Marcus Aurelius runs the excellent http://cleanairquality.blogspo.ca and is an industrial / Commercial Air Filtration Engineer. I will also add later that the Occupational Health and Safety Administration who are responsible for “The department of the US government with the responsibility to ensure safety and healthful work environments.” They have found that “I couldn’t agree more with the good doctor especially after reviewing the SLP/OSHA study in which government health department officials proved secondhand smoke concentrations are 500 – 15 times safer than OSHA air quality regulations for secondhand smoke components.
Even more dramatic is the American Cancer Society air quality testing, conducted in NY in 2002, which demonstrates that secondhand smoke is actually 532 – 25,000 times safer than OSHA regulations (Standards – 29 CFR).
Robert E. Madden M.D. FACS describes himself as:
“I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society.”
A letter he wrote in 2006 joins more dissent on the harm of passive smoking, here it is in full.
I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.
I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.
To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.
Robert E. Madden, M.D.