The following was posted on January 9, 2012 but for some reason (either a glitch or other) it no longer appeared in the blog. With the help of dedicated members of the blogger help forum it was retrieved and is now being reposted.
On December 12th
we reported about CHEX-TV and how they not only repeated verbatim a
press release from the Smoke-Free Housing Ontario but they left the
impression that the video footage was their own when in fact it was more
or less an ''infomercial'' from Smoke-Free Housing. Read it here: CHEX-TV CONTRIBUTES TO MAKING SMOKERS HOMELESS
We
stated that we intended to file a complaint about biased reporting with
the CBC Ombudsman since CHEX-TV is a CBC affiliate therefore a public
broadcaster. We did file the complaint with the CBC but they advised us
that CHEX-TV is private and only some segments of the news are shared
with the CBC. Following the ombudsman’s advice, we filed the complaint
with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, the entity that rules
over private stations.
Following
is the self-explanatory correspondence that we exchanged with Mr.
Michael Harris, General Manager of CHEX-TV to who the CBSC referred us
to begin our complaint process.
We
are happy we were able to obtain that CHEX-TV from now on specifically
identifies third party video footage as not being their own, but very
disappointed with Mr. Harris’ refusal to let the public hear the other
side of the story. It is obvious to us that CHEX-TV and more
particularly Mr. Harris either doesn’t believe that all science
(including the Surgeon General’s) is open to constructive criticism or
for reasons known only to him, he refuses to make public any dissent to
the mainstream scientific consensus.
December 13, 2011
To: complaints@cbsc.ca
Sir/Madam,
On
December 8, 2011 CHEX-TV in Peterborough, presented a news segment on
Smoke-Free Housing that still appears on their website at this address
http://www.chextv.com/news/ln/11-12-08/Smoke_Free_Housing.aspx
Anyone
watching this news segment can mistakenly confuse it with investigative
journalism, where the reporter has done careful research, interviews
and has more or less verified her ''facts''. The segment is presented
in the style of an investigative journalism story.
Unfortunately
this news segment can be qualified as nothing more than an infomercial,
with the reporter repeating almost verbatim what the lobby group
Smoke-Free Housing supplied to the media in their newswire that you can
read at this address:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/892061/80-of-people-living-in-apartments-condos-and-co-ops-want-to-live-smoke-free
Not
only did the CHEX-TV reporter not do any research to verify any of the
advocacy group's contentions, but she used segments of the pre-recorded
videos and b-rolls that were supplied with the press release, leaving
listeners with the impression that it was the reporter herself that had
done the collecting of information and interviews.
A
minimum of professional research from the reporter would have revealed
that the IPSOS opinion poll survey results to which the advocacy group
refers do not in fact demonstrate that people are actively seeking
smoke-free apartments but can't find any. For example, the question
that was asked of 810 Ontarians in 2011 was:
''To
what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements
dealing with smoking in multi-unit dwellings (i.e. apartments,
condominiums, co-ops, etc): Smoking should not be allowed in-doors in
multi-unit dwellings?''
People answering
this question may well have assumed that in-doors refers to the hallway,
the laundry room, the stairway, the indoor pool, anywhere but people's
private apartments. Had the survey clearly asked
''Do you agree that people should be forbidden from smoking in their own apartments?'', the advocacy group and the reporter might have been in a better position to make their claims.
Had
she done further research she would have discovered that the Canadian
Cancer Society, which paid for the IPSOS poll, is an integral part of
the Smoke-Free Housing lobby group. The group has a clear, unambiguous
agenda of "back-door" prohibition of smoking in every context possible.
Shouldn't this conflict of interest have been at least mentioned in the
"news story"?
Pushing for smoke-free MUDs
(multi-unit dwellings) is a very serious issue that does not only
violate one's privacy but can eventually result in increasing
homelessness amongst the poorest, most vulnerable segments of the
population, people who can't afford single family homes. Poor people
who violate new private dwelling smoking bans may get evicted and have
difficulty finding new accommodations. Is it not the reporter's
responsibility to have investigated such a contentious issue further
instead of just repeating the press release verbatim and using videos
that the Smoke-Free Housing lobby group pre-recorded and handed to the
media on a silver platter? Would it not have been relevant to at least
seek to hear the other side of the story and perhaps examine some
scientific literature supporting the advocacy group's statements? We
certainly feel that it is
.
For these
reasons we are by the present lodging an official complaint against
CHEX-TV and the reporter, Pamela Vanmeer, for unprofessional and biased
journalism. CHEX-TV might show some good intent by now giving
equal air time to a point of view diametrically opposed to that of Pippa
Beck and her "Smoke-Free Housing" lobby group. We would be happy to
offer our assistance in this.
Yours Truly,
Iro Cyr – Vice-President
C.A.G.E.
------------------------------------------------------
December 16, 2011
From: Solange Courteau
- CBSC
Dear Mrs. Cyr,
The
Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has received your
correspondence concerning a report about smoke-free housing on Newswatch
broadcast on CHEX-TV on December 8, 2011. First of all, I apologize
for having addressed you as Mr. in my previous letter.
By copy of
this letter, we are asking CHEX-TV to respond to the concerns you have
raised and to hold a copy of the logger tape of the broadcast which
concerned you. This is always the first step taken by the CBSC in
pursuing a complaint. Broadcasters who are members of the CBSC take
their responsibility to respond to audience concerns very seriously and
the dialogue between broadcasters and members of their audience is a
cornerstone of the CBSC's complaints resolution process. In fact,
concerns are often resolved satisfactorily for all parties through this
dialogue phase. We hope that the response you will receive from
CHEX-TV within the next 21 days will resolve the issues you have raised
to your satisfaction.
If, however, after you have received and
carefully considered the broadcaster's response you remain concerned,
you may request a Ruling by a CBSC Panel by filing the form available on
our web site at
http://www.cbsc.ca/english/complaint/rulingrequest.php
You should do so within 14 days of receiving the broadcaster's
response. More information on the CBSC complaints process is available
on our web site in the FAQ section (
http://www.cbsc.ca/english/faqs/index.php ).
If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will be glad to be of service.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Solange Courteau
Communications Coordinator
Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
----------------------------------------------------------
December 20, 2011
From: Michael Harris – CHEX-TV
Dear Ms Iro Cyr,
Thank
you for taking the trouble to share your concerns about CHEX TV's
coverage of Smoke-Free Housing with the Canadian Broadcast Standards
Council (CBSC). The CBSC has passed your complaint along to CHEX TV for
our response.
Part of your concern seems to centre
around the belief that we at CHEX TV were somehow disguising our regular
coverage of a story as "investigative journalism". By "investigative
journalism", I presume you mean the kind of coverage CBC's
the fifth estate or
CTV's W5
occasionally mount, with producers, on-air reporters and researchers
checking and uncovering facets of a story over a period of weeks or
months before presenting a finished piece. I wish we had the resources
to do that. In fact, if you had the opportunity to view our newscast on
a regular basis, you would soon realize that we have no producers or
researchers, and that our reporters often cover three stories a day.
I'm not sure what it was about our report that made it look like
"investigative journalism", but it wasn't our intention to deceive
anyone about the amount of work that went into the story. It was
completed by one person over the course of several hours in one day. To
the extent that your characterization of our piece as "investigative
journalism" puts our local news in the same category at
W5 or
the fifth estate,
we are flattered that we have attained a level of professional
presentation that allows us to be grouped with them. Certainly we did
nothing, either implicitly or explicitly, to indicate that the piece was
the result of extensive in-house research.
Another
part of your concern seems to centre around our use of CNW copy and
video. CNW distributes press releases and press kits to newsrooms
across Canada on a daily basis. Many organizations have recognized that
offering enhanced press releases to television newsrooms through
agencies like CNW increases the probability that their client's story
will get wide circulation. CNW makes available packages of quotes,
research, photographs, and, often, video footage and interviews to help
reporters construct stories, and ultimately to make it more likely that
the CNW releases will get picked up by media outlets. Here is a brief
description of CNW taken from Wikipedia:
CNW Group (CNW) is a commercial news release service established in 1960 and jointly owned by PR Newswire and The Press Association.
CNW distributes media materials on behalf of a variety of customers
such as companies, governments, non-profit agencies and other
establishments.
CNW distributes informational and promotional items for media outlets in a variety of formats such as press releases, photographs, corporate webcasts and B-Roll video footage.
Every
newsroom received dozens of such releases each week. It is a fact of
life in the contemporary television newsroom. We receive many of our
news story leads from agencies like CNW. We understand CNW's business,
and the responsibilities involved in taking information from third party
sources. Much of our news information every day comes from wires
services, police stations, CBC reporters, and other third party
providers. Part of the job of the newsroom is to evaluate the
information in terms of its accuracy and relevance to our audience.
That evaluation is not always based on recreating the story from
scratch, but on judging the credibility of the source and the data
presented.
It was through CNW that we received news
of the Smoke-Free Housing study by the Canadian Cancer society, along
with related footage and comments both from the resident who was forced
to move because of smoke in her home environment, and from the head of
Smoke Free Housing Ontario. We were intrigued by this CNW release
primarily because the subject of the piece, the woman whose health was
affected by living in housing that was not smoke-free, was from
Peterborough. Our reporter went out to interview a local expert from
the Peterborough County City Health Unit about the story, an expert who
is often used in our coverage at CHEX TV. She agreed with the general
tenor of the press release, that people should have a right, if they
want, to live in a space that is free from any danger of second-hand
smoke. And she contributed the local information, included in the
piece, that there were 15 smoke-free social housing institutions in
Peterborough, and hundreds more multiple dwelling units that had enacted
some form of limitation on smoking.
I know it is
not relevant to your complaint, or to the CBSC deliberations, but our
reporter did spend time both on George St. in Peterborough and at the
Peterborough Regional Health Centre at the exit where employees and
patients go for smoke breaks, asking smokers for their opinion about
smoke-free housing. But, to a person, they refused to comment, some
saying they already felt shunned as smokers and didn't want to make
their habit more public. I wish our reporter had included a line in her
story saying that she had asked several smokers for their comments
about smoke-free multi unit dwellings, but none was prepared to offer an
opinion. Such a reference would have made it clear that we did put
effort into finding other points of view.
With
regard to the finished piece, which was a mixture of material, some
provided by CNW and some gathered by our reporter, I can understand that
viewers, as you suggest, might have the impression that the reporter
had done all the collecting of information and interviews. It would
have been better had the CNW-supplied footage been identified with an
on-screen super to clarify that that part of the story came from a third
party. We have now instituted a policy to identify all third party
handout video material used in our newscast to eliminate any such
misapprehension in the future.
You also complain
that the Ipsos Reid question about whether people think smoking should
not be allowed indoors in multi-unit buildings was ambiguous. I
enclose the relevant questions and results from the Ipsos Reid 2010
online survey for Smoke-Free Housing Ontario, and the Ipsos Reid 2011
online survey for the Canadian Cancer Society as released by CNW. The
questions probe the preferences of the subjects without becoming
entangled in issues of human rights or personal freedom. Although the
question is not perfect, I believe it is reasonable to assume that
almost all the people who agree with the statement -- "Smoking should
not be allowed indoors in multi-unit dwellings" -- would prefer to live
in smoke-free buildings. The question you would have asked -- "Do you
agree that people should be forbidden from smoking in their own
apartments?" -- isn't very helpful in a context where the focus of the
study is on people being able to find living units within smoke-free
buildings.
Your complaint talks about the Canadian
Cancer Society's "unambiguous agenda of 'back door' prohibition of
smoking in every context possible". The Society's campaign, or the
Smoke-Free Housing lobby, working to increase smoke-free space is hardly
"back door". This is an excerpt from the Canadian Cancer Society's
website:
Multi-unit buildings
Your
first step is to stop the smoke from getting inside your unit. Look for
cracks and spaces between walls and floors and for openings around
windows, doors and plumbing. Then block or seal all these open spaces
with filling or sealing materials.
Tips
· Use materials like caulk or spray-in foam to fill all the small openings or spaces.
· Add weather-stripping around your front door and balcony door.
· Put door sweeps on the bottom of those doors.
· Place special gaskets behind electrical switch plates and outlet plates to block smoke.
· Get the property manager to make the repairs to seal off the smoke if you can't.
·
If the smoke is coming from a specific unit, ask the landlord or
property manager to try to block it using the same methods you used.
· Read your rental agreement. If all or part of your building is smoke-free, ask the management to enforce it.
·
Get together with neighbours who are concerned about second-hand smoke
to advocate for a no-smoking policy in the building or on your floor.
I
don't quite understand what your point is here. I don't think anyone
would be surprised to learn that the Canadian Cancer Society or
Smoke-Free Housing Ontario would prefer a world in which no one smoked
anywhere.
Your suggestion that we cover the issue of
the increase in the number of homeless smokers resulting from the
creation of too many smoke-free multi-unit dwellings is an excellent
idea. I'm not sure that that is happening yet in Peterborough, or
anywhere in Canada. CHEX TV would be most interested in following the
story of someone from the Peterborough area who was evicted from his/her
apartment because of a private dwelling smoking ban, and was
subsequently having difficulty in finding new accommodations. We would
certainly give air time to that story. Even so, I'm not sure such a
story, as you say, would represent a "point of view diametrically
opposed to that of Pippa Beck". I don't know how she feels about
assuring the provision of reasonably priced accommodations for smokers.
That's quite a different issue, and quite a bit further down the road,
than the story we were covering. Be assured that as issues of smoking
in public places continue to make news that we will continue to cover
them in a balanced and fair manner.
Again I thank
you for taking the trouble to file a complaint against our coverage. As
a result of that complaint, we will institute a policy of identifying
all third party material that we use in our newscasts. As you know, if
this response does not satisfy your concerns, you may request a Ruling
by a CBSC Panel.
Sincerely yours
Michael Harris
General Manager/CHEX TV
743 Monaghan Rd.,
Peterborough, ON
K9J 5K2
Cell: (416) 825 1951
Emai: mharris@corusent.com
-------------------------------------------------------
December 23, 2011
To: Michael Harris – CHEX-TV
Dear Mr. Harris,
Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply. It's
heartening to see the "fifth estate" in general (as opposed to the show
of the same name) take people's concerns seriously. I
detected sincerity in your explanations and I appreciate it. However,
although I am happy you showed a good effort to eliminate
misapprehension in the future by instituting a policy that would
identify all third party handout video material, it would be
wonderful if you would permit me to reply to some of the points you
made, and forgive me if I sound argumentative at times.
You
state that the credibility of the Canadian Cancer Society warranted
your report. But Sir, this is exactly what my complaint was about. How
credible is the source you relied on to broadcast the story? You admit
that the CCS would like to see a smoke-free world yet you don't see how
their press release could have been biased towards that end when
claiming that minute amounts of smoke drifting from one apartment to the
other can be a serious health hazard or even noticeable to the average
person? Any scientific studies demonstrating this? When we have safe
levels of exposure to everything from arsenic in drinking water, fumes
in underground mines, parking garages and so forth, and anything in
sufficiently diluted quantities is safe (the most basic principle of
toxicology), are they being honest when they say "there is no safe level
of exposure to tobacco smoke" (a claim you repeated unchallenged in the
segment you aired). You may want to read how anti-smoking groups rely
on exactly this kind of presumed credibility to impress the media and
the public. From http://tools.iscvt.org/advocacy/stories_from_the_field/coalitionstories
"A
key factor," (…) "was that the CCS was able to give credibility and
stature to the campaign which the NSRA could not provide. The CCS
entered the fray ardently, something it had never done before. The media
and politicians took notice.''
Your
station irresponsibly repeated what the press release stated, never
giving a second thought to how truthful and accurate the advocacy report
was thus contributing to create a future homelessness problem for the
poorer segment of society. There is a sick homeless man right in your
backyard who can’t get shelter because among other issues he smokes ‘’
Joe says he has been kicked out of the Brock Mission for smoking and
ordered not to come back for the maximum expulsion time of six months.’’
Were you aware of the story? You can read it here: http://www.mykawartha.com/news/article/1260474--peterborough-angels
Joe
might be an extreme case and he may have brought much of his condition
upon himself, we don't know, but how many people do we intend to let
freeze outdoors because they are smokers who can't kick the habit?
There were at least four victims of such intolerance that we reported in
2008. http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2008/01/victims-of-intolerance.html
How many more did we not hear of since? If nothing else, the media
has an ethical obligation to weigh all sides before alarming the public
with such news reporting. There exists no independent study that comes
even close to proving that second hand smoke drifting from one apartment
to another causes serious harm to anyone except perhaps for a tiny
minority of hyper-sensitive individuals. If your reporter had made the
effort to look for organizations such as C.A.G.E. and our sister
organization Citizens for Civil Liberties in Ontario and read a minimum
of the material we attempt to bring to the media's attention, she would
have had ''the other side of the story''. Of course, we don't have the
vast funding of the CCS, so we didn't deliver you a ready made story to
get your attention, but we would like to remind you that we are here…
Going
back to ''Margo'', did your reporter interview her herself and find out
what exactly her underlying problem was that may have caused her
hyper-sensitivity to even minute traces of smoke? Did anyone go to her
former apartment (in Peterborough) to verify that there was in fact
smoke permeating the dwelling – a short enough trip to make, and a lot
better than placing complete faith on a lobby group's version of
reality. As it is, perhaps you underestimate the power of the media to
influence public opinion if you consider that your only duty as
reporters of the news is to verify the ''credibility'' of the source.
Had you at least mentioned that according to THEIR opinion the situation
was such I would have had less of a qualm.
You
state that the IPSOS Reid questions probe the preferences of the
subjects without becoming entangled in issues of human rights or
personal freedom. Although you agree that the question is not perfect, you find it reasonable to assume that almost all the people who agree with the statement -- "Smoking should not be allowed indoors in multi-unit dwellings"
-- would prefer to live in smoke-free buildings. ''Preferring'' and
actively seeking smoke-free housing and unable to find any as the news
report stated, are far from being one and the same. If someone offered
me the choice between two homes of identical size, price, location and
told me that one would smell of garlic while the other one would not, of
course I would have picked the smell-free apartment. But this
is not a realistic scenario. In any case, a smell does not a health risk
make, contrary to what Pippa Beck and the CCS want people to believe.
The poll question only leads up to the desired answer and extrapolates
conclusions that have nothing to do with what those surveyed may have
meant. Unless the question is clearly asked, no conclusions can be
drawn and believing these manufactured conclusions based on the CCS'
''credibility'' should be avoided.
People
will take as much of anything as they can get, as long as it is free
and does not inconvenience them. Let us pretend that the question had
been worded "Do you agree that people who live in multi-unit
residences should not smoke, use candles or chemical air fresheners,
cook with strong-smelling ingredients and use only chemical-free
household cleaners" This question more closely resembles the
real-world situation where there are any number of particulates and
odors which may bother the neighbors (if smoke can drift between units,
it is reasonable to assume that other nuisances can as well). Now, when
everyone must be subjected to invasions of privacy and control, I
wonder how many people would continue to support the proposal.
If
the media doesn't help in safeguarding this most basic right of privacy
in one's own home who will? Besides, this has absolutely nothing to do
with health, as mentioned previously, since no health risks exist for
such low magnitudes of smoke. It has to do with marching to the next
frontier of tobacco prohibition ''through the back door'' into one's
home. This can have serious consequences and the prohibitionists should
not be supported and encouraged in any way or form towards invading our
private home. That's what I mean when I talk about ''back door
prohibition'' instead of outright prohibition where tobacco would be
made illegal without demonizing and shunning the smoker in the process.
"A world where no one smokes" is very different from "a world where no
one is allowed to smoke." The CCS's tactics take us the latter rather
than the former.
I
am gratified to hear that you wish to cover these issues in a balanced
and fair manner. It's because I still have some faith in the system and
the media that I complained about this. In the meantime,
your reporter experienced firsthand how smokers will NOT come public
with their complaints. As they have told you themselves, they already
feel shunned as smokers and don't want to make their habit more public.
Do you realize to what point this issue has gotten out of control when
people won't even speak up for their rights to be left alone in their
private home? They rely on groups like CAGE and Citizens for Civil
Liberties to do the talking on their behalf because they can protect
their anonymity this way.
We
have had old, sick and frail people complain to us but refusing to take
it any further. We have had sick people being refused treatment who
nonetheless refuse to go public. We have had smokers complain they lost
their jobs because they were smoking on their OWN time, yet they will
not allow us to act on their behalf unless they remain totally
anonymous. They have been victimized, demoralized and demonized and are
not only afraid of public opinion but of possible repercussions if they
do publicly complain. We instead propose that one of our
representatives is interviewed by you and given a fair chance to expose
how this situation has deteriorated into a witch hunt and how it will
only get worse if the ''fifth estate'' fails to wake up to the
situation. Our representative will point out, among other things, how
the likes of Pippa Beck and her funders claimed just a few years ago,
during the campaign to ban smoking in restaurants and bars, that no one
would intrude into people's homes.
Thanking you in advance for this opportunity, I remain,
Yours Very Truly,
Iro Cyr
Vice-President
C.A.G.E.
--------------------------------------------------------
December 30, 2011
From: Michael Harris – CHEX-TV
Dear Ms Iro Cyr,
Re: CBSC File C11/12-798
Thank
you again for taking the time to share your concerns. Like you, I will
try to respond to the points you make without sounding too
argumentative.
First, and I know this does sound
argumentative, I didn't state that the credibility of the Canadian
Cancer Society warranted our report. I said that it is part of the job
of the newsroom to weigh the credibility of third party sources.
Second,
I think you are consistently mixing up two things: (a) a CNW press
release on a survey that says a significant majority of Canadians living
in multi-unit dwellings would prefer that those dwellings be
smoke-free; and (b) the scientific basis for a statement in the report
that there is no level of second hand smoke that can be considered safe.
Yes,
there is some mixing of those two threads within our report. But your
chief argument rests on your contention that there are no scientific
studies that show that minute amounts of smoke drifting from one
apartment to another can be a serious health hazard. The major source
of data on the effects of smoking and second hand smoke, as I'm sure you
know, comes from the Office of The Surgeon General of the United
States, who has compiled and analysed hundreds of major studies from
around the world, in its report of 2006. Here's part of the Executive
Summary of that report:
The
health effects of involuntary smoking have not received comprehensive
coverage in this series of reports (The Surgeon General's Reports) since
1986. Reports since then have touched on selected aspects of the topic:
the 1994 report on tobacco use among young people (USDHHS 1994), the
1998 report on tobacco use among U.S. racial and ethnic minorities
(USDHHS 1998), and the 2001 report on women and smoking (USDHHS 2001).
As involuntary smoking remains widespread in the United States and
elsewhere, the preparation of this report was motivated by the
persistence of involuntary smoking as a public health problem and the
need to evaluate the substantial new evidence reported since 1986. This
report substantially expands the list of topics that were included in
the 1986 report. Additional topics include SIDS, developmental effects,
and other reproductive effects; heart disease in adults; and cancer
sites beyond the lung. For some associations of involuntary smoking with
adverse health effects, only a few studies were reviewed in 1986 (e.g.,
ear diseases in children); now, the relevant literature is substantial.
Consequently, this report uses meta-analysis to quantitatively
summarize evidence as appropriate. Following the approach used in the
2004 report (The Health Consequences of Smoking, USDHHS 2004), this 2006
report also systematically evaluates the evidence for causality,
judging the extent of the evidence available and then making an
inference as to the nature of the association.
((U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of
Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon
General—Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for
Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006)
This substantial research effort led to the following major conclusions:
Major Conclusions
This
report returns to involuntary smoking, the topic of the 1986 Surgeon
General's report. Since then, there have been many advances in the
research on secondhand smoke, and substantial evidence has been reported
over the ensuing 20 years. This report uses the revised language for
causal conclusions that was implemented in the 2004 Surgeon General's
report (USDHHS 2004). Each chapter provides a comprehensive review of
the evidence, a quantitative synthesis of the evidence if appropriate,
and a rigorous assessment of sources of bias that may affect
interpretations of the findings. The reviews in this report reaffirm and
strengthen the findings of the 1986 report.
With
regard to the involuntary exposure of nonsmokers to tobacco smoke, the
scientific evidence now supports the following major conclusions: (my emphasis in bold -MH)
1. Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke.
2. Children
exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant
death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems,and
more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and
slows lung growth in their children.
3. Exposure
of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the
cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
4. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
5. Many
millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to
secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial
progress in tobacco control.
6. Eliminating
smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to
secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air,
and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to
secondhand smoke.
(2006 Surgeon General's Report)
I
realize your professional position must frequently put you up against
the US Surgeon General's report of 2006, and its stark conclusions. In
response to your suggestion, I did visit your website (
http://www.cagecanada.ca) and that of the Citizens for Civil Liberties in Ontario (
http://www.citizensforcivilliberties.ca).
I found a collection of articles and citations on unethical,
unprofessional and biased research that has led to some flawed and
failed conclusions linking tobacco and cancer. I read a chapter of "In
Defence of Smokers" by Lauren Colby about the 1964 US Surgeon
General's Report, pointing to possible questions about some aspects of
that early research. Such scholarship is important in keeping
scientific inquiry pure and value-free, and I credit the researchers in
their constant vigilance over built-in biases and procedural
irregularities in published studies. I found no article on either site
disputing the methodology or the findings of the 2006 Surgeon
General's Report.
I will address some of your other
concerns. Yes, CHEX TV is aware of Joe's story as reported on
mykawartha.com. We routinely survey all other local media in the
Peterborough area. The issue of being evicted from a homeless shelter
for behavioural problems, including refusal to stop smoking within a
dorm-style sleeping arrangement, is not exactly the same issue as the
one we were following in our report. The complicated issues involved in
providing shelter for the homeless is a story we have covered in the
past and will continue to cover in the future.
Our
reporter did verify the identity and story of Margo before compiling
her report. We judged Margo had valid reasons for keeping her full name
confidential.
As I said in my
previous letter, we would consider covering a story of the demonization
and victimization of a local person because of his/her smoking habit.
But I don't think we would be interested in a generic debate on the
"witch hunt" currently underway in the broader society, a debate that
wasn't grounded in a local incident or personality.
Finally,
a reminder that we presented a simple piece on a survey showing public
demand for smoke-free living environments. It was sparked by the story
of a local woman. It brought a local health official's angle to the
story, about local smoke-free multi-unit and social housing. The report
made statements about second-hand smoke that are supported by massive
research undertakings. It used third party footage in a confusing way,
and we have instituted a policy to eliminate that confusion. Thank you
for drawing attention to that problem.
I
understand that CAGE must keep its antennae active to protect its
constituency, to worry about "a future homelessness problem" for
smokers. That's not a current problem in Peterborough. If it were a
problem, we would be covering it. We stand by the story we did. We
will consider future coverage of stories on the same issue within the
parameters of our daily assignment decisions.
Again,
thank you for raising these issues, and keeping us mindful of our
responsibilities. And again, I remind you that if this response does
not satisfy you, that you may ask the Canadian Broadcast Standards
Council for a Ruling.
Best to you in 2012.
Michael Harris
General Manager/ CHEX TV
743 Monaghan Rd
Peterborough, ON
K9J 5K2
Cell: (416) 825 1951
Email: mharris@corusent.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
January 9, 2012
To: Michael Harris – CHEX-TV
Dear Mr. Harris,
Thanks
for your latest letter in regards to smoke-free homes. Apologies for
the delay, but due to the holidays I was unable to reply before today.
Although
you believe that you do not have a known homelessness problem for
smokers in Peterborough as of the present time, I can't understand what
harm it can do if the media contributed to preventing future problems. I
am beginning to believe that you really don't want to air the other
side of the story for other reasons that are only known to you.
Notwithstanding your decision which seems to be firm unless I can come
up with a smoker in Peterborough willing to go public, allow me
to point out to you some facts about the 2006 surgeon general's report
to which you referred to justify your repeating the ''no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke', anti-tobacco message.
The
statement does not come directly from the report. It comes from a
statement he made during the press conference. The closest thing comes
on page 65, which reads:
''The evidence for underlying
mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke
suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist, thus implying that
any exposure carries some risk. For infants, children, and adults with
asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief
exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary
responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible
individuals. ''This is clearly speculative
("suggests...may") and it only applies to people who are extremely
susceptible. Specifically, he seems to be referring to chronic
asthmatics but there is no definition of what "very brief exposures"
are. It does not seem to be referring to tiny drift in mult-unit
apartments. Ultimately, 'no safe level' means that no safe level has
been detected with accuracy; it does not mean that exposure at any level
is dangerous. Although the more accurate phrase that is used by some
anti-tobacco lobby groups doesn't necessarly spell that out, it tends to
be more honest by at least hinting as much: ''there are no known safe levels of second hand smoke'' ''known''
being the operative word here. Much like potatoes, another nightshade
plant that contains potentially harmful glycoalkaloids, it would take
great effort to determine such levels. In the case of second hand
smoke, ''the ends justify the means'' anti-tobacco philosophy will
never allow such efforts to be undertaken. The potential
end of making smokers homeless, however, far from
justifies such extreme means. Similar to the conclusions about harm
from potatoes, it's safe to say that common sense, decades of real
life experience and epidemiological studies that don't indicate any harm
from such low levels of SHS (faint smell describes it better) drifting
from one apartment to the other, dictate that there should be no reason
for concern. From:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v30je19.htm
''The
Committee considered that, despite the long history of human
consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids, the available
epidemiological and experimental data from human and laboratory animal
studies did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake. The
Committee recognized that the development of empirical data to support
such a level would require considerable effort. Nevertheless, it felt
that the large body of experience with the consumption of potatoes,
frequently on a daily basis, indicated that normal glycoalkaloid levels
(20-100 mg/kg) found in properly grown and handled tubers were not of
concern.''
As
long ago as the 16th century, people recognized that there is no such
thing as an absolutely safe chemical. The right dose differentiates a
poison and a remedy. Let's read what Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in
the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of
Public Health and a strong proponent of workplace bans had to say about
the ''no safe level of exposure'' of second hand smoke: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-report-publicity.html
''One
can say that there is no safe level of exposure to any carcinogen.
There is no safe level of exposure to car exhaust. There is no safe
level of exposure to the sun's rays. There is no safe level of exposure
to X-rays. There is no safe level of exposure to the benzene that is
found in some sodas. There is no safe level of exposure to radon in
homes. There is no safe level of exposure to arsenic that is found in
many people's drinking water.
For
that matter, there is no safe speed at which you can drive a car
without risk of injury or death. There is no risk-free way to have sex
with someone who has HIV infection. There is no safe method to travel
from one place to another.
(...)
It
seems odd to me that the tobacco control field is the only one where we
seem adamant on emphasizing the concept of no safe level of exposure
(with the possible exception of the "you have to use a condom every
time" advocates). I'm not sure what the point is. Perhaps it's to scare
people into avoiding smoke. And maybe that's a good thing. But perhaps,
instead, the effect will be to obscure intervention and policy
priorities. And to pit nonsmokers against smokers more vehemently. And
to allow the anti-smoking movement to shift its attention from
workplaces to the great outdoors, and then to cars and homes. And to
discourage smokers from quitting.''
More of what he had to say about the Surgeon General's Report:http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-communications.html
''The
rest of the story is that the Surgeon General's press release distorts
the science presented in the report and ends up presenting misleading
and inaccurate information to the public.
The press release
claims that a significant finding of the Surgeon General's report is
that: "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse
effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart
disease and lung cancer."
But
there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Certainly, no
evidence is presented in the Surgeon General's report to support this
claim. And certainly, the Surgeon General's report draws no such
conclusion.
In fact, such a conclusion flies in the face of
common medical sense. How could it possibly be that a brief exposure to
secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? It takes many years for heart
disease to develop. It takes years of exposure to tobacco smoke even for
a smoker to develop heart disease. I estimate that it takes at least 25
years of exposure (based on the fact that very few smokers are
diagnosed with heart disease before age 40).''
He also goes on to explain how misleading it is to claim that such brief exposures can cause cancer:
''It
is also quite misleading to tell the public that a brief exposure to
secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer. There is certainly
no evidence for this and the Surgeon General's report itself draws no
such conclusion. In fact, the report makes it clear that most of the
studies linking secondhand smoke and lung cancer studied nonsmokers with
many years of intense exposure.''
And concludes that :
''Unfortunately,
I'm forced to reach the conclusion that tobacco control organizations
are simply unable to accurately communicate secondhand smoke science to
the public. They are widely distorting the science to create a more
sensational and emotional impact on the public. When this phenomenon
goes all the way up to the level of the Surgeon General's office, you
know you've got a serious scientific integrity problem.''
The following is a statement from OSHA on workplace safety extracted from http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
''Because
the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette
smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no
regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air
contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical
components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would
not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter
of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause
to ETS.''
Please note that the preceding deals with workplace exposures whereby
workers would be exposed to much more tobacco smoke than a faint smell
drifting from one apartment to the other!
An
independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood &
Fennel of Austin, Tx, using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette
of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to
OSHA's PELs (if the following link doesn't work for you, please copy
paste it in a new browser). www.forces.org/evidence/download/ntp915c.pdf
Following are the mainlines of their findings:
"We
have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been
obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these
chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
"Taking
the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we
calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the
lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The
results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a
situation where these threshold limits could be realized.
"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.
"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
"At
the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine,
more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our
little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a
danger.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required.
Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300
rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?
"Of
course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a
door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air
exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed)
achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.
Additional reading on how the science on second hand smoke has been distorted can be found at : http://www.fightingback.homestead.com
Science
is never settled and whether it is the Surgeon General's or Albert
Einstein's theories, every scientist deserving of the title agrees that
it is through criticism and debate that it can progress. Obviously, for
reasons only known to you as I said earlier, you don't seem interested
to air such criticism and debate unless we come up with a ''here and
now'' victim. I do not intend to pursue this any further with the
Canadian Broadcast Standards Council because although I believe that
your stance of refusing to tell our side of the story which can help
prevent making many victims in the future is ethically wrong, as
general manager of a private station it is your right and privilege to
make such decisions.
Thanks for your time and attention.
Yours Truly,
Iro Cyr
Vice-President - C.A.G.E.
http:///www.cagecanada.blogspot.com
Posts
