"Sure, the coronary reserve flow is reduced in exposed nonsmokers, but this reserve flow reduction is simply an indication of endothelial dysfunction, and it has no acute clinical significance" Ok Doc. What's your view on the "chronic" accumulative effect of 30 year exposure?
Doctor Siegel,
This kind of bogus nonsense coming from this group is not surprising. The folks at MPAAT had their hands seriously slapped a few years ago for their shenanigans. and if I recall correctly they were practically brought down single handedly by a non-smoking teenager who was fed up with their lies and distortions.
While I do agree with you that the sample size was far too small (although much larger than the sample size Repace used for the entire state of Delaware) and can understand a reluctance on their part for not giving up all the data easily.....declines in patronage of bars following a ban flies directly in the face of all the (empty) promises made by the antis about how good bans are for business.
Doc, you can give them the benefit of the doubt all you want. I don't.
Face it, someone who speaks the truth makes no attempt to hide the data, in fact they usually bring it all out to alleviate any doubts.
While this sample size was indeed small, I notice one other thing which might account for their not revealing the data up front.....Interestingly, in the seven bars where patronage dropped, the air quality improved significantly more than in three bars where the customer counts went up.
Interesting indeed that the more customers the less improvement in air quality. And you question IF they left the data out on purpose? Doc, a 6 year old could have spotted that.
Sorry Doc, I'm with Gabz on this, this is nothing new, just business as usual for the fanatics.
Geo-
I've made my opinion clear on this previously. I do believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that chronic exposure (such as over 30 years as you ask) does increase heart disease risk. But whether I believe it or not, I think there is enough documented statements of major scientific groups out there to support an anti-smoking group making such a public claim. But with the eat in a smoky restaurant, increase your risk of heart disease claim, there is nothing to support it at all. But you're right - the cumulative effects of an exposure that has transient physiologic effects can be, and is in this case a lot different than just an acute exposure.
Nice coverage of the story Doc....
One of the contentious issues here is that MPAAT didn't want this data shown:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogg...1293/1600/
MPAAT customer numbers St.jpg
Which is their (MPAAT/ClearWay MN) data, by the way. The reason they didn't want it shown is that it shows a customer decline in 7 out of 10 hospitality businesses after implementation of a smoking ban. (Not a successful way to market future smoking bans.)
Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again; getting smokers to quit smoking voluntarily through education and marketing efforts is a noble and just cause.....I would even gladly help in that endeavor (as an ex-smoker)......however to use the force of government, and exaggerate even lie about the health effects of secondhand smoke to accomplish that goal (smoking bans) is coercive, collusive and borders on racketeering in my mind.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....h-
bullshit.html
Below is my take on the MPAAT story as covered by the St. Paul Pioneer Press, who I must say surprised me by covering the story at all......the media may be slowly coming around to investigate the "rest of the story" afterall.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....neer-
press.html
Sorry, for the MPAAT customer loss data try this:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogg...umbers%
20St.jpg
or find the link from this post:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....neer-
press.html
Let's give ClearWay the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is just a careless mistake and not an intentional lie
And exactly why should we do that?
More rope to hang them with maybe Walt?
I think it'd be quite a contrast to say "even if they have good intentions, bad things still result..." a nice way to take the (deserved) high road.
Even saying they might be careless puts a big dent in their claims of scientific rigor.
Walt (quoting): "Let's give ClearWay the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is just a careless mistake and not an intentional lie.
"And exactly why should we do that?"
Beautiful, Walt, just beautiful.
Commenting by HaloScan
