Under the heading of “stop the insanity,” here’s the latest craziness on the myth of second-hand smoke.

The assault on smoking is moving into its next phase. Not satisfied with outlawing smoking in public buildings, and even near public buildings in many places, the True Believers continue to mount pressure to prevent smoking in private homes.

The press release which follows on the dangers of second-hand smoke does not come from the American Heart Association. It does not come from the American Cancer Society. It does not come from the Lung Association.

No, my friends, this warning of how second-hand smoke is a silent killer of the innocent comes from…

(drumroll, please)…

PETA.

That’s right. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The group that brings you naked models, naked actresses, and naked celebrities promoting how evil it is to wear furs by their “I’d rather go naked” ads.

That, PETA.

Hang on to your hats. This one is…

…well, I’d call this a shaggy dog story, but it is really more of a fluffy kitty.

Here’s the full press release that PETA put out, minus the link to their site:

Dateline: Norfolk, Va. — Do you light up around your cat or dog? Well, get this: You could be killing your companion animal. Although the life-threatening effects of breathing secondhand smoke from cigarettes and cigars have been scientifically established in human beings, scant attention has been paid to what cigarette smoke does to cats, dogs, birds, and other animals who share homes with smokers. That’s why PETA’s Web site dedicated to promoting better treatment of companion animals contains a new feature that warns smokers about the following things:* A Tufts University study has found that cats—who end up ingesting everything that settles in their fur—exposed to secondhand smoke have an increased chance of developing oral cancer and are twice as likely to develop feline lymphoma as cats who live in smoke-free households are.* Dogs who inhale secondhand smoke are three times more likely to develop nasal cancer than dogs who don’t.* Birds who perch on the nicotine-coated fingers of a smoker can suffer from dermatitis, which often causes them to pull out their feathers.

At first glance, the PETA release sounds reasonable. Who, after all, would want to harm helpless puppies, kittens and other “companion animals?”The problem, of course, is in the basic premise of PETA’s claim that second-hand smoke can harm anyone or anything.“Although the life-threatening effects of breathing secondhand smoke from cigarettes and cigars have been scientifically established in human beings…”

Scientifically established where?

The London Times had an excellent editorial on the myth of passive smoke that we covered here last year. I’ll quote again from a portion of that editorial:

“The theory that cigarette smoke kills non-smokers was dreamt up 30 years ago by anti-smoking activists; only after inventing it did they attempt to prove it.“Dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies have followed. All point to a compelling consensus that there is no casual link between passive smoking and fatal illness. One of the most comprehensive studies was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It concluded: ‘The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality.’“That was unsurprising. The International Agency for Research on Cancer notes that of the 23 scientific studies into the effects of workplace exposure to second-hand smoke only one found a statistically significant risk for lung cancer. One in 23 is what objective science calls an anomaly.“Even the research director of Action on Smoking and Health admits: ‘A lot of studies have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis.’ In plain English, that means there is no convincing evidence that secondary smoking kills.

Also highly significant is the fact that Sir Richard Doll, the scientist who proved the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer said: ‘The effect of other people smoking im my presence is so small it does not worry me.’ You cannot claim that Doll is either in the pocket of “Big Tobacco” or is pro-smoking advocate. If Doll isn’t worried, then why should we be worried?Second-hand smoke from cigars is even more of a controversial issue than passive smoke from cigarettes. Not that many studies have been done on cigar smoke. The data simply isn’t there.When you add in the fact that there is no hard evidence that cigar smoking has any measurable health risk at all to the cigar smoker, the situation is even more controversial. Again, we covered this last year in an article here at Cigar Envy. I’ll quote part of what I wrote back then:

“Going into a smoking lounge filled with cigar smokers who are all smoking cigars is about equivalent in danger from carbon monoxide and “second hand smoke” exposure to breathing the air in your car while driving on the highway.

Breathing the air in your car if you are not smoking while driving.

And if no one in your car is smoking.”

That’s right. The air that you breath on the average American highway while driving is about as “polluted” as being in a room filled with cigar smoke.

“For all causes of death, there is statistically no significance between being a complete non-smoker and smoking one or two cigars a day.

Zero increased risk.”

That statistic does not come from the Tobacco industry. It comes from government statistics based on years of separate, independent studies looking at the effects of smoking on health.

“(There is) absolutely nothing that can be demonstrated scientifically in all of the years that scientific studies have been performed that is statistically significant. In fact, the statistics actually seem to show that smoking one or two cigars a day decreases your risk of lung disease and heart disease — but you cannot really say that because the margin of error of the studies makes a pro-cigar statement as scientifically meaningless as an anti-cigar statement. The studies show that it really doesn’t matter one way or the other.”

So if smoking one or two cigars a day has an insignificant and unmeasurable effect on the cigar smoker, then what about people who are getting “second-hand,” passive smoke from being around a cigar smoker?

“Almost all tap water in the United States contains tiny trace amounts of arsenic. Arsenic, of course, is a poison that can kill you if you take enough of it. (Pure water, by the way, can also kill you if you take enough of it, but that’s another story.) The fact that there are tiny amounts of arsenic in tap water doesn’t worry most people enough that they stop drinking water, bathing, or washing their clothes and dishes.

It might interest you to know, as a cigar smoker, that the relative risk of dying from the tiny amount of arsenic in the water you drink is very, very low…but it is still more than 2 1/2 times greater than the “risk” of dying from living with a smoker according to official government statistics.

Cigars are not cigarettes. The proven risk factors are not the same — they are not even close.”

Put all of that aside, however.

One other important fact has been left out of article on the study that PETA is quoting as reason to not smoke around your “companion animals.” The Tufts University study that PETA cites –a 2002 study that was not peer-reviewed and has not been duplicated by anyone–suggests a link between cats exposed to second-hand smoke and feline lymphoma.

Feline lymphoma is not lung cancer.

Feline lymphoma, the most common cancer in cats, is believed to be caused by the Feline Leukemia Virus.

Think about that for a moment. They are talking about a cancer in cats that is caused by a virus. The study suggests that this virus-caused cancer has a greater chance of occurring in cats exposed to second-hand smoke.

I have had several cats, both as a kid and as an adult. One thing that I’ve learned over the years is that if you want to protect your cats from Feline Leukemia, it is a good idea to have them vaccinated against the virus that causes it.

Did the researchers check to see if the cats in homes where people smoked were less likely to have been vaccinated against the Feline Leukemia Virus?

If they did, they certainly did not mention it in the research study.

Which means that they probably did not check their facts.

This brings the entire study into question and opens up the possibility that something else caused the cats owned by smokers to get cancer. The cats could have been more likely to get cancer because smokers are less likely to have their cats vaccinated. Or because smokers are less likely to take their pets to the vet for any reason. Or because smokers let their cats outside more than non-smokers where they are more likely to be exposed to FLV. Or because smokers feed their cats differently.

The “results” of the study could have had a completely different explanation than “second hand smoke.” We simply do not know from the information given.

The problem with this kind of “science” is that it prejudges the results based on beliefs and prejudices rather than being led by the data to invesigate all sides of a question.

The only thing we do know for certain is that if the cats got cancer because of being exposed to second-hand tobacco smoke, then they are very different from humans based on all of the human studies. That is certainly possible. After all, Tylenol takes away headaches in people but it is lethal to cats. Chocolate can kill cats (and dogs) but is a treat for us. Aromatherapy oils used by many people as air fresheners in their homes are also lethal to cats. So it is certainly possible that second-hand tobacco smoke could hurt cats while having no scientifically-measurable effect on humans.

Unfortunately, the Tufts University study doesn’t tell us whether or not “second-hand” smoke was actually responsible for an increased number of cats getting a cancer that most researchers say is caused by a virus. It just tells us that the researchers involved have an anti-smoking bias and jumped to an easy and politically-correct conclusion.

If another study came along next week that showed that the Tufts University study was wrong, I am pretty sure that it would not get splashed on the front page of your local newspaper or be a top story on the evening news. That kind of information just doesn’t get talked about in the mainstream media.

You don’t think so?

Wait until you read part two of this series tomorrow. What you haven’t been told about second-hand smoke is probably going to shock you.