You forgot to mention that a "potential" increased risk of fairly routine childhood ailments is not absolutely, positively NOT ABUSIVE in any way. Bottle feeding also increases the risks of the same ailments, right? Should those who choose not to breastfeed be acused of "abuse" as well?
This man proposes that exposing SHS to any child in and of itself is harmful even in the absence of any harm at all.
My kids never got any of these diseases but I suppose the next thing they'll nail me with is an "increased risk" of behavioral disorders. They are getting close to those teens years now, I'm sure they will "act out" any day now due to SHS exposure.
Should parents have the unfettered right to chain smoke in their car with the children inside with the windows rolled up everyday?
Government shouldn't intrude on the raising of parent's children.
However, whether a parent has the right to fill a child's lungs with cancer causing carcinogens everyday is another matter.
How about if the law simply stated that if a parent smokes in the car, the windows would have to be rolled down?
Erik: Should parents have the unfettered right to chain smoke in their car with the children inside with the windows rolled up everyday?
Erik, the only thing you left out of your crazy extremism masquerading as reality is "...everday, ALL DAY."
If smokers would be a bit reasonable and not oppose reasonable efforts to keep children from cancer causing smoke, perhaps this would not be an issue:
Aside from causing cancer,
"[s]econdhand smoke is also associated with the following noncancerous conditions:
* chronic coughing, phlegm, and wheezing (4, 6, 7)
* chest discomfort (4)
* lowered lung function (4, 6, 7)
* severe lower respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis or pneumonia, in children (4, 6, 7)
* more severe asthma and increased chance of developing asthma in children (6)
* eye and nose irritation (4)
* severe and chronic heart disease (4)
* middle ear infections in children (4, 6)
* sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (4)
* low birth weight or small size at birth for babies of women exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopi...eet/Tobacco/
ETS
Erik
Even the Surgeon General's report on Secondhand Smoke shows NO connection with cough, phlegm, wheezing or lowered lung function. Read it. Then read the scores of other studies that back that position.
Then read the WHO study Bofetta et al which showed that children growing up around secondhand smoke had a statistically signficant LOWER chance of getting lung cancer later on than did children of non-smokers.
Has it ever occurred to you-- even out of curiosity-- to read anything that doesn't bolster your bias?
But why do I get the feeling you're still an undergraduate? If you are, I might be tempted to cut you a little slack while I bemoan that your youth is being totally wasted.
Even the Surgeon General's report on Secondhand Smoke shows NO connection with cough, phlegm, wheezing or lowered lung function. Read it.
Ok. I will read your source. Here's what it says:
The 1986 US Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of involuntary smoking reached 3 important conclusions about secondhand smoke:
* Involuntary smoking causes disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.
* When compared with the children of nonsmoking parents, children of parents who smoke have more frequent respiratory infections, more respiratory symptoms, and slower development of lung function as the lung matures.
* Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
Involuntary smoking? You mean somebody is pushing a cigarette down you throat. They should get their terminology right.
Erik, you didn't read the study Walt suggested:
Conclusion: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
But they didn't tell the truth in their conclusion (after all, they are funded by the WHO), because the results are more explicit:
RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant. (emphasis mine)
Not only was ETS exposure during childhood not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer but in the contrary it was associated with a significant (the only significant and the strongest association in this study) reduction of risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...9&
dopt=Abstract
Removing parents from children or children from parents is about the the worst cruelty mankind can imagine.
Children in joint-custody settings have fewer behavioral and emotional problems, have higher self-esteem, better family relations and better school performance than children in sole custody, usually with the mother, says the report in the March issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association.
Stolen Generation is the term commonly used to mean the Australian Aboriginal children who were removed from their families by Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1900 and 1972. Originally considered child welfare, the practice is today perceived by many as a gross human rights violation, having wrought extensive family and cultural damage.
The social impacts of forced removal have been measured and found to be quite severe. Although the stated aim of the "resocialisation" programme was to improve the integration of Aboriginals into modern society, a study conducted in Melbourne and cited in the official report found that there was no tangible improvement in the social position of "removed" Aborigines as compared to "non-removed", particularly in the areas of employment and post-secondary education. Most notably, the study indicated that removed Aboriginals were actually less likely to have completed a secondary education, three times as likely to have acquired a police record and were twice as likely to use illicit drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sto...olen_Generation
Being taken from everything loving and familiar is among the worst emotional blows that any child can suffer. It can leave lifelong scars. In addition, there is far more abuse in foster care than generally realized. Wrongfully removing a child from his parents can actually place that child at greater risk of child abuse and neglect.
http://www.nccpr.org/index_files...s/
page0002.html
Understanding the mechanisms at work in parenting and the effects of disruptions to the bonds created between parents and children is vitally important,” says Bruce McEwen, PhD, of Rockefeller University. “It directly influences all individuals, and has an effect on society – interrupted parental bonding can cause behavioral problems in school and the workplace, affecting almost everyone.
http://web.sfn.org/index.cfm?
pag...me=news_102404c
And so much for the caring government ... children become numbers and a cost factor:
In FY 2005-06, California will spend a staggering $4.7 billion on child welfare and foster care services, drawn from state, county, and federal funds. [...] the government assumes the role of parent and is responsible for children’s safety and well-being.
Four counties that care for more than 12,000 children in care failed every federal measure. All too often, county agencies are failing to keep children safe. It appears that each child’s level of safety and well-being is an accident of geography, hinging on political boundaries rather than on his or her particular needs. Foster children in San Francisco are 50 percent more likely to be abused or neglected within a year of an earlier abuse than children in Los Angeles County, and nearly 200 percent more likely than children in Monterey County.
http://www.youthlaw.org/
publicat...broken_promises
Dr. Siegel, at Kathleen's (and my) urging for you "to act - in a very public and insistent way..." and "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..."
you responded: "I AM with you on this one. Stay tuned for Monday's post."
I suspect Kathleen feels the same but I expected this post to include news about how you've at least begun to form a coalition of your colleagues who find this unacceptable and that there will be some publicly made comments (press conference? press release? schedule a conference?) denouncing it. You know, beyond the blog.
I just hope that the reason there is no such news is because you're doing it but waiting for the right moment to unveil it -- this not being the place or time.
Erik wrote:
"If smokers would be a bit reasonable ..."
A gross accusation and generalization. Unless you can provide evidence that all smokers are not reasonable.
All non-smokers are fanatics and liars. How do you like that?
Erik, let me educate you. Most smokers roll their windows down when they smoke regardless of whether anyone is in the car or not.
From what I remember - some silly anti wants that to be a crime as well because the evil SHS will get into the outside air.
Dr. Siegel, I don't see anything that suggests children be pulled out of homes where parents smoke.
You asked, "And removing children from their parents who smoke in the home would benefit these kids exactly how?"
What is the basis of this question?
Whether smoking around children should be criminalized or not is a question to be debated. I haven't heard anyone calling for the removal of children in this article or elsewhere. Just as parents can be cited for not putting their child in a car seat, there are less severe remedies than removing a child from the home where a parent smokes.
Now that it is known that smoking causes disease in children, it is important to educate the public. As Margaret indicates in her remark, "most smokers roll down their windows," there are still some who continue to put children at risk smoking in their cars with the windows up. Educating parents about the damage they do to their children's health is an important next step.
With smoking habits so entrenched in society it is difficult to step forward and challenge existing attitudes about smoking.
Congratulations to Dr. Covert-Bowlds for his courageous public statements and his willingness to call a spade a spade - in spite of the backlash he will most certainly recieve.
Jill, do you have children?
One of Scotland’s biggest local authorities is threatening to remove foster children from smokers.
New rules introduced by Dundee city council will ban smokers from adopting and fostering children under the age of five unless they agree to keep their homes smoke free.
Smokers who already have foster children under five in their care face having them removed if they smoke at home. The conditions are being introduced ahead of a ban on smoking in public places, which will give Scotland some of the world’s most draconian anti-smoking laws.
The thread is indiscriminate of wehther parents smoke in the presence of children or not, it is sufficient to be a smoker and to smoke at home: "face having them removed if they smoke at home"
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2967
Now that it is known that smoking causes disease in children, it is important to educate the public.
Jill, Jill, Jill
It is NOT known that smoking causes any diseases in children. The BEST the antis can come up with is an "increased risk" for diseases that children from all walks of life suffer.
Bottle feeding "increases the risk" of ear infections would you have CPS intervene in the life of a parent who chooses not to breastfeed? Fewer and fewer children are exposed to SHS than ever before thanks to "education" campaigns and yet we have soaring rates of asthma and allergies. How do you explain that? It defies the logic of singling out smoking parents as "endangering their children" when most of the children with the same diseases are not exposed to SHS. What behavior of non-smoking parents is endangering their children? Maybe we should identify that and accuse these parents of 'abuse' as well.
The judge who issued the order banning all smoking in the home when either of the children is present, took judicial notice of the harmful effects of smoking. This procedural step alleviated the need to hear expert testimony by Dr. Chris Covert-Bowlds, who had prepared to testify to the fact that secondhand cigarette smoke poses many dangers, particularly to the health of children exposed to it on a regular basis. The judge stated from the bench that “everyone knows that secondhand smoke is harmful.” Since the judge's order, the boy's health problems have resolved themselves and he has excelled on his school's track team.
Attorney John Banzaf [...] assisted the non-smoking parent in the Washington case. He says, "More and more judges are ruling that smoking around a child is dangerous, and that it can be grounds for loss of custody – indeed, several parents have lost custody because they smoked around their children. In some cases, authorities have treated the matter as child abuse, child neglect, or reckless endangerment, and have acted on the complaint of a third party such as a relative other than the spouse, a physician, etc. No court has ever ruled to the contrary."
"The judge stated from the bench that “everyone knows that secondhand smoke is harmful.”"
http://www.law.capital.edu/Tobac...05/
Feature1.asp
How the hell does he know? He must have read the EPA report ....
"More and more judges are ruling that smoking around a child is dangerous"
I always thought that a judge's ruling should be based on facts, not on opinions, but here we go ...
As benpal wrote re: Australia-
"The social impacts of forced removal have been measured and found to be quite severe. Although the stated aim of the "resocialisation" programme was to improve the integration of Aboriginals into modern society, a study conducted in Melbourne and cited in the official report found that there was no tangible improvement in the social position of "removed" Aborigines as compared to "non-removed", particularly in the areas of employment and post-secondary education. Most notably, the study indicated that removed Aboriginals were actually less likely to have completed a secondary education, three times as likely to have acquired a police record and were twice as likely to use illicit drugs."
USA need only look to it's own doorstep for the same "Social Experiment" with our own Native Americans...those who walked before us, and even today we do not honor them.
As I just posted on another topic-
The Master Settlement Agreement is now renamed:
The Master Race Agreement.
That is what all of this smacks of, the Master Race Agreement is disgusting, dirty and perverted towards any human race.
Ah, perhaps we're missing the point. Vile, addicted smokers [& similar addicts] are incompetent parents. Can a movement to prohibit such degenerates from reproducing be far behind?
Just the Facts-
In response to your comment: "I expected this post to include news about how you've at least begun to form a coalition of your colleagues who find this unacceptable and that there will be some publicly made comments (press conference? press release? schedule a conference?) denouncing it."
The sad news is that I have NOT been able to get my colleagues to join me in this. As you saw just from the comments on this post alone (e.g., comments from Erik and Jill, plus previous comments from Bill), anti-smoking advocates do not seem to have a problem with this. At least one anti-smoking group - ASH - is actually pushing for this type of treatment of smokers. I have yet to see any anti-smoking groups or advocates publicly speak out against this. If anything, groups seem to be supporting this type of insanity. So sadly, right now there is no "coalition," it's just me. It's unfortunate that no one in the anti-smoking movement is willing to speak out publicly against what anyone else is doing. But I can understand why. If you do speak out, you are attacked and viewed as a traitor. The era of McCarthyism seems to have been revived within the anti-smoking movement.
Jill if you want to call a spade a spade it infers the right to call a moron a moron.courageous public statements my a***e he just wants publicity like the majority of rabids are doing at the moment,and the best way is to make tremendous mountains out of molehills.Common sense no longer prevails,and a live and let live attitude allows every anti smoking shyster to walk all over you.So Jill are you so naiive or just a happy zealot who is a control freak ?
Jill - Go read the full article. In addition to several mentions of "making smoking around children a criminal act", it also informs us that "approximately" 17 states have had a "custody battle with smoking as a central issue".
Mincing around with "oh-we-didn't-say-THAT" denial doesn't change the fact of what is being proposed. KATU's "survey says" data suggests that "the majority" already believe it is child abuse. How much clearer does it have to get for you, Jill.
"With smoking habits so entrenched in society it is difficult to step forward and challenge existing attitudes about smoking. "
Sounds like you culled that one from some pamphlet you picked up 30 years ago. NO antismokER alive today will have any "difficulty" leaping onto this bandwagon to - as you put it - "call a spade a spade".
Chris Covert-Bowlds is not at ALL "courageous". He's a fanatic armed with funding and backing from an enormous pharmaceutical company, and operating in a culture where fear-mongering is an extremely successful method of social engineering.
And Jill, you are one of his "tools".
capri - If the provision becomes law:
Children exposed to ETS get removed from their parents. As a result the kids go nuts. An association between childhood ETS exposure and going nuts has been established.
So the provision becomes self fulfilling.
Clever.
Mike, you were very polite in discussing the possible differences between families with parents who smoke and families with parents who don't smoke - in this and the preceding posting.
I will be more direct.
The incidence of smoking is greater in the lower income brackets, and the success of smoking-cessation intervention in lower income brackets is negligible in comparison to the sucess rate in higher income brackets.
Furthermore, people who smoke (and/or use other substances as coping mechanisms) are much more likely to have experienced being raped, beaten, bullied, abandoned or neglected as children. The ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences study) proved this conclusively.
Therefore, we are talking about a form of quasi-eugenics being advocated by elements of tobacco control. We are talking about taking children away from the most vulnerable people in our society - lower income survivors of childhood abuse & neglect - and turning those children over to "healthier" families in higher income brackets, some of whom ironically seem to have problems producing children despite their healthy lifestyles.
Robin
Dr. Siegel:
Would you be willing to write a letter to the editor of Oregon's major newspapers, expressing your opinion about this particular issue? Your input might at least draw some attention to it, where mine will most likely be dismissed.
I do appreciate the fact that you are willing to speak out about this at all. I realize you have tried to get others to join your fight with no success, and I do understand that you are in a very difficult and "lonely" position.
I also concede that, as a professional who has been part of the tobacco control movement for most of his career, you no doubt feel you are more vulnerable and have much more to lose than the rest of us ordinary citizens. I recognize that the very existence of this blog leaves your neck stretched beneath the blade of the guillotine.
Until someone with "credentials" is willing to truly go public, however, there is little chance of bringing this monster to heel. And I believe this particular aspect of the crusade is in itself the epitome of "child abuse".
I might also mention that I have no children and don't personally know anyone who has been targeted; but I have a gut-wrenching feeling about this and I AM certain that if we don't do something about it NOW, there will be no turning back.
* chronic coughing, phlegm, and wheezing (4, 6, 7)
4 kids--this is not a problem
* chest discomfort (4)--4 kids, no complaints yet
* lowered lung function (4, 6, 7)--I can assure you, this is NOT a problem. They have VERY healthy lungs, the doctors assure me of it and so does anyone in the vicinity of a football field if they get upset or pissed.
* severe lower respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis or pneumonia, in children (4, 6, 7)--4 kids, none have ever had any of these things
* more severe asthma and increased chance of developing asthma in children (6)--funny, I'm the only one in the house with asthma...
* eye and nose irritation (4)--nope, I would figure I'd be treating this if it was occurring, again, doesn't seem to be an issue
* severe and chronic heart disease (4)--nope, none of that either. My kids are disgustingly healthy...much to your disappointment I suppose
* middle ear infections in children (4, 6)--this one makes me so amused. My kids do not have chronic ear infections, in fact, I'M the one that got tubes put her in ears when I was 25..funny, must have been all those years of MY parents smoking that at the young age of 25 I FINALLY got an ear infection and just lucked out that they became chronic. The doctor said it was because of a fault in my ears, but I think he was being paid off by the tobacco industry.
* sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (4)--I believe if you actually checked into this, you'd find this: http://www.forces.org/evidence/f...iles/
cohe01.htm
object to your organization's use of misleading data and terminology when linking Sudden Infant Death Syndrome to your cause...In fact, the vast majority of infants born to smoking parents do not die of SIDS....Risk factors alone do not cause SIDS...The simple truth is that many SIDS victims have no known risk factors; and, most babies with one or more risk factors will survive....Any published figures are sheer speculation, or guesses, not grounded in actual experimentation. The best we can do at this juncture is talk in terms of attributable risk--and there is no consensus on what that might be...
* low birth weight or small size at birth for babies of women exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy---again, 4 kids..NO low birth weight, in fact, the last one had to be retrieved by c-section because of his positioning and the fear that he was too large to..well, make the trip as it were..I weighed almost 10 lbs when I was born, both my brothers were about half way between 9 snd 10 lbs..my mother was close to 11 pounds..I DID have a little sister who was "low birth rate" however, she was also 3 months premature due to some stresses on my mother because of a REAL abusive parent...so I could say she was lbw, however we must consider she was not carried to term and from I gather was actually a normal weight for a baby that should have been 6 months along...big babies run in our family, in fact, I'm the wierdo as all mine have actually been a bit less than 9 lbs, tho as I said, we feared for the last child
Japan supposedly has the highest rate in the world when it comes to smokers, especially your favorite (chain smokers) and yet has the LOWEST instance of low birth rate. I haven't been able to find the study again showing this though, so I could be off, anyone that can point me in that direction?
I would like to point out that there are NOT enough foster homes available for children who are well and truly abused and most end up living in state run facilities and leading very hard and traumatizing lives. Adoptive parents are also very rare (and getting rarer thanks to ridiculous rules placed upon them), so I'd like to know where all these misplaced children will be going? To these state run facilities? Of course, that's exactly what everyone wants. We should turn our children over to the government so it can be assured they grow up with the proper brainwashing....er, I mean raising.
Dr. Siegel, you are undercutting your own argument as long as you hold true to positions like this:
"Sure, protecting kids from secondhand smoke is an important goal, but to do so by removing kids from their parents or by making their parents criminals is not the way to go about it."
As long as you beleive that there is sufficient reason for children to be protected from ETS, then your argument against penalizing smoking in the presence of children doesn't make sense. You only state what the wrong way to achieve the goal is, but provide no alternatives for acheiving the goal in other ways. But, you still feel the goal is worth attaining (albeit using different means).
At that point, your argument against criminalizing the behavior is completely divorced from the health concerns and is instead only justified by some libertarian principles regarding the appropriate use of the power of the state. But, our society has always made allowances for state intrusion into private family matters if there is a clear and present danger to the child, spouse, etc.
I don't think your argument can be successfully made, or taken seriously, as long as the issue of why ETS is NOT a clear and present danger to children is honestly addressed. Any argument made solely on the concept of "liberty" will fail (there is obviously less and less respect for the concept anyway). But, if you can clearly demonstrate what the effects of ETS exposure on children ARE, and what they ARE NOT, then you may be able to convince people that criminalizing parental smoking is the wrong idea.
I would also mention that lots of people grew up with smoking parents and turned out just fine, and I lived during that time and remember it, but with all the historical revisionism going on, nobody would believe that anyway.
We certainly have come a long way from the days when all people wanted was the choice of a non-smoking section.
Some people, at least, are approaching this with some commonsense. Lord Steel (on the UK ban legislation) has recognised the health and offense issues and proposed an amendment to allow separate sections with the use of ventillation.
Link
Would this work in a home environment too and should it be encouraged?
Maybe if it does we can stop this talk of 'taking children away'
When will we recognize that the antismoking movement truly shares the same weltanschauung as National Socialism?
The sad news is that I have NOT been able to get my colleagues to join me in this
I don't see where anyone has advocated taking children away, so this post is just trying to alarm people.
Second, locking a child in a car for house filled with second hand smoke should only be cause for a ticket, like having a child ride with no seat belt.
The problem is there are still a few people who don't believe second hand smoke poses any health risk whatsoever. Those people are going to have no hesitation of exposing children to SHS.
CJ: Excellent point about undercutting the argument.
West2: Excellent suggestion regarding ventilation.
Benpal: Thank you for the links and also for your comments on my blog
Erik: Do you have anything productive to add to this discussion - beyond your simpering?
If you "don't see", it's because you refuse to LOOK!! People need to be alarmed, they need to be jolted out of their complacency, they need to stop being soothed by the AntismokER Crusades' useful idiots such as you and Jill who mouth smarmy platitudes and encourage the masses to take their "soma" and be good little robots.
Second, locking a child in a car for house filled with second hand smoke should only be cause for a ticket, like having a child ride with no seat belt.
Jeez! You really need to get a handle on your rhetoric. Is this how you envision parents who smoke? Chain smoking a carton of cigarettes to fill a room and locking their child in?
Eik you continually moan about SHS yet you provide no real facts or evidence to substantiate your rhetoric so either you can't have a debate because you can't understand what it is you keep saying or you choose to ignore everything which is available ,here ,to learn something.SHS is not proven ,does this make me one of the few people ? No it doesn't since i am merely quoting a fact.I know it isn't something that you like to hear but sometimes constant moaning and ignorance belittles the concensus of debate.The one example that you have failed to milk is that dragons must have been smokers,since they all died out.St George however did not die of SHS.
Jeez! You really need to get a handle on your rhetoric. Is this how you envision parents who smoke
Hopefully, they wouldn't. However, if one believes second hand smoke is harmless and benign, it is no doubt a possibility.
If parents would smoke away from their children, this wouldn't be an issue.
SHS is not proven ,does this make me one of the few people ? No it doesn't since i am merely quoting a fact.
That's it right there. You don't believe second smoke is any risk as all. There is a diference of opinion.
Given that, why would you hesitate to expose children to it?
This attempt to classify smoking around children as abuse stinks of a bunch of antismoking activists who used to recieve funding to promote smoking bans in Wash as having to find another use for the funds now that the state has banned public smoking.
Did anyone really expect them to say " well, now our state has a smoking ban, so we don't really need your funding anymore???"
This is why in states with bans, we're starting to see really ridiculous antismoking programs.
Is ETS exposure really dangerous to chldren? remember in the 1970s, twice as many parents smoked, so the average kid was exposed to twice as much smoke. Smoking was also allowed in many more public places where kids went than now, I remember smoking in my son's daycare center. Smoking was allowed in schools, airplanes, malls, etc.
Yet today, kids have 2x the incidence of middle ear infections, 80% more asthma, higher cancer rates, etc.
While the home exposure is probably the main route of exposure today, many parents don't even smoke in their own homes today.
One would think if ETS exposure was an important determinant of rates of these conditions in kids, that these rates would be lower today, not higher.
it is much more likely other factors such as higher frequency of urban residency and lower education and income level of smoking parents are the real reasons these children exhibit more of the conditions blamed on smoke. Since these other factors have not changed in magnitude over the last 3 decades, these are much more likely to be the true explanations kids are no healthier than in the past.
Eik thank you for doing what i expected you to .You have quoted me as not believing in there being any harm in SHS.I simply stated as yet there is no association between SHS and disease.The two are quite distinct.You have therefore stated something that you want to be true when it isn't.It doesn't prove your case at all,merely that you need to read and not jump to conclusions like you have done.
Kathleen-
I have sent in two letters to the editor. One to the Oregonian and one to the Portland Tribune. I'll let you know if either one is published. This issue is not going to go away, and I will continue to write about it, both on the blog and publicly. But to start, let's see if we can't get something immediately into an Oregon newspaper to serve notice that we're not going to sit by and let this happen unnoticed and uncontested (like the Arkansas car smoking ban).
In the meantime, I would note that this post has been highlighted on the tobacco.org site, so it should now be seen by a large number of anti-smoking advocates and groups (see: http://www.tobacco.org/news/223006.html).
I really do think there is a socioeconomic/racial and a class issue here. Basically, well-off anti-smoking advocates are telling poorer less well-off Americans how to live their lives and how to raise their children. That's truly what this amounts to.
And because the well-off don't have as much respect for the lower classes, they don't understand the implications of developing a criminal record, having to pay fines, or having one's children threatened to be taken away.
The lack of sensitivity is appalling, but it's really a shame to me that this is coming from within my own movement.
Doc, your last remarks on this issue explain clearly why such a thing is simply disgusting.
We have a so called 'upper class' of upper vermins who feel themselves morally superior to the 'others', do not care about them and sometimes, when they succed in making their life miserable, they rejoice because those inferiors got what they deserve.
To me, it's just racism in disguise.
Jill: "With smoking habits so entrenched in society it is difficult to step forward and challenge existing attitudes about smoking."
I digress. It should have read: "With anti smoking so entrenched in society, it is an easy step forward to further heap disdain upon smokers".
Dr. Covert-Bowlds is a lowly coward, a whipped up jackal, howling in a choir of peers. If anyone is to be commended for his valor, it should be Michael Siegel.
Erik: "If parents would smoke away from their children, this wouldn't be an issue."
Not so. I am reminded of past 'logical steps':
"If smokers wouldn't smoke in airliners, this would not be an issue".
"If smokers wouldn't smoke at work, this would not be an issue".
"If smokers would not smoke on sidewalks, this would not be an issue".
In a world with no Banzhafs and Glantzs, this would not be an issue.
Thank you SO much, Michael. Now I don't feel quite so "lonely" 
Would you object if I quoted your comment above on my blog?
I have so far had only one response from any editor. He merely questioned whether my letter was "exclusive" to his paper. I replied that it was not and suggested politely that he might want to explore the matter further "in the interest of impartial journalism". I included a link to The Rest Of The Story. So we'll see...
Meanwhile, I have also submitted this article to FORCES. With their recently abbreviated posting schedule, I have no idea when or if it might appear.
How about the law requiring parents to have their children wear seat belts? Is this a fair law?
The government is intruding on parental rights in the name of children safety.
How is keeping children safe from cancer causing carcinogenic smoke any different?
Erik wrote:
How about the law requiring parents to have their children wear seat belts? The government is intruding on parental rights in the name of children safety. How is keeping children safe from cancer causing carcinogenic smoke any different?
Erik,
The article in question clearly stated that there is an attempt underway to criminalize smoking as CHILD ABUSE.
Today, legally speaking, driving a child around without a seatbelt is not prosecuted as a case of CHILD ABUSE.
That is how it is different, to answer your question.
Dr. Siegel, I hope that Erik's post clearly illustrates my earlier point that arguing against classifying parental smoking as child abuse, based solely on libertarian ideas involving the limitations of state power, will NEVER succeed in today's political climate.
Today, legally speaking, driving a child around without a seatbelt is not prosecuted as a case of CHILD ABUSE.
Actually, it would.
If you repeatedly drove a child around without a seat belt and were cited for it, you would eventually run afould of child endangerment laws.
You may believe that the government should not get involved when a child's health is placed in such danger. However, I believe most states have such laws.
"How is keeping children safe from cancer causing carcinogenic smoke any different?"
How is keeping children safe from cancer causing exhaust gases any different? YOUR car is harming MY children, Erik!
Typical, acute by-stander exposures to low-to-moderate concentrations of vehicle exhaust gases (and particles) show a general progression of signs and symptoms. These start with
irritation of the mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, and throat; and then other effects involving the respiratory, GI, or central nervous system: headache, dizziness, nausea,
vomiting, difficulty in concentrating, feeling of intoxication, weakness, parathesias in extremities, chest tightness and wheezing, and shortness of breath. Coma, convulsions,
and death can occur with significantly high level exposures. The usual acute effects resolve with movement to fresh air or administration of oxygen. However, exposure to high concentrations of oxides of nitrogen can result in chronic pulmonary disease even after resolution of the acute effects.
Chronic health effects, such as broncholitis obliterans, reactive airway disease, and chronic bronchitis, can occur following acute exposure to moderate or high levels of vehicle exhaust, or chronic exposure to lower levels. Persistent neurological sequelae are possible
from significant carbon monoxide poisoning usually associated with the operation of an engine in a confined space or direct inhalation of a high concentration of the exhaust gas
components.
Several components of vehicle engine exhaust are known to cause cancer.
With typical low level exposure to exhaust gases, the minor toxic effects will resolve spontaneously with cessation of the exposure. Permanent health effects, chronic health
effects, including cancer, may occur following significant exposure.
US occupational health and environmental exposure standards do not address “motor vehicle exhaust” as a single entity, but TG 230 and US occupational and environmental standards have exposure values limits for individual components of engine exhaust, such as carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, benzene, carbon
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, acrolein, and formaldehyde.
"If you repeatedly drove a child around without a seat belt and were cited for it, you would eventually run afould of child endangerment laws."
Erik, so we agree that the dose makes the poison?
But of course ONE cigarette seen in a car would already qualify for child abuse.
Your argument about seat belts is rather short sighted. Seat belts are no guarantee for survival in a car accident, in fact there are some well documented situations in which a seat belt or air bag causes or aggravates injuries.
Taking a child for a ride in a car is already increasing the risk for a child. But so is crossing a road, riding a bike, hiking in the mountains, swimming, and any sports.
Are you suggesting children should be attached to their bed until they reach 21 years of age?
That (Toxic) New Car Smell
Wednesday, 11 January 2006
The odoriferousness of your new car could make you sick, according to a new study published by the Ecology Center.
The report states that dangerous amounts of PDBEs (Polybrominated diphenyl ether chemicals often found in flame retardants) were detected in dust and windshield film samples taken from cars from model years 2000 to 2005.
The Sun can raise the temperature of car interiors to up to 190 degrees, which accelerates the chemical breakdown and the release of toxins, According to the Oregon Department of Human Service
In animal studies, PBDE exposure before and after birth caused problems with brain development. These studies observed problems with learning, memory and behavior. They also show that exposure to PBDE's during development can decrease thyroid hormone levels, affect reproduction, and reduce immune system performance.
And the good news continues:
The highest levels of PBDE's among the general population are found in the U.S. and Canada-10 to 100 times higher than levels reported for people in Europe and Japan.
So if you commute more than a 100 miles per day in the Southwest, you're screwed.
http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/car...g?
from=20060111
Each year smog and soot account for 15,000 premature deaths, one million respiratory problems, 400,000 asthma attacks and thousands of cases of aggravated asthma, especially in children, according to the agency. EPA standards looked at for diesels
Stuck on the Freeway? Here's Something Else to Fume About
By Caitlin Liu, Times Staff Writer
(Nov. 16, 2004) —
Spending time in traffic — especially when the conditions are stop-and-go — could be bad for your health because of the air pollution flowing into your automobile, recent research shows.
Although rolling up the windows might help a bit, no car is airtight.
Turning on the fan makes only a modest difference at best, experts say. Short of donning a gas mask or holding your breath, your best bet is to avoid driving behind certain types of diesel vehicles and to minimize your time on congested freeways.
One recent study, funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, suggests that exposure to air pollution particulate matter while driving could cause cardiovascular changes that have been associated with increased risks of heart attacks, inflammation and arteriosclerosis. http://www.news.ecu.edu/releases...es/
freeway.html
Federal law requires that every car must have 20 percent intake, even with vents closed.
In comes auto exhaust, including a carcinogenic cocktail of benzene, 1,3 butadiene, ethyl benzene, toulene, xylene and everyone's favorite gasoline additive, MTBE. But of all the toxins those may be the least worriesome. New research indicates particulate matter from diesel exhaust may be the most toxic of all, collecting in lungs, calcifying and restricting breathing passages. The average car following a diesel truck's tailpipe will scoop up 700,000 particles a minute.
Continued.....
After reading this why are you not advocating that better regulations, and air cleaners be used in homes, and inside cars? Why are people not advocating for people to live closer to their work?
The average American spent over 100 Hours commuting last year, that not including the time spent taking the children to the ball game across the city, or the game out of town on the weekend! Children are being exposed to more toxins just from going to the cottage at the lake for the weekend then they ever did years ago. When I was a kid it wasn't that common for kids to go out of the city for the weekend as it is now.
How much time are these children spending cars, that may be causing the developmental problems? Should parents who have their children in cars for long periods have their children taken away ?
One thing that I think the anti-tobacco advocates don't appreciate is that there is a line beyond which ordinary people will actually fight back. This line was not crossed in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's or even the early 1990's when the fight was about warning labels, cigarette ads, or smoking on planes, or offices, or in restaurants. The tobacco companies may have fought back, and small businesses may have tried to fight back, but most smokers just shrugged their shoulders. Most smokers (and their friends, families, co-workers) either supported those things themselves, or treated them more as an annoyance rather than a real threat.
But now we are talking about arresting people for smoking in the streets, firing people from their jobs, and threatening to take away their children. The last one especially should be a red flag. People WILL fight back, when their children are at stake. The risk for the anti-smoking movement is that many people who currently are either neutral or are even passive supporters of their agenda can quickly become active opponents. And I don't think that anti-tobacco yet truly understands what it means to have REAL PEOPLE as opponents (i.e. not the tobacco companies and their lawyers). If things continue down this path I think the movement is sooner or later going to be in for a big surprise.
Seat belts are no guarantee for survival in a car accident, in fact there are some well documented situations in which a seat belt or air bag causes or aggravates injuries.
Yes, precisely, and that is one reason many people objected to seat belts being mandetory years ago.
Also, many people objected to seat belts for themselves or their children as they regulated peoples behavior in their car.
The argument then was, and one concerning second hand smoke I see, is that individuals should be making decisions on seat belts for themselves and their children and that it is not the place of government to intrude on this decision even if not wearing a seat belt places a child at a greater risk. It is the parent alone who decides what risks the child should be subject to. Or so they said.
Libertarians object to most government laws and seat belts are one of them as well as smoking bans. Their position is consistent across a spectrum of issues.
However, most people are not libertarians. Most people support laws that place a limit on how much physical punishment a parent may inflict or what dangers they will permit parents to expose children to, hence, the law of child endangerment.
Erik:
"How about the law requiring parents to have their children wear seat belts? Is this a fair law?
The government is intruding on parental rights in the name of children safety.
How is keeping children safe from cancer causing carcinogenic smoke any different?"
Good point, Erik. It should actually be left to parents to decide whether thier kids take on seat belts, just as well as the decision as to wearing seat belts is best left to adults for themselves to make.
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.
Good point, Erik. It should actually be left to parents to decide whether thier kids take on seat belts, just as well as the decision as to wearing seat belts is best left to adults for themselves to make.
Now we are getting somewhere. That makes you consistent in your position.
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
True. The "taking the children away" was made out of whole cloth by Siegel to try to hype up his posters.
I have not seen the remedy being anything more than what state governments do for child seat belt requirements or mandatory shots to be in school.
With that said, parents should have the discretion generally to decide which risks their children are subject to in a great degree.
Allowing your child to grow fat on fast food is bad for them, however, I can't see government should step in here.
It used to be parents could use a belt and buckle to punish kids. Now one would get arrested if their child showed up to school with a back crossed with welts and black and blue marks.
The question is what level of risk of injury and injury itself should parents be allowed to expose their children to before government steps in?
Erik wrote:
Actually, it would. ... If you repeatedly drove a child around without a seat belt and were cited for it, you would eventually run afould of child endangerment laws.
I specifically didn't say child endangerment; I said child ABUSE. I don't know of any instance where DYFS took children away and put them in foster homes because the parent was ticketed for not having the child in a seat belt (please give an example of this if I am wrong). But, there have been many cases where a child was taken away because of ABUSE occuring in the home.
But, to make the difference between the seat belt laws, and the issue at hand, clearer in any case...
1. The reason seat belt laws were passed is because, in the event of an accident, a child can be thrown from the vehicle and/or smashed against the inside of the vehicle, resulting in immediate and severe injury and death. That was the rationale behind the laws. I'm not here to debate the merits of the rationale.
2. There has been no conclusive evidence that states that smoking inside a car will cause immediate and severe injury and/or death to the child. If, in fact, that were the case, there would have been thousands upon thousands of children killed in this manner. And, if that happened, there would have been laws against this many years ago.
In any case, the whole seatbelt thing is a red herring becuase the article in question mentioned smoking ANYWHERE around a child, which includes the private home. There seatbelt issue is specific to driving/road safety. The equivalent regulation, if it were applied to the home, would forbid any external locomotion of the child without restraints (so, for instance, you couldn't give your child a piggy-back ride or wheel him/her around in a wagon in your yard without some sort of safety belt or harness).
Back to the issue at hand...
Based on the content of several posts here, which include allusions to real examples of child abuse, I can only conclude that people in favor of the ideas postulated in the article cited really DO believe that it is child abuse, just like beatling a child black and blue with a belt buckle (as was alluded to in another post). If one accepts that premise, then there is NO LOGICAL REASON WHATSOEVER that would preclude the child from being taken from the home.
Therefore, I will leave it up to those that favor equating parental smoking with child abuse to proviude a rational argument for why children of smoking parents should NOT be removed from the home. If you can't provide this argument, then I can safely conclude that you ARE in favor of children being removed from homes where parents are smoking.
Kathleen-
You certainly have my permission to quote from my comments on this post.
I think it is critical that we put a quick end to this approach, which is truly attempting to make smoking around children a form of child abuse.
This is a perfect example of how class differences can play themselves out in public health. Here, a more privileged class is trying to dictate to a lower class how they must live their lives and how they must raise their children.
It's disgusting, and I will do everything I can to put an end to it within the anti-smoking movement.
As I mentioned above, it was inevitable Jill would have her own smarmy platitudes and soothing "now-now, children everything will be fine" words of "wisdom" on this one. I will say again that she and Erik are among the antismokER crusade's useful idiots.
In the "early days" of the anti-smoking crusade, no one said anything about making laws to prohibit smoking in EVERY public place, either. That was, no doubt, the ultimate goal; but there wasn't even a whisper about it at the time.
There is an old folk tale about boiling a frog alive. While the frog would jump out of the pot if the water was already boiling, he could be immersed in cold water that was gradually heated and never realize what was happening to him...until it was too late.
We have been, and we continue to be treated like frogs. It's time to jump now while the water is still room temperature on this one.
Thank you again, Michael. See my most recent post for a more "public" expression of gratitude.
Third things first.
Erik--
The interesting thing about the SG Report, which made even Richard Kluger call it "hyperbolic," was that it's prefatory "conclusion" had little to do with the pages that followed. IE, the exposition of the actual research into various diseases that were hypothesized to be affected by SHS, and the conclusions the SG reached in each of those sections.
So, here we go (and I invite you to check the source)
1. COUGH, PHLEGM OR WHEEZING.
There were two studies done involving smoke within marriage, the evidence leading to the following conclusion:
"The occurrence of cough, phlegm or wheeze in non-smokers was not related to the smoking habits of their spouse."
Or clearly, by extension (one would have to imagine) to the habits of, let's say, a stranger on the train.
2. CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE
According to the Surgeon General, the bottom line of six big studies came to this: "Healthy individuals would not develop chronic lung disease on the basis of involuntary tobacco smoke exposure."
Four of the studies (two American and two European) reported "no effects on pulmonary function" from environmental smoke. Of the two remaining studies (one of them criticized by practically everyone including the Surgeon General who called the thing "crude") the apparent conclusion was a "small reduction in pulumonary function." Small meaning small. If you buy the latter studies, which apparently nobody does, what you're cozying up to is the merely mathematical-- a fact with neither "clinical [n]or physiological meaning" per the SG -- or in other words, it wouldn't leave you one breath short.
3. BRONCHIOCONSTRICTION
Three studies cited: People were put into rooms and exposed to inordinate quantities of smoke not found in actual life and then given a series of tests. One found "no changes." Two found a "small" (and again-- biologically irrelevant-- change. The Surgeon General's conclusion: "It is unlikely that this change in airflow results in symptoms."
Or to put that another way: I don't offer citations lightly.
As for the rest of your opining on the subject at hand which was something like "if people wouldn't smoke around their kids, we wouldn't have to criminalize them for it," how about, "If people would stop feeding burgers to their kids we wouldn't need a law to criminalize them for it."
In the 1920 many cities and states decided to make laws about what women could wear. Some of them dictated the exact limits of how many inches above the ankle or below the neck a dress had to be to worn in public in order not to impair the public safety and morals. And somebody might have said, If women just wouldn't wear the danged flapper- things we wouldn't have to bother to criminalize them for it.
Whoever suggested "separate ventilation" for the home, is a) giving in to anti lunacy and b) living on another planet. Most people don't have extra "smoking rooms" or extra rooms at all, and certainly couldn't afford "separate ventilation." There is, however, an 'answer," It's called "a window."
Finally, Dr Siegel--
I'm heartened that you've taken the step of writing letters to the editor, and that you've realized that you are, and will remain , alone in this fight. But it's rapidly becoming time for The Next Step, which will consist of writing longer Op Eds, and getting television time.
Jill:
"
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?"
"
May we see your reference to this particular story?
I see that no law was required to achieve the goal of ending parental smoking in the presence of these two children.
Erik presents like it's a fact:
"If you repeatedly drove a child around without a seat belt and were cited for it, you would eventually run afould of child endangerment laws."
Except it's just another example of Erik making things up as he goes along.
Seatbelt violations -- children and adults alike -- are nothing more than a VIOLATION (a term specifically defined) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. NOT a misdeamenor. NOT a felony. NOT a Crime. Summonses for the violation, no matter how many, are not tracked by Children Services.
Unless you can cite court precedent where seatbelt violations, even when numerous, were cause for a court -- by request of any child protection or law enforcement agency -- to raise it from a VTL Violation to a Penal Law Crime of Child Endangerment, stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.
The article in question SAYS:
"Dr. Chris Covert-Bowlds is a member of the informal, unorganized and quiet movement toward making it a criminal act to smoke around kids."
You see Erik, in law enforcement the terms "violation" and "crime" have very specific definitions and for very specific purposes. They are not terms thrown around lightly or to be given any meaning YOU feel like giving it. You are truly exasperating in your lack of education before you speak.
In another act of projection, Erik also said this:
" The "taking the children away" was made out of whole cloth by Siegel to try to hype up his posters.
LOL... right. WE needed Dr. Siegel to tell US that this was going on.
Hey Erik, stop projecting! You might blindly worship and repeat what your leaders say. Not only do we not but we don't characterize Dr. Siegel as our "leader."
Lastly, may I say that this thread contains the best compilation of articulated opinions in one place. I'd name you all but then, well, I'd be naming you all. (All = everyone but the anti posters of course).
Dr. Siegel, in answer to my question about the hopes of you forming a coalition, you wrote:
"It's unfortunate that no one in the anti-smoking movement is willing to speak out publicly against what anyone else is doing. But I can understand why. If you do speak out, you are attacked and viewed as a traitor." (bold mine)
I certainly understand that and don't disagree with what the consequences would be. However, there is nothing keeping you from going over the top of your box and looking for members of the medical and scientific profession to join you that aren't part of the anti-smoking movement. Dr. Madden and Dr. Edell would join such a coalition. That already makes three. I might even have a fourth for you! (but you'd have to track him down):
Letter to the Editor
Eden Prairie News (MN)
October 3, 2002
[Excerpts]
As a physician, I am poignantly aware of the ravages of smoking.
Although smoking is reprehensible, there is one thing worthy of even greater contempt. That is government that rejects the notion of private property rights and the freedom for us to choose for ourselves how we live our lives.
As a newcomer to "the land of the free and the home of the brave," I am astonished that city government feels that it is within their ken to use its coercive force to decide how restaurateurs utilize their own private property.
I came to the U.S. with my family to leave behind intrusive government and the resultant ramifications of such a social structure. If government decides upon the usage of private property, is it really private property? The concept of private property is a cornerstone of the American Revolution. The essence of why I moved to the U.S. is embodied by the values of the American Revolution. Imagine my disappointment in Eden Prairie City Council.
Dr. Lee Kurisko, Eden Prairie
(Bio at http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/P...onID=509960244)
http://www.fbr.org/publications/
...otininefaq.html
Can cotinine levels be used reliably in custody cases, i.e., if a parent seeks evidence that when in the custody of an ex-spouse a child is exposed to dangerous levels of cigarette smoke?
FBR discourages the inappropriate dependence on cotinine levels in this type of scenario. While the biochemical measurements are accurate, they must be regarded only as one piece of evidence. Cotinine levels may reflect cigarette exposure, but may not be useful in determining responsibility.
And it begins...
Anyone taking the leap from ETS could cause under extreme exposure any conditions to, simply ETS causes (anydisease) Is a simplistic fool or would be seeking compensation of some sort for a lie. As with any element on this planet poison is in the dose. The mere whiff of ETS as a potential hazard does not pass the reality test. In 1960 all children were exposed in schools teachers had smoking lounges, grocery and variety stores, movie theatres, busses, trains and planes where you could smoke was virtually unrestricted and none of the consquences being tossed about by propogandists came to pass. The epi based descision makers seek to bypass the physical testing stage which creates the facts by getting lazy and not doing the real work. A lot of embarasement has always been the end result, and if we are patient that embarasement will come soon enough. Ant smoker advocates show their inconsistencies in Suport and non suport of linear theories of cause and effect. If we examine what they have spewn so far a lot of pretty funny articles are possible. Showing them for the fraudsters they really are.
FXR
Walt wrote..
-Whoever suggested "separate ventilation" for the home, is a) giving in to anti lunacy and b) living on another planet. Most people don't have extra "smoking rooms" or extra rooms at all, and certainly couldn't afford "separate ventilation." There is, however, an 'answer," It's called "a window."-
This maybe a misinterpretation of something I wrote. There was no suggestion, with regard to the home, actually made though.
After providing a link to Lord Steele's suggestions of separate smoking rooms with ventillation, in public houses, which seems like a good common sense compromise for the UK which faces a total ban, I then asked the question....
-Would this work in a home environment too and should it be encouraged?-
I guess the separate room may not work for most and a window probably qualifies as ventilation. So I interpret your answer as No in part and Yes in part.
Now, a) Giving into anti-lunacy?
It was just a question to which you provided an interesting and thought provoking answer.
And b) Living on another planet.
Now there's an idea.
be well
Speaking of effects of second hand smoke on childen:
Philip Kum-Nji, MD a , Linda Meloy, MD a and Henry G. Herrod, MD b
a Department of Pediatrics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia
b Department of Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Memphis, Tennessee
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES. Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure is probably one of the most important public health hazards in our community. Our aim with this article is to (1) review the prevalence of ETS exposure in the United States and how this prevalence is often measured in practice and (2) summarize current thinking concerning the mechanism by which this exposure may cause infections in young children.
METHODS. We conducted a Medline search to obtain data published mainly in peer-reviewed journals.
RESULTS. There is still a very high prevalence of ETS exposure among US children ranging from 35% to 80% depending on the method of measurement used and the population studied. The mechanism by which ETS may be related to these infections is not entirely clear but may be through suppression or modulation of the immune system, enhancement of bacterial adherence factors, or impairment of the mucociliary apparatus of the respiratory tract, or possibly through enhancement of toxicity of low levels of certain toxins that are not easily detected by conventional means.
CONCLUSIONS. The prevalence of ETS exposure in the United States is still very high, and its role in causing infections in children is no longer in doubt even if still poorly understood. Research, therefore, should continue to focus on the various mechanisms of causation of these infections and how to best reduce the exposure levels.
I think the MUCH larger question here is does the governemnt have any legitimte or legal power to force social engineering upon the public in general? And if they do then who exactly gets to decide which religous foundation is to be chosen to create those demands, I say religous becasue at the root of al this is religion. But say we leave that out, then the questoin becomes Who exactly is going to be the one to create the demands of how everyone will allowed to go about their daily lives? And from what source will they draw upon to figure out the can and can'ts of this new world order?
I say enough is enough,
"I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore",
to borrow from the movie Network which I just happened to see again last night.
Time to fight back.
From Eroks note (-italics-)...
-BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES. Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure is probably one of the most important public health hazards in our community-
Probably? What studies do they reference for this assumption?
-METHODS. We conducted a Medline search to obtain data published mainly in peer-reviewed journals-
Mainly? Why not wholly?
-RESULTS. There is still a very high prevalence of ETS exposure among US children ranging from 35% to 80% depending on the method of measurement used and the population studied-
Are they saying 35-80% of Children are exposed to ETS? Are they all exposed to the same levels? What range of levels are they exposed to? Does the level of exposure make any difference? (Dose/Response etc).
Do they present this information?
-The mechanism by which ETS may be related to these infections is not entirely clear-
May be? Not Clear? If you start off with a statement that there is a problem, this may be the 'result' you get if the data does not fit. If you started with the view it was not a problem, would then perhaps these 'results' confirm that?
-CONCLUSIONS. The prevalence of ETS exposure in the United States is still very high, and its role in causing infections in children is no longer in doubt even if still poorly understood-
No longer in doubt? Yet they state "The mechanism by which ETS may be related to these infections is not entirely clear". This seems to be a self fufilling obeservation without basis given the information presented here.
-Research, therefore, should continue-
Ah! We need more money.
Do you have a link to their dataset?
I hope the full study is better than this, are you sure this is a real peer reviewed study? It does seem, as presented, to be a circular self referencing 'study' aimed at getting a research grant.
be well
My note should have refered to Erik's note and not Eroks as stated.
Apologies for the typo.
west beat me to it - well done
Eric - please THINK about what information you are using for your arguments. This is critically important if you are going to use this information to interfere with people's lives.
west2--
sorry didn't mean to down you. If you find a sane planet, let me know and I'll meet you there, Drinks are on me,
Erik--
you are incorrigible though amusing. You google things in the manner of those infinite monkeys or as I think I once said, like Jack Horner mistaking his own thumb for a plum.
When a researcher confesses that he begins from the "background" premise that ETS is the lethal gas, you can sort of guess that the study's going to bolster its premise, come hell or high water., And whatever "35-80%" means, it's a pretty big ballpark. Sort of like those "stats" on estimated deaths. Of which Gori notes mordantly in "Science, Politics, Ethics," that: "Steenland calculates ischemic heart dieseas deaths attributed to ETS with digital accuracy as in a range fronm 74 to 18,390."
But,--best for last-- here's your cited buddy's conclusion:
"The mechanism by which ETS may be related to these infections is NOT entirely CLEAR but MAY BE through suppression or modulation of the immune system, enhancement of bacterial adherence factors, or impairment of the mucociliary apparatus of the respiratory tract, or POSSIBLY through enhancement of toxicity of low levels of certain toxins that ARE NOT EASILY DETECTED BY CONVENTIONAL MEANS,"
In other words, he can't think of a single provable biological mechanism or biological phenomenon (the latter of which could be easilly proven through in vitro experiments) so he just crudely wings it. Well, if we're winging, how about it's caused by the psycyhological stress of being exposed to a "known" killer as a factor that reduces immune system response. Or anxiety caused by that terrifying knowledge-- anxiety leading to hyperventilation and the intake of more bugs. Or POSSIBLY tobacco plants are intergalactic magnets for toxic Martian fairy dust, a substance that's not detectible by ordinary means and thus not to be discounted,?
west2 beat me to it as well - what a collection of ridiculose statements.
"its role in causing infections in children is no longer in doubt even if still poorly understood."
The frivolity of this study is no longer in doubt ...
And I suppose margaret-smoker referred to Erik's posting, not Eric's.
I suppose you are correct - my appologies to Eric.
Dr. Mike - what do you think of our "tobbacco control" dollars going to such important "studies" as the one quoted by our friend Erik?
"The mechanism by which ETS may be related to these infections is NOT entirely CLEAR"
If you want a study which is perfectly clear. Google the six cities study. No beating around the bush with evasive double talk. A 26% mortality diferential between most and least polluted cities. The information is based in real measurements not estimations or peer reviewed parrots.
There are many confirmations among the peer reviews of parrots, smoking is not causative of asthma google what is. Read it through the primary problem of asthma discomfort derives of environment the outdoor kind no one escapes smoking bans or not.
The drop of 1 microgram per cubic meter of air the kind of air which in volumes of trillions of cubic meters tends to slightly dilute some small amount of the deadly ETS[just a rumor], the savings of 75,000 lives per year in the USA alone?
The drop of 5 micrograms as being described as needed to make our air acceptable would result in a linear projection [although not entirely a linear calculation granted] still best result is 375,000 lives saved in the vast majority in categories known currently as smoking related diseases.
Drop the ETS level in a room by 100 no better 200 Micrograms per cubic meter leaving only 50 how many lives would be saved? According to James Repace and his deciples not a one I totally agree not a one, although my agreement would be offered for different reasons.
The representation is until not a single cigarette exists all children on the planet will suffer enourmous damages.
It takes a special kind of mind to imagine something so scary in a wayward whisp of smoke.
"Or POSSIBLY tobacco plants are intergalactic magnets for toxic Martian fairy dust, a substance that's not detectible by ordinary means and thus not to be discounted?"
WOW! "Toxic Martian Fairy Dust"? I never knew Martian Fairies were toxic! Are they ALL that way or just the ones who put their little antennae where they don't belong?
And you know what I'll bet? That fairy dust stuff has probably been here since we crossed paths with the Hale-Bopp comet back in '97! It's an alien conspiracy!
If there is any credibility left in the TC side of the discussion a couple of simple answers would be benificial here. There seems to be a feeling you are wasting a lot of time and resources.
In a linear perspective. With all the reductions in use and ETS exposures. With 2/3 reduction in Tar and Nicotene content, With growing regulations and flue curring processes designed to reduce 95% of histomines.
Every smoking related disease has risen steadily above the rise of population in many categories more than 300%
After 45 years;
How many lives have we saved so far?
How many children have benifited from the effort?
Eik i just don't know where you can pull all these samples of fictional scientific studies from.Why not blame EVERYTHING on tobacco and be done with it.Using the hypothesis that these morons are using its pick an illness and we'll contribute it to smoking because the public wants us to demonise tobacco.I suppose you will tell me with all sincerity that Herod was a smoker since he sought to kill all children.Don't you think it beneficial to scrutinise your references to scientific studies and reconsider those that state smoking is the cause,we know it is,but shucks as hard as we try we can't PROVE that it is,but we'll stick with it since were RABIDS.
Jill your earlier reference to hysterics driving away medical opinion from helping to interpret data....i presume you were refering to the hysterical behaviour of the rabids and their clamour in beying for the blood of any dissenter ?Then why the cockamamie diatribe leading up to this statement,this statement says it all.
Oh look!!! some good news on the horizion prior to evaluating the effects they already know what the results will be.
Give us all a break. A new peer reviewed study in the making. LMFAO
http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals...bstract/28/1/
24
Background From 26 March 2006, smoking will be prohibited in wholly and substantially enclosed public places in Scotland, and it will be an offence to permit smoking or to smoke in no-smoking premises. We anticipate that implementation of the smoke-free legislation will result in significant health gains associated with reductions in exposure to both environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and personal tobacco consumption as well as other social and economic impacts.
Methods Health Scotland in conjunction with the Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland and the Scottish Executive have developed a comprehensive evaluation strategy to assess the expected short-term, intermediate and long-term outcomes. Using routine health, behavioural and economic data and commissioned research, we will assess the impact of the smoke-free legislation in eight key outcome areas – knowledge and attitudes, ETS exposure, compliance, culture, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption, tobacco-related morbidity and mortality, economic impacts on the hospitality sector and health inequalities.
Conclusion The findings from this evaluation will make a significant contribution to the international understanding of the health effects of exposure to ETS and the broader social, cultural and economic impacts of smoke-free legislation.
Keywords: air pollution, public health, tobacco
Do search at PubMed yourself and count all the lives saved in the past 45 years. Now in a couple of months after a ban begins news of the first lives saved in the making. We get to see the manufacturing process from start to the predicted peer and reviewed photo op.
Now that is entertainment. I'm glad I don't have my reputation strapped to that bandwagon.
Wow. A lively discussion as usual. I'm always amazed by the collection of brain power in this place.
Dr. Siegal, your post was picked up and reported on by Reason.com. See it here:
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/
..._your_par.shtml
I am curious since Erik and FXR like to cite studies, how they feel about this study by a government health department?
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....secondhand.html
Discredits the lie about secondhand smoke being deadly now doesn't it?
As far as smoking around children is concerned, it was done for decades. Do you see people born before the 1980's dropping dead like flies all around you? No, I didn't think so.
Respiratory ailments and ear infections are caused by viruses and bacteria, not miniscule traces of smoke from a cigarette.
Cases of SIDS were recorded back in the days before Christ. Tobacco was unknown until the 15th century, when European explorers stumbled onto Native Americans using it.
Hey, I know! There should be a law making it illegal to take your kids to McDonald's. Should such a law as proposed by this fascist moron ever becomes reality, that will be the day I pack my bags and relocate to a country where freedom still prevails.
"relocate to a country where freedom still prevails"
Good thought, but where are you going to find one?
I should have said "Where Freedom to SMOKE" still prevails. I don't know whether it's true or not, but I've heard that in Mexico, you can smoke anywhere you wish. The weather's a lot nicer there, too.......it's warm, and unlike Wisconsin, you can actually see the sun more than five days out of a month!
Smoking is child abuse plain and simple it is a drug and should not be done in front of a child at all.
Paul writes:
"Smoking is child abuse plain and simple it is a drug and should not be done in front of a child at all."
Holy moly.
Alcohol's a drug. Caffeine's a drug. Aspirin's a drug. Love is a drug (LOL).
Plain and simple, there's a lot of child abusers out there.
Another moronic frothing-at-the-mouth poster. God help us!
a child has the right to life which is in the Canadian Charter and life is air food and water not smoke. And smoking is only a stupid habit which can be quit and is child abuse plain and simple this law will pass one day also should have years ago.
paul,
All I can say is, I hope you like the fascist Canadian state opinions like yours are helping to bring into existence. Enjoy!
"a child has the right to life which is in the Canadian Charter"
Since when is life defined by a charter? If the Canadian charter is so perfect, why doesn't the whole world, or even the whole planetary system, adopt this law?
"A child has the right to live (life?)", but it doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to its parents. Children existed long before the Canadian Charter was invented.
I hope smoking becomes history in the future.
youth anti-smoking wrote:
"I hope smoking becomes history in the future."
How about world hunger or poverty or war or unwanted pregnancies or communicable diseases? Not too many would miss them.
But you hope that something that millions of people around the world enjoy becomes history? I just can't fathom how you can think like that.
Honestly, don't smoke and you've done all you should to make smoking become history. Try to refrain from pushing what you hope on everybody else, okay?
If you do I promise to refrain from changing my name to adult anti-skateboarding.
When a law is passed making second hand smoke a form of child abuse then I will push for a law that says that people changing lanes at high rates of speed with no blinkers should be prosecuted for attempted murder !!! That's right, I smoke and I like getting these anti-smokers upset (not non-smokers).
Youth anti-smoking tuff you will never see smoking going legacy (1)you can pay the excess tax to make up the massive deficit that will occur,states can't balance their books as it is without the prop up MSA payments (2) it is legal to grow your own tobacco.Support a call to reintroduce cuban cigars or go play football.
Paul children do need warmth to survive,this usually occurs through the use of a fire,a fire emits smoke as part of the combustion process.You abuse your kids your way and i'll do it mine,i'll put them on a roofrack,will that make you happy ?
I have an Idea for all you bleeding hearts that have to have your cancer sticks HOW ABOUT YOU STICK THEM DIRECTLY UP YOUR ASSES LIT!!!!!.
It is my hope and prayer that they pass some form of legislation on this so people like you and my DIP SHIT EX dont smoke around my kids!!!!
Warmest regards retards
Commenting by HaloScan
