I couldn't agree more Dr. Siegel, it's as if the SG is trying to pull the anti-tobacco movement off of the cliff they have hung themselves upon.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....teps-in-
to.html
Well, at first it seemed like another post on the same topic. But then I noticed something. You actually stated that SHS can have acute effects on those with unknown coronary disease.
You stated that there is no evidence that "a single 30 minute exposure to secondhand smoke poses any significant acute cardiovascular health threat to ANYONE OTHER THAN SOMEONE WHO ALREADY HAS CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE."
Bravo Doctor. Now if we only knew exactly WHO had coronary artery disease in our society. These folks could then stay home, and anyone who wanted to smoke wouldn't be inconvenienced to step outside for their cigarette.
So now, just to be safe, nobody can do anything that might put a unknown persons at risk from conditions they don't know thet have?
Jill, this is idiotic.
And regarding your phrase "step outside?" Your arrogance is staggering!
How does one "step outside" at the University Hospitals in Iowa City, when the ENTIRE CAMPUS is now smoke free by edict?
How does one "step outside" one of San Francisco's golf courses?
How does one "step outside" of the entire city of Calabasas, California?
How does one "step outside" anywhere - even at home - when working for Scott's Miracle Gro?
While you're at it, please explain to us exactly how those 4000 toxic ingredients represent an immediate danger to life and health for one of your "stealth heart patients" when they come from a cigarette... but those same 4000 toxic ingredients don't seem to concern you when they come from the tailpipe of an automobile?
Or do you deny that automobile exhaust contains the essentially the same toxins as tobacco smoke?
We all know you hate cigarettes and the people who smoke them. Take your hate somehwere else.
Jill,why aren't you living in a bubble to ensure no contamination of any sort can reach your delicate little body.We could at least turn off your intercom system then.Oh, what are you doing about all that Radon gas buried beneath you and slowly seeping into your lungs ?
Dr. Siegel,
I just heard a little news "blurb" on ABC news (no details as usual) that said the surgeon general's report shows that exposure to SHS has immediate effects on people and that banning smoking in bars/restaurants/workplaces/etc. does not go far enough to protect against this serious threat. The report also mentioned SHS as beig responsible for SIDS, which has been roundly criticized by people and organizations involved with SIDS.
Is this in fact with the SG report says? if so, it seems that even the highest levels of government are spouting the propaganda. If that is the case then I believe any further discussion is useless; the ASH crowd has won.
If this is NOT what the SG report says, then why are the media reporting it as such?
Please advise. Thanks.
Here you go...
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343
New Surgeon General’s Report Focuses on the Effects of Secondhand Smoke
U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. The finding is of major public health concern due to the fact that nearly half of all nonsmoking Americans are still regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.
The report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, finds that even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause immediate harm. The report says the only way to protect nonsmokers from the dangerous chemicals in secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking indoors.
“The report is a crucial warning sign to nonsmokers and smokers alike,” HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt said. "Smoking can sicken and kill, and even people who do not smoke can be harmed by smoke from those who do.”
Secondhand smoke exposure can cause heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, and asthma attacks in infants and children, the report finds.
“The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought,” said Surgeon General Carmona, vice admiral of the U.S. Public Health Service. “The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.” Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals, and is itself a known human carcinogen. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke inhale many of the same toxins as smokers. Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer, the report says. In addition, the report notes that because the bodies of infants and children are still developing, they are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
“The good news is that, unlike some public health hazards, secondhand smoke exposure is easily prevented,” Surgeon General Carmona said. “Smoke-free indoor environments are proven, simple approaches that prevent exposure and harm.” The report finds that even the most sophisticated ventilation systems cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure and that only smoke-free environments afford full protection.
Surgeon General Carmona noted that levels of cotinine -- a biological marker for secondhand smoke exposure -- measured in nonsmokers have fallen by 70 percent since the late 1980s, and the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable cotinine levels has been halved from 88 percent in 1988-91 to 43 percent in 2001-02.
“Our progress over the past 20 years in clearing the air of tobacco smoke is a major public health success story,” Surgeon General Carmona said. “We have averted many thousands of cases of disease and early death and saved millions of dollars in health care costs.” He emphasized, however, that sustained efforts are required protect the more than 126 million Americans who continue to be regularly exposed to secondhand smoke in the home, at work, and in enclosed public spaces.
To help communicate the report findings as widely as possible, the Surgeon General unveiled an easy-to-read guide with practical information on the dangers of secondhand smoke and steps people can take to protect themselves.
Copies of The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General and related materials are available on the Surgeon General’s Web site at www.surgeongeneral.gov.
Eyowch. Say it ain't so. But not surprising from a Surgeon General who favors a tobacco ban(google Carmona Tobacco Ban.)
Unfortunately if this initial blurb is anything to go by, it'll be that much easier to heap blame on smokers who are trying to quit but can't.
IMHO The Surgeon generals Office should be abolished, The office no longer serves the citizens of the United States and only exist's for an appointed activist that wears a Commodores uniform then uses the Office as a bullypulpit for the benifit of political non profits that could care less about the countries general health.
IN 1982 the CDC and the SG's office delegated Americans the first politically correct disease, AIDS.
After the Health experts buried the disease under the "rug" in a short decade the City of San Fransisco buried the 10,000 th victim of the AIDS virus.
The offices of the SG and the administration of the CDC should at least be purged of activists that abuse illegitimate science for the benefit of non profit "behavior control groups".
Un-identified viruses are killing people more every day, mersa and celluitius are mostly blamed without ever identifying the killer viruses.
Has the SG and CDC issued a report on the new killer viruses? NO? must be caused by exposure to tobacco smoke.
CNN just did a piece on this report, and when asked what was new about it, the reporter said that it is now proven that even a few minutes of exposure to SHS causes stiffening of the heart arteries and sticky plateletts. What was "new" in essence was the message that even the slightest whiff of smoke was a serious health hazard - and not a mere annoyance.
Put away your weapons of reason, freedom, choice and any concept you have of private property. The general of the nicotine Nazis has declared victory over all of the above. The forces of darkness will now march over all rights and reason in the name of public health.
On a lighter note this wasn't even a study. It was a meta analysis which can always be designed to overstate the effects of whatever you want to prove. Especially if you are relying on predjudiced studies in the first place.
But the reality is that all of our actions will from now on be judged against the public good. A public good as defined by someone else and none of our freedoms or rights will endure.
Also on the bright side, now that I've had a bit of time to think about it...didn't Jocelyn Elders get the hook for suggesting something similarly radical, though in an entirely different sphere?
But I suppose it's less easy to laugh this rehash, I mean meta-analysis, off. It seems to open the door to eventually banning smoking outside, except in narrow alleyways.
I'm surprised about the SG report. It seems to be rehashing the same topics we have heard for years now. They call it a "comprehensive scientific report" but I don't see any new evidence, no convincing data.
I am afraid Dr. Siegal that you recognized the dangers to the anti-tobacco movement too late.
There is nothing left to do now but let the zealots run thier course (as they did with prohibition) and wait for it to end (as it inevidably will).
The only difference is that prohibition killed the credibility of politicians. Anti-tobacco will end the credibility of the health industry and scientists.
I wonder what that will look like.
Michelle
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/ne.../
06272006a.html
this report is not even worth the paper it is written on. It enumerates all effects that could possibly be attributed to SHS and it doesn't say if these effects are relevant for health at all.
Example (and there are more to come):
In addition, babies of nonsmoking women who are exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy are at risk for a small reduction in birth weight.
A small reduction of several grams! There are millions of babys born with less than average weight in this world, for multiple reasons: race, weight, height and body constitution of the parents, prematurity, you name it. Are these babies all at risk? Is there a natural weight standard?
Calculating an average weight consists of calculating an average, which means taking into account that there ARE differencies in weight. You don't have to study maths to understand that.
Do we prefer obese babies so that we can put them on forced diets onece they grow up?
More than 90 million Americans cannot adequately understand basic health information. People of all ages, races, incomes, and education levels are challenged by low health literacy.
Since they don't understand it, we will force our conclusion upon them.
Now that we have eliminated malaria, AIDS, HPV, industrial and traffic pollution, and all kinds of cancer-causing hazards, we will attacj the last and only obstacle which prevents us from enjoying eternal life: SHS.
Enjoy!
I guess I'm throwing out posts because, while this wasn't expected, it's still maddening. So forgive the sarcasm in the third paragraph or, hopefully, empathize with it or get in touch with repressed sarcasm of your own.
On the ideological side, I find it distressing that the Surgeon General is going after individual "polluters"(cigarette smoke) but the EPA hasn't done a whole lot about corporate polluters.
So, is my government going to find ways to protect me, a nonrenewable-fuel-non-smoker(i.e. I do not own a car) from the OTHER fumes from which there is no safe level of exposure? Obviously if tobacco smoke is about on a level with automobile exhaust, the reverse is true, too. It's not fair to the responsible non-gasoline-smokers that we have to put up with all this! Hmm, they haven't improved fuel economy or emissions standards much recently.
P.S. obligatory parting shot at Hummer drivers: I can't understand how paying THAT MUCH for all that smoke belching(which other people bear the brunt of) gives anyone pleasure. We need to pass sanctions against them, STAT. And people on the bus who carry their cell phones that give them brain cancer--and likely the people next to them. (Can we sanction them for bad conversations too?)
WRT no level of second-hand smoke being safe and the alarmism therein, amazing what well-funded and/or clouty left-wingers and right-wingers(Banzhaf, Carmona) can agree on in a bipartisan fashion when they get together. (groan)
Acute respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia, respiratory symptoms such as cough, phlegm, wheezing, and breathlessness, more frequent and severe asthma attacks, slowing of lung growth, and ear infections have all been proven to be results of exposure to secondhand smoke in children.
Halleluja. With the comprehensive, absolute smoking ban that will be proclaimed shortly, all these health problems will be history.
If Columbus had known and had avoided SHS from those Indians, he could still live and tell us episodes of his adventures and discoveries.
Dr. Siegel,
I'm curious about your thoughts on the SG's report. Also, I'm curious (and I'm being genuine, not sarcastic) how it could be possible that:
"There is no safe level of secondhand smoke" - NY Times
I really think I'm a smart guy, and I'm trying really hard to understand this, but I can't. How can it be possible that there is NO safe level? Even 1 second of exposure. What does "safe" mean?
"Efforts to minimize the effect of secondhand smoke by separating smokers and nonsmokers are ineffective" - NY Times
Okay, I'm really stumped by that. Isn't that what bans do?
Again, I'm trying really, really hard to understand this, but it's escaping me.
And I must ask one more question, though I know few will want to answer it. Why doesn't anyone - anyone at all, media - challenge the idea that it's all "involuntary smoking," as our SG now puts it (clever). What about people who go out to bars, or go to friends houses, where they know smoking occurs? How is this "involuntary?" Can't the anti-smoking crowd accept, even a little bit, that some people can and do make this choice, voluntarily?
Josh
Given the devastating conclusions of the report:
When will they declare cigarettes illegal? When will give order to shutdown Big Tobacco? What the hell are they waiting for? If they don't act NOW, they will be liable for each and every victim.
If Columbus had known and had avoided SHS from those Indians, he could still live and tell us episodes of his adventures and discoveries.
Benpal, Stop me if you implied this...but the European wound up giving a communicable disease or two to those smokers over in America.
Never mind, I'm wrong. (sarcasm ahead again) Europeans who didn't smoke were exposed to these microbes, and they were ok. Americans who DID were, and got zapped. Booyah.
Thanks again for your posts that help keep me sane. And thanks to Dr Siegel for letting conversations like take hold in his blog.
So thats it folks. No career minded journalist or politician will dare challange this overwhelming "evidence". The free west will jump on the bandwagon, and you can expect an imeadiate escalation of legislation for your own good. Attention will soon turn to the next poor unfortunate minority as this war is surely over. A word of caution about highlighting targets, I can see the health police using statements such as " even, smokers, that most abhorent of people, acknoweldge the need to take positive action against drinkers/ obesity/ dangerours sports/ diesel" delete or add chosen victims to suit next campaign.
GreatScot
Let's face it the SG's report was more than likely written by Stanton Glans.Since Governments want these smoking bans and a reduction in smoking(have they plans to make up the tax shortfall ?) of course they are going to confirm what Public Health keeps spouting,it stands to reason.It proves one thing they are all prepared to bend as far away from the truth as is neccessary to achieve their goal.Comes to something when the people you elect turn around and tell you how to live your life,and enact laws to persecute you for failing to abide by their decisions.Public Health is a joke ,it does the dirty work for the politicians who must be seen to be squeeky clean.Long live democracy,if you can find it in these times.
Maybe someone should sue OSHA for their mistaken idea that there are safe levels for chemicals....
Funny comment, GreatScot. Gee, I'm wasting more time here than I would on a smoke break.
Josh--neglected to note your point about "involuntary smoking." It's a good one, and I'll incorporate it into my thought even beyond "haha, poor me, an involuntary tailpipe smoker." It strikes me that even people who say "it's ok if you smoke" are "involuntary smokers" under this definition. Or they could be held guilty along with smokers for anyone else around who might not really like smoke.
I know that in Washington State, for instance, tobacco is banned in cigar bars "to protect the employees." One should reasonably assume that employees qualified for the position would enjoy cigars, or enjoy others enjoying cigars, and have been around enough cigar smoke to enjoy it. Either that, or the manager is a rank idiot for hiring them.
Oh, and the other customers? DEFINITELY not involuntary smokers there. While there are cases where people shouldn't have to put up with smoke, this is a ludicrous one against that.
But if there's a silver lining to all this it's that the meta-study really didn't piece anything together, and someone may or may not call the emperor on the lack of clothes. The only question is if it's someone outside a smoker's rights lobby, whom who've been effectively tarred, nicotined and feathered enough, big tobacco money or no.
Oh, and apology for involuntary bad grammar exposure in the previous post(like take->like this take, European->Europeans)--no safe level there you know. If people misspell a 10 letter word it's only a short step to others around them routinely switching there, their and they're. Or something.
I hope that no one who contributes to this blog, including Dr. Siegel, is surprised at the SG's conclusions.
If the cotinine level of people has gone down so much in the last 20 years due to smoking bans, etc., where are all of society's health benefits? The rates of obesity, asthma, diabetes, lung cancer, and premature births have either stayed the same or gone up.
Forgive me for being "off topic", but I just had to share this with you.
A brand new airline that allows smoking!! Wonderful.
http://smintair.com/index.html
I love this....only smokers and tolerant smokers need apply.
http://smintair.com/JOBS/jobs.html
The Rejected bite back.
Sorry...that should say "tolerant non-smokers"...
are Jill and Jill S the same?
Anyways, the SGs report is certainly interesting.
I think you misunderstand what I have been trying to say. I am aware of risks in all walks of life.
The question being posed is are bans and the reduction in liberties and freedoms a proportionate response to the level of risk?
Clearly you believe so. The issues, as has been discussed, are the consequences that follow from that position.
The SG's report certainly appears to side with your view, though some of report is apparently inacurate. For example SIDS and Ventillation. (if the info presented here is correct).
Could these go towards denting the credibility of the report? Possibly, though, at this time, only a small minority of people are prepared to challenge those views.
What this all does for science, public health and freedom of choice who knows.
Colin...
Is this for real!
SMINTAIR from the web site Jobs section....
-DISCLAIMER: Allergics against tabacco smoke or militant Anti-Smokers are asked to not apply.
Further information can be obtained via:-
...
Wow....the SG report hit the hornets nest and the bees are swarming madly around the hive. Inside the nest the queen bee is meeting with her underlings screaming: "You morons!! YOU TOTAL MORONS!!! How are we going to confuse people about the health of SHS now?"
One bee yells out, "make calls to abolish the Surgeon General's office!!!" "Here, here, we don't need him!" the rest yell. "Tell them its the same as car pollution!!" "Shut up you fool!! Everyone one knows people don't run cars inside of bars and restaurants!!!" "Call it a bandwagon that no one can get off of for fear of public reprimand!!!" "You morons!!!" the queen bee shrieks, "Nothing you are doing is working!!!!! People are finding out that SHS is deadly. You have all betrayed me, off with your heads!"
25 posts... and so it goes. I have no doubt you'll come up with something sooner or later.
Something just dawned on.....how is it the anti crowd was warning us AHEAD OF TIME (all weekend long) about the SGs report? HOW did they know WHAT it was going to contain?
I'm just wondering now how much the SG got paid for that AND think I'm going to start writing letters to have him and his office audited.
Is this April the first? A proposed business venture that can legally allow and encourage smoking? Can discriminate against anti smokers? There ought to be a law against it. Wait til tomorrow, there will be!
On a more serious note, can I then open a new business, lets call it a "bar" for arguements sake and advertise for smoking staff and smoking clients only? ha ha if only.
GreatScot
Just remember Jill............be careful what you wish for as you may actually get it......in terms of total government control over every aspect of our lives, including yours dear.
Oh, Lynda, that's a good one. Little bunny Jill is in cahoots with the Surgeon General...Run that past the queen bee. Also, the payoff option, I am sure Dr. Siegel will remand you for making that suggestion without any evidence, but still, maybe it will fly with the public. I see the wheels turning, keep it up.
Everyone one knows people don't run cars inside of bars and restaurants!!!
Well, the point here is that I am being exposed to "involuntary smoking" OUTSIDE and not just as a result of cigarettes. The Surgeon General's report is saying there is no safe level of second-hand smoke. Outdoors or indoors is not specified. The type of smoke is not specified either.
You're also right, Jill, that cigarette and car pollution smoke aren't the same. I was trying to parallel the two, but now that I think about it, I believe that if car exhaust were piped into a restaurant or bar where people are smoking at the rate a car belches it out, patrons would get up and leave without paying, and be in the right.
Gosh, I responded to Jill after she overstated my point. This feels like those times I notched a credit towards another arrow in Webelos for demonstrating some positive new skill.
West2, I saw the guy on TV as well, so it is for real...isnt it great?
I thought about doing the same thing just after they stopped smoking on aircraft but I didnt have the oodles of dough required to launch an airline. I think this fella will make a fortune.
Incidentally, I fly a great deal (30+ flights a year) and I noticed when airlines stopped catering for smokers, "air rage" took off in a big way. I can only assume, because not all air rage incidents are drink related, that it has to do with air quality.
Maybe Marcus can help us out?
Jil S,
Although I do not know you personally, I do not believe that you are as spitefull, hatefull and arrogant as you sound. I am sure you don't mean to gloat or rub people up the wrong way, and that there is a sound reason for the way you come over. Perhaps your upbringing, or education or something you've read. Anyway I am sure you are a good person and if you are ever over in Scotland give me a call and we can have a meal or drink and discuss our differences of opinion.....through a window as I will be outside having a smoke.
GreatScot
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".
Colin
intermission
Nice to know it's for real...only €1M invest I believe.
It seems to be being promoted in Germany where incidently on BBC TV last night they interviewed a guy giving away free B&H at the world cup!
end intermission
Robin,
lovely, lovely words. Although obviously written by some deluded fool who believed that Governments are elected to serve ALL the people.
GreatScot
The Health Benefits are becoming more apparent with the good news in both the declining smoking rates and smokefree environs. Lung cancer death rates are way down in the male population. From a statistical standpoint the report states that the lung cancer deaths expected to be in the oft quoted 3000 range. Even if no one smoked indoors anymore, it would make a small blip on the annual lung cancer death and incidence charts, as most people know that first hand smoking is far more deadly.
The report has a quote by Dr Carmody saying that the 30 minute exposure is more of a concern to those with EXISTING heart disease.
Like the tobacco industry has known for years...the smoke ain't great as far as cardio/respiratory system effects. I think that the reason for the SG to put this out is in regards to the long standing tobacco industry position of "The key defense strategy in smoking and health litigation is (and must be) to try the plaintiff." Interesting reading from a tobacco law firm perspective on all this:
http://www.tobacco.org/resources.../
jonesday1.html
I did find the report a recitation of what has already been studied.
Jill, don't flatter yourself. I was referring to the fact that I wonder just how much the ATI via RWJF and/or big pharma contributed to the SG and/or his office, to get him to spew the same exact crap that they have been. I also wonder how it is that tobacco control seemed to KNOW ahead of time what was in that report that you and other anti's were gloating over it all weekend long.
Even better was the reference to SIDS which the National SIDS foundation themselves have publically announced is erroneous.
"Wow....the SG report hit the hornets nest and the bees are swarming madly around the hive. Inside the nest the queen bee is meeting with her underlings screaming: "You morons!! YOU TOTAL MORONS!!! How are we going to confuse people about the health of SHS now?"
First off, Jill, there's no bees here, except maybe you. Bees are a noble insect, I grant you, but they are programmed to do everything for the hive, and know nothing else.
The smokers and non-smokers on this blog, who support liberty and freedom of choice, can be called many things, but bees is not one of them. We are not programmed to think one way, certainly I'm not. You could, for example, put any two of us freedom inclined people in a bar that miraculously allows smoking and after the first two beers we would likely be arguing. After four beers we would be head butting each other or naughtily winking at the other man's wife. Hardly bee-like behavior, but you wouldn't recognize independent thought if it showed up at your door wearing a flashing neon sign and shooting off sky rockets.
If anyone could be described as bees, Jill, it would be your group. Your mindlees solidarity till death do you part is astounding. Just one leader bee, like the SG, breaks wind, and the rest of you flap your little wings to get a better wiff. You are almost always in a bee-like tizzy, and you do your best to invade foreign territories to pollinate the ugly flowers of mendacity, intolerance, and extortion.
You may not be a smoker Jill, but personally I would'nt let you within a hundred feet of my children, for fear that you would nanny them into literal helplessness. My guess is that even ten seconds of exposure to your hysteric nature would poison them for life.
Ok, Lynda, I made my point, you made yours. Its hard not to gloat when it confirms most everything I have been arging for for the last year. If I were a professional it wouldn't be appropriate, but as an average Jane, I am not going to sit here and pretend the new report doesn't mean anything to me. I was quite happy to read about it this afternoon, because I believe it will accelerate smoke free efforts.
As for the report itself, I am looking forward to Dr. Siegel's comments since Dr. Carmona addressed several of the issues frequently discussed on this blog. Particularly, Dr. Carmona's comments on the acute danger of short term exposure to SHS, and also Dr. Carmona's urging that smoking be considered a significant issue for pediatric visits.
"Jill, there's no bees here"
Calm down Eric, it was an analogy.
Eric, I don't think you know if I am a smoker or not, do you?
Hate to inject realty into this blog but Bush's top doctor reports:
The report by Surgeon-General Richard Carmona, which echoed the forcefulness of a 1964 Surgeon General's report that paved the way for mandatory cigarette warnings and advertising restrictions, detailed the effects of second-hand smoke and said no one should be forced to inhale it.
"The scientific evidence is now indisputable: second-hand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults," Carmona told a news conference.
http://news.google.com/news?sour...ban&sa=N&
tab=wn
Erik,
Please don't apologise, you didn't inject any reality.
The "evidence" is no more indisputable now than it was before and no one is forced to inhale SHS.
GreatScot
Great Scot. I visited the world famous medical school in Edinborough last summer. Not much smoking going on before the law took effect. Great restaurant pub just down the street from the Greyfrier's Bobby statue.
"Particularly, Dr. Carmona's comments on the acute danger of short term exposure to SHS, and also Dr. Carmona's urging that smoking be considered a significant issue for pediatric visits."
If smoking becomes a significant issue for pediatric visits, then I assure you that the chidren of 70 million smokers will no longer be visiting the pediatrician (unless circumstances are dire), and/or millions of children will learn how to lie to doctors for the sake of their parents. Unintended (but easily predictable) consequences will harm many children if this crusade into private homes and families succeeds. Count on it.
"Eric, I don't think you know if I am a smoker or not, do you?"
Are you even old enough to smoke? Based on your reasoning skills, writing ability, emotional maturity and passive/aggressive approach to people, I peg you at no older than 16.
Seems to me Jill that you spent the weekend gloating over the SGs report before it was even publically issued. THAT is what I'm talking about...........HOW could you or any of the other anti's on the other boards know what was in that report beforehand? I notice you failed to address THAT particular part of my post. Hmmmmm?
"Eric, I don't think you know if I am a smoker or not, do you?"
Golly, I guess you got me there, Jill. Let me guess though....you smoke 4 packs of non-filtered Luckies a day to reduce the stress of never minding your own business and trying to save millions of us perfect strangers from ourselves. Am I warm?
Geo,
I live about 12 miles from Edinburgh, and have had many a great night there over the years. Greyfriers' is on the edge of the Grassmarket area which used to have many a vibrant, lively pub with live music, good food and great company ( apart from the guy who stole my drink and pulled a knife on me when I protested, but that's another story). Sadly no more the atmosphere is dying.
GreatScot
National SIDs Foundation-never heard of it? Not sure where you got that info Lynda. All of the SIDS organizations that i know of all advise that maternal smoking as well as secondhand smoke is a RISK factor for sids. 1st Candle as well as Amer. Academy of Pediatrics all advise against the practise.
"""""Something just dawned on.....how is it the anti crowd was warning us AHEAD OF TIME (all weekend long) about the SGs report? HOW did they know WHAT it was going to contain?
I'm just wondering now how much the SG got paid for that AND think I'm going to start writing letters to have him and his office audited.
Lynda F | 06.27.06 - 1:54 pm | # """"""""
Bingo, Lynda. I said the identical thing on another forum. The SG's office needs to be invesitgated in regard to the leaks given to the anti-smoker cartel. I would also like an investigation into the ties between the SG's office, the anti-smoker cartel and the pharmaceutical industry. Just how much financial hanky-panky is going on between the 3?
I guess I am the "anti crowd" now. Or maybe its Erik and me. I had no knowledge of the report until this afternoon when I read it. (other than my own personal speculation). I see what you are doing though.
On another note, I think it is intersting that Dr. Siegel clarified for the first time in his post this morning that his condemnation of the 30 minute claim applies only when those with existing heart conditions are excluded. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe he's ever clarified that before.
I also wonder why Dr. Siegel would question the need for an SG report. It seems like his main goal is to disseminate better understanding of the science behind SHS. Why would someone who wants people to better understand SHS question the need for a report designed to help people better understand SHS? Something doesn't seem to be adding up.
Jill, its the SG's report that doesnt add up.
Is that why you are confused? It tells us nothing new, other than the hysteria has spread to the SG's office.
Having watched over 400 MP's and over 200 Peers being conned by the New Improved Taliban (with 85% more Puritanism, its our best yet! Get some today!) it surprises me not a jot that their cult has enveloped this poor deluded soul.
The Borg mentality is alive and well in the Land of the Free.
Are you happy yet?
Geo, I can't find it now, but I know there was a discussion complete with links on this blog sometime in the recent past. And yes, the organization might advise against smoking, it did clearly ask that the TC organizations retract its statement that smoking causes SIDS. The list of things that increases the risk of SIDS is long, and they have no idea what causes it. So claiming that smoking or SHS is a leading cause of SIDS is wrong. Babies sleeping on their stomaches also increases the risk.............see the point yet?
Jill, Dr. Siegel HAS clarified his stand on that, several times, even us smokers can agree with that particular part that it could be dangerous to someone with serious respiratory/heart problems to start with (note the key word "could" does not automatically mean it will though). The TC folks, and now the SG however, have been/are suggesting that healthy people will be dropping dead from a whiff of smoke.
Things that jump out at me...
"There is no longer a scientific controversy that secondhand smoke is a killer," he said. The report "eliminates any excuse from any state or city for taking halfway measures to restrict smoking, or permitting smoking in any indoor workplace."
Funny, I see a lot of controversy in the Scientific Community about SHS. (not including Blogs)
"There is good evidence that comprehensive smoking bans, like those in New York City and Boston, don't economically hurt the hospitality industry."
Unverified, due to all the statistical number jumbling. Anecdotal Evidence aside, has not been proven either way yet.
"Workplace smoking restrictions not only reduce secondhand smoke but discourage active smoking by employees."
So, this IS social engineering!
"Secondhand smoke can act on the arteries so quickly that even a brief pass through someone else's smoke can endanger people at high risk of heart disease. Don't ever smoke around a sick relative, Carmona advised"
Endanger how? Dropping dead? A slight cough? Leprosy? (blatant scaremongering)
"Living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker's risk of lung cancer and heart disease by up to 30 percent."
Remember yer high-school math, people! 30% increase is NEGLIGIBLE!
"There isn't proof that secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, although the evidence is suggestive. California earlier this year cited that link in becoming the first state to declare secondhand smoke a toxic air pollutant."
So now he lowers himself to anectdotes? This is a Scientific Study??!1
I am not impressed. But now the Anti's can say "It's all twue, 'cause the Sturgeon Gennral Says it so!"
(shudder)
Xylog wrote: "Workplace smoking restrictions not only reduce secondhand smoke but discourage active smoking by employees."
I love it when they say that (yes, Xylog, I realize that those are not your words but a quote from the report). Myself and every smoker I know, are now smoking even more, since all the bans are in place, we go home and smoke like chimneys, and stay home more too.
I used to smoke 2 packs a day, and then when office bans started going into effect I was down to 1 pack a day...............lately, I'm back up to 2 packs a day with fewer places to smoke THAT is not a good sign in my book.
Would love to know where they get that pathetic idea that we are doing less smoking.
U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona:
"There is no significant scientific evidence that suggests smokeless tobacco is a safer alternative to cigarettes."
And some of you people think this guy knows his stuff? You really can't make a dumber statement than that.
"As we look to the future and where childhood obesity will be in 20 years... it is every bit as threatening to us as is the terrorist threat we face today. It is the threat from within."
Today's fat kid is tomorrow's terrorist?
"The American people will make healthy choices if given the chance."
"We think there are policy changes that need to be made so people can make those healthy choices. The environment has to change so people have access to healthy food. It means more than simply showing your kids the right way to eat and how to ride a bike."
What planet is this guy from? There's already those choices. But one has to deny it in order to say if you don't make the right choice we'll make it for you.
"Workplace smoking restrictions not only reduce secondhand smoke but discourage active smoking by employees."
But the study reveals that the ban has failed to cut smoking rates; since the ban was introduced in March 2004 smoking rates have risen from 22% to just over 23% last December. The figures are based on a monthly survey of 1000 people and reveal that young people are continuing to smoke, with one in three 19-35 year olds admitting to being smokers.
Last night Jane O'Dwyer of the Office of Tobacco Control said "It is a concern. There has been a slight rise in the prevalence of smoking in Ireland, especially since around August last year."
http://
www.smokefreenorthernirel...okingPrevalence
Xylog wrote: "Workplace smoking restrictions not only reduce secondhand smoke but discourage active smoking by employees."
Doesn't seem to be working in Ireland, smoking banned, increased smoking probably in the way Lynda F described.
On SIDS an interesting discussion on BMJ a while back...
http://fn.bmjjournals.com/cgi/co...l/88/2/
F162#R2A
ETS protective?
Together with the comment...
"Is it not time that SIDS research concentrated less on smoking and more on alternative mechanisms? "
Jill, in the McTear Case (Scotland) the Judge remarked, about expert witnesses inc Prof Doll, along the lines of, just because a large majority of experts say it is so, does not make it so.
There maybe some grounds for optimism here.
be well
...
I disagree with the idea that there can be such a thing as "scientific consensus", at least in the way that the term is currently being used.
Part of what makes science SCIENCE (as opposed to religion) is that EVERYTHING is open to question. What makes one side of a scientific argument "better" than the other is NOT whether more scientists support it (or have more funding or better press) it's whether their arguments can be shown to more accurately explain the experimental data. And those experiments should be reproducable, and the limits on their accuracy should be acknowledged and understood.
I think there is a deep problem in sciences right now. I think science has become far too hierarchical and bureaucratic. I think the funding system needs to be reformed. I question the level to which scientific resources have been concentrated in the hands of the government, particularly the federal government. I question the idea that the goal of science is to reach unanimity. And I strongly believe in the right of people to disagree with the "scientific consensus".
As pathetic as a two-party system is, it is better than a one party state. I think there needs to be a scientific "second party" of some sort, at least when it comes to science that intersects with public policy. If we are going to have science by majority, then at least let it be by the majority of the population as a whole, and not by the majority of the 0.001% of the population who hold faculty positions at prominent universities or high level posts at government agencies. Let the scientific "second party" present their results to the public along with the "consensus party" and let people judge for themselves.
i look forward to mike posting on this report. it strikes me as another political report by the sg's office, right up there with the 99 report on mental illness. the media are sheep so few should be surprised about the parroting about the no-safe level business. frankly, i think the public health crowd wants everyone eating bell peppers, non smoking and non drinking, asleep by 9 pm after running three miles and taking anti-depressants!
really the only thing that's missing right now is bill godshall jumping up and down in this comments thread.
From the SG's press conference link, I have the following:
"Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion. Brief exposure can have immediate harmful effects on blood and blood vessels, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack."
Sounds like the SG is following in the footsteps of ASH and the 80+ smoker racist group claims that 30 minute exposures 'cause' heart attacks. While it worries Michael Siegel, it actually pleases me. Tobacco companies will have a field day refuting these claims.
I have no doubt that one day these passive smoke tales will be looked upon in the same way that confessions extracted during the Spanish Inquisition are looked upon today. The question is, will it take 10 years, 50 years or 500 years for it to happen.
Michael Crichton regarding consensus science:
"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics...In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of."
Nice report for the Surgeon General today:
Surgeon General: The Debate is Over. The Science is Clear
Tobacco Smoke Pollution is a Serious Health Hazard
Today, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona released a report entitled, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke. It contained the following six major conclusions:
Many millions of Americans are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in people who do not smoke.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.
Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
The scientific evidence indicates that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects people from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating sections, air cleaning systems, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate the risk of exposure to secondhand smoke.
"The debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard," Carmona said. Smoking is the nation's single greatest cause of disease and death
http://nbc15.madison.com/news/he...es/
3238186.html
Some of you will have seen the following comments elsewhere:
What is happening in our society right now is called a Social Panic or a Moral Panic. There was another Social Panic affecting the US, Canada, Britain, New Zealand, Australia and parts of Europe, from early 1980's to early 1990's. It has been called The Satanic Panic:
http://www.religioustolerance.or...g/
sra_intro.htm
I won't go into all the parallels between The Satanic Panic and the SHS Panic, but here are some things everyone ought to know and understand.
During the Satanic Panic, dozens of completely innocent persons were falsely accused of horrific crimes against children and some were falsely imprisoned on the basis of fraudulent testimony from both alleged victims and highly respected professionals from the psychiatric, medical and child welfare fields.
Members of minority communities such as the Neo-Pagan community of which I am a member, were falsely accused - by alleged experts and a constant parade of mainstream media - of causing the deaths of thousands of persons, primarily babies and children.
Essentially, the idea was that there existed secret network of satanists infesting every strata of society including law enforcement, and that these SRA cults were abusing thousands of children and kidnapping and murdering hundreds of others - or were breeding babies specifically for the purpose of blood sacrifice.
There never were any Satanic Ritual Abuse Cults. The whole thing was a fabrication, a social panic.
a number of very prominent "experts" in various fields - people whose "stature in the medical or scientific community" was vast and impecable to that point - went around making public statements of alleged fact that were in reality total bull. These people, such as Dr Bennett Braun and Dr Colin Ross, regularly had their falsehoods accepted without question by the press, by their professional journals, by their colleagues, by members of other professions, and by a significant segment of the population during these years. Nevertheless, everything they had to say on the subject was hearsay, or nonsense, or lies and falsehoods, irrational, illogical and ultimately proven -BY ORDINARY PEOPLE- to be without any validity.
The government of Ontario at one time offered credit courses in detecting Satanic Abuse, to social worker and children's aide professionals on their payroll.
Take a minute to let that sink in. The government of Ontario actively taught blatant falsehoods to professionals, and then gave them credit for having learned those lies well. (and they were far from the only government doing this).
The anti-smoking True Believers who post on this forum often seem to take great delight in posing, one way or another, a series of questions intended to scoff at our skepticism. Whether they are worded in this manner or not, they come down to questions like;
1) is it believable that respected professionals in "credible organisations" would believe and profess ideas that they have not personally verified in any way and that are in fact not true?
2) is it believable that a majority of the population could hold beliefs and ideas that are provably false and/or fraudulent?
3) is it believable that major news organisations would report false or fraudulent information, over and over, without bothering to independently verify that information?
4) is it believable that networks of professionals, and also governments, throughout the developed world would believe in and act upon ideas that have no basis in objective reality?
5) is it believable that people in our country - in this day & age - could be persecuted, prosecuted and even assaulted as a result of hysteria over issues that are in fact largely imaginary?
I have brought up the Satanic Panic, because that series of events - which took place in our society and within our lifetimes - demonstrates that the answer to all of these kinds of questions is yes.
Yes, all of these kinds of things are believable because they have all happened, in our society and within the past 25 years.
The SG was just interviewed by Tim Lerher on PBS. He mentioned the immediate damage/platelet stickiness thing too, as well as saying smokers OUTSIDE should be away from any non-smoker pedestrian traffic. He also said that 5000 "children" start smoking every day (wasn't it supposed to be 3000???). He said that parents and relatives should smoke outside their own homes. He said that everyone should stay away from and SHS (meaning to stay away from smokers). He said that a separately-enclosed smoking room in a large airport poses serious risks to non-smokers when the door is opened and closed. he was also a bit coy when asked about smoking bans (i.e. it's not my job to legislate, but to provide information..), failing to note that he on record as a tobacco prohibitionist:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac...A10014-
2003Jun3
Stay tuned for for physical attacks on smokers, outdoor bans, and legislation into private homes.
Program I mentioned is called "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
Maybe there will be a transcript/podcast?
Could it just possibly be that second hand smoke is hazardous to one's health and that the Surgeon General, CDC and every state health organization is correct?
There's nothing like shutting your ears to the voice of reason or ignoring the science which contradicts your views.The SG has a political agenda,so has every rabid group.They don't want discussion because they cannot win it,without that they are unable to impose even more bans.The US today ventures ever closer to the USSR of yesteryear.The only problem is it's taking half of the western world with it.Bask in your glory and promote deception and fraud,you've worked hard ,but you do not,nor have you ever served Public Health,only your self gratification,you've convinced yourselves of perils that exist only in the minds of those who wish to use it for their own nefarious means.How are you going to give your lives meaning and how are you going to manipulate the public in the next campaign of mass hysteria.Corruption appears to be the new american ideal,you are welcome to it.The little white stick is pronounced a weapon of mass destruction.
Here's the Surgeon General reporting today on second hand smoke (video) for those interested:
http://www.nbc5.com/health/94360...082/
detail.html
Erik the moon is made of cheese,Santa Claus lives at the north pole,SHS is a deadly virulent poison that kills the grey cells in your brain.The evidence is there and always has been,doesn't stop people claiming the hazards of SHS are monumental.
Erik - at the risk of repeating myself:
1) is it believable that respected professionals in "credible organisations" would believe and profess ideas that they have not personally verified in any way and that are in fact not true?
2) is it believable that a majority of the population could hold beliefs and ideas that are provably false and/or fraudulent?
3) is it believable that major news organisations would report false or fraudulent information, over and over, without bothering to independently verify that information?
4) is it believable that networks of professionals, and also governments, throughout the developed world would believe in and act upon ideas that have no basis in objective reality?
5) is it believable that people in our country - in this day & age - could be persecuted, prosecuted and even assaulted as a result of hysteria over issues that are in fact largely imaginary?
I have brought up the Satanic Panic, because that series of events - which took place in our society and within our lifetimes - demonstrates that the answer to all of these kinds of questions is yes.
Yes, all of these kinds of things are believable because they have all happened, in our society and within the past 25 years.
Erik wrote: "Could it just possibly be that second hand smoke is hazardous to one's health and that the Surgeon General, CDC and every state health organization is correct?"
Considering smoking rates are down by.....over 50% (I believe) what they were 50 years ago and those people, who either smoked or were constantly (note constantly) exposed to SHS everywhere they went (restaurants, bars, movie theaters, elevators, stores), were healthier than all you fragile flowers today............NO, it is NOT possible they are correct. Sorry, I just can't make those numbers jive.
I cannot make those numbers jive when those same people have stated that 160,000 people per year die of lung cancer, and that 3,000 of them are smoking related (what caused the other 157,000 cases then?).
I can't make those numbers jive when those same people claim 900,000 people per year die from heart disease, and that 43,000 of those are smoking related (what caused the other 857,000 deaths then?).
It doesn't take a PhD to do that kind of simple math.
So no, I don't believe they are correct.
I do believe they have finally destroyed any shred of respect I might have had left for the health care profession and government official.
Lynda, according to SG 3.000 lung cancers are 'caused' by passive smoking. The 157.000 presumably by smoking. The numbers seems to be rising in inverse proportion to smoking.
Some time in the future, the SG is gonna have to reverse that story, and state that 3.000 lung cancers are caused by smoking, and 157.000 by passive smoking.
Nothing like publicly criticizing a new scientific report before even reading it.
You mean a new political report don't do? What kind of "science" did they use to compile this report? Last time I looked "cherry picking and hyperbole" weren't listed under the science curriculum at my school.
"Could it just possibly be that second hand smoke is hazardous to one's health and that the Surgeon General, CDC and every state health organization is correct?
Erik | 06.27.06 - 8:11 pm | # "
How do you explain the airquality testing by the American Cancer Society which PROVES secondhand smoke is up to 25,0000 times safer than OSHA regulations?
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
And do you really think accepting funding from the Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson gives the CDC any credibility?
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....000-
people.html
The SG told us nothing new and didn't even back his talking points.
Im thinking the surplus scientist that Al Gore didnt need on the man made global warming hoax got diverted to work on this outlandish report. Have we finally gotten to the point where they are telling us that second hand smoke is worse than actually smoking yet? LOL..and they wonder why mature people have skepticism?
If this is true i think we should all file a retroactive counter suit against our ancestors who built fires in caves that made second hand cigarette smoke look like an Irish spring. I want forty acres and an oxygen bottle for life!
What about the ramifications this has on the cologne & perfume industry? Cant tell me there arent toxic chemicals being breathed in from perfumes that dont belong in human lungs! Especially high levels found around car salesmen and attorneys. Better sell your Chanel stock if you got any.
I dont even want to contemplate how many sudden infant deaths are caused by farts.
Frickin health nazis.
Can someone provide me with credible links to studies disproving the link between SIDS and ETS
Michelle
What ever shreds of respect I had left for government representatives, doctors and heath officials has practically been eliminated today, after reading the Surgeon General's attempt to reproduce a compilation of unsubstantiated scientific claims from the Tobacco Control cults and call it a report. Adolph Hitler would be enthusiastically applauding this resurrection of Third Reich fanatical policies in the USA and rest of the world.
What truly incites me is health control's belief that enough stupidity exists in our world, where anyone with a brain could even seriously consider this written disaster as a serious document. If a paper like this "report" were submitted in a university, the student would be flunked for lack of originality and faulty logic.
When I was growing up, I was reprimanded with statements like "If all the other kids jumped off a high rise building, would you want to jump off too? Be a leader not a follower!" What has happened to our so called leaders? Maybe their parents forgot to tell them that Follow-the-Leader is not a game to play as an adult either.
What I heard the SG say is "...the debate about the health hazards of secondhand smoke is over.....because I say so...."
And the sheeple in unison said "....bah....it must be so he's the head doctor..."
Soren,
This is where I get lost. Over the weekend I specifically asked Dr. Siegel for the total number of Lung Cancer deaths per year, and the total number of Heart Disease deaths per year. Then asked for how many deaths out of those numbers were supposedly from smoking/SHS. Ed psycho furnished those numbers to me, which Dr. Siegel verified in his reply stating "Ed psycho has beaten me to the punch and provided the data which Lynda asked for. And he is right. There are somewhere on the order of 160,000 lung cancer deaths per year and 900,000 heart disease deaths. So accepting the 3,000 and 43,000 deaths from SHS, the proportion of all lung cancer deaths caused by SHS is about 1.8% and the proportion of all heart disease deaths caused by SHS is about 4.3%.
Lynda - you are exactly right. When you look at this on an individual basis, you might conclude that the risk of suffering a chronic disease (either lung cancer or heart disease) from secondhand smoke is not particularly high. And that there are a lot more dangerous things out there which are more likely to kill you (car accidents are the one that gets me - every day driving down the Mass Pike I know I'm taking my life in my hands)"
Now, since I asked for the TOTAL number of deaths for lung cancer, I assumed, and wasn't really corrected on that obvious assumption later (until you just did that now), that the 160,000 was the total number of lung cancer deaths, not the total number of lung cancer deaths of known smokers only.
THIS is what makes me nuts. To me it should be simple. How many people die from lung cancer per year (smoker and non-smokers alike), and of that number, how many were smokers and how many are proven to be caused by SHS?
THAT is all I want to know. I don't need all the other mumbo jumbo. It's a simple thing. The total number, then how many smoked, and how many were PROVEN to be caused ONLY/PRIMARILY by SHS, leaving the number of unknown causes.
amazing what well-funded and/or clouty left-wingers and right-wingers(Banzhaf, Carmona) can agree on in a bipartisan fashion when they get together.
ah, yes. the right and the left have finally joined hands. both parties are so extreme, it was only a matter of time. there goes freedom...
Time to think a bit more seriously about joining in with these folks:
http://freestateproject.org/
Anonymous wrote: " Time to think a bit more seriously about joining in with these folks:"
But but but........New Hampshire is soooo cold in the winter.......why can't we find a nice temperate climate? hehehehehe
Erik, repetative posting is the mark of a child. No need to say more about that.
Bill, please tell us what there is NEW to read in this report? The only thing "new" about it is the paper it was printed on and who signed their name to the bottom. As one news report added to their coverage:
"The report isn't a new study -- rather a compilation of what's considered the best research on secondhand smoke."
We've all already read the junk science studies cited (so many of them Glantz's) and have combed through them all with a fine tooth comb.
Just about all of them arrive at results that -- if it was any other substance -- would be thrown out as arrived at by chance, bias, or confounding factors.
We've READ it all ALREADY. Only you and Jill and Erik (those here) would say the same junk science is suddenly written in stone as valid because someone of that rank simply says "because I said so."
Crap is crap. Having a king sign it makes it no less royal crap.
Now please explain why smokers are not allowed to open up their own clubs if this is not about persecuting and punishing smokers?
JustTheFacts wrote: "Now please explain why smokers are not allowed to open up their own clubs if this is not about persecuting and punishing smokers?"
Because it IS REALLY about eliminating smoking period. The news report I heard tonight, finished the little speech the SG gave ending with something about the goal being a "smoke-free country". I wasn't watching, only listening, so I'm not sure if it was the SG himself who said that or someone else. But THAT is the bottom line.
Lynda, at least in this case we could experience the crappy weather from the inside for a change...
O.K., I'm at the point that I'm thinking "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
I live in WA state and they soooo love initiatives here...you know Government by the majority. I am hoping someone could maybe tell me how I could get an initiative started to ban tobacco products outright.
I've not lost my mind, and there is a method here...I will simply use EVERYTHING that the antis are using to get my law passed.
I so dearly want to see ALL involved in this sham to go on the record and defend with a straight face how tobacco should still be legal when it is KILLING untold thousands. I will hold up this particular piece of evidence (SG report) as the cherry on top of the "mountain of evidence" that is widely available.
I'm not sure I have the real and lasting guts it would take to pull this off.. but I'm sure there has got to be some nut job out there scared out of their wits, and if they have the time, and inclination to try and outlaw tobacco... even though I love smoking, I will be the first in line to sign ANY initiative.
Make no mistake, the majority of our fellow citizens BELIEVE ALL OF THIS. No amount of reasoning, or scientific evidence to the contrary will be enough.
Make no mistake, the majority of our fellow citizens BELIEVE ALL OF THIS
Nah. Smokers are always going to be allowed to smoke. However, there are now a few restraints to protect non-smokers from the hazards of second hand smoke.
Lynda, I think you keep confusing what they claim as SHS related cancer and heart disease, as the total count for all deaths from those diseases. The 3,000 number is the (arbitrary) number they assign to SHS related incidence, and of the other 157,000 they claim that the majority (no hard numbers here) are related to direct as oppsed to passive (SHS) smoking.
Your quite right about the risk factor being so low tho, even if all cancer related mortalities were to be assigned to smoking (either directly or indirectly IE: SHS) the indirect causal figure is way below the average of many other far riskier activities, including baby sleeping on the couch with papa or mama.
Second hand smoke has NOT been proven to be CAUSAL of any ailments whatsoever, it has been "associated" with, "linked" to, "possibly" elevating the "risk" of incidence, without ever looking at other contributing factors.
But I digress, this post is about the SG's "report".
Bill asks how we can claim this report is erronious (at best), without having had the time to read and research the whole of it, fair question.
The answer my little nanny friend is simple, there is NOTHING new in the "report", it is an amalgam of all the other cherry picked, innaccurate, false, misleading, garbage that those who would use any means to control others, have put forth incessantly of late. You could practically tick the lead points off this "report" from any ASH or other Anti website, in order of appearance.
meanwhile, not one shred of evidence that there is any CAUSAL connection, possible links to, increased risk factors, lies upon lies, and the gullible sheeple eat it up.
I'll grant you that, for now, the Nanny statists have the upper hand, and will win many more battles before this becomes to much to bear for the general public, but when the backlash does happen, it will be very decisive, very strong, and very nasty to those who perpetrated this fraud upon the public, got your non extradition treaty country picked out yet Bill? I'm thinking the trials at Nuremburg will look mild by comparison, the camp at itmo bay will pale to those built for the "public health officials" who knowingly and fraudulently, led this country to war over a legal product with far fewer risks attached to it than driving your SUV to work does,
It will include the ones who are now trying to attach the train (as in gravy) to the "obesity" epidemic currently. Although I noticed on the Agitator today that the fluffernutter campaign genius has withdrawn after severe public outrage over telling those people what they should and should not eat. If nothing else, the free thinkers have learned that they cant capitulate to even tiny "reasonable" restrictions, because it never stops with reasonable from the Anti camps.
Actually, a restrictive indoor smoking ban was implemented on a federal level might not be as bad a thing as it may seem. I propose it would in fact be a Pyrrhic victory for anti-tobacco.
Firstly, any Federal smoking ban will likely be an unfunded mandate to state and local governments. They might tie it to highway funds as in the case of the 21 minimum drinking age. We all know how effective that was.
It may also introduce loopholes and exemptions. I wonder how exemptions granted under Federal law would work if they conflict with a State law?
Regardless, it will be "on the books" nationwide, and we will now be able to say that America is a "smoke free nation" but likely such a law only haphazardly enforced, especially in states which had not yet passed some form of anti-smoking legislation. It will be even less evenly enforced if no funding for smoke snitches is provided.
Furthermore, since the problem of second hand smoke will be then - in the eyes of Congress and the various States - "solved," I expect funds formerly devoted to anti-tobacco will be put to other more needful purposes, like spending more money with Bechtel and Halliburton.
And after a few years, it will go quietly away as in the case of the 55 speed limit. How many lives was that supposed to save again?
But maybe it's all moot. Who will be able to afford to clog their arteries at those smoke free restaurants, or drink their livers yellow at those smoke free bars, or gamble away their paychecks at smoke free casinos, when gas costs $5+ a gallon?
My solution? I hear real big in Ireland these days, so I'm sure it will go over famously over here in the US too. Garage party at my place! We'll do Karaoke. Donations appreciated for cheap beer and apple pie (the liquid kind).
Bill, Jill and Erik are NOT invited, they probably got a anti-smoking hate rally that night anyway.
I just read an article that many on this blog will find interesting. I'll post the web address because I don't know how to link to the blog sight.
http://spewingforth.blogspot.com...ag-rule-
to.html
Government,corporations,scientists,doctors and antis are hazardous to your health and freedoom. Smoke em' if you got em',I know i will.
Bill G sez:
Nothing like publicly criticizing a new scientific report before even reading it.
Well, Erik and Jill have pointed out that it completely vindicates their position and was what they knew all along. You could say that's sort of similar; they didn't cite details either, only linking to/cutting&pasting the press release so maybe you'll want discuss their situation here.
Most of us smokey types probably did react to the press's summary of the report and not the report itself. But then, that's the main message that gets across to people, and it's part of what concerns us about the anti-tobacco community overreaching. The talking points were on the AP wires. I think we want to be concerned with this statement and what it says to people.
It isn't too great a step to consider that the Surgeon General may have used the right legalese/statisticese to say there was no link(as Dr Siegel's recent post seems to argue--I confess, haven't read THAT in detail either) but imply it enough to allow people who read the report casually to think so. I haven't read the report. But people do look for and repeat sound bites, and these were the most readily available ones from the report and the AP summary.
So either the media or the SG is stating something many of us smokers disagree with.
ed psycho wrote:
"Bill, Jill and Erik are NOT invited, they probably got a anti-smoking hate rally that night anyway."
Probably? ROFL
jose: there are websites out there to start tracking "sick new/old building syndrom"
And I join marcus to continue to point out the Marriage of RWJF/J&J (lots of wall street activity there recently: Altria/Kraft/Pfizer) and the "Healthy Cities/Healthy People/Healthy World" campaign/agenda.
We are fast approaching the 2010 deadline for the RFP outcomes to justify "the next logical step".
I had previously posted some outcomes required by such RFP's:
Smoking in the home become illegal/legislated, and the complaint they were sadly behind schedule. This SG report will probably accelerate that agenda.
I would like to propose my new AGENDA.
Those who smoke will probably be protected by smoking against:
the new TB strain showing up in the US from other countries (as the medical "science" community has dropped the ball once again to "protect" the US citizen against new strains).
Those who smoke will probably be protected against the new strain of "the POX" that has been showing up in the US from other countries.
Those who smoke will probably be protected against ... you fill in the blanks...
I do not require the "counterfeit coin of the realm of RFP's" for this AGENDA. It is so, BECAUSE I SAID SO.
Some further ramblings:
Hillary has a new blog out there, and I for one will visit and let her know all of this. As she is a heavy participant/author of the "healthy" campaigns. I will also ask her to please get Chelsea busy providing her with a grandchild-as she seems to need to parent badly, and WE are NOT BEHAVING QUICK ENOUGH FOR HER.
I was so very angry yesterday after reading a bit of the SG report that I had to leave early for work. I walk (over a mile) everyday to work and bus home at nite. I walk because I refuse to pay 100$ a month for parking where I work, and bus home because it is ill advised to walk that far to home at nite. (I don't want to have to use the pepper spray I carry unless pushed too far - I guess now all I have to do is lite up a cigarette and blow the smoke in their faces and they will go running!! Heck who needs pepper spray or a gun???)
See how easy that was? I DECIDED how to deal with my "problem" and NO BEHAVIORAL PUBLIC HEALTH official had to DIRECT ME on HOW TO BEHAVE.
So by default I don't contribute to the air pollution to this city, I do contribute to the mass transit, I take care of my own body by default,
I WORK HARD AND I PLAY HARD and will CONTINUE TO RUN WITH SCISSORS!!!
Thanks for "listening"
capri
Anonymous wrote: "Lynda, at least in this case we could experience the crappy weather from the inside for a change..."
Only IF you didn't have to go out to work........hehehehehe
Thank you for the support Capri, the more we can spread the facts about the improper relationship between the ALA, ACS, AHA, AMA etc. and the pharmaceutical nicotine industry. The more the general public will see these reports for what they are a fear-mongering scare tactic.
BTW I notice you visit my site regularly....drop me a line sometime, Hudson might be a good midway point. I have a friend opening a new cigar bar there.
What's an RFP? I gave up after "Rabidly Freaky Punks" and "Really Frightening Plans."
Michelle--
Here's some stuff on SIDS c/p'd from an email someone sent me a few years ago:
Japanese Researchers Link Gene to SIDS
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/...2/hl/
sids_1.htm
Ulcer bug 'could cause cot death'
They found two genes which indicated the presence of H Pylori infection in 28 out of the 32 tissue samples
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english...7000/
987151.stm
The New England Journal of Medicine
Half of all cot deaths appear to be caused by a heart abnormality that can be detected in the third day of life, scientists have shown.
Researcher develops new theory for SIDS cause
http://www.abc.net.au/news/
scien...327153959_1.htm
Variation in cot death risk
Government statistics show that if the mother is the only parent the baby is five times more likely to die of SIDS than if the baby is born to married
parents.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english...3000/
893333.stm
Unmasking SIDS
As many as 5 percent of so-called "crib deaths" -actually are intentional,
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/
hsn...ing_sids_1.html
Overheating a factor in infant deaths
"It's our feeling that this is one of the most important features of prevention aside from the 'Back to Sleep' program."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/p...heat/
index.html
Despite a widespread national campaign on the dangers of babies sleeping on their stomachs, more than half of the victims of SIDS were placed in the wrong position
http://www.nationalpost.com/home...204/
392493.html
Pneumocystis carinii Infection Linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome The researchers detected P. carinii infection in 25% of 16 children aged 5 days to 1 year who had died of SIDS, compared
with only 2.9% of 342 children in the same age group who had died of other causes
http://207.102.150.158/2/16/pneumoc.htm
Why a Satisfactory Solution to the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Has Not Been Achieved
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/new...newsl/
kalo.html
Thomas G. Keens, M.D., and Sally L. Davidson Ward, M.D.
Childrens Hospital Los Angeles
http://www.sids-network.org/drugs.html
Air Pollution and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in the United States
http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/repo...ds/
sidsexec.htm
End of paste. Dunno if the links are still good. But hope that's of help.
Walt-I like your acronyms better!
RFP= Request For Proposal
RFI= Request For Information
It's what ALL US ANYSIZE GOVERNMENTS, UNIVERSITIES, SCHOOLS, NONPROFIT ORGINAZATIONS thrive and survive on.
Ask Dr Mike-
It's how his department of social behavioral engineering keeps on chugging along.
An RFP had a noble original intent.
"I wish to prove this....."
"this is how I will prove this..."
"this is the 'outcome' I will attempt to prove this..."
"you give me this amount of dollars/support/whatever...and I will give you this..."
At it's basest- the barter system.
Which, I believe, the barter system is a pure system at it's basest.
The RFP is unrecognizable today in it's corrupted state.
The RFP was never meant to create CAREERS in and of itself.
Folks at ASH, etal., have decided that the RFP is now of itself a CAREER choice, and a lovely cushy powerful CAREER it is....
Marcus: you bet I check up on you alot-making sure you are still chugging along. What's up with the Sue Jeffers campaign these days? Haven't been to her site in a while. By the way-waiting on bandamage $$ reports here in lil san fran Madison...and will report to you the closings (July 05 was the beginning, so waiting on a year + for the info).
Mr Godshall-Ira has been absolutely giddy here in lilsanfran madison.com forum...and there's a lurker I believe here, Genie, who has popped on that forum with info directly from here and other sites.
So remember! Lurking and Lying In Wait is still a statute under the criminal code, punishable by fine and/or jailtime!!
Thanks for "listening"
capri
Capri: I posted the link to prove that while government proclaims smoking bans to be for "protecting workers' health" they openly try to ban workers from information that "MIGHT" just do that. (WHO KNOWS THOSE SAME CHEMICALS MIGHT JUST BE THE SAME ALLEDGED CHEMICALS FOUND IN SHS "IMMEDIATE ACTION MUST BE TAKEN" OR WORKERS EXPOSED WILL SUFFER FROM EAR ACHES, INGROWN TOENAILS, DANDRUFF, BAD BREATH AND WHATEVER ELSE IS ASSOCIATED WITH SHS). I'm not trying to imply that these chemicals are dangerous or safe. I work around chemicals and other "so called" hazardous materials yet I don't go around blaming others for my personal job choice. I accepted the job of my own freewill. Nobody's to blame but me. Capri I'm not sure if my posting was misunderstood, it was short and unspecific. I was trying to show how hypocritical people are by focusing on one alledged danger (shs) and not focusing on another alledged danger (chemical exposure). If anyone thinks that I was trying to use scare tactics then i apologize (oops, my bad) that wasn't my intention. Do I believe in property rights? YESSSSS!!!!! Do I believe in governtments or anyone else intruding into our personal lives? NO WAY JOSE. Just my 200 centavos.
jose:
sorry if I was not clear either! I have a canda/us sick building syndrom evaluation document we are using/circulating in our "new" (2001) building, tracking our group symptoms...and yes, it is across the board/smokers-nonsmokers-neversmokers-big, little, vegan, meateaters, allergics, physically compromised and on....
I meant to show I agree with you!
This week a deisel crane has been in operation next to our building by our air ventilation system.
Diesel fumes in the building everyday this week-coworkers going home with headaches, red eyes, sore throats and on and on.
When they come in and clean the carpeting at nite (i work until 9 pm) I would be choking with the chemical fumes during "extractions", and my coworkers at nite - the same thing. Nonsmokers.
The "outgassing" of materials is ongoing with the less ventilation to conserve energy, costs, no need to filter that great because there is no smoking of cigarettes anywhere in the building. Rather like the airplane deal.
Jose: I agree with you and apologize for coming across as curt.
Thank you for "listening"
capri
Commenting by HaloScan
