And did you send this "review" of their claims to the Ohio Mainstream media outlets?
I know I linked them to this article of yours, thank you for posting this.
This isn't just one organization's problem. This claim is also used in Texas too.
From the fact sheet(1) by Texas Department of State Health Services Health Promotion Unit also called shareair.org (March 2006)
Fact: Secondhand smoke hurts the young, the old and everyone in between.
• Secondhand smoke is known to cause lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease.
Fact: Workers have the right to breathe smoke-free air, too.
• Constant exposure to secondhand smoke greatly increases an employee’s risk of lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema.
• Just 30 minutes’ exposure to secondhand smoke can constrict arteries and damage the body’s ability to supply blood to the heart.
(1) http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/toba...a%20ad%20shs%
22
I guess I'm going to basically go off topic by commenting on something included as evidence against the issue at hand:
"Among adult nonsmokers exposed to ETS, eye, nose and throat irritation, as well as odor annoyance, are the most commonly reported health complaints. These complaints occur at levels near or overlapping the odor threshold for ETS, making their prevention technically difficult in smoking-permitted buildings." ~Surgeon General's Report
Correct me if I'm wrong but did this just say that (most, if not all?) people claim to experience these "health" complaints WHEN at the same time they smell smoke, but not before?
You mean like when I would hold a cigarette in my hand that a known smoke-hater didn't notice (don't ask me how) and would say nothing? But another time she'd notice the cigarette in hand this time and start screaming about the smoke.
Is THIS what it's saying??
I gave up believing these morons around the time of the "ETS will cause death in five minutes" statement. (The real danger is that I will completely ignore good health advice. I'm not sure I know where to find good advice these days).
If they can say that tobacco contains plutonium and asbestos, it's no great stretch to tell everyone it causes emphysema as well. Here's a game we can all play: simply think of a malady that cannot possibly be caused by smoking. Then wait. They'll find a way to link the two.
It almost seems natural to expect these outrageous lies now. Can we count on Smokeless Bill calling them up to express his disgust at this latest nonsensical statement?
The problem, of course, is that it will never be retracted, and will bed in as yet another truth.
Will someone please stop the world.
I want to get off.
From ASH UK:
"Secondhand Smoke Linked to Lung Disease in Young People As many as one in nine young adults living in industrialized countries are at risk of developing a deadly lung condition known as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Smokers are particularly likely to get the disease. But people who inhale secondhand smoke are at risk too."
I gave up all hope on these people long ago. With the actions and statements of countless anti-smoking organizations, politicians, and activists, I have come to the conclusion that these people will stop at nothing to get what they want. They seem to be a mix of two groups, the nanny staters and the pain-in-the-ass people.
Nanny staters see everyone as small children and it is their job to protect them. Their values trump everyone else and they are willing to force their choices on everyone because of "tough love".
The PITA people are just nitpicking bitches. They are complain about everything that they don't like. If there is a risk (no matter how tiny), a possible risk (just because it is not known to have happened doesn't mean it won't), or if it bothers them in the slightest, they are bitching like there is no tomorrow.
The nanny staters tend to be politicians and members of the medical community. They are usually good and intelligent people, but misguided.
The PITA people are, well, pricks. These people are always whining about pets, children, smoking, loud music, traffic, foul language, pornography, video games, religion and secularism, and everything else. These people are the worst. They are willing to make others completely miserable for dubious reasons.
I really have nothing else to say. Just the two types of anti-(everything) that work hard at making life more boring.
The minute the Surgeon General was "allowed" to make his statements after dispersing his "new" report that the "debate is now over" was YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER, and NO ONE said a word, the "World of the Perpetually Offended" was given free reign to state any and all disease, illness, chronic complaints are due to THE SMOKER.
Nothing that those who are in Tobacco Control-Behavioral Social Engineering do/say is a surprise to those who live/work hard and play hard in the real world these days.
Explain to me why the US population (on avg.) now goes to the doctor every other month or more.
Someone on here coined the phrase MEDOCRAT. I too agree that is now probably the strongest political party there is in the US and around the globe. And as an industry-it is a counterfeit coin, it produces nothing. (but the state's healthy body-no longer owned by the individual, but by the state)
The Healer by very definition was THE MOST NOBLE of goals.
Now it is just another Wall Street Industry to be traded for those counterfeit coins of the realm.
And no, profit is not a dirty word to me. False "profit" is.
thanks for "listening"
Medocrat -
I LOVE that.
Funny I was doing some research on this very thing last night.
Research on health and wellness trends is mainly available through private sector market research and usually only accessible for a hefty fee. This in itself reflects what has become a significant economic trend: the promotion of health as a product in a growing private market of health goods and services, where ‘the big bucks’ are predominantly in the distribution of knowledge rather than in the production of goods. Some US economists already propose to consider the health care industry as one of the few drivers of growth in the years ahead. Now calculations indicate that in the US alone, the sales of the wellness industry have already reached approximately $200 billion and that it is set to achieve sales of $1 trillion within 10 years, thus matching the health care industry (Pilzer, 2002).
"Some US economists already propose to consider the health care industry as one of the few drivers of growth in the years ahead."
Yes, that is part of the idea. Healthism has virtually ground to a halt development and production of real goods. Consequently there can only be growth in the figments of the imagination sector (aka. "wellness industry").
Yes, isn't it ironoc that while we've worked ourselves up to spending $200B on "wellness" (that every study you will read claims to save money on "healthcare") during a period of skyrocketing healthcare expenditures?
Figments of imagination indeed.
ironic that is
Here's one that I had always heard before, but never really explored until recently. (from the Heartland Institute) Regarding the alleged 4000 + chemicals in tobacco smoke:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....laims-
that.html
Dr. Siegel,
I understand your reticence for using such words as "misleading" and fallacious," but I have no need to couch the unvarnished truth in niceties. The anti-smoker cartel is composed primarily of PATHOLOGICAL LIARS.
It is as simple as that, and the Lame Stream Media are their partners in crime. The only reason why the general public, and the idiots they elect, think you people have any credibility whatsoever is that LSM refuses dissenting voices. this is due, in large part, to the fact the LSM are also nanny-statist behavior engineers who believe they know what is best for the rest of us.
Hogwash.
The press are no different here in the UK, Gabz.
Not only are they not reporting the issue fairly, they appear to be consumed with indifference to our plight.
It's easy to get paranoid about the whole thing.
Mind you, (and I dont know who said this originally), perfect paranoia is perfect awareness.
I just read that "fact sheet".
CAVITIES? They claim SHS causes cavities in children? AND hearing loss?
I didn't think it could get any stupider............I was wrong.
I agree with what Gabz posted. I'd have to go further and claim that the so-called "freedom of the press" no longer exists, it has been sold out to bullies.
The SmokeFreeOhio fact sheet stated:
"Secondhand smoke can cause the debilitating disease pulmonary emphysema, causing severe damage to the walls of the air sacs, with the lungs losing their capacity to expand and contract."
Notice that SmokeFreeOhio did not state that secondhand smoke can cause emphysema in nonsmokers.
I think it is entirely plausable and perhaps probable that secondhand smoke accounts for half of all the tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers (as many smokers are in smokefilled rooms for 4, 8, 12 or more hours per day) during their lifetime.
As such, secondhand smoke could very well be a causal factor for emphysema
among smokers.
A problem with nearly all studies on smokers is that it is incorrectly presumed that first hand smoke (and not secondhand smoke) accounts for all smoker's exposure to smoke.
It is not paranoid, it is a concerted effort. And if you would like to confer with Dr. Chalupka I'm certain he would confirm, (unless he has now been instructed not to cooperate).
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ng-
smoking.html
Bill.........why do you insist on playacting your denseness. EVERY claim about SHS exposure is in regard to non-smokers and you know it. Why lie about it?
Colin, I'm fully aware the LSM is just as bad in the UK.
Lynda, the claim of cavities and hearing loss "due to" shs exposure comes as no surprise to me. The Delaware Department of Health had and A-Z list of diseases and ailments that were "scientifically linked" to SHS or smoking and it listed everything from arthritis to zits (their word, not mine) including the 2 you mention along with things like nightmares, knee problems, ADD/ADHD, and a whole host of other assinine contentions. Of course my favorite has always been cervical cancer. Anyone with even a scintilla of intelligence knows that is primarily caused by a virus, an STD in fact, not smoking.........but as we well know with the antis, they never let facts get in the way of their dogma.
Which reminds me, I need to get another of those bumper stickers that proclaims MY KARMA RAN OVER YOUR DOGMA
LOL
Hmm. I can see one other explanation, Dr. Siegel...and I'm sorry to say that it had nothing to do with an acceptance of the claims being incorrect.....
The fact sheet has the appearance of something intended for print-out by the members, so it is quite possible that the milder "risk" claims were dropped in favor of more severe claims in the interest of brevity.
As well, since there has been no public statement/retraction, I'd question whether they have "admitted" anything being incorrect in their previous sheet...and the extremely long timespan between your contact and this update would imply just the opposite.
I'm guessing this is just a regular update to include their perceptions of newer studies.
JustTheFacts: "Correct me if I'm wrong but did this just say that (most, if not all?) people claim to experience these "health" complaints WHEN at the same time they smell smoke, but not before?
Yep, that's exactly what it said. Kinda makes ya wonder how much of the claimed heart and respiratory problems could be attributed to an increase of blood pressure when an anti sees a cigarette, doesn't it?
I'd also like to know....when did "odor annoyance" become a "health complaint"?
Gabz wrote:
"Bill.........why do you insist on playacting your denseness. EVERY claim about SHS exposure is in regard to non-smokers and you know it."
While SmokeFreeOhio may have meant for its statement to apply only to nonsmokers, its statment didn't say one way or the other.
But my point is that most smokers inhale far more secondhand smoke than do most nonsmokers, and thus, secondhand smoke probably causes more harm among smokers than it does among nonsmokers.
Bill Godshall wrote
Notice that SmokeFreeOhio did not state that secondhand smoke can cause emphysema in nonsmokers.
Does that mean it doesn't?
Why didn't they say smokers and does it?
Mike Walsh wrote
I'd also like to know....when did "odor annoyance" become a "health complaint"?
When you try and get some straight answers to health issues and don't get any.. tada (I know don't give up the day job)
west
----
"Notice that SmokeFreeOhio did not state that secondhand smoke can cause emphysema in nonsmokers.
...
As such, secondhand smoke could very well be a causal factor for emphysema
among smokers."
Bill Godshall, your reasoning went from bad to worse.
Bill: But my point is that most smokers inhale far more secondhand smoke than do most nonsmokers, and thus, secondhand smoke probably causes more harm among smokers than it does among nonsmokers.
And we're still not dropping like flies all over the place Bill, which is why none of us by into the the whole SHS scare tactics. We are not only active smokers but inhale 100 times more SHS than non-smokers, and as far as I'm concerned that totally invalidates every claim your side makes.
Ahhh, Lynda, you have broken the golden ATI rule-you have employed logic. You know that is taboo.
As usual you hit the nail on the head. And I doubt Smokeless Bill will have an answer for you because you have combined common sense with an indisputable fact: we are not dying in vast numbers and we ought to be, using their twisted reasoning.
I have a new tag line for them:
ATI-Proudly Defying Science.
or
ATI-Shamelessly Lying Since 1586.
or
ATI-We Refuse To Believe Our Own Eyes
*sigh*
Bill wrote:
"I think it is entirely plausable and perhaps probable that secondhand smoke accounts for half of all the tobacco smoke inhaled by smokers..."
No Bill, it's neither plausible nor probable unless they spend all day standing in a closet.
How is it possible for your side to complain that there's little difference between a smoking section and a nonsmoking section? SHS travels and attacks nonsmokers, remember? It doesn't stick around for the smoker to inhale it again. It goes through cracks and pounces on the neighbors in apartments. Only in a small enough room that's sealed would you have any chance of saying this is plausible or probable.
They've had nonsmokers wear personal air monitors in smoky environments. They in no way came even close to what smokers inhale. According to your theory they should measure half what a smoker does during that time.
While studies may not have measured smokers' exposure to SHS they've certainly measured nonsmokers while in the same vicinity of SHS.
There's just too much air in a typical room (dilution) for your theory to be plausible or probable.
Bill Godshall wrote:
While SmokeFreeOhio may have meant for its statement to apply only to nonsmokers, its statment didn't say one way or the other.
Typical anti-smoker rhetoric, use of the word MAY. There is no use denying the facts, Bill, when it comes to SHS exposure and the assinine claims your side makes about said exposure, the only reference is to non-smokers.
I've been at this far too long to fall for semantical bullcrap........which is quite well known on your side.
Colin: Ahhh, Lynda, you have broken the golden ATI rule-you have employed logic. You know that is taboo.
Oh, dear, does this mean I can't be part of the club anymore? Oh boo hoo, I'm crushed, heartbroken, disappointed..........hehehehehe
Yes, I'm being totally and completely sarcastic and just joking here.
Isn't just awful when I do that? LOL
Bill Godshall wrote, "A problem with nearly all studies on smokers is that it is incorrectly presumed that first hand smoke (and not secondhand smoke) accounts for all smoker's exposure to smoke."
So nonsmokers, take heed of the advice from SmokeFree Pennsylvania: The studies showing that smoking is dangerous for your health may "nearly all" be incorrect and it may be perfectly safe to smoke all you want as as long as you do it outdoors with a good breeze blowing all that nasty secondhand smoke away from you. Of course Bill would argue that it's LIKELY that firsthand smoking also contributes to disease, but as he has stated, no one really knows as the studies are all heavily contaminated with that deadlier secondhand smoke stuff!
Sheeesh...
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
www.Antibrains.com
Dr. Siegel, you realize that smoke isn't the ONLY thing that may contribute to emphysema type disease. Check out an unpublished letter I sent to a newspaper a year or two ago after ab article about popcorn factory workers getting "bronchiolitis obliterans" from sniffing that delightful buttery aroma all day:
Dear Editor,
If first hand popcorn fumes are deadly, then it follows, by Bloomberg's Law, that secondhand popcorn fumes are deadly. How long will it be before we have a law against popcorn in movie theaters and an Elite Corps of Undercover Secret Popcorn Police (USPP) to enforce it?
Will such service be considered hazardous duty? And will the USPP also be ready to shoot any film character that lights up on-screen?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
www.AntiBrains.com
Bill how on earth did you manage to study for a medical degree,whilst acting as CEO of your broadcasting company aka "Bill Godshall Announces",THE WORLD WILL END SATURDAY.......oops sorry that's Bill's part time job as a clairvoyant.Do you enjoy the power that you've granted yourself,or the knowledge that you have gained ,be real and get off this ego trip.You are a single individual who has a gripe about smoking and smokers,decides they should all switch to smokeless and live happily ever after.All those years you've spent building your own one man army have deluded you into thinking you are doing this for the good of mankind,you don't do this out of love anymore, it's pure neccessity to feed your craving for control.You may be able to lead the horse to water but you can't force it to drink.
Bill: While SmokeFreeOhio may have meant for its statement to apply only to nonsmokers, its statment didn't say one way or the other.
The depths of defensive desperation. This should make a Top Ten list.
Bill: But my point is that most smokers inhale far more secondhand smoke than do most nonsmokers, and thus, secondhand smoke probably causes more harm among smokers than it does among nonsmokers.
No, the point of your point is to divert, divert, divert.
Bill, are you just joking now? Have you given up any pretense to rationality? Doesn't anyone who cares about your issue ever pull you aside and gently talk to you about torturing logic to the point where your position isn't plausible?
By the way, Bill, whether secondhand or firsthand smoke is a cause of emphysema in smokers is really beside the point for those of us who smoke. We've chosen to do so, knowing our likelihood of emphysema is increased. Just why should we care about what secondhand smoke does to our personal chances of emphysema? Should we throw behind you and beg to be protected from our own secondhand smoke? Should we implore you to throw us out of our houses so that, at least, we're protected from our own SHS and only have to worry about the fact that we're smoking?
Do you see the irrational insanity this leads to?
Once again:
Bill wrote,
"But my point is that most smokers inhale far more secondhand smoke than do most nonsmokers, "
So, I suppose you're going to concede as false the recent hysterical anti claims that nonsmokers are breathing more pollutants than smokers?
Oh, who am I kidding. Politics is the art of the possible, is it not, Bill?
Note the weasel in a quote that was quoted up above about the prevalence of emphysema being something like 10% "in industrialized nations." Fact is that polluted air in industrialized (and also read "traffic-clogged") cities affects everybody's lungs, and leads to the physical changes of emphysema/ COPD to one degree or another. The question is the degree. It's been said that almost everyone over the age of 50 has the marks of these changes, (visible on a CAT) but are asymptomatic. So the doctors can have a field day diagnosing a "disease" that is virtually undetectible in actual functioning life.
The SG report of 1986 (great-grandaddy of em all) made the point that observed changes from exposure to SHS were so minor as to lack any clinical meaning at all.
Bill said:
"But my point is that most smokers inhale far more secondhand smoke than do most nonsmokers, and thus, secondhand smoke probably causes more harm among smokers than it does among nonsmokers."
Our point is the smokers inhale much, much more tobacco smoke, period, then non-smokers. That is why smokers have higher rates of certain diseases.
I found an interesting parallel to the discussion about causality and how easy (and convenient when the agenda calls for it) it is to jump to the wrong conclusions:
A new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives seems to point to two previously unpublished potential risk factors for ADHD, prenatal tobacco exposure and environmental lead exposure.
[...]
Almost one third of all cases of ADHD could then be attributed to these two risk factors. If these findings are confirmed, it would be an astounding breakthrough in helping prevent a condition that is a growing problem. However, the results raise a number of questions.
First, smoking rates have been in decline for years. Many more women smoked while pregnant in the 1960s before this was proven to be detrimental to a fetus. If prenatal exposure to tobacco was as large a risk factor as this research claims, we would have expected to see an "epidemic" of ADHD in earlier generations, more so than in today's children.
Similarly, exposure to lead has also been in decline for years.
[...]
However, pinning one third of all cases of ADHD on two unproven risk factors would be irresponsible. Before ADHD can be considered a preventable disorder, a proven cause, not a hypothetical one, must be found. - http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
A new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives seems to point to two previously unpublished potential risk factors for ADHD, prenatal tobacco exposure and environmental lead exposure.
And I just heard this exact same thing on my local TV News this morning, reported as a 'new study shows'.
The local news I watch is an affiliate of CBS News.
Lynda wrote:
"And we're still not dropping like flies all over the place Bill, which is why none of us by into the the whole SHS scare tactics."
While smokers aren't dropping like flies (which only live about a week), according to the CDC, an average of 437,902 deaths in the U.S. were attributed to cigarette smoking annually from 1997 to 2001, including 397,962 deaths from active smoking; 38,112 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure; 918 deaths from burns; and 910 perinatal deaths from smoking during pregnancy (MMWR 7/1/05) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/m...F/wk/
mm5444.pdf
And Bill, those people STILL would have died, smoking or not. I seriously doubt those numbers would not exist just the same, only the cause would be different. And even if those particular people didn't die, others would have. It's the balance of nature Bill, with millions being born daily, others will die, or else there'd be no more room on the planet.
Where is it you all get this idea that you can actually cheat death?
Get a grip on reality ok? It is NOT up to you or anyone else on this planet to decide who lives and dies and how they live or die OR even when.
38,112 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure; 910 perinatal deaths from smoking during pregnancy
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/m...F/wk/
mm5444.pdf
OK I bit. searched entire doc/pdf for :
second hand smoke
perinatal death
ETS
SHS
Nada, zip zilch.
so where did the above numbers come from? if not in the cited source.
cause you just threw out a number of cited deaths from SHS.
'cause you said so?
Do flies suffer the consequences of SHS as well then Bill ?
Bill Says: " deaths in the U.S. were attributed to cigarette smoking annually from 1997 to 2001... ...38,112 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure;".
Very Interesting, considering the number of "deaths caused by/due to SHS exposure" the Anti's inconsistantly use as a general part of their scare tactics to get bans passed (As I recall, somewhere between 23,000 - 450,000, annually), the figures Bill just posted work out to much smaller numbers.
If we take it from the end of 1997 thru 2001 (4 years) we get an average of 9,528 deaths per annum, if we include 1997 (5 years) we get 7,622.4 deaths per annum, and mind you, not ONE of these deaths is documented or proven to be caused by SHS, just estimated.
Hmmm, still can't figure who, how many are dying of SHS (If any), and still can't prove a single one.
The correct MMWR weblink (for annual cigarette mortality in the US) is
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/...ml/
mm5425a1.htm
Oh goody Bill ,have you just finished updating the figures ?
What I despise most about anti-smokers is their conviction that they are virtuous. Any who dedicate their lives to diminishing the liberties of their fellow citizens are precisely the opposite: vicious.
TO: Bill Godshall "Send you a plague of dead cattle"
FROM: Every bar and restaurant owner in PA
DATE: September 29, 2006
RE: My Private Property
Dear Nosey Busybody Amateur Nanny State Dictator:
Thank you for your bizarre, misguided, and misplaced interest in _____(name of establishment). As you know ______(name of establishment) strives to provide our guests with a relaxed atmosphere and great hospitality in which to enjoy our great food and spirits among their friends.
Your comments are always welcome.
However, after reviewing your demand to ban adults from engaging in legal activities like cigarette smoking on my property, a few alarming facts have come to my attention.
Upon consultation with my attorney and after reviewing the public records stored in City Hall, it appears that your name is not on the deed to this property.
In addition, my CPA has checked my invoices and has not found one bill that you have ever paid here.
Therefore, on advice of counsel, I must conclude:
This is my property! I pay the bills here! And if you don't like it there's the door. Don't let it hit you where the good Lord split you!
Buzz off,
The Management
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
