ETS and related terminology - Revision history

Cvp: In response to email thread, I corrected to reflect the neutrality of the use of passive smoking in German, and related changes to the discussion about intentionality when using a particular term. Fixed a few confusing sentences.

2012-07-08T13:59:55Z

In response to email thread, I corrected to reflect the neutrality of the use of passive smoking in German, and related changes to the discussion about intentionality when using a particular term. Fixed a few confusing sentences.

Cvp at 18:42, 6 July 2012

2012-07-06T18:42:34Z

Cvp at 17:04, 6 July 2012

2012-07-06T17:04:52Z

Cvp at 17:04, 6 July 2012

2012-07-06T17:04:06Z

Cvp: Created page with "===ETS and related terminology=== ETS stands for "environmental tobacco smoke", which is the preferred scientific term for this phenomenon. The word "environmental" distingui..."

2012-07-05T14:48:04Z

Created page with "===ETS and related terminology=== ETS stands for "environmental tobacco smoke", which is the preferred scientific term for this phenomenon. The word "environmental" distingui..."

New page

===ETS and related terminology===
ETS stands for "environmental tobacco smoke", which is the preferred scientific term for this phenomenon. The word "environmental" distinguishes the smoke that is in the air from the concentrated smoke that is intentionally inhaled, a distinction that is obviously important (but absent from other scientific descriptors for smoke, like "diesel smoke", because it goes without saying in those cases). ETS is a combination of smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette when inhalation is not occurring and the fraction of smoke that is exhaled after a smoker takes a puff. These components can be called "sidestream smoke" and "exhaled smoke", respectively (with the modifier "tobacco" included if there is ambiguity in the context).

However, the latter is also often called "second hand smoke" (SHS) and this term it then often expanded to include all ETS, including the sidestream component. While SHS is a widely used term in popular discussions and often even appears in unbiased scientific analysis, it is not preferred terminology. That is not just because of the ambiguity (about whether it includes the sidestream component) but because "second hand smoke" was a term intentionally created for advocacy purposes. It is meant to evoke feelings of disgust among those for whom the phrase "second hand" evokes images of poverty, uncleanness, and violations of boundaries. While that built-in bias has largely faded in impact due to the common use of the term, it should still be recognized as being present.

A more recent term crafted for advocacy purposes, and that is fundamentally misleading to the point that it cannot be used in a genuine scientific context, is "passive smoking". This term, which refers to the experience of breathing ETS, was intentionally crafted to imply the (scientifically false) claim that breathing ETS is functionally equivalent to smoking. The term "passive" is also calculated to manipulate people's thinking; though technically defensible as the counterpart to "active", the common uses of the term result in it evoking notions of victimization and helplessness.

When evaluating writings that use these terms, use of "passive smoking" is a clear indication of an anti-scientific advocacy bias. The use of the somewhat awkward term "environmental tobacco smoke" indicates an effort to be scientifically precise or to avoid political language. "Second hand smoke" falls somewhere in between; despite its political origins, it has become the common popular terminology (as have translations thereof in languages other than English), and thus is often used in writing for a non-technical audience even when no political bias is intended.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ===ETS and related terminology===
-However, the latter is also often called "second hand smoke" (SHS) and this term it then often expanded to include all ETS, including the sidestream component.  While SHS is a widely used term in popular discussions and often even appears in unbiased scientific analysis, it is not preferred terminology.  That is not just because of the ambiguity (about whether it includes the sidestream component) but because "second hand smoke" was a term intentionally created for advocacy purposes.  The use of intentionally manipulative terminology is common in the anti-tobacco industry, including among ostensible scientists (see, for example, [http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/8/2/156.abstract/reply# this discussion in a journal]).
+The terms "ETS", "Second Hand Smoke" and "Passive Smoking": meaning, history, and usage
-So, "second hand smoke" is meant to evoke feelings of disgust among those for whom the phrase "second hand" evokes images of poverty, uncleanness, and violations of boundaries.  While that built-in bias has largely faded in impact due to the common use of the term, it should still be recognized as being present.
+ETS stands for "environmental tobacco smoke", which is the preferred scientific term for the smoke from burning tobacco in the air.  The word "environmental" distinguishes the smoke that is in the air from the concentrated smoke that is intentionally inhaled, a distinction that is obviously important (but absent from other scientific descriptors for smoke, like "diesel smoke", because it goes without saying in those cases).  ETS is the combination of smoke from the tip of the cigarette (or the similar smouldering from cigars, pipes, etc.) smouldering when inhalation is not occurring and the fraction of smoke that is exhaled after a smoker takes a puff.  When there is need to separate them, which is seldom the case for any practical purpose, the different components can be called "sidestream smoke" and "exhaled smoke", respectively (with the modifier "tobacco" included if there is ambiguity in the context).
-Another term that is fundamentally misleading, to the point that it cannot be used in any genuine scientific context, is "passive smoking".  This term, which refers to the experience of breathing ETS, was originally coined most of a century ago, before the effects of smoking were well understood, and perhaps represented a genuine misunderstanding about how fundamentally different smoking and breathing ETS are.  Modern use of the term, however, is intentionally crafted to make the claim (now known to be false) that breathing ETS is functionally equivalent to smoking.  The term "passive" also tends to manipulate people's thinking; though technically defensible as the counterpart to "active", the common uses of the term result in it evoking notions of victimization and helplessness.
+However, the latter is also often called "second hand smoke" (SHS) and this term it then often expanded to include all ETS, including the sidestream component.  While SHS is a widely used term in popular discussions in American English and often even appears in unbiased scientific analysis, it is not preferred terminology.  That is not just because of the ambiguity (about whether it includes the sidestream component) but because "second hand smoke" was a term intentionally created for advocacy purposes.  The use of intentionally manipulative terminology is common in the anti-tobacco industry, including among ostensible scientists (see, for example, [http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/8/2/156.abstract/reply# this discussion in a journal]).
-Other terms that have been proposed within the anti-tobacco industry at various times, but have not been widely deployed include variations on "tobacco smoke pollution" (technically correct, since anything unintentionally put into the environment is pollution, but clearly intended to manipulated people emotionally) or "toxic tobacco smoke".
+"Second hand smoke" is meant to evoke feelings of disgust among those for whom the phrase "second hand" evokes images of poverty, uncleanness, and violations of boundaries.  While that built-in bias has largely faded in impact due to the common use of the term, it should still be recognized as being present.
-When evaluating writings that use these terms, it is useful to realize that use of "passive smoking" is a clear indication of an anti-scientific advocacy bias.  The use of the somewhat awkward term "environmental tobacco smoke" indicates an effort to be scientifically precise or to avoid political language.  "Second hand smoke" falls somewhere in between; despite its political origins, it has become the common popular terminology (as have translations thereof in languages other than English), and thus is often used in writing for a non-technical audience even when no political bias is intended.
+The term "passive smoking" is even more inaccurate scientifically.  This term, which refers to the experience of breathing ETS (which is scientifically known as "ETS exposure" or "exposure to ETS"), was originally coined most of a century ago.  This was before the effects of smoking were well understood, and so perhaps it represented a genuine misunderstanding about how fundamentally different smoking and ETS exposure are, though even then (or at least when it was first introduced into English), its rhetorical value was presumably intended.  In its original German and in some other languages, the term fills the same niche "secondhand smoke" does in American English: it is scientifically inaccurate but sufficiently common that its literal meaning is ignored.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ETS stands for "environmental tobacco smoke", which is the preferred scientific term for this phenomenon.  The word "environmental" distinguishes the smoke that is in the air from the concentrated smoke that is intentionally inhaled, a distinction that is obviously important (but absent from other scientific descriptors for smoke, like "diesel smoke", because it goes without saying in those cases).  ETS is a combination of smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette when inhalation is not occurring and the fraction of smoke that is exhaled after a smoker takes a puff.  These components can be called "sidestream smoke" and "exhaled smoke", respectively (with the modifier "tobacco" included if there is ambiguity in the context).
-However, the latter is also often called "second hand smoke" (SHS) and this term it then often expanded to include all ETS, including the sidestream component.  While SHS is a widely used term in popular discussions and often even appears in unbiased scientific analysis, it is not preferred terminology.  That is not just because of the ambiguity (about whether it includes the sidestream component) but because "second hand smoke" was a term intentionally created for advocacy purposes.  The use of intentionally manipulative terminology is common in the anti-tobacco industry, including among ostensible scientists (see, for example, [http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/8/2/156.abstract/reply# this discussions in a journal].
+However, the latter is also often called "second hand smoke" (SHS) and this term it then often expanded to include all ETS, including the sidestream component.  While SHS is a widely used term in popular discussions and often even appears in unbiased scientific analysis, it is not preferred terminology.  That is not just because of the ambiguity (about whether it includes the sidestream component) but because "second hand smoke" was a term intentionally created for advocacy purposes.  The use of intentionally manipulative terminology is common in the anti-tobacco industry, including among ostensible scientists (see, for example, [http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/8/2/156.abstract/reply# this discussion in a journal]).
 So, "second hand smoke" is meant to evoke feelings of disgust among those for whom the phrase "second hand" evokes images of poverty, uncleanness, and violations of boundaries.  While that built-in bias has largely faded in impact due to the common use of the term, it should still be recognized as being present.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 Another term that is fundamentally misleading, to the point that it cannot be used in any genuine scientific context, is "passive smoking".  This term, which refers to the experience of breathing ETS, was originally coined most of a century ago, before the effects of smoking were well understood, and perhaps represented a genuine misunderstanding about how fundamentally different smoking and breathing ETS are.  Modern use of the term, however, is intentionally crafted to make the claim (now known to be false) that breathing ETS is functionally equivalent to smoking.  The term "passive" also tends to manipulate people's thinking; though technically defensible as the counterpart to "active", the common uses of the term result in it evoking notions of victimization and helplessness.
-Other variations that have been discussed by the anti-tobacco industry at various times, but have not been widely deployed include variations on "tobacco smoke pollution" (technically correct, since anything unintentionally put into the environment is pollution, but clearly intended to manipulated people emotionally) or "toxic tobacco smoke".
+Other terms that have been proposed within the anti-tobacco industry at various times, but have not been widely deployed include variations on "tobacco smoke pollution" (technically correct, since anything unintentionally put into the environment is pollution, but clearly intended to manipulated people emotionally) or "toxic tobacco smoke".
 When evaluating writings that use these terms, it is useful to realize that use of "passive smoking" is a clear indication of an anti-scientific advocacy bias.  The use of the somewhat awkward term "environmental tobacco smoke" indicates an effort to be scientifically precise or to avoid political language.  "Second hand smoke" falls somewhere in between; despite its political origins, it has become the common popular terminology (as have translations thereof in languages other than English), and thus is often used in writing for a non-technical audience even when no political bias is intended.