I think part of the reason that it is important to emphasize that there is no safe exposure is precisely because the relationship between SHS and coronary heart disease is NOT linear.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/c...ll/328/7446/
980
Therefore, if people use the standard "dose is the poison" metric, they would expose themselves to a much greater risk than they realized, due to the non-linear relationship between SHS and CHD.
In fact, it seems to me that nothing could be worse than if the public felt that a little is OK, when in fact 1% SHS exposure causes a 33% risk.
I'm not sure what the point is. Perhaps it's to scare people into avoiding smoke. And maybe that's a good thing.
Dr. Siegel,
It is never a "good thing" to scare people using baseless fears and propaganda. I don't care what the outcome is. The fact remains that the Surgeon General of the UNited States stated on national TV and print media, to millions of people, that they should be in fear of their lives whenever encountering ANY SHS under ANY circumstances, inside OR outside, anywhere.
The entire tobacco control movement has slipped into a Bizzaro-world mindset. In this world, as the opportunites for exposure continually decrease (less people smoking in the first place, indoor bans, outdoor bans, etc.), the danger of SHS increases exponentially. More and more extreme measures are called for to protect non-smokers from less and less lf a "threat" to their well being.
And to pit nonsmokers against smokers more vehemently.
This is exactly what is going to happen. I can imagine a situation where someone is smoking outside, and their next door neighbor will accuse the smoker of harming the health of his family. Of course, the smoker is causing no more harm to the neighbor's family any more than the neighbor's outdoor wood burning fire pit or barbecue grill is causing the smoker ... namely NO HARM AT ALL. But, what defense will the smoker have in this case? After all, the Surgeon General himself said so!
Family relations, as if they are not precarious enough in this day and age, will continue to deterioriate. Children will be forbidden to visit relatives who smoke. Members of the family who smoke will be attacked and shunned as heartless killers.
Strangers will think nothing of telling a smoker, OUTDOORS or INDOORS, to either put it out or be beaten, killed, reported to the authorities for child abuse, spat upon, whatever.
I can go on and on but I think you get the point.
I couldn't care less about how these LIES will affect the "credibility" of the tobacco control movement. I am concerned about how this hate/fear mongering will affect PEOPLE. Alarmist propaganda that has NO basis in fact spouted by a government official will only serve to further tear apart the fabric of a rational society.
I honestly feel bad for you because you are seeing something you believe in exposed for the horror it really is. But, I think you have to honestly face two things:
1. The TC movement has already lost its scientific credibility. It has become a social engineering movement, not one based in science. It surrendered the scientific aspect once it started crafting and disseminating propaganda instead of scientific reports and medical studies.
2. As such, The TC movement doesn't need scientific credibility to push its agenda forward.
I would strongly suggest that if you want to honestly and scientifically assess the true health risks of tobacco on smoker and non-smoker alike, you should put your efforts into serious bio-medical research (as opposed to numbers games) as you are a physician and that is your area of expertise. Maybe you can help solve some real medical problems and help develop real, provable treatments for disease.
Thanks for listening.
"Perhaps it's to scare people into avoiding smoke. And maybe that's a good thing. But perhaps, instead, the effect...." is that hospitality businesses go bankrupt, people lose jobs and health insurance all based on lies and exaggerations because the ends justifies the means.
And the declaration of war has been cast unto the public....
What a shame to live in these times, times that will pit brother against brother, father against son, teacher against parent, doctor against patient.
This is nothing less than an absolute announcement that the Surgeon General has just declared war on, minimally, 1/5 of the population.
It is time to arm ouselves, for our own self protection, we must now always be on gaurd for the neighbor turned informer, the stranger who will want to attack us physically, and be justified in killing us as we were "endangering" them with the few wisps of smoke they walked by.
I don't like this, but I believe it has gone well beyond a war of words at this point, the government itself has publicly told the populace that they now have the right to despise us, to forcefully administer their fears upon us, and it will get worse.
Do any of you recall what happened to almost every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence? To a man, they ended their lives, either killed for their beliefs, bankrupted and hounded into debtors prison, and into losing everything from wealth, to public standing, to their families and very lives.
This, I fear will be the fate of those most vocal in their fight against this new rearing of an old tyranny.
This government has now declared open season upon lawful citizens, using a legal product, which is financing the very war against us, for no other reason than a few hate filled individuals have had their say into ears bought with our blood money.
There is no reasoning with tyranny, and good men should not stand by while evil is loosed upon the world, in the name of "public health".
It is time to take up arms my fellow travelers, take to the streets, now, and tell every person you see that the war is coming, that they best prepare themselves to defend their rights, their property, and even their very lives against the hate that has been sanctioned by our ruling class.
They want provable deaths from smoking? they will fill the graveyards with our bodies before this hate can be controlled now that Pandora's box has again been opened upon an unwitting mankind.
I think Dave Hitt said it best in a column a few months back...R.I.P. United States of America,
In my opinion,(not Dave's),it was a noble experiment, that ultimately proved flawed and failed.
"Therefore, if people use the standard "dose is the poison" metric, they would expose themselves to a much greater risk than they realized...."
Excuse me Jill but you are talking out of your........
The poison IS in the dose, if you don't believe that I strongly suggest you stop breathing this instant. You see, with that last breath you inhaled 4% of a "hazardous" chemical.....carbon dioxide which is fatal at a 20% concentration.
Still believe the B.S. argument there is no safe level?
BTW can anybody tell me the relationship between the CDC and the Surgeon General?
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am NOT advocating offensive violence against anyone. I am suggesting that anyone, who is a smoker, who loves a smoker, or who just honestly cares about their right to decide their own lives and risks, be made ready to defend themselves against the escalation in violence that is sure to follow this pronouncement by the Surgeon General, fitting post (General)for someone who has openly declared war on his own countries citizens.
Again, Do NOT start the violence, but do be prepared to defend yourselves from those, shall we say, more zealous believers, who will attack us in this fraud.
Jill,
I keep saying this: The constituents of automobile exhaust is substantially similar to tobacco smoke!
Carbon Monoxide: Found in both
Benzo-a-pyrene: Found in both
Cyanide: Found in both
Acrolien: Found in both
Hydrazine: Found in both
Benzene: Found in both
Toluene: Found in both
Ammonia: Found in both
PM2.5 soot: Found in both
If there is no safe level or dose response relationship between tobacco smoke exposure and health risks, there is certainly by the same line of logic no safe level of exposure to automobile exhaust, as they're made out of basically the same ingredients.
Or would you finally explain why smoke from tobacco has these magically evil properties, but smoke from a car or a campfire does not?
Be careful ed, the lightrail transit companies will soon be lobbying local governments for combustion engine bans........it seems to be working for the competitors of big tobacco.....that being Nicoderm.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....at-
started.html
Ben -
1. Cars aren't run indoors where the fumes are trapped. If you run a car inside, it will kill everyone in the room.
2. Cars have very hot catalytic converters which oxidize 95% of the pollutants in raw exhaust.
Ben, do you visit any restaurants that burn open camp fires indoors?
Anonymous, you remind me of the year 2000 people who went out and bought shot guns, chain saws and armored their pickup trucks because they thought the world was going to end on midnight, Dec 31, 1999.
Jill wrote, "In fact, it seems to me that nothing could be worse than if the public felt that a little is OK, when in fact 1% SHS exposure causes a 33% risk."
Can you please explain how you came up with those numbers? That doesn't appear to be accurate.
Jill, they burn charcoal in grill your own steak joints.
Should we close them all down?
Jill,
By the "no safe levels" reasoning, it doesn't matter that 95% of the pollutants are gone. There's still 5% left of the toxic elements of which there are no safe level.
And even if cars run outdoors, they still get rid of their exhaust somewhere.
Given how the Surgeon General also considers *outside* second-hand smoke to be dangerous when he says "no safe level" and "stay away from smokers," you can't rely on the analogy of sticking a car inside a restaurant. In fact, in the study you pull those results from, they pull from a "typical" nonsmoker--nothing to do with indoors or outdoors.
You might as well assume that any deaths caused by the car knocking down a wall to get in the middle of the restaurant for a situation like (1)...should be due to the chemicals in the exhaust. OK, maybe not, but without producing any exhaust, the car could never have gotten there!
Frank, Follow my link and read the article. The Surgeon General also talks about the non-linear relationship between SHS and heart disease in his report.
Yes, car pollution is harmful.
Jill wrote: "2. Cars have very hot catalytic converters which oxidize 95% of the pollutants in raw exhaust."
Ahhhh, THAT must explain why the air outside is soooooo much more polluted these days then, right?
AND if the car exhaust is soooo clean, then why not run it indoors now? Could it be that it is because that 5% is STILL DEADLIER than cigarette smoke?
But completing the analogy, Jill...you can't just say "yes, car pollution is harmful" and leave it at that, or you would be open to doing that for cigarettes. Why not propose a car ban? Or health-based gas rationing? Or is it because there are mitigating factors to keep cars on the road, much as allowing smoking in bars helps more businesses keep afloat?
I do however see one parallel between cars and tobacco: encourage restaurants to go smoke free(tax incentives etc.,) but don't force them to. Encourage people to carpool etc., or walk or bike or use public transport, or provide tax incentives, but you can't force them to. Of the two I think the second is more forward thinking in terms of the future problems we will faced, but it gets dismissed as a novelty in the face of tobacco bans now. Not as dramatic, either.
One can say that there is no safe level of exposure to any carcinogen
That's very true. That's why you don't want to inhale any Radon or Benzene if you can help it.
With other substances, like Vitamin A, there are safe levels that are acceptable. Within those levels, there is no health risk. However, up to a certain level, there can be a benefit.
The difference with carcinogens, like those contained in second hand smoke, is that they are never beneficial and can only cause harm.
Some of the constituents of tobacco smoke (like CO) can be helpful to the body in certain circumstances.
It is not true that every consituent of tobacco smoke is ALWAYS harmful to ALL people at ANY dose.
Siegel writes:
"One can say that there is no safe level of exposure to any carcinogen. There is no safe level of exposure to car exhaust. There is no safe level of exposure to the sun's rays. There is no safe level of exposure to X-rays. There is no safe level of exposure to the benzene that is found in some sodas. There is no safe level of exposure to radon in homes. There is no safe level of exposure to arsenic that is found in many people's drinking water."
Um, sure. "One can say." As one can also SAY the sun rises in the west. Or" twas brillig and the slithy toves...." The language is flexible; the facts are not. And in the context of your article you seem to give a fair bit of credence to those statements.
The "no safe level/carcinogen" myth was totally busted about 25 years ago. Read, for just one good example, Bruce Ames. Clearly there ARE safe levels of exposure to everything you mention-- and not only that, but universally safe levels. Like, no one-- categorically-- has ever gotten melanoma from a short walk on rhe beach, and so on for every one of the trillions of substances-- and septillions of exposures-- to the "known carcinogens" that make up the planet and the contemporary world.
And you've already noted yourself the long list of substances and life experiences that muck up the platelets and the vaso-elasticity. Can you tell me then, how many heart attacks are causes by a hamburger a week? vs 17 a year? And I want an exact Number. Like.. 47,000. (In fact, Harvard's Walter Willett has said, specifically, that margerine's death toll is 35,000 a year.) So quick, which did it: the smoking wife or the biscuit? The anger during the traffic jam (of which there is apparently "no safe level" ) or the tension before the exam. This can get pretty silly,
Or ugly silly.
Try as you will, there are no realistic "alternative scenarios" that'll spring from this purposely inflammatory report. Frightened cattle tend to stampede, and the results aren't pretty; not even for the cattle.
People who are frightened won't decide, as you suggest, that Gee, I'm exposed to a wisp here and there so I might as well go for broke. No, they'll go for the "here" and "there." They'll clamor to have a law that evicts their smoking neighbors. They'll worry that yesterday's cigarette, outgassed from somebody's coat, will contaminate their own coat and later infect their kids. There'll be lawsuits and assaults. And downhill from there.
You'll certainly find me fighting as long as I've got the slightest odds-against chance, but i'm perfectly serious about following in the footsteps of my immigrant forebears and knowing when to Get Out.
Jill (to whom I'll leave a less-than-free, but wondrously smoke-free country)--
You seem to be saying that cars are okay outdoors-- but cigarettes aren't???
But then cars are indoors too. In indoor parking garages, Where they drive in and out, and occasionally even idle while the driver's paying his tab. And people work in those garages. They're ventilated,yes. But ventilation doesn't work. Solution: ban cars from indoor parking garages,. So's the workers can all be safe. Right?
And let's see, you've claimed , I believe, to hang out in Hwd bars. Ever been to a southwest grill? Open mesquite cookig pits right in the very room. Or those romantic inauthentically French bistros (inauthentic for no smoke) but those candles on the table! Airborn particulates! Products of combustion!
Run, Jill, run.
.
EriK--
Nicotine is known to be beneficial. In fact, it's recommended for medical conditions as well as producing pleasure, releif of tension, and sharpened mental acuity,
On the other hand if you think there's "no safe level" get after Johnson and Johnson and ban those patches
Besides the fact that "secondhand smoke" was a term unheard of twenty years ago, the logic behind saying that it is a health hazard is synonomous with saying that if you are in the same room with someone eating a spicy taco who farts downwind of you, your risk of esophageal erosions will increase. If you can smell alcohol on someone's breath, you'll get drunk. If your neighbor is cooking hamburgers on his grill, your cholesterol will go up. You know, millions of Americans are going to drop like flies next Tuesday when the 4th of July fireworks shows begin at dusk. Oh, wait a minute! How foolish of me! That's not deadly secondhand tobacco smoke.......Surely the miniscule trace of smoke eminating from a wad of tobacco wrapped in 3 inches of paper is far worse than the smoke produced by tons of pyrotechnic fireworks that will blast through the sky for 45 minutes in countless towns across what is rapidly becoming the People's Republic of America. The Surgeon General is a moron, and like others on here who fear fanatical repurcussions against smokers, I do, too. But there is always hope that the majority will come to their senses by seeing his true colors;that of a social engineer. Can you say, A-D-O-L-P-H H-I-T-L_E-R?It's time for the hysteria to come to an end, folks. Secondhand smoke is so diluted by comparison that it would require several CENTURIES of exposure to even approach what a direct smoker takes in.
Erik wrote:
"The difference with carcinogens, like those contained in second hand smoke, is that they are never beneficial and can only cause harm."
Really? I could have sworn I read where sunlight (a carcinogen) had health benefits. Something to do with vitamin D.
I also read where a researcher claimed that 60,000 people die each year from too little sunlight, a carcinogen.
Are you sure, Erik?
"1. Cars aren't run indoors where the fumes are trapped. If you run a car inside, it will kill everyone in the room. --- Jill"
So you better stay indoors, Jill. But wait, how do the toxic fumes from car exhausts get removed when the outdoor air is brought inside?
If those fumes kill people inside, by which miracle wouldn't they kill outside. Remember, the SG says there is NO safe level.
"2. Cars have very hot catalytic converters which oxidize 95% of the pollutants in raw exhaust."
And those pollutants become what when they are oxidized? NO, CO, NO2, CO2, Ozone, ... And stil you find all these not only inside a restaurant, but also inside your own home, Jill. Yuck, how disgusting.
"Ben, do you visit any restaurants that burn open camp fires indoors?"
No, I don't, I'm afraid of the SHS from cooking, grills, and candles:
Exposure to carcinogenic PAHs for the vendors of broiled food.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
I believe that tater tots are also a carcinogen according to the state of California.
(I'm not kidding; the starch in potatoes produces a chemical when fried which is on the California EPA's list of carcinogenic substances, and there was some debate about putting surgeon general type warnings on potato chips)
Texas Dave:
Proposition 65 and the Anti-Acrylamide, Anti-French Fries, Anti-Potato Chip Frenzy
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
There is no safe level of potato chips, says the SG.
I'm standing on a chair and screaming BRAVO at the top of my lungs to cj, Walt, and Pat for the posts previous to this.
Jill is so twisted in a pretzel in trying to legitimize her hate. She'll pervert anything -- even changing the first perversion into another -- to make it damn well fit. The eternal square peg in the round hole.
"One can say that there is no safe level of exposure to any carcinogen
That's very true. That's why you don't want to inhale any Radon or Benzene if you can help it.
The difference with carcinogens, like those contained in second hand smoke, is that they are never beneficial and can only cause harm." -Erik
One can say that if they are trying to mislead and be a fear monger.
So in your example Erik where are the demands to ban Benzene -naturally present from all the diesel exhaust, or Radon -naturally ocurring radiation gas levels from the ground.
Do you know why there is no demand to ban either?....because there is an acceptable, safe exposure level for both.....and also because your financial backer doesn't manufacture a benzene substitute patch.
I think Dr Siegel may have overlooked one other little factor in his reasoning about minimizing exposure. If no exposure level is safe, if ANY exposure WILL eventually CAUSE cancer in children(or anyone else) exposed to it, aren't we all walking dead men now? Who hasn't already been exposed to SHS?
Really, I don't know ANYONE who has not been transiently exposed to the carcinogens as found in tobacco smoke, be it from exposure to cigarettes, car exhaust, campfires, housefires, burning ditches to clear the weeds, charcoal, or even gas barbeques, etc, etc.
So, now that everyone knows they ARE going to contract lung cancer and they most certainly will die from it, who do they blame?
Why does the government continue to allow this deadly product to be manufatured, sold and used? (Not to mention taxed)? They recall thousands of products every year for their dangers to the public. They immediately prevent further sales and use of these dangerous products, where is the recall on tobacco? Who, in government is responsible for taking my taxes on this product to balance their budgets, all the while knowing that the Surgeon Generals office has declared that there is no safe level of exposure, and therefore, who do I sue in government for failing to protect my health these last 45 years (since the 1961 Surgeon Generals office released the findings that smoking was dnagerous), and did nothing to remove this deadly product from the general public? I was a toddler when the government KNEW this about tobacco, why have they failed to protect my health and life?
We are ALL already past the point where further action will remedy this situation, if even brief, one whisp, exposure is sure to CAUSE all of this. So why the fight to protect the doomed? According to the report, it even affects us on the genetic level, so we are already to late to protect our progeny. And yet, still no calls to have this product immediately recalled, all sales manufacture, production, distribution, possession outlawed immediately, why not? where are the tax rebates for those of us who used this product, and paid so much in taxes, when the Surgeon General's office KNEW it WOULD kill us? The office of the SG should be reprimanded severely, and criminally for failing to protect the public, the government should be all be impeached for failing to protect the general public, after all, they knowingly still allow, and profit from this deadly product. right Jill, Bill, Erik, et al?
Car exaust is dangerous if you suck directly from a tailpipe, or if you run a car indoors. Obviously, that's how people commit suicide. Outside exhaust gasses are not trapped and dissipate into the 40 mile deep blanket of air. Would it be better if cars didn't have exhaust? Yes. But it could cost trillions to ban car emissions. I support laws requiring catalytic converters, egr, pcv systems, which are all designed to reduce emissions. We've spent millions of dollars to reduce auto pollution. We can reduce tobacco smoke pollution and save lives for free - ban smoking indoors.
psyco ed: You're logic is flawless of course. Auto exhaust has been studied. and the excess cancer deaths due to it has been estimated to be 250 or so excess cancer deaths. Of course, a large number of these deaths are probably to guys working in garages. Probably why we don't like to eat in a restaurant with a car running.
This whole argument will be solved.
Ben pal you're absolutely right. I'm glad to see that you believe in evolution. I think that given a few thousand years, say about 50,000, the human body would develop genes resistent to cig smoke that causes lung cancer if the health community remained silent. Of course that would involve bankrupting the health care system (BCBS pays out 35% to treat lung cancer alone out of the total cancer budget) What most of you are proposing is to leave the issue alone. The people with genetic susceptability to lung cancer from cig smoke will self-select their genes out of the gene pool. Some call it Darwin's law.
Jill - I truly hope you only do your cooking for your family outdoors and only rely on sweaters and blankets for heat indoors in the winter.
No more ridiculous than your claims about SHS.
Here goes the wave of lawsuits:
Father Files Lawsuit Over Secondhand Smoke
WOODLAND HILLS, Calif. - In what may be the first litigation of its kind, the father of a 5-year-old girl with asthma is suing the Woodland Hills apartment complex where they live because of secondhand smoke. Video
The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Van Nuys Superior Court on the girl's behalf by her father, John Birke, who is an attorney, against Oakwood Apartments in Woodland Hills, where young Melinda Birke lives with her parents.
The family's lawyer, Michael Sohigian, said it may be the first time someone has filed a lawsuit attempting to have secondhand smoke declared a public nuisance.
Melinda has had pneumonia three times since 2003, and she has suffered from asthma and chronic allergies since she was 18 months old, the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified general and special damages, alleges a public nuisance exists at the apartment complex because management allows smoking by tenants and visitors in outdoor common areas.
Jessica Shih, a spokeswoman for Oakwood Worldwide in West Los Angeles, owners of the Woodland Hills complex, declined to comment on the lawsuit.
On Tuesday, the Office of the Surgeon General issued a report stating that non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke have as much as a 30 percent greater risk of suffering heart disease and lung cancer, the lawsuit stated.
In addition, Oakwood management acknowledged the findings of a California Air Resources Board report in January that found secondhand smoke to be a "toxic air contaminant," but still allows outdoor smoking, the lawsuit states.
According to the lawsuit, secondhand smoke from cigarettes and cigars at the Oakwood Apartments can be smelled at the swimming pools, the barbecue areas, the children's playground, the outdoor dining area and the entrances to the rental office and clubhouse.
"In addition, there is no area in the entire ... complex where one cannot find multiple cigarette butts, including all of the walkways, planted areas and the stairwells," the lawsuit states.
Melinda has picked up butts from sidewalks within the apartment grounds, and other toddlers may have touched the butts or put them in their mouths, according to the lawsuit.
The secondhand smoke conditions at Oakwood Apartments are harmful to one's health, indecent and offensive to the senses, and interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life, the lawsuit asserts.
John Birke complained repeatedly about the conditions to management, but nothing was done, according to the lawsuit.
Management encourages smoking by putting ashtrays near the swimming pools and other outdoor locations on the apartment complex grounds, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit says an Oakwood representative told Birke that management had made a "business decision" not to ban smoking in outdoor areas.
Jil S,
On a previous thread I stated that I did not believe you are a bad person, however your continuing irrational arguements /logic and spitefull messages makes it apparent that you are insufferable.
Car exhausts dissipate and rise into the heavens but smoke doesn't. Car exhausts are dangerous only in enclosed spaces or sucked staight from the tailpipe. Tobacco smoke polution? Next smokers will be blamed for the hole in the ozone layer and global warming.
You are unbelievable.
GreatScot
Jill S. wrote: "We've spent millions of dollars to reduce auto pollution. We can reduce tobacco smoke pollution and save lives for free - ban smoking indoors."
Then please explain to me why the air is more polluted NOW than ever before? You must be joking or living on another planet. AND if this very deadly car exhaust can dissipate into the outdoor air safely, to justify its continued use, how is it that cigarette smoke somehow magically kills with one whiff outdoors? hmmmmm? Do you even see what you write here? Explain the logic of this to me. There is none. And yes, they ARE banning outdoor smoking too, so don't even try to argue they aren't.
I think that the efforts of Dr Siegel and others (such as regular readers of this blog) to clarify tobacco/smoking related health issues and expose pseudo-science & propaganda, are heroic.
Unfortunately, I remain skeptical that these efforts will ultimately have much impact on the anti-smoker Juggernaut, because - all of these alleged health issues are not REASONS for anti-smoker legislation, they are justifications and rationalizations for conducting hate-motivated campaigns of legislative retribution against the boors who blew smoke in people's faces over the years and the tobacco companies that so many people blame for the deaths of loved ones.
The campaigns of retribution and persecution will continue regardless of the provable health facts, because they are not honestly motivated by health issues - they are in reality motivated by bigotry and hatred, as Mike has noted numerous times.
On a happier note - tomorrow is Canada Day! For those of you who don't know a lot about Canada, here is some trivia you may find interesting:
Canada was discovered and founded 66 years ago by an American oil surveyer named Terrence Smith.
On Canada Day, it is traditional to bring a moose into your igloo just before midnight. After midnight, everyone takes their dogsled to the local Tim Horton's for delicious beaver haggis. Then we all gather around the enormous outdoor ice rinks to watch the lumberjacks play hockey until the wee hours of the morning.
Josh,
with the incontrovertable "evidence" contained withein th SG's report about SHS there will be no burden of proof required. Since all the worlds woes, illness's and diseases are the responsibility of smokers, the American legal system can jump straight to awards on the strength of a doctor's statement and save a lot of time and expense on Lawyers.
What a sad world we live in.
GreatScot
I rather think that little Jill is taking the P out of everyone with her increasingly madcap arguements .The book that she must be reciting from obviously comes from Ash as the rhetoric is as preposterous as Banzoff's .Is this the calibre that Public Health has sunk to ?With Jill's skills and prowess of coercing those who do not meet the agendered requirement how does she hope to persuade smokers from smoking?Hit them over the head with a piece of lead piping?Or is Public Health a misnomer for one of the numerous anti SMOKER groups.This would i believe fit Jill's obvious sadistic ability.As to the previous comment concerning litigation,it could only happen in the US.Why ? because everywhere else citizens are tasked with accepting the decisions that they make.In the US the proven mentality is to blame everyone apart from themselves.With this backdrop,litigation is a driving force for itself and its immoral perpetrators,such as Banzof who capitalise on the fear instilled and utilises it to his advantage by bullying and intimidating people.What a concept for freedom and democracy,almost as good as comparing Jill's bedside manner with the Boston STRANGLER.
Dr Mike wrote:
"Rather than being a call for specific and prioritized actions to prevent disease in the most effective and efficient manner possible, it seems that the publicity put out by the Surgeon General's office is more of just a general public scare, devoid of any priorities, focus, or policy or intervention directives. It appears more like a vague warning of "Fire," rather then a clear directive like "Fire at 12 Main Street. Evacuate 12 Main Street, and then 8 and 10 Main Street." You don't want to go on television to tell people that there is a fire at 12 Main Street and everyone is potentially at risk. You want to first evacuate those buildings. We need to have some sense of direction and priorities in public health, and they should be based on a rational assessment of levels of risk. And that means that you have to evaluate and consider dose."
and SCREAMING OUT THE WORD FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATRE OR OTHER PUBLIC PLACE WHEN THERE IS NO FIRE IS:
A FELONY punishable by prison time, fines, fees, costs and on...
Has the SG screamed "FIRE" for the entire nation of FREE US CITIZENS...and let the chips fall where they may???
thanks for "listening"!!
Any bets folks when we can expect the first mass tort in the US?
"Parents of asthmatic children call this number. NOW"
I am sure we can all think of a "reputable" lawyer who may be interested.
GreatScot
A quick science based question (I think).
At what level are NNKs carcinogenic in Humans?
In the report NNKs are used as evidence of the link to lung cancer.
Can someone translate please. What level (as a % of the level asked for above) are the amounts found in people exposed to ETS?
Also, related to the above, in a known carcinogen is there a risk increase if the levels are below those known to cause cancer?
thanks
I think it's time for every american smoker to buy a pistol and to be ready to use it ready everytime they are having a smoke.
Josh posted from an article:
"According to the lawsuit, secondhand smoke from cigarettes and cigars at the Oakwood Apartments can be smelled at the swimming pools, the barbecue areas..."
The barbeque areas. Plural. Why aren't THEY part of the lawsuit? Amazing.
"In addition, there is no area in the entire ... complex where one cannot find multiple cigarette butts, including all of the walkways..."
Okay. One way to cut down on that litter would be ashtrays. Let's see what they think of that idea:
"Management encourages smoking by putting ashtrays near the swimming pools and other outdoor locations on the apartment complex grounds, according to the lawsuit."
You just can't make some people happy.
I'm starting to believe SHS could be harmful. It turns some people into raving lunatics.
I probably shouldn't find this amusing, but I do...the prohibitionists always end up unconsciously giving away their true motivations. Somehow, they just can't help themselves.
In one of the news stories about the SG's report, I found this quote:
"Smoking parents send the message to their children that smoking is OK," said Weinberger, director of the Pediatric Allergy and Pulmonary Division at University of Iowa Hospital in Iowa City, Iowa. "[It] increases the likelihood that the children will also smoke."
There might actually be legitimate health concerns regarding parents smoking around children, but even if there are, THAT'S not the driving motivation for legislating smoke-free vehicles and homes. The real concern is, children are (statistically) more likely to take up smoking if their parents smoke - therefore parents who smoke are interfering with the real agenda of driving the tobacco companies out of business by eliminating their customer base, so they have to be "encouraged" (through criminalization of their behaviour if necessary) to stop smoking.
The same is true for workplace smoking bans. Even IF there are legitimate health concerns about employeee exposure to ETS, the real motivation for legislated smoking bans is still their potential for "encouraging" workers to quit smoking. I've posted several expressions of that motivation by leading TC professionals, here.
Now here a slice of reality for the prohibitionists:
Among lower income and impoverished families, once a teenaged child secures employment and their own income, they become a resource in that family's Reciprocity Circle. They are very likely to be accorded a status of 'near peer' and accorded more "adult" privilege within the family and the Reciprocity Circle than the larger society would grant them (including legally).
IF the parents are substance users (including smokers), their own teenaged, working children become a potential source of supply - but, naturally, only if the teen becomes a user of the substance themselves...
It is therefore probable that prohibitionist measures, such as high taxation on tobacco products, actually ENCOURAGES the social recruitment of teen children as users of the substance.
Now, to put this into a truly frightening perspective - Roy and I have known teenaged HEROIN users who were "turned on" by their parents. By their parents! Why? Possibly because, once their kids get hooked they will become a source of supply for that parent? Oh yes. This is reality.
How terribly evil these parents must be, eh? That's easy to see, but what is harder to see is the evil of the prohibitionist policies that DRIVE addicted parents to recruit their own children as users by creating artificial scarcity and obscene cost of their substance, necessitating such evil practices.
geo: You're logic is flawless of course. Auto exhaust has been studied. and the excess cancer deaths due to it has been estimated to be 250 or so excess cancer deaths.
So, let me get this straight.....millions and millions of cars constantly spewing the same "carcinogens" as ETS into the air, but in MUCH higher quantities only cause "250 or so excess cancer deaths" (all types, I'm assuming), but ETS "causes" 3000 (lung cancer alone)?
And you actually believe this tripe?
Or is that magical catalytic converter filtering out so much of the "carcinogens" that it's a non-issue?
Maybe we should use one in bars and restaurants, huh?
Out of curiousity, do you also have "expert" numbers on how many deaths from heart disease and respiratory ailments are caused by car exhaust?
Just so we can compare those too?
I'm constantly amazed just how deadly ETS is.
We absolutely must put a stop to this incredible societal menace!
Why just today, I watched 2 non-smokers drop dead as I walked past with my lit cigarette. It never even occured to me that it was my cigarette that might be the cause.....many thanks for putting me on the straight and narrow, geo.
Of course, a large number of these deaths are probably to guys working in garages.
Funny enough, there is currently a group of Canadian customs officials lobbying for better protection against car exhaust because there are 7 women at the Windsor crossing that have turned up with breast cancer....must be coincidental huh?
see here
And they're claiming diesel as only a "potential" carcinogen.....and even then with more than "10 years of exposure" in this article....yet ETS is instantly deadly?
Probably why we don't like to eat in a restaurant with a car running.
Gee, there's that comment again. Isn't that a surprise.....does Polly want a cracker?
Somehow, I would suspect that "we don't like to eat in a restaurant with a car running" because of the more immediate death concerns of large quantities of Carbon Monoxide in an enclosed space...what do you think?
And while I'm already on one of my diatribes (apologies, all...well, excepting Jill and geo)......
Jill: Car exaust is dangerous if you suck directly from a tailpipe....
Yep. I'm amazed you can see the difference....since you don't seem able to differentiate between ETS measurements taken directly from the lit end of a cigarette (at a distance of, what, 1/2 an inch with a pump that captures every scrap of smoke) and that same smoke dispersed throughout a large volume of air in a well-ventilated room.
When was the last time you (as a non-smoker) oh so carefully placed your lips around the lit end of a cigarette and deeply inhaled for a full 10 minutes?
Or is this argument only valid when you are trying to prove your point?
The Surgeon General says that smokers are killing themselves, their children, and everyone they come in contact with.
He is attempting to incite heightened animosity towards smokers. This would take the form of increased discrimination in housing and work, more extensive bans with more severe penalties, and child abuse charges against pregnant women and parents who smoke. I believe the SG would not be disappointed to see a "kristallnacht" type of event that includes violence.
Stephen,
The SG in not attempting, he has succeeded in validating animosity which was already on the increase.
I know us here in Scotland were years behind what is happening in the US. However we seem to be on an accelerated catch up. yesterday I was instructed, rather aggressively, to stand downwind by a non smoker, which I did rather sheepishly while being glared at by the surrounding people. I truly feel I am part of some underclass unworthy of consideration and deserving of all and any nastiness directed my way.
As I reported on another thread, a few weeks ago my wife complained about an unsavoury incident she was subjected to while ouside a pub having a smoke and was met with " well you shouldn't smoke then"
The witch hunts and persicutions are just starting.
GreatScot
"I believe that tater tots are also a carcinogen according to the state of California."
Texas Dave - say it ain't so!
I think Jerry makes an important point which I wish to highlight. The Surgeon General's message to the public is basically that anyone who has been even briefly exposed to secondhand smoke is in big trouble - increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer and the cancer process has already been set in motion. Since that means essentially everyone, what reason is there to worry about whether you are exposed or not now? Since the damage has apparently already been done and the process is already in motion, what good will it do to worry about it now? If we're already at risk, we might as well enjoy ourselves while we're waiting for the lung cancer or heart disease to surface.
west2- There is actually a serious debate in the scientific community about whether there is a "threshold" for carcinogens - a level below which exposure is safe and will not cause cancer. There are scientists on both sides of this issue. Because much of the current thinking is that there is no real threshold, I do not necessarily take issue with the Surgeon General's statement that there is no safe level of exposure. But I question whether the statement is meaningful, appropriate, and effective, and whether it might have some disadvantageous consequences, such as those discussed by Jerry and others above.
Don't mind diatribes. The blog is full of them including mine. No I don't believe people are dying like flys because of secondhand smoke. Prof Siegel tossed out a bone to a large segment of people on this site on the overselling of science on this topic. It's only a bone. This site seems to attract people who refuse to look at 50 years of data, including thousands of studies by the people who have the most to gain financially from smokes.
Here's 200,000 studies by the Tobacco Research Council, a few dealing with ETS. You probably can find a few that might make your case, but only a few.http://tobaccodocuments.org/ctr/
These fools paid a lot of money for many studies not even relating to tobacco.The primary reason was to create an organization that appeared to be trying to help smokers by taking the bad stuff out or at least appearing too. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in these 200,000 studies there could be one or two that absolve smoke. Happy reading.
geo wrote:
"This site seems to attract people who refuse to look at 50 years of data..."
You've got it backwards. It's the fact that we'd already looked at that 50 years of data that attracted many of us to this site.
Now, if you meant you and Jill and Erik I'll wholeheartedly agree. LOL
Well Geo wasn't the original remits of public health to help smokers rather than publicly advocate discriminating against them ?50 years of data is still worth 10 years of rhetorical anti smoker crap .You still refrain from arguing your case re shs ,yet you seem to suggest you have digested all 50 years worth of data,couldn't you find anything ?By all means ridicule your own comments but please don't demean others who research their facts not just refer to tobacco industry documents as their fountain of wisdom.
Nicotine is known to be beneficial. In fact, it's recommended for medical conditions as well as producing pleasure, releif of tension, and sharpened mental acuity
Yes. Yes. I believe you believe that that statement.
Your view of second hand smoke makes it necessary to protect others from it as you believe it is harmless, and thus, certainly will not take measures to protect others from it.
PROVE IT BIG BOY !
Jill said- "Would it be better if cars didn't have exhaust? Yes. But it could cost trillions to ban car emissions. I support laws requiring catalytic converters, egr, pcv systems, which are all designed to reduce emissions. We've spent millions of dollars to reduce auto pollution. We can reduce tobacco smoke pollution and save lives for free - ban smoking indoors."
Jill this is where the hypocrisy and SELFISHNESS of the pro-smoking ban activists such as yourself becomes so very apparent.
You support filtration for automobile exhaust, but not for secondhand smoke..hypocrite.
"We can reduce tobacco smoke pollution and save lives for free - ban smoking indoors" this statement shows your ignorance and selfishness in one moronic statement.
The smoking ban which has cost me my job, the loss of my $300,000 home; a $30,000 car, and tens of thousands of other people their businesses, homes, cars and jobs.....is "free" to you, as you state so cavelierly. Do you have even the slightest inkling of what your pharmeceutical funded agenda is costing the rest of us.
NO A SMOKING BAN IS NOT FREE!
Jill, aren't you forgetting the millions being poured into all that anti advertising and lobbying? Free? What drugs are you on, can I have some?
Erik,
When you quoted someone saying: "Nicotine is known to be beneficial..."
And answered with: "Yes. Yes. I believe you believe that that statement."
Were you aware of just how ignorant you were going to make yourself look?
Do a very simple google search on "Benefits of nicotine". Stay away from "pro-smoking websites" and focus only on what you'd consider to be impartial or even biased towards anti-tobacco and see just how ignorant you are.
The fact of how often you make yourself out to be a fool here makes me wonder: Have you no self-respect?
A friend once asked me, "You don't like being wrong, do you?" I answered, No, do you?"
How would you answer that question?
Millions Lynda? Try BILLIONS, most of it taken directly from their targets, us.
Millions for a small city in MN perhaps, or possibly Millions for small population states, such as WY, ND, SD, Montana, but trust me, and the links provided all over this blog's postings, it is in the BILLIONS and even a fraction of what they spend trying to "freely" control exposure to a possible increasing risk factor, could have easily led to real breakthroughs in early detection, treatments, possibly even cures for these ailments, which do NOT affect only smokers or those exposed to tobacco smoke.
Think about the Master Settlement agreement, that was how much? 250 Billion Dollars over what 25 years? What do you suppose real researchers could have done with that money in that same time frame, instead of trying to ostracize approximately 30% of the population, villify them to the point of demonizing them, instead of working on finding ALL the real causes of these diseases, and researching true treatments and detection for them? They attack some of society, blame those few dor all the troubles in the world and pat themselves on the backs for "protecting" the public. Right, and the Tooth Fairy is still real.
That is one of the biggest crimes in this entire fallacy that is Tobacco Control, usurping these funds for propaganda instead of trying to solve the actual problems, think about what that money COULD have done for the world, including smokers, instead of what it IS doing TO the world.
Lynda--
Point of fact, US air is cleaner by far -- like 90%--than it's ever been. Fact easily checked.
Scott--
I actually did read a "study" (I think from the UK) indeed trying to say that smokers, collected together on the street, are adding to global warming. Couldn't make that one up if I tried. I'll see if I can find it for you.
ERIK--
Once again, kid, you're out of your league. And yeah, you better believe I believe it. So, for just a wee example, do these folks.
Aside from the fact that it's medically beneficial for, among other things, Parkinson's, Alzheimers, Colitis, even some (yes) heart diseases (google it) as far as mentally beneficial goes:
From the Surgeon General's Report 1986 (p 32):
¶ "The significant benefits of smoking occur primarily in the area of mental health.."
Then-- among many, many other clips--.
¶ "Experimental work (Mangan, 1982; Parrott and Winder,1989) suggests that nicotine...has a specific role in enhancing cognition and psychomotor performance. Wesnes and Warburton (1983) recorded that a single cigarette... improved performance on rapid visual information processing over a baseline score." -"Pleasure: the Politics of Reality," D.M. Warburton, John Wiley & Sons, 1994
¶ "Controlled laboratory studies have shown the improved memory and better performance at skilled tasks of smokers.." -Ian Hindmarch, professor of psychopharmacology , Univ. of Surrey
¶ "Experimental studies of performance show improved cognitive functioning on measures of attention, reaction time, reasoning and memory [after smoking.]...The results [also] support the contention that nicotine enhances CNS function, and can mediate the influence of fatigue and boredom. Raised alertness, a reduction in drowsiness and the apparent lack of pharmacological tolerance to either may be important facts in the motivation of the tobacco smoker." -Sherwood et al, Med Sci Res, 1991; 19, 455-456
¶ Dr. Peggy O'Hara, associate professor of epidemiology and public health at the University of Miami: "Nicotine triggers a sense of well-being. Concentration increases appreciably. Memory is enhanced, appetite is suppressed, and anxiety and tension disappear." Recent experiments at Columbia University reveal that [nicotine] triggers a neuro-transmitter associated with memory, learning and problem solving. [It also releases] serotonin and dopamine" -"Pleasure of Smoking...,"Orlando Sentinel, 3/2/96;
¶ "[Smoking] can improve memory, prevent brain cells from dying and--as smokers have long known--markedly reduce stress. New research on animals explains [why] smokers are less likely to develop Parkinson's disease. Rats were better at learning their way around mazes and solving new problems. Other rats with symptoms of Alzheimer's had memory and learning problems "completely reversed," said Edward Levin, associate professor of toxicology at Duke University " ...and even kept brain cells from dying when they were exposed to toxic chemicals that should have killed them."
-"Study: Nicotine can help memory, save brain cells." Knight Ridder 11/9/98
¶ "In addition, Levin said,'...other people have done studies with aged rats and monkeys, showing that nicotine reverses age-induced impairments.'" -"Burning Questions about Nicotine," NY Newsday, 4/5/94
¶ "...can enhance learning, memory, cerebral blood flow, and performance of certain repetitive tasks." Dr. Paul Newhouse, of the University of Vermont College of Medicine, said researchers found significant increases in short-term recall, improvements in spatial memory and better reaction time on tests." _"Reasearchers Investigate..." New York Times, 1/14/97
¶ "Smokers were quicker and more accurate [than non-smokers] on a test of working memory." -"Researchers Study..." AP, 11/20/96
¶"...In general, motor performance in all groups improved after smoking." -"Individual differences in psychophysiology of smoking and smoking behavior," O'Connor, London University, Institute of Psychiatry. 0530, CDC Bibliography
And more:
¶"Effects of Cigarette Smoking on Human Information Processing..." Warburton et al, University of Reading, Department of Pscychology, 0574, CDC bibli-ography; see also Biomed & Pharmother, 48, 1994; Med Sci Res, 18, 839-840, 1990;"Research Suggests Smoking Sharpens Short-Term Thinking, AP 11/20/96; Nictoine Helps Focus," Courier-Journal, 5/31/04-- reporting on study in "Nature and Neuroscience, May 2004 by Sulzer et al,,Columbia University, see also, Forbes Magazine, 7/4/94; Wall St Journal, 5/6/97
Okay; saw you and raised. Your move.
Walt wrote: "Point of fact, US air is cleaner by far -- like 90%--than it's ever been. Fact easily checked"
I'd be curious what cities they used to prove that, because the air quality here in Phoenix as not improved but gotten worse. Looking off into the horizon the "brown" air hanging over us is quite visible. It's actually heartbreaking to see. As much as I'd love to have a car, I am actually glad I don't so that I am not adding to it. I also noticed the air in NYC, when I was there (from 1990 - 2004) was not cleaner but dirtier.
I'm curious then, as to why it is being claimed that the US contributes more to air pollution globally than any other nation IF our air is so clean. So if this is also true, then our air being 90% cleaner than it's ever been, doesn't say too much about our air quality, does it?
Please read article about the movers and shakers of TB dr/science/whores of babylon-
http://www.heartland.org/Article...cfm?
artId=19197
author: Written By: Joseph L. Bast
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: June 14, 2006
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
"Panel 3: What are the Effective Strategies for Increasing the Implementation of Proven Population-Level Tobacco Use Cessation Strategies, Particularly by Healthcare Systems and Communities?
Michael Fiore, M.D., M.P.H., University of Wisconsin, described how "Health System Changes" were necessary to support more cessation strategies. He explained how smokers should be identified in their medical records, hospitals should be required to offer treatment and insurers should be required to pay for it, and most of all how more money was needed to make cessation programs effective. His presentation was "all about the money." "
nuff said.
Lynda, maybe a partial answer to your question:
Through ARB regulations, today’s new cars pollute 99 percent less than their predecessors did thirty years ago. Still, over half of the state’s current smog-forming emissions come from gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.
Smaller, more personal air pollution sources, known as consumer products, also affect our air quality. Products such as deodorants, hair spray and cleaning products contain ozone-forming chemicals knows as volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
In 1990, consumer products emitted about 264 tons of smog-forming pollutants each day. This is more than all the refineries and gas stations in the state combined.
-- http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/
broch...y_text_only.htm
But ...
DIESEL'S CANCER RISK DWARFS ALL OTHER AIR TOXICS
WASHINGTON, DC, July 12, 2001 (ENS) - Exhaust from diesel engines accounts for 78 percent of the total added cancer risk in outdoor air from all hazardous air pollutants combined, shows a new analysis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.
The analysis by the conservation group Environmental Defense is based on a massive EPA study, which provides detailed estimates of the levels of 41 top hazardous air pollutants in every community in the U.S. EPA's previous version of the air pollutant report did not include information on diesel particulate emissions.
"The dominance of diesel in the unhealthiness of our air is a revelation," said David Roe, Environmental Defense senior attorney. "It couldn't be seen before, only because studies weren't trying to look for it." -- http://www.rag.org.au/buc/cancerrisk.htm
Benpal,
Thanks for the info. Funny, it is the EPA that constantly tests the air here in Phoenix, probably because we are in a valley. The air pollution here in Phoenix is primarily made up of: car emissions, rubber and tar particulates from tires and roads and dust. So while newer cars may emit cleaner exhausts, there are enough of them on the roads, I'd say, to not make any real difference anymore, since there are not that many older cars on the road these days.
I kid you not, the air that hangs over my head here is brown and 10 years ago you could hardly see any pollution.
Doesn't really quite fit MY definition of "clean air".
Well Lynda, if we listened to the Surgeon General and the pro-smoking ban activists "...no safe level..." we should enact bans against the pollution and sources of pollution.
The thing that won't work, according to the activists is to provide filtration solutions....they just don't work according to the Surgeon General.
Oddly enough in my new job, engineering and selling industrial filtration solutions; when a factory exceeds OSHA regulations for hexavalent chromium for instance, OSHA strongly recommends an approved filtration system, it does not whine to local government politicians to demand a welding smoke ban.
Isn't that curious.......perhaps Johnson and Johnson should start greasing some palms at OSHA......don't think they haven't considered it.
Jill wrote
I think part of the reason that it is important to emphasize that there is no safe exposure is precisely because the relationship between SHS and coronary heart disease is NOT linear.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/c......ll/328/7446/
980
Therefore, if people use the standard "dose is the poison" metric, they would expose themselves to a much greater risk than they realized, due to the non-linear relationship between SHS and CHD.
Jill; if you really considered the idea of non linearity in a credible response to Michael's article you would quickly find your arguments to be circular and self defeating.
No dose response in respect to how many people you could find in the population base, who have not been expossed at some point, elliminates all existence of increased risk. If we have all been expossed how can any have an increased risk?
Further why should smokers quit or smoking bans be implimented as you point out the risk is non linear having knowlege of what smoke smells like is evidence of exposure. non linear supports exposure, all exposure even to what most would have considered to be an insignificant degree is now confirmed by the Surgeon General and you apparently, is still as harmfull as daily exposure. Equal consequences are in store for the entire population smokers or not. Do you understand now why the WHO and the EPA are at odds over linearity?
Linear dose response is the foundation of environmental testing and controls you can not eliminate the science for one toxin without destroying the validity of all toxic damage.
Now in your new non linear world how do you present science as evidence to enforce environmental laws?
LOL
Just for Jill, and in suport of non linear principles.
The foundation of non linear principles have been well known for decades. Some of the most conclusive determinants in suport of the theory can be found at the following weblink along with the future campaign prospects of TC advocates who travel this road.
http://dorisday.lyrics-
online.ne...ueSeraSera.html
LOL
Marcus wrote: "Isn't that curious.......perhaps Johnson and Johnson should start greasing some palms at OSHA......don't think they haven't considered it."
Shouldn't that be OSHA should start greasing some palm at J&J? OSHA already shown that filtration works, I believe. J&J doesn't want filtration systems, for then their NRT products probably wouldn't sell........hehehehe Or is my thinking waayyyy off base?
No, I believe it the other way around.....OSHA has proven itself to maintain a high level of integrity...refusing to give in to the demands of the pro-smoking ban activists, even when they filed suit against OSHA; as somebody who posts comments on this site suggested a month or two.
So since OSHA regulations prove the ACS SHS air quality study to be 25,0000 times safer than regulations.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
It is the pro-smoking ban activists like RWJF and J & J who would want to have OSHA sell out their AQ regulations and make them 25,000 times more stringent.....that is the only way the American Cancer Society testing could indicate SHS as harmful.
OSHA has no reason to payoff J & J, OSHA regulations are in the right. But J & J would have to payoff OSHA in a big way to attempt to get OSHA to reduce their permissible exposure limits.
The fact that OSHA regulations show secondhand smoke levels are safe is the reason that activists quote "studies" by the EPA instead. OSHA refuses to sellout to the activists.....while the EPA is apparently more than happy to sellout to the highest bidder, even though EPA regulations have no jurisdiction on indoor air quality issues.
marcus wrote:
"OSHA refuses to sellout to the activists.....while the EPA is apparently more than happy to sellout to the highest bidder..."
OSHA may have refused to sell out, but that doesn't mean it won't in the future. People come and go and activists seem to tend to gravitate to where they can inflict their will. For example, look how ASHRAE has anti-smokers writing policy papers for them.
BTW, John Spengler of Harvard University School of Public Health helped write "The ASHRAE Position Document on Environmental Tobacco Smoke"
Among the things they wrote were:
• At present, the only means of effectively eliminating health risk associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity.
• No other engineering approaches, including current and advanced dilution ventilation or air cleaning
technologies, have been demonstrated or should be relied upon to control health risks from ETS exposure in
spaces where smoking occurs. Some engineering measures may reduce that exposure and the corresponding risk
to some degree while also addressing to some extent the comfort issues of odor and some forms of irritation.
About the same time Spengler was helping out with that he was helping conduct testing on air cleaning equipment. This is from "PERFORMANCE TESTING OF TRANE CLEANEFFECTS WHOLE HOUSE AIR CLEANING SYSTEM"
"The indoor-outdoor ratio is an important measure of performance because it indicates the ability of an air cleaner to remove particles of outdoor origin from indoor air. With
respect to this metric, Trane CleanEffects™ performed among the best of the air cleaners tested. Operation of Trane CleanEffects™ yielded an indoor-outdoor ratio of
2%. In other words, steady-state concentrations of particles in indoor air were 98% lower than particle concentrations in outdoor air when Trane CleanEffects™ was operating."
http://www.trane.com/Residential...s/
EHE_study.pdf
I don't profess to be an expert on ventilation or filtration, but that sure sounds like clean air to me.
One other thing I found that was interesting because it's been discussed here recently:
"He [Spengler] and a colleague also investigated indoor ice skating rinks, first throughout New England and later internationally. The team discovered that the use of gasoline and propane-powered equipment, such as zambonis, raised the levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide within the ice arena to 10 times beyond federal guidelines.
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et08...3/
et0803s7.html
Has anyone ever heard of CO levels being that high indoors because of smoking?
Okay, 90% was an overstatement. But
From Reason Mag, quoting EPA:
"Since 1970 ambient levels of sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide have fallen by 75% while total suspended particles like smoke, soot, and dust have been cut by 50% since the 1950s. In 1988 the particulate standard was changed to account for smaller particles; even under this tougher standard, particles have decline an additional 15% (since then.) Ambient ozone and nitrogren oxide...are both down by 30% since the 1970s." And so on. http://www.reason.com/0005/
fe.rb....rb.earth.shtml
From a 1998 EPA report (sorry, forgot to tap the URL) but this is a c/p-- and it's talking about declines beginning in 88 and ending in 97::
The most current monitoring data show the following improvements in ambient air quality between 1988 and 1997:
-- Carbon monoxide concentrations decreased 38 percent.-- Lead concentrations decreased 67 percent.-- Nitrogen dioxide concentrations decreased 14 percent.-- Ozone (smog) concentrations decreased 19 percent.-- Particulate matter concentrations (dirt, dust, soot) concentrations decreased 26 percent.
-- Sulfur dioxide concentrations decreased 39 percent.
Finally, this says US AQ improved overall 48% since 1970:
http://www.ceednet.org/ceed/inde...m?
cid=7529,7589
As for the speculation that the mortal effects of SHS are non-linear,,,,
how do you explain the fact that the VAST majority of the epidemiology, manipulated as it may be, still shows no dose/ response trend, and frequently shows reverse dose response trends (the heavier the exposure, the less the "risk," and the more years of exposure, the less the "risk." ) Think about it, Jill. And those are the studies you LIKE,
Walt, thank you for the explanation, again. I just find it amusing to see that the air is supposedly so much cleaner today than 50 years ago, and yet, IS so much dirtier to the naked eye. I can't imagine what it would look like if it were "dirtier" then. Because it sure looks dirtier to me than ever, and like I said before, the air here in Phoenix is definitely dirtier than it was a mere 10 years ago AND it does show, not just to the naked eye but also in the rise of allergies and respiratory problems here.
I've never suffered allergies in my life, and didn't understand what was going on with me that my eyes were constantly itching, the headaches were abominable, and a cough I never had that wouldn't quit. We had a particularly dry winter here, and I suffered all of it before giving in to see the doctor. So after a check up, blood work and chest xrays, the Diagnosis? Allergy, due to the excessive dust in the air pollution. Yet the really weird part was that I actually felt worse when at work, in my lovely sealed (no open windows) office with it's "clean" recycled air.
So while I can agree that perhaps our air is cleaner than it was before, I am having trouble believing that it is actually clean.
Marcus, thank you, I knew I wasn't quite grasping the concept clearly.
Lynda F,
You're right. According to the EPA, Phoenix has a serious PM10 problem.
Apparently it's so bad the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has as a FAQ:
ISN'T OZONE THE SAME AS THE
"BROWN CLOUD"?
No. The brown cloud that sometimes appears in
the air over Phoenix is made of small particles of soot
and dust. Ozone is invisible, and can be a problem
even when visibility is very good.
LOL
I'll guess you have too many old people retiring to Arizona causing your air pollution problems (kick 'em out-LOL).
I looked up the census numbers for Arizona and my state (Wisconsin) and since 1960 my state population has risen 50% and yours has risen close to 300%. (rough figures)
The US may be cleaner as a whole, but I don't know if Phoenix is.
James Austin wrote: "I looked up the census numbers for Arizona and my state (Wisconsin) and since 1960 my state population has risen 50% and yours has risen close to 300%. (rough figures)
The US may be cleaner as a whole, but I don't know if Phoenix is."
Exactly, James. More people equals that many more cars equals THAT much more air pollution. The dust can't be helped during a dry spell, and with less open land, there should be less dust to blow around. So, they can call it what they want, I still think the rise in population-which comes with at least 1 car per family if not more-is the major cause of our air pollution. Phoenix didn't have this "brown air" problem with fewer people, and more open land (dust).
What I love is how Phoenix is fined on bad AQ days, for dust (as IF it can control mother nature). They warn us to stay indoors, but no one ever suggests leaving the car home. Amazing eh?
Asthma?
I read a year ago that a study was done (in California!) with the intention of proving SHS/ETS caused or at least aggravated asthma. Yes, that was the stated purpose used to get funding.
The bad news: no linkage found.
The good news: the researchers think they found a definite genetic linkage and want to do more research in the area.
Over forty years since direct use of tobacco was shown to be one of the causes of various cancers, and SHS is one of those "everyone knows" memes with no smoking-gun backup. The SG's office became a joke when Koop started started wearing that naval-officer uniform.
I'm also wondering why the SG is wearing a uniform. Is public health a matter of the Military (Navy)?
I seem to recall that the uniformed (and their superiors) have had a rather bad record in terms of truthfulness as of lately. Is the uniform some kind of disguise under which you can tell whatever you want without being taken to task?
"OSHA may have refused to sell out, but that doesn't mean it won't in the future. People come and go and activists seem to tend to gravitate to where they can inflict their will."
Very true James, however for OSHA to reduce its permissible exposure limit for airborne nicotine by a factor of 25,000 times...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
...will be a tipoff to some very inappropriate and most likely illegal payoff activity. And nothing would please me more than catching RWJF and or Johnson & Johnson Company attempting to do just that.
Fear and hate given credibility by the political puppet representing medicine dressed up in a military uniform? The vision should be considered a perspective in itself, in weighing credibility. The general represents power which reigns as the director of what is acceptable science. Irregardless of observations to the contrary, a purely political promotion. We have all heard only 50% of smokers will die of smoking related diseases. Of the other 50% close to 90% die beyond the age of 70, proof there has to exist, whether in speaking of linear or non linear association, a level of safety, whether immunities or genetics play a large roll or not, this has never been discussed in fact avoided at all costs.
No safe level demonstrates an arrogant attitude. An attitude as a mother speaking to a child who can not explain why she decided to forbid an activity, instead stating “because I say so” as the only explanation required in a superiority belief requiring no more respect be displayed. No safe level demonstrates ignorance of the advocate, in defeat of their own credibility in training or leadership abilities. The expression of non linearity in cause and effect is confused when they define their position using case and control studies which depend on those very linear principles. The DSR not being safe relies on a no safe level proclamation despite the fact even in non linear association some toxic level can be defined as safe while existing in the body. Without a stated level in association with the non linear case, we fall to the idea, since most in the population know what ETS smells like, almost all have been exposed and we will all have adverse reactions regardless of any action. The 50% of smokers who do not die of smoking related disease would therefore be seen as a miracle of divine intervention, for lack of a clear explanation. If we smoke or not or simply smell it, calculations state clearly with a growing body of evidence smoking will kill us all. This eliminates a risk factor as we can not demonstrate any risk increase exists, if you already know how it smells. The fear in the public depends on as they call it a body of evidence that evidence is based in cause and effect research or linearity, they also deny linearity is applicable to smoke research. Opportunistic use to define a position promoting fears and deny its application when it suits their need to develop other fears.
Getting to the bottom of what you are being told is complicated however it depends always on the definition of “case” and “methods” to define case.
There is an excellent explanation of Epidemiology at the BMJ as public access it would do you well to read this report and try to understand the process in so doing understand the numbers being bandied about carelessly by many who don’t understand their significance beyond the ability to scare others into submission.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/colle...idem/
epid.shtml
I would pay special attention to section two in the regard to assessing the SGs report and understand through that, why I would accuse him and others in TC of international rights violations in the use of Coercion to mislead the public in matters of health information.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/
colle...l#pgfId=1003279
You can read about you rights in that regard here.
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
co...fb51ee231739f0c
Read the full article here
http://lieberaldictators.blogspo...ajority-
vs.html
Lynda--
Didn't mean to imply "trust the statistics and not your lying eyes." I'd just been seeing a lot of these national stats which may not-- I believe you-- apply to Phoenix.
What a shame. I used to hang out at a great ranch near Tuscon-- smack in the middle of clear desert with great horse trails around it-- but heard it later converted to a wanna-be glitzy hotel and the desert got ate by a golf course with condos around the edge. Haven't been to Phoenix for about 20 years-- no brown clouds then-- but with triple the population it wouldn't be a surprised
.
Commenting by HaloScan
