Madam, - The debate on banning smoking in pubs has generally assumed that it has been scientifically proven that second-hand smoking has ill-effects on the health of otherwise healthy people. This is not so.
All studies on this topic that result in claimed increases in illness are epidemiological - that is, they use statistics on large numbers of people who cannot be divided into two groups which can be assumed to be the same except in relation to the issue being investigated.
Taking the raw data on ill-health, such as lung cancer and heart attacks, they have to adjust the data for all plausible effects other than the one being investigated, in an effort to see if any significant differences remain.
The studies being touted as showing definitively that second-hand smoking causes ill-health typically report increases in incidence of various medical conditions of under 100 per cent.
For example, it is claimed that there is an increase of 30 per cent in lung cancer in women and 20 per cent in men.
These figures are cited in the report of the group set up by our Health and Safety Authority and Office of Tobacco Control.
All the alleged increases in ill-health cited in this report are less than 100 per cent.
However, any difference less than 100 per cent cannot be detected by epidemiology.
As the US National Cancer Institute said, such differences "are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident."
Dr Marcia Angell, when editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said that she looked for increases of 200 per cent or more before accepting a paper for publication.
In other words, in good epidemiological practice differences of less than 100 per cent are ignored.
This is pure science and has nothing to do with the subject of the epidemiological study.
It is simply the standard that must be applied to all epidemiological studies of second-hand smoking.
And by this standard the scientific case that second-hand smoking is injurious to human health fails.
The notion that science has proven the ill-effects of second-hand smoking is bunkum. - Yours etc.,
PAUL POWER, Santry, Dublin 9.
Madam,- While perusing the recent letters regarding the above, I think it is time to consider how we consider ourselves. Are we American or European? The present Government seems to think that we should align ourselves more with American thinking at present and I think this will be harmful to our nation and our tourist industry as a whole.
The industry used to rely heavily on the Yanks coming here in their droves; sadly they make up only a small percentage of our tourist numbers now. The bulk of our visitors now come from UK and the Continent where smoking is legal still.
Take a party of 10 or so going for a weekend break from the UK. They go to the airport or website and can book any European capital for under €80.
If they find, as they will in January, that the one or two of them who smoke will be discriminated against in Ireland, what are their options? Any other European capital does not impose such a blanket ban on smoking cigarettes.
I am not proposing poisoning anyone with secondary smoke but there are options other than a blanket ban everywhere. It is a bit draconian and if we wish to encourage our tourist industry we should not be blocking any tourists. We may in January not need Terminal 2 at the airport.
- Yours etc.,
JOHN BARRY, Chester Road, Ranelagh, Dublin 6
Madam, - I have noted with interest the speculative economic arguments being presented by the "Hospitality Alliance" in the past week. If the Hospitality Alliance wishes to find definitive evidence to show that smoking bans have not impacted on hospitality sector jobs in both California and New York, it is readily available.
Even if the hospitality sector were correct in its ridiculous and unfounded "job loss" predictions, surely jobs are not more important than lives?
The health arguments to support a full smoking ban in the workplace are accepted internationally, even by the World Health Organisation.
I urge the Government to proceed with this ban and not to compromise in any way on this vital and progressive health initiative.
- Yours etc.,
VALERIE COGHLAN, ASH Ireland, Northumberland Road, Dublin 4.