More tripe from the TC community

As is so often the case, a post over at Dr Siegels blog pushed my verbosity engine into overdrive. So much so that Haloscan isn't handling it properly even in the preview.
Often in those circumstances, I just junk the comment entirely, figuring it's not worth wasting MORE time on it. But, occasionally I feel the comment is actually worth it, so I post it here and link there.
In this case, the post was regarding a new "outdoor tobacco smoke exposure" study.
I figured I'd look at it, find a flaw or two, post about em, then call it a day. Unfortunately, this time the flaw list kept growing and growing and......

Dr. Siegel, a few points from the study you probably should have noted, but didn't.

Measurement intervals ranged from 2 sec to 1 min for the different instruments
Doesn't it strike you as odd that measurements were confined to such short durations?
Wouldn't it be more useful (and accurate) from a "health risk determination" standpoint to measure for the full duration of exposure and take an average?

Outdoor smoking bans may also serve to discourage smoking behavior in general, by making it more difficult for smokers to find a place to light up
But this is all about protecting non-smokers from SHS, not about forced behavior modification, right?

Based on our results, it is possible for OTS to present a nuisance or hazard under certain conditions of wind and smoker proximity
Note the weasly phrasing of nuisance OR hazard, leaving them a way to say they really just meant nuisance when people assume hazard. Note they fail to say proximity is 18 inches...something not feasible unless the person is sitting in the smokers lap. I dunno about the rest of ya, but I generally don't smoke when someone is sitting on my lap. And, if that person in my lap is the wait-staff, then I'm gonna make a guess that I'm in a brothel rather than a sidewalk cafe.....in which case there's more to worry about than where and how much SHS is present.
As for wait-staff, etc....anyone standing at the table side is already more than 18 inches from the ashtray source....just vertically instead of horizontally. I would expect ANY light breeze to reduce exposure to zero in such a circumstance.
I note the instruments were placed at a "breathing height" of 3-4 feet which would place them in-line with the table top, and appx 2 feet too low to approximate wait-staff exposure.

The U.S. Surgeon General’s Report titled “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke” concludes that there is no level of exposure to SHS without some associated risk
Interesting way to rephrase "no safe level"....something that's been discussed to death as misleading (to be polite).

This was in the "calibration" section:
Doors and windows were kept closed, except to clear smoke from the room in between experiments.
Ummm. Someone didn't get the memo apparently....haven't we been told over and over again that open windows and doors don't make a difference, that smoke lingers for hours even with them open, and it requires "hurricane" force winds to clear the smoke?
I also note that during the calibration stage, the measurements are being averaged over 5 minute, 10 minute time frames....a marked diversion from the 2sec to 1 min measurements used for the study.

I don't know enough about the equipment to know the norm, but is this Our SIDEPAK conversion factor corresponds with an internal “custom calibration factor” of approximately 0.3 (dimensionless), which is calculated by multiplying our result by 1000 and taking the reciprocal. normal?
The reason I ask is that, when looking at table 3, the only measurements taken that come above the mid-60s are 3 taken under "controlled" circumstances (and 2 of those not actually smoked, but "smolder-smoked") and all with the sidepak.
As well, there seems to be an awful lot of "adjustment" done to the figures (including a citing of Repace as justification, which makes me a little suspicious)...perhaps someone more familiar with the math could comment on the validity of the numbers.

As well, I see a potential problem with the background levels, in that they mention measurement at times when no SHS was present, but neglect to mention traffic conditions and whether they were comparable at those times. This is especially important as the majority of the locations were quite close to the street. It would be very easy to "skew" the background numbers by measuring at, say, 5 AM when there is no traffic or, more subtly, at 3PM when traffic is lighter and then take the other measurements during the AM or PM rush-hour.
Perhaps I'm mis-reading it, but it reads as if the "background measurement" visit was separate from the "smoking measurement" visits, rather than a constant background check subtracted from the smoking measurement by time. Indeed, We created a consistent and integrated database by calculating 1-min averages for each monitor and by converting the native units of each monitor into units of RSP mass concentration (µg m3) using the mean conversion factors in Table 2. would seem to indicate that something odd is being done with the numbers, as it seems to me that subtracting a 1 min average from a series of 2 sec to 10 sec spikes would skew the numbers towards the high end. But perhaps I'm just not awake yet.

I'm also a little puzzled as to why the 90% confidence interval for the sample mean was considered acceptable.

air could flow across the patio, perhaps influenced by a “street canyon’’ effect characterized by air movement in a consistent direction along building boundaries. In contrast, the enclosed patios had walls on four sides that protected patrons from wind and may have contained OTS emissions to a greater degree
So lower numbers on "open patios" was due to a "street canyon" effect, but higher numbers on "enclosed patios" were due to no wind. Now that's a shock.
One thing, a patio with 4 walls and (I'm guessing here) an awning, roof, or multiple overlapping umbrellas kinda barely qualifies as "outdoors" doesn't it? I think I'd be more inclined to describe it as a tent-equivalent.
It's interesting to note that 2 of the 3 chosen pub patios were built like this.

indicating that circumstances can sometimes lead to short-term OTS levels that substantially exceed typical indoor SHS levels.
Sometimes, short-term. Neither are defined, nor is "typical indoor". And they're relying on one instrument for this statement, the Sidepak, which seems to consistently show higher numbers (double to quadruple) than the others. I'm also particularly intrigued by the fact that the Sidepak doesn't show a difference in levels at any distance, the only instrument they used that showed this result. Why is that?
Again, it's important to note that the only way they could make this statement without outright lying was by using the figures for a 19.5 inch distance, assuming the non-smoker doesn't move, and by using extremely short downwind figures....by no means reasonable assumptions.
Just a note.....it should not be possible for outdoor levels of ETS to exceed or equal indoor levels because of dilution alone without some serious fudging with either a/the numbers b/the experimental setup or c/both. This could NOT be accidental, the only assumption that can be made is that this is intentional biasing.

I also found The average indoor SHS levels observed in this study were similar to those observed by Ozkaynak et al., who report that secondhand smoke contributes approximately 30µg m3 on average to indoor particle levels in homes particularly interesting, in that that number is lower than the EPA standard. With the windows and doors closed.

I'm (yet again) a little puzzled looking at table 6. Why was the pzb only used in the indoor measurements? Why was the sidepak only used in the sidewalk cafe and restaurant patio measurements? Why are we comparing the results from 2 different instruments in 2 completely different circumstances? And what "normal conditions" were they expecting to emulate by taking measurements at 0.25 meter (appx 10 inches)?

In the "indoor wind emulation" experiment demonstrates how wind can elevate OTS levels in downwind directions (Figure 2A).For this particular experiment, the fan increased average NEPH levels during smoking by approximately three times at a downwind monitor relative to an upwind monitor they observed an expected condition and assigned a biased conclusion by careful phrasing. See, the SHS is all going one direction because of the wind, so they compare it to the upwind monitor, rather than a monitor in a no-wind situation...and claim that the wind has "elevated" the levels, implying that the wind has increased the levels in general. What remains unsaid is that a non-smoker could easily avoid all of the SHS by sitting/standing upwind, since they claim the upwind monitor has "near-zero" registration.
Note also the adroit avoidance of mentioning that the upwind levels are much lower than would be the case without wind. This again reinforces the impression that the overall levels are higher.

Perhaps someone could explain figure 3 to me....how can the backyard patio measurements be so much lower than the sidewalk cafe measurements? Oh, that's right....2 of the 3 sidewalk cafes had two or more walls sheltering them. I'm also a little curious about A NEPH instrument also registered slightly elevated particle concentrations at a distance of 8 m from a cluster of burning cigarettes and around the corner of the house during a backyard patio experiment and what bearing this "experiment" has on reality.
While we're at it, how many cigarettes are in a "cluster"?
I'm gonna go out on a limb here....was it downwind?

*sigh* Okay, why are we citing an unpublished (and one assumes un-peer-reviewed study) on outdoor levels on pdf page 11? Especially since that's one of the big complaints from TC people when they argue with SR people.
And even more stunning was The observed 8-hr average OTS nicotine levels in locations with relatively stronger winds or a smaller number of smokers were 0.1µg m3 or less. In locations with a larger number of smokers, the levels could reach 1 or 3µg m3. These OTS levels are in the middle range of observed indoor SHS nicotine levels, which can average from 0.01 to 10µg m3. Based on the CARB study, Californians who spend time close to outdoor smokers could potentially be exposed to OTS levels similar to those associated with indoor SHS concentrations.

0.1 to 3 µg m3. And we're supposed to be concerned about this? Since we're already here how can an average 0.01 to 10 µg indoors be of concern? And Dr Siegel, can you please explain to me how levels of nicotine that low indoors translate into multiple cigarettes or even a pack (as I have seen claimed) over an 8 hour period? And why are we now switching to a discussion of nicotine levels when the whole study has been about 2.5PM? Just so we can justify claiming indoor and outdoor exposure are equivalent?
See, here's the problem.....my cigarettes have average 2mg of nicotine each.....so apparently we're talking about somewhere in between 1/20,000 (at 0.1µg) and 1/666 (at 3µg) of 1 cigarette worth of exposure outdoors. And somewhere in between 1/200,000 (at 0.01µg) and 1/200 (at 10µg) of 1 cigarette worth of exposure indoors. Spread out over a cubic meter of air.
Tell me why we're supposed to be worried about this again?

Oh, for....this is getting stupid. If I (a near-complete layman) can spot this many problems with the study, then it's a piece of junk.
On pdf page 12 they've decided to calculate the "incremental exposure contribution" based on the measurement at 0.3 meters as if the non-smoker actually were sitting in the smokers lap. The 0.3 meter (appx 13 inches) number is averaged at 582µg.....while the 0.6 meter (appz 26 inches. Still too close in my estimation, but possible at least) number is 130, fully 25% of the exposure they're estimating. And they're comparing it to the EPA air pollution standard which isn't comparable. And they're admitting it's not comparable, while claiming SHS likely "carries more risk".

Even the conclusion is biased Fourth, OTS levels are highly dependent on wind conditions. Upwind levels are likely to be very low, whereas downwind OTS levels during periods of active smoking can be very large with 10-second peak levels at the closest positions potentially exceeding 1500µg m3 and average levels over the duration of a single cigarette potentially exceeding 500µg m3

While there appear to be 1500µg spikes in the graphs they've shown, it's important to note that those are at 0.3m (13 inch) and 0.5m (19.5 inch) distances, with ONLY one measurement at the 500 level (0.25m or 10 inch)....all the other points on the graphs show drastically lower levels at anywhere from 1/100 to 1/2 of what they're claiming here. And ONLY in the downwind positions.
Interestingly enough, when I look at the graphs for indoor measurements I only see plots for the 0.25m position.
Why do you suppose that is?

And, finally, in the conclusions Support for health-based OTS bans may lie in a potential acute effect on susceptible populations.
After running it through the TC newspeak filter we get.....the numbers are too low to support what we want, so we need to find some population group that's susceptible at these levels and parade them in front of the media to garner sympathy and cram outdoor bans through based on protection of [insert group here].
Then they go on to name possible candidates.

How did this piece of junk get published, let alone pass peer review?

response to Dr Siegel

Dr Siegel:

"No - there are other exposures that can also cause the same diseases. For heart disease, there is also hypertension, diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol. For lung cancer, there is also arsenic and radon. For chronic lung disease, there are also some occupational exposures."

Unfortunately there's quite a bit more than that as confounders ...as examples:

Occupational::
Australian meat workers found with an SIR 164, 95% CI 97 to 259 (which is referred to as non-significant) for lung cancer

New Zealand pulp and paper workers at SMR = 1.33, 95% CI 0.94-1.83, 37 deaths for lung cancer (again "not significantly significant")

Female agricultural workershad an OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.7-4.4 for lung cancer (again stated as statistically insignificant)....apparently this occupation is protective for breast cancer in post-menopausal women, though.

Also at increased risk....miners (all forms), anybody dealing with diesel exhaust on the job, sandblasters, quarry and foundry workers, grinders, stonecutters, and a truckload of others.

Diet:

In women lung cancer risk increased for total meat consumption (OR=1.6, C.I. 1.1-2.4), red meat (OR=1.8, C.I., 1.2-2.7), well-done red meat (OR=1.5, C.I.s, 1.1-2.1) and fried red meat (OR=1.5, C.I., 1.1-2.0), (interesting, these guys consider these numbers significant at overall 1.04 to 1.09)

This study found lung cancer risk increased from NDMA intake in foods (fish, poultry, cured and salted meats) as well as beer and hard alcohol i intake. (although all of the number ranges crossed 0, so I'm a little unsure how it was considered significant)

The mediterranean diet apparently has a protective effect (and, by extension, the North American diet not so much) for lung cancer.......we found a protective effect for high consumption of carrots (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.42-1.05), tomatoes (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.34-1.03), white meat (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.42-1.02), exclusive use of olive oil (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.45-0.99),and regular consumption of sage(OR=0.43,95% CI=0.29-0.65)

Increased levels of dietary zinc, copper and selenium as well as folate intake , phytoestrogens , beta carotene, raw fruits and vegetables, and vitamin E supplements have all shown a protective effect for lung cancer.

*takes a deep breath*

And, There was a positive dose-response relation between the consumption of processed meats (luncheon meats, bacon, sausage), dairy foods (whole milk, regular ice cream), eggs, and particular desserts (fruit pies, custard/cream pies) and the risk of lung cancer in men.

Environmental:

Wood stoves. After extensive adjustment for all the empirical confounders the odds ratio (OR) for all upper aero-digestive tract cancers was 2.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] : 2.2–3.3)
My guess is that this would be the same for fireplaces, campfires, etc.

Living near heavy industry apparently doubles your risk.

Cooking oil contains acrolein -- found in tobacco and also some cooking oils -- which appears to be a prime cause of smoking-related lung cancer and some nonsmoking-related lung cancers as well, according to studies conducted with lung cancer cells.

Air pollution is listed here as being responsible for 10.7% of lung cancer, radon as 4.5%, and (whoops, someone missed the "tobacco smoke is the worst" message) SHS as 1.6%.

Exposure to human papillomavirus appears to have some bearing on lung cancer incidence.

The ACS also lists arsenic (in drinking water), beryllium. vinyl chloride, nickel chromates, coal products, mustard gas, chloromethyl ethers, and of course genetics as major factors.
Lest we forget, ethnic background and age also must be factored in, it seems.

And, even worse, apparently the type of cigarette (filter or non, hand-rolled or premade, blond or black tobacco, and, yes, tar levels) makes a drastic difference in lung cancer risk for smokers.

Finally, somehow in my haste when posting this I completely forgot to include exercise levels as a major factor in reduction of lung cancer risk. From what I can tell, most of the studies seem to agree that this follows for smokers and non-smokers alike.

My apologies for not posting more of them (do a search for "environmental lung cancer increased risk"....sorry, PubMed won't let me link the search results), but I can only dig through PubMed for so long before my eyes start to cross.

As well, please note.....these are only the lung cancer confounders. The list for CHD and CLD are just as bad.

As usual, most of the studies I checked suggested that 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, etc were statistically insignificant unless we they were talking about tobacco....then those numbers became "significant risk", "moderate high risk", etc.

And only in one case did anybody even think to suggest that not accounting for diet issues as a confounder might be a reason to suspect skewed results on previous studies on smokers, even though most of the studies seem to agree (when they mention it at all) that smokers tend to have a less-healthy diet, get less exercise, and be in the lower income brackets (which often means higher risk jobs like mechanic, truck driver, etc).
While most of the studies seem to factor in a few confounders (usually education and/or income levels), I've yet to see one that accounts for diet, exercise, and occupation.

Anti-everything is the word of the day

Well, I was reading Dr. Siegels blog today, and noticed a comment from an anti-smoking advocate in Hong Kong that kinda made me pause.
I was going to post a response there, but (surprise, surprise) I became a little too verbose.
As a result, this post was born......

Annelise Connell:

Anti-smoking is a misnomer. It is a label invented for propoganda. Big Tobacco refers to pro-clean air activists as "antis" in their internal documents for a reason. But there is no need to accept the slur.

Garbage.
Sounds to me like you've been immersing yourself in the TC propaganda for too long.
Read Carl's remarks and you'll see that the TC movement has nothing to do with air, clean or not.
That makes a sizable portion of the movement anti-smoking. or anti-tobacco if you prefer.

Our group is pro clean air, and anti-air pollution. As such, everyone knows that to eliminate air pollution you must find the souce and eliminate it - offering other options for the desired result. For smoking, the desired result is the nicotine high - not the smoke.

No.
Your group, in particular, is "anti-air pollution".
That does not mean that every (or even most) TC groups are about anything but tobacco.

Smoke from burning leaves? - compost instead.

Oh goody, let's trade visible smoke production for invisible greenhouse gas production.
By the way, which form of composting are we talking about, aerobic or anaerobic?
Please explain to me the long term effects of trapping those gases (and bacteria, parasites, etc) in the soil, transferring them into plant matter (through gardening with the result), and then into the human body.
Or are they being released into the wild somewhere en-route to your mouth (say through cooking)?
Please also explain why keeping said decaying matter in close proximity to humans over the long term is or is not a bad thing.

Smoke from charcoal barbeques? - use gas grills instead

*sigh*
Which type of gas are we talking here?
How much pollution and environmental damage is caused in the production of said gas, from start to finish (please include the damage from transporting it)?
Is this a good trade-off, or is it simply foisting off the problem to some less visible or more spread out location?

Smoke from power plants? - save energy instead, and use the cleanest fuel - wind, solar etc

The state of the art for wind, solar, etc is not currently good enough to provide power for the size of the world's population at anything even close to cost-effectiveness.
That might be an option in another decade or two, if we can convince government to invest very heavily in development now.
Even then, I suspect the best alternatives are going to be hydrogen/fusion or solar power satellites.
Want to make a bet on how many NIMBYs pop up when we start talking fusion power plants or microwave power transmission?
I'd also lay odds that you and your brethren will be on the "anti" bandwagon then too.

While we're at it, please tally up the environmental damage caused by the production of solar cells and wind farms.
Please include the damage done to bird populations caused by adding hundreds of large spinning blades in the air, as well as the damage caused in adding the power line framework to and from the new "power farms".
Please show, as well, that it's actually possible to replace the existing infrastructure in terms of actual and consistent power being generated and at a similar cost to both government and the consumer.
Then (and only then) can we discuss whether these potential solutions are really cost effective on an environmental basis.

Tobacco smoke - don't light tobacco. Period. You want nicotine, go get nicotine. But just don't strike the match or use the lighter.

Bad monkey, no banana.
While there is some desire for nicotine involved with a choice to smoke or not, the actual act of smoking is the main thing for a great many.
NRT does not alleviate that as an issue.
Your group claims to be supported by individual donations, but the inclusion of SHS and promotion of NRT seem a little off-topic for your stated goals.
Can you please post the donation lists to your site so we may all see that there is no funding from pharmaceutical interests.

The propoganda seeks to direct you to other labels "too far", "not far enough". It is all misdirection to avoid the main issue - clean air.

I am pro-clean air. No other label sticks.

We'll ignore for the moment that you labeled yourself as "anti-pollution" (rather than "pro-clean air") just a couple of paragraphs ago.
You seem to be saying that there is no such thing as "too far" here.
Is that accurate?
Going by the "stated goals" on your site I'd have to say your suggested policies as stated are impractical, ill-thought, and that you have made little or no attempt to suggest viable alternatives.

From the site:

What must Government and LegCo do?

Power companies must show an aggressive plan to reduce emissions by 90% or lose their licenses.

Woopsy. How are they expected to do this?
I can see no discussion of options on your site, except for a recommendation of LNG. While LNG is less polluting to a certain degree (and please note, it's still a fairly major emitter of greenhouse gases...on top of being more expensive), it's real benefit is that the majority of the pollution/environmental damage is done in unpopulated areas. More NIMBYism at it's finest.
I also note no discussion of what "emissions" we're talking about...are we talking simply particulate matter (which a switch to LNG entirely might decrease by 90%), or are we talking greenhouse gases (which the same switch might decrease by perhaps 40-50%)?
Just to be at least a *little* uncritical (and slightly positive...a novelty for me) somewhere in here, I would suggest pushing your government to begin experimentation into MHD generation, as it can be used with coal (which you state is already what is being used), but increases efficiency and thereby decreases pollution.
There was some good research on MHD done in the US in the 60's (Avro was the company doing it I believe), but funding was dropped by the guvmint in favor of nuclear, IIRC.
Or is this just a black/white coal bad/solar good (ugh. me ugluk) argument?
And, no, discussion of a single experimental wind farm does not qualify as suggesting an alternative.

Bus companies must show an aggressive plan to reduce emissions by 80% or lose their licenses.

Ummm. And the alternative is.....?
I note your site suggests eliminating the subsidy and using that money for "pollution-free" (which aren't) hybrid buses.
That, according to you will replace half of the current "polluting" diesels.
What about the other half?
What about the the increase in buses needed, since you also advocate not building 15 new roads and increasing road/tunnel tolls to reduce traffic?

Ban new diesel mini-buses and passenger vans, phase out all pre Euro III vehicles by 2008

Again, you don't seem to suggest a viable alternative...just an outright ban. We're talking a massive cost to the driver due to replacement of vehicles, but no discussion of how people are going to afford this or bettering transit options. This is the mentality that gets you labeled an "anti", as an "anti" is simply against something, regardless of the societal cost or discussion of whether it's even possible. A "pro" would at least be able to show some viable alternatives.

From what I see, I'd have to agree that you are anti-pollution...although from what I can see I would use a completely different term....luddite.

By the way, good luck with that IT career in the future you and yours are pushing for.
It's probably the most resource wasteful (and expendable) career choice you could have made.