BMJ  2003;327:501 (30 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7413.501

Letter

Passive smoking

Study was flawed from outset

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Editor—The study by Enstrom and Kabat has a major flaw,¹ and I urge the editors of the BMJ to consider a retraction. The study assumes a considerable difference in the exposure to environmental tobacco smoke of never smokers' spouses compared to ever smokers' spouses. This is obviously wrong.

Most never smokers' spouses would have been exposed to considerable environmental tobacco smoke before the late 1990s when Californian public places became smoke-free. Thus for most of the study period, assuming the spouses are together for two to four waking hours a day, the comparison is eight to10 hours' exposure to tobacco smoke among spouses of never smokers and 12 hours' exposure to tobacco smoke among spouses of ever smokers. Assuming passive smoking increases mortality by 30%, the demonstrable difference between the groups would be about 5% ((12 – 10)/12)x30). This would be further reduced because of quitters among ever . . . [Full text of this article]

Department of Surgery, Whittington and Middlesex Hospitals, University College London, London W1W 7EJ j.vaidya@ucl.ac.uk

Related Articles

Environmental tobacco smoke and mortality in Chinese women who have never smoked: prospective cohort study

Wanqing Wen, Xiao Ou Shu, Yu-Tang Gao, Gong Yang, Qi Li, Honglan Li, and Wei Zheng
BMJ 2006 333: 376. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Five Ps in mix of public health advocacy

Niyi Awofeso
BMJ 2004 328: 110. [Extract] [Full Text]

Champions and betrayers of public health

Kamran Abbasi
BMJ 2003 327: 0. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

James E Enstrom and Geoffrey C Kabat
BMJ 2003 326: 1057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Gruning, T., Gilmore, A. B., McKee, M. (2006). Tobacco Industry Influence on Science and Scientists in Germany. Am. J. Public Health 96: 20-32 [Abstract] [Full text]