"A burning cigarette is more toxic to the people around it than it is to the person smoking it."
This could be true. It depends on where it is being smoked.
For instance, if the cigarette is being actively smoked outside, the first hand smoker is almost certain to suffer greater negative effects.
However, if the cigarette is smoked in a confined space with little or no air circulation, the second hand smoke could be more damaging than the person smoking it, especially if the cigarette is not smoked much.
In fact, some cigarettes are puffed on once and left to burn away.
The whole problem breaks down into concentration and duration although first and second hand smoke have slightly different component.
In the case of a restaurant worker, they would be subject to 8 hours of second and smoke which could be worse than a person who comes in and smokes and then leaves.
Here's what was said
"Secondhand smoke is extremely dangerous," said Ann Marwick, director of Pow'r Against Tobacco, an anti-smoking group that coordinates activities in Rockland, Westchester, Putnam and Orange counties. "A burning cigarette is more toxic to the people around it than it is to the person smoking it."
I agree with Siegel that the first hand smoker would almost certainly have a great negative effect if they stayed in the same area the same amount of time as the non-smoker.
However, this isn't always the case.
Also, what they are likely referring to is the fact that smokers inhale the cigarette through a filter which others around them don't have.
Here's what the Mayo clinic says differentiating the two:
Some of the substances found in secondhand smoke that are known or suspected to cause cancer include:
* Formaldehyde
* Arsenic
* Cadmium
* Benzene
* Ethylene oxide
Here are a few other chemicals in secondhand smoke that might sound familiar, along with their effects on health:
* Ammonia — irritates your lungs
* Carbon monoxide — hampers breathing by reducing oxygen in your blood
* Methanol — toxic when inhaled or swallowed
* Hydrogen cyanide — interferes with proper respiratory function
The dangerous particles given off in secondhand smoke can linger in the air for hours. Even breathing them in for a short time — as little as 20 or 30 minutes — can harm your health in a variety ways. And breathing in secondhand smoke over years can be all the more dangerous.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health...d-smoke/
CC00023
Make no mistake - I support smoking bans and have let my opinions be known repeatedly.
That's good, looks like your work is paying off with all of the smoking bans coming into effect.
But I don't support making fallacious claims to advance a policy that I support.
Me either. The evidence describing the negative health effects of second hand smoke are so strong, they don't need to be exaggerated.
Although it is possible under abnormal circumstances, I never liked statemens like
"A burning cigarette is more toxic to the people around it than it is to the person smoking it."
One of the problems is it narrows the issue to the one cigarette. The atmosphere for service workers often has diluted smoke from dozens of cigarettes, that's where the concentration arises from.
Also, the harm from SHS in relation to first hand has to do with duration of exposure as well.
Yes, there are many situations where the health impact from second hand smoke can be worse than that from first hand smoking. However, the statement made above isn't a very likely example of one.
To Erik:
The astounding scientific facts that you post from Mayo Clinic Nicotine Dependency Center must come from Doctor Richard Hurt the MD turned scientific researcher?
Hysterical.
Cigarettes burn for approximately 12 minutes, but smokers usually only inhale for 30 seconds. As a result, cigarettes are spewing second-hand smoke into the air for non-smokers to breathe.
The smoke inhaled by the smoker first, and then exhaled, is called mainstream smoke.
The smoke that goes directly into the air from the end of a burning cigarette is called sidestream smoke.
Because second-hand smoke burns at a lower temperature than inhaled smoke (mainstream) it contains:
2 times more tar
5 times more carbon monoxide, which reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood.
The short-term effects include:
eye irritation
headache
nasal discomfort and sneezing
cough and sore throat
nausea and dizziness
increased heart rate and blood pressure
increased risk for people with heart disease (angina), asthma, allergies
http://cancer.ca/ccs/internet/st...ngId-
en,00.html
Erik wrote:
"In the case of a restaurant worker, they would be subject to 8 hours of second and smoke which could be worse than a person who comes in and smokes and then leaves."
I'll let the anti-tobacco industry help me explain it to you (excerpted):
NEWS
from the American Cancer Society
October 30, 2002
NEW STUDY SHOWS LOCAL WORKERS EXPOSED TO
ELEVATED LEVELS OF SECONDHAND SMOKE
AMHERST, NY - Workers in bars, restaurants and other worksites...are exposed to...
"We knew that secondhand smoke is dangerous..."What's most troubling, is finding out just how much secondhand smoke some people are forced to breathe in just to make a living..."
During July and August, the air in 18 local venues was tested to measure ambient nicotine levels, showing how much secondhand smoke was in the air...Volunteers collected data by wearing a passive nicotine air monitor...results were reported in nanograms per eight hours of exposure.
The highest exposure levels were recorded in bingo halls, which averaged 940 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour shift.
Funding for the study was proved by a grant from the Erie/Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition. Contributors from the study were Andrew Hyland, PhD, Joseph Bauer, PhD, and Michael Cummings, PhD, MPH from Roswell Park Cancer Institute and Catherine Vladutiu from the American Cancer Society.
Okay, are you still with me, Erik?
The nicotine inhaled in the smokiest venue by volunteers averaged 940 nanograms of nicotine per eight hour shift.
Nanograms are billionths of a gram. 940 nanograms should look like this: .000000940
A smoker inhales 1.3 milligrams per cigarette, according to a study by Jarvis. 1.3 milligrams looks like this: .0013
A smoker comes in and consumes .0013 from just one cigarette and leaves. Nonsmoking volunteers hang around and consume .000000940 during eight hours of heavy exposure.
According to the ACS and RPCI you are wrong.
Here's the link to the press release, but it's dead: http://www.roswellpark.org/news....431&
reflid=3269
"No human diet can be free of naturally occurring chemicals that are rodent carcinogens. Of the chemicals that people eat, 99.99% are natural."
Bruce Ames, Ph.D. and Lois Swirsky Gold, Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley
Rolls with Butter
acetaldehyde, benzene, ethyl alcohol, benzo(a)pyrene, ethyl carbamate, furan derivatives, furfural
Pumpkin Pie
benzo(a)pyrene, coumarin, methyl eugenol, safrole
Fresh Apples, Grapes, Mangos, Pears, Pineapple
acetaldehyde, benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, d-limonene, estragole, ethyl acrylate, quercetin glycosides
Coffee
benzo(a)pyrene, benzaldehyde, benzene, benzofuran, caffeic acid, catechol, 1,2,5,6-dibenz(a)anthracene, ethyl benzene, furan, furfural, hydrogen peroxide, hydroquinone, d-limonene, 4-methylcatechol
---
Arsenic is naturally contained in our drinking water. Current allowable limits are 50 micrograms per liter in most countries. A human being consumes some 2 liters per day.
The mainstream of a cigarette contains between 40 and 120 nanograms of arsenic. One would have to smoke more than a 1000 cigarettes a day to reach the allowable limit.
James Austin, the press release can still be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060.../
news_2431.html
Because second-hand smoke burns at a lower temperature than inhaled smoke (mainstream) it contains:
2 times more tar
5 times more carbon monoxide, which reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood.
I don't doubt that duguay. However, wouldn't smokers take in second hand smoke as well when they breathed as well as mainstream smoke.
Second hand smoke may indeed be more toxic than mainstream smoke. However, it is diluted and smokers breath it in when they are smoking as well.
If the smokers and non-smokers are in the same area and stay for the same amount of time, I don't see how it would be possible for the non-smokers to take in less toxins than the smokers.
Erik:
"The atmosphere for service workers often has diluted smoke from dozens of cigarettes, that's where the concentration arises from."
I wonder whether the dilutory force of the atmosphere might be stronger than the contration forces of the cigarettes....
Of course, the 'smoke' coming of the end of a cigarette knows how to avoid the smoker. It is a magical property of this type of smoke. It gathers in hidious little clouds, awaits the presence of a never smoker, and then strikes, Stuka style...
Ok. Here we go.
The statement:
"A burning cigarette is more toxic to the people around it than it is to the person smoking it."
should read:
"The sidestream smoke from a burning cigarette can be more toxic than the mainstream smoke smokers inhale
It gathers in hidious little clouds, awaits the presence of a never smoker, and then strikes, Stuka style...
Ha. Yes. Smokers are skillfully able to blow it away from themselves so that they only breathe mainstream smoke. That's the ticket.
Thanks benpal. I'll have to remember that website.
Smoking Causes Lung Cancer! Check For Lung Cancer Symptoms...
http://lung-cancer-symptoms.axn24.net/
Sorry... Heres the link Lung Cancer Symptoms
Ok, now i understand: there's magic involved. For some strange supernatural phenomenon, 2nd hand smoke stays away from the smoker who produce it and only goes to the nonsmokers around.
Seriously, even a layman that has read some publications could easily note a simple fact.
The relative risk of getting lung cancer for the average smoker is (correct if i'm wrong) 10.
The relative risk for a nonsmoker exposed to 2nd hand smoke varies from 1 (no additional risk) to a number less than 2.
So how is it possible that 2nd hand smoke is more toxic that 1st hand smoke if all the epidemiologic data collected so far contradict this statement? And it's data collected by the very same anti-smoking establishment, not big T.
It's like saying that Earth is flat, despite all the contrary evidence.
This "evidence" i see arises from the Canadian Cancer Society and hence the reference to cigarettes burning for 12 minutes.You see in the EEC in order to reach the permisable levels of nicotine and tar the cigarettes have a fairly high level of burn accelerants added so 12 minutes is way over board.Mr Duguay quotes the increase of tar and CO in sidesteam smoke,now it would be interesting when all of this information was first "discovered" and the political ramifications of "discovering it".Health and Welfare Canada to my mind have even more of a credibility issue than the OTT members of the US rabid sector,primarily because they have been manipulating and applying mis-information for a far longer timescale.It is so strange that after repeated attempts to clarify what scientific evidence is being promoted to back the woeful tales of SHS causing everything but the plague that miraculously the issue suddenly turns into an even greater scam.We who must instigate panic in the masses must apply even more to ensure the scientific debate we are losing can be turned around.The goal posts are constantly being moved by anti smoke antagonists to suit,they will not fight their adenda on independant scientific evidence and nor have any morals or scruples.Their jihad against smokers is as bitter and twisted as the muslim followers of extremism.
It's like saying that Earth is flat, despite all the contrary evidence.
Yes, but some people still want to try to claim cigarette smoke is harmless.
In adults:
* ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. ETS has been classified as a Group A carcinogen under EPA's carcinogen assessment guidelines. This classification is reserved for those compounds or mixtures which have been shown to cause cancer in humans, based on studies in human populations.
In children:
* ETS exposure increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to exposure to ETS. Of these, between 7,500 and 15,000 will result in hospitalization.
* ETS exposure increases the prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, a sign of chronic middle ear disease.
* ETS exposure in children
irritates the upper respiratory tract and is associated with a small but significant reduction in lung function.
* ETS exposure increases the frequency of episodes and severity of symptoms in asthmatic children. The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.
* ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.
View the full report: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC, EPA/600/6-90/006F, December, 1992 (PDF,
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
hea...ltheffects.html
Protective measure against "20 minutes of exposure to ETS is like smoking a pack a day".
Bring along 3 cigarettes. Immediately prior to entry of smokey place, ignite first cigarette and start smoking. Then enter smokey place. Move around in smokey place. When first cigarette is finished, immediately ignite second cigarette. When third cigarette is about to finish, locate exit. Just before finishing final cigarette, escape smokey place through normal exit. Extinguish last cigarette. 21 minutes have passed.
Net result - you smoked 3 cigarettes in smokey place where exposure to ETS would have resulted in 20 cigarette smoking risk. Net gain: 17 cigarettes worth of ETS protection.
Huh, duh?
Now listen up! It is vitally important for all you Doubting Thomases and Janes out there to quit arguing with Erik.
Erik has studied this topic and has web links up the ying yang and they rest of you are really stoopid. You got that?!
If Erik says that 20 nanoseconds of exposure to upstream, sidestream, downstream, slipstream and mainstream smoke will cause a innocent little one's innner ear fluid to overflow into his brain and make him grow up to be a fanatical hate smoking nazi then you goddam better well believe it.
If Erik sez that 36.674939532 seconds of SHS exposure will cause a healthy mountain climber's heart to suddenly expand and bust out of his chest and spray the room with blood, then he damn well knows what he is talking about.
If any of the antis say that you can smoke on the Alaskan tundra and that it will still cause teenagers in Florida to suffer from athsma attacks then you better shut up and listen.
Erik, you are a god, and it makes me very angry that anyone would dare argue with you...especially some stoopid doctor. Count on me from now on to be your greatest supporter on this blog. I've got your back buddy. Word dat.
ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers.
Shouldn't that read "estimated by statistical mumbo jumbo to be correlated with"?
It's also been estimated that approximately 100,000 deaths per year can be attributed to iatrogenic mishap.
If you're so concerned about saving lives, you'd be better off leaving smokers alone and starting a campaign for safer hospitals.
Erik wrote:
"Yes, but some people still want to try to claim cigarette smoke is harmless..."
And what the hell has it do to with the objection i made?!?!?
If you want to argue with me, it's fine. But please do me a favour: first read what i post, then reply to it. If you cannot do that simple thing, then i'm not interested in your blathering.
Eric--too funny!
By the way, this is an old argument brought back around again...SHS/ETS is more deadly than original smoke...so now, the "new" arguments aren't working good/fast enough-trot out the "old faithfuls" to energize the ANTISMOKER ... which also shows even the ANTISMOKER has the attention span of a gnat ...and no memory of what's been done before.
Deja Vu all over again?!
When all else fails, EriK goes back to the foundational lie...
" * ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers..."
Again with the "approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers". And again I ask HOW is this cause of death diagnosed?
"EPA estimates that between 150,000 and 300,000 of these cases..."
"The report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children..."
Aside from the fact that this 1992 EPA report has been thoroughly debunked (and yet is still quoted as the bible of antismokERs), it should be clear just by reading the "estimates" referenced here that this is NOT science.
Put another way:
EriK, if your auto mechanic gave you an estimate of $1500 to repair your car and then billed you $3000, would that be acceptable to you?
And would you place great faith in a building contractor who told you his estimate for your new house was between $200,000 and $1,000,000?
I suppose if you're willing to accept numbers like that, you'll believe anything... And I guess that's what the AntismokER Crusade re-LIES upon.
I suppose if you're willing to accept numbers like that, you'll believe anything
I think it is reasonable to believe all 50 US state departments of health, the EPA and CDC on the issue.
"I think it is reasonable to believe all 50 US state departments of health, the EPA and CDC on the issue."
You got that Kathleen? I better hear a yes here or thell be some splainin to do.
And for the rest of you out there...just what part of 50, or state departments of health, or EPA, or CDC don't you understand?
Keep it up, fools, and there's gonna B a serious smack down comin at ya, and it will be the bruthas EriC/K.
With a C or with a K, we be takin care of bidness every day.
Who yo daddy?
Dint I tell you I got yo back dog?
Word B word, yo.
Sorry - it appears that I posted this twice accidentally.
Here are the comments from the other post, so that they are not lost:
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"If smokers are led to believe that the risks of active smoking are no worse than being exposed to drifting tobacco smoke, then why should they be particularly concerned about their health? Why should they quit smoking?"
That's exactly why I started smoking and haven't quit. Which anti-tobacco organization should I sue? Or better yet, which one has the most money?
LOL
James Austin
James:
"Which anti-tobacco organization should I sue?"
It's YOUR money! Fancy having to sue someone to lay hands on you own money.....
Soren Hojbjerg
Professor Siegel, I am curious as to your support for smoking bans since you believe so little of the evidence put forward to support them!
Belinda Cunnison
Professor Siegel, I am curious as to your support for smoking bans since you believe so little of the evidence put forward to support them!
Siegel believes there are more persuasive studies showing the dangers of second hand smoke supporting smoking bans than the ones often cited. Try googling him or look at his prior post.
Erik
Because second-hand smoke burns at a lower temperature than inhaled smoke (mainstream) it contains:
2 times more tar
5 times more carbon monoxide, which reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood.
I don't doubt that duguay. However, wouldn't smokers take in second hand smoke as well when they breathed as well as mainstream smoke._ERIK
Hey I was just repeating the useless rhetoric that I have to deal with on a daily basis. The quote comes the very great Canadian Cancer Society (CCS). They think that just because the "denormalizing" campaign has been so successful, they can say anything.
Erik I believe you are for smoking bans, yet the largest anti smoking advocate charity (in Canada) believes that they can spout the rhetoric and not have people notice what actually being said. Do you not think they are really saying that smoking isn't as dangerous as being with a smoker?
Do you wonder why the fact that many 12 year olds were at a pot rally in Manitoba this week made the paper? Now I will give you the link, and imagine what the article would look like (probably wouldn't get printed) if it had tobacco as the issue, instead of Marijuana. After all it would (according to CCS) be publicizing and drumming up business for "big tobacco".
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=3014
Just to clarify what Erik states above, it is not that I think there are more "persuasive" studies. It's that I think the claims that are being made are "false."
If this were just an issue of the claims being made by anti-smoking groups being exaggerated or not persuasive, I would not be writing about this. I'm writing about it because the claims that are being made are false - they're completely wrong in my opinion. Thus, these communications represent a violation of the public trust and risk undermining the credibility of the entire anti-smoking movement.
I want to make this very clear, because it is not my nature to make a big deal out of a little exaggeration. But I think being fallacious and/or dishonest does warrant a big deal being made of it, since it's a violation of the basic public health principles of truthfulness and scientific integrity.
Life is strange
Perhaps a [large] fraction of all the deaths attributed to those who smoke's smoking is really 'caused' by their exposure to ETS. If that's correct, then an appropriate public health intervention might well be to miminize the ETS, not smoking [or to encourage alternative forms of tobacco consumption]. The bugabear in the ETS arguments is the paucity of findings for childhood exposure to ETS in smokers' households as well as the dosage factor for ETS exposure. No one should assume that ETS & smoking are HARMLESS, but any argument that brief exposure to ETS is harmless is extremely dangerous is absurd. Many years ago when my sons were growing up in a smokefree home & I was a footsoldier in the tobacco wars, they would ask me why I didn't go ballistic when someone lit up in their presence. I'd try to gently explain that brief minimal exposure to ETS probably wasn't that harmful. Not only have I harmed myself by smoking as a young person, but I've been exposed to ETS by fraternizing with smokers. More than once those who I joined standing outside asked me why when it was my 'business' to promote health I'd never lectured them regarding their smoking. My response was that I would work with them to quit whenever they wanted to do so -- & I'd note that it was a very good idea NOT to smoke in a confined space with nonsmokers, especially their spouses & children. Unlike Dr Siegel, I 'deserted' [or crossed over to the dark side] 10 years ago when I saw the antismoking movement going to hell. Furthermore, in the prior 10 or so years I was a footsoldier, I had many conversations with others regarding the potential for the antismoking movement to become even more antismoker than it already was.
The posts to this blog attest to my concern that instead of reasonable discussion regarding health & smoking, interactions between smokers & those who claim to have the smokers'interests at heart would devolve into hysterical shouting matches. Meanwhile the nicotine pushers [pharmaceutical & cigarette companies] continue to laugh all the way to the bank....
If Mike Siegel was even half as interested in achieving smokefree workplaces as he is in promoting himself by criticizing health advocates, he wouldn't have focussed on a one sentence quote in the The Journal News, while ignoring the real story in the article he cited.
If Bill Godshall was even half as interested in achieving public health as he is in promoting himself by criticizing tobacco smokers, he wouldn't focus on promoting smoking bans while ignoring real threats to public health such as access to basic medical care.
"If Mike Siegel was even half as interested in achieving smokefree workplaces as he is in promoting himself by criticizing health advocates..."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! If Bill Godshall was even half as interested in promoting healthful behavior as ____, would he constantly rant? Unlike most of the folks here, I once had the misfortune of spending some face time with Bill. He has been obsessed with smoking for a long, long time. Maybe that's good for him, but it certainly makes him one-dimensional.
Perhaps cigarette ETS is more toxic than other ETS? One might wonder if children growing up in a household with a heavy cigar or pipe smoker [or being the spouse, or working in a confined space with] might not be as adverse to health as being exposed to cigarette smoke. Alternatively, it might be that some of the health impact attributed to smoking cigars or pipes might be attributed to the resultant ETS.
What if ETS is less toxic per dosage than other ES [diesel emissions, auto emmissions, wood burning emissions, cooking emissions, etc]? If so, why the emphasis on attacking tobacco smoke, while there's an emphasis on harm reduction in the other ESes? [I know the stock answer is that smoking is voluntary while other ESes are unavoidable byproducts. Maybe that makes sense -- to a nonsmoker -- just as outlawing wood-burning stoves & fireplaces makes sense to ____.
Someone somewhere is blowing a LOT OF SMOKE...
John Ferguson wrote:
"What if ETS is less toxic per dosage than other ES [diesel emissions, auto emmissions, wood burning emissions, cooking emissions, etc]?"
US EPA regulations have already reduced typical outdoor air particulate levels to 15 - 25mg/m3, while tobacco smoke in workplaces commonly exceeds 150 - 250mg/m3.
That's a ten fold difference.
Nobody knows if tobacco smoke is more or less toxic per dosage than outdoor air pollutants, but its only reasonable to assume that their toxicity levels are similar.
And the only effective way to reduce indoor air pollution levels similar to those of outdoor air is with smokefree policies and laws.
Bill shamelessly asserts:
"...[Siegel] wouldn't have focussed on a one sentence quote in the The Journal News, while ignoring the real story in the article he cited."
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, huh Bill?
I didn't know that Oz was really in the state of Pennsylvania.
Kathleen Leech wrote:
"EriK, if your auto mechanic gave you an estimate of $1500...then billed you $3000, would that be acceptable...?"
"I suppose if you're willing to accept numbers like that, you'll believe anything..."
Erik likes to cite EPA, CDC, etc., well, here's to undying faith:
April 19, 2005
CDC: Dangers of being overweight overstated
Associated Press
CHICAGO — Being overweight is nowhere near as big a killer as the government thought...according to a startling new calculation from the CDC.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated today that packing on too many pounds accounts for 25,814 deaths a year in the United States. As recently as January, the CDC came up with an estimate 14 times higher: 365,000 deaths.
"typical outdoor air particulate levels to 15 - 25mg/m3" [obviously not the total ES levels] Just for the curious, what's the typical OUTDOOR ETS level?
I don't find it "reasonable"to assume that all air pollutants have similar toxicity. Nor did I specify indoors vs outdoors. People who work in garages most probably have a higher indoor exposure than the outdoor levels, although with regulations there often is some abatement.
I've never bought the argument that filtration is the solution to ETS, but I have seen some pretty impressive smoking rooms [in Canada] which seem to reduce smoke dramatically. [Also in Canada, employees do work constantly inside those rooms].
If one believes [as Bill does] that there's no safe level for ETS [because politics keeps that from being evaluated], then obviously, "the only effective way" to eliminate indoor air pollution levels is with smokefree policies & laws. However, IF there truly is a nominal level [eg 15 - 25mg/m3 for ES], then there are all sorts of potentially efficient [?] solutions. What's been truly scary about the current ruse over the dramatic dangers for ETS exposure, is that someone smoking outside [where the ES is obviously dilute] is tarred with a red-herring brush. There was a lot of hoo-ha about the pollution being moved from inside to the entrances when indoor smoking was banned, but I don't recall seeing any particular measurements having ever been made. [I'll bet it's a hell of a lot less than 15 - 25mg/m3
"And the only effective way to reduce indoor air pollution levels similar to those of outdoor air is with smokefree policies and laws."
A ventilation system can do even better.
Erik you truly are entertaining....
"A burning cigarette is more toxic to the people around it than it is to the person smoking it."
should read:
"The sidestream smoke from a burning cigarette can be more toxic than the mainstream smoke smokers inhale."
Erik let's extend that restatement shall we?
The carbon dioxide you just inhaled with that last breath CAN be more toxic than the radiation levels found in an active nuclear reactor chamber.
The arsenic in your drinking water CAN be more toxic than sulfur levels given off from the mouth of an active volcano.
But what you really mean to say is that secondhand smoke could possibly be a hazard even though the science doesn't support that theory:
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....secondhand.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....hand-
smoke.html
but just in case let's ban smoking anyway.
You demonstrate the outlandish depths activists will go to defend the indefensible........and as usual YOU ARE WRONG.
"I think it is reasonable to believe all 50 US state departments of health, the EPA and CDC on the issue." - EriK
"A lie told often enough becomes truth" - Lenin
Ever heard the legal premise based on evidence that is "fruit of the poisonous tree"?
Consider the debunked EPA report as the poisonous tree and everything that derives from it as rotten fruit.
Re: "debunked EPA report"
Perhaps it is better to refer to it as the "possibly biased" EPA report, from which the decision was made to classify ETS as a significant carcinogen, with no level of acceptable exposure. Among the several issues tainting that report were (1) the issue of the single/double-tail significance test, (2) the looser statistical signifance level utilized & (3)the TAINT regarding the report's conclusion given that the EPA had issued a DRAFT manual on using ETS evidence to implement smokefree policies PRIOR to completing the review process for the DRAFT report. Maybe #1 or #2 or both together were not sufficient to deem the EPA report "questionable," but having all 3 seemed beyond the realm of coincidence. In the end, so much sound & fury, to put an official governmental damnation on ETS.
If I recall correctly, the "metanalysis" itself reinforced the best estimate that exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke increases the lung cancer risk to an apparently nonsmoker with substantial ETS exposure to a level about *20%* above that of a nonsmoker with no apparent ETS exposure. [This is not to say that the ETS risk of heart disease wasn't considered significant, but rather that there were obvious confounding risk factors complicating a scientific assessment of risk]
If one cares to pursue an interesting history, track who was responsible for & how the larger claims regarding cardiovascular disease developed.
So in short, perhaps one shouldn't damn the EPA [nor Calfornia EPA clone] but rather the continuing escalation of ETS risk claims. It finally reached the point where even Dr Siegel began to protest...
Perhaps a clear concise statement regarding the EPA report:
[Footnote 13 from the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-42R entitled 'CDC's April 2002 Report On Smoking: Estimates of Selected Health Consequences of Cigarette Smoking Were Reasonable' which was released on August 18, 2003 & corrected December 30, 2003
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d03942r.html]
"The NCI report cited the Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA) estimate of 3,000 annual lung cancer deaths associated with secondhand smoke (see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders (Washington, D.C.: December 1992)). After the report was published, several tobacco companies filed a lawsuit seeking to have the report withdrawn, claiming that EPA had violated procedural requirements in developing the report. In 1998, a district court invalidated certain chapters of the report, including those on lung cancer. In December 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision and ordered that the suit be dismissed, concluding that the district court had lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit. (See Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation v. United States EPA, 313 F.3d 852 (4th Cir. 2002).)"
Erik-- someone really has to disable the "c" and "v" on your computer. "For your own good."
Adding to the rundown on EPA above, I've posted here before the chart from its report which shows that over 1000 of those "3000" (estimated purely-statistical) deaths were said to occur in recent ex-smokers. But apparently, according to EriK, this "proves" that their exposure was more lethal than their smoking??
Additional reading that backs what JFerguson was talking about-- in terms of EPAs earlier "fact sheets" and the conflict of interest that went into preparing them, google for a transcript of a congressional investigation into that flimflam. Look for it as Bliley Report. If anyone has a link to it hand, please post it. Otherwise... later.
And of course the heart-stuff got into the works through our friend Stanton Glantz (and his pal Judson Wells)-- Glantz getting into the EPA's nest through his sponsor James Repace. The whole Movement is traceable back to a handful of Haters in High Places.
Finally, JFerguson, I'm interested in this of yours:
"The posts to this blog attest to my concern that instead of reasonable discussion regarding health & smoking, interactions between smokers & those who claim to have the smokers'interests at heart would devolve into hysterical shouting matches. "
It sure seems to me that the smokers hereabouts genuinely attempt that "reasonable discussion," almost always giving citations, while the "hysterical shouting" part comes from the Ashist trio. (Okay, they occasionally push the wrong button but what they get back at least aims for some form of civilized wit.) Since you yourself seem to be a calm voice of reason, how does the balance here seem to strike YOU?
One more thing. Godshall's claim that RSPs from "tobacco smoke in workplaces commonly exceeds 150 - 250mg/m3." is apt to be a really gross exaggeration, though he's invited to show otherwise.
On one of the rare occasions he was finally coaxed into posting a citation for his claim that 1-2 cigarettes created some phenomenal amount of RSPs, his own citation-- from which I posted the crucial table-- showed... nothing of the kind.
Even if this were true
"tobacco smoke in workplaces commonly exceeds 150 - 250mg/m3."
So what?
No harm is demonstrated.
To demonstrate a hazard you will have to measure a "specific" carcinogenic airborne chemical, and then compare the results to OSHA permissible exposure limits for that particular chemical.
Activists of course are not interested in doing that since the results are laughable.
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....secondhand.html
Walt wrote:
"One more thing. Godshall's claim that RSPs from "tobacco smoke in workplaces commonly exceeds 150 - 250mg/m3." is apt to be a really gross exaggeration, though he's invited to show otherwise."
Well, from chapter 3 of the 1993 EPA:
Indoor RSP levels in residences without smokers are typically in the range of 10-25 μg/m3, while background office levels are somewhat lower (Figure 3-5).
Particle mass concentrations in smoker-occupied residences show average increases of from 18 to 95 μg/m3, while the individual increases can be as high as 560 μg/m3 or as low as 5 μg/m3 (Figure 3-
. Figure 3-10 (Leaderer and Hammond, 1991) highlights the distribution of weekly RSP concentrations for residences with smoking occupancy. In that study, smoking residences had RSP concentrations approximately 29 μg/m3 higher than nonsmoking homes. Concentrations in offices with smoking occupancy will be on average about the same as those in residences. Interestingly, in a large and possibly the most comprehensive study of particle mass concentrations associated with smoking and nonsmoking sites in office buildings (Turk et al., 1987), the geometric mean concentration for RSP in 32 smoking sites was 44 μg/m3 while the geometric mean for 35 nonsmoking sites was 15 μg/m3. The difference of 29 μg /m3 is the same as that found for smoking and nonsmoking residences (Figure 3-10). Restaurants, transportation, and other indoor spaces with smoking occupancy will result in a considerably wider range of average, minimum, and maximum increases in particle concentrations than the residential or office environments.
The most extensive study of personal exposure to RSP clearly demonstrates the impact on RSP levels from ETS (Spengler et al., 1985). In this study, outdoor, indoor, and personal 24-hour concentrations of RSP (particle diameter< 3.5 μm) were obtained for a sample of 101 nonsmoking individuals. Of the 101 nonsmokers, 28 persons reported some exposure to ETS in either the home or workplace, while 73 reported no ETS exposure. The cumulative frequency distributions of RSP for the ETS-exposed and non-ETS-exposed individuals and measured outdoor levels are shown in Figure 3-13. Those reporting ETS exposure had mean personal RSP levels 28 μg/m
And from Covance Labs: Assessment of air quality in Stockholm by personal monitoring of nonsmokers for respirable suspended particles and environmental tobacco smoke.
Exposure to respirable suspended particles (RSP) from all sources and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) was assessed for 190 nonsmokers in Stockholm during 1994. Each subject wore a personal monitor for 24-h...The concentration of RSP was found to be highest (median 39 micrograms.m-3) in homes where smoking occurred and below the LOQ in the workplace irrespective of its smoking status. These levels are at the lowest end of typical indoor air levels for RSP. For the housewives and househusbands living in smoking homes (nonsmoking homes in parentheses), the median exposure levels were 39 micrograms.m-3 (18 micrograms.m-3) for RSP....For the working subjects, the exposure measured in smoking workplaces (nonsmoking workplaces in parentheses) gave median levels of 16 micrograms.m-3 (16 micrograms.m-3) for RSP...Similarly measured exposures at home (nonsmoking homes in parentheses), including all other locations outside the workplace, gave median levels of 24 micrograms.m-3 (19 micrograms.m-3) for RSP...
PMID: 8817762
And, because Covance Labs was tobacco-funded ASH(UK) had this to say. (Interesting, apply what Mr. Bates says about tobacco company propaganda to anti-tobacco industry tactics.
UICC GLOBALink
The International Tobacco-Control Network
the Covance laboratories study into non-smokers' exposure to ETS
The main problems with this research and its reporting are the following (others may have more to say):
1. Conflicts with established evidence
2. Obvious questions about the studies:
2a. Reporting of results
2b. Does the monitor accurately measure cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke?
2c. Does the study accurately reflect the absorption of inhaled tobacco smoke by the body?
2d. Choice and size of sample.
3. Tobacco funding concealed
4. Balancing views absent
5. Mode of reporting
The mode of this disclosure should ring alarm bells in every newspaper office with even a fleeting concern for truthful reporting. Questions a good editor should ask before repeating tobacco stories from the Sunday Telegraph or tobacco industry:
Has this been published in established literature? (This was, but the report was)
If not, are copies available to journalists, critics in advance of publication? (This was a Sunday exclusive)
Is a PR company or tobacco company promoting the research? (It is tobacco funded, albeit through a front organisation)
Is the author available for comment or criticism? (no)
Is the timing linked to an external political objective? (This is linked to a government White Paper and SCOTH report)
Is the news value that it challenges a consensus then some weighing of the existing evidence is needed? (absent here)
Has the journalist looked for and reported a dissenting view? (not reported)
These are the fingerprints of tobacco industry propoganda.
Staying open-minded
Finally, we should not have closed minds and assume that all that challenges the consensus is wrong or misguided. It just may be that cotinine measurements are wrong at low ETS exposures. It may be that exposure is declining. Let's hope it is! It is just that a serious challenge to the consensus should be mounted using the established scientific approach, not through the tell-tale approach of tobacco industry PR.
Clive Bates
Director
Action on Smoking and Health
I hope everyone here will write to The Journal News, and to Jane Lerner who wrote the article in question, to let them know they have been lied to by Pow'r Against Tobacco.
Regarding the 1992 EPA Report: From JFerguson's conservative "possibly biased" to my "debunked" is really not that much of a leap - especially when compared to the gross "exaggeration" being perpetrated by today's antismokERs. Guess it's a matter of perspective.
In plain English, the facts are:
1. The EPA announced the results of the "study" before it was completed, claiming the "3000 deaths...".
2. The EPA did not actually DO a study on ETS, they merely analyzed a hand-picked selection of the actual studies that were available to them at the time.
3. Even after eliminating most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with their previously announced "3000", so they simply doubled their margin of error!
4. In 1995 The Congressional Research Service released its review of the EPA report that revealed how it had been conducted and how the numbers had been manipulated. Most significantly, even with this manipulation, the numbers were still far too low to be considered statistically significant.
ie: ETS was declared a "Class A carcinogen with a Relative Risk of 1.19, yet in analysis of other agents, the EPA consistently considered an RR of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.
5. In 1998, a federal judge - with a history of siding with the government on tobacco cases - vacated the study and declared it null and void.
6. Because that judge, Wm. Osteen, lived in S. Carolina, the ATI implied that he had been "influenced by the tobacco industry" in his home state. So the single-minded Crusaders and the media felt justified in continuing to quote their revered "bible" and base their flimsy case on non-existent "evidence."
Why ramp up the rhetoric now? My opinion/theory is that "they" are beginning to discover that "we" are not as stupid as they thought we were. And with the advent of the internet and the help of "the pajama-clad blogger brigade", word is beginning to spread pretty quickly that "we" are NOT actually "killing people". The Crusaders' grip on a formerly gullible public is beginning to slip and it scares them.
Yes, JFerguson, there are some "hysterical shouting" matches in some quarters (though I don't believe you will find many of them on this blog). It's human nature to become angry and want to retaliate against false accusations from the antismokERs who have been conjured by the ATI. I suppose it's also human nature to want to discredit anyone who can effectively challenge the dogma that defines one's life.
Some people on both sides behave like spoiled children throwing a tantrum. More alarming is the fact that there have been numerous incidents of violence over this issue. Those will likely continue to escalate as long as it is deemed "politically correct" to demonize and ostracize smokers.
In a society where, for example, boys just reaching puberty are exhorted to "Kick Butts", who is to blame if they take that advice literally and attempt to snatch the cigarettes from the shirt pocket of an adult smoker after flipping him the bird, beating their fists on the hood of his car and calling him a foul name? And who is to blame if the smoker's instinct is to beat the crap out of the little bastards?
I believe that though antismokERism seems to be increasing as evidenced by the number of bans enacted and the triumpant posturing of Crusaders throughout the "civilized" world; the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way and "they" are beginning to notice.
In trying to compensate, they have become exceedingly careless. Though still reaping the benefits of massive funding and media influence, eventually the public tide WILL turn and the Stanton Glantz clones will find themselves nursing their wounds in the Dan Rather Camp for Unrepentant Liars.
Walt wrote:
"One more thing. Godshall's claim that RSPs from "tobacco smoke in workplaces commonly exceeds 150 - 250mg/m3." is apt to be a really gross exaggeration, though he's invited to show otherwise."
Not so, and I've already cited actual air sampling measurement comparisons of smokefree indoor air, smoky indoor air, and outdoor air. But here are some more studies, and most (if not all) of the locations that allowed smoking already had ventilation systems.
Chicago restaurants/bars where smoking occured averaged 174ug/m3 of PM 2.5,while smokefree venues averaged 18ug/m3.
http://www.tobaccofreeair.com/do...0Oct%
202005.pdf
Indiana restaurants/bars where smoking occurred averaged 420ug/m3 of PM 2.5, while smokefree venues averaged 17ug/m3.
http://www.tobaccofreeair.com/do...0Apr%
202005.pdf
Restaurants/bars where smoking occurred had the respective levels (in ug/m3) of PM 2.5: Baltimore (293), Philadelphia (254), Hoboken (231), Galvaston (343) for an average of 303ug/m3 of PM 2.5, while smokefree venues in Los Angeles, Buffalo and New York City averaged 26ug/m3.
http://www.tobaccofreeair.com/do...July%
202004.pdf
New Jersey venues where smoking occurred averaged 184ug/m3 of PM 2.5, while smokefree venues averaged 12ug/m3.
http://www.tobaccofreeair.com/do...ey%
20Report.pdf
Western New York venues where smoking occurred averaged 412ug/m3 of PM 2.5, while smokefree venues averaged 27ug/m3.
http://www.tobaccofreeair.com/do...page%
201038.pdf
Wyoming venues where smoking occurred averaged 223ug/m3 of PM 2.5, while smokefree venues averaged 11ug/m3.
http://www.tobaccofreeair.com/do...0Aug%
202005.pdf
Meanwhile, outdoor air in nearly every community in America contains less than 20ug/m3 of PM. 2.5.
http://www.airnowdata.org/pmfine...ine/
latest.html
Well Bill where are all the dead bodies from keeling over after breathing in such polluted air? If this is reference to SHS then how do these figures compare to those of 50 years ago when SHS would have been so much more prevalent and concentrated.Why the fixation with this specific size of particle when air pollution covers a wider spectrum.You've got a bee in your bonnet that is dictating that these results prove your statements,sorry but i remain unimpressed.If your figures were truly of concern then i would believe Government would have acted by now if not sooner.Perhaps you could provide some evidence to suggest that you have been voicing your concerns directly with the relevant level of Government,this would add credance to your figures.
"One more thing. Godshall's claim that RSPs from "tobacco smoke in workplaces commonly exceeds 150 - 250mg/m3." is apt to be a really gross exaggeration, though he's invited to show otherwise."
Bill seems to be at least 3 orders of magnitude off: shouldn't that be micrograms?
si wrote:
"If your figures were truly of concern then i would believe Government would have acted by now if not sooner."
A dozen states have enacted comprehensive smokefree workplace
laws in the past four years, and there are now more than 1,000 local ordinances that require workplaces to be smokefree.
More than 40% of the U.S. population now lives in a jurisdiction with a comprehensive smokefree workplace law.
Now that's government action.
But its obvious that most smokers who post on this blog don't consider any scientific evidence on the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution "truly of concern" because their primary concern is getting their nicotine fixes by smoking cigarettes whenever and wherever they desire.
Regarding benpal's previous post, that was obviously a typo as my many other posts contained a ug for microgram. But I not surprised that one typo is of greater concern to benpal than any of the scientific evidence I've posted.
Great, Bill, you're responsive for once.
However, OSHA has something to say on this topic in its publication "Limits for Air Contaminants".
Here's the link:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/...DARDS&
p_id=9992
The Permissible Exposure Limit, expressed in terms of an 8 hour weighted average for "Particulates not otherwise regulated" - which includes PM2.5 from tobacco smoke - is:
Total Dust: 15 mg/m3
Resiprable Fraction: 5 mg/m3
These become, when expressed in micrograms:
Total Dust 15000 ug/m3
Respirable Fraction: 5000 ug/m3
Now repeat after me: NONE OF THE ITEMS YOU CITED EXCEED OSHA 8-HOUR PEL'S. NOT A SINGLE FREAKING ONE OF THEM.
You see, if the PM2.5 concentrations you listed in your studies were from diesel exhaust, there would be no problem from OSHA.
But because of the evil magic you ascrive to tobacco smoke, equal PM2.5 concentrations must be prohibited because of your contention that they present an immediate danger to life
and health?
PM2.5 is PM2.5 whether it comes from a cigarette or a diesel motor, Bill.
Your continued prattling on this subject is asinine, and reveals just how quixotic your crusade against tobacco is.
"because their primary concern is getting their nicotine fixes by smoking cigarettes whenever and wherever they desire."
No one *here* has EVER expressed that desire, Godshall! Speaking for myself (and I suspect for MOST smokers), if I believed for a minute, that smoke from my cigarette had done any serious damage to ANY non-smoker's health, I would never smoke again.
But I have yet to see one iota of evidence that supports that contention. Not from my own experience, nor from any "study" or report ever written across the blue sky of the antismokERs world.
"Smokefree jurisdictions", "government action" and "local ordinances" do NOT constitute PROOF of anything other than the results of a long-standing propaganda campaign waged by massively financed flim-flam artists with plenty of political influence and the power to scare the public into believing their B.S.
The "scientific evidence" you post is no more than sound and fury signifying nothing much. Tobacco smoke in a reasonably ventilated indoor space has not been shown to be more than a mild irritant to most emotionally stable, normally healthy non-smokers.
But ANTIsmokERs do not appear to BE emotionally stable people. Especially not lately.
Kathleen wrote:
"Speaking for myself (and I suspect for MOST smokers), if I believed for a minute, that smoke from my cigarette had done any serious damage to ANY non-smoker's health, I would never smoke again."
Not me. I figured out years ago that we're all "killing" each other one way or another.
When Bill Godshall flies to an anti-smoker convention, when Jill drives to a smoke-free restaurant, when Erik takes a bus to some Youths Against Tobacco rally, when Dr. Siegel drives to the university so he can indoctrinate his students, they're all "killing" the rest of us because of their choices.
Whether it's the extra coal burned to produce electricity so people can light up their lawns at Christmas or burning wood in their fireplaces just for fun, it's all helping to "kill" us. I accept that.
If I'm actually harming some non-smoker with my SHS, well I'm sorry he's not up to the task of living in a world in which we spew out pollution every day, including him.
You wouldn't give up your car or air conditioning your house in the summer under the same scenario of believing you were harming someone, would you?
Hi, James. Remember me from the Leader-Telegram? Glad to see you're still in the fight. Now for comments about the original "article" that claims "drifting smoke" is worse than direct smoke. To say that this is an insult to intelligence is a gross understatement. Secondhand smoke, a term itself unheard of twenty years ago by the public, is hundreds and even thousands of times more diluted than the direct smoke that a smoker would inhale. Any ten-year-old would be able to figure out that the further the distance from a smoker, the more diluted the shs would become, indoors or outdoors; it wouldn't matter. Rather than going through all of the complex equations of epedemiology, common sense is all that is needed to see how ridiculous this claim is, and 13 years after the "groundbreaking EPA Report," it still never ceases to amaze me how gullible the public has become. Medical doctors are more or less in agreement that it generally takes a MINIMUM of smoking a pack a day for about 20 years before any long-term ill effects manifest themselves. And most of the time, it takes much longer, but for the sake of argument in favor of the Anti's, let's assume that EVERY person who has smoked a pack a day for 20 years becomes sick. Even if shs is only 100 times more diluted than direct smoke, then it would take 2000 YEARS for a nonsmoker to take in the same amount of smoke into their body. WHY CAN'T PEOPLE SEE THIS? It's not rocket science....The notion that shs is "deadly" is mathematically impossible.......Oh, and by the way, there is more arsenic in a typical glass of tap water than you will find in 5000 cigarettes.......To summarize: Smoking bans and the notion of "secondhand smoke" were created by those offended by the smell. The individuals who orchestrated this hoax have one goal in mind: Prohibition. The EPA sided with them and conveniently changed the criteria to classify shs as a "Class A Carcinogen," even though people exposed to it would have to live for hundreds of centuries to develop the same health risks of a 50-year, 2-pack-a-day smoker. To put this into perspective, when one considers how many people smoked indoors in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, everyone born before about 1970 should be dead by now. Why aren't they? The answer is simple. It's BS, and perhaps the biggest lie ever concocted. As we begin the second half of the first decade of the 21st century, the smoking bans are rapidly being extended in a fanatical fashion to the outdoors and even in our own cars. This is not an issue of health. It is intended to denormalize smoking. Children are being taught to not only despise tobacco, but also those who use it. What a great message, with all the murderers, rapists, and terrorists who roam the earth, eh? Although it would have been thought of as extreme paranoia as little as a decade ago, I see a not-too-distant future where smokers will be arrested and charged with something like assault with a deadly weapon if we light up within a specified parameter of some innocent nonsmoker, or worse yet, have our children taken away from us. I long for the days before hysteria took the place of common sense and courtesy. I long for the days when smokers and nonsmokers coexisted peacefully. Accomodation is the answer; not throwing smokers outside as if we were lepers. We may only make up 20% of the adult population, but that is not justification for discrimination and persecution.
previously read Mr Bill's Chicago study -- the one he cites above. I reproduced its central table and showed how it didn't show what he said it did and further pointed out the many pieces of illogic and inconsistency in its raw data. I also questioned the methodology (eg, of comparing smoking with no-smoking places rather than the same place before and during smoking); noted no mention was made of ventilation (its presense/ absense/ kind); or whether food was being cooked ( a source of RSPS); whether candles were burning (ditto); and whether or not the places were on traffic-filled streets, since outdoor air comes in.
Others here added further critiques and observations. ( If there were a way to search the archives here, I'd bring it up again for repeat discussion.) I believe Mr Bill's only answer was to imply I'd dragged in a study from out of nowhere-- when it was his citation-- and had then "misrepresented" it, when I'd accurately -- and painstakingly--reproduced its table. And his link was there for everyone to check.
This time I checked one additional study he cites: the New Jersey study (above) While he claims the places were all ventilated, there's no mention whatsoever within the study of what kind of ventilation-- IF ANY-- was in play. And though the text tells us that some of the bars served food, it doesn't tell us which, so it's impossible to know if the reported effects include, for instance, burgers on a grill.
But location and burger-grilling aside, I once again note the same illogic in the study's Table 1, which seems to indicate the "problem" if there is one, is clearly a problem of ventilation.
How else to explain that:
Bar #8, one of the smallest of the 51 places listed (83 m/3) which had the highest number of smokers (2.38 ) had an RSP [ug/m3] of 83, while
Bar # 11, still relatively small but 4 times larger (340 m/3) with slightly fewer smokers (1.96) had the highest-- by far-- RSP on the chart -- a whopping 1196. (!) About 9 times higher than any other place of any kind that was measured.
Nor is the contrasting example I selected above unusual. There seems to be no correlation between size/ # of smokers/ RSPs among the list. No "dose/ response."
Does something seem awry? And does "averaging in" this off the charts place affect the conclusion? Hmmm? (Table 3 shows just how disproportionate it is.)
I again at least question the possibility of bias in the selection of the "venues," though I hesitate to attribute any intent of bias to the sponsors of the study: Breathe-Free New Jersey and Roswell Park.
On the other hand, proponents of this study haven't hesitated to impugn the similar studies of bars in 17 US cities, conducted by Roger Jenkins et al at the Oak Ridge National Labs, which showed that both the air and the exposure of the workers (through personal air monitors) was WAY below PELS, and just... no problem.
Again I don't have that citation at hand now but will post it later, unless somebody here can come up with it first.
As for Chi and NJ, I eagerly invite everyone aboard to check them for yourselves (follow Godshall's links) and reach your own conclusions. I simply report mine.
Only one thing seems certain: places that ban smoking in fact, have less smoke than places that don't.
Pat--
Calabasas CA already has that law: it's a crime to smoke w/i 20 feet of another living person. Not only is it an official crime, but the person so "assaulted" can sue you for damages.
Here's the law:
http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/p...2-O2006-
217.pdf
And here's a link to at least the press release of the ORNL study.
http://www.ornl.gov/Press_Releas...0000203-
00.html
"Not me. I figured out years ago that we're all "killing" each other one way or another."
Warning: Living is hazardous to your health.
Maybe we should just stamp that across every newborn baby's forehead
"...if I believed for a minute, that smoke from my cigarette had done any serious damage to ANY non-smoker's health, I would never smoke again."
Kathleen Leech
Especially to children...
The anti-smoker has some picture in their head that we are all a bunch of villains who contribute NOTHING except murder and derangement. However, we are regular people like everyone else and there are smokers who do care about others. And if it was every PROVEN that cigarette smoking killed others, then most of us would quit in a heartbeat. However, not one study has PROVEN such a thing. In fact, the claims made can be explained by a multitude of factors that may not even include cigarette smoke. In some cases, noone can even prove WHAT causes the problem, but they just "know" (like Kreskin) that cigarette smoke is contributing to it.
We are being villified without sufficient cause and yes, we will argue against it. And quit being so damned unfair about it. If you villify one type of smoke, remember to villify all.
Bill the smoking bans that are gathering pace are i would suggest more to do with the gross and erroneous science that is constantly being quoted rather than the figures you quote.My point was that there was no direct intervention at the onset at federal level.It has been the various states that have enacted the legislation .As to getting my nicotine fix,wherever and whenever, simply make provision for me .If you want smokefree air then the least you can do for me is provide me with somewhere to smoke.Why is it so difficult to settle on this way forward.Iam still not persuaded on SHS since it is perfectly clear that research needs to take into account the concerns and methodology of both sides,only then will there be a concensus of opinion.
Pat wrote:
"Hi, James. Remember me from the Leader-Telegram?"
Hi Pat. Sure, I remember you. Seeing your last name here I've put 2 and 2 together and figured out you're the Pat at Speakeasy. I'll say hi there to you too.
For Walt: Besides the Jenkins study you mentioned there was also the Knoxville study (Determination of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in restaurant and tavern workers in one US city) by Jenkins which had similar results.
Commenting by HaloScan
