As a result of my shock at the smoking ban passed by the Minneapolis City Council, and on the thin hope that anyone really wants honest information about cigarette smoking, I'll continue to post more information to demonstrate just how outrageously far from objective reality we've been drug by organizations we should have been able to trust.

Let's begin with an analysis of secondhand smoke by The Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is part of the United States Library of Congress, and provides nonpartisan information on any subject of interest to Congress. CRS products undergo careful review for accuracy, thoroughness, technical soundness, balance, nonpartisanship and objectivity.

In response to a request from the US Congress, the Congressional Research Service undertook an analysis of the potential health effects of ETS. In particular, the analysis looked at the work on ETS which has appeared since the publication of the EPA's findings. Four studies in particular were examined -- Kabat [14], Fontham [15], Brownson [16], Stockwell [17].

Of these studies, two show no increased average risk (Kabat and Brownson), one shows a barely statistically significant risk (Fontham),
and one shows an increased average risk which is nonetheless not statistically significant at 95% confidence level (Stockwell [18]).

Moreover, if we have to take the Fontham study, which alone of these four shows a statistically significant average increased risk, and as the relevant question about the degree of risk suggested, then in the words of the Congressional Research Service the chance of dying of lung cancer over one's lifetime "for a person exposed only to background ETS, the number drops to about 7/100 of one percent. Moreover, using data from the Brownson study, "there are no annual lung cancer deaths from ETS."

No annual lung cancer deaths from ETS? None? Not even one? Contrast that with claims you've heard, and will continue to hear from so many organizations...

Here's a whole website from the Enivonmental Protection Agency, which claims that ETS causes 3,000 deaths/year. Yesterday, in The oft-repeated lie I posted what a federal judge said in blasting the EPA's results, and told you that the EPA simply ignored the ruling.

Then, based on false numbers from the EPA and others, we've seen elaborations of the lie, such as on this website that gives the impression that secondhand smoke is the greatest danger we face.

Another site expands the lie (from NO deaths, remember) much further still:

It is estimated that 6000 Americans actually DIE from second hand smoke every year. This includes babies who die from crib death, husbands or wives of smokers, who die from lung cancer from their spouse’s smoke, and children who died from untreatable pneumonia, which could have been prevented if the parents were not smoking in the home. In addition to those deaths, there are millions of Americans made sick or otherwise affected by second hand smoke.

Once a lie gets rolling, and everybody wants to lead the way in combating an evil, there is only one direction to go... thus from the Chenango Tobacco-Free Coalition, in New York, we find that "Each year, secondhand smoke kills an estimated 62,000 nonsmokers, including approximately 3,000 deaths due to lung cancer and 35,000 deaths due to heart disease among nonsmokers each year".

Not to be outdone, the Riley Hospital for Children claims "Approximately 65,000 premature and needless deaths are attributed to regular exposure to second hand smoke annually, including more than 6,000 child deaths."

The Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition, Inc. goes still further, claiming 4,600 infant deaths each year, just from mothers who smoke during pregnancy.

From the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), they quote The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that second hand smoke sometimes called environmental tobacco smoke or ETS, causes 35,000 to 62,000 deaths a year from heart disease in nonsmokers.

Notice the shift from just cancer to cancer plus heart disease? When a lie is being pushed, numbers and causes must be expanded, or outrage will fade, donations will dry up, and there will be no NEWS to report.

How about heart disease? Here's one study, talking about FIRSTHAND smoke:

"No statistically significant relationship was found in either community between smoking and coronary heart disease, hypertension or somatic complaints"

1477. University of Texas School of Allied Health Sciences. Philips, B.U., Jr.; Bruhn, J.G. "Smoking Habits and Reported Illness in Two Communities With Different Systems of Social Support." FUNDING: Univ. of Texas; National Institute of Mental Health. 1981-83.

No relationship, for smokers, much less secondhand smoke. Another study, again about firsthand smokers:

Pipe smokers have a higher intake of nicotine than cigarette smokers (as measured by serum and urinary cotinine levels). "Since pipe smokers have little excess risk of CHD [chronic heart disease], higher chronic nicotine exposure is unlikely to be the cause of the excess seen in cigarette smokers."

0534. Medical College of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Dept. of Environmental and Preventative Medicine (England). Wald, M.J.; Bailey, A. "Nicotine and Heart Disease.".

Or, another, about secondhand smoke:

"No difference in prevalence of cardiovascular symptoms was found [between those living with smokers and those not]"

0591. West of Scotland Cancer Surveillance Unit, Ruchill Hospital (Scotland). Gillis, C.R.; Hole, D.J.; Hawthorne, V.M. "Health Effects of Exposure to ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke] in the West of Scotland." Cohort of 16,171 (45-64 years old) screened in 1972 and 1976.

Confusing, isn't it? These are not my words, they're actual clips from study reports. You may notice that these quotes are somewhat subdued, not the stuff that makes good media headlines. All of these studies are several years old, and I originally took them from the website of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), a governmental agency. With these studies being well known within our government, you might wonder just how the anti-smoking campaign has gotten so rabidly out of control. The answer is quite simple: greed and politics... greed by those profiting from the anti-smoking movement, and either ignorant or deliberate pandering by those trying to buy votes.

The simple truth? Virtually everything the public has come to accept as "common knowledge" about smoking is a bald-faced lie, repeated and exaggerated ad nauseam. I'm sure that many of those who have participated did so out of ignorance, and from a trust of organizations that should have been telling the truth. Many others, though, are perfectly aware of their lies, and simply don't care. Truth has long since become almost irrelevant in their lust for greater control and money.