about the results of a study, just because its results are not statistically significant. They address your “PS” point – non-statistically significant results can be consistent with there being higher risk. So your claim that “83% of studies are not statistically significant” is of little relevance by itself.

That’s where meta-analyses come in. They pool the results of different studies together, which has the effect of narrowing the confidence interval (as the Chldrens Mercy website states: “The width of your confidence interval goes down as the sample size goes up, since you are placing a larger value in the denominator. This is a classic and intuitive relationship in statistics: larger sample sizes provide greater precision (that is, narrower confidence intervals).”

So is the use of meta-analyses to assess such studies good practice? You bet it is. Ruling out effects from studies because the results are not statistically significant can result in Type II errors (i.e. producing a false negative result). The use of well-conducted meta-analyses allows for a more complete assessment of overall analysis to be undertaken, reducing the risk of impressions being tainted by type II errors (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7119/1371?ijkey=56e76871c0af23ff41bc08edb84a947f344402a0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha).

Here is an example of a meta-analysis being lauded. This one is not about passive smoking – it’s about the risks of artificial blood products. But the scenario is very similar – lots of studies, most producing non-statistically significant results, but the meta-analysis revealing important and strong messages (http://www.badscience.net/2
215

Rollo Tommasi,

26/08/2009 00:19:49
(Contd...)

Here is an example of a meta-analysis being lauded. This one is not about passive smoking – it’s about the risks of artificial blood products. But the scenario is very similar – lots of studies, most producing non-statistically significant results, but the meta-analysis revealing important and strong messages (http://www.badscience.net/2008/05/pools-of-blood/).

This shows how meta-analysis is both heavily used and highly regards in a range of scientific fields – not just passive smoking.

Finally you ask what the 1.24 relates to. It relates to the increased risk of someone exposed to tobacco smoke contacting lung cancer, compared with someone not exposed. In most studies, the “someone” are never-smoking women and the people exposed are women whose husbands smoke.

Now that I have given you a lengthy response, don’t I deserve responses to all the questions you have been ducking?

1. Show me evidence that results of a report that are “not statistically significant” automatically mean that there is “no effect”.

2. Unless you offer specific criticisms of how Jamrozik calculated his total number of deaths, I shall have to assume that you have no criticism to make of his calculations.

3. If you have evidence showing that established lung cancer relative risk figures are substantially wrong because they fail to reflect material confounders, show it.

4. You claim ASH “pluck out” the 1.24 relative risk claim. Wrong again Steve. The risk factors emerge from several meta-analyses – including Hackshaw et al (1997), SCOTH (1998 & 2004), SCOTH (2004), the US Surgeon General (2006) and Taylor et al (2007). Have you anything to say to defend yourself?

5. You claim they “cherry pick” data. Oh yeah? Where’s your evidence?

6. You claim they “add apples and oranges”. Oh yeah? Again, where’s your evidence?

7. You claim a relative risk of 1.24 is “contrary to all of the evidence” and “misused”. Oh yeah? Once more Steve, where’s your evidence?
216

Rollo Tommasi,

26/08/2009 00:20:17
Hopefully Steve, this time you will produce some actual evidence – and some of it might even state what you claim it says.
217

Rollo Tommasi,

26/08/2009 00:23:19
Steve - Once again you are misrepresenting my views on secondhand smoke in pubs. It's rather rich for you to demand evidence from me, when you have NONE to show that the kind of solutions you support would ensure no pub worker or punter was exposed to secondhand smoke.
218

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2009 00:47:57
Rollo said - "There is a big difference between dealing with background contaminants in the air and what would be required for pubs - quickly neutralising contaminants being released by any number of lit cigarettes there and then."

LOL.

Here is the link Rollo to the CDC guidance document for protecting staff with air filtration from chemical, biological and radiological attacks. www.nibs.org/MMC/images/Earnest-rev.pdf

As you can see this is to protect staff from the release of things such as Anthrax, Toxic Industrial Chemicals, Botulism, Plague and Smallpox.

They use the same technology in hospitals to protect doctors and nurses. They use it in industry where industrial chemicals are manufactured and used.

The issue is not preventing particles passing someone's nose, it is maintaining the total level of particulate matter within a given space to below levels that are normally encountered in everyday situations. Once you have done that it doesn't matter if every particle is right under your nose or on the opposite side of the room.
219

Rollo Tommasi,

26/08/2009 01:51:11
Steve - You're just assuming that because equipment can work well in some situations, it works well in all. There's a huge difference between equipment filtering air from the outside as it is brought into a room (which is what your reference describes) and the situation in a pub - where the equipment would have to rapidly remove contaminants from tobacco smoke which was being produced in the room itself - possibly at high levels, depending on the number of people smoking.

This study gives a much more accurate impression of how ineffective ventilation and filtration (described as "mechanical") systems are in pubs in practice: http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/fdi076v1.pdf
220

Rollo Tommasi,

26/08/2009 01:52:06
And I look forward to your response to my posts 213-216 later today.
221

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2009 02:13:07
Rollo,

It's not strictly true to say that "any value within the confidence interval can plausibly reflect the actual risk." The actual risk could be anywhere even outside of the interval. It is more accurate to say that any value within the interval is plausible and it is also equally likely.

When the results in a study span 1 (in a ratio) it is basically saying that the results within the margin of error showed both risk and negative risk (protective effect). Obviously something can't harm and protect at the same time so the study is said to show a statistically insignificant risk.

In such a study the results have shown contrary outcomes within the margin of error. i.e. those exposed were both more likely and also less likely to get the disease you studied than those not exposed. This of course is not possible so in real terms the study has shown no risk at all (either increased or decreased)

This however is not the main problem with the passive smoke studies, as I stated earlier the most unscientific part is that none of the studies can quantify what it is they have measured. Trying to distinguish between the levels of exposure to passive smoke of two different groups is like trying to take the sugar back out of your tea. There are so many variables that it is totally impossible to remotely guess at how much smoke you might have inhaled during your life. Single point data on bio markers is equally inaccurate.

If "guesses" are going in, how scientific can the result be that is coming out?
222

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2009 02:59:54
Rollo, the CDC link I gave you also gives specification for smoke removal.

I've already read the study you provided a link for which tested the effectiveness of an extractor fan or an open door. That is hardly objective considering the inexpensive technology available which is capable of maintaining a reduction in all particulate matter of 99.97%.

In reality, all an air management system has to achieve on smoking premises to negate all and any health claims is to maintain the quality of air at a level equal to or below the quality of air in any given non smoking building.

No-one could demand a smoking ban in a pub where the air is more healthy than the library next door.

And no, this wouldn't need constant and expensive monitoring. A national average of indoor air quality could easily be calculated and air management systems can be provided to well established and documented specification. Servicing contracts could be implemented for those buildings that wanted to take this option and records could be retained for existing health and safety inspections.
223

Rollo Tommasi,

26/08/2009 08:16:02
Steve – I’ll accept your definition that “any value within the interval is plausible and it is also equally likely.” But I don’t accept your 3rd paragraph. By saying “the study has shown no risk at all” you are suggesting you can reach a definitive judgment about a study, based only on non-statistically significant results and without the need for further information or work. In fact, the results of these studies are inconclusive without further information or work. Examples of such information or work include testing whether the results are clinically significant, conducting a similar study with a larger sample size (which is expensive) or conducting meta-analyses of this and other studies into the same issue.

The references I gave before (e.g. in posts 213-215) all corroborate what I am saying. I see you Steve have not offered supporting evidence for your line.

And as I’ve said before, the claim you are making about the pinpoint accuracy of exposure levels is a feature which applies to all epidemiological studies. But the concept of epidemiological studies is recognised and valued across professional circles, provided they are undertaken properly. And most passive smoking studies are undertaken properly. Researchers can gain a good understanding about the level of exposure which study participants face by asking questions particularly around exposure at home and in the workplace. And, as I said before, post-hoc adjustments by cancer sufferers about how much smoke they were exposed to is not an issue because cohort studies produce very similar results to case-control studies. Again I notice you do not offer back-up evidence to support your claims.

Nor do you provide any evidence on these supposedly significant confounding factors which passive smoking studies apparently do not address. Studies have considered a wide range of factors and these have not materially altered their results.
224

Rollo Tommasi,

26/08/2009 08:30:19
Steve – Here is a more helpful version of your CDC link – with proper commentary: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-136/pdfs/2003-136.pdf

You will see that it focuses on containing harm from contaminants entering a building from outside. The purpose of the article is not to consider how to manage contamination produced inside the building (as tobacco smoke would be within pubs). So I don’t think it is particularly relevant to our debate.

I really don’t know why you claim the Gee et al report is “not objective”. It is an enlightening piece of work which shows how even supposedly highly effective filtration systems quickly lose their efficiency. To be fair, you do suggest some answers for this (notably servicing contracts). While that may well be worth considering, it does at first sight to open the door to abuse and, in any case, it doesn’t guarantee that the landlord would keep the equipment switched on. I don’t see any realistic alternative to more frequent environmental health inspections of pubs – and it would have to be publicans who picked up the cost for this (why should council tax payers?).
225

Belinda-2,

26/08/2009 10:02:47
Rollo

I am beginning(!) to believe that your understanding of science is extremely selective. Steve gives you a link from the CDC, but you come back with a better link saying 'no it doesn't'. In this case, no it doesn't clean anything but pollution from outdoors, so it can't be applied to a pub.

The issue is not whether any existing equipment is capable of cleaning air to an agreed standard (although I am from from sure that nothing exists at this point in time that would do the job). The issue is whether the competence we have as a society in cleaning the air can be applied to the cleaning of air in pubs. We know that equipment exists to protect us from the really toxic stuff, and we know that the technology has moved on since the days when nobody had heard of anything except ventilation and filtration. But you would have us believe that a society that can deal with space travel and removing anthrax from the air can't do air management in a smokey pub?

Background pollution is an issue in all workplaces, but you don't want to promote its use because you allege that it won't protect you from smoke. You don't care about other toxins simply because they don't emanate from the smoke.
226

Belinda-2,

26/08/2009 10:19:11
i. e. you don't want to promote the use of air cleaning systems. This goes for the home as well by the way. The Oxford Journal paper you quoted above focussed as much (if not more) on spousal exposure as workplace exposure, and the 'preferred' policy option was said to be workplace smoking bans. Eh? No solution recommended for the home where the bulk of the problem was said to be, and a workplace ban recommended on the evidence that in 'some countries' workplace exposure was significant.
227

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2009 11:51:07
Rollo,

You are using the everyday definition of the term risk which implies something that would increase your chance of being harmed and no risk of something would imply zero risk. The scientific definition of risk here is relative and refers to any change in risk either positive or negative in comparison to a given starting point.

The scientific term of no statistically significant risk implies no greater or lesser risk relative to some other known point. Zero risk is not a scientific concept because it is impossible to prove a negative.

This is why they are known as relative risks.

228

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2009 11:51:39
I never used the term "pinpoint accuracy" and there is a big difference between that and a wild guess. It is not true that "all studies" suffer from this; for example testing the effectiveness of drugs is fairly straightforward as far as accurate data goes. You take two groups with a medical condition and give the drug to one of the groups being tested, there are very few variables that are likely to alter the findings and the results are directly measurable.

Passive smoke on the other hand is massively variable; for a start diseases such as cancer can take well over 50 years to develop so a researcher would not only have to quantify how much smoke a person had inhaled over that time but would also have to exclude everything else they might have inhaled during their life. It is not possible to find anyone who has never been exposed to passive smoke so the researchers have to quantify levels of exposure in order to test for risk, but it is impossible to quantify.

Take the non smoking/smoking spouses studies, how do they quantify how much smoke either group inhaled as a child or at college or at work or in the pub? Can you remember how many times you visited the pub in your 20's? Did you count how many people were smoking each time you went out? Did your mum and dad take you to the local club when you were little? Were there lots of people smoking in an unventilated room? With all of the variables the researcher cannot say for certain that any person in their study inhaled more or less smoke than any other person even when they are in the opposite groups. Most of these studies only look at the past ten years or so of self reported exposure because prior to that smoking was widespread in indoor places and there was much less difference in any persons exposure.

Also how does a person in the research give an answer to the question how much passive smoke have you been exposed to in the last ten years? A lot? Not a lot? 374 times? It is quite possible that someone
229

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2009 12:07:59
No study has ever accounted for all known confounders, yes some have accounted for many of them and others have accounted for differing known risk but it is simply not valid to say this has made no difference in the results.

Of all the passive smoke studies some 13% infer a protective effect, 70% infer no change in effect and 17% infer an increased effect. This is a substantial difference in the results and if missing confounders are responsible for any of that difference it can only bias the result towards an increased effect.
230

__-Steve-__,

26/08/2009 12:19:59
Gee et al was not objective because it only tested existing extractor fans and open doors/windows as methods of ventilation. How can this be objective when technology can easily provide air management solutions that are vastly more effective than those things? It's like road testing a Robin Reliant and concluding that cars are not very fast.

Finally I really don't understand your point that air systems can only clear pollution from outdoor sources. If particles are inside a room and an air system can maintain levels of reduction to 99.97% inside that room what does it matter where those particles came from?

Rollo, can I ask that we keep to one point at a time so that we can discuss it thoroughly rather than trying to deal with everything at once?
231

Rollo Tommasi,

27/08/2009 09:30:42
Sorry for not responding last night. Don't expect I'll be able to comment today or possibly over the weekend either.

If this thread has now run this course, I'm sure we'll have the chance to pick up the debate again - as Steve says, maybe focusing on fewer issues next time.
232

Belinda-2,

29/08/2009 13:06:19
'The harmful effect of active smoking on lung cancer is well documented, and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been classified as a known (Group A) human lung carcinogen by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1993. Since then, ETS has been the most widely studied risk factor of lung cancer among non-smokers.' From http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dym158v1#B51.

Rollo's faith seems to be that the strength of the association of passive smoking with lung cancer increases the more paople come out with the same finding.

I agree that the more studies show an insignificant result, the more we can be clear that the results are insignificant. The fact many people study the link does not increase the actual risk, but increases our certainty that their finding of a negligible result is correct.

It looks to me as if following the designation of smoke as as Class A carcinogen, there was money in demonstrating a positive result from studying this area. So masses of studies have found a low correlation. The fact that many people have reached this conclusion does not increase the correlation or prove a causal link.

Conversely there may be very few people studying the link between cancer and occupation at National Semiconductor. Does this mean that the problem is less serious because there is no (or less) public money available to make the case? Or because there is much less media interest in the link?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.