No new evidence? New petition launched

Four years ago the European Commission published an indoor air quality standard entitled:

Ventilation for non-residential buildings - Performance

requirements for ventilation and room-conditioning systems

The document refers to smoking several times. One example:

The level of air quality required, and the method of classification applied shall be specified. Whether smoking is allowed or not is an important input. The necessary air flow rates to achieve the specified requirements shall be calculated. If nothing is declared, the rates of outdoor air per person for Indoor Air Quality category IDA 2 can be used as a default.

The European Commission, the details of whose forthcoming (and rather savage) revised tobacco directive have been leaked to the press, have published evidence that tobacco smoke can be dealt with in the same way as any other toxin. In essence this is (1) establishing a safe air quality standard; (2) advising how to remove the toxins in cases where the air quality standard is breached.

Somehow in spite of having published this guidance on air quality, the European Commission has adopted an authoritarian stance recommending smoking bans in all indoor workplaces everywhere in Europe, as if there were no other solution available to a mild toxicity problem.

PE 01451, Review of smoking ban

The smoking ban in Scotland is based on this extreme position, and the new petition PE 01451 asks the Scottish Parliament to request the Scottish Government to take seriously the existence of a European standard that should enable smoking rooms to operate.

A FOI request established that the Scottish Government had no record of this standard as of last summer, even though it was published in 2008. It is therefore new evidence, which the Parliament did not have access to when the legislation went through in 2005. All they had (or all they paid attention to) was the mantras 'there is no safe level of secondary smoke' and 'ventilation doesn't work'.

Research on the effects of smoking

A headline today states Tobacco smoke tied to flu complications in kids – another story written to suggest that correlation and causation are the same thing. I have the feeling that the proportion of children admitted to hospital with flu symptoms must be quite small and I am quite sure that we are not being given other correlations, such as links with deprivation.

News like this comes out regularly and plentifully. It is hard to escape the conclusion that good money is being spent on studies on every single aspect of smoking, and it is hard to see what purpose it serves other than bolstering a view that tobacco is a dangerous legal substance and attempts to restrict its use are justified. ASH Scotland publishes a daily bulletin, with a rundown of the latest tobacco research added every Friday: this week there were over 50 studies under 29 headings. This means not far off three thousand studies on an annual basis.

This seems a lot of research into smoking and one can only wonder how much has clinical rather than political value – once again I link to this page from Cancer Research UK, where they say clearly enough that research conclusions should encourage further restrictions on smoking in order to qualify for a grant. It also states that most research grants come in at between £20,000 and £40,000. Of course they don't fund all the studies on tobacco, but one gets a sense of the huge amount of money going into this kind of research.

My range of experience does not allow me to make sense of an article entitled 'Interaction between Smoking and HLA-DRB1*04 Gene Is Associated with a High Cardiovascular Risk in Brazilian Amazon Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis'. Is it designed to encourage anti-tobacco policies in the Brazilian Amazon? Or does it have any clinical relevance?

Smoking can damage the resale value of your car (but we'll clean it up for you)

I observed this, posted on Facebook by Action on Smoking and Health. On the face of it, it just tells you how smelly smoking makes your car – en passant, drawing attention to the BMA's proposals to ban smoking in cars.  But it concludes:

“You are likely never to get rid of the smoking smell completely, but a comprehensive interior clean from a professional automotive cleaning specialist should make a big difference. This clean may cost you in the region of £150, but should help ensure it attracts interest from buyers in the first instance, and will ultimately help achieve a better price for the car,” [Peter Grøftehauge, Autorola’s chief executive] added.

 You can really trust ASH not to spot when somebody's jumping on the bandwagon for a fast buck, can't you? For valeting services, look no further.

Maryland Judge agrees no evidence that smoke a nuisance, but with caveat

The story is here, previously reported on this blog here. Anti-smoking campaigner James Repace represented the claimant in a case that aimed to show that secondary smoke provided a significant nuisance to his client, and that the housing provider failed to deal adequately with the problem.

Northrop said that the level of secondhand smoke entering David Schuman’s townhouse was not an actionable nuisance. Nor did he see bad faith in GHI's handling of Schuman’s complaints.

What I don't understand is this, near the foot of the article:

Northrop found in favor of the defendant on eight of the nine counts, but he granted a permanent injunction against inside smoking by Mr. and Mrs. Popovic.

Mr Popovich was reported to have ceased smoking in his home from consideration of his wife's illness. Why apply an injunction if the smoke wasn't actionable ... and if the information was available that Mr and Mrs Popovich were no longer smoking at home, surely the injunction was superfluous anyway.

Foster parents smoking in Essex

The Evening Standard reports that a couple's attempt to foster children has been foiled following the husband's revelation that he had smoked two cigars within an 18-month period.

The report states that the parents were told specifically that prospective parents must not have smoked for a year prior to fostering, and the two cigars rendered the couple ineligible to be foster carers. This information is not given in the Essex Adoption Service Policy Statement (2008):

It has been shown that children’s health is adversely affected by passive smoking. The adoption service will not exclude smokers as prospective adopters, but is very unlikely to place babies under the age of 2, or place any children who have asthma or respiratory conditions, with people who smoke.

(So passive smoking is very risky to children's health, but in most cases we won't let that stand in our way. We'll just make you feel bad about smoking.) Nor is it given in the relevant guidelines on becoming a foster carer (2010):

If you smoke, you will not be allowed to care for a child under the age of five or a child who has any kind of respiratory problem.

Nothing is stated in either document about not having smoked for at least a year prior to adoption or fostering.

Essex County is quoted: "We are not able to comment on individual cases but deciding not to pursue an application is not a decision that is taken lightly." 


This decision, based on two cigars, seems to have been made very lightly indeed. 

Mecca gains concession to extend gambling into smoking area

Bingo players are to be allowed hand-held devices to enable them to play bingo while 'out for a smoke', after a bid to extend the gambling area of bingo was granted by Edinburgh City's licensing board. Not all councillors approved the measure, one (Cllr Eric Barry) being quoted as saying:  "This actually goes against public health by allowing people to spend longer in a smoking area while playing this game." 

Although the Bingo Association was under no illusions about the impact of the smoking ban for bingo, a petition they ran in 2007 requested only a review of the tax levied on bingo, not a review of the ban – and even this, directed against the Scottish Parliament, could only plea for the Scottish Government to put the case to the Westminster Government. One can only guess why the Bingo Association did not protest the smoking ban itself – the Scottish Government had the power to change the smoking ban, but not to resolve the taxation issue. The petitions committee did not permit Mike Lowe of Premier Bingo, called as a witness to his petition, to expand on the issue of the smoking ban. All Sir Peter Fry could say was:

The third whammy is the effect of the smoking ban. We want to be in business when society accepts the smoking ban, as it has accepted the smoking ban in cinemas. Cinemas used to be full of smoke, but now people cannot smoke in them and we do not find the public marching out saying that they will never go again because they cannot smoke there. That process takes time so, for that time, my members want to stay in business.

For whatever reason, the ban was seen as set in stone, and not something that the industry should challenge. Instead of this, bingo pleads with the licensing board to extend its gambling operation from one part of the property to another. You can drink and gamble inside but not smoke, you can smoke and gamble in the smoking area (can you drink?) – and Cllr Barry would have prevented the extension of gambling to the smoking area, as people should not be 'allowed' to be exposed to tobacco smoke while gambling! One player commented to the Daily Record: "It will give people the opportunity to smoke, which is what people use (sic) to do at bingo halls. But it will also separate the smokers from nonsmokers, and people go to bingo halls to socialise." The smoking ban broke up this sociability in the first place. 


Cllr Barry's view demonstrates the hysteria that exists today about secondary smoke, described here in a comment on a recent story about smoking bans in mental health settings:

Then you claim that there should be a “right to a smokefree environment”. Where did this “right” come from – the wishing well at the Castle of Fantasy? The bulk of what is in tobacco smoke is already in the air generally. It is also the same in other forms of smoke, e.g., cooking, heating, candle. And there is no evidence that these constitute any physical harm as they are typically encountered, particularly outdoors. There is evidence, however, that there are now some that are suffering neurotic tendencies, e.g., anxiety reactions, hypochondria, somatization. Antismoking propaganda has manufactured secondhand smoke (SHS) into a bio-weapon-like phenomenon, extraordinarily different to anything else on earth. Those that have lapped up this propaganda are now in irrational belief and fear concerning SHS, hyper-reacting to it as if it was sarin gas. They are the hand-wavers and hand-to-mouthers at the prospect of a whiff of SHS, utterly convinced that a whiff of SHS will drop them dead on the spot. Unfortunately, their neurosis has been promoted by the medical establishment. These neurotics act like a cult whose primary belief is to avoid any SHS exposure and a “right” to a smokefree environment. And officialdom accommodates and reinforces their delusion because this is the primary means to the eugenics smokefree “utopia”.

More on bingo in Scotland here.

Air quality quandary

A study has been published that sets out to measure the impact of providing air cleaning equipment and a health coach to families with a smoker, on secondary smoke exposure in the home. The results are shown here and discussed here.

Dividing the participants three ways, they discovered points of note. The groups included two (out of three) that were provided with air cleaners and professional coaching on smoke exposure. The third group had neither equipment nor coaching provided. Concerning symptoms experienced by the children involved, who were asthmatic, the difference between the two groups provided with air-cleaning equipment was negligible. Provision of a health coach, whose advice was confined to the issue of secondary smoke exposure, did not make any difference to the children's symptoms.

Only smoking households were included and so no comparison was made between smoking and non-smoking households using air-cleaning equipment.

The authors still felt they could conclude: 'Although the use of air cleaners can result in a significant reduction in indoor PM concentrations and a significant increase in symptom-free days, it is not enough to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke.' Their reasoning was that they could still detect nicotine in the children even though the air cleaning equipment was in use.

This is where my understanding of the issues is somewhat patchy. I am struggling a little to see what damage is being done in the context of this study if the symptoms of subjects are being relieved. So what, if there is trace cotinine in the urine of those children?

The study itself was set up by a body known as PREACH (yes, PREACH): Particulate Reduction Education in City Homes. In terms of a study it is deliberately vague, for example it says that people are given HEPA air cleaners, but this isn't very useful information as even a brief search will show quite a few different models. Since the study seems designed to show, not that air cleaning systems work but that they are of limited use against secondary smoke, it is interesting that they don't specify which model they are using – they would surely have indicated if they had used a top-of-the-range model. In fact they are not interested in the technicalities, only in the goal of reducing parental smoking.

Perhaps they were irked by the results, especially that providing a health coach didn't improve the children's symptoms! Their focus on smoke as the only relevant pollutant is quite marked as we see in the press release linked above. For example:

Parents should be counseled to implement a total ban on indoor smoking and use air cleaners only as a temporary tool on the way to achieving a smoke-free household, the Hopkins team concludes in the Aug. 1 issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. [emphasis added]

and: 

Because smoking is a main driver of indoor air pollution, the researchers recommend the use of air cleaners even in smoke-free homes if they are part of multi-family dwellings in which second-hand smoke can easily seep in from surrounding units.

This even though the single greatest difference made to symptoms in the study was made by the provision of air-cleaning equipment. It is quite extraordinary to advise parents to dump the air cleaning equipment once they have managed to stop smoking, and shows pretty near tunnel vision and misunderstanding of the purpose of the equipment. They only use they perceive for this equipment in non-smoking households is to protect against smoke entering the apartment from other flats ... this eventuality in itself probably a fantasy. 


It is excellent that at least they have started looking into the use of these machines to help relieve air quality problems in people's homes. It would be even more productive to abandon attempts to re-educate parents into reducing the time they spend with their offspring if such education, as in this study, makes no clear difference to the outcome.

Air quality standard eliminates need for smoking ban

Bill Gibson of TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition) attended last month's meeting at Westminster supporting an amendment to the smoking ban. His response is published below (Annandale Herald, 7 July):

 

 There is indeed a European-approved air quality standard (EN 13779) as stated in this letter. This standard acknowledges that smoking is an important factor in air quality but simply handles smoky air differently from air in a non-smoking environment. 

It doesn't state that it's impossible to remove smoke from the air, in spite of what the EU published two years after this standard appeared. 'There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and notions such as a threshold value for toxicity from second-hand smoke should be rejected, as they are contradicted by scientific evidence.' Eh? The air quality standard (EN 13779) doesn't even argue that smoke isn't toxic – in fact it  specifies tobacco smoke as an air quality issue that must be resolved in order to achieve good indoor air. The idea that tobacco smoke is the only pollutant that cannot be dealt with effectively by technology is laughable. 

Air Manager is an officially approved air cleaning system. Question 7 of its Frequently Asked Questions reads 'Does Air Manager remove harmful chemicals?' The answer: 'Yes. AirManager is scientifically proven to remove chemicals, VOCs (volatile organic compounds), tobacco smoke etc in excess of 99.999% in a single pass.' I can only repeat, Air Manager is an officially approved system (UK Accreditation Service). Why do they go to the trouble of approving this technology, only to then allow another government department to convince the public that it doesn't really work?

Bill Gibson does right to draw attention to EN 13779 (air quality standard) document and show its relevance in the smoking ban impasse.

Update 9 August: The EC has carelessly lost track of the link to the key document, EN 13779. Courtesy of Freedom2Choose we now have an alternative link to the original document.

Cabin crew more at risk from AIDS and air accidents than cancer, says study

From Lifestyle Reviews – a 2002 study shows that cabin crew studied in Germany between 1960 and 1997 died more frequently from accidents and from acquired immunodeficiency syndrome than from many types of lung cancer and that 'occupational hazards  seem not to contribute strongly to the mortality of airline cabin attendants'. Lung cancer incidence was low, even though exposure to SHS occurred commonly in aircraft until the mid-1990s.

Male and female data shown.

Aeroplanes are fertile environments for cross-infection.Thoroughly ventilating aircraft is imperative for maintaining air quality – smoke, as anywhere, constitutes a minor pollutant.

Nevada allows food service in (smoking) bars

Acting on representations from the catering and hospitality trade Nevada prepares to allow food service in bars, and smoking in family restaurants where a separate room is available.

It appears that in Nevada, it is accepted that smoking restrictions (forcing establishments to choose between allowing smoking and providing a food service) have led to sharp drops in income for businesses. No guff about supermarket prices here.

The overturned bill that voters approved in 2006 banned the provision of food by smoking taverns. Although unlike Scottish law it allowed some provision for smokers, it still cost the hospitality industry heavily. More here. Here. the American Lung Association is protesting about potential loss of life – a tad melodramatically, since  secondary smoke is certainly not as lethal as they claim and quite possibly not lethal at all. Furthermore, nobody is banning the provision of proper air management/cleaning systems that clean air thoroughly.

More again here, from Marcus Aurelius, including a link on undue influence (Nicorette).

Dave Atherton debates Deborah Arnott on passive smoking and denormalisation

The crucial question: Deborah Arnott of Action on Smoking and Health takes on Dave Atherton of Freedom2Choose.

Test your knowledge of the Framework Convention

Light blogging day today. I decided to do this test on tobacco control issues and the Framework Convention. Scoring 3/10 on the first attempt, I took the test again and persevered until I reached no right answers at all. It's the only sane response. The first question asks whether it is 'ok' to have smoking rooms in bars and restaurants. The answer, taken from Article 8 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, concludes 'there is no safe level of secondary smoke and notions such as a threshold value of toxicity from second-hand smoke should be rejected'. No reason is given for this command to leave common sense at the door. Anything that doesn't kill on impact has a safe level, and people can be exposed to secondary smoke for decades without ill effects. Another question asks if tobacco advertising is acceptable if it doesn't glamourise tobacco. Answer no: advertising is an attempt to normalise tobacco use. Actually, it's an attempt to sell specific brands of tobacco. The product is legal. Normalisation is a given. Any advertising wishes to make its product a household name, like fairy liquid or After Eights.

The test goes on to check the participants' knowledge of the Framework Convention's version of tobacco control wisdom, using a 'true or false' model. Expect a high score if you see the world through the same lens as the Framework Convention – driven by ideology and impervious to common sense.

Cincinnati votes against smoking ban

Family responsibilities have taken me away for a few days. To get back in the water slowly here is a story from Cincinnati, where a vote has overturned the smoking ban on what seem to be libertarian grounds, combined with a heap of scepticism about tobacco control propaganda.

I like this:

the majority in the room – some of them offering a standing ovation – won the battle. Many said they didn’t believe studies that showed the harms of secondhand smoke, noting some of them are sponsored by foundations that oppose smoking.

Some criticized doctors and the medical community for taking a position on the issue. Ban critic Charlie Coleman, a county resident for more than 60 years, drew raucous applause when he compared anti-smoking efforts to tactics used by dictators such as Hitler.

Good to see that 'vested interests' are acknowledged to exist in tobacco control. As for the comparisons with Hitler, I'm not up on the historical detail. But it is clear that a persecution mentality exists within tobacco control, as is evident from Michael Seigel's post on US medical establishments refusing employment to anyone with nicotine traces in their system: whether from cigarettes, secondary smoke or even from nicotine patches or e-cigarettes from people who are attempting to quit smoking. Such bans on employing (passive or ex-) smokers are even too much for the New York Times. 

We are told that “At least 88 people … could die, or will die, in 2011” from secondary smoke exposure as a direct result of the vote against the ban. The population of Cincinnati is over 333,000. Any speculation identifying the cause of any death as secondary smoke exposure has to be very tenuous. Why don't they campaign against the war in Afghanistan instead?

Aberdeen City Council moderates no-smoking policy for foster carers

From this:

Former smokers would have to provide “evidence” that they had stopped for at least a year before being considered for foster care or adoption placements, while no child born in a non-smoking family would be placed in the care of a smoker. 

To this:

It was agreed that smokers will no longer be recruited to care for children who are under the age of five, have respiratory problems, are from a non-smoking birth family or have a disability which means they are unable to play outside. [emphasis added]

I suppose that's some kind of progress. The basic difference is that Aberdeen Council no longer intends an outright ban, but  still draws the line at allowing smokers to adopt or foster under-fives and children in certain other exempted groups described above.

What's this about smokers not being recruited to care for children from a non-smoking birth family? Of all the categories of children they wish to protect from smokers, this is the most bewildering. They actually register when a child (at whatever tender age) is taken into care whether either one or both its parents or carers smokes, for the purpose of deciding future care arrangements? Nothing would surprise me less, but how incredibly irrelevant to a successful outcome in fostering or adopting children can they get?

Not everyone welcomes the city council's slightly less draconian position: '... social work committee members were warned yesterday that the council could face legal action in the future if the health of youngsters who are placed with smokers is damaged'. Whoever issues these dire warnings (the news report doesn't identify them) clearly believes the council's first concern should be protecting itself against the future claims of children exposed to secondary smoking during their time in foster care. The city council's future liability drove the move towards a total ban: 'The move will be considered amid fears the council could be held liable if youngsters in care develop future health problems linked to passive smoking.' Is this really likely? Part of my letter to the Social Work convener said:

I simply cannot believe that neglected, abandoned or orphaned children would agree that institutional care is preferable to being placed with a family, provided the commitment was there to support them in that family, just because someone in the family smoked. Any decision about care, access or custody that considers smoking as any way relevant is a very poor judgement call for the vast majority of children.  

No child will thank the council for depriving it of a family home out of a fear of liability. This is absolutely not the criterion on which adoption policy should be judged. Those responsible for children's welfare must consider the overall suitability of those offering to adopt and foster children, not be driven by peripheral policy considerations that exclude many such people.

It's not as if Aberdeen City Council hasn't plenty of children on its hands.