A question I have yet to get or see answered by anyone in tobacco control remains: If secondhand smoke is so deadly why are more children suffering from allergies and asthma now than they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago when practically everyone was exposed to SHS on a regular basis? Exposure to SHS by kids is practically nil compared to back when many of us were growing up, but cases of asthma and allergies were practically unheard of back then.
Why the silence on this question.
Gabz-
One hypothesis is that the environment is in many ways cleaner than years ago, so kids are not being exposed early on to allergens when they have a chance to develop normal immunity. But I don't think anyone knows for sure.
You know that when I have an opinion, I don't hesitate to express it. But when I don't know the answer, I'm also willing to admit that I don't know. In this case, I don't know the answer to the question of why asthma and allergy rates have increased.
Whether you condone banning smoking in homes or not Dr. Siegel, it IS coming.
What scares me the most out of all of this SHS hoopla, is not the ban against smoking, if that were the true end game, (and we all know it's not, else they would have gone after the manufacturers and totally banned tobacco products long ago, not continued to profit while demonizing a section of the population), then I would gladly lay down my home rolled cigarettes, but their after far worse than simple bans against a product unproven to be harmful to those that don't use it, they want the money, power, prestige and control of trying to run everyones lives as they see fit, not as the owner of that life see's fit.
I saw in the news today, another attempt to introduce legislation that would make health scare universal, anyone care to bet that as the fabric erodes further, this will eventually pass, and then they will have the right, nay the "duty", to dictate our lifestyles and choices for our own good and the welfare of the "state".
Humph, can't remember exactly the quote I want to throw in here, but it ran along the lines of "None is so terrible as those who impose their will on others for their own good, a despot can be recognized and hatred turned away, but those who do so for the good of others have no concsience nor qualms as they believe they are in the right".
Ok, so it's not the quote verbatim, but it certainly describes at least one or two Anti's that post on this board, Bill, any response?
The world of the antis gets whackier by the day.If i was anti american what a field day i'd have.Moralising and sticking your nose in to someone elses business is usually undertaken by those politicians higher up the ladder.Obviously the lower minions are feeling left out.Self persecution is something even more weird,is this female council member short on brain cells ?If she is so concerned about SHS,why the HELL hasn't she stopped smoking.This person is nothing short of a raving loony with a loose screw.I think this and the fact that americans deem children are anyone under the age of 18 clearly shows they are suffering a credability issue and have no faith or belief in the younger generation.Liberty it seems is for those ageing zealots .Call it anti smoking but the results are far more reaching than that.Third world dictatorships will soon have a parity with the US.The Arab nations will soon be rolling on the floor laughing their heads off.
Doc, can I ask in all seriousness: has there ever been a study carried out that conclusively shows that anti's lose that portion of the brain that controls logic, when they set out to change the world?
I just did a piece (at the Freedom to Choose website) on the promises made to Scotland by the anti smoker crew who said:
1. Bans are good for business. I offered proof to the contrary. Bars, on average, show at least a 10% loss. (over 80 showed a 100% loss)
2. Bans reduce smoking prevalence. I offered proof that they dont. Tobacco sales rose by 5% in the months following the ban.
3. More non smokers visit smoke free bars. They dont. I offered proof by way of a new study that shows a 14% decrease in pub-goers.
4. Bans are good for health. I guess we will have to wait 30 or 40 years for proof of that, but in the meantime, perhaps we can ask the 80 odd bar owners and their staff how healthy they feel now that they are living on welfare?
5. Smokers will NOT smoke more at home. I offer proof that that is EXACTLY what happens when you enact legislation of this type.
I dont suppose we need a study. The proof is already here....
The only smoking ban that would actually reduce the incidence of secondhand smoke-related illness among the children of Bangor is a ban on smoking in the home.
Excuse me, Doc..........but I am so bloody sick and tired of this crap. Exactly WHAT SHS related illnesses are you referring to? Exactly which illness is ONLY 100% CAUSED BY SHS ALONE?
And if there isn't one, why the constant barbardment of this SHS bu**sh*t?
I've asked dozens of time, and you just answered it above........there is NO explanation for the rise in allergies and asthma in children no longer exposed to SHS on a regular basis, yet you still continually tell us these things are smoking/SHS related.
The truth is that you all don't want to look at the real causes (and you all know what they are)....all the chemicals in the foods not to mention all the poisons in the air from all those cars and trucks on the roads.
Gabz wrote:
"If secondhand smoke is so deadly why are more children suffering from allergies and asthma now than they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago..."
The answer from tobacco control would probably be:
Because SHS killed so many kids 20, 30 and 40 years ago before they had a chance to get allergies and asthma.
New Speaker of The House, says:"The days of smoke-filled rooms in the United States Capitol are over," Pelosi said. "Medical science has unquestionably established the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. I am a firm believer that Congress should lead by example."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS...g.ap/
index.html
The US Declaration of Indendence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." and Thomas Jefferson said of those rights liberty is the greatest which he defined as "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
As a government scientist I have little respect for what is called medical science. Medician is an art not a science. Someone, do not remember who, described doctors akin to an auto mechanic diagnosing a problem with a car without ever looking under the hood.
A more serious threat to our children is dihydrogen monoxide and as it causes more preventable cancer deaths then cigarettes see http://www.dhmo.org/cancer.html . Yet only one town, ALISO VIEJO, CA had the courage to ban it before strong lobbying caused them to reverse coarse, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534017/. Yes folks we can trust politicians to protect us. Only they with the advice of the medical community can keep us safe.
I can't wait to see if those antis have the balls to go the whole hog and ban smoking.Err i wonder who is going to tell the native americans that they can no longer use tobacco in their sacred ceremonies.What a happy prospect ,errant youth (aka children) and native americans on the warpath,so to speak.YOU WILL DO AS YOU ARE COMMANDED.
There is a very pertinent quote from Pastor Martin Neimoller that I recently came across courtesy of CAGE Canada:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Now make the following substitutions:
Change Jews to Smokers
Change Communists to Drinkers
Change trade unionists to Over Eaters
Doc,
You are getting ahead of yourself. This is incremental persecution.
Britains health minister Patricia Hewitt acknowledged before the British ban that 95% of children's exposure happened in the home.
The studies are now forthcoming about the ban being responsible for intensifying that exposure. ASH are beating the same drum. Any bets on the outcome? Reverse the bans or extend to peoples homes?
I know where the smart money is.
Many months ago now I posted that once the agenda had driven smoking into the homes the big guns would be rolled out. "for the children". It has happened even quicker than I feared.
Without meaning to be unkind, wake-up and smell the coffee.
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
It is a small step from accepting curtailment of your own liberties for your own children to imposing curtailment of liberties on others for other's children.
GreatScot
They full well know that banning in private homes will be enough rope to hang themselves.
Bans in cars are little different, so hopefully they have miscalculated and they have enough rope already.
I am just waiting for the day when they find the real causes of "smoking related" diseases. Won't they look foolish then.
John R, They already know the real causes of "smoking related diseases", they just don't like that doing something about those causes will force them to change their lives around and get used to not having things they enjoy. So, instead they go after the easiest target, since most don't like the smell of cigarette smoke anyway.
They prefer blaming a minority of the population for using a legal product whose smell they dislike.
Just like they probably already have a cure for cancer, but the pharmas would go broke if cancer were cured...........so guess what?
Yep, I know that sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I refuse to believe that after all these decades they still have no cure for cancer, but continually find new drugs to use for everything else.
I am starting to see the other side of the picture here a lot more clearly, smoking does cost society probably a lot more than paltry SAMMEC figures divulge. If we gat behind a campaign to go all the way and criminalize the possession of tobacco. Smoking related disease would cease to exist.
I say we start writing the papers and shame these gutless politicians into legislation. We could as a result cease to fund the big four charities which would no longer need any government help with the majority of their announced mortality risk gone. We could take those funds and properly fund medical infrastructure. The charities could close knowing they had accomplished their primary reason for existence Funding nationalized research would likely lead to billions in cost savings now destined for advertising agencies and newsrooms around the planet. Governments would be in a surplus position in no time eliminating national debt and the only things we would be left to focus on would be where all the immortals would live, in the new mortality free societies of the future where population booms would have us criminalizing sex.
I can't believe the level of nonsense these industry hatchet men get away with and the fact in the majority the pubic is not already rioting in the streets.
http://lieberaldictators.blogspo...-
terrorist.html
The Bangor ban sounds surprisingly similar to the stereotypical Hollywood hick town police force with the rigged traffic light in the middle of no where only this tourist trap does not require the purchase of any equipment.
The reality is the give the smoker another kick has evolved into a gluttony of the advocates who seek self importance in always raising the bar. Cooler heads will eventually prevail and tell these hate mongers enough is enough. Hopefully before to many people get killed fighting over the hatred they created and seek to grow.
Doc, whats your opinion on this?
http://www.twincities.com/mld/ne...ial/
1639441.htm
It seems many have not read any of your opinions or just discard them.
Cant seem to get it to link.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/ne...ial/
1639441.htm
''Just like they probably already have a cure for cancer, but the pharmas would go broke if cancer were cured...........so guess what?''
Did anyone hear that olive leaves extract can cure cancer ? And it has been known since the late 70's if you believe the foreign documentary from Greece that I listened on TV today. Many witnesses were the guests at this talk show and they all claim their cancer totally disappeared after a cure that consisted of ingesting 3 (small greek size) coffee cups a day of this extract. The witnesses spoke about breast cancer, intestinal cancer and some type of leg cancer, probably others too (I didn't get to see the whole show).
This would be logical and in line with the fact that albeit Greeks are the heaviest smokers in the EU, they are also the healthiest. They are big consumers of olives, olive oil and now we find out about olive leaves extract.
i agree that we should all step up to the plate so that we can step up to the plate. if more people just stepped up to the plate, than maybe more people would understand our responsibility to step up to the plate.
stepping up to the plate,
Stepupto Theplate
and here is where I comment:
remember Dr Mike my comments on the WI law of carseats for the now up to "tweeners" - booster seats too. We have a WI Supreme Court Justice who is under the height and weight restrictions..a Justice who - by law - requires a booster seat to be in a car!!!
It is so all are visible to the police to give a ticket to, for the city, county, state, fed dollars....
what a shocker..
I don't agree with everything Goldberg says in this article, and I seldom ever agree with the man; nevertheless, he gets most of it exactly right, in my opinion. So one cheer for the man:
http://
article.nationalreview.co...DY2YTY2ODE0YTk=
Nice article, Harry. Thanks.
Lynda, forgive me but I've gotta call you on this:
... the real causes (and you all know what they are)....all the chemicals in the foods not to mention all the poisons in the air from all those cars and trucks on the roads.
Sorry but I think that's likely as much glib nonsense as the other hypotheses-- the ones we've taken the trouble to research and knock hell out of. On the other hand, if you're going to make those claims, you have to back them up. Can you? That's a genuine question: Which food additives have been consistently and convincingly linked to asthma or cancer?
As for air pollution, while it's true there are more cars on the roads, it's also true that exhaust pollution itself has been markedly reduced in the last 35 years, so that possibly more=less; incineration has been all-but-banned; and perhaps not so good for the economy, the number and kinds of factories have greatly decreased, and regulations have greatly reduced emissions.
I'm not saying these things don't have any impact
( I don't know, and neither does anyone else) but I'm saying be careful about what and whom you scapegoat.
And no, I don't believe that a lack of cures for cancer is a pharmaceutical conspiracy. It is, in fact, a lot easier to walk on the moon than to unravel its secrets.
:
Harry I agree with you, this article should be read and the meaning understood in order to relay the wisdom to others
http://
article.nationalreview.co...DY2YTY2ODE0YTk=
I think the article by Jonah Goldberg demonstrates why he gets paid the big bucks while we common people are mostly limited to discussions in blogs.
In Canada it is high time we revised yet again the national anthem. We reinvented the anthem in the past without complaint or political circumstance; to include a second language and eliminate the references to god now we must, to remain politically correct and in touch with our feminine side,[A happy place Rosy O’Donnell needs to visit, of course avoiding the need for a happy meal on her journey] We must remove the words true north strong and free as we are no longer either. There is no strength witnessed in a society ruled by a health department morality, in a perpetual mindset divining safe can never be safe enough. A proud people laid to waste in our inability to suffer the little things.
A National culture denied in the replacement of a multi-cultural society where we once were all inclusive as one, denying our own heritage as cruel and unjust Traditional values now belong among the dinosaurs. We must relinquish all reference to Judeo-Christian influence which is now judged as hateful and intolerant All fortified daily in the national press and in courtrooms where lazy lawyers laud the creation of the race card defense.
The outlawing of nuisances and the utterances of hateful speech, were our defining moments. From which we can never go back. Society which can not tolerate and assess on it’s own the value of the words of Zundel who was deported for his intolerant opinions, yet we have no problem in a Liberal politician insinuating something dirty exists in the belief of traditional conservative values. We must now be micro managed and protected from ourselves lest we spend our allowed after tax earnings on harmful products. Suffer me the little things? Sorry Canadians are no longer strong enough to endure the little things which require legislation beyond regulation to keep absolute purity of mind and body and beyond that an obligation to protect the purity of others.
The Liberal mindset is promoted in a proudly small L liberal following restricting our common press. A press who glorifies the only fascist ruler in our country’s history who turned the nations army against his own people. A man who campaigned against the second world war and in support of Hitler, then by media control and financial influence he was elevated to leadership and through the same media mindset promoted as a god. In reality a small minded tyrant who deserves a history of shame not of sainthood for destroying what was once the envy of the world now inhabited by the programmed slaves of Health Canada denormalization. Although never whispered in public a place ruled by Taliban influences with common fascist roots. A place where all things are now possible, when sold to us as politically correct draws no large complaint. Support among those born in the last three decades or of the imported votes from selected communities of right headed individuals. Fertilized by politics run rampant in our education systems. How I pity those who never experienced life before the 70s compared to the enslavements of today. A world much more enjoyable, more considerate and certainly more free.
I met a woman once who lived her entire life in communist China. When I asked her how she liked living here. I was puzzled when she asked how people can live with so much restriction, in China the people would rebel. In the larger view it is not that difficult to understand now what she meant. Surprising we have not seen the reaction sown of discontent she described, so far, only apathy and remorse. I can only surmise as with the symptoms of withdrawal the progression comes in stages without which we see a future of slavery as the only logical option.
The Merry Christmas greeting is now inexplicably out of PC favor as insulting to some, yet driving millions out our of community venues is perfectly acceptable, almost an obligation of society today, to enforce severely in progressive stages our indignities on those who smoke and are corrupt and sinful enough to be overweight. Yes This small minded focus needs a lot more attention by those few of us educated enough to see the larger picture. Those of us inspired by the protection of the children should realize what little freedom to taste of our lifetime experiences we will leave. Erasing anything common to our journey in denying them of where we have been. How little freedom we will leave them in our campaign of controlling the little things.
Looking at both sides Walt,how many chemicals in the foods we eat ,can you say you know all about,the reason for them being there and the long term health risks associated with them.I don't ,it's as simple as that.Preservatives are one thing,but flavor enhancers etc etc ,isn't this the problem with today's cigarettes ? I do agree ,that no-one knows the full story about cancer,other than it happens and usually it is age related,But,recently reading about workplace exposure limits to the various chemical proccesses ,indicates the mortality rates in these industries have been greatly underestimated.If we all followed these miraculous cures,we'd still fall foul to something else.Isn't it really all about what life means to each of us,quality or quantity,or what we make of it.There is a lot of secrecy in any Government,even the so called freedom of information act only applies to specific areas,so it is easy to go down the road of conspiacy.I've been there,seen it and got the t-shirt.All i'm left with is a gut feeling i'm right but i'll never know.This isn't ideal democracy is it.The agenda drives the machinery.How often have we been told do this,only to find out later that advice was wrong.Why were the tobacco companies told to reduce tar and are now being vilified as to duping the public.The truth is only known to them and the Governments which gave the directive.Who are we in this scenario ?
The Healthcare Pandemic, A disease of Democracy and Choice
Somehow the following passage seems to indicate C.S. Lewis had an incredible eye for the future, or more likely learned well the mistakes of the past.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis. "
Lynda, forgive me but I've gotta call you on this:
Sorry but I think that's likely as much glib nonsense as the other hypotheses-- the ones we've taken the trouble to research and knock hell out of. On the other hand, if you're going to make those claims, you have to back them up. Can you? That's a genuine question: Which food additives have been consistently and convincingly linked to asthma or cancer?
As for air pollution, while it's true there are more cars on the roads, it's also true that exhaust pollution itself has been markedly reduced in the last 35 years, so that possibly more=less; incineration has been all-but-banned; and perhaps not so good for the economy, the number and kinds of factories have greatly decreased, and regulations have greatly reduced emissions.
Walt,
That's alright, you can call me on anything you think or feel is out of line. I have no problem having my errors pointed out to me.
No, I can't back up my statements because they are nothing more than my opinions (not claims but my very strong personal views). It just makes sense to me.
Consider that fewer people smoke today than did 50 years ago; over the last 20 years at least, more and more places (and all office buildings for the most part-at least in large cities) have gone/been "smoke-free"; fewer and fewer people are exposed to SHS; and yet more and more children suffer severe asthma and allergies, as do more and more adults. My simple math talents, and common sense, tells me that this doesn't add up to be being caused by SHS or smoking.
As for air pollution.....I understand YOUR point, but if exhausts are so much cleaner these days, why can you not still run a car in an enclosed space without becoming seriously ill or dead? Cleaner car exhaust and no more incinerations, fewer fireplaces in use, should equal cleaner air. Why then is the air around us becoming more and more polluted? Again, my common sense tells me that it can't be smoking related as too few people smoke to cause that kind of pollution, and it has to be car and industrial exhausts, and lord knows what else.
All packaged foods have "chemical" additives in them; again, my simple common sense tells me that this would be more of a contributing factor (a major one at that) for the increase in childhood illness and asthma and allergies in people. Not to mention who knows what it does to the body and heart.
I don't state facts unless I can back them up, and will back them up at the time I state them. Everything else I write is my own personal view/opinion and very strong inner feeling.
AND as we are continually pointing out here.............we can't even trust any of the studies or reports anymore unless we can prove absolutely NO bias by the authors.
Now, if you or anyone else can show me, via back up, how my thinking is totally off base, I'm all ears.
asthma is up in children because we haven't eliminated any of the causes of childhood asthma over the last 30 years.
Dave K
asthma is up in children because we haven't eliminated any of the causes of childhood asthma over the last 30 years.
And what are those causes? Why are more and more kids affected than before? Isn't all this centralized air being used now supposed to be so much better? Aren't all the chemicals we now put in food that we didn't put there 30 years ago, so much better?
I'm not disagreeing with you here, I happen to agree with you..........however, it still doesn't quite explain the numbers of kids with serious respiratory issues. At least not in my mind. Unless the fact that fewer kids are exposed to SHS is playing a part in this rise of asthma?
Walt and Lynda F: I think the real question is what and how much ETS adds to the already existing substances that we ingest or inhale without chocking.
Tobacco is basically a product of mother nature. Smoke comes from fire and fire has been essential in the development of mankind.
My point is that we don't know much about what part of the "toxicity" in our natural environment really stems from ETS. How much of these substances is permissible or acceptable at a normal workplace? Have you ever tried to find a compilation of data comparing ETS concentration with permissible levels at the workplace? Have you ever tried to find a complete list of those 40, 50, or 60 cancerogen substances in ETS, including their doses in ETS?
In fact nobody wants to know, because the culprit is already found.
But look what they found about living near heavy road traffic:
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/aje...9856145!8091!-
1
This might be re-stating the obvious, but it is still very alarming:
"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" (emphasis mine).
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't intentional murder considered a capital offense in some states? At the very least, it is considered a far more serious crime than rape or aggravated assault or manslaughter.
The councilperson should be called out on this. But, of course, she will be given a pass. And the madness continues...
In support of Walt, I think the point being made is that any links to any other "real" culprit (i.e. air pollution, food additives, etc. etc.)are just as tenuous as the link being made between ETS and harm.
When one of us raises our finger and asserts that what's "really" causing this or that and should be looked at instead of blaming these things on ETS is unattractive. It puts us in league with the antis who, with a tenuous link at best, say it's not those things but this. It's no better behavior on our part in trying to take the heat off of ETS by applying little else but "common sense" to assert what really's to blame. (How many times have we seen people posting at the end of articles on smoking bans that it's "common sense!" that if smokers get sick from "toxic" smoke that nonsmokers have to be hurt from it too?)
Either the flaws of epidemiology apply to everything or they don't. I find no problem in saying that NOTHING can be convicted of being THE cause of anything when they're all subjected to the same scientific method. Granted, large relative risk findings (greater than a 3 or 4) make for more solid "proof" of a link but for the purposes of this conversation, even they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A CAUSED B.
Walt should correct me if I'm wrong but I think Walt's bottom line was that we lower ourselves to the antis standards when resorting to something that sounds like "there's the REAL witch. Go get her and stop looking at me!" We're better than that and our overall goal should be to prove that a higher standard of proof for anything is demanded... lest everything's up for grabs for strangulative regulation and restriction.
It's not about ETS vs. everything else. It's about the scientific method that affects it/us all. Or as I always say, Consistency = Credibility
Personally, without any method yet that can prove A causes B, what I know is that all living things (man and animal) get cancer. So maybe the simplest answer is that the cause of cancer is flesh and blood?
Here's some food for thought in connection with my last post:
The Science of Luck
It’s all a matter of probability
By Rebecca Goldin Ph.D
Statistical Assessment Service - September 20, 2006
Each of us has about a one in four chance of dying from cancer. This doesn’t mean much for the individual, who either will, or will not, die of cancer. But across the population, for every unlucky cancer death, there are three others who die for other reasons.
Risks can be reduced, but not eliminated. And whether a small risk affects your life or not is just a matter of luck. You can reduce your chances of lung cancer by a factor of ten by not smoking, but you might still die of lung cancer (and your smoking counterpart may not).
At best, science can determine the probability of something going wrong, or the risk associated with a certain behavior or physical trait. Whether it affects you or not is just dumb luck.
(This article was spurred by an essay printed in the NY Times, "In Science-Based Medicine, Where Does Luck Fit In?" Unfortunately, it's only available by subscription)
Has anyone ever done a study or published any findings on childhood respiratory illnesses and adult cancer rates in Amish communities? I'll bet even Amish kids still smoke behind the barn......
First, studies consistently find that the closer people live to a busy road, the more likely they are to suffer from asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease. Unlike SHS studies, ALL studies of highway pollution are positively correlated with elevated disease rates.
Indeed, according to a recent report in the British Medical Journal, truck drivers have an approximately 50% higher adjusted risk of developing lung cancer:
Results: Operators of heavy construction equipment experienced no increased risk of lung cancer compared to risk among the carpenter/electrician referents (61 cases v 70.1 expected). However, a significant inverse trend risk with increasing use of cabins was apparent. Truck drivers had increased risks of cancer of the lung (61 cases v 47.3 expected) and prostate (124 cases v 99.7 expected), although only mortality for lung cancer was significantly increased. Comparisons with the general population showed similar results.MORE http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...t/full/60/7/
516
"What should be noted in that study, is that the increased lung cancer effect was not observed in heavy equipment operators but was observed in over-the-road truck drivers" Kuneman said. " This shows us that the increased lung cancer is not due to the emissions of the machine the driver is operating, but rather is due to general pollution conditions near roadways."
The effect of spending a considerable amount of time near a busy roadway is not limited to lung cancer either. According to a recent study in the European Heart Journal, the closer one lives to a major highway, the more likely they are to develop heart disease, after controlling for other factors.
Methods and results We used baseline data from the German Heinz Nixdorf RECALL study, a population-based, prospective cohort study. For 3399 participants from two cities, we assessed the long-term personal traffic exposure and background air pollution, comparing residents living within 150 m of major roads with those living further away. The principal outcome variable was clinically manifest CHD. We evaluated the association with multivariable logistic regression, controlling for background air pollution and individual level risk factors. Of 3399 participants, 242 (7.1%) had CHD. The crude odds ratio (OR) for prevalence of CHD at high traffic exposure was significantly elevated (1.62, 95%CI 1.12–2.34) and rose to 1.85 (95%CI 1.21–2.84) after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and background air pollution. Subgroup analysis showed stronger effects for men (OR 2.33, 95%CI 1.44–3.7
, participants younger than 60 years (OR 2.67, 95%CI 1.24–5.74) and never-smokers (OR 2.72, 95%CI 1.40–5.29
MORE http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals....ract/27/22/
2696
"These are the same elevated incidence levels of lung cancer and heart disease that the antismokers attribute to hospitality workers' secondhand smoke ezposure", Kuneman said. A recent article in the journal Epidemiology found lung cancer and heart disease rates increased with proximity to expressway exposure.
Results: After controlling for 44 individual covariates, all-cause mortality had a relative risk (RR) of 1.17 (95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.30) for an increase of 10 [mu]g/m3 PM2.5 and a RR of 1.11 (0.99-1.25) with maximal control for both individual and contextual confounders. The RRs for mortality resulting from ischemic heart disease and lung cancer deaths were elevated, in the range of 1.24-1.6, depending on the model used. These PM results were robust to adjustments for O3 and expressway exposure.
MORE www.epidem.com/pt/re/epidemiology/
abstract.00001648-200511000-00004.htm
Nor are the effects limited to these diseases. According to the journal Epidemiology, persistent cough is more likely to occur if a person lives near a busy highway.
Results: Adjusting for cigarette smoking, age, and occupational exposure to dust, men living within 50 m of a major roadway were more likely to report persistent wheeze (odds ratio [OR] = 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-1.7) compared with those living more than 400 m away. The risk was observed only for those living within 50 m of heavily trafficked roads (>=10,000 vehicles/24 h): OR = 1.7; CI = 1.2-2.4). The risk of patients experiencing chronic phlegm while living on heavily trafficked roads also increased (OR = 1.4; CI = 1.0-2.0), although there was little evidence for an association with chronic cough. This association was not dependent on preexisting doctor-diagnosed chronic respiratory or heart disease
MORE http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals....ract/27/22/
2696
"These are all the same health effects which have, in the past been attributed to secondhand smoke in hospitality establishments." explained Kuneman. "Of even greater concern, is that these effects may be additive and recent research suggests that they are. An Environmental Health Perspectives article MORE http://www.ehponline.org/members.../6334/
6334.html reviews all the evidence. The authors concluded that lowering of socioeconomic status may worsen the health effects of highway pollution. When smoking bans cause income to drop, they increase the health risk these hospitality workers face from the pollution inhaled when working in reasaurants and bars near highways. Overall, it becomes likely smoking bans cause more health risk than they intend to prevent."
To sum it all up, it is highly likely the claim secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease, and chronic cough in hospitality workers is actually due to their work locations being next to busy highways. "None of the studies claiming secondhand smoke causes these diseases in hospitality workers controlled for exposure to highway pollution...and secondhand smoke researchers can't conclude the secondhand smoke caused the elevated disease rates in these workers unless they subtract the risk of working near a busy road" , according to Kuneman " If they do subtract the risk of working near a busy road, from the overall risk they have found, they get zero" Kuneman concluded.
Poor. Very poor. Really. I know you anti-smoking zelots really, REALLY --FEEL-- like you're doing good. How nice for you.
How about this. I'll worry about me... and you worry about you... and we'll make laws that focus on real CRIME. I mean, it seems to me (yeah, I know I isn't two smart) this world would be a much better place if my fellow man worried about himself and his environment half as much as he worries about me and mine.
After all (and yes, I'm somewhat old school here) this is supposed to be a free country. Keep passing bullshit like this and we'll see how long we earn that distinction.
I say we ban the soccer moms from legislating anything. They really don't seem to have much to offer other then this type of feel-good silliness. Remember, this is the country that began by shooting at cops (redcoats,) dumping the king's tea in the harbor and eventually usurping the 'legimitate' authority.
And now we're reduced to this?? Gee, thanks soccer moms. Go back to watching your daytime soaps. You'll do me and this country a favor.
Hi, Dave K., (if you ever check back here)
Another great posting; I'd just like to mention that one of the little tricks used to 'drop' relative rates of lung cancer among other at-risk workers is to compare to carpenters.
If one doesn't happen to know that carpenters (like plumbers, construction workers, home handypersons, etc.) have high rates of lung cancer due to asbestos exposure, one can be easily duped.
However, while the risks are declared to be no higher than, or even higher in, the (in this common example) non-diesel-exposed group, in order to let diesel emissions, employers and insureres off the hook, the expected rates are a give-away - very high even though typically only included within a short time frame often excluding cases at both ends of the spectrum, even though cancers have appeared within months of initial asbestos exposure, or may have a latent period of 60 or 70 years.
Unlabelled asbestos is everywhere, including in building materials, and chrysotile asbestos (when accurately assessed) tends to produce about a 40% rate of cancer in those more heavily exposed - most commonly of the lung, with gastrointestinal a far second.
The high rates of lung cancer in such groups are automatically attributed to smoking more than the other group(s), even when it's already been stated that the highest group(s) is(are) younger, and has (have) a lower smoking rate.
I've got postings about this elsewhere, but I'm too lazy to look the info up right now.
And looking is a little tricky because a common strategy is to 'seed the literature' with industry studies showing that industry liability is nill and that something else - most often smoking or some other form of victim blame - is responsible for any health effects apparent.
As you already know.
Best bet - if you haven't yet read Michael Bowker's Fatal Deception, do so.
It's sold online, and if you can't get a copy there on from a bookstore, the local library may be able to supply you with a loan.
It'll explain more, and more thoroughly, than possibly any other book I've yet read - especially regarding the invention and promotion of tobacco blame in liability avoidance which has become so prevalent and universally useful to toxic industry.
Commenting by HaloScan
