![]("/images/content/helenacampaign.gif")
Ordinance 2911: Smoke & MirrorsBefore Helena voters enacted Ordinance 2911, a total prohibition on smoking in any building to which the public has access, there was a great deal of talk on the negative health effects of second-hand smoke.
The issue, said those pushing for the measure, had nothing to do with getting smokers to quit, or even to smoke less, but to protect those who didn't smoke. There was a special emphasis placed on hospitality workers who, because of their work, often spend a great deal of time in facilities that accommodate smokers.
"They (business owners) believe their profits are more important than our health," wrote Dr. Robert Shepard, a leading proponent of 2911, referring to business owners in an editorial for Helena's daily Independent Record. "(But) what about the pregnant employee who can't afford to quit What about the children?"
Without citing any specific studies or statistics, Dr. Shepard argued vehemently against any level of exposure to second-hand smoke, claiming that those who work in the hospitality business are at increased risk for heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, ear infections, pneumonia and other complications.
Two days before Shepard's column, in the same paper, the not-for-profit "Citizens for a Healthy Helena" ran an ad with a similar message only this time, utilizing specific data and figures.
"Fact," the ad reads, "Air quality in bars and restaurants is three to six times worse than air in smoke-free establishments and workplaces."
To the casual reader, it would seem a powerful statistic. Three to six times worse? That's pretty heavy. But if you slow down and think about it, the message soon becomes more fuzzy.
The first and most basic problem with the "fact" is that we have no idea how it was derived.
The ad refers blithely to "bars and restaurants" but fails to specify the quality or quantity of those establishments surveyed. To determine whether the information is relevant we'd want to know: How many businesses were studied? Were the establishments large or small, old or new? How many smokers could each accommodate? Did the businesses utilize "smoke-eaters" or other ventilation or air purification devices? How many smokers were present at the time of the study? Were other ambient pollutants such as cooking smoke or vehicle exhaust present?
Because we have no access to this information, or even to the name or date of the study in question, we have reasonable cause to doubt the validity of the information.
Furthermore, the "fact" only states that air quality in these smoking establishments was "three to six times worse." What this actually means in terms of one's health we can only guess.
The second "fact" tries to answer that question, but again, the reader is met with similar problems.
"Bartenders and waiters and waitresses have 1.5 to 3.0 times more likelihood of suffering from lung cancer," it reads, with an exclamation point for emphasis.
The problem here should be apparent even to a casual reader as the sentence itself feels lopsided and incomplete.
Sure, bartenders, waiters and waitresses are more likely to suffer lung cancer than some group, but which one? Are we talking about a small group of monks in the Japanese countryside? Two hundred Rotarians at Yankee Stadium?
The assumption, of course, is that the study refers to some large sample, connected only by the fact that they don't work in a hospitality business, but again, because we have no access to the hard data, It's hard to trust the conclusions.
Even if we do give the anti-smoking advocates the benefit of the doubt and assume a large and diverse sample, the "fact" forces us to take yet another a leap of faith: to equate correlation (events occurring simultaneously) with causation (one event causing another).
We know beyond a doubt that some hospitality workers spend their time in relatively smoky environments. We're also told that they suffer higher rates of lung cancer than some other group. But to assume that working in a smoky environment is what led to their lung cancer is not so clear.
What the ad fails to mention (and what so many studies of second-hand smoke can't get past) is the important notion of "confounders" variables that could significantly influence or "confound" the outcome of a study.
In the case of hospitality workers, it would be important to look at the age, gender, race, income, education levels and hundreds of other indicators that could have any connection to one's risk of lung cancer, including lifestyles and daily personal practices.
Could it be that hospitality workers are more likely themselves to smoke than other groups? Could they be more likely to live in urban environments, to exercise less, eat more? Who knows?
To account for all of these "confounders" takes a tremendous amount of time and money, but to successfully derive causation from correlation the aim of all science the researcher is obligated to remove as many variables as possible.
To pick on one ad from one organization hardly seems ground for dismissing much of the science surrounding second-hand smoke. But a quick glance at the work of some of the world's largest health advocacy groups reveals similar patterns foregone conclusions backed by shoddy and incomplete research.
Source: Extra,
a special supplement to The Montana Tavern Times,
Dec., 2002, published monthly by Continental Communications, 125 W. Granite St., Suite 102, Butte, MT 59701.