Dr. Siegel, as is all too often the case, you are STILL giving the antismoking groups a "benefit of the doubt" which they do not deserve. ANSR and this Minnesota group are NOT garage door operations run by little old ladies with mimeograph machines. Their press releases are in all likelihood carefully put together by trained, full time, well-paid professionals who know EXACTLY what they're doing and know EXACTLY what lies they are telling.
Claiming a danger from 30 seconds of exposure rather than 30 minutes is a carefully calculated lie designed to further instill terror in nonsmokers of having to walk by smokers outside or near doors. It is designed to support mindless fear when one is in one's apartment and thinks that maybe they smell a scent of smoke from someone who they suspects smokes next door.
Dr. Siegel, these people are liars and they have been liars for a VERY long time... not just recently. Check out not just the Helena study and its conscious public distortions, but the WHO study of October 1998 and the official WHO "press release" about the study 7 months before it was published.
"Do NOT Let Them Fool You: Passive Smoking DOES Cause Lung Cancer!" was the headline on that press release. For seven months that was the "official line" about what the study had proved. It wasn't until it was finally published in the relatively obscure "Journal of the National Cancer Institute" that the public could actually see the real findings, and even then the WHO did their best to deliberately obscure those findings through misleading language in the study's abstract and conclusions.
Dr. Siegel, these are LIES, and they are told very deliberately and consciously and with the full intent of misleading the media, the public, and politicians into supporting smoking bans. I believe that even you yourself, despite your efforts to see beyond the more blatant of the public lies, still have your general thinking and views in the area of ETS so contaminated by years of constant exposure to them that you fail to see the reality that is out there:
There has never yet been a single study indicating any degree of long term harm to health from the low levels of exposure to secondary smoke that would normally be found in any decently ventilate/filtrated modern hospitality venue. Any bans that are imposed are being imposed on the basis of exaggerations and distortions of studies far beyond what any actual scientific findings would support and are being increasingly acknowledged not to be just a "worker safety issue" but rather an open attempt at outright social engineering.
This is WRONG Dr. Siegel, and I hope that soon you will stand up and more clearly see and label it as such. It is NOT an "aberration" that merely needs a correction or apology.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
http://www.Antibrains.com
And Bill acts as IF it's us smokers that make claims that are totally misleading and inaccurate. At least we speak from a first hand experience standpoint. He loves to forget how we not only smoke BUT are constantly exposed to SHS at the same time. And here we are, healthy and alive and breathing. So just HOW deadly is SHS? Hmmmmmmm?
And the headline is already out isn't it?
And who will call them on this?
And what happens when they do not retract?
And how long do they get the 'benefit of the doubt'?
And the beat goes on....
west
----
I agree Dr. Siegel, the benefit of the doubt has long since expired, it is as expired as the notion that anyone could be "tricked" by the tobacco companies into starting smoking. With over 45 years of warning labels on the packaging, numerous claims that smoking is bad for you, and for the last decade or two the improbability of a Dr's visit that didn't include a lecture on the "dangers" of smoking, as well as an admonishment to quit, now, there is little doubt that ANYONE who has taken up the habit in the last 2 decades, did so without knowledge of the "dangers" presented by doing so, exists.
After several years of "fallacious" claims, junk science being touted, outright lies and fabrications, not to mention social engineering, denormalization campaigns, and downright discriminatory behaviours being lauded as the "right" way to do things, "for the good of the XXX(Insert children, aged, infirm, incapable of making decisions, etc, etc, for XXX)", and you can not possibly believe that every single occurance of this behaviour is simply an oversight, a mistake, an error, an unwitting volunteer worker who doesnt understand the science, nor any of the other thousand reason's you have found to grant them pardon for their actions.
These groups are professional liars, doing whatever they can get away with, to promote their agenda, to keep the grant dolars flowing in, to demonize a quarter of the population and their loved ones, to ostracize, to remove human rights and dignity, to criminalize and punish those who choose to accept risk in their lives, choose to live by their own methods, rather than by what someone else believes.
It is high time you got off your podium and see the real world out here, it is a vicous, and brainless machine, and they aren't stopping at tobacco, as we have discussed many times, they are using the same map layed out by tobacco control to increasingly attack, and denigrate other "groups" whose "lifestyles" they don't agree with, using lies, deception, coercion, punishment, bullying, and the almighty dollar to get their way.
You are continually trying to excuse their actions as naivete, it isn't, it is willful deception, and I and many others are getting very tired of being told we are scum, murderers, rapists, drug addicts, idiots, bad people who stink.
If you truly believe these are all simply abberations, then you are truly blinded by your goals as well. You know they will not stop at tobacco, or even anything reasonable about control of tobacco.
For 2 decades now, I have said that if you want smoking made illegal, simply grandfather it out, if your legal today, you always will be, if not, you never will be. That would stop all future sales to "minors" IE: No more being able to target "children" anymore, it would remove the rest of us within 60 years or less, (Just think, if they had actually done this when I first suggested it 20 years ago, it would only be a matter of 20 - 40 more years until most if not all smokers (legally speaking of course) were removed from the face of the earth).
As it stands now, your "tobacco control movement" stands to see a setback of well over a hundred years, because when these "fallacious" claims are exposed enough, the general public will never believe a "public Health Official" again, about any possible danger to themselves or the rest of society.
The backlash IS building, and crowing about their triumphs will only help keep groups, and people like Bill Godshall's, head buried in the sand until the very mention of "Public Health" will be held in the same or worse esteem than the tobacco companies, or even smokers themselves are held today.
What a wondeful world THAT will be, when a true menace to public health comes along, and everyone refers to "Public Health's" warnings in the smae regard that Chicked Little is viewed, or the boy who cried wolf.
Is that whats missing in todays society? no one reads these classic tales anymore, and therefore doesn't learn the lessons they were written to present for the rest of us to heed?
Wow, Jerry. Those are very powerful comments.
The Boy Who Cried Wolf is an excellent analogy. I know many people who have never smoked and joke about taking up the habit because they are so sick of the constant bombardment of the anti-smoker propaganda. But what really bothers me are the messages they are sending to young people, particularly that it is perfectly acceptable to disrespect their elders if the older person is a smoker. No one has the right to undermine the manners taught to children (if they have been taught manners in the first place).
The mother of my daughter's best friend, brought this subject up the other day. She said she was horrified the other day when she heard a little girl not much older than ours make a nasty comment to an older woman who was putting out her cigarette in the ashtray outside of a store. According to my friend, who is a non-smoker, the older woman looked at the child and told her she needed her mouth washed out with soap for her disrespectful attitude.
As far as I am concerned we have the anti-smokers, such as Mr. Godshall and company, to blame for the breakdown in manners of the younger generation. I also lay much blame on the same cast of characters for the increase of illicit drug experimentation/use amongst young people with their constant claim of cigarettes being more addictive than heroin and cocaine.
Why should we believe anything any of them say?
The next garbage must be that smokers are damaging the genes 3or 4 generations hence,even if the parent/s don't smoke.Start a rumour,"the martians have landed and they smoke tobacco "Every tobacco control group WILL BELIEVE IT,they believe everything else,however implausable it sounds.
Dr Siegel
I will join my voice to the voice of other posters and tell you that you have to sooner or later (better sooner than later) cut that umbilical cord that still ties you somehow to your ex colleagues and start breathing on your own Doc. You're from a different class and you should stop making excuses and keep trying to save them from ridicule. They have become an embarrassment to what had started out as a good cause and to public health. Save yourself and run Dr Siegel. You will be doing yourself and truth a favor. Good scientists is what society needs. Not leaches and money grabbers. Once these fraudsters will be exposed for what they are, tobacco control will take a complete different meaning. The meaning of truthful and caring education instead of the money-grabbing witch hunt it has become.
By the way, the Quebec bar owners' injunction hearing will take place Nov. 13th and 14th in Montreal. It is the 3rd round of a long fight they have undertaken to invalidate the Quebec smoking ban on constitutional and junk science challenges.
Anyone wanting information on this challenge and our local activities can contact me through C.A.G.E. on the link below
What we have here is another Enron. For a number of years Enron made political contributions from the Federal to the local level. They got a lot of laws passed all over the country. They had a lot of 'success' for a short while. They also did a lot of damage to the country that wont be cleaned up for a long time. The TC movement will play out the same way as I can see now. It is a crying travesty because some of the research done by some of them has been (a long time in the past) good solid work. They have no credibility with a lot of people now.
and I will add my two pennies worth:
anyone who is voting in the Nov. elections-
Do Not Vote for Medocrats-HypoCrats-GrantoCrats! check our their voting records, their plank/platform. They could be red or blue or green or purple.
Do Not Vote for the Healthist!
Do Not Vote for Socialized Medicine
Do Not Vote for Behavioral Engineering
Do Not Vote for Bloomie Style Politics
DO VOTE your MIND, GUT, and to Live Free.
I am writing this, of course, from WI-where Tommy Thompson is "thinking" of running for prez in '08....he is a MedoCrat of the unwholesome WI degree.
He is/has been working for ONLY the Healthcare Industry/counterfeit coin of the realm industry and has already made the statement towards Healthcare Behavioral Engineering for the USA.
I am a "libertine" and will fight to my death ANY infringements upon my right to LIVE FREE.
si wrote: The next garbage must be that smokers are damaging the genes 3or 4 generations hence,even if the parent/s don't smoke.
Um. Already done. Study about a year ago "showed" that even if the mother didn't smoke, if HER mother did, it nonetheless damaged the 3rd gen. child. Supposedly grandma damaged mom in the womb and the curse travelled down to-- and doomed-- the entire House of Atreus.
No i'm not kidding. I'll see if I can dig it up for you. Or maybe somebody else has it...?
Dr. Siegel: "Let's give the Association for Nonsmokers the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was simply a careless mistake, and that what they meant to say was that 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke is indistinguishable from chronic active smoking in terms of coronary artery function."
Dr. Siegel: "I guess we can add the Association of Nonsmokers to the list of more than 80 anti-smoking groups which are making fallacious health claims in order to promote smoking bans."
Way past time to get off the fence, doctor!
My take on this is that these TC groups have become so numerous that the only way to get a piece of the grant money anymore is to come up with the most ridiculous claim.
Face it, funding-wise you've got ASH and a few others who hit the coveted "golden teat" position years ago; then you got a thousand little copycat TC piglets desperately trying to get hooked up as well. How better to do it, to hit the big funding jackpot, that is, than to make the newest and most ridiculous claim?
But that's the rub. All the good lies have been used up, so a lot of these new kids on the block have to invent a baseless whopper that's newsworthy. Not easy...
Anyhow, it's a cinch you can't make millions telling the truth, otherwise the good doctor here would be sailing his own yacht in Tahiti and sipping marguerites with native girls in grass skirts.
Personally, as repugnant as these TC groups are in their mendacity, I believe it's really the press that's to blame. Not just the press in America, but the press worldwide.
Tell me, with few exceptions, what has the so-called free press done to force any intregrity into the TC movement? How much equal time has the press given to qualified men and women in science and medicine, who might have a different point of view? How many reporters have even bothered to find out if perhaps something stinks to high heaven in the TC movement?
TC groups are going to lie, that's their job. The real criminals-indeed, the real enemies in this fight-are the people responsible for printing those lies without an iota of shame or doubt.
All it would take to bust this thing apart would be for one brave reporter, from one prominent newspaper, to start digging, and the whole house of TC lies would begin to crumble. It won't happen because the press has become just as rotten and cavalier as the TC liars they support.
It's ironic that they can find volunteer reporters gutsy enough to cover wars, with exploding bombs, whistling bullets, and death everywhere, but they cannot find one, NOT ONE REPORTER, with enough balls to traipse a mike and camera, in anger, over to the comfortable headquarters of a lying, trembling imposter, like Stanton Glantz.
Walt I think you are thinking of the study out of USC by Guilliand or something like that. They claimed that children whose grandmothers smoked while pregnant were at increased risk for asthma.
Doctor Siegel you are becoming more and more disillusioned by the second. But this is one of the effects of ETS is it not?
First of all you were disillusioned yearly, then monthly, then weekly, then daily followed by hourly, then by the minute and now by the second.
Yes, now it sounds like the regular instantaneous death of a man's hopes and aspirations but I expect the blame to be laid on smokers.
I don't know Eric. If we Push John Stossel enough, he may do what you ask, he has done a couple of pieces on the junk science being used, and the outrageous claims being put forth, just not near enough.
While 1 reporter certainly cant get the job done by themselves, I think it is more the "managers" of todays newsmedia outlets that are the biggest problem, I have had my share of conflicts with the local media moguls, privately of course, since they control all public outlets in the area, but it doesn't seem to be the reporter's Im having trouble with, some, at least, seem genuinely interested in delving deeper into the claims, but their editors, and managers won't allocate the time, resources, money, for the investigations, and if the reporter has volunteered to do the story on their own time, and or expense, they are rebuffed with the fact that it wont be published anyway, plus continue to stir that pot and their own careers could be put at risk.
What to do?
Jerry , Eric,
Most of the media are either lazy or complacent at best.
At worst we are looking at a global conspiracy, TC have been worming their way into positions of power and influence for 40 years.
Presidents, premiers, ministers, senetors, congressmen etc are generally not stupid, they know the truth or have the resources to find out but choose to look after themselves and back what they believe is a populist groundswell. Anti smoke /smokers/tobacco appears to be the flavour of the month and politicians may think opposition would be futile and possibly political suicide.
Somewhere in between comes good old corruption.
GreatScot
Yes if you know the paper editors, you will have the gatekeeper for the newspaper. He is the one who decides where they stand on an issue. all papers have to send a consisstant message to the publlic. That is the person you really want to get o know, of you want to affect the message from that paper.
If more people got to know the editor. I bet there would be a turn around in the situation. Remeber he doesn't have to listen to you, you want him to listen to you. I can't believe how many people think that putting vinegar in their message will get a good response from the editor.
Have you talked to the good misguided editor lately? Media representation is definatly an asset that should be better utilized by true grass roots organizations.
Sorry of thread.
Speachless and ashamed to be Scottish
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/
outp...ry8854942t0.asp
"In addition, the risk assessment at a patient’s house will log the sources, quantity and type of tobacco used, length of time staff are exposed to passive smoking and any other relevant circumstances."
GreatScot, that's why they have to limit the service at a patient's home: they will have to make a risk assessment and log all the data. No time left for the patients.
... and since nobody knows what risk - if any - is related to what quantity, type of tobacco and length of exposure, they will plug all the data into a spreadsheet and do some magic number crunching.
GreatScot, it sounds like your NHS health nazis are being more inventive in their suppression than in California...and I didn't think that possible.
I swear to you I am not gloating here when I say that the article confirms my previous post; in that the press is entirely complicite in this outrage. The paper reported this official and potentially life-or-death blackmail policy without one iota of shock or commentary. It's truly sickening, especially considering that it wasn't so many years ago that patients could smoke in their wards while recovering, and in the case of WWII, they would hand out charity cigarette packets to the wounded boys. Of couse some wanker, Bill maybe, is going to say that the the nurses later died in droves because of it.
My God, anymore you would think that SHS is as lethal as sarin gas.
It gets worse every day!
"Speachless and ashamed to be Scottish"
GreatScot, it's not about the Scots. It is about the sinister and dark sides of humanity. These things make me ashamed of being a human being. Not even animals would stoop to such a low act.
Dr. Siegel,
The words healthcare professional and promoting violence normally dont belong in the same sentence. It goes against what I believe healthcare should be about. The TC movement is guilty of this. There are many stories around the web on this subject. If a person has credibility in what they say, why would they need to resort to threatening, bullying, harassing or violent behavior?
"I swear to you I am not gloating here when I say that the article confirms my previous post; in that the press is entirely complicit in this outrage."
Exactly right. Anecdotally (I think I posted this before), a publisher in Alabama emailed me that even if all I said about the "dangers" of secondhand smoke was true, he'd STILL be for a ban because he didn't like to eat in restaurants that allowed smoking (although he himself smoked an occasional cigar). What the hell are you going to do with pigs like that -- and I don't think their numbers are insubstantial in the newspaper game.
There are lots of reasons why newspapers haven't fulfilled their obligation to present the facts, but this surely will go down as one of their UNfinest hours, 'The paper of record' especially. But also the wire services, with AP being the worst culprit, in my estimation. Black and white and crap all over.
GS - Shocking...
Maybe what is needed is some very brave soul to push back all the way. To the point where they will have to justify (quantitively) their numbers and hence decisions. It may require a court case to ultimatley decide this.
Is their a scientific report that supports their actions? Anyone?
What is so depressing is that people just seem to go along with this. How can a Doctor support such a policy?
(on a slightly different tack, at The Evidence Is Clear: They’re Trying To Kill Us They are advertising a ' Health and Wealth Conference' to discuss the naughty pharmaceutical industry. 2 things, 1, It is to be held in California and 2, ETS is not on the agenda. They suggest they are libertarian. Libertarian?...)
west
----
Things are not going strictly to plan here in sunny Scotland......
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...2405003,00.html
It's not as if we didnt warn them beforehand.
So the evidence is clear
Somking Ban = Increase in Smoking.
More people are at 'risk' if a ban is imposed. Therefore the ban on smoking, in England, Wales and NI, should, on health grounds be dropped. The band in Scotland revoked.
west
----
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm...D6279667DEBCBA3
Article above about SHS study out of U of Buffalo. From Science American.com
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi...166%2F18%
2F1961
And this above is an abstract of the actual study.
Two distinctly different conclusions to the study. What will the public hear?
And just to prove it was NEVER about "health" we have this little gem: Maureen Moore, the chief executive of Ash Scotland — the anti-smoking lobby group — called on the Scottish executive to find new ways to cut smoking levels. More than 25% of the adult population — one million people — in Scotland smoke.
“Any increase in sales of cigarettes is bad news for public health,” said Moore. “If cigarette sales are genuinely on the increase then the government needs to raise the price of tobacco further and consider new ways in which to target smokers with better smoking cessation choices.”
What gets me though is this "Every year more than 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital in Britain suffering from illnesses related to passive smoking in the home." However did us baby boomers AND our parents and grandparents survive? Or perhaps the better question is WHAT exactly is going on today, that so many children with little to no exposure to SHS are so ill? I still say it's all the air pollution and chemicals in our foods and water supplies.
All the time, energy and money these anti groups are expending would be better spent advocating for cleaning up the environment. Now THAT would really be a public health service AND extend (you can't avoid death) lives. The problem is that all these advocates don't really want to save anyone, they just want to dictate choices; nor are they interested in actually going after the real issues, they choose instead to go after the smallest of issues since it is a choice that many just dislike the smell of to start with. Kind of pathetic if you ask me, like the schoolyard bully picking on the smallest and weakest kids only, but not having the balls to go after those their own size and strength.
Gilster,
According to the abstract: Results From the Western New York Health Study, 1995-2001 this study was done PRIOR to the NY statewide ban. NYC banned smoking in public places in 2003 with the state following shortly after (same year or 2004 I forget exactly). In other words, even prior to the ban NO high risk level existed.
Or perhaps the better question is WHAT exactly is going on today, that so many children with little to no exposure to SHS are so ill?
A dam good question.
west
----
West wrote
More people are at 'risk' if a ban is imposed. Therefore the ban on smoking, in England, Wales and NI, should, on health grounds be dropped. The band in Scotland revoked.
Sorry West, nice thought but this will just lead to more regressive taxation, hitting the poorest families who will sacrifice some other essential, and to further the call to extend bans into the private home.
This campaign has absolutely nothing to do with protecting non-smokers and everything to do with forcing active smokers to quit.
There are already growing calls to ban smoking outside pubs because people have to pass through the fug. People outside are too noise, litter is a huge problem, it is unsightly for visitors, ban them from parks, doorways, etc deny smokers any dignity or comfort.
England's ban is not even in place and they are trying to extend it.
Lynda wrote: "Or perhaps the better question is WHAT exactly is going on today, that so many children with little to no exposure to SHS are so ill? I still say it's all the air pollution and chemicals in our foods and water supplies.".
While I agree. somewhat, with your assessment of Air Pollution, and chemicals, I think one of the greatest contributing factors has to be so many peoples obsession with germ free environments, while reducing germs and bacteria is a good thing, trying to live your life with them eliminated is not, without the regular daily exposure to bacteria and germs, our bodies have no need to develop agents to combat the illness's borne by bacteria and germs, then when encountering them has no mechanism to fight them built into the body's system of natural defenses.
Sterilization will cause exactly that, a sterile environment, and since we mere mortals are not sterile, we cannot exist in a sterile environment for long, certainly not as a species, for we will not be able to combat the simplest disease agents.
There's also still the studies pointing to diesel exhaust as a major contributing factor to asthma increase as well as COPD increases.
Not to mention (and I think this is highly relevant considering the weeks news) the radioactive fallout from nuclear testing, such as N Korea's experiments this week, as well as our own previous detonations.
The stuff those put out has been proven to CAUSE most of these diseases, not contribute, not increase risk, not possibly, or probably, but WILL CAUSE them, proven, beyond a doubt.
And the world would have us believe we poor little smokers are responsible for all the worlds ill's, not the airliners spewing millions of times daily the amount of "carcinogens" we exhale, not the transport industry burning diesel at the highest rate in history, not the coal plants, not the atomic energy particles, not the exhaust from our auto's, not the wood fires burning everywhere, not the volcanic eruptions spewing tons of ash, debris, sulfer, etc, into the air, its we smokers making the world such a dangerous place for the rest of society - Right....
After many enquiries from people seeking a place for discussion between people who are serious about fighting the Nanny State worldwide, my friends & I have created a forum.
Nanny State Fighters forum aggressively moderated - no anti-smokers will be permitted and no personal disputes or personal attacks between members will be tolerated. You will need to "apply" to become a member of the Nanny State Fighters forum.
We will be aggressively recruiting people who are serious about fighting Nanny State-ism from around the globe. If you are interested, please join us here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
na...nystatefighters
GS wrote
Sorry West, nice thought but this will just lead to more regressive taxation, hitting the poorest families who will sacrifice some other essential, and to further the call to extend bans into the private home.
And they won't raise the taxes on cigs if the ban stays? I agree this is a regressive tax and only leads to increased smuggling, makes the poor poorer and losses revenue for the govt. (I produced figures on this in another thread)
My comment was a 'hoisted by your own piccard' comment. They claimed smoking would be reduced, it wasn't. Though without a ban, smoking was reducing.
As for the ban per se, business loses money, people lose jobs, people who smoke lose the freedom to associate and a ban increases the number of smokers.
The simple solution of ventilation is the way forward. Also, giving the owners the choice to designate thier premises as they wish. Choice is what is needed.
west
----
West,
Simply, I agree with you.
What I meant about the tax hikes, was rather than the normal greedy Government inflation bursting rises that we are used to was that we may see punitive tax hikes like we are witnessing in Ireland 30% proposed increase or what happened in New York from 8 cents per pack to $1.5o dollars per pack.
Instead of pure averice(sp?) we have a "health" justification. These people just don't seem to understand that we know the risks and choose to accept them. Their simplistic thinking appears to be if we charge £xxx for a pack, people will not be able to afford them, thus they will quit.
In reality, people find a way, and market forces will alway cater for a lucrative demand. Even if it is a black market.
GreatScot
Thanks for the additional info GreatScot.
I agree with you, especially the parts about risks and market forces.
west
----
The Sunday Times - Scotland;
"Every year more than 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital in Britain suffering from illnesses related to passive smoking in the home."
Oh, really, name us one.
I love the official SHS figures game and stats report in this article. It sounds so very ominous and alarming and by gawd truthful. It sounds so damn convincing as you read it that I want to play the game too. So here's my effort...
The New York Times, October 15, 1953
"Every year since 1945 not one child, out of the over 12 milion born to returning servicemen and their loving housewives, has proven to be even mildly effected by Mom & Dad smoking in the car, supermarket, fishbait store, hotel, motel, restaurant, during the Little League game, while watching Sid Ceaser on that new home TV, at the grandparents, visiting Dad at work, or spending two full days sitting next to an old man in a gray suit for two days on the Greyhound bus on a trip to Cleveland.
Slightly off topic but I've come up with an addendum that needs to be added to all smoking bans (where lawmakers refuse to listen to reason and facts)
More here:
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....athersplus.html
Off topic again, but as I was perusing the RWJF grants, I came upon this one, which states:
"Alcohol's contribution to global disease and disability exceeds that of tobacco, and its contribution to disability outstrips both malnutrition and occupational hazards."
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...&iaid=131&
gsa=1
Wow....Doc, Bill, Jill, Erik.....what are you wasting so much of your life fighting against tobacco for.....it sounds to me as thogh RWJF would provide far more funding to an organization which battles the evils of alcohol because it "exceeds that of tobacco"....
One to back up on server Gian......if RWJF doesn't eliminate this online grant....they will surely change the wording.
Sorry, that was me the anymouse.
the more that smoking is restricted and vilified, the more people will smoke...and want to smoke. it just makes sense and should be NO surprise to anyone. at least anyone who is free thinking.
Transportation Email This Article
Clean Air & Energy: Transportation: In Depth: Report
Exhausted by Diesel
How America's Dependence on Diesel Engines Threatens Our Health
Top of Report
Chapter 2
HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS
The scientific evidence is clear: diesel exhaust is a complex mixture comprised of hazardous particles and vapors, some of which are known carcinogens and others probable carcinogens. Diesel exposure poses a significant and avoidable increase in human health risks. Compelling evidence from dozens of well-designed studies supports the conclusion that diesel exhaust causes cancer. In addition, fine particles from diesel exhaust aggravate respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis, emphysema and asthma and are associated with premature deaths from cardio-pulmonary disorders.9 The evidence of health effects is derived from extensive studies of human workers as well as some studies in animals, and observations of various kinds of mutagenic activity in culture systems. Based on extensive evidence, 41 constituents of diesel exhaust have been listed by the State of California as Toxic Air Contaminants, as shown in Table 1. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the massive scientific evidence is that exposure to diesel exhaust significantly increases human health risks.
Table 1: Substances in Diesel Exhaust Listed by Cal EPA as Toxic Air Contaminants
acetaldehyde inorganic lead
acrolein manganese compounds
aniline mercury compounds
antimony compounds methanol
arsenic methyl ethyl ketone
benzene naphthalene
beryllium compounds nickel
biphenyl 4-nitrobiphenyl
bis[2-ethylhexyl]phthalate phenol
1,3-butadiene phosphorus
cadmium polycyclic organic matter, including
chlorine polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
chlorobenzene and their derivatives
chromium compounds propionaldehyde
cobalt compounds selenium compounds
creosol isomers styrene
cyanide compounds toluene
dibutylphthalate xylene isomers and mixtures
dioxins and dibenzofurans o-xylenes
ethyl benzene m-xylenes
formaldehyde p-xylenes
Note: California Health and Safety Code section 39655 defines a "toxic air contaminant" as "an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health."
Diesel Exhaust and Cancer: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Many studies have shown that diesel exhaust causes mutations in chromosomes and damage to DNA, processes which are believed to be important in the causation of cancer.10 There is also overwhelming evidence from studies of workers occupationally exposed to diesel exhaust revealing an increased cancer risk. Most of the over two dozen well-designed worker studies found lung cancer increases in those exposed to diesel exhaust for over a decade.46 Similar increases in risk are found in studies that controlled for cigarette smoking, as in those where information about smoking was unavailable. A recent analysis shows that consistent findings of an approximately 30 percent increase in risk of lung cancer among diesel exposed workers is highly unlikely to be due to chance, confounders (such as smoking), or bias.47 Unfortunately, many of these studies are limited by imprecise estimates of exposure levels, particularly for occupational exposures that occurred in the past.* The task of studying exposure to diesel exhaust is further complicated by the fact that there is no standard methodology for measurement of exposure, and there is uncertainty about which component or components of diesel exhaust may be most significant in inducing disease.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transpor...n/ebd/
chap2.asp
Now isn't that the same rate of risk as smoking?
PS it has much more daming info as well. Do the studies use this as a confounding factor???
West--
forgive the pedantry, but it's 'hoist by your own petard.' A petard is a small bomb, and getting hoist by your own, means (oops) the thing backfires and sends you up in the air.
Commenting by HaloScan
