Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Analysis

Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the “23 times more toxic” myth turn into fact?

Ross MacKenzie and Becky Freeman
CMAJ May 18, 2010 182 (8) 796-799; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.090993
Ross MacKenzie
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Becky Freeman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading
Submit a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
References
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Minimum 7 characters.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'. Minimum 12 characters.
Your organization, institution's or residential address.
Statement of Competing Interests

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • Re: Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the �23 times more toxic� myth turn into fact?
    Dr. Suzanne Strasberg
    Posted on: 19 April 2010
  • The authors respond to Dr. Strasberg
    Ross MacKenzie
    Posted on: 16 April 2010
  • Re: Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the �23 times more toxic� myth turn into fact?
    Dr. Suzanne Strasberg
    Posted on: 14 April 2010
  • Posted on: (19 April 2010)
    Re: Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the �23 times more toxic� myth turn into fact?
    • Dr. Suzanne Strasberg, Toronto, Ont.

    We are concerned with this article, particularly the title, as it implies that the danger to kids in tobacco-smoke-filled automobiles is a myth.

    We are similarly concerned that the authors of this piece seemingly ignored the fact that in 2008, the OMA released new evidence that found in -car second-hand smoke particle concentrations to be up to 60 times greater than in a smoke-free home, not 23 times.

    ...
    Show More

    We are concerned with this article, particularly the title, as it implies that the danger to kids in tobacco-smoke-filled automobiles is a myth.

    We are similarly concerned that the authors of this piece seemingly ignored the fact that in 2008, the OMA released new evidence that found in -car second-hand smoke particle concentrations to be up to 60 times greater than in a smoke-free home, not 23 times.

    The OMA’s 2008 release was based on the easily found and well- referenced work of the California Air Resources Board (June 2005) and the work of experts in the field, Drs. Wayne Ott, Neil Klepeis and Paul Switzer, published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (July 2007). As public health issues like this one gain momentum, more evidence becomes available and it is the responsibility of the media reporting such information, and the researchers doing retrospective analysis, to keep up with the new evidence. It is important to point out that it is indisputable that second-hand smoke is harmful for everyone, regardless of what the actual numbers are.

    Contrary to the authors’ attempt to portray the OMA position paper as an example of inaccurate reporting, the paper is quoted in their article as clearly explaining the context of the reference, as part of the discussion surrounding the draft legislation in Colorado. The citation of the newspaper article accurately referenced that description.

    As we presented in our 2004 paper and again in our 2008 release, there is lots of other evidence supporting a ban on smoking in cars with kids, and we are thrilled that our ongoing advocacy resulted in such a ban in Ontario, that allows our children to breathe easier.

    Suzanne Strasberg, MD President, Ontario Medical Association

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (16 April 2010)
    The authors respond to Dr. Strasberg
    • Ross MacKenzie, Sydney, Australia

    Editor;

    Dr Strasberg’s suggestion that our article implies that health risks associated with second-hand smoke exposure in cars is a myth seemingly overlooks our stated position that banning smoking in cars represents an “extremely important public health policy that has the potential to dramatically reduce the amount of exposure to second-hand smoke experienced by children.”

    The myth referred to i...

    Show More

    Editor;

    Dr Strasberg’s suggestion that our article implies that health risks associated with second-hand smoke exposure in cars is a myth seemingly overlooks our stated position that banning smoking in cars represents an “extremely important public health policy that has the potential to dramatically reduce the amount of exposure to second-hand smoke experienced by children.”

    The myth referred to is the ‘23 times more toxic’ figure; and how it came to be widely accepted is the crux of our article. While the OMA’s 2008 report did use a different set of figures in its assessment of second -hand smoke in cars, the organisation’s 2004 report, which cited an unsubstantiated Denver newspaper article as the source for its use of the 23 times figure, played a key role in the progress of this media-friendly sound bite into broadly quoted ‘fact’.

    We unreservedly concur with Dr Strasberg’s position on the importance of raising awareness of the indisputable health risks posed by exposure to second-hand smoke, but disagree with her assertion that this be done “regardless of what the actual numbers are.”

    The inherent problem with using an unsubstantiated figure is that the advances made in tobacco control in recent decades has been based on reliable scientific evidence; using inaccurate information runs the risk of alienating what has been overwhelmingly public support for greater regulation of tobacco use and its promotion.

    A further concern is that using such inaccurate information runs the risk of providing ammunition for opponents of tobacco control, and we cite one such example in our paper. More recently, the 23 times figure has been specifically attacked in a broader critique of the tobacco control movement, see http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/03/just-open- window.html

    Ross MacKenzie, Becky Freeman

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
  • Posted on: (14 April 2010)
    Re: Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the �23 times more toxic� myth turn into fact?
    • Dr. Suzanne Strasberg, Toronto, ON

    We are concerned with this article, particularly the title, as it implies that the danger to kids in tobacco-smoke-filled automobiles is a myth.

    We are similarly concerned that the authors of this piece seemingly ignored the fact that in 2008, the OMA released new evidence that found in -car second-hand smoke particle concentrations to be up to 60 times greater than in a smoke-free home, not 23 times. The OMA’...

    Show More

    We are concerned with this article, particularly the title, as it implies that the danger to kids in tobacco-smoke-filled automobiles is a myth.

    We are similarly concerned that the authors of this piece seemingly ignored the fact that in 2008, the OMA released new evidence that found in -car second-hand smoke particle concentrations to be up to 60 times greater than in a smoke-free home, not 23 times. The OMA’s 2008 release was based on the easily found and well-referenced work of the California Air Resources Board (June 2005) and the work of experts in the field, Drs. Wayne Ott, Neil Klepeis and Paul Switzer, published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (July 2007).

    As public health issues like this one gain momentum, more evidence becomes available and it is the responsibility of the media reporting such information, and the researchers doing retrospective analysis, to keep up with the new evidence. It is important to point out that it is indisputable that second-hand smoke is harmful for everyone, regardless of what the actual numbers are.

    As we presented in our 2004 paper and again in our 2008 release, there is lots of other evidence supporting a ban on smoking in cars with kids, and we are thrilled that our ongoing advocacy resulted in such a ban in Ontario, that allows our children to breathe easier.

    Suzanne Strasberg, MD President, Ontario Medical Association

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 182 (8)
CMAJ
Vol. 182, Issue 8
18 May 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the “23 times more toxic” myth turn into fact?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the “23 times more toxic” myth turn into fact?
Ross MacKenzie, Becky Freeman
CMAJ May 2010, 182 (8) 796-799; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.090993

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the “23 times more toxic” myth turn into fact?
Ross MacKenzie, Becky Freeman
CMAJ May 2010, 182 (8) 796-799; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.090993
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Methods
    • Historical timeline
    • Implications
    • Recommendations
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights
  • Association of anti-smoking legislation with rates of hospital admission for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions
  • Legislating for health-related gain: striking a balance
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Hyping health effects: a news analysis of the 'new smoking and the role of sitting
  • Myths, facts and conditional truths: What is the evidence on the risks associated with smoking in cars carrying children?
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Managing conflicts of interest in the development of health guidelines
  • COVID-19 in long-term care homes in Ontario and British Columbia
  • Canadian federal–provincial/territorial funding of universal health care: fraught history, uncertain future
Show more Analysis

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire