Dr Siegel says "And instead of aiming to truly help smokers, which was the primary reason behind my decision to dedicate my career to tobacco control, we as a movement are increasingly trying to punish smokers and make their lives more difficult because of intolerance and social ostracization."
And using children is becomming an increasingly popular way to persecute smokers.
Please visit link http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=3342
You'll see that school children are being used to launch letter writing campaigns to promote public policy to persecute and harass smokers.
In this case, it resulted in an outdoor smoking ban at the St. Louis Zoo.
"The St. Louis Zoo adopts restricted smoking policy
By Diane Toroian Keaggy
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
12/27/2006
The St. Louis Zoo has made a New Year's resolution to cut back on smoking.
Starting Tuesday, it will limit smoking to four designated areas. The Zoo already prohibits smoking in the Children's Zoo and buildings but permits smoking along paths, near exhibits and at outdoor cafes.
"We've heard from visitors who have complained that they have endured smoke while standing in queuing lines and while walking behind smokers who are holding their cigarettes right about at face level of their children," said Wyndel Hill, human resources director. "We've heard from school groups who have sent us letters. We've collected all their comments and decided, in an effort to serve all of our visitors, to change our policy."
While there are still 4 outdoor smoking areas, these are a far walk from most parts of the zoo, and smokers will be forced to drag their families to these smoking areas when desiring to smoke. Or smokers could go by themselves, and later have trouble locating the rest of their family and spend a good part of the rest of the day walking around trying to find them. It's a big zoo.
In the past, smokers could smoke while walking from one exhibit to another, but because some school children were somehow misinformed that Charlie the Chimp's death was related, somehow, to smokers being allowed to smoke outdoors at zoos, we now have another instance of punishing smokers, and making their lives more difficult because of intolerence.
So, children are being used as pons in the war against smokers, not only in cars, but also outdoors where there is not even flawed evidence bans are justifiable.
Dave K
Why not just take the kids away at birth and let the state raise them. After all these nanny-statists don't believe parents are capable of being parents, so just let them do it.
I read about Connecticut's proposed ban just yesterday and I will be standing by my first reaction to the article. It stated that the bill came about because of an email from a 9 year old. Well, when that 9 year old is able to pay my car payments, pay my car insurance or at least is able to pay for my tank of gas, that will be the moment that he/she and I will have the talk as to what I will do in MY car! I have worked to hard throughout my life to have some busybody Politcian dictate my lifestyle and I stand here today and will declare that a 9 year old, just barely out of diapers, but encouraged by some anti activist will not be telling me what I will do and when I will do it. I challenge the rest of you to make the same declaration and make it loud and clear. Let the year 2007 be the year that we are finally heard from. It is going to take more than writing in this blog to be heard, but we must do it and do it now.
Doctor Siegel, how is your challange to Minnesota going when it comes to getting them to retract their claims about secondhand smoke? I was just in Minneapolis over the Christmas holidays where I learned that to get the message through, you first need to contact their PR firm who is doing the speaking for them. Seems that the Attorney General in that State, told the smokefree groups that it was not legal to use their money from us smokers to lobby Government Officials who they now channel the money to a PR firm and let them do the lobbying and lying. My son-in-law works in PR and his firm made a bid for that contract and he worked directly on the bid. While he was offering other suggestions they turned him down by saying "NO, this all has to be about health or no one will listen or care. The scarier we make it, the more progress we make!" Should you need the PR firms name and number that got the contract, then let me know as I can furnish it after one phone call to my son-in-law. By the way, my son-in-laws firm didn't get the contract. Maybe because David is a smoker too!
Finally, I never got a chance to wish you all a Merry Christmas, Happy Holiday or even Happy New Year before the end of 2006. I apologize for my lack of time to come on and see how you are all doing. So please accept my best wishes to you all for the coming year and lets make it the year that we win a few battles too!
Diane
Glad to see you back posting Dr Siegel.
Hope you had a nice vacation.
If you remember, last spring the Massachusetts legislators wanted to change the seat-belt laws from a secondary offence [not to be pulled over just for not wearing seatbelts] to a primary offence.It was not passed, but you know someday it will. The revenue garnered by such a law will be just another tax to fill the coffers.
This proposal with smoking in cars with kids under 18 will start as a secondary offense and morph into a primary offense. This will also have a potential to create alot of revenue.
This is not about seemingly protecting children, it's about money.
The first highlighted comment about childhood obesity is a great comparison. Is this society ready to give up rights and freedom on this slippery slope?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/...s-
fatadults.xml
Check out the above article. Apparently children are to blame for Adult obesity too. And I would dare to say that they may drive some Adults to smoke.
Dr. Siegel,
Welcome back and Happy New Year.
And instead of aiming to truly help smokers, which was the primary reason behind my decision to dedicate my career to tobacco control, we as a movement are increasingly trying to punish smokers and make their lives more difficult because of intolerance and social ostracization.
WHERE do you people get this idea from that smokers want help? I never heard of a smoker saying they wish someone else would worry about their health and help them quit. I never heard of a smoker even asking someone else to help them. IF they wanted to quit, they either just quit OR they would talk to their OWN personal physician about ways to quit. I don't recall ever reading that smokers wanted some "tobacco control" group to help them. I personally find it insulting that you all think you can force your personal preference of lifestyle choice on others.
Doc, when are you going to wake up and realize that tobacco control was NEVER about health? The very name "tobacco control" should have been your first clue.
I did say happy new year didn't I? hehehehehe
Gilster, of course kids are to blame for adult obesity..........god/goddess forbid anyone take responsibility for their own actions....hehehe Personally, I blame my son for having lost brain cells..........I used to be intelligent UNTIL I gave birth to him.........LOL 
Glister, I am glad you pointed out the creeping incremantalist nature of these laws. It usually progresses like this: "education" (brainwashing) campaigns, "voluntary" compliance, limited invountary compliance, total involuntary compliance. And, of course, it is a cash cow. But the more dangerous component is the denormalization enforced by law.
Dr. Siegel, you should know better by now. Of course it will eventually be a primary offense. And, as you pointed out, the same underlying argument can be used to ban smoking in private homes. The difference between you and me seems to be that you don't think this will ever happen. I am farily confident that it will. The anti-smoker forces always keep their eyes on the prize - which is complete smoking prohibition and/or criminalization - the "smoke-free society" if you will. If you really want to gain a better understanding of this issue, you have to start with the stated end result desired by these groups, and then see how all the parts fit together to achieve that goal. Every single law, ban, regulation, etc. only exists to work toward that goal.
Regarding the campaign's "moralizing," I would venture to say that it is a completely amoral, sociopathic hate movement. But, you are correct in one respect as I see the modern smoker control movement as being derived from other moral intolerance movements like Carrie Nation's WCTU - and you know how stellar that turned out.
And, even though it is slightly off-topic, I did want to comment about this "obesity and children" thing:
Where are all these overweight kids?
I am at the age where almost everyone I know has young children, and we get those snapfish Christmas cards that have pictures of the kids. None of them are overweight, never mind obese, except for one (who has two "big" parents).
I have walked past several school playgrounds and have not seen any increase in the amount of "fat kids" compared to what I remember growing up in the 70s. Maybe it's just me.
Of course, back then it was also easier for kids to be kids and play without their activities being "illegal" (skateboarding, ball playing, running on the playground, etc.). All those dopes who wring their hands over obesity are the same people who support every type of law that practically makes it a crime for children to engage in any sort of physical activity on the street or in those la-de-da developments.
I read a short article in Vegetarian Times a few months ago about how the baseline for defining obesity is proposed to be pushed downward, so in essence re-define children of normal weight to now be considered overweight. Some here might think VT would see this as a good thing. But, no, they pointed out how Big Pharma was behind this to create a new market for their "anti-obesity" drugs.
Expect to see the same techniques used by the anti-smoker campaign to be used against those who are defined to be obese. Watch out for the "us-against-them" techniques as well. People like me (vegetarian for over 19 years, normal weight) will of course be targeted as the "us" and expected to swallow the lies and turn against our friends, neighbors, and family ("look how much those disgusting fat people are costing US"). Sorry, I'm not buying it.
Most of your smokers are from low to middle class incomes and can't afford the high cost of quitting. If you really want to help smokers stop smoking...come up with a way to help them that they can afford!"
See how brain washed so many people are? High cost of quitting? Everyone is convinced that they need expensive NRT's and programs when the truth is the single most effective strategy is to well - just quit "cold turkey". Hasn't this been established over and over again? So we have PR campaigns not only designed to convince people that they should stop smoking but we convince them they need help to do it and they are incapable of doing it on their own.
Mike wrote:
"Parents who smoke in a car are also likely to smoke in the home, and the duration of this exposure is almost certainly going to be far higher than car exposure for the overwhelming majority of children, if not for all of them. So it makes no sense to ban smoking in cars with children present and yet allow smoking in homes with children present. And once you are willing to interfere with parental autonomy and regulate behavior in a private car, there is no reason not to also regulate behavior in a private home."
Levels of tobacco smoke pollution in cars are usually far greater than levels found in homes, so it is entirely logical (and correct) from a public health perspective to ban smoking in cars when children are present.
And while Mike is correct that smokers who expose their children to tobacco smoke pollution in a car are also likely to do so in their home (since many smokers don't care about the health of their own children), banning smoking in cars with children present is an effective way of educating selfish smokers about the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution and of discouraging them from smoking in their homes as well.
Since nearly every state (maybe all) requires parents of young children to use child safety seats when driving a car, and some states require older children to be buckled up, there are already legal precedents for banning smoking in cars a child is present.
But just as laws requiring children to be buckled up in a car haven't led to laws requiring children to be buckled up in their homes, banning smoking in a car with a child present is far different than banning smoking in a home with a child present.
As one who successfully advocated a law in PA (15 years ago) requiring drivers to wear seat belts that only imposed a small fine for violators, I strongly disagree with Mike's assertion that Bangor's proposal will be ineffective.
That's the same crap seat belt opponents claimed, but the enactment of PA's seat belt law increased seat belt usage in PA from about 50% to about 75%.
Oh and regarding the fat kids in Maine.
Note this little bit of research from Medline.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/
medlinepl...tory_43308.html
Full-fat dairy products linked to lower weight
Hmmmm - the state does not allow children the choice of whole milk in it's schools.
Maybe it's state policies driving the so-called childhood obesity epidemic?
Protecting children from tobacco smoke pollution in cars is such a sound public health policy that state legislation doing so was recently enacted in Lousiana and Puerto Rico, and a bill will be introduced in Connecticut.
See article in Boston Globe at http://www.boston.com/news/local...on.com+%
2F+News
Bully for you Bill. I opposed seat belt laws back them for the same reason I oppose this one. Government intervention into private personal decisions. Just because you like the results of your law doesn't make it good precedent.
Mike wrote:
"If we truly wanted to help smokers, then we would take Rae-Shawna's excellent suggestion and provide low-cost or free smoking cessation assistance to smokers who want to quit"
Nothing prevents Mike or anyone else from providing low-cost or free smoking cessation assistance to smokers who want to quit, as I've also been doing that for the past two decades.
But I've found that advocating smokefree policies, cigarette tax hikes (and other policies that give addicted smokers more incentives to quit) is far more cost effective than offering low-cost or free smoking cessation assistance.
Bill Wrote;
"And while Mike is correct that smokers who expose their children to tobacco smoke pollution in a car are also likely to do so in their home (since many smokers don't care about the health of their own children), banning smoking in cars with children present is an effective way of educating selfish smokers about the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution and of discouraging them from smoking in their homes as well."
Bill makes my point for me and quite iravocably in process.
The ETS Jihad of protecting children or Hospitality workers never considered either of these groups. What they did discuss was the use of Children and Hospitality workers as strategic examples and through ad agency studies defined the ways to find the most political impact for the bucks invested. Only then did they call for research to back up the planned anouncements. Selective reading did the rest and the parrots learned their verses to educate us all.
Bill show us the research to back up these aparently recent pearls of wisdom. Do you have any specific smokers in mind in your considerate discription of your neighbors? or are we just generalizing as usual to increase the level of fear and hatred against others?
You are among the mindset of pathetic sheep who once cheered the creation of the death camps and represent what makes most of us cringe.
Take a long look in the mirror Bill and grow up, you could use some significant improvement yourself, before dictating the actions of others.
I propose that we don't like Bill posting here. But as defenders of free speech we do not propose that the product called Bill be banned or made illegal. That would be wrong. So I propose that the product Bill be charged money (with incremental increases) for the privilege of posting here. It would be entirely vollllluntary (he could pay or not) and it would be an incennnnntive for him to quit posting here.
(And he could still speak, he just wouldn't be doing it here.)
Our hands would be just as morally clear and clean as Bill's if we do it that way. Let's form the Advocates for the Encouragement to be Billfree!
Margaret wrote: "See how brain washed so many people are? High cost of quitting? Everyone is convinced that they need expensive NRT's and programs when the truth is the single most effective strategy is to well - just quit "cold turkey"."
Margaret - This is an excellent, and very insightful point. I think you're right. The anti-smoking researchers who are most influential in setting smoking cessation policy have close ties to pharmaceutical companies; thus, the mantra of the movement has become that NRT or other drugs is the way to quit smoking.
But you are right - the most successful and useful method remains cold turkey.
By making people think that intensive and possibly expensive pharmaceutical therapy is necessary, perhaps we've actually hindered the cause, rather than helped it.
This is, in part, why I find it so disturbing that the national smoking cessation policy panel had such strong ties to pharmaceutical companies, and that the international tobacco control conference was sponsored by several pharmaceutical companies.
Bravo Bill what about the driver who pushes themselves a little too far,who doesn't stop for a cigarette,but who continues in order to get to their destination,only to lose concentration,which you must admit can be deadly,not that it bothers you,you've got your agenda haven't you ?One lousy cigarette and you have the effrontery to say the danger is to the child ?What about the driver,passengers,other people ?All because of your lousy agenda.You have a real problem seeing a little further than the end of your nose don't you Bill.A person who has no locus in the matter,represents precisely no-one other than himself and will do anything to promote and appease his hate .Perhaps if Public Health had stuck to the facts and presented them in a reasonable manner,this scenario would never need to be added to the numerous other ridiculous state and local laws.I sincerley hope you realise the danger you may have enacted by your ridiculous beliefs that a cigarette an hour (average smoker) in a car with a window down will cause such a serious risk of imminent death by SHS exposure.
Bill writes that this proposed law is an "effective way of educating selfish smokers about the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution." By the same reasoning, a ban on serving french fries to one's children would serve as an effective way of educating selfish parents about the health hazards of fatty foods. And a ban on driving in a car for anything other than an essential reason would be an effective way of educating parents about the risk of motor vehicle accidents to children.
This is exactly my point. The justification for this law is very weak, and when pushed to defend it, the faulty reasoning becomes apparent.
Bill also argued that the policy will be effective, arguing that levels of secondhand smoke in cars may be very high. This is true, but it is not the level of secondhand smoke that is important - it is the dose. And dose is equal to concentration times duration of exposure.
Since the duration of exposure in a home is far greater than in a car, it is very unlikely that banning smoking in cars will have any appreciable effect on children's health. Smokers may in fact decide not to go out in the car and instead just to smoke in the home. In general, the more we ban smoking in cars and outdoors, the less smokers are going to be willing to smoke at all in public, and therefore, they will likely remain isolated in their own homes, where childrens' exposure to secondhand smoke will increase.
Moreover, by making it a secondary offense, the Council is ensuring that the policy is not going to be enforced. The result of Massachusetts' secondary seat belt law was nil - there was no effect on seat belt use.
This is by no means an effective public health policy - it will do little to protect the health of the public, but it is an unwarranted invasion of parental autonomy.
While I write today to speak out against the policy, perhaps more important is what it says about the direction that the anti-smoking movement is going.
And I don't like it at all.
Thank you Dr Siegel,what is reasonable ,how am i able to portray an accurate description of one who has such inhumanity ?
This link demonstrates clearly what was found in the research. One has to assume children who live with smoking parents also ride in their cars.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...9&
dopt=Abstract
Where is the non political research which demonstrates more significant proof than this? If the evidence is clear don't you usually run with it Bill? why the hesitation in this respect?
SIDS is still a syndrome in the real scientific world, outside of ad agencies at least. SIDS deaths will be the TC moral deflector in this case demanding actions of protecting the precious children? a total scam as research has also demonstrated consistently.
Opening the car window usually suffices in making the ride more comfortable, banning children from cars only promotes hatred. No protection required from the mysterious ETS smoke which is endured for decades by smokers yet can kill anyone around them with a single breath.
Last year the public started to wake up. With a little help this year perhaps we can see a few fraud prosecutions to bring the fear mongers back under control.
Your now fighting a battle which because of your use of hatred is destined to fail, and reverse a lot of the progress made in smoking prevalence reductions which occured before the use of radical Lies and fear mongering was employed.
Lately the number suggest TC is a huge disapointment as prevalence reductions have leveled off and smoker's numbers particularly among youth may again be on the rise.
BTW I got that opinion from one of your precious stakeholders Bill.
Michael;
I am completely in agreement with you Cold Turkey is the only tried and true method of quiting. Convincing yourself you don't need to smoke takes time and when the time is right you simply throw them away. Trusting your own conviction and internal fortitude will do the rest.
We don't need drugs to cure what ails us most of the time, just good old common sense and the support of those around us. When those around us are taught to preach and hate, it makes the journey immeasurably more difficult.
Thanks for your honesty
banning smoking in cars with children present is an effective way of educating selfish smokers about the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution
1. You don't think smokers haven't heard some form of your message already, whether through electronic media, school education or even viral marketing of your message? What are those warnings on the packs for? If you wish to say that there need to be EVEN MORE "educational examples" and that they need to be formalized, then state it that way. But your message hasn't been repressed.
2. Perhaps you already know(though it's better for you if you don't--it might be more likely to change your behavior) about or have a feel for the politics and tactics of shame, and how shaming people(yes, it can be done with just one word--especially since if the President of Smoke-Free PA says it on a blog read by politicians, it's likely he uses/encourages similar phrasing in other communications) from doing X is a) not more effective than other methods and b) more likely than not going to discourage them from doing even more positive things they might have done than otherwise. I can cite as many anecdotal examples about shame denting one's quality of life vs second hand smoke allegedly doing the same to others. And so could anyone here.
And as opposed to SHS I can assure you that shame affects a LOT more than 65000 people a year in the US. It's something that is easy for you, who has ambition and knows how not to let labels push you aside, to discount. But it is a reality for many people. The difference here is that it is usually the parents shaming the kids and now it is the other way around.
So, are you willing to roll the dice to say that it's worthwhile to shame selfish addicts in order to achieve a very small reduction in tobacco smoke exposure? Do you have studies that this is a slam dunk? I expect it would be--the other way. That any effort to "help" them quit may be psychically damaging another way, or leave them(as addicts) open to something else going wrong. Or that if this is an example of "helping" them for their children's good, they're less likely to seek out others.
On top of which I can assure you that many smokers are not selfish and already respect the norms that are in place.
And while Mike is correct that smokers who expose their children to tobacco smoke pollution in a car are also likely to do so in their home (since many smokers don't care about the health of their own children),
I'll take flagrant nonsequiturs for $200, Alex. Do you think laws against smoking in cars should include this reasoning, or is this just rhetoric you hope to slide by people to get what you want?
PS Happy New Year to everyone.
BTW Michael;
Jalestra posted this in the last blog
http://www.pjonline.com/pdf/ _don...060107_news.pdf
could you allow us the benifit of your professional opinion and evaluate this research?
It may seem from the last post I was buttering you up for this one. I can only offer my word I believe what I posted.
I have always been disturbed by the fact TC has never seen smokers as anything but the enemy and that is the real shame, in so much invested of resources and effort I see this coming to no positive end point for any of us.
I assure you I am seriously interested in knowing if we can reasonably assume NRT may be causing birth defects and if TC should halt promotion of these products until more is known.
Welcome back Dr. Siegel! Hope your holidays went well! Of course, now that you're back you have to endure the likes of Mr. Godshall again with stuff like the following:
Bill Godshall wrote, "Levels of tobacco smoke pollution in cars are usually far greater than levels found in homes, so it is entirely logical (and correct) from a public health perspective to ban smoking in cars when children are present."
Bill, have any documentation for that? Would you like to cite it? Or are you just pulling these things out of a very dark place in the Old Year rather than the New?
Even if you DID have documentation (which btw, I'm about 98% sure you don't) your follow up assertion about the logic doesn't hold water: continuous levels of "tobacco smoke pollution" in the home over 24 hour periods, 7 days a week, would obviously be of greater concern than the transient exposures in a car. (whoops... just went back up and saw that Dr. Siegel already addressed Bill's logical problem... but hey Bill... I'd still like to see your citation for the "fact" about comparative pollution levels.)
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
What would happen if the child (18 YEARS OLD ???????)happens to smoke already,bloody stupid scenario for the turnip pickers isn't it ?When will the do-gooders eventually get to grips with reality?You on the pure nicotine yet Bill ?
"..turning the smoke-free movement from a public health movement to one that is essentially a moral crusade."
Good grief! What planet are you living on?! The anti-smoking movement has ALWAYS been a moral crusade! It's been going on for CENTURIES!!
Michael Siegel appears to believe that exaggeration by anti-smokers only began in the last year or so. It's been going on far longer, and it's been peddled by eminent doctors. Take this report from the UK Independent 8 Nov 2004:
Professor Sir Charles George, the medical director of the British Heart Foundation, had not, until now, favoured a ban on smoking in public places but has changed his view because of research showing minute particles of cigarette smoke could trigger heart attacks.
Sir Charles George was also President of the BMA at the time, and the research paper he was referencing had not even been published. Nevertheless he used it to call for a ban on smoking in public places.
If this isn't exaggeration, then what is?
A year later Sir Charles had left both the BHF and BMA and joined the board of Bioaccelerate Holdings Inc, a pharmaceutical company. Pay-off for services rendered?
Bill G. states:
But I've found that advocating smokefree policies, cigarette tax hikes (and other policies that give addicted smokers more incentives to quit) is far more cost effective than offering low-cost or free smoking cessation assistance.
Your statement, if tobacco control activists were being honest, would read:
But I've found that advocating smokefree policies, cigarette tax hikes (and other policies that give addicted smokers more incentives to quit)....is very lucrative especially to those of us who receive funding from pharmaceutical nicotine interests like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/g...iaid=143&
page=2
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ng-bans-
in.html
interesting that carl would disappear, only to have bill re-appear. anyway, welcome back, dr. siegel.
how would said law be enforced if a smoking woman were to be pregnant and smoking? 3 months pregnant? 6 months pregant? almost full-term? what if she were pregnant and didn't know? would a pregnancy test be administered? i know these may be silly questions, but inquiring minds want to know.
when are we going to enact laws preventing careless and selfish parents from using walks as an opportunity to show off thier progeny. They stroll proudly down the street with their helpless infant in a carriage or holding hands with their toddler. Can they not see the vehical exhaust surrounding the innocent faces of their helpless victims. Nitrous oxides, benzenes, pah's - all in greater volumes and concentrations than are present when a parent smokes.
Michelle
Branz;
If NRT devices cause birth defects The TC promotion a while back was for pregnant women to protect their bodies
"in case they got pregnant" through their entire reproductive lifespan.
If risk is demonstrated should women be allowed to use NRT products at all? Just following the same reasoning Bill supports this risk management strategy.
I wonder how RWJF is going to take the news Smoke free Ohio no longer serves them, and can no longer accept any donations of those who willfully harm unborn children.
But we alrweady know Bill will find a way to wiggle out of demonstrating any ethical integrity. He always does.
Kevin-
The study you refer to is quite concerning. What it showed was that pregnant women who smoked did not have an increased rate of infants with birth defects, but women who used NRT products did. Obviously, the conclusion would not be to encourage pregnant women to smoke during pregnancy, but it might suggest that women should be instructed to quit cold turkey, rather than to use NRT products during the first trimester.
This is yet ANOTHER example of the dangers of a tobacco control movement that is so closely tied financially to pharmaceutical interests.
And to think that the international tobacco conference was sponsored by Big Pharma! How can we possibly expect responsible and unbiased practice of tobacco control to come out of such a movement?
Brandz - Don't give my colleagues any ideas. It won't take them long to call for banning smoking by pregnant women.
Oops - too late. They already have:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....law-to-
ban.html.
Michelle- You're right. And this is just one example of a hazard to which many parents expose their children every day. The justification for banning smoking in cars to protect children would also justify policies banning all sorts of other behaviors by parents. I don't think the anti-smoking groups understand the concept of parental autonomy - that parents are given the autonomy to make decisions regarding health risks that children are exposed to. Harm is a different story. But when it comes to risk - we give parents great freedom. And so we should!
The results of The consensus view being adapted in Public Health The Eugenics comeback is complete. No more hereditery cancers Babires made to order has arrived,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....ro/
4451076.html
I can hear the aplause from here, TC wins another battle over those pesky moralist dinosaurs.
Best babies contests scheduled any day now.
Doc, I'd really like you're opinion on the whole post, thanks Kevin, but the situation in Australia bothers me, since the countries are passing all the smoking BS to one another willy-nilly. They are telling these women that it is SAFER to use NRT products rather than to smoke. The post in it's entirely follows:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,2...1- 36398,00.html
I'm interested in opinions on this. Doctors prescribing NRT products to pregnant women, products not tested for pregnant women. Virtually forcing these women to take them, taking the choice of what risk they CHOOSE to take out of their hands. MY doctor told me that NRT products were actually more likely to harm the baby than to help me quit smoking (I have no idea why he thought I'd use them baby or no). There is little research on the effects of NRT in pregnancy and what I could find of it isn't promising:
Januuary 8, 2006, Dr. Theodore Slotkin, a leading nicotine research toxicologist at Duke University Medical Center
There is abundant evidence that the major problem for fetal development is exposure to nicotine rather than other components of cigarette smoke.
NRT, especially by transdermal patch, delivers more nicotine to the fetus than smoking does. If the major method for NRT were the nicotine inhaler, it wouldn't be such an issue, but with round-the-clock nicotine delivery, the fetal brain accumulates a higher concentration of nicotine than in maternal blood, even when compared to smoking." According to Dr. Slotkin, a recent study found that the brains of fetal mice wound up with 2.5 times higher nicotine concentrations than found in the mother's blood when a slow continuous nicotine feed, as would be the case with the nicotine patch.
Not to mention the fact that in NRT/placebo studies, NRT is found ineffective.
Yet with ONLY this as their "proof" many are saying it's less damaging than smoking and using it as a basis to nag pregnant women into using an untested product on their child. Mm..excuse me new information found...
http://www.pjonline.com/pdf/ _don...060107_news.pdf
It won't let me cut and paste the relevant article, but it's title is NRT use in pregnancy increases risk of birth defects...
anyhow, interested in opinions. And well, Carl and Bill's justification for experimenting on an unborn child...
i doubt i would be giving the smoker-banners any new ideas. i'm sure they have it ALL figured out. a grand plan i'm sure.
Doc;
The abstract can be found here
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/...stract/107/1/
51
And the full text in PDF here
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/...eprint/107/1/
51
The evidence is quite substantial quite a bit more conclusive than anything we have seen in ETS risks. This should be a cause for high concern in perspective The general belief among smoking mothers due to the exgerated risks of denormalization could lead to thousands of babies being affected. Is there any way to raise a call to the health authoritues to make some public anouncements here?
RESULTS: Smoking mothers were younger, weighed less, consumed more alcohol, and had received less education. Children exposed to prenatal tobacco smoking had no increase in congenital malformations prevalence compared with the nonexposed children in both crude and adjusted analyses. Children born to nonsmokers, but who used nicotine substitutes, had a slightly increased relative congenital malformations prevalence ratio; relative prevalence rate ratio was 1.61 (95% confidence interval 1.01–2.5
, which represents a 60% increased risk. When the analysis was restricted to musculoskeletal malformations, the relative prevalence rate ratio was 2.63 (95% confidence interval 1.53–4.52).
CONCLUSION: Our results showed no increase in congenital malformations related to prenatal tobacco smoking. However, we identified an increase of malformations risk in nonsmokers using nicotine substitutes. This finding needs to be replicated in other data sources.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2
Bill wrote:
"[S]mokers who expose their children to tobacco smoke pollution in a car are also likely to do so in their home (since many smokers don't care about the health of their own children)"
Speaking from experience, you deranged former addict?
You used to smoke (3 packs a day). Did you take your kids to the doctor when they were sick or did you just kick them?
"[B]anning smoking in cars with children present is an effective way of educating selfish smokers about the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution and of discouraging them from smoking in their homes as well."
Care to explain how the uneducated smoker can be selfish? They dont know, remember? That's why you have to educate them, remember?
You enjoy disparaging smokers more than you like putting any thought behind the crap you spew out.
Good point James. If the smoker is merely selfish and that is why he or she is smoking in the car, then what good is education going to do? If the problem is that the person is simply not aware of the health risks, then it isn't really that they are selfish. I think what we're seeing here is the hatred of smokers that I have sensed in a number of extremist anti-smoking groups increasingly over the past months.
Jalestra-
I think you have a valid point. It's not clear whether the risks of active smoking during pregnancy are worse than the risks of using NRT products during the first trimester. So while doctors should obviously advise pregnant women to quit, it may not be prudent for them to prescribe NRT medication.
Jalestra funny in Canada they just announced:
Nicotine patch OK in pregnancy.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2898
Cause its suppose to be the smoke, not the nicotine that reduces fetal size.
Wonder who to believe?
Linda;
The researcher in your article indicates a level of deciet was demonstrated in the prior prenatal research, he contends they exagerated the risk of smoking by overdosing the Rats;
http://www.mytelus.com/news/
arti...ticleID=2505224
(CBC) - Nicotine patches may be a healthier option for pregnant women who smoke, say medical researchers in Alberta who are studying the alternative.
Smoking cigarettes while pregnant increases both the risk of delivering a low birth weight baby, and the risk of health problems for the infant.
Previous studies on pregnant rats used too much nicotine, said Dr. Shabih Hasan, a professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary who is investigating nicotine replacement therapy.
Some studies used the equivalent of 500 cigarettes a day, Hasan said.
Hasan and his colleagues in Calgary and Manitoba more accurately tested the amount of nicotine a pregnant women would use. Their study appears in this week's issue of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology.
"It did not have any effect on the weight gain of the mother or how she was eating, or the baby's weight gain or growth," said Hasan. "It shows us there are constituents other than nicotine that would lead to the weight decrease in the babies."
Linda;
The researcher in your article indicates a level of deciet was demonstrated in the prior prenatal research, he contends they exagerated the risk of smoking by overdosing the Rats;
http://www.mytelus.com/news/
arti...ticleID=2505224
(CBC) - Nicotine patches may be a healthier option for pregnant women who smoke, say medical researchers in Alberta who are studying the alternative.
Smoking cigarettes while pregnant increases both the risk of delivering a low birth weight baby, and the risk of health problems for the infant.
Previous studies on pregnant rats used too much nicotine, said Dr. Shabih Hasan, a professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary who is investigating nicotine replacement therapy.
Some studies used the equivalent of 500 cigarettes a day, Hasan said.
Hasan and his colleagues in Calgary and Manitoba more accurately tested the amount of nicotine a pregnant women would use. Their study appears in this week's issue of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology.
"It did not have any effect on the weight gain of the mother or how she was eating, or the baby's weight gain or growth," said Hasan. "It shows us there are constituents other than nicotine that would lead to the weight decrease in the babies."
I'm late to the party but I'd like to underscore Si's point:
"The Children" being the last refuge of the crusader, "children" are now Children (vulnerable little vessels) right up to the very lip of their 18th birthday when (voila) they're suddenly mature enough to vote, join the army, the cops, the firefighters, and another adult in holy wedlock.
Or are they? No wonder with all this infantalizing we're left with a generation that still lives with mommy at the age of 28; and conversely, sniffs glue and screws at the age of 12.
So confused are we as a nation about what's a "children" that we refer to the brave men and women in uniform who've volunteered for service as "children" and "kids." Bah!
I also second James's point about--
"banning smoking in cars with children present is an effective way of educating selfish smokers about the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution"
and (respectfully, of course) repeat my questions to its author:
Mr Bill:
Do you have children?
What diseases did you give them with your selfish smoking?
When did you die and leave them orphans?
To which I might add:
Which of the techniques you so heartily recommend "educated" you into your current state of grace?
I would also point out that making smoking a capital crime might also be "an effective way of educating selfish smokers." What say?
:
Walt,in the UK children 14 y.o. can legitmately drink a glass of alcohol if they are with adults and having a meal in a pub.16y.o. can engage in sexual activity but would you deam these young adults as children?There is no age limit on buying beer kits in order to brew your own beer.In the US it isn't illegal to grow your own tobacco .So when it comes down to it,we all know it's an excuse AND NOTHING MORE.
Part of what gets me in the inconsistency in the crap they tell our kids...they tell our kids nicotine is a drug on a par with heroin, and then well NICOTINE is ok, here's a patch, but don't smoke those nasty cigarettes. What I told my daughter yesterday was it's more like this:"Don't get your nicotine from their nasty product, spend your money on ours instead"
Most of what gets me though is all this is "for the chilren", but how is it for the children to tell a pregnant woman that it's ok to use something that hasn't been proved won't harm her and her baby? If the health of the child is so very important, perhaps one shouldn't treat an unborn child like a guinea pig. I have never in my entire life, including reading on the internet, heard of a woman who's perfect in her whole pregnancy except for smoking and had a baby with a problem. There was always drugs or alcohol or something else involved. And I really feel there is NO justification in telling a pregnant woman who doesn't know any better that's it's not ok to smoke, when at least you know the supposed risks, but they instead must risk their child with some unknown NRT.
As far as selfish smokers, for a selfish bunch of people its always been a smoker that stopped to help me when I had car trouble, it was the smokers who helped me get through college with no job and 2 kids, it was smokers who lent me their cars. For such a selfish bunch of people, they were 10 times more giving than the non-smokers I've known. And they gave without strings...Of course, they have no illusions about being uppity and better than everyone else...
Dr Siegel's point about "cold turkey" quitting, deserves more analysis.
The problem is, NRT theory is just that, an theory. Lets look at real adiction as an example... if a heroine addict were offered a heroin patch, that 'addict" would be perfectly content to substitute one for the other... A Crack cocaine addict would e perfectly content to substitute cocaine gum...
But not so smokers using NRT. I have used NRT during air travel, and for me, it does nothing to allevate my desire to smoke.
And lets take a quick look at the behavior of smokers going 'cold turkey" What does a cold turkey exsmoker do the day he quits? He gets up, eats breakfast, takes a shower, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, watches Tv, and goes to bed. Same routine as when he was smoking..We've all seen this a 1000 times.
About 5 years ago I was hospitalized for a few days, and didn't smoke, and frankly, it bothered me a lot less than I had expected. and I did not use NRT. The biggest problem I had is that hospitals are the most boring places in the world, and I had nothing to do all day, except think about how stupid it was that the nurses would'nt let me smoke, when In the 1980,s I was allowed to smoke while recovring from my hip operation, and it was no big problem.
Now lets look at what a heroine or crack cocaine addict does the day he quits.... he has convulsions, goes completely nuts.. has the DT's suicidal thoughts, he can't work, can't function, manifests physicholigical and physical symptoms, most of us cannot even imagine. Even many caffine addicts manifest physical and physichological symptoms when derived. gambling and shopping addicts manifest some of these symptoms too. But not so-called nicotine addicts who go "cold Turkey"
Trouble is, when the NRT industry convinces smokers they are nicotine addicts, it also convinces them they will have a harder time quitting than they actually would, going cold turkey. and this may discourage them from giving "cold turkey" a decent try.
It also convinces smokers that their smoking is mostly a nicotine addiction, and convinces them the behavioral compulsion component, which I think is the major component, or even the only component, is not worth dealing with. So, in this respect, the NRT manufacturers are doing some harm to smokers who are interested in quitting.
In fact, since Dr Siegel has said many times, that "cold turkey" is more effective than NRT, the only logical conclusion is that nicotine addiction is a very minor or nonexistant reason why smokers smoke.
Dr. Siegel,the national Conference on Smoking or health will be held in minneapolis this year, are you going to attend? I would be a good opportunity to confront those who have been persecuting you, and might help your cause and concenrs about the dishonesty which has hijacked the antismoking movement.
I have to apologize about my typing, I have an absolutely horrible case of carpal tunnel syndrom. I am now using a brace, and though it is helping my carpal tunnel, it makes my typing even worse that the poor excuse for typing I manifested in the past. so please bear with me.
Dave K
Dr. Siegel--
As you may be aware, the Bangor council passed the car smoking ban last night, but made it a primary offense.
I personally think education makes much better use of resources, because as you said, any parent who smokes in the car w/kids smokes around the house with them, too.
Unlike other states, it applies on those up to 18. Are police going to pull over smokers and check IDs of those in the car? At 30 mph, a 16-year-old and a 21-year-old look pretty similar.
Is Bangor so safe police actually have time for this?
Mike,
It is almost like these city council's are trying to outdo each other in implementing the most draconian anti-smoker laws.
I am sure the local police force are absolutely delighted in having to enforce this law. (Sarcasm)
Although I am sure that there will be some who relish the opportunity to punish people that smoke.
If it is any consolation Britain is not far behind.
Here in Scotland they have just announced that Children are to be swab tested for nicotine levels to assess the impact of the national ban on smoking in bars etc. They are assuming that more people are smoking at home since bar trade is down 14% and cigarette sales are up 10%.
Now obviously to do this they must have a benchmark. Therefore they must have swab tested the children before the ban was implemented in March 06. I cannot find any record of this intrusion of privacy being sanctioned.
They are transparently preparing the way for a home ban if you have children and so the incremental punishment continues.
GreatScot
People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker.
Quote lifted from another site, it was from a piece posted on NewsMax.com.
Dr. Siegle - can you cite me just one documented case where a child died due to exposure to cigarette smoke in a car?
Mike wrote:
"Moreover, by making it a secondary offense, the Council is ensuring that the policy is not going to be enforced. The result of Massachusetts' secondary seat belt law was nil - there was no effect on seat belt use."
The result of PA's secondary offense seat belt law (we pushed for a primary offense, but didn't have the votes for passage) was that seat belt use increased from 50% to 75%.
But as already pointed out, last night Bangor's council wisely made it a primary offense to smoke in a car with a child present, which should increase compliance even more than if it was a secondary offense.
Michael McFadden inquired:
"Bill, have any documentation for that? Would you like to cite it? Or are you just pulling these things out of a very dark place in the Old Year rather than the New?"
Levels of tobacco smoke pollution in cars was reported, among other documents, in the EPA's report on tobacco smoke pollution more than a decade ago. But it's simple common sense to understand that concentrations of air pollutants from one cigarette will increase as the enclosed air space (where the cigarette is burned) declines.
BTW The air will be much cleaner in Philadelphia workplaces since that city's smokefree ordinance went into effect yesterday.
Bill as you know,most smokers smoke on average a cigarette every hour (not 4 or 5 like you managed) so 1 cigarette smoked in a car with the window down,sunroof open? open top car ? WILL OF COURSE EQUATE TO THE DELIBERATE ATTEMPT BY THE EPA TO "PROVIDE THE GOODS" Prove what you are saying Bill because i don't believe you,you are attempting to utilise statistics that have no bearing on what would be the normal scenario.PROVE IT,IF YOU CAN.
Mike (that is Mike who posted the message about the ban passing, not our host),
Earlier I wrote Dr. Siegel, you should know better by now. Of course it will eventually be a primary offense. Glister also pointed out that the move would be to eventually make it a primary offense.
So, now you wrote that it was passed as a primary offense. Wow! That was quick. They just got right down to business, didn't they.
Dr. Siegel, you are seeing it all unfold right before your eyes. I think you are beginning to understand what the ultimate objective of these laws is. Also, I forgot to wish you a happy new year. Sorry. (I am not being sarcastic 
. I hope you had a nice time away from the message board.
Bill, will you also propose that people not use fireplaces or wood stoves?
http://burningissues.org/
Are you against smoke or smokers?
Bill, you must ban all forms of smoke.
You live in PA, right?
This will go over like a Fart in a Spacesuit.....
But you can take it...Ban IT......
Come on Bill, "It's for the Children"
Ban all smoke that is 'unnecessary to society'
But Gilster...........(serious TIC here) even if it is necessary, should we permit convenient necessity as justification for poisoning/assaulting/killing the rest of us?
Surely Bill will agree with me on this, that there can be NO justification for forcing anyone to inhale any poisons whatsoever.
Fireplaces and wood smoke are actually not necessary. I mean, c'mon, if you don't have central heating by now you SHOULD have, I mean, wow, *I* do. Also, there's absolutely NO need to barbecue...everyone should have electric stoves by now. Campfires...pulease! There are safe heaters out there that run on batteries. Roasting marshmallows is overrated anyhow. Not to mention romantic fires...if you need a fire to be romantic there's something wrong with your marriage.Y'know, I really cannot think of ANY necessary reason to start any kind of a fire...And what about the children? I mean you are FORCING them to breathe in toxins EVERY TIME YOU COOK...don't you have a microwave? Camping should be banned, it actually PROMOTES burning wood...I'm sure you're behind this Bill, I mean you are VERY well aware of the dangers of smoke!
I mean, c'mon people, are you living in the dark ages???? Jeez..
Just the other day, my neighbour's 8 year old son saw me light up a cigarette and said, "You shouldn't do that, why are you doing that?" I assured him that it was entirely my choice and said to him, "Smokers aren't bad people, you know."
"Yes, they are.", he blurted out immediately, before he could think about it [he looked like he wished he could take it back.]
So, this is what the anti-smokers are all about.
Perverts that they are, I'll bet they're proud of it, too.
Margaret asked if there is any evidence that children die due to exposure to cigarette smoke in a car, and pointed out that one of the City Councilmembers was quoted as saying that people smoking in a car might as well be deliberately trying to kill the children.
Margaret - no there is no evidence for this. It is blatant deception and exaggeration; in other words, pure political rhetoric with no scientific basis whatsoever.
Moreover, it is a disturbing statement because it implies that parents who smoke around their kids are deliberately trying to kill them, or might as well be. But would the councilmember say the same thing about feeding one's kids McDonalds french fries repeatedly, or letting their kid play outside in a dangerous neighborhood?
No - this is apparently exactly what I suggested in the post - it's moralizing, it's about hatred of smokers, punishing them, and not tolerating their autonomy to make decisions regarding their own children, like the rest of us do every day.
No - this is apparently exactly what I suggested in the post - it's moralizing, it's about hatred of smokers, punishing them, and not tolerating their autonomy to make decisions regarding their own children, like the rest of us do every day.
I hate to point out the obvious to you Doc, ................... BUT ........ THIS is what you helped create. All your years of research, even now, your continual insistance that SHS is dangerous (when you in fact know it is only possily dangerous to someone with chronic heart and/or respiratory issues - and it CAN be easily avoided anyway).
THIS is the world that people who think they have a right to, or should, help those who never asked for their help to start with, have created.
It's fine to hold fast and hard to your beliefs, Doc, but at some point you are going to have to realize that your good intentions, like most good intentions, have been stolen and are being used in a very bad way.
They are assuming that more people are smoking at home since bar trade is down 14% and cigarette sales are up 10%.
Got links on those facts? I'm especially interested in the bar losses. Thanks
:
I see that Lynda is holding your feet to the fire, Dr. Siegel. As she should. As I believe most of us here believe she should. As I believe you yourself in your more reflective moments believe she should.
Enough said on the matter, although I would like to remind you that the year is now 2007.
Walt,
Scroll down to Jan 6/7. About half way down you will find a link to the newspaper article also a link to the study carried out by oxford univerity.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/
nearl...ewadditions.htm
GreatScot
Moreover, it is a disturbing statement because it implies that parents who smoke around their kids are deliberately trying to kill them, or might as well be. But would the councilmember say the same thing about feeding one's kids McDonalds french fries repeatedly, or letting their kid play outside in a dangerous neighborhood?
Doc you repeatedly pull this analogy and it really bugs me. I don't see much difference between the demonization of smoking vs the demonization of fast food. The same bs, the same over-the-top rhetoric, the same lack of scientific evidence. There's an unsavory agenda behind this crappola and it's quite evident you readily buy into it. Have you thought about why? Think about the non-stop messages being sent to you by the same type of ninnies spewing TC
and the effect they have on your perceptions.
You know damned well that there really aren't any "healthy" foods and "unhealthy" foods. At best, health effects are a product of one's overall diet and there's so much dispute over what consistutes an ideal diet that I challenge anyone to find a definitive answer from the trash heap of "nutritional science".
Thank you for confirming that they can't produce even one dead child.
On the pregnant women thing, I think they should suggest Skoal as a nicotine substitute for smoking.
With all the warnings to pregnant women....don't eat rare beef, sushi, caffiene, advil, etc..
But nic patches are "just fine". Yeah, right.
Skoal is the way to go on this one.
It's hard to believe - but I think we've just found something with which Columbus Musician and Bill both agree.
I am shocked!
(and kidding).
I still think pregnant women chewing Skoal would be safer than those damn nic patches.
If nicotine is as addictive as they say, surely, the patches would addict the fetus, too.
Or is this a "scientific exception" to the rule?
Hi, guys.
And while the carefully misinformed worry about hazardous particulate they are told orininates with tobacco smoke...
http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressR...ases/
010212.asp
'Tests Reveal High Levels Of Toxics Inside Diesel School Buses
'New Report Finds Children's Exposure Dozens Of Times Higher Than EPA Acceptable Cancer Risk Level'
'LOS ANGELES (February 12, 2001) - A ride on a school bus may prove hazardous to your child's health, according to a new study of air quality inside diesel school buses, the kind of school bus most commonly used across the country. More than 23 million children in the United States ride a bus to school.
'An NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) and Coalition for Clean Air report released today, No Breathing in the Aisles: Diesel Exhaust Inside School Buses, shows that children who ride a diesel school bus may be exposed to up to four times more toxic diesel exhaust than someone traveling in a car directly in front of it. The excess exhaust levels on the buses were more than eight times the average levels found in the ambient air in California and 23 to 46 times higher than levels considered to be a significant cancer risk according to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and federal guidelines.
' "Children are especially sensitive to environmental hazards, yet they're the ones getting dosed with diesel riding to school," said Gina Solomon, M.D., M.P.H., NRDC senior scientist. "The levels we measured on some of these buses both surprised and worried us. Worse still, we have reason to believe that these high levels are fairly typical."
'Researchers from NRDC, the U.C. Berkeley School of Public Health and the Coalition for Clean Air rode rented school buses along actual elementary school bus routes in the Los Angeles area. Using sophisticated equipment to continuously sample the air inside the buses for diesel exhaust, they compared air quality inside the front and back of the bus and with the windows open and closed. They also tested air quality outside the bus and in a passenger car traveling ahead of it. Buses were tested while idling, climbing or descending hills, and traveling slowly with frequent stops.'
'Increasing numbers of health authorities, including EPA and the state of California, have recognized the cancer-causing effects of diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is also known to be a major source of fine particles that can lodge deep in the lungs and exacerbate asthma, a condition most prevalent among children. In addition, smog-forming oxides of nitrogen, or "NOx," which are also emitted from diesel engines in large quantities, have recently been linked to decreased lung function growth in children. Children are generally more susceptible than adults to the negative health effects of air pollution because they breathe faster and have less developed lungs and immune systems.'
(Please take especial note of this quote from the article below:
'This study provides new data on the relationship between DEP, P[M.sub.2.5], and local traffic density. We have also demonstrated the feasibility of community--university partnerships working to address environmental health problems in marginalized communities. The study design represented a true synthesis of community and university objectives, reflected in the choice of monitoring sites, designation of traffic categories, methods of measurement, and outcomes measured.... The study also provided young people from the community with exposure to scientific methods applied to environmental health problems. This model of community-driven research is particularly appropriate in underprivileged communities that have traditionally been subject to studies conducted by and for the benefit of outside parties.'
And while elemental carbon was selected here, organic carbon and chemicals, often deceptively presented by interested parties as restricted to scapegoat tobacco and wood smoke, include once-living subtances, such as toxic fossil-fuel emissions.
How could anyone look sillier than when they are standing on busy streets, purportedly measuring 'deadly' ETS in heavy traffic, whether measuring total particulate or specifically organic particles?
Do read the whole study; I've quoted what I think are the most pertinent sections, but it's a well-conducted study of interest.)
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...110/
ai_94537462
Elemental carbon and P[M.sub.2.5] levels in an urban community heavily impacted by truck traffic - Articles
Environmental Health Perspectives, Oct, 2002 by T. Suvendrini Lena, Victor Ochieng, Majora Carter, Jose Holguin-Veras, Patrick L. KinneyHunts Point, a 690-acre peninsula in the South Bronx, New York City, is a hub in the tristate (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) freight transportation system. This study was carried out in response to community concerns about potential health effects of exposure to diesel exhaust particulate (DEP). We measured particulate matter < 2.5 [micro]m in aerodynamic diameter (P[M.sub.2.5]) and elemental carbon (EC) on sidewalks and tested whether spatial variations in concentrations were related to local truck traffic density. Ten-hour integrated air samples for EC and P[M.sub.2.5] were collected for 9 days over a 3-week period in the summer of 1999 at seven geographically distinct intersections. Simultaneous traffic counts were carried out for each sampling event. Traffic was dassified into three classes: passenger cars, small trucks, and large trucks (diesel vehicles). Mean diesel vehicle volumes ranged from 9.3 to 276.5 vehicles/hr across sites. Mean EC concentrations by site ranged from 2.6 [micro]g/[m.sup.3] at the control site to 7.3 [micro]g/[m.sup.3] along a designated truck route. Linear regression of site-specific mean EC concentration on mean large truck counts predicted an increase of 1.69 [micro]g/[m.sup.3] EC per 100 large trucks/hr (SE = 0.37; p = 0.01; [R.sup.2] = 0.84). Average P[M.sub.2.5] concentrations by site ranged 1.6-fold (19.0-29.9 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]) and were more weakly associated with local traffic. Variations over time for P[M.sub.2.5] were more pronounced, ranging almost 4-fold (8.9-34.4 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]). These results show that airborne EC concentrations, an important component of DEP, are elevated in Hunts Point and that the impact varies across the community as a function of large truck traffic. Key words: diesel exhaust, Hunts Point, inner cities, outdoor air pollution, P[M.sub.2.5], urban.
In recent years, people living in inner cities have become increasingly concerned about motor vehicle emissions and associated health effects (1). These concerns are compounded by high rates of asthma morbidity and mortality among minority children living in underprivileged urban communities (2,3). Community organizations have presented evidence that diesel emission sources are often disproportionately concentrated in underprivileged urban neighborhoods. For example, in New York City (NYC), seven of the eight bus depots serving Manhattan are located in Harlem, a traditionally minority community. A recent survey in Boston, Massachusetts, found that there were 15 bus and truck depots concentrated within the low-income community of Roxbury, together housing more than 1,150 diesel vehicles (4). The Hunts Point section of the South Bronx, NYC, is home to a low-income population of African Americans and Latin Americans. It is also the principal food-processing terminal for NYC, serviced by 10,000 trucks/day (5).
A recent NYC Department of Health survey (2) found that children from low-income areas of NYC were over four times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma than children from high income areas during 1997.
Among the five boroughs of NYC, the Bronx has ranked highest in both asthma hospitalizations and deaths in recent years. Furthermore, the 1997 asthma hospitalization rate among children 0-14 years of age in the Hunts Point-Mott Haven neighborhood of the South Bronx ranked highest among the Bronx's seven neighborhoods, at 23.2/1,000 population.
The present study was initiated at the request of The Point Community Development Corporation (The Point CDC) and was designed to characterize the relationship between airborne particle concentrations and heavy-duty truck traffic within Hunts Point. Our specific aims were to identify the spatial distribution and travel patterns of truck traffic through the community, to monitor airborne concentrations of particles < 2.5 pm in aerodynamic diameter (P[M.sub.2.5]) and elemental carbon (EC) at the sidewalk level adjacent to several intersections that vary in truck density, and to identify potential routing alternatives to minimize residential exposure to emissions.
The human health effects of airborne particulate matter have been examined in numerous recent epidemiologic studies (6-11), several of which highlight the special health significance of P[M.sub.2.5], which is a heterogeneous mixture of particles that vary in both composition and sources. In the northeastern United States, a major part of P[M.sub.2.5] is composed of sulfate compounds, which are formed as secondary particles in region-wide air masses as a result of primary sulfur dioxide emissions. Relatively small spatial variations in P[M.sub.2.5] concentrations exist within or between urban areas in this region, reflecting the dominant influence of region-wide sulfate aerosols as major drivers of local P[M.sub.2.5] concentrations (12-14). In contrast, P[M.sub.2.5] components associated with local fossil-fuel combustion, such as diesel exhaust particulate (DEP), exhibit greater spatial variations, and these variations have been associated with local traffic sources (15-1. In a recent community-driven pilot study, Kinney et al. (1 measured concentrations of P[M.sub.2.5] and EC on sidewalks in Harlem, NYC, and tested whether spatial variations in concentrations were relate
(Darn thing wouldn't preview, tried again and must have hit 'post'.
Oh, well. So much for proofing.)
(con't)
...In a recent community-driven pilot study, Kinney et al. (1 measured concentrations of P[M.sub.2.5] and EC on sidewalks in Harlem, NYC, and tested whether spatial variations in concentrations were related to local diesel traffic density. Mean concentrations of P[M.sub.2.5] exhibited only modest site-to-site variation, reflecting the importance of broader regional sources of P[M.sub.2.5]. In contrast, EC concentrations varied 4-fold across sites (from 1.5 to 6 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]) and were associated with bus and truck densities on adjacent streets. These pilot results demonstrate that local diesel sources in Harlem create spatial variations in sidewalk concentrations of DEP (1.
DEP has diameters in the submicrometer range and is composed largely of EC. DEP has relatively large surface areas onto which a wide range of organic compounds are adsorbed. This organic fraction is a complex mixture containing toxicologically important compounds such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Common PAHs include phenanthrenes, fluorenes, naphthalenes, fiuoranthrenes, and pyrenes, many of which are known mutagens and carcinogens (19-22). DEP surfaces also act as a site for the concentration of airborne allergens. Thus, because of their small particle size and ability to act as a carrier for toxic organic chemicals and allergens, DEP may play a role in transporting allergens and toxic compounds deep into the respiratory tree (23,24).
Recent epidemiologic studies have demonstrated associations between residential proximity to traffic sources and adverse respiratory outcomes, including asthma hospitalizations among children (25), increased respiratory symptoms (26,27), diminished lung function (15,16), and increased prevalence of atopy and allergic disease (2. Exposure assessment methodology varies among studies. Few include specific measures of truck and/or bus density or ambient sampling of DEP.'
(My comment - there have been many diversionary tests of even outside air, in the attempt to convince the public that 'hazardous particulate' means tobacco smoke - not anything associated with the oil or other polluting industry.
This also forms a reason for the neglected study of lung cancer, as the causes are to be concealed under the smoke screen, despite the presence of fossil fuel particulate and asbestos within cancerous cells and typically concentrated most thickly in cancerous areas of the lungs, as found in studies previously posted here.)
Significantly, studies of health outcomes as a function of truck density or specific DEP exposure have reported stronger associations. Studies in two different German cities using almost identical methodology found that adolescents who reported constant truck traffic outside their homes were two times more likely to also report wheeze than were those who reported no truck traffic (29,30). In one recent study, chronic respiratory symptoms and lung function decrements in children were associated with local truck traffic density and with black smoke concentrations in schools, whereas no such associations were observed for car traffic, suggesting a specific effect of diesel exhaust (16). The results of these studies support the observations and concerns of inner-city residents with respect to a possible relationship between diesel emission exposure and respiratory disease.
Outdoor exposure to DEP may be of special importance for inner-city residents because sidewalks function both as pathways for pedestrian movement and as venues for play and congregation for children and adults, including the elderly. These uses are especially prevalent in the urban core areas of NYC, where many people live in small apartments without balconies and air conditioning and where public green space is scarce. From a scientific perspective, exposure characterization is a necessary first step in investigating a possible relationship between diesel exhaust exposures and asthma. There are few data on levels and patterns of human exposures to DEP in urban areas. Data relating spatial variations in source density to variations in ambient DEP concentrations in congested urban core neighborhoods are especially lacking. ...
(My comment - there is little funding for, and little official concern over, the health threats we need protection from - because powerful industries would be held accountable and be required to spend a relatively small proportion of profits on measures which would greatly reduce disease, premature death and health-care costs now safely attributed to personal choice evils.)
(TBC)
(Con't)
Air sampling and traffic counting were carried out on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday for 3 consecutive weeks beginning 25 July 1999 and ending 12 August 1999. Because of staff and equipment constraints, all sites could not be monitored on all days. At sites 1-3, measurements were conducted on Mondays and Wednesdays. Sites 4 and 5 were monitored on Tuesdays. To provide an estimate of temporal changes in background concentrations, air monitoring at site 6, the control site, was carried out on all days (i.e., Monday through Wednesday each week). No traffic counts were made at site 6 because the air sampling equipment was placed within an enclosed garden. Measurements at each site covered a 10-12-hr period starting at 600 hr each day. The sampling schedule refected the best compromise between the need for maximum duration of counting and sampling periods, the need to capture traffic volumes during morning peaks (600-800 hr) and evening peaks (1600-1800 hr), and availability of field staff. We chose July and August because of the availability of summer interns and to avoid the heating season when coal and oil furnaces emit EC. The study was limited to weekdays to focus on typical commercial traffic volumes.
Particle concentration measurements. Integrated 10-12-hr P[M.sub.2.5] samples were collected at each site using 4-L/min battery-operated personal sampling pumps (Gil-Air 5; Gillian Instrument Corp., W. Caldwell, NJ) attached by flexible tubing to polyethylene filter sampling cartridges (University Research Glassware, Carrboro, NC). The cartridge had an inlet nozzle and a greased impactor plate that eliminated particles > 2.5 lam in aerodynamic diameter from the air stream before collection on the filter. The cartridge contained a preweighed Teflon filter for gravimetric P[M.sub.2.5] analysis and reflectance analysis. For a subset of sampling events, colocated particle samples were collected onto quartz fiber filters. These were subsequently analyzed for EC. The quartz filter samples were collected at 3 L/min with no impactor because virtually all EC is contained in particles smaller than 1 pm.
Air sampling at sites 1-5 occurred on sidewalks adjacent to the intersection. Pumps were placed on chairs approximately 1m from the curbside, and the sample cartridges were taped to the chair backs. ...
(I've deleted section on methods in the interest of [lol] brevity.)
Sites 1-3 were sampled on Mondays and Wednesdays, whereas sites 3 and 4 were sampled only on Tuesdays; site 6 (control) was sampled all days. To address whether this somewhat unbalanced sampling design might have resulted in confounding of intersite differences by day-of-week differences, we tested whether mean concentrations of EC or P[M.sub.2.5] at the control site were different on Mondays and Wednesdays compared with Tuesdays using a simple unpaired t-test. There was no evidence for differences across the two sampling frames for either EC (p = 0.41) or P[M.sub.2.5] (p = 0.49), alleviating concerns about potential confounding by day of week.
Discussion
In this study we demonstrated that local variations in traffic density were strongly associated with spatial variations in EC concentrations measured on sidewalks in the Hunts Point neighborhood of the South Bronx. Because diesel trucks were the principal source of traffic-related EC emissions in this community, this finding highlights the important role played by truck traffic as a determinant of spatial variations in exposures to the carbonaceous components of fine particles in this community. Sidewalk levels of total P[M.sub.2.5] were more weakly associated with large truck traffic, being more strongly influenced by long-range transport of well-mixed sulfate and nitrate aerosols and only partially influenced by local traffic emissions. The mean EC concentration observed in this study, 3.77 [micro]g/[m.sup.3], represented 17% of the mean P[M.sub.2.5] concentration, 22.3 [micro]g/[m.sup.3].
EC represents only a portion of the particle emissions from diesel vehicles; other components of DEP include a variety of organic compounds and metals. In addition, particles can be resuspended from roadways by the movement of tires. Although not directly measured in this study, the total contribution of large truck traffic to P[M.sub.2.5] concentrations can be estimated. One method for deriving this estimate is based on the ratio of the regression slope of EC on large trucks to the slope of P[M.sub.2.5] on large trucks, or 0.52 in the present study. This implies that EC represents 52% of the total P[M.sub.2.5] generated by large trucks. Furthermore, if we assume that diesel vehicles were the dominant source of EC in this study (which is reasonable given the lack of oil or coal combustion for space heating in the summer months), it is possible to estimate a total P[M.sub.2.5] contribution from diesel traffic emissions of 7.25 [micro]g/[m.sup.3] (i.e., 1/0.52 x 3.77 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]). This represents 32.5% of the mean P[M.sup.2.5] concentration measured in this study (ranging from 26% to 50% for individual sites). In a previous study in Los Angeles, California, Cass and Gray estimated that EC represented 59.5% of the mass of DEP observed in the Los Angeles atmosphere, a value similar to our estimate of 52% (33,34). Applying the Cass and Gray estimate to the mean EC concentration observed in this study (1/0.595 x 3.77 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]) yields an estimated total DEP concentration of 6.34 [micro]g/[m.sup.3] (33,34).
Correlations among traffic classes (passenger vehicles, small trucks, and large trucks) were high in this study, ranging from 0.82 to 0.90, making it difficult to separate the influences of different vehicle classes on air quality. However, a stronger correlation was seen between large trucks and EC than between small trucks and EC (r = 0.92 vs. r = 0.75).
In this study, trucks with two axles and six wheels (two in front, four behind) and vehicles with three axles or more were counted together as a single traffic class (T2). In pilot counts with student interns, we found that this classification scheme achieved the greatest precision in measurement. However, grouping vehicles in this way diminished our ability to distinguish the specific pollutant contribution of diesel trucks. In the local area, approximately 45% of two-axle, six-wheel trucks have diesel engines. The proportion with diesel engines is closer to 65% for trucks of this kind that are used in wholesale businesses, which are common in Hunts Point. Thus, in our study area, the proportion of trucks in this class with diesel engines is likely to have been between 45% and 65%. In contrast, > 90% of trucks with three axles (100% for wholesale freight transport) have diesel engines (32). Thus, our measurement of the relationship between diesel trucks and sidewalk-level DEP exposures would have been more accurate if we had counted three-axle vehicles separately. Indeed, the relationship between diesel trucks and sidewalk-level EC and P[M.sub.2.5] is likely to be stronger than reported in this study.
(TBC)
(Con't. As seen below, it's known that forcing people people to stand outside in higher traffic areas [to smoke, for example] causes increased risk to health and life.)
In our study, local variations in traffic density were measured using simple visual traffic counts at the same intersection where air monitoring occurred. A more complete analysis of local traffic impacts on air quality would account for traffic not only on the adjacent street but also on other nearby streets, especially those upwind of the monitoring site. In the Hunts Point area, the contribution of trucks idling at warehouses and construction and demolition sites may be particularly important. Modeling the cumulative impact of sources throughout the community would have required sophisticated dispersion models, which were beyond the scope of this small study.
The significance of the DEP concentrations observed in this study for asthmatic persons living in the Hunts Point community is not known. In a study of lung function and air pollution from truck traffic conducted in the Netherlands, Brunekreef et al. (16) measured black smoke concentrations ranging from 5.15 [micro]g/[m.sup.3] to 20.78 [micro]g/[m.sup.3] in schools located near motorways. Black smoke was determined using reflectance analysis of P[M.sub.10] samples, in contrast to P[M.sub.2.5] samples used here. Lung function was associated with the concentration of black smoke, and the association was stronger in girls than in boys (16). Recent experimental studies have demonstrated that a one-time, intranasal dose of 0.30 mg DEP in saline can synergize with coadministered allergen to enhance allergen-specific IgE production, histamine release, and proinflammatory cytokine levels in the upper respiratory tract (35-37).
We did not make direct measurements of respiratory health indicators among community residents. As a step toward understanding the health significance of DEP exposures measured in Hunts Point, we have estimated both a 24-hr and a 2-week dose for a child living in this community. In Hunts Point, scarcity of air conditioning may increase indoor concentrations of ambient pollutants during the summer. The lack of air conditioning may also drive residents outdoors, thereby increasing exposure to ambient pollutants. The small size of apartments, high population density, and lack of sheltered green spaces may also increase reliance on streets as places for children to play and neighbors to meet and talk. Furthermore, in a recent study, Chillrud et al. (3