Epidemiology, when it was used for what it was intended for -- tracking epidemics (contagious disease) -- was good science. Its hijacking for application to all else can be rightly called "junk." Epidemiology has become the science of politicization.
(Quick comment just to beat Erik out of first place)
Excuse me, Dr. Siegel, but when you write that "we [those in TC] are in danger of losing our most prized possession - our reputation and credibility," do you not think that Tobacco Control began losing it when it was stated that only cyclone-force winds blowing through a bar would make the air safe to breath, and that absolutely no amount of secondhand smoke is safe to breath? Do you not think that TC began losing credibility when prestigious health organizations like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association quoted the 3,000 annual lung cancer deaths figure from the 1992 EPA report – and CONTINUE to quote it on their web sites to his very day IN SPITE OF the Osteen decision?
Any honest posters care to add to the list?
It would be most interesting to see if the "original good quality science" can stand up to robust arguement .Scientists who have in the past questioned some of these findings have been unable to persue their studies due to the clamp down that automatically occurs when someone disagrees with the oligarchy of the anti-smoking brigade.There always has been immense peer pressure to refrain from persuing anything which brings into disrepute the message that must be conveyed at all costs.Even if it entails the threat of the dissident being turned into a pariah.This bullying and intimidation has gradually increased and continues to do so.If the science is there then there should be no fear of it being questioned or carefully analysed.So why do the rabid anti smoking faction continue to suppress these studies that question their dogma to the point that they even seek to discredit and vilify the scientists behind them.SHS cannot be dangerous since the rabid movement constantly hides behind this smokescreen.
Have any of you guys seen this?
http://www.second-
opinions.co.uk...ung_cancer.html
It has long been one of my theories that diesel is the real "bad boy" in all of this. I can also understand the reasons behind the global distraction.
The statement in the document that the anti-smoking movement is responsible for thousands of deaths may inflame some, but I think it may have a ring of truth.
In response to Harry's call: In 1939, Franz H. Müller published a 'case control' study, claiming that smoking tobacco 'causes' lung cancer. The origin of the discovery is revealed in this sentence from the 'study':
"Auf diese weise haben wir 96 krankenheitsfälle zusammengestellt"
Zusammengestellt.....
Cherry picking, by another name.
I am now back "on topic" with this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/art...92-
2189540.html
Fascinating and disturbing.
I've repeatedly asked (and been ignored I might add) what exactly are the scientists describing with the term endothelial "dysfunction". From what I can tell - all these so-called "good" scientists have done is observe the phenomenon that occurs on a vascular wall under stress. It has yet to be demonstrated to me that this is a "dysfunction" at all. It may very well be a healthy adaptive homeostatic mechanism. I also do not see where it has been demonstrated that this ED has been proven to be the beginnings of CVD as you have claims. As far as I can tell - it is at best an unproven theory.
Dr. Siegel states:
"As I've stated before, the science is good enough. We don't need to distort it. We don't need to make it up. We don't need to cherry-pick. We don't need to make implausible claims. The truth is good enough."
I disagree with your claim "the science is good enough". Once the city of St. Louis Park, MN. Health Department published their air quality test results of secondhand smoke in 2005:
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....secondhand.html
Which proved secondhand smoke is 500 - 15 times safer than OSHA indoor air quality standards for SHS chemicals, then the TC movement had to respond swiftly......with more magnanimous lies.
Dr. Siegel,
I think your blogpage is great and stimulates much conversation from all sides of the issue. As an individual in the smoke-free air movement, my only criticism is that your blogs about junk science and the like have become somewhat redundant. Although difficult, it may be more productive to provide practical ways--for those who support the cause of course--of improving the shortcomings of the movement. At this point, it seems like the repetition of the blogs stimulates the same comments from dissenters as well as supporters.
In regards to marcus aurelius' _constant_ use of the St. Lous Park data, I highly recommend a simple research methods concept called reliability. If you aren't aware, this means that you can replicate your results and that they will be fairly consistent with one another. If you are so certain, which you seem to be, that indoor air policies do not improve air quality, then by all means keep measuring and disseminate your protocol so others can get the same results. If not, then keep pasting your link and generalizing your "data" into statements like "the science is not good enough." I think that if you _OBJECTIVELY_ review air quality literature on indoor air policies, you may find that your data are anomalies. Most literature I have seen show incredibly large statistically significant reductions (another simple research methods concept) in indoor air pollution after a smoke-free policy has been implemented. Maybe you think this is just "my opinion" and that is fair, but I feel my opinion is based on objective evidence, not data from _ONE_ study that has yet to be replicated.
Nick
Sorry to jump in, but I have never seen marcus aurelius stating that "indoor air policies do not improve air quality". His claim is that there are ways to improve indoor air quality other than by smoking bans.
marcus aurelius, correct me if I'm wrong.
"Epidemiology, when it was used for what it was intended for -- tracking epidemics (contagious disease) -- was good science. Its hijacking for application to all else can be rightly called "junk." Epidemiology has become the science of politicization."
JustTheFacts, epidemiology extends far beyond contagious disease. If you take any introductory course in epidemiology (hopefully you have so that you have a basis for your argument), then you will probably learn in the first lecture that there are roughly five main objectives: identify the etiology of disease, determine the extent of disease in a community, study the natural history of the disease, evaluate existing and new methods of health care delivery, and inform policy on ways to make decisions relating to health issues.
So in terms of your claim that epidemiology should stick to "contagious disease," I suppose Kessler's research on psychiatric epidemiology (non-contagious disease) is "junk" in terms of the implications for mental health policy and mental health services. I suppose policies that dictate the amount of contaminants/pollutants (non-contagious) discharged by factories are also "junk." You seem to take for granted all the health policies that exist today that protect your health. While improvements in medicine are great, it is equally evident that improvements in public health have led to standards that surpass those of the past.
So if epidemiology should be used to merely "track epidemics (contagious disease)," then how do we objectively measure the impact of a new evidence-based intervention that promotes healthy habits? How do we find out about the incidence and prevalence of Parkinson's disease (non-contagious) in various communities? How do we gauge the effects of a new health policy minimizing indoor air pollution? How do we know if a new screening instrument for alcoholism is effective? Ask yourself these questions and maybe you will think otherwise.
Well Nick, I went to your homepage and the first document I opened contains figures no-one believed in the first place. I recall that the report was authored by a chap called Hans Christian Andersen.
I refer you to this mythical beast:
http://www.mc.uky.edu/
tobaccopol...Summary0105.pdf
Is all of your research material this flawed?
Mike wrote:
"But recently, I believe that junk science has actually entered the anti-smoking movement.
The greatest example is the claim we are making that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure can cause hardening of the arteries."
Not so. By far the greatest example of junk science in the anti-smoking movement has been the false and misleading claims about the health risks of smokeless tobacco use, which have been made since 1986 by and act of Congress, by virtually every federal, state and local governmental health agency, and by virtually every private health organization that deals with tobacco.
The greatly exaggerated health risk claims about smokeless tobacco products have been so effective that 90% of the public (including the vast majority of healthcare professionals) incorrectly believe that smokeless tobacco is just as hazardous as cigarettes.
But according to dozens of epidemiologic studies and government health data, smokeless tobacco products pose 98% - 99% fewer mortality risks than cigarettes.
I don't think there are any examples of junk science in any public health field during the past century in which the scientific evidence has been misrepresented by 98 fold.
If Mike Siegel was truly concerned about misrepresentations of science by public health organizations, he would at least acknowledge that the health risks of smokeless tobacco have been misrepresented.
benpal: that was my interpretation after he refuted Dr. Siegel's claim that "the science is good enough." Plus his comment that "the TC movement had to respond swiftly......with more magnanimous lies" is somewhat blanketed. What lies are he talking about? Is there a plethora of evidence showing that these are indeed lies (not just the results of one St. Louis Park study)?
In terms of ways "to improve indoor air quality other than by smoking bans," there are two points to be made here. First, it's not a smoking ban, it's an ordinance. People are not banned from smoking. They can still smoke, just not in a way or enclosed setting that harms others; just as people can drink, but they cannot get behind the wheel after reaching or exceeding the legal limit. Second, if there are other ways of improving indoor air quality, but they are not the most effective or evidence-based, then why use them? If the point is to best reduce disease incidence and prevalence, then why use a method that isn't as effective as another?
Hey Bill, could you please cite those epidemiologic studies and data? Or is your comment not based on those primary sources? Just interested in reading the actual articles....thanks.
Collin,
Please explain the flaws. Just because "no-one believed" it, does not make it flawed. I recommend a class in practical logic to further understand why statements like "no-one believed [it] in the first place" really has no weight.
And by all means, please go through the article and explain instead of resorting to silly Hans Christian Andersen statements. Much appreciated. 
Nick
By your reasoning, there wouldn't be a workplace fit for any worker on the north american continent.
Why has the health ministry taken on indoor air quality when OSHA already establishes standards?
The reason why ventilation and filtration and directional air flow should have been considered before banning smokers from indoor spaces is two-fold - 1) it intrudes into privately owned businesses by depriving them of clients that they have traditionally relied on and 2) it segregates and alienates a fairly substantial portion of the population.
The TC movement cannot hope to ever regain credibility until the "solution" includes smokers instead of seaking to denormalize them.
Michelle
Michelle:
I suppose data showing that comprehensive smoking ordinances do not negatively impact business are irrelevant to you. In terms of segregation and alienation, smoking ordinances disallow indoor smoking. Nobody said that smokers were banned from venues. It's the harmful behavior. Just like drunken and disorderly behavior; nobody said that alcoholics aren't allowed in venues. It's when their behavior becomes harmful to others.
Per Nick's request,
http://www.smokersonly.org/
Rodu B, Cole P, Smokeless tobacco use and cancer of the upper respiratory tract. Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology, 2002, Vol. 93, No. 5, 511-515.
Bouquot JE, Meckstroth RL, Oral cancer in a tobacco-chewing US population – no apparent increased incidence or mortality, Oral Surgery Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, 1998, Vol. 86, No. 6. 697-706.
Henley SJ, Thun MJ, Connell C, Calle EE, Two large prospective studies of mortality among men who use snuff or chewing tobacco (United States), Cancer Causes and Control, Vol. 16, 347-358, 2005.
Accortt NA, Waterbor JW, Beall C, Howard G, Cancer incidence among a cohort of smokeless tobacco users (United States), Cancer Causes and Control, 2005, Vol. 16, 1107-1115.
Boffetta P, Aagnes B, Weiderpass E, Andersen A, Smokeless tobacco use and risk of cancer of the pancreas and other organs, Int. J. Cancer Vol. 114, 992-995, 2005.
Levy D, Mumford E, Cummings KM, et al. The potential impact of a low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco product on cigarette smoking in the United States: Estimates of a panel of experts, Addictive Behaviors, Nov. 2005.
http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-in/be...r=2005&
public=1
Kozlowski L, First Tell The Truth, A Dialogue on Human Rights, Deception, and the Use of Smokeless Tobacco as a Substitute for Cigarettes Tob Control,12:34-36, 2003.
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/se...12&
firstpage=34
Kozlowski L, Edwards BQ, “Not safe” is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product, Tobacco Control, Vol. 14, 3-7, 2005. http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/co.../14/suppl_2/
ii3
Waterbor J, Adams R, Robinson J, et al, Disparities between Public Health Educational Materials and the Scientific Evidence that Smokeless Tobacco Use Causes Cancer, J Cancer Educ. Vol. 19, 17-28, 2004.
Phillips C, Wang C, Guenzel B, You might as well smoke; the misleading and harmful public message about smokeless tobacco, BMC Public Health, 2005, 5:31, doi:10.1186/1471-2458-5-31. http://www.biomedcentral.com/147.../1471-2458/5/
31
Foulds J, Ramstrom L, Burke M, Ragerstom K, Effect of smokeless tobacco (snus) on public health in Sweden, Tobacco Control, 2003, Vol 12, 349-359. http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/co...t/full/12/4/
349
Bolinder G, Alfredsson L, Englund A, et al. Smokeless tobacco use and increased cardiovascular mortality among Swedish construction workers. Am J Public Health 1994, Volume 84, 399-404.
Lewin F, Norell SE, Johansson H, et al, Smoking tobacco, oral snuff and alcohol in the etiology of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. A population based case-referent study in Sweden. 1998, Cancer, Vol. 82, 1367-1375.
Schildt E-B, Eriksson M, Hardell L, Magnusson A, Oral snuff, smoking habits and alcohol consumption in relation to oral cancer evaluated in a Swedish case-control study, 1998, International Journal of Cancer, Vol. 77, 341-346.
Levy DT, Mumford EA, Cummings KM, et al, The Relative Risks of a Low-Nitrosamine Smokeless Tobacco Product Compared with Smoking Cigarettes: Estimates of a Panel of Experts, 2004, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, Vol. 13, No. 12, 2035-2042.
Nick
Are you seriously trying to deny that allowing smokers a comfortable venue to associate with each other is an attempt to humiliate and denigrate them?
Is there any lie from which anti-smokers will shrink?
Michelle.
Nick wrote:
I suppose data showing that comprehensive smoking ordinances do not negatively impact business are irrelevant to you.
I just tried to read the report in Nick's site
http://www.mc.uky.edu/tobaccopol...ort%
20FINAL.pdf
The graphics couldn't be any smaller, could they? The scarce numbers provided don't even allow to see trends over the pre-law years.
It would also be interesting to see the continuation in figures 15 and 16, as there seems to be trend starting just before the cut-off by the end of 2005, which could really indicate that businesses tried to survive for another year after the law only to collapse in the end.
If I had the inclination, I nitpick Nick. However one statement seems symptomatic: "If the POINT is to BEST reduce disease INCIDENCE and PREVALENCE, then why use a method that isn't as EFFECTIVE as another?"
Ultimately, the goal {point?} is reduction of deaths [mortality] & harm [morbidity]. If no one smokes & the diseases attributed to smoking continue to kill & harm at a level no where near the projected benefits of eliminating smoking, how effective would the anti-smoking 'movement' have been? Ultimately, there's always the question of efficiency & cost benefits. Sometimes, the BEST [gold standard] treatment is simply too expensive. Sometimes, the issue is to contain disease, decrease severity of its symptoms, etc. Sometimes the issue is triage [treat first among the worst those who have the best chance of recovery & simply comfort those who have the smallest chance of recovery, while serving the less injured as feasible.] Sometimes the issue is available resources for even routine injury. Smokefree has been touted as INEXPENSIVE [which it is to people who don't smoke nor make a living providing services to smokers].
As the philospher Robert Goodin put it, smoking is battery on a non-smoker [this was before all the 'science' about the 20% increase in risk was given imprimatur].
Like some of Peter Singer's reasoning, I follow Goodin's reasoning. However, in neither do I find much practical palatable guidance for personal choice nor public policy.
Should more money have been spent on air filtration research? I don't know. What I do know is that funding for such research is unlikely from the sources that have funded tobacco control research when the mantra is "there is no safe level for ETS". Of course, no one will determine what is a safe level if one begins with such an axiom.
Mike Siegels seems surprised that after years of telling the public that there's no safe level for STS and smoking in public is like pissing in a child's wadding pool that some ADVOCATES shouldn't come to BELIEVE that even a tiny exposure to TS will kill you! [Hallelujah! with apologies to Leonard Cohen]
Nick,
I very nearly apologised for my cheap jibe. Automatic civility is second nature to me. Luckily I stopped myself just in time.
No, I wont dissect the study for you. Many other, vastly more qualified people have debunked it in the past. I actually stopped (re)reading the study when I saw the figure of 53,000 deaths due to lung cancer from SHS. That number was plucked out of thin air. I am reasonably certain that you dont accept that figure either. There was little point in continuing to look at the study: if the fisrt paragraph is wrong, why would the rest be right?
And no, I wont retract the Hans Christian Andersen jibe either. Your "team" have knowingly falsified studies (look to the BMJ for evidence of that) and routinely make fallacious claims. (Look anywhere on Dr Mikes blog for evidence of that).
You do yourselves no favours, and then get uppity when someone dares to suggest a study is flawed?
My confidence in the medical sector has hit rock-bottom. Need someone to blame?
Look in a mirror.
Nick are you by any chance a party political broadcast for epidimiological studies ? Even Sir Richard Doll acknowledged the failings that his epidimiological study had,and he did dismiss smoking in his presence as not bothering him.True epidimiology does have it uses but when it is constantly hijacked at the whim of every rabid to prove whatever seems to be the flavor of the month then you must accept that it has its failings,it is by its very nature not a fact based science.Its accuracy lies in the hands of its user and there lies its flaw.Market forces could quite easily have supplied smoke free venues had there been a sufficient call for them,after all no-one wants to look a gift of extra profits being turned down by not catering to the right clientele.If there were insufficient numbers of smoke free venues the i would surmise that there wasn't the call for them.So by simple co-relation by turning these venues into smoke free ones by diktat then there will be a financial loss which should be met by the "powers" that enforced the change or the rights to decide on ones own future should be returned to the owners.Great if you like smoke free,similarly its fine if someone wants smoking accomodation.But unfortunately rabids do not want compromise,and you ?
Colin,
I apologize for being candid and inappropriate in my comments to you. I was merely asking for the basis of your argument and little more of an explanation, that's all.
JFerguson,
Point well taken.
si,
I wrote that not as a mantra for epidemiology, but to emphasize that epidemiology extends farther than just contagious disease. I do agree that data can be skewed for one's own agenda.
Nick wrote:
"In regards to marcus aurelius' _constant_ use of the St. Lous Park data...you may find that your data are anomalies. Most literature I have seen show incredibly large statistically significant reductions...in indoor air pollution after a smoke-free policy has been implemented....not data from _ONE_ study that has yet to be replicated."
Who says it hasn't been replicated?
I followed the link that Colin provided to that thing on your website. When looking at the references I noticed:
Hyland A, Cummings KM. Consumer response to the New York City Smoke-free Air Act. J Public Health Manag Pract. 1999;5(1):28-36.
Well, after seeing his name I thought I'd add my 2 cents to this discussion. If you go to
http://web.archive.org/web/20060.../
news_2431.html you'll find a press release on an air monitoring study he had a part in which also found ridiculously low levels of nicotine in the air.
The Massachusetts Lung Association did a study of this nature, published in 1975, which found low levels. According to the author of that study it was quietly tucked away in a drawer. It was only published later by, for lack of a better word, luck.
There's also the Barcelona study, which was done by anti-tobacco.
Now, if you want to throw in tobacco-financed studies, there's ORNL and Covance Labs.
But if you'd rather quote Repace, in one of his studies, besides finding a decrease in PM, he also found a 17% decrease in chalk dust permeating the air.
Yeah, smoking bans are good for business. LOL
Harry O'Brien wrote
-do you not think that Tobacco Control began losing it when it was stated that only cyclone-force winds blowing through a bar would make the air safe to breath...-
Aparently they have not lost any credibility with the British government, as a similar analogy (using tornados) was used as part of the reasoning to get the withdrawal of Lord Steele's ventilation/separation amendment to the upcoming law banning smoking in public places in England and Wales.
Nick,
In the interests of Anglo-American relations, I accept your apology and offer an olive branch in return.
In mitigation for my harsh remarks, I regularly come across anti-smokers of the most venomous order. On one particular site, four of them have the collective IQ of a clubbed seal. Dealing with their vile comments has obviously had a detrimental effect on me and I reacted badly.
Nick States:
"In regards to marcus aurelius' _constant_ use of the St. Lous Park data, I highly recommend a simple research methods concept called reliability. If you aren't aware, this means that you can replicate your results and that they will be fairly consistent with one another...."
Again to clarify for people who have not read the test results and history. I DID NOT conduct the air quality testing......the city environmental health department did.....they conducted it twice, and if I do say so myself they were quite embarrassed because it didn't corroberate the activists' lies that secondhand smoke is deadly. In fact I was contacted by city health dept. officials who requested that I not provide this data to lawmakers.
I am not aware of making any statements that indoor air policies do not improve air quality.....what I have repeatedly stated is that since science has proven that SHS is not the deadly health hazard activists' claim, smoking bans are a government policy which are onerous and uneccessary. The original MN. Clean Indoor Air Act and OSHA indoor air quality guidelines which were already in place prior to RWJF / Nicoderm financed smoking bans, safeguarded patron and employee health more than adequately.
Nick goes on:
"I feel my opinion is based on objective evidence...."
Let's base government laws and policies on "feelings" ....good idea comrade.
Nick ends with:
"....not data from _ONE_ study that has yet to be replicated...."
Oh, so you think the AQ test results regarding secondhand smoke have not been replicated?.......well, here's a little known study that activists like to cite because it comes from the "Kremlin" itself, the California EPA.
Specifically the Air Resources Board. Now the activists quiver with excitement about this study because the RWJF funded UCLA board took the CARB test result data and said see this confirms what we have always said .....there's "stuff" in secondhand smoke see it's deadly.
But wait just a minute, do you know what the test results of the Cal. Air Resources Board actually found.....background, they measured SHS AQ exactly the same manner as the St. Louis Park, MN. Health Dept. measuring the exact same chemical component of SHS (I guess you would refer to that as "replicating" eh Nick?) Only problem is Nicky boy the California Air Resources Board test results returned these results:
01 -5 micrograms per cubic meter, which is 50,000 -100 times safer than OSHA requires, yet the Nicoderm folks at UCLA concluded that's way too dangerous .......hmmm I wonder why.......why would multi-million dollar grants from Nicoderm bring them to that conclusion?.......I can't think of any reason can you Nick?
You'll find the CA EPA test results and the St. Louis Park MN. Health Dept. test results side by side here Nick:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....y-study-
by.html
and if you follow the links you can go directly to the CARB test results and get their actual results on their own letterhead.....in case you don't trust me.
In fact Nick and Bill if you go all the way back on my weblog you can find any question you might have regarding air quality and secondhand smoke....what makes me an expert?.....It's all I've done for 15 years , until the activists eliminated my job......so you can be damn sure I will fight your lies to the bitter end.
Measuring air quality is an exact science.....epidemiology is a guestimate after the fact at best.
I further note Nick's condescending epidemiology lesson:
".... evaluate existing and new methods of health care delivery, and inform policy on ways to make decisions relating to health issues......"
How does financing by the pharmaceutical nicotine industry (RWJF) then affect the "new methods of health care delivery" and "inform policy on ways to make decisions" aspect of epidemiology?
That was rhetorical you need not answer. We can all see it's affect.....lies and junk science.
I apologize to all for appearing condescending. My intent was not to stir negativity, only to learn.
Nick stated per the activists' propaganda manifesto:
"I suppose data showing that comprehensive smoking ordinances do not negatively impact business are irrelevant to you...."
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....ospitality.html
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/ba...om/
banloss3.htm
Pro-smoking ban activists' claims of "....no harm to business...." is well documented and very well refuted by the facts and those of us put into the unemployment lines. You may want to remove that lie from future testimony Nick. Just some friendly advice.
marcus,
I apologize. Point well taken.
I'll take on the task (it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it) of tackling Nick's linked-to Lexington survey purportedly showing the general love of bans. (*)
Referring to the random telephone survey taken 6 mos after the ban, I begin with a genuine question.
Your sample number was 1055; you say the response rate was 52%. Am I correct then in assuming that the number of responders was 548? ( Or were you saying that 1055 was your 52% of a--double the size-- pool?)
In any case it's interesting that nearly half of the people you called didn't want to talk about it. Any theories on why?
Further if my original premise is true, then the 74% (of the total 52%) who approved of the ban is actually only 39% of the full sample (including the refusniks.)
Q #2: Were your subjects told the source of the survey (U KY Health)? This is a potential source of biasing the answers.
I note that among the responders, that exact same 74% (coincidence?) said they had a "smoke-free" home.
This leads me to observe that nowhere in your study do you list the % of your responders who were smokers v nonsmokers. But I wouldn't be totally nuts to infer that ... something very close to 74% were nonsmokers. (Would that bias your bottom line?)
Finally, while carefully giving no actual numbers, your survey reports that the ban "caused" 44% of the smokers to try to quit. But...44% of what number? You don't tell us the %, let alone the actual number of smokers. Which leaves us free to assume a 74/26 split. So is it 44% of 26% of 548 people? And, you then boast that 25% of the 44% actually quit. (That's 15 people, if my calculation's right.)
I also see you, again cannily, lump together the people who "go out AS often OR more often" which tends to obscure how many people actually fulfill the promise of upping business by finally going out. There'd be no reason for non-smokers who previously went to bars where other people smoked (with apparently no problem) to start going out less frequently so that number would remain stable. But how many actual people said they went out more now because of the ban? 12? 3? You carefully don't say.
I'd also maintain your questions, as published at the end, were loaded.
(*) Yes, Nick, I mean laws that ban smoking in restaurants and bars. Your semantic hair-splitting ("First, it's not a smoking ban, it's an ordinance. People are not banned from smoking. They can still smoke, just not in a way or enclosed setting...) is is just that: semantic hair-splitting. C'mon.
"The mission of the
Kentucky Center for Smoke-Free Policy
is to provide rural and urban communities across Kentucky with science-based strategies for advancing smoke-free policies on the local level and educating citizens and policymakers about the importance of smoke-free environments.
Director: Ellen J. Hahn, DNS, RN
Project Manager: Heather E. Robertson, M.P.A.
Technical Assistance Manager: Carol Riker, MSN, RN
Policy Development Coordinator: Lisa W. Greathouse, MSN, RN
Statistician: KiYoung Lee, ScD
****Project Associate: Nick Peiper"
Nick-I see you dropped your homepage at the end here.
Congrats on being a published Project Associate.
What year are you in college? My son is a Junior at University and working out in California this summer as a geological guide at Mammoth Lake..hope he is safe (from natural disasters, not nannyman made-up ones).
I will speak to you as I speak to him-as I believe you are of that age-
I appreciate your apologies to "the rest of the story gang" [kind of like the "Hole in the Wall" gang!!], and I hope you do go to all the available sites for furthering your education-not just your own KY university/RWJF funded, cig tax payer (The Smoker) funded, MSA (The Smoker) funded adnauseum.
As I tell my sons, RESEARCH EVERYTHING AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. Not what "others" tell you to think.
That means, trying everything-thinking your OWN thoughts-accepting those thoughts/ideas-living with those thoughts/consequences, learn to be Comfortable in Your Own Skin, and take EVERYTHING with a pound of salt!
Good luck out there when you get into the REAL world.
Epidemiology is a pointer towards whether something needs to be looked into in greater depth.As i understand that is about its limits.It does have a beneficial purpose but not to promote an agenda or vice-versa.It has no place in promoting its authors wishes.That should be left to scientific analysis and its remit should stand or fall on the evidence found.I suggest if this were the case the rabid agenda of smoking bans springing up everywhere simply would not happen.By all means present any evidence to the contrary but leave the epidimiology where it belongs, simply a means to an end ,it cannot nor will it PROVE a thing.
Here's what's on Nick's homepage under "Fact Sheet" (no wonder he stopped listing his homepage!):
"Secondhand Smoke and Smoke-Free Laws:
"The Facts
"Good Health: Secondhand smoke kills.
"Secondhand smoke causes 53,000 deaths every year, making it the third leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.
"• Secondhand smoke contains more than 40 carcinogens, 200 poisons, and causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year among otherwise healthy nonsmokers.
"• Even short-term exposure (5 minutes to 2 hours) to secondhand tobacco smoke can increase the risk for heart attack and stroke.
"• Secondhand smoke exposure is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer."
Does all this crap sound familiar? Monkey see, monkey do; these organizations all seem to copy one another. And Dr. Siegel should especially like the '5 minutes' bit. Any TC outfit out there ready to top that one? And then they throw breast cancer at us. Guess you'll finally have to drive a stake through the heart of that canard to stop it from rising.
Lordy, lordy, what a confederacy of bullshitters!
marcus wrote:
"Measuring air quality is an exact science"
Of course it is. But marcus continues misrepresenting air quality measurements by citing levels of nicotine in the smoke (which is relatively harmless) instead of inhalable particulate levels (PM 2.5) in the smoke (which actually harm people).
marcus' deceitful misuse of nicotine levels instead of particulate levels
may fool some folks who don't know better, but its tantamount to claiming that alcoholic beverages aren't hazardous because the water contained in them isn't hazardous.
For the upteenth time Bill, nicotine is the only measureable trace component of secondhand smoke....where results are not coruupted by formaldehyde in carpet, benzene in the kitchen...etc. etc. but once you know the concentration of nicotine via AQ test results we know the concentrations of other chemicals are much lower.
But, hold on to your tin foil hat Bill. James Austin's link to the AQ study by the American Cancer Society:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060.../ news_2431.html
Is even more dramatic than the St. Louis Park health department, here is why:
"Results showed that workers in places with no smoking restrictions suffered the most exposure to secondhand smoke. The highest exposure levels were recorded in bingo halls, which averaged 940 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour shift. Standalone bars and taverns also had high levels of nicotine in the air, averaging 539 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour shift. Air monitoring conducted in two local bars sponsoring Marlboro Night cigarette promotions revealed high levels of smoke pollution averaging 814 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour exposure."
Now let me put those numbers into perspective for you compared to OSHA regulations for nicotine:
The OSHA pel for nicotine exposure for an 8 hr/day is 5 milligrams/cu.M which is the same as 500 micrograms/cu.M, which is the same as 500,000 nanograms/ cu.M
Go back to the ACS test result at the bingo halls above, 940 nanograms / cu.M. The OSHA safe level 500,000 nano divided by 940 nano = bingo hall airborne nicotine concentrations are 531.9 times safer than OSHA indoor air quality regulations for the measured component of secondhand smoke......indoor smoking establishments had air quality 531.9 times safer than OSHA requires, and that test comes from the American Cancer Society and Erie/Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition......yes indeed it will be on my weblog by the end of the day, and sent to lawmakers all around the globe.....thank you for pointing that AQ study out to me James!
Bill are you now going to try to discredit the American Cancer Society?....it's their test result.
sorry, here is the url again:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060.../
news_2431.html
it will be backed up on my weblog in case the antis try to have the page removed.
Bill will you please prove that your little particles arise solely from tobacco smoke and no other possible source because your rhetoric is really becoming tedious to the point of extreme boredom.I would guess that no-one has ever took your concerns seriously within Government circles because nothing has ever been done about it,which clearly suggests something.The poison is in the dose,this has been stated time and time again but it just is not getting through is it Bill .
American Cancer Society nicotine air quality testing study has been added to the website, let me know if there is anything I have forgotten.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ality-
test.html
Bill probably isn't aware that "particles" are not carcinogens.....he only spews the rhetoric he hears in his small circle.
If however you want to be scientific about it, you measure the air for the specific carcingen(s) you are fearful of....then you compare the results to OSHA which has a SAFE standard for every airborne carcinogen known to man.
That's the beauty of this:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ality-
test.html
Sorry, but I changed the url to here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ality-
test.html
Bill Godshall wrote:
"marcus' deceitful misuse of nicotine levels instead of particulate levels
may fool some folks who don't know better, but its tantamount to claiming that alcoholic beverages aren't hazardous because the water contained in them isn't hazardous."
My God, you've written some fairly idiotic things, but that takes the cake.
The CAL EPA AIR RESOURCES BOARD has used nicotine:
Near-Source Ambient Air Monitoring of Nicotine as A Marker for Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Were they being deceitful? How about:
Exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke in public places
in Barcelona, Spain
"We collected airborne nicotine with 31 diffusion monitors containing sodium bisulfate coated filters."
Among the deceitful involved with this study were:
M Ceraso, J Samet
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA
How about this found in the BMJ:
Airport smoking rooms don’t work
"Nicotine vapour air monitoring in a non-smoking area of the airport, adjacent to a smoking room located in Terminal C, reveals elevated levels of ambient nicotine vapour in excess of what would be expected in a completely non-smoking environment."
To which James Repace responded to in an interview: “If I were working there I would make a complaint to my management that I was being exposed to toxic waste.”
Nicotine. Toxic waste. James Repace.
But what did Bill tell marcus?
"[M]arcus continues misrepresenting air quality measurements by citing levels of nicotine in the smoke (which is relatively harmless) instead of inhalable particulates..."
So, to recap:
Cal EPA is deceitful
Samet is deceitful
A member from GASP (the airport study) is deceitful
and from Bill's own mouth shows Repace for what he really is, a buffoon.
There are more, I believe even the infamous EPA report mentions nicotine air samples, but I'm satisfied.
James:
You refer to the 1992 EPA report as "infamous." Boy, you couldn't be more wrong. It's proven, exact science, everyone knows that, including Godshall, who's labelled it junk or somesuch. And if you want to know why it's junk or somesuch, why not ask Bill? He's a gentleman and will surely tell you. In fact, he'll tell us all, chapter and verse. As soon as pigs fly, that is.
Si and others have done a good job of answering the charge Nick threw at me about the "usefulness" of Epidemiology. Thank you.
I'd like to add:
Epidemiology Beyond Its Limits
TechCentral Station - February, 23, 2004
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article....aspx?
id=022304B
Epidemiology has been one of the most valuable scientific tools ever devised. Yet it has suffered so much abuse it is barely recognizable.
An epidemic of epidemiology
Spiked-online - June 25, 2004
http://www.spiked-online.com/
Art...000000CA5AB.htm
But the many pieces of junk science that have been produced in the process have provided the ammunition for unwarranted health scares too numerous to mention.
The public health agenda is justified by research that is often completely worthless.
Epidemiology can be an effective tool when applied to the spread of infectious disease. Unfortunately, there really isn't anything like enough infectious disease in the developed world to justify the existence of so many departments and researchers.
Nick, so far this makes a joke of your, "You seem to take for granted all the health policies that exist today that protect your health" and "So if epidemiology should be used to merely "track epidemics (contagious disease)," then how do we objectively measure the impact of a new evidence-based intervention that promotes healthy habits?"
But there's more:
Epidemiology uncovered
Spiked-online - March 13, 2001
http://www.spiked-online.com/
Art...00000005513.htm
...this process has, with the support of politicians, lawyers and the media, gathered momentum to become a major influence in the life of the society, which is now permanently in the grip of one health scare or another.
Given the damage to public health in its widest sense that now results from epidemiological propaganda that, in its confusion of association and causation, falls so far short of the standards of its own discipline, it is surely time to blow the whistle.
As LeFanu concludes, 'The simple expedient of closing down most university departments of epidemiology could both extinguish this endlessly fertile source of anxiety-mongering while simultaneously releasing funds for serious research'
As I said, Epidemiology has been hijacked for causes and agendas.
Dr. Siegel, since this blog entry is about using the junk science to support the agenda I figure this is the best place to deposit this (regarding a ban being considered in Tennessee):
Associated Press
May 23, 2006
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/
poli...4719312,00.html
When Mary Nell Bryan suffered a blood clot that nearly killed her, doctors assumed it was a result of smoking.
"They kept asking me how long I had been smoking, and I told them I hadn't," said Bryan, who as president of the Children's Hospital Alliance of Tennessee also is a lobbyist.
Bryan's illness eventually was traced to smoking - not hers, but the secondhand smoke she has inhaled during nearly 10 years working at the state Capitol. Her pulmonary embolism - a condition that occurs when a vessel is blocked in the lungs - is the reason the nonsmoking Bryan has joined supporters of a bill moving through the Legislature that would ban smoking in all buildings owned or operated by the state.
Dr. Siegel, you must agree that no doctor could possibly medically "trace" a blood clot (that became a pulmonary embolism) to secondhand smoke, let alone smoking, no?
According to the Merck Manual:
What Predisposes Someone to Blood Clots?
The cause of blood clots in the veins may not be discernible, but many times predisposing conditions are obvious. These conditions include:
Advanced age
Blood clotting disorder (increased risk of clotting, called hypercoagulable state)
Cancer
Heart attack
Heart failure
Irregular heartbeat (atrial fibrillation)
Major surgery
Obesity
Paralysis
Pelvis, hip, or leg fracture
Prior blood clot
Prolonged bed rest or inactivity (such as sitting during a long car or plane trip)
Stroke
Use of oral contraceptives—especially after age 35 and in someone who smokes
Is this not basically a case of "junk science in order to scare people into thinking that secondhand smoke is more severe of an acute hazard than it really is in order to support our agenda"? (or, more closely, an activist outright lying (not yet ready to believe that her doctors ever actually said that which would make them liars too) for emotional appeal to influence legislation?)
Note the way that immediately the Doctor assumed she was a smoker,due to her serious blood clot.So anyone who endures long distance flying and who is unfortunate enough to suffer DVT are also presumed as being smokers ?Where is the mentality of these quacks,you certainly can'r refer to them as being Doctors.They are by their very nature becoming no more than automaton anti smoking robots-BECAUSE PUBLIC HEALTH TELLS THEM TO BE.Today,everyone must have a scapegoat for any events where a reason is pure chance.Suffering from a blood clot largely remains a mystery since there are so many variable factors it is difficult to precisely pinpoint the reason.But for many people this is not good enough.This husband has decided that HE NEEDS to feel guilty because of the bullshit "let's blame everything we can on tobacco" .Common sense yet again has gone through the window.If he wishes to act like a turd then that is his choice but to become a born again rabid is totally losing the plot.
I went to the 8 websites listed below and only two mentioned smoking as a risk factor. Not one mentioned SHS and one had 20-30 different risk factors listed.
Those TN doctors sure seem to know more than everyone else.
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/p...sm/
page2_em.htm
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/.../
pe_causes.html
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/...lism/
causes.htm
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/t...rg/
topic490.htm
http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinf.../e/
embolism.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlinepl...icle/
000132.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health...0429/
DSECTION=4 (Smoking. For reasons that aren't well understood, tobacco use predisposes some people to blood clot formation, especially when combined with other risk factors.)
http://svs.vascularweb.org/
_CONT...y_Embolism.html (Factors that increase the risk of DVT or pulmonary embolism include: Smoking)
OOPS sorry i switched off for a second scrap the bit about the husband ,proves i can't talk and write simultaneously.To recap She needs to have a cause for her embolism it isn't sufficient that it just happened.She MUST BLAME SOMETHING/SOMEONE FOR THIS INCIDENT she just can't accept it was an act of god.NEITHER CAN THE MEDICAL FRATERNITY LET THIS GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY PASS TO BLAME TOBACCO AGAIN.Hopefully i've maintained my concentration this time.
Following on si's posting:
During the hearings before the NH Senate recently, the well-organized antis brought in a woman who had had cancer treatment. After her speech, she pulled off her wig, revealing a bald head. Her testimony, it was reported, set off a round of applause, with a few in the audience daubing at their eyes. It could have been staged in Hollywood. That’s how low these antis will stoop. But of course, lies are more effective when administered with a little theater. But it does give a boost to cynicism, does it not?
Now I don't mean to sound callous here, because the woman had obviously suffered greatly. But she was obviously being used by the well-organized anti groups. And here's the thing (I reported some of this earlier): She was only 33. She’d never smoked in her life. She was a medical worker. And she said she was “diagnosed with a form of cancer that smokers commonly develop.” Yes, that's what she said.
As Dr. Siegel explained (if I’ve got this right), of the four types of lung cancer, there is no form (IF ANY) particular to people exposed to secondhand smoke, so what she was told was a bunch of crap. She worked as a medical worker, so one has to assume her greatest exposure to secondhand smoke was off the job. She was only 33, which makes one wonder how she could possibly have gotten cancer from secondhand smoke in so few a number of years (it usually takes decades, does it not?).
So they not only lie, they also stage. Shamelessly. What fun unscrupulosity has!
marcus wrote:
"indoor smoking establishments had air quality 531.9 times safer than OSHA requires, and that test comes from the American Cancer Society and Erie/Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition"
That's another blatant lie from marcus, but that seems to occur every time he posts a comment. The ACS and the Erie/Niagra Tobacco Free Coalition have never claimed that.
Besides, as marcus knows, OSHA doesn't regulate tobacco smoke.
While nicotine levels in tobacco smoke pollution may be good predictors of the levels of particulates in tobacco smoke pollution, nicotine in tobacco smoke is not hazardous to nonsmokers but particulates are hazardous.
OSHA standards for nicotine exposure are intended for tobacco workers (e.g. those who work in tobacco barns and manufacturing plants). I don't think that OSHA even regulates tobacco farms, where workers who cut and hang the tobacco are exposed to massive amounts of nicotine, and often get very sick after handling tobacco all day at harvest time.
BILL YOU HAVE BLATANTLY LIED SO CUT THE CRAP ! PROVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING,YOU ARE SO COCKSURE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO !PETTY LITTLE SQUABLES ARE YOUR FORTE ,BUT STILL YOU REFRAIN FROM PROVING ANYTHING.WHY NOT BILL ?YOU GIVE A DIFFERENT ACCOUNT ON EACH THREAD,MY HOW YOUR MEMORY FLUCTUATES.
Bill,
Do you ever have the courage to admit when you CLEARLY don't understand the subject matter?
You remind me of Cliff Clavin.....you know everything about everything. However, if I were a pro-smoking ban advocate I would pay to silence you, you are clearly doing more harm to the movement with your ignorance.
First off:
"....smoking establishments had air quality 531.9 times safer than OSHA requires, and that test comes from the American Cancer Society and Erie/Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition"
That's another blatant lie from marcus, but that seems to occur every time he posts a comment. The ACS and the Erie/Niagra Tobacco Free Coalition have never claimed that...."
The fact is that the American Cancer Society published their air quality data measuring nicotine concentrations in smoking establishments. Here is the table:
http://
roswell.tobaccodocuments....tor_results.htm
The ACS results ranged from 20 - 940 nanograms (a nanogram is 10 to the -(minus) 9) so the ACS results were 0.000000020 g/cu.M - 0.000000940 g/ cu.M the OSHA safe level for exposure (for an 8 hour period) to the secondhand smoke chemical measured by ACS is 0.5 mg /cu.M (mg is 10 to the -(minus) 3).
For ease of math let's also convert the ACS test results to mg/cu.M 0.000020 mg/cu.M - 0.000940.
So OSHA safe level 0.5 mg/cu.M divided by 0.000020 = 25,000.
And 0.5 divided by 0.000940 = 531.9.
Thus we have the American Cancer Society proving that secondhand smoke chemical component concentrations are 25,000 - 531.9 times SAFER than OSHA standards for the measured component of secondhand smoke.
Bill you are welcome to measure every component chemmical of secondhand smoke, OSHA has a safe level for each and every chemical in secondhand smoke...once you obtain that reading you merely compare it to the OSHA guidelines. But there is a reason as I've outlined before that the SLP health dept., California EPA, and the American Cancer Society all measured for the only "unique" component for secondhand smoke.
Second falseShall statement:
".....nicotine in tobacco smoke is not hazardous to nonsmokers but particulates are hazardous......"
Particulates as a whole are NOT the hazard in any airborne contaminant or process.....rather the specific carcinogenic chemical particulates may be a health hazard.....but to determine that, OSHA measures the specific chemical, and if it exceeds OSHA standards then it is a health hazard.....three pro-smoking ban organizations conducted such tests and found that secondhand smoke IS NOT a health hazard as defined by OSHA.
Third blatant lie:
"....OSHA standards for nicotine exposure are intended for tobacco workers....."
WRONG and you know it. OSHA indoor air quality standards regulate EVERY indoor workplace and all employees' health. OSHA long ago conducted AQ testing of secondhand smoke and found that no chemical component exceeded their safety standards, hence the statement from OSHA on my site. Final note on the subject have you ever been in the back room of a bar or restaurant?....there is an OSHA poster in each establishment do you know why?......because OSHA regulates that establishments' workplace environment.
Check and mate Bill.....care to play again?
Bill wrote:
"That's another blatant lie from marcus, but that seems to occur every time he posts a comment. The ACS and the Erie/Niagra Tobacco Free Coalition have never claimed that."
marcus never claimed they claimed that. We all know he broke out his calculator to arrive at "indoor smoking establishments had air quality 531.9 times safer than OSHA requires..."
He's broken his calculator out previously as we all know too. It wasn't even written confusingly.
Geez Bill, instead of narrowing down what I think is wrong with you my list is growing instead. I've added Alzheimer's.
(If you'd like to see the full list let me know. Some of them are treatable.)
It's ACS that's lied. After conducting this study, Gretchen Leffler, Regional VP of the ACS said:
"What's most troubling, is finding out just how much secondhand smoke some people are forced to breathe in just to make a living. This study clearly illustrates exactly why we need stronger clean air laws."
They found almost zilch. In fact, they're the lowest numbers I've ever seen. All tobacco company studies I've seen have found far higher levels of nicotine in their tests, but all well within OSHA limits, yet Gretchen is "troubled" with finding almost nothing?
(Yeah, but not for how much they found, but how little)
Well, it could be she's just really ignorant I suppose.
Thank you again James for finding that ACS study. It is the most damning evidence against smoking bans I have seen to date......not just because of the exceedingly miniscule result numbers......but because of who it is from......the American Cancer Society.
If anyone else comes across any other air quality test results for secondhand smoke measuring for specific chemical components please let me know.
And no Bill "particles" don't count, an autobody shop produces massive amounts of airborne "particles" and I don't see the rabids trying to close down those businesses.
I just noticed that my homepage link was set incorrectly.
This is better.
Marcus, why is the article dated December 18, 2006? Just curious.
I've dated it on my website to that future date so that it remains at the top of my weblog......air quality testing of secondhand smoke and the organizations that conducted the testing which proves secondhand smoke IS NOT a health hazard is the main priority of "Clearing the Air".
You're welcome marcus.
I ran across the press release to that study a couple of years ago by accident. I remember getting out my calculator and LMAO after punching in the numbers they listed. Actually, now that I think of it, I was LMAO even before I got out my calculator because it was plain to see how close to nothing they found.
Nanograms. LMAO
I'll check your website and see if I have anything else you might be interested in.
Speaking of nanograms, I was talking to an engineer I know and I asked him if it was even posssible to measure in nanograms/ cu.M. We both doubted that possibility and concluded that they probably tested in (micrograms) ug (10 to the -minus 6) / cu. M and received these numbers 0.020 ug/cu.M. & 0.940 ug/cu.M but they were embarrassed at how insignificant those results are, they then decided to convert to 10 to the -minus 9 (nanograms) because 20 & 940 sound and look much more significant.
They apparently didn't expect anyone with a basic knowledge of simple math or experience with OSHA permissible exposure limits to probe any further.
I am curious what the reactions were across the state of NY when this testing first came out...or was it immediately "buried" like most of these specific AQ test results are?
Commenting by HaloScan
