Sir, - The ad is very slick and very plausible. Since it deals with passive smoking, not with the fatal habit per se, one might not have expected Philip Morris to hue so forthcoming as to state, as it does, "smoking itself is a risk factor for certain human diseases". By its coy, understated concession of this fact, the cynical trader in death seeks to disarm the public's suspicions, for greater receptivity to its corporate message. The sheer disingenuousness of the admission is patent from the omission of a hard numerical "risk factor" for smoking itself, to stand alongside the other entries in the table. It's not as if they'd have any trouble finding dozens of damning results in the respected medical literature from which they quote the others. How better to demonstrate the alleged innocuousness of passive smoking than to compare it to the proven killer, nicotine addiction?
Whole milk is a food taken from nature that is essentially complete in itself. Fruits and vegetables contain an array of vitamins and minerals vital to the body's health and their consumption has been shown to reduce the risk of many types of cancer. The chlorination of our domestic water supply kills microbes to prevent the many water borne diseases to which we would otherwise be prey. These facts are well known and established.
Thanks to the handy reference chart provided by the civic minded marketeers of Philip Morris, we now know that regular consumption in certain quantities of such dietary staples poses a small increased risk of serious disease, comparable to the risk increase from passive smoking. But where are the benefits that accrue to passive smokers? What matter if the most healthy and nourishing of human diets is in some way deleterious, if the downside is overwhelmingly outweighed by its benefits? At the very least, the eaters of biscuits, pepper and meat receive an intangible but nonetheless real benefit: they can enjoy their fare. Do any inhalers of second hand tobacco smoke enjoy theirs?
Most people know intuitively that everyday living endangers their health in some ways that are unavoidable in practicality. The natural background radiation on planet earth is an example. Living elsewhere or encased in lead all our lives would not be viable, to say the least. The dangers of passive smoking require no such drastic measures for their avoidance. We only need to ban smoking, as has already been done for most of our indoor public places.
The risks to passive smokers, as artfully presented by Philip Morris, seem insignificant. Statistics generally seem unreal. Several of the entries in the tobacco company's chart are not "meaningful". Even were their risks validated by countless follow up studies, as is true of passive smoking, these would be greatly offset by their known benefits. But passive smoking has no benefits. The statistics for associated increase in risk of life threatening disease must then translate over large populations into the reality of early deaths for a great many people. - Yours, etc.,
Yale,
Ardilea,
Dublin 14.