">
Link to the Second Hand Smoke study
commissioned by the
World Health Organization.

This study examined how exposure
affected Spouses of Smokers
Children's Exposure and Workplace
Exposure to Second Hand Smoke
Oxford University Press
Link to the results of the Second Hand
Smoke study that focused its attention
on 35, 561 non smokers who were
married to smokers. The study period
was 39 years and examined coronary
heart disease, lung cancer, and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
related to smoking.  bmjjournals.com
Home   |   About   |   F.A.Q   |   News   |   Join   |   Contact   |  Site Map
Privacy Policy
© Copyright 2005 socialsmokers.org
Link to the smokersclub.com Smoking Studies
Home   |   About Us   |  F.A.Q   |   News   |   Membership   |   Contact Us   |  Site Map
Answer a One Question Survey
Year




1981
1982
1983
1983
1983
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1984
1985
1985
1985
1986
1986
1986
1986
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1988
1988
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1991
1992
1992
1993
1993
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
1997
The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed. In the Swartz (1996),
Jöckel-BIPS (1997) and Nyberg (1997) studies, relative risk and confidence
interval data were reported for the sexes combined. These data were separated
based on the respective number of cases by sex, assuming the same relative
risk for each sex.
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER  
AMONG NONSMOKERS MARRIED TO SMOKERS
Second Hand Smoke Studies and how to understand them:

This is one of the most complete lists of the studies of second smoke exposure and
lung cancer that you will find. The numbers to pay attention to are located in the
columns that are titled Relative Risk (RR)  and Confidence Interval (CI).

Here's what to keep in mind:

¶ Relative risks below 2.0 or 3.0 are generally viewed with suspicion by
epidemiologists because of the risk of contamination of the studies by confounding
variables and/or biases and statistical error.

¶ An RR of 1.0 means no increased risk.  An RR of less than 1.0 can evenindicate
the substance being studied (in this case, ETS) is actually either curative or
protective.

¶ If the  confidence interval includes 1.0 (for instance, 0.56-1.40), it means the
results lack statistical significance, and are, therefore, likely to be no more telling
than a random toss of the dice.  Remember, RR's are just a mathe-matical game,
and translated to real life, it's equally possible that the actual risks are anywhere in
the range of 0.56 to 1.40.  And note that even thehighest number there is below 2.0.

¶ Keep in mind, too, that these are merely textbook statistical standards that can
only, at best, indicate statistical correlations, and cannot prove that one thing
"causes" another.   In fact, the basic tenet of epidmiology (the science of statistics)
is that: Correlation is not Causation. And, just for example, Dr. Alvan Feinstein, head
of Yale's Department of Epidemiolgy, discovered a a statistically high correlation
between  AIDS and frequent video-tape renting. As he then pointed out in testimony
to Congress, this surely didn't mean that videos cause AIDS.

Examine this list of studies on Second Hand Smoke closely and decide for yourself,
the risk that second hand smoke exposure has on public health.
    Under 1: Exposure might be beneficial
Location
By Country



USA
Hong Kong
USA
USA
Greece
USA
USA
Japan
Japan
USA
USA
USA
Hong Kong
USA
Japan
Japan
UK
UK
USA
China
USA
USA
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Sweden
USA
China
Japan
Japan
Korea
Korea
Scotland
Scotland
Sweden
USA
USA
Greece
Japan
China
China
USA
USA
China
China
USA
USA
USA
Russia
USA
USA
USA
USA
China
China
China
USA
USA
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Taiwan
Sweden
Sweden
Number
of lung
cancers


153
84
22
8
77
41
11
200
64
24
12
134
60
29
94
19
32
15
19
246
20
8
86
199
70
8
54
22
90
75
13
6
3
34
144
44
90
144
417
54
431
62
38
75
651
39
21
162
67
39
185
72
230
82
135
150
97
53
18
242
62
105
89
35
Sex of
the
subject


F
F
F
M
F
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
M
F
M
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
F
M
Average
Relative
Risk


1.18
0.75
2.07
1.97
2.08
0.8
0.51
1.45
2.24
0.79
1
1.23
2.01
1.2
1.5
1.8
1
1.3
1.68
1.19
2.2
4.82
1.64
1.65
1.2
2.02
2.16
2.25
1.08
1.63
2.73
1.89
3.52
1.26
0.75
0.75
2.11
1.13
0.7
0.77
1
1.6
1.66
1.09
1.29
0.58
1.47
1.66
1.08
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.16
2.53
1.11
1.2
1.1
1.58
1.58
0.93
0.93
1.3
1.2
1.2
Relative Risk
fluctuation
(min/max)
(95% confidence
interval)
(0.90 - 1.54)
(0.43 - 1.30)
(0.81 - 5.25)
(0.38-10.32)
(1.20-3.59)
(0.34-1.90)
(0.14-1.79)
(1.02-2.08)
(1.19-4.22)
(0.25-2.45)
(0.20-5.07)
(0.81-1.87)
(1.09-3.72)
(0.50-3.30)
(0.90-2.80)
(0.40-7.00)
(0.37-2.71)
(0.38-4.39)
(0.39-6.90)
(0.82-1.73)
(0.80-6.60)
(0.63-36.56)
(0.87-3.09)
(1.16-2.35)
(0.70-2.10)
(0.48-8.56)
(1.08-4.29)
(0.80-8.80)
(0.64-1.82)
(0.92-2.87)
(0.49-15.21)
(0.22-16.12)
(0.32-38.65)
(0.57-2.81)
(0.47-1.20)
(0.31-1.78)
(1.09-4.08)
(0.78-1.63)
(0.60-0.90)
(0.30-1.96)
(0.80-1.20)
(0.80-3.00)
(0.73-3.78)
(0.64-1.85)
(1.04-1.60)
(0.30-1.13)
(0.55-3.94)
(1.12-2.46)
(0.60-1.94)
(0.67-3.82)
(0.72-1.68)
(0.60-2.03)
(0.80-1.69)
(1.26-5.10)
(0.67-1.84)
(0.80-1.60)
(0.60-1.80)
(0.74-3.38)
(0.52-4.81)
(0.66-1.31)
(0.52-1.67)
(0.70-2.50)
(0.74-1.94)
(0.57-2.55)
    Under 2: No Causal Relationship
3-4:        Mild Causal Relationship
    5-6:        Casual Causal Relationship
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER
AMONG NONSMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN THE
WORKPLACE





Year





1984
1984
1985
1985
1986
1986
1987
1988
1990
1990
1990
1992
1992
1994
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1997
Location





USA
USA
USA
USA
UK
UK
Hong Kong
Japan
USA
Greece
China
USA
USA
USA
Russia
USA
USA
USA
China
China
Germany
Germany
Taiwan
Sweden
Sex of
the
subject



F
M
F
F
F
M
F
F
F & M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
F & M
F
F
F & M
F & M
F
F & M
Average
Relative
Risk



0.68
3.27
0.93
1.3
0.63
1.61
1.19
1.18
0.91
1.7
1.1
0.79

1.39
1.23
1.15
1.02
1.5
1.38
0.89
2.37
1.51
1.1
1.6
Relative Risk
fluctuation
(min/max)
(95% confidence
interval)

(0.32-1.47)
(1.01-10.62)
(0.55-1.55)
(0.50-3.30)
(0.17-2.33)
(0.39-6.60)
(0.48-2.95)
(0.70-2.01)
(0.80-1.04)
(0.69-4.18)
(0.90-1.60)
(0.61-1.03)

(1.11-1.74)
(0.74-2.06)
(0.62-2.13)
(0.50-2.09)
(1.00-2.20)
(0.94-2.04)
(0.46-1.73)
(1.02-5.48)
(0.95-2.40)
(0.40-3.00)
(0.90-2.90)
Not Statistically Significant
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER
AMONG NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN
CHILDHOOD
The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.




Year




1983
1985
1985
1986
1987
1987
1987
1989
1990
1990
1990
1992
1992
1994
1994
1995
1996
1996
1997
1997
1997
1998
Location




USA
USA
USA
Japan
China
Hong Kong
Sweden
Sweden
USA
Japan
China
USA
USA
USA
Russia
USA
China
China
Germany
Germany
Taiwan
EUR
Sex of the
subject



F
F
F
F & M
F
F
F
F
F & M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F & M
F & M
F
F&M
Average
Relative
Risk



0.91
0.6

1.1
0.55
1
3.3
1.3
1.28
0.85
0.8
1.7
0.89
0.98
1.63
2.29
0.91
1.05
0.95
0.8
0.78
Relative Risk
fluctuation (min/max)
(95% confidence
interval)


(0.74-1.12)
(0.20-1.12)

(0.70-1.70)
(0.17-1.77)
(0.40-2.30)
(0.50-18.80)
(0.85-2.00)
(0.71-2.31)
(0.65-1.12)
(0.60-1.10)
(1.00-2.90)
(0.72-1.10)
(0.66-1.45)
(0.91-2.92)
(1.56-3.37)
(0.56-1.48)
(0.50-2.22)
(0.64-1.40)
(0.40-1.60)
(0.64- 0.96)
Not Statistically Significant
Not Statistically Significant
The data in this table were obtained from the studies listed.
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES RELATING TO LUNG CANCER
AMONG NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS AWAY
FROM HOME OR WORKPLACE SETTINGS



Year



1985
1986
1986
1990
1992
1994
1995
1995
Location



USA
UK
UK
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
Sex of
the
subject

F
F
M
F & M
F
F
F
M
Average
Relative Risk


1.42
0.61
1.55
0.59

1.5
1.22
1.39
Relative Risk
fluctuation (min/max)
(95% confidence interval)

(0.75-2.70)
(0.29-1.28)
(0.40-6.02)
(0.43-0.81)

(1.19-1.89)
(0.69-2.15)
(0.67-2.86)
Not Statistically Significant
Note: This is intended to be a "living" list. As new studies are issued we will
endeavor to list them here. If you know of any studies that should be on this list,
regardless of their outcome, please provide us with the references. If you have
specific information, or an opinion, about any of the studies listed here please
provide us with your Feedback.
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell