They stated
"Just 30 minutes of exposure changes the way your blood clots and your blood vessels react in a way that increases the risk of heart disease."
Yet you suggest that they said:
The statement that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increases your risk of heart disease is false. You cannot develop atherosclerosis in just 30 minutes
Trying to overstate their position and set up a straw man isn't very useful.
Your suggestion that they asserted [y]ou can develop atherosclerosis in just 30 minutes has no merit.
Their actual statement "[w]hen you leave a restaurant after dining...[tobacco smoke has] made your blood 'stickier' promoting blood clots" is true if the blood gets even a little stickier.
"Their actual statement "[w]hen you leave a restaurant after dining...[tobacco smoke has] made your blood 'stickier' promoting blood clots" is true if the blood gets even a little stickier."
Erik, if you really want to analyze this statement and all it's possible interpretations, let's do it right, not in that single handed manner you are suggesting, ok?
"When you leave a restaurant after dining ..."
- Do you have to dine for the effect to take place?
- How much exposure to SHS did you have for how long? Did you just SEE a smoker at the other end of the room or was it a smoky bar you took for a restaurant?
- Why did you choose a smoky restaurant in the first place, if it was that smoky?
"[tobacco smoke has] made your blood 'stickier' promoting blood clots"
- This assumes that the effect took really place just because you were in a restaurant, but you don't know for sure, do you? You would have to have been exposed to a certain dose.
- How do you know this effect was caused by tobacco smoke without knowing how much exposure for how much time? How can you exclude exposure to the ambient air of a kitchen or a grill, candles, CO2 exhaled by other people in the room?
- Haven't we seen that eating a meal can have the same effect on blood? Are you suggesting restaurants shouldn't serve meals?
- Since the reaction of the organism not only is natural, but also reversible, what harm does it really do? You are tacitly and purposely implying that it is bad by associating it with SHS, although it apparently isn't bad when associated with a meal. But it is tnhe sameatural reaction of our organism!
By the way, exposure to higher levels of CO2 increases the heart frequency. So does jogging. In both cases, the reaction is reversible. Is it dangerous?
If you had read the Otsuka study, you would know that the participants in the study where exposed to an extremely high degree of SHS, unlikely to be found in a dining restaurant.
You are visibly trying to defend an untenable statement. What for? Because you need to maintain false allegations in order to achieve your ultimate goal?
We all know what the ends of such statements are, don't we. And we also know that by making vague allegations, we can make people believe that they are in danger, we create an association between restaurant, smoke (any smoke by the way, but we let people believe that it is only tobacco smoke) and sticky blood. Good enough for the simple minded. Excellent for the ATI, because they don't need to say anything completely false, they just have to leave out the important details.
Where are your ethical, moral principles, Erik? Are you really happy with the image you portray of yourself?
Note: If there is no slippery slope where you are, Erik, you might already be at the bottom of the hill!
Dr. Siegel, I understand that you believe these statement are exaggerations of the studies such as Burghuber et al (1986).
Would you be willing to offer what you believe are appropriate health recommendations regarding these studies? What do these studies tell us about passive smoking (if anything?) What would accurate statements from public health groups on this topic look like?
I see your point on the issue, but I also see what they've based these claims on. If they are making misleading statements, please, won't you take a little time to provide some guidance rather than just criticize.
What SHOULD anti-smoking groups say about SHS and platelet stickiness, atherosclerosis, cholesterol effects and/or irregular heartbeat?
The article says it all,but who is going to do anything about it.The rabids are telling a story that it appears everyone wants to hear,unless you smoke or like the good old truth.There never will be active debate,Glans can't debate ,he has to control,like they all do it appears.
Just 15 minutes of exposure to movies like "Saving Private Ryan" changes the way your blood clots and your blood vessels react in a way that increases the risk of heart disease.
Don't believe me? Well, Michael Miller, M.D., director of preventive cardiology at the uUniversity of Maryland Medical Center and associate professor of medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine says so! Right Here!
Hi Mr. Siegle. Could you provide a site or study that lists the increased risks of lung cancer for bar/restaurant worker versus general population? That's all that's needed. No need to do any more studies.
Also, how about one of those secret documents in Mr.Philip Morris file that states that clean indoor air policies will result in up to 20% less smokers?
There's been a huge reduction in the numbers of people smoking, especially men and it's great to see that lung cancer death rate is continuing a downward trend with this group. Also, the overall cancer death rate decreased for the first time in decades. Great news. People are quitting in large numbers mainly due to the "hassle" factor (increased cost and no fun smoking outside in the winter)
Still I agree that there is absolutely no need to invent stats. There are enough studies done already on how bad cancer is and what its causes are.
People love cleaner air, even smokers. No one wants to go back to smoking on planes...(overstated position...we'll have to do a survey on that)
Erik, are you kidding?
If not, would you please explain the difference between:
(a) 30 minutes of [secondhand smoke] exposure changes the way your blood clots and your blood vessels react in a way that increases the risk of heart disease.
and:
(b) 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increases your risk of heart disease.
Then, given (a) true, would you explain why (b) should be considered an overstatement of (a) and a straw man, instead of a sentence that is logically equivalent to (a)?
Finally, supposing you know something about logic, would you please explain why ((A->B) AND (B->C)) should not imply (A->C) ?
What this study actually tells me is that anger and hostility toward smokers is what causes "restricted blood flow to the heart".
Since antismokERs have had a long-running campaign designed to create the image of smokers-as-terrorists, it's really no wonder that just SEEING a smoker is enough to "cause a heart attack"!
I've noticed that the vast majority of statements that Mike has recently criticized (on tobacco smoke pollution's impact on the cardiovascular system) were made from 2001 to 2005.
But Mike repeatedly uses present tense terms in describing these old statements and organizations in an apparent attempt to fool readers into believing that the vast majority of these statements are very recent.
And yet, I'm not aware that Mike raised any concerns about these statements before about eight months ago.
If these statements are so upsetting to Mike (as he claims), why didn't he criticize or contact these organizations at the time the statements were made, instead of waiting until now?
Rather than trying to ensure that future statements about the effects of secondhand smoke risks are consistent with the scientific evidence (as Mike has claimed was his goal), it appears that Mike is simply searching through lots of old documents to see if he can find anything in them (even part of one sentence) that he now considers inaccurate in order to publicly smear various smokefree advocates for something they said before Mike first raised concerns about this issue.
Only time will tell if some of Mike's criticism is determined to be accurate, partly accurate or inaccurate since there is significant disagreement among experts regarding tobacco smoke pollution's impact on the cardiovascular system.
I sincerly hope that Mike will not continue misrepresenting three and four year old statements as if they were just made last week or last month.
I certainly hope Bill Godshall will quit misrepresenting people who smoke as child abusers.
Child abusers?...maybe too strong a word. More like neglectful. Anyone who would smoke inside whether in a car or home around their kids isn't providing them much of a choice. My parents both smoked heavily in the car and home. My lung function was discovered to be well below average, even though I was a college athlete at the time when I did the spirometer test. It certainly gave me an excuse why I was always gassed after a few plays. I don't personnaly hold it against them as they didn't know at the time. I always thought growing up that indoor air was blue. I realize that there are varying levels of smoke but people should know better. Give the kids a chance, please.
Geo, you're apparently a bit new to this board, so I'll give you a break here... for now - and say only that you need to go read a few of the other references to this issue if you doubt the agenda. It's not "giv(ing) the kids a chance" to yank them from loving homes for the sole reason that their parents smoke.
Dr. Siegel: I'm not going to drop this issue either and I don't want the link posted by JustTheFacts nor my following comment to get lost down below. This is something that requires urgent action!
JustTheFacts wrote:
"Dr. Siegel reiterates:
If we can't make a clear distinction between child abuse and exposure to secondhand smoke, then I think we have some more serious problems to worry about than simply the exposure of kids to tobacco smoke.
Dr. Siegel, then you need to start rounding up any and all colleagues of yours that agree that this is void of ethics and principles RIGHT NOW and put up a new front because this just in...
Smoking: The new child abuse?
April 27, 2006
http://www.katu.com/health/story.../
story...ry.asp? ID=85441"
And I followed that with:
"Dr. Siegel, please. If nothing else inspires you to act - in a very public and insistent way - do it for the children who are at risk of being ripped from loving parents and happy homes for no reason other than to satisfy the tyrannical desires of fanatics!"
Since the "good" doctor Covert-Bowlds (appropriate name, BTW) is a resident of the state I also call home and since the referenced article bills him as "the father of Washington's new sweeping anti-smoking law for public places", I just posted my own article about him, hoping to encourage some action against this tyrant.
Comments on my blog are most welcome - I'd appreciate any info anyone has about him and his "informal, unorganized and quiet movement" to turn smokers into criminals and deny them their parental rights.
Dr. Siegel, are you with us on this one?
Mr Bill--
Siegel's been doing everything he can think of, including, as he's said, phoning and emailing the groups who currently misrepresent the science. As for his citing older stuff, I'd suppose that with the blinders newly lifted from his eyes, he's going on a retrospective archival dig and discovering--also to his great dismay-- that this stuff was going on for much longer than the knew-- or had cared to know.
Geo--
Or whoever it was who asked for categorical data on lung cancer and bar/restaurant workers.
There are very few surveys that attempt to categorize lung cancer by occupation, and those that do are usually raw statistical bases. Like statewide mortality rates. IOW, the stats don't indicate whether individuals w/i the categories were smokers or not, were exposed to smoke or not (let alone how much for how long) or had other risk factors or risk exposures for lung cancer. Then too the occupational categories are likely to be very broad-- eg, "restuarant service workers" which could include everything from bartenders to cooks (not exposed to dining room ets but exposed to carcinogenic cooking fumes) to the guy who delivers the table cloths to.. you get the idea.,) While it's theoretically-- tho only theoretically-- possible to tease out-- or even cherry pick-- sub-sets, even a slightly elevated risk, if it existed, would be virtually meaningless without complete data on cases and controls.
This data doesn't exist.
The study Kathleen cites (well worth following her link) is in perfect accord with a Kawachi study, showing anger or mere "grumpiness" increases platelet stickiness; and another study by Smith showing that nervousness-- as in preparing for and making a public speech-- does the same thing. The question arises: how many other similar usual daily experiences that no one's funded a study for do the same thing? And what naturally arises from that observation is that clearly our blood gets sticky and unstuck perhaps a dozen times a day in the course of living life. And having nothing to do with smoke. If our bodies were so carelessly designed that normal living was instant death, the species would not have survived very long-- nor life expectancy increased as miraculously as it has,.
Finally, Steve--
You referenced Burghuber and asked what would be a more accurate extrapolation from what he found (which was that prostacyclin levels rose upon exposure to smoke.) BTW, we don't know how MUCH smoke his subjects were exposed to but we do know that Sinzinger's subjects were exposed to a very small chamber in which over 30 Gaulois (possibly the strongest cigarette on the planet) had been simultaneously smoked.
Keeping in mind that prostacyclin is simply a homestatic balancer, its increase simply means that the body is doing its work and adding more stuff to counter stickiness. Figure it also responds that way to stress and the thousand other hardballs that flesh is heir to.
Mergensen et al note of the Burghuber study that "the mean differences due to ETS exposure
are not very different from the range of normal variability found across groups [among the individuals within each group] prior to exposure. The biological significance of the variabiltiy in these parameters of platelet function is not clear."
And they add, relevantly, that:
"It should be noted that the effect of ETS on the prostacyclin index for non- smokers is acute with a decrease in the index detectable within 15 minutes. Recovery to[pre-exposure] values is also rapid and occurs within a few hours."
Further comments and criticism of the Burghuber study are offered in a published paper by Gori et al, "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Chronic Heart Disease Syndrome: Absence of Association," Regul. Toxic. Pharmic, v 21, 1995) You can find it on the net through a google,
Then too that a more recent study on prostacyclin and ETS exposure (Smith et al, 2001) shows no such effect. With 20 smokers as controls, the researchers recruited 20 nonsmokers who claimed no exposure to ETS and 22 who claimed exposure of 5 hours a day, and then verified these claims with personal air monitors as well as urine samples. The urine samples showed that the "urine concentration of PGI-M [prostacylin] were marginally higher in smokers and did not differ in the [exposed vs unexposed] nonsmoking groups." The authors conclude that "The results of this study suggest
that platelet aggregation as measured by [the eponymous metabolites--see below] is not associated with ETS exposure. Therefore platelet aggregation is not a plausible or quantitatively consistent hypothesis of cardiovascular disease and ETS exposure."
-Smith et al, "Urinary Thromboxane, Prostacyclin, Cortisol and 8-Hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine in Nonsmokers Exposed and Not Exposed to Envir-onmental Tobacco Smoke," Toxicol Sci 59, 2001
It 's also been noted in the long-running Framingham Heart Study, that variance in platelet sensitivity is 20% to 30% heritable.
-"Genetic and Environmental Contributors to Platelet Aggregation: The Framingham Heart Study," Circulation, Jun 26, 2001
The public funded anti smoking cartel in the United States have only until recently have had their feet held to the fire on the most falliable statements they have been repeating for over a decade.
Like a petty shoplifter the "unsupervised activists" have been given every opportunity to turn the tobacco topic into a backyard fence gossip session. Like the shoplifter each time they deceive it becomes easier and now by the posts that we read here almost pathological.
These folks believe their own deceptions.
Walt: Your references and citations never fail to impress. The wealth of information you provide is truly an asset to this ongoing discussion.
May I inquire as to whether you have any resource that might provide background information regarding Dr. Chris Covert-Bowlds and an organization called COMMIT, which apparently operates out of Bellingham, WA. I haven't found much more than the usual P.R. in my "Googling"
If you prefer to contact me regarding this particular matter, away from this forum, my e-mail address is kathleen (at) yc2 (dot) net.
Thanks...
Update on "COVERT" operations:
A note below a letter to the editor by Dr. Chris Covert-Bowlds, discloses that he received funding for "Tobacco Cessation Talks" from GlaxoSmithKline. Gee, isn't THAT interesting. Dr.Covert-Bowlds is also president of an organization called COMMIT for a Tobacco Free Whatcom County. And guess who makes the COMMIT "stop-smoking" lozenge. Why gee whiz, its initials are GSK. You suppose that's merely a coincidence? Sure it is...
A quick look at the GSK web site also tells us that they manufacture Consumer Brands Nicoderm CQ, Nicorette, NiQuitin and Nicabate and the list also includes something called Committed Quitters: "A behavioural support programme that offers advice and counselling for smokers trying to quit using GSK's nicotine replacement therapy products. Committed Quitters typically involves a free, personally tailored quit plan, complete with newsletters, award certificates and other motivational material, as well as a toll-free help line."
GSK prescription medicines include Zyban, ("Sustained-release tablets are a non-nicotine aid to smoking cessation") also sold as the antidepressant Wellbutrin.
So, what do you suppose the doc cares most about... children's health or forcing their parents into a position where they have no choice but to quit and so turn to some GSK product to help them do that?
Or the antidepressent Wellbutrin to make them "feel better" after their children are placed in a smoke-free foster home...
Steve-
I would recommend that health groups simply communicate the risk of heart disease associated with chronic exposure to secondhand smoke. The value of the studies of the effect of acute exposure on the cardiovascular system is that these studies provide biologic plausibility for the observed relationship between chronic exposure and heart disease. That's what we should be emphasizing - not the false contention that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke can cause heart disease, heart attacks, clotting, or death in otherwise healthy people.
Bill-
The majority of the claims I have cited are not old. They are claims being made as we speak on the web sites of these organizations. They may have been originally posted a while back, but they are live, active posts that are, as we speak, misrepresenting the scientific truth. Only a few of these (two or three) are non-active links - in other words, the fallacious claims have been deleted or corrected. As far as the rest of them go, they are CURRENT fallacious claims.
Kathleen-
I AM with you on this one. Stay tuned for Monday's post.
Kathleen--
It rings a faint bell to me that COMMITT, like ASSIST is an acronym for a gov't funded coalition with a lot of state branches. But the bell is faint and I could well be wrong. Suggest you check the site of the dreaded forces (www.forces.org) where I think they've got some articles by Wanda Hamilton (look for her name on their home page author's list) who's done a lot of research into the money trail and the orgs it funds.
there is only one sane and reasonable response to the campaign to make smoking into an act of child abuse.
It is time to boycott Glaxo Smith Kline. Their website is www.gsk.com. The website lists all of the products that they sell and a contact phone number.
Michelle
COMMIT [COMmunity Intervention Trial] was orginally an 11-community pairs research study funded by the NCI, with Bellingham, WA being the "treatment" community for the Fred Hutchinson pair. In each "treatment" community, anti-smoking influentials were recruited to participate on various networks. In many of the "treatment" communities, those networks have persisted.
ASSIST [American Stop Smoking Intervention Trial] was the larger-scale NCI program which followed the 'success' of COMMIT [but see the actual published results].
Both COMMIT & ASSIST attempted to mobilize influentials to induce heavy smokers to quit. Mike Pertschuk's Advocacy Institute was involved with both programs.
'COMMIT to quit' was/is a fine soundbite, so it's not been surprising that a pharmaceutical company would appropriate 'commit'for one of it's products (& copyright the moniker -- which the NCI couldn't do.)
Michael Pertschuck Advocacy institute is the father of the new phrase "Bjorking".
ASSIST a 135 million dollar cancer research giveaway procurement officer was Doctor Marc Manley (NCI) that now operates the huge anti smoking division of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, The state Attorneys General is investigating the non profit for having holdings of over one billion dollars, twelve times more than allowed under the laws that control non profits, BCBS MN is attempting to become the countrys richest non profit. The tenticales of public money residuals run deep in America.
Good information about Commit, thank you JFerguson - can you provide more details or links to additional background about this program?
It certainly seems more than coincidental that Covert-Bowlds is the president of Commit for a Tobacco-free Whatcom County (Bellingham is in Whatcom County) and engaged in an "informal, unorganized and quiet" movement to criminalize smokers.
I have written a "letter to the editor" - which I am in the process sending to every Oregon newspaper I can find listed online - exposing Covert-Bowlds' GSK connection. I hope at least a few of them will publish it.
Dr Siegel--
Q: Since we do know the effects of short term exposure to secondhand smoke rather quickly reverse on their own (and more rapidly with the help of an aspirin or glass of wine) , what, if any, studies have shown cumulative effects from frequent exposure? If so, by what proven biological mechnism? If so, what confounders have been considered and adjusted for?
I'm thinking that the heart beats faster when jogging but then returns to "normal." So analogously one could postulate that chronic jogging would inhibit that homestatic ability, which we know (or at least I assume) isn't true. So why would one assume that platelets or endotheliul function would be subject to different rules and be cumulatively affected-- or aren't they? (And that's a genuine question.)
Q: If John Doe, who may -- or may not--have pre-existing CHD , has a fight with his wife at breakfast,, a bad AM at the office, a bacon and egg lunch, a late afternoon challenge of making a pitch to important clients, a drink in a downtown bar where he's exposed to Somebody's Smoke, a traffic jam going home, and finally an after-dinner screening of Private Ryan (each of these activities known to gummy up his platelets and increase his prostacyclin), if he then has a heart attack just before turning in-- what would you say "caused" it? The half hour of smoke?
Or suppose he skipped the bar and then wasn't exposed to smoke? THEN what "caused" it?
It's logically "true" to say that the Burghuber study and others of its ilk may provide us with a route of biological plausibility for the a priori theory that exposure to ETS can induce vascular changes which in turn may induce heart disease and lead to a fatal "attack."
But similarly one could offer biological plausibility for the theory that a short walk in the rain without galoshes (or daily walks in the rain) can induce biological changes that can lead to death from pneumonia. I could improvise several now. But just because A might be "plausibly" linked to B doesn't start to mean that it IS. Plausibility is an intellectual exercise. Possibility is a mathematical exercise. Actuality's something else.
Or: where have I gone wrong?
Kathleen--
After I posted last night, I found links about COMMIT which may now be anti-climactic:
http://her.oxfordjournals.org/cg...stract/11/4/
527
http://www.healthpromotionjourna...l/ib2006-
03.htm
Check out #272 in the later In which they rationalize a plea for more funding
I wonder how long the money will hold up for anti-tobacco? Eventually the drug companies will reach a point where more money invested is no longer giving them bigger and bigger returns in sales of their nicotine gums, lozenges, pills, etc. At that point I suspect that funding will start to dry up.
Walt-
You are correct in your general contention that just because there are acute effects of secondhand smoke exposure on platelets and the lining of coronary arteries, that doesn't mean that this translates into a harmful effect of chronic exposure. These studies simply support the biologic plausibility of an effect of chronic exposure. The evidence for an effect of chronic exposure really comes from the epidemiologic studies which demonstrate an increased risk of heart disease in chronically exposed nonsmokers. Many confounders have been controlled for in these studies, including blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, family history, and diet.
You do raise an interesting point, though. If the effects of acute exposure are largely reversible, then perhaps it really takes regular exposure to result in chronic disease. Most of the epidemiologic studies that have been done have examined people with regular exposure to secondhand smoke, such as people who live with smokers or who work every day in workplaces that allow smoking. It's not clear that there would be any heart disease hazard for someone who was exposed intermittently, such as occasional exposure as a customer in a restaurant, for example.
But the bottom line is that the anti-smoking groups aren't even talking about this issue of chronic exposure. They're claiming that a SINGLE exposure can cause heart attacks, blood clots, and death. They're not even in the right ballpark!
Dr. Siegel:
When - as you have clearly shown - these groups are being "instructed to give testimony that is inaccurate" and "They're not even in the right ballpark!"; can you really continue to deny intentional deception?
You say that for now, the reason doesn't matter. I believe the reason is becoming more evident all the time.
What you mildly refer to as the tobacco control movement knows that with so much fear-mongering capturing the attention of the public, it must make sure its message is as loud and as terrifying as possible.
Question: How to compete with the "Bird Flue Pandemic" and "Mad Cow Disease"? How to be heard by people in a panic over the threat of "The Next Tsunami" and "Another Katrina"? How to reach those who fear that "Illegal Aliens Are Taking Over The Country" and "Terrorists Are Crossing Our Borders"?
Answer: Tell them there one "major threat", one "severe danger", that they CAN do something about and insist they MUST do everything in their power to eliminate it.
Instill such fear and loathing of one group of people that it becomes more than acceptable to ostracize and punish them. Make smokers seem sub-human, so "delusional" due to their "addiction" that their mere presence in society is absolute anathema to "decent" human beings.
Ensure defeat of the "enemy" by creating outrageous propaganda to convince the average, gullible citizen that transient tobacco smoke is actually a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" and their only hope of surviving is to eliminate any possibility of exposure to it.
Combine the immense satisfaction of successful social engineering with the tremendous profit motive - raking in piles of cash from both "sides" - and the aphrodisiac effect of enormous power of people's lives and the "reason" becomes crystal clear.
Siegel: "The reasons for the destruction of the gatekeeping mechanism that previously guarded the scientific integrity of the movement need to be identified, so that the problem can be fixed."
Science, although not perfect, tends to be self-correcting. When studies sponsored by the tobacco interests were done less rigourously than other studies, the remedy was simply to highlight the errors.
Advocacy, on the other hand, tends to be checked by opposition. When outrageous claims are made, opponents highlight their spuriousness. Even though the tobacco industry lacked complete credibility, anti-smoking advocates were probably checked by the prospect of having their pronouncements challenged. Consequently, the minimization of the credibility of challenges, could be responsible, in part, for the rise of mendacity on the part of anti-smoking advocates.
Creative epidemiology [that is, crafting soundbites to emphasize a message] opened a slipperly slope to the excesses perpetrated by the modern advertising industry. Of course, the self-same advertising industry has -- & continues -- to profit by promoting smoking! You want the TRUTH? Well, the advertising industry will gladly frame your anti-smoking message. It certainly didn't hurt their bottom lines when tobacco advertising was shifting to point-of-purchase to offer their services [for a price] to the anti-smoking movement.
Now a major tobacco company offers "Tips and tools for talking to your kids about not smoking" & "Your connection to a wealth of expert quitting information" [NEW - now also available en Español!] on its website
[ http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/e...com/en/
home.asp ]
[Paranoia runs deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. ...]
this is all starting to sound, look like and "smell" like the XFiles to me. Count me in!
Step outta line, the man comes to take you away...
Capri - Can you get Mulder & Scully on this for us? Nah, probably not - wasn't their "smoking man" a BAD guy?
Instill such fear and loathing of one group of people that it becomes more than acceptable to ostracize and punish them.
Nah. Just be thoughtful and step outside instead of filling restaurants with cancer causing carcinogens.
Secondhand smoke affects everyone
Smoking is not just an issue of personal health for smokers; it is a public health issue that concerns everyone. People exposed to secondhand smoke greatly increase their risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, bronchitis, ear infections, pneumonia, croup, and sore throats. Every year, about 3,000 adult nonsmokers die from lung cancer and 35,000 from heart disease nationwide.
Children are particularly susceptible to secondhand smoke. Exposing infants to secondhand smoke increases their chances of getting respiratory diseases, ear infections, asthma, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Between 7,500 and 15,000 infants in the United States are hospitalized each year as a result of such diseases.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/tobacco/
fa...ndhandfacts.htm
Ah come on Erik - we don't need you to C&P the party line that none of us are buying.
Everything in your above post is speculation,suposition and estimates based on worst case mathematical modelling. People exposed to how much SHS? for how long? can you define "greatly increase their "risk" a little more precisely for me? don't people not exposed to SHS get all these things? what was the reason for their disease?
How many children are hospitalized directlt due to SHS exposure 7501 ot 14999? How do you know it due to SHS? What is they slept on their stomach? Drank from a bottle? Caught a case of RSV? How many had underdeveloped eustacsion tubes? How do you know the real reason for their hospitalization was SHS?
Sure, Erik. "Just step outside" (while we clear out your desk and take away your children.) Unless you're in Calabasas where you can't "step outside" on pain of criminal fines. What could be more reasonable than that?
Everything in your above post is speculation,suposition and estimates based on worst case mathematical modelling.
All 50 US states, the EPA and CDC have similar statements. Even tobacco friendly ones.
Erik: "All 50 US states, the EPA and CDC have similar statements. Even tobacco friendly ones."
Leave it to Erik. If anyone can relate to the concept of the religiously (healthist) like-minded people copying one written piece and reproducing it 52 times he can.
Anyway, every member of the National Socialist Party upheld Hitler's statements and declarations too. Your point?
Your point?
Only a a few die hard smokers believe that first and second hand smoke is harmless.
So Eik are you suggesting the lepers on this blog are die hard or not ? I include myself as a leper by the way,and do you know what,even they had a colony and were better treated than smokers.
I think the key is the debate. Society has not taken a stand on the issue so far. Polling data in the article indicates that a majority of people do not support the right to smoke when it endangers the health of children. Dr. Whelan frames this dilemma well in an article she wrote on smoking and child abuse.
Dr. Whelan: "Consider this example (which I actually observed): A young couple had two small children. The husband smoked, at home and everywhere else. The two children were constantly brought to the emergency room with severe respiratory ailments. Both underwent surgery to relieve fluid inside their eardrums. Eventually, the attending physician had enough and sternly spoke to the father, explaining in no uncertain terms that his cigarette smoke was making his children ill and that if he did not stop smoking in their presence, these illnesses would continue and lead to further health consequences.
In this case, the father quit smoking, and the children's health improved dramatically. But what if instead he had insisted on his "right" to smoke anywhere, anytime? Would society feel obligated to protect the children, as it would in the case of physical abuse? Or do cigarettes have such a protected status that no matter what harm they do to children, they will be tolerated?"
This is the question we face. It is an honest debate for most, and most are truly grappling with the issue of personal freedom vs. a child's health.
The first thing that needs to be decided is whether society believes that the right to smoke supercedes the health of the child. If it does, then the case is closed. If it does not, then we deal with remedies. Removing children from a home is extreme and as far as I know is only done in cases of severe physical abuse and/or neglect. Forgetting to fasten your child's seat belt isn't going to result in CPS coming to remove your children. Even parents who physically abuse their children are often given second chances before the child is completely removed from the home.
It's surprising to me that this post emphasizes removing kids from homes. There is nothing in the article to suggest that is the remedy Dr. Covert-Bowles is seeking. The discussion on custody battles is about which parent a child will live with. Nothing in the article talks about yanking kids out of emotionally healthy homes because Mom or Dad can't kick their tobacco habit.
So one step at a time. Hysterics only confuses the issue and likely drives away mecical professionals who might otherwise be willing to join on the issue of how the anti-smoking community interprets medical research.
The above post is by me.
There is one flaw in this whole argument. The vast majority of children do not suffer from inner ear problems, or asthma, and these are special cases.
Reoccurant middle ear infections are strongly associated with asthma. What the tobacco control community would like to justify is legislation prohibiting parents from smoking by labeling it a form of child abuse, because a small minority of children may be effected by it. I don't believe the study used and often quoted in the CDC/EPA prefaces ever corrected for asthma. It's been a long time ago, and I'm pretty sure this is the case.
To put this into perspective, pets are fequently known to trigger asthma attacks. While I haven't seen a particular study, but I would imagine that pet ownership has a positive association with middle ear infections in children. Since it can be said the pet ownership exaserbates asthma, and can cause cronic middle ear infections, are we going to consider pet ownership a form of child abuse?
This is like heading down the path of predetermination. We can predict with some degree of certainty that inner city youths are not as likely to complete college. Using the statistical "causation" approach, why shold society waste it's money funding scholarships for inner city youth?
In Dr. Whelan's hypothetical example, here was a case where a child was affected, and not just a statistical likelyhood. Would it be right for the court to order the parent not to smoke around a child that has a reaction? Yes by all means. Would it be right for the court to order the family to have to give up their pet if this was the cause? Same answer.
With Arkansas, instead of having a causation, the anti-tobacco groups are demanding legislative solutions, when there is no need for such laws. The system is in place to handle such without a law. In most cases, once a parent knows that something is causing their child to be sick, they stop it. Be it smoking, pets, or even the laundry detergent they use.
The temparence activists amongst us are looking for an excuse to legislate as many restrictions on smoking as their little hearts can concoct. I believe the smoking=child abuse is a fine example.
Public health should be taking all their vast sums of money from the MSA and spend some of it on PSA's reminding parents to avoid smoking around children, rather than using it for PR campaigns to legislating compliance.
Walt, I agree that it probably would be fair that a judge order this father not to smoke around his child.
"There is one flaw in this whole argument. The vast majority of children do not suffer from inner ear problems, or asthma, and these are special cases."
What about the vast minority - the thousands of kids nationwide that do suffer from infections due to chronic SHS exposure? Should society ignore these kids because their parents fail to protect their health?
Jill,
"What about the vast minority - the thousands of kids nationwide that do suffer from infections due to chronic SHS exposure? Should society ignore these kids because their parents fail to protect their health?
"What about the vast minority - the thousands of kids nationwide that do suffer from infections due to chronic exposure to pet dander? Should society ignore these kids because their parents fail to protect their health?
Perhaps Arkansas should pass a law where it's illegel to ride around with your dog or cat in the car if you have kids in there too eh? Makes just as much sense.
Because smoke kids are allergic to the family pet, therefore we need to pass a law making it illegal to subject children to pets. I'm sure PETA would rally around that one. Pet ownership = child abuse. Almost identical to your argument concerning cigarette smoke.
Just goes to show you that PETA isn't as braizen as some in the tobacco control community.
Jill wrote:
"What about the vast minority - the thousands of kids nationwide that do suffer from infections due to chronic SHS exposure? Should society ignore these kids because their parents fail to protect their health?"
Does society ignore the belt buckles used to beat kids? No, the buckles are tackled on an individual basis.
In your world nobody would have belt buckles.
Dr Siegel, you wrote:
"You are correct in your general contention that just because there are acute effects of secondhand smoke exposure on platelets and the lining of coronary arteries, that doesn't mean that this translates into a harmful effect of chronic exposure. These studies simply support the biologic plausibility of an effect of chronic exposure. The evidence for an effect of chronic exposure really comes from the epidemiologic studies..."
But doesn't that define circular reasoning or begging the question? It says, in essence, we know A and we know Z, we know nothing of the biological steps in between, but still we use A to rationalize Z. Again my example of jogging/ heart rate seems to be apt.
The intellectual "plausibility" would have to be tested with a rigorous study that took place over time. Considering all possible confounders -- actually tested for, and not merely based on subjective "answers"-- and carefully measuring amounts and times of exposure, one would have to see if frequent and chronic exposure over 10-20 years actually causes blood to stay (more) permanently sticky or blood vessels to thicken above the normal tricks of time, and then determine why as well as biologically how. Beyond that, all we've got is a homeostatic reaction which might well be repeated ad infinitum; IOW, eternally returing to the norm.
"The discussion on custody battles is about which parent a child will live with. Nothing in the article talks about yanking kids out of emotionally healthy homes because Mom or Dad can't kick their tobacco habit."
Jill, you mean that the prevailing criteria for custody should smoking, irrelevant of any other, more important considerations for the child, including the childs personal preferences.
In addition, the decision is not based on the smoking status of the parent, not on the fact whether the parent ever smokes in the presence of the child.
Sorry (to everyone but Erik) for having to have to do this (repeat so much for the sake of context) but...
Erik: "All 50 US states, the EPA and CDC have similar statements. Even tobacco friendly ones."
Me: "Leave it to Erik. If anyone can relate to the concept of the religiously (healthist) like-minded people copying one written piece and reproducing it 52 times he can.
"Anyway, every member of the National Socialist Party upheld Hitler's statements and declarations too. Your point?"
Erik: "[My] point? Only a few die hard smokers believe that first and second hand smoke is harmless.
Erik, you are surely a subject for psychological study by someone. It's hysterical how you're living proof of what I just said. That mass indoctrination leads you to claim that the fault lies with those who are not (indoctrinated).
You'll probably have the urge to burn this book but here goes...
"Life Unworthy of Life," a 1997 book by political scientist James Glass, explores the roots of the Holocaust in German society's 1920s obsession with harnessing the power of science to promote "health."
"Nazi racial theories did not just drop out of the sky; nor were they the effect of crazed racial ideologues," Glass writes,
asserting that "science had established its dominance over the belief structure of Nazi Germany."
When scientists told the German public that genetic imperfections threatened social well-being, few people questioned them.
Then experts said Jews were an infection preventing German society from being healthy and happy.
By the time the Nazis came to power in 1933, Glass writes, "Eliminating the sources of racial pollution came to be seen as a
form of scientific truth."
"What might be understood as insane from a historical and moral perspective became truth under the aegis of professional
authority."
See yourself in there yet, Erik?
More for Erik's: "Only a few die hard smokers believe that first and second hand smoke is harmless."
(by the way, stop with the lumping game of primary smoking and ETS. You remind me of the twisted poll question "Do you support smoking bans in offices and bars?" where people who don't mind it in bars but mind it in their office are forced to answer yes and the antis say its proof that the public supports it in bars).
Anyway, to continue...
Dave Shiflett, National Review Online
http://www.nationalreview.com/sh...lett082202.asp:
"The mayor's motive is the Greater Health: Second-hand smoke, he argues, endangers people who work in these places. This is a questionable proposition to begin with..."
Raymond J. Keating, chief economist for the Small Business Survival Committee:
"Of course, there is no evidence that secondhand smoke kills thousands every day, nor any scientific basis for labeling tobacco the 'harshest drug on the planet.'"
Editor, NY Post, October 11, 2002
http://www.nypost.com/postopinio...rial/49033.htm:
"The fact is that second-hand smoke has never been scientifically proven to cause cancer."
Op-Ed by Jonathan Foreman, NY Post, October 14, 2002
http://www.nypost.com/postopinio...ists/59543.htm:
"THOUGH I am not a smoker,... But even if you buy the much-debated science on the risk of second-hand smoke, this is preposterous."
John Stossel, Townhall.com, November 30, 2005
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/...30/177151.html:
" The excuse is secondhand smoke. But there's only flimsy evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful."
Jon Caldara, Columnist, Daily Camera, April 17, 2005
http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/
o...3703831,00.html
"...there's never been a documented case of death by second-hand smoke and recent studies have shown that the health threats are greatly exaggerated..."
Zoe Heller, Telegraph (UK), June 21, 2003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opini...questid=209111:
"Before the anti-smoking zealots start tapping out their vicious little e-mails to me, let me further enrage them by pointing out that, their passionate certainties notwithstanding, nobody has yet been able to prove the fatal effects of second-hand smoke."
So many more journalists, columnists, pundits and (gasp) editors of mainstream newspapers (!)-- most nonsmokers -- to list but this last is a good note to end it on.
And yet Erik continues to say, "Only a few die hard smokers believe that first and second hand smoke is harmless."
(YAWN)
The public perception smoking bans are based in an extreme danger to Hospitality workers predominant in the discussions is the risk of contracting Cancer which allows for a near no acceptable limit where ETS is involved. The placing of ETS on the list as a class one Carcinogen by the American EPA was without doubt a decision based much more in political will than the minor risk, which actually exists. James Repace has established a lot of the risk assessment driving the decision in 1997 he presented a paper based in Nicotine measurements suggesting a linear dose response relationship concluding 75 Nanograms per cubic meter of air could be described as an enforceable standard. The report, as reports will, included a number of references to tidbits of information on which his opinions were based evidence of calculations and other research which establish his line of thought. A number of facts unfortunately escaped his research. Biological plausibility and timeline regression were quite obviously ignored. Historically prior to 1960 more than 50% of the population smoked more than 90% therefore would have been exposed. In Planes Grocery stores and hospitals the norm was non-restriction. His assessments of exposed at 2 per thousand risk of contracting cancers and 2 per hundred for most exposed referring to hospitality workers described as 59 million at the time. Would result in 40 year working lifetime risk 1,189,000 cancers among hospitality workers through exposure to ETS alone in addition to the hundreds of other causes of Cancers which by ratio would likely have meant the death of all those remaining. In fact Cancers as a whole are responsible for only one percent of mortality of all causes. 1% even if all cancers were caused by ETS would amount to 590,000 mortality in the 59 million hospitality workers described. How is it a person so well educated could blunder so badly as to miss the mark by more than 200%? If you consider the EPA calculations ETS is responsible for only 3000 in a 320 million population every year. The study is based in a 40 year working lifetime so if we calculate annual estimates by 40 years assuming nothing will change we can realize a relative risk of a working lifetime to be 120,000/300 million = 400 per million = 0.4 per thousand.
Again how could these estimates be so far removed from reality? For starters the linear dose response relationship derived from a static amount of smoke existing does not place much notice on how much would actually be inhaled by not only the workers but the hugely reduced lifetime volume inhaled by the public in general who would not spend more than an hour a month on average in a smoking environment. Let alone 40 hours a week. Some would spend more time but on population average one hour could in fact be quite high. We could grab the most obvious idea Mr. Repace makes a living convincing people his calculations are accurate.
The question I have always asked but never been answered, if such extreme risk is present why is the only proof offered based in statistical calculations real proof couldn't be that hard to provide. The linear response to smoking habits prior to 1960 should have yeilded tremendous savings in mortality figures 45 years later when will the results of reductions insmoking and exposure to the smoke be realized with so many smoking related mortalities and figures growing in parallel to reductions 30 years back can dose response be logical without adjusting risk factors extremely downward? I fail to see how.
If ETS were as deadly as the health groups present I fail to see the numbers to prove it. In real life the risk is 25% higher you will die of genital warts than dying of ETS derived cancers according to the CDC. They described HPV cancers as extremely rare in the American population in spite of the fact by the age of 50 over 80% of women will have been exposed. Many of the Health care professionals including SAMMEC research include vaginal and cervical cancers as smoking related regardless of the facts. Endometriosis is actually less of a risk to smokers than non smokers Endometrial Cancers are also less in smokers. In spite of the latest research declaring cognative deficiencies in children expossed to ETS. Other physical research shows cotenine to be neuro protective, cognative enhansing and useful in treating many neurological disorders. The study did report the lowest cognative losses were found in the highest exposures. Along with the fact identical results were found due to lead exposures which the study group was also expossed to. When describing 3000 deaths annually due to ETS in the American population as an extreme danger to hospitality workers. The most exposed ignoring the smokers themselves many whom of course would also be hospitality workers, and the general public with one tenth the risk by Repace research how do we describe 3900 deaths by HPV affecting 80% of the female population as “extremely rare” and hardly worthy of note A result of body counts not meerly statistical calculations. Certainly no massive media blitz is planned to save the lives of those defenseless women again many of whom would also be Hospitality workers. The prevalence of sexual contact among those who work in bars would increase the risk to the extreme. Should we return bars to gender separate facilities to curb the growing pandemic or simply accept some risks are acceptable and cannot be avoided, as common sense would dictate?
As part of the work I do in the maintenance of large commercial electronic displays. Every month in downtown Toronto I replace 14 air filters in one display. The filters which clean the air, required to cool the interior of the display. When the filters go in they weigh less than an ounce when removed 30 days later they weight between 2 and 3 pounds 30 day accumulation in greater than 10-micron particulate. The interior of the display is coated with a thick layer of fine dust particulate the more dangerous variety your lungs cannot purge, after only 3 years in use. The outer shell is galvanized and rust treated, the metal is showing visible rust which I would estimate within 2 years will become a structural problem. I have worked on displays which although, gone now, lasted over 30 years in normal use, rust formed on many of them only in the past 5 years. I smoke cigars and am a lot less concerned with the effects of smoking than the effects of a progressively worsening problem in the air we cannot escape. With the focus on reducing smoking at the top of all agendas we are ignoring a much more dangerous problem, which if not dealt with soon will prove itself to be a much more severe health risk than smoking ever was. A risk the numbers could never be twisted to produce. It seems the fanatics are having a real health effect. It may be time for someone to calculate how many babies they are killing purely for financial gain.
Much more investigations are needed in assay of smoking related as opposed to particulate related because as we stand today; our only protection from repeating the thousands of deaths from smog in the UK back in the 50s, would be comprised in a consensus group of industry advocates, all determined to sing in harmony even if it kills us all.
Recent attempts to have particulate limits lowered were only oppossed by industry advocates who would be charged with lowering the amounts they create. Most of the same advocates are also funding smoking ban advocacy. It's all to improve our health is what we hear protection of profits is what we see. The tobacco industry is selling less product yet creating record profits every year so much for punishing an industry.
For all who want to lose weight: i
http://drugstore.seavenue.net
Cure cancer:
http://cancer.seavenue.net
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
