In part two we look at other interesting science-b(i)ased approaches intended to promote and influence anti-smoking policy. Professor Freddy Sitas, epidemiologist at the University of Sydney Medical School, recently suggested that death certificates in Australia should include a tick box for smoking.
The box is to be ticked as yes if the deceased was a smoker, former smoker, or non-smoker with smokers in the family.
Now, to Mr Average this may sound like a reasonable idea to get harder facts on the real consequences of smoking, especially as the proposal comes from a professor at a medical school. So why should politicians not adopt the proposal?
What Mr Average does not know, but the epidemiologist should, is that the death rate owing to hypertension/cardiovascular disease, as a result of excessive salt intake, is virtually on a par with smoking, and that obesity is not far behind and, in terms of causing cancer, is the leading cause.
So, what would the death certificate according to Prof Sitas look like for a non-smoker who suffered from high blood pressure, was obese, had diabetes, had someone in the family who smoked, and died of a heart attack?
The true single cause of death would be a difficult one to answer, even for an accomplished pathologist, let alone a general physician, but according to the proposed Sitas death certificate, this would invariably lead to ticking the smoking box.
One can imagine the resulting statistics, which will eventually be published and regurgitated as science-based proof worldwide – so much for unbiased science.
Radioactive smoking
Polonium is another piece of science-based evidence that is grossly distorted in terms of relevance. Miniscule traces were detected in cigarettes, using highly sophisticated measuring equipment, most likely the residue from some of the fertilisers used on tobacco crops.
And, of course, it makes for good reading in the yellow press or as scientific backup in anti-smoking publications, especially as this information was suppressed by the tobacco industry, making it all the more “dramatic” for readers.
Certainly commendable investigative work; however, in practical terms one needs to smoke several trillion cigarettes within five days (owing to the half-life of polonium) to reach toxic polonium levels, which is not easy.
And this information, in turn, is completely ignored by the anti-smoking lobbyists. Ethics are obviously a minefield.
Laying the groundwork
As New York is a hotbed for anti-smoking activities, any scientific paper on smoking originating from there merits special scrutiny and you can be pretty sure that things are not what they appear to be at first sight.
In a paper titled “Second-hand smoke exposure among non-smokers nationally and in New York City”, the authors, Jennifer Ellis, Thomas Frieden, et al. come to some interesting conclusions.
The study showed that residents of NYC had higher cotinine levels than the national average (56.7 per cent vs 44.9 per cent), although the smoking prevalence was lower than the national average (23.3 per cent vs 29.7 per cent), with Asian non-smokers in NYC having the highest cotinine levels.
While the study does mention that urban crowding, and especially household crowding among Asians, could be a possible cause (and which is the obvious answer anyway), the study implies that increased second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure at bus stations and other open air venues are the real culprits.
To quote from the New York Times, “Dr Frieden suggested that New Yorkers are being exposed primarily through sidewalk contact with smokers, passing through crowds smoking outside doorways or waiting with smokers at bus stops”.
Could this be the scientific groundwork for outside smoking restrictions?
Yes, indeed. A few months later the Bloomberg administration passed a law to prohibit smoking in open places in NYC, for example, in certain park and beach areas, with more restrictions to follow.
William McEwen
| 
