Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

Paper

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

BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1057 (Published 15 May 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:1057

Rapid Response:

Can we have the full facts please.

Professor Repace may I take this opportunity to wish you a Happy New
Year.

I have had a quick review of your documentation (1)and frankly there
appear to be some serious deficiencies. You state reasonable fairly that
the accepted EPA figures are 15mg/m3. (2) Alas that is the annual figure.
So 24 hours a day, 365 days a week that is an acceptable figure, you
however omit to mention is that the 24 hour acceptable level is 35mg/m3,
only recently reduced from 65mg/m3. In your example of the casino, are you
saying customers at a casino sit on their chairs 24 hours a day, 365 days
of the year? How did this omission come about?

Also, expecially if assume that tending to infinite exposure to
PM2.5, tending to zero time gives you the starting off point, a curve that
is heavily, inversely logarithmic would strongly suggest that the figures
for 12, 6, 4 and 1 hour would be well in excess of 90, 300, 600, and 2000
respectively. So there is every probabilty that 15 hours or less in that
casino would be perfectly safe at your quoted 75mg/m3 level.

On the WHO 25mg/m3 can you specify what is the time period, 1 year,
month, 2 seconds?

On "14,000 micrograms (ug) of SHS fine" could you explain to me where
are have said that, it seems words are coming out of my mouth
involuntarily.

Let us consider just one from Gori and Mantel.

Methylchloride 0.88 0.30 1,170

To get to a level of PM2.5 at the threshold level of 35mg for a 24
hour level you would need to be exposed to 116.67 smokers. And let me
remind you, the person would have to be there for 24 hours.

You said that "They (smoker's rights groups) quote pseudo-scientific
arguments." I guess you are just continuing the history of cheap ad
hominens that we have come to expect from pharmaceutical funded, tax free
pressure groups.

After this post I have an extensive Rapid Response which encapsulates
even more evidence of the harmlessness of SHS and points to where the
causes lie, much of it fresh research. All links can be referenced.

In conclusion I think Prof Repace has added nothing to the debate
except the ability to sail very close to the wind on scientific matters
and the .

The best summary of anti smoking movement is by Congressman Rick
Keller "I think we should have labelling on the people who bring these
lawsuits; a T-shirt that says 25% junk science, 50% greed and 25% seeking
publicity."

1. http://www.repace.com/factsheet.html
2. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html
3. http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2009/11/john-banzhaf-ridiculed-
on-tv.html

Competing interests:
Director Freedom2Chose. We do not receive money or expenses from pharmaceutical or tobacco companies.

Competing interests: No competing interests

03 January 2010
David Atherton
Salesman
EC3