How did you define the WHO's study on SHS providing a statistically significant protective effect on children Dr Siegel ? It appears all of these little tinpot organisations are spouting regurgitated rhetoric in order to get themselves in the limelight.For those of us with smaller cars,we don't necessarily have the luxury of placing baby seats in the centre of the car,so we run the RISK of placing them on the nearside or offside.Are accident figures greater in the USA or Europe for child harm due to car accidents ? European cars are invariably smaller.The point is the risk is slight,so is SHS UNLESS YOU QUOTE THE WHO'S STUDY.Since it was fresh in your mind Dr Siegel,why didn't you refer to it ?
Nice commentary
Please provide the evidence that this policy will prevent ear infections. or alternatively please provide the evidence that exposure to smoke causes ear infections.
If exposure to smoke causes ear infections - should the incidence of ear infections not have already decreased due to the fact that an estimated 82 % of Canadian homes are no smoke free.
If exposure to smoke causes ear infections - should we be seeing an increase of the incidence of ear infections in homes with wood burning stoves and fire places.
If exposure to smoke causes ear infections - shouldn't there have been a decrease in the incidence when the population switched from heating their homes with wood and oil to natural gas and electricity.
Michelle
Excellent points, Michelle.
I find the singling out of tobacco smoke, to the exclusion of all other forms of smoke to be particularly insidious habit of the anti-smoker cartel in their war on smokers. The exclusion of all other sources of smoke proves that anti-smoker stance of "It's the smoke, not the smoker" to be the bald-faced lie we have always known it to be.
Good points ladies, but I like Si's point too.
I want to home in on the Doc's non-response to IARC's study that concluded that the RR for kids with smoking parents was/is 0.78.
I'm no mathematician but that equates to a 22% PROTECTION for those children with smoking parents against lung cancer.
Strip away all the crap, and it would appear that anti & non smokers are all guilty of child abuse by NOT smoking. By NOT offering their kids any protection against LC in later life.
Who'da thunk it? The zealots are guilty of murder. They condemn their children to an elevated risk for LC.
Or will we just trash the WHO/IARC study?
The WHO are just front for Big Tobacco, I suppose....
The WHO are just front for Big Tobacco, I suppose....
Don't laugh Colin, I was on Topix last year (had to give it up as it was raising my blood pressure to dangerously high levels). Anyway, on one of the smoking topics in an effort to try to "educate" those intelligent non-smokers spouting the Surgeon General's press release, I provided them not only with excerpts BUT the links to both the SG site AND the WHO/IARC site for these reports.
Do you know, the person I was attempting to educate, actually came back and told me he didn't need to read any "smokers right" site as they were tobacco industry fronts.
I almost choked responding to him with "do you mean to actually suggest that the study behind the SG press release that you love so much, is actually a tobacco industry front? That the World Health Organization is also a tobacco industry front? Did you not even notice the links themselves?"
Funny thing was, that intelligent non-smoker had no response to that. Gee I wonder why? Maybe I was just too stupid?
The important thing here is, that these people, the good Doc here included, don't WANT to see those reports because they prefer the lies of the press releases over the disturbing truth. They honestly believe that the tobacco industry funded the WHO study since the WHO buried it. They actually believe the SG was announcing all the corrections to the conclusions in the 727 pages since they didn't prove the point.
In other words, since the lie suits their personal preference, they would rather hear and believe that. I can't wait until someone comes for them, so I can sit there and say "I tried to warn you".
Mike wrote:
"The major fallacy in the argument that smoking around children is a form of child abuse is that secondhand smoke does not necessarily cause harm to children - it increases the risk of ear infections, respiratory infections, and asthma."
According to Mike's rationalizations, virtually every action that has resulted in a child abuse conviction is not child abuse because that activity does not necessarily cause harm to children.
I'd bet that attorneys of many adults who were convicted of child abuse made that very same losing argument in court.
Just because a particular activity may not consitute harm to every child doesn't mean that the activity doesn't cause harm to many or most children.
Of course, exposing children to tobacco smoke pollution indoors and in cars is child abuse.
I find it hypocritical for Mike to criticize smokefree advocates for endorsing indoor smokefree workplace legislation that contains any exemption (despite the fact that every smokefree workplace law contains exemptions), while at the same time Mike opposes any governmental action to protect children from indoor tobacco smoke pollution.
Interestingly, the Alliance seems to exempt from child abuse the intentional exposure of one's children to secondhand smoke produced by other smokers. If you smoke around your children, that is child abuse; however, if you bring your kids to a smoky restaurant, the Alliance is not suggesting that is child abuse. This exposes the weakness of their argument.
It's not hard to figure out Doc. The point in that is that the non-smoking parent is not causing the abuse therefore they are not abusing the child, it's just those stupid dirty smokers enjoying their legal product in a legal setting that are the abusers. And you STILL think this is about health?
By the way, I echo the others in wanting to see all the studies proving that SHS actually CAUSES ear infections, since my own very real life experience with my son and his two heavy smoking parents proves you wrong.
Well Bill, using your logic, then transporting your kids in a car is a form of child abuse since it can also lead to some very real (versus imagined) harm. Same with feeding them, given all the chemicals in foods today. Then there's all that over-medicating them, turning them into little pill poppers before they can even live.
Having a swimming pool is definintely child abuse. It's only April and already 4 children have drown in pools in Mesa, Arizona in the last month. All pools should be banned and all homeowners with pools, regardless of fencing (all these kids drown with pools that were fenced and locked) should be fined and arrested for abuse.
Beating a child senseless is okay as long as there was no smoking, is that right Bill? They can use an open hand, closed fist, wooden spoon, belt or any other weapon that is within hands reach, as long as there isn't any smoke emitting from the end? Ignoring a child's cries is not neglect as long as you aren't ignoring them because you are smoking? Not feeding or clothing them properly is fine as long as there is no smoke. Don't want to go to school? Fine, stay home with mom as it is probably safer as I think there is a child in your classroom who knows someone who smokes and they might tell you about it. Thirdhand smoke is deadly to a child.
Driving at 85mph is okay, just don't light that cigarette and roll your window down. Forget about road rage. Soom road rage will be the Bill's of the world who seen someone smoking in their car. Oh I could go on and on, but all I can say is Bill, prove to me that I abused my child by smoking in front of them. Still waiting for those death certificates too.
Of course, exposing children to tobacco smoke pollution indoors and in cars is child abuse.
The Almight God(shall) has thus spoken...........but it's obvious he has never spoken with someone in Child Protective Services, you know - the folks who actually prosicute child abuse cases.
A few years back, after having repeatedly been called a child abuser because I am a smoker I actually picked up the phone and contacted Delaware CPS to ask them if smoking around a child was considered child abuse by their agency. After the woman picked herself up off the floor from laughing so hard, we had a very informative conversation.
To make a long story short she said that unless the child was ill (example she used was asthma) a person lodging a claim of child abuse based solely upon the fact of exposure to SHS would most often be charged with filing a false report.
So my good people, please remember that every time Bill Godshall accuses smokers of being child abusers, as he has done here once again, he is actually breaking the law.........and it is criminal law that he is breaking, not civil law (such as smoking in a place with a ban)
Bill Godshall is an unconvicted criminal, but a criminal nonetheless.
As someone who actually works with children and adolescents who are the victims' of child abuse I have a hard time seeing how this could meet the threshold of child abuse. Is the implication that children should be removed from the home? This seems to be extreme to say the least. I don't see how placing a child in the care of the state or of strangers is ideal compared to being cared for by a parent who who smokes if that is the only "complaint". The cost to the child, the parent, and society would be great and the benefit nil. There is already a shortage of caring and qualified foster parents in this country. Or would this be a poor tax where the offending parent would fined thereby taking money away from the family income? It seems a little sadistic to threaten parents in such a way!
I wanted to post a follow up comment and question(s). I am a long time smoker who has recently decided to quit. As I have looked at what kind of help is out there I am astonished. Phillip Morris provides as much information as does the American Legacy Foundation, ASH, and the Truth Campaign. It appears that the states and tobbacco control advocates have very little interest in helping people who want to quit smoking stop. How many billions of dollars have been squandered since the MSA? How can any tobacco control advocate come across as self-righteous when so little of the resources are actually goung to help people who want to quit? We are told that tobacco is addictive as heroin but we are expected to quit by "will power"?
If any other substance were addressed this way those in charge of the funds would lose their licenses and probably be charged with fraud. Where are the support groups, counseling, or NRT, that at least some this money should be used for? Beaureaucrats and Advertising Executives are the only one who seem to be benefitting from this swindle.
Claims of child abuse through exposure to ETS is just another example of how low TC will stoop in order to keep the revenue stream alive.
There is nothing that they would ever rule out as not being a result of ETS.
Whatever it takes to keep the cash flowing to fund the battle for a smoke-free world, ...............
after salary and expenses of course.
Ryan, I've heard people say, don't quit smoking, just quit smoking cigarettes. Get a pipe, they are such a pain in the ass, that sooner or later you'll just get sick and tired of trying to keep the damn thing lit, and in the meantime just buy pipe tobacco, and do not buy cigs.
Now, here's an example of real child abuse: Scaring the kids of parents and relatives who smoke.... NOW, THAT'S REAL CHILD ABUSE!!!!!!
and the worst part, is these people are abusing other people's children...for selfish political gain.
Colin, if we take the RR=.78 for exposure during childhood, and recompute it placing no exposure to shs during childhood as a lung cancer risk in adulthood, we get RR=1.28.
Apparantly activist epidemiologists think RR= 1.28 is a real serious risk. If a RR=1.2 is serious enough to destroy bar and restaurant business and the First Amendment, I might add, , then shielding children from shs is an even more serious risk, and immediate steps should be taken to insure all children are exposed to sufficient shs to prevent adult lung cancer.
Failing to expose kids to tobacco smoke, then, is child abuse.
dave K
Well Dave, I thank you.
Your explanation made a lot more sense than mine did.
Lets chuck non smokers into the same campaign as the Haemophiliacs!
They can ignite too!
Safe in the knowledge that they are doing what all good parents do---protecting their offspring from harm.
Isnt that a lovely thought? The Gestapo tearing around the country ordering anti smoking zealots to light up or face charges of child abuse.
"About face, people! We got it all wrong".
The politically correct thing to say now is...
...ah, forget it.
"Just because a particular activity may not consitute harm to every child doesn't mean that the activity doesn't cause harm to many or most children."
Bill, ist there such a thing as group liability based on statistics in your law books?
Just because a particular activity (like driving a car) may not constitute harm to every child doesn't mean that the activity doesn't cause harm to many or most (or some) children.
Now do you want to hold me, as an individual, accountable for the harm others might (or might not) inflict on their children by causing a car accident?
Ryan-
Thanks for your insightful contributions to the discussion! I think you are on the point and put it quite nicely. Many anti-smoking advocates (including our own Bill) have lost sight of the forest for the trees. Treating parents as child abusers (complete with the ultimate threat of having their children taken away) is going to cause far more harm to children than secondhand smoke exposure. These proposals will cause more harm than good.
Bill, on the other hand, is missing the point. The point is not whether the activity will harm some small number of children. That's what risk means. My argument is that the exposure to secondhand smoke does not cause direct and immediate harm - thus, it is not, by definition, child abuse.
If Bill thinks that nearly all convicted child abusers did not cause harm but merely increased minor health risks, he needs to document that fact. I've worked with many cases of child abuse, and every one of them involved direct and immediate harm to the children.
The only exception is for activities that put kids at a very high risk of essentially life-threatening consequences. Ear infections are certainly not one of them.
I wouldn't mind the opinions of these anti-smoking advocates so much if they could put together any type of coherent argument to support their position. Their blindness to the substance of the discussion suggests to me that there is an element of crusading going on. That's fine, crusades can be good things, but in this case, it's going way too far.
That's right Doctor, it is a crusade and in history I cannot recall any that didn't go too far. Even the anti-drinking crusades in the UK (particularly in Wales and in which one of my gandfathers became involved) during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, did a lot of damage with people being castigated and driven out of village social life if they did not fit in with Calvinistic zealotry concerning the consumption of alcohol.
One of the worst aspects of crusades is the overbearing morality and twisted reasoning that go with them. The height of such examples were Inquisitions who tortured people in order to force them to comply with the most ludicrous assumtions and beliefs. Bill reminds me of these "inquisitors" although fortunately he and the other "Witchfinder Generals" have not yet acquired free enough rein to persecute and damage people just as much as they would like.
I often wonder, however, if Bill just says things to wind up the posters on this blog as some of his arguments are so poor. Indeed, I hope he is just a contrary wind-up merchant otherwise he requires certification and maybe forcible sedation with sodium amytol.
Doctor Siegel, it seems to me that several of us have asked for the proof of increased ear infections and I don't recall ever seeing it.
Can you please provide or direct us to, the studies that prove SHS causes or even increases the risk of ear infections?
Because apparently, all us smokers here must have some pretty exceptional kids since they've always been exposed to our SHS and had fewer, if any, ear infections, colds, etc than their little friends from their little smoke-free homes.
So I'm really curious how you all came up with this one.
Yes indeed Doc, I'd like to echo Lynda's question. May we have some details and references on this subject please.
I'm particularly curious as having been brough up by a heavy smoking father the only ear infection I ever suffered was obtained at the swimming pool.
Somewhat off-topic, but still applicable.
The war is running full speed ahead on the obese now. Tell me if ANY of this sounds familiar………
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...t_obesity_costs
Apparently the obese have SOME protection……………….and here I thought our Declaration of Independence stated that we were ALL created equal…………..I guess equal means only if you don’t smoke.
Obesity experts said they hope the study will convince employers to invest in programs to help fight obesity. One employment attorney warned companies that treating fat workers differently could lead to discrimination complaints.
off topic, but not really. look familiar?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/
st...2064157,00.html
Good link, brandz.
This is what you think is child abuse?
Although the article is addressing the matter of obesity re: ear infections, when you look at how common these infections are and at times are only discovered at well-baby exams I think all parents need to contact a lawyer immediately. We may all be guilty of child abuse, you too Bill.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....y-
increase.html
~snip~
Ear infections are the most common infections, next to colds, seen in babies and young children. At least 80% of all little ones get them, with most being under the age of two.
~snip~
'Surprisingly, most otitis media with effusion isn’t diagnosed because of any symptoms, but when a doctor looks in a child’s ear during a well-child exam. For most kids, it goes away by itself and doesn’t need antibiotics or treatment.'
80% of children get them, yet the smoking population is around 22%, and I know most of those do not have children. How could this be?
Antismoking groups commit child abuse by pushing bar and restaurant smoking bans. These groups know now that smoking bans backfire and cause young children to breath more smoke.
http://news.scotsman.com/politic...fm?
id=341192007
http://www.ifs.org.uk/
publicatio...ication_id=3523
Along sinilar lines... From CNN Headline News last night.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANS.../23/
pzn.01.html
Scroll down to the last story on the transcript. It's about throwing smokers out of public housing...but of course "the children" makes a grand appearance too. There also appear to be some pretty bogus statistics in there too that are irrelevant to the issue at hand in any case (no surprise...)
To be fair to the Telegraph, they DID publish a response to Coady... from me! LOL!
This was in April 22nds' Telegraph:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index...sid=24379&
sc=86
April 14th's letter on smoking and child abuse by Kevin Coady of the NL Alliance claimed the Surgeon General's Report clearly stated that "there is no safe amount of secondhand smoke". Kevin Coady is wrong. Some of the activist-oriented press releases and personal statements of the ex-Surgeon General may have made such claims, but there is no such statement in the actual Report itself.
Secondary smoke, just like ordinary table salt or the carbon dioxide in someone's breath, can be a toxin if it's concentrated enough. In normal circumstances that kind of concentration is never achieved.
There has never yet been a scientific study showing that the levels of secondary smoke normally encountered in any decently ventilated modern bar or restaurant would harm anyone's long term health. The vast bulk of studies used by antismoking lobbyists concern either concentrated smoke-chamber experimental conditions, or decades-long constant exposure to the smoky conditions common in poorly ventilated bars and homes of the 1950s through 1970s.
Antismoking extremists distort the science in order to promote a political goal: the abolition of smoking. The bending of science to politics never has been and never will be the right path to take.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Brandz-an excellent link.
Whilst reading it I had intended to post that I was glad I am not an American, but the more I read, the more I saw Britain in that piece as well. Did you you know we were the most "watched" nation on earth? With over 4.2 million CCTV's in operation around our little island, we can be expected to be captured on video over 300 times during a single day trip to any large city. In Middlesbrough (my dad was born there) the camera's even talk back to you. The public are told to "Pick up that litter you dropped" or "Hey! Get off your bicycle and walk! You are in a pedestrian zone"!
Control freakery out of control. So whats new?
I arrive on your big "island" tomorrow and will relish all things American, while I still can.
Pity about the smoking ordinance in Houston, but my American buddies tell me that there is a way around that...
Shouldnt have said that. I'll get arrested going through Immigration tomorrow...
And how about those numbers???
Smoking 3 tenths of a percent in a 45 year lifetime risk compared directly to 7 tenths from a 30 year lifetime risk?
And look at how they percieve the risk? as comforting? How convenient for Health canada to be able to speak out of both sides of their political financialy advantaged faces.
http://findarticles.com/p/articl..._15/
ai_70734907
"Lewis explained that over the course of time about 25 percent of the general population will die of cancer. Exposure to 6 mSv/yr of ionizing radiation over 30 years raises the risk of developing a fatal cancer from 25 to 25.7 percent."
ompared to ETS which would raise the risk with 45 years severe workplace exposure worst case estimates experienced by very few if any in society from 25% to 25.3%
Abuse is not even a possibility when the levels of danger are so far below detection or possibility of risk.
Non smokers should also feel entirely comforted, their fears are groundless. Likely due to exagerations begeting higher exagerations, to unbelievable levels which speak for the credibility of the source.
"Similar estimates were arrived at independently by Dr. Slavica Vlahovich, medical advisor to Canada's Radiation Protection Bureau. While Professors Lewis and Bennett took a 30-year look, Dr. Vlahovich considered a total dose of 120 mSv/yr over 20 years (6 mSv/yr x 20 = 120 mSv). If 250 of 1,000 workers under normal circumstances can be expected to die of cancer, then 255 would die with an accumulated dose of 120 mSv. In other words, the added risk from these two studies ranges from an additional 5 tenths of a percent over 20 years (Vlahovich) to 7 tenths of a percent over 30 years (Lewis and Bennett). "There is enough research with findings that match" to suggest that the risk to aircrew is very slight, Vlahovich maintained. However, she added, pregnant flight crew members would be limited to an exposure of 1 mSv/yr. That limit could have a "potential big impact" on crew scheduling, Vlahovich said.
Vlahovich hastened to add that epidemiological studies are not very good at "explaining" differences of one percent or less. For flight crews, complicating factors may be at work, such as exposure to ozone, jet fuel, benzene, the effects of diet, and circadian rhythm disruption. Nevertheless, Vlahovich said flying involves only "a small increase in the lifetime risk of developing cancer."
So Bill; what was it you were spewing about wealth and privilege resulting in higher education in the last thread?
If smoking around a child equates to child abuse, taking a child on a 4 hour air flight should result in attempted murder charges, on the same scale of intelligence.
Oh I forgot, you are an ever smoker are you not
This from the great folks at Yale: (we must remember how important they are w/all that education)
http://www.medilexicon.com/medic...hp?
newsid=68208
~snip~
"This means cigarette smoking status can be used as a clinical indicator for alcohol misuse, which presents an opportunity for intervention," said the principal investigator, Sherry McKee, assistant professor of psychiatry
Well blow me down look who funded this:
"The NIAAA and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation supported the study."
Last call. Perhaps they won't be needing the bars after all!!!
Quoting from above:
====
http://findarticles.com/p/articl..._15/ ai_70734907
"Lewis explained that over the course of time about 25 percent of the general population will die of cancer. Exposure to 6 mSv/yr of ionizing radiation over 30 years raises the risk of developing a fatal cancer from 25 to 25.7 percent."
Compared to ETS which would raise the risk with 45 years severe workplace exposure worst case estimates experienced by very few if any in society from 25% to 25.3%"
=====
The popular EPA estimate of a .19% lifetime increase for lung cancer alone would raise that overall 25% just up to 25.05% or five hundredths of a percent extra... as opposed to the seven tenths of a percent "not worth worrying about" figure for the airplane crews due to radiation. The airplane risk is FOURTEEN TIMES HIGHER (i.e. in Antismoker-Speak, 1,400% higher) than the lifetime ETS risk if my quick figuring is correct.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Please don't lump kids with peanut allergies in with this arguement!
Studies have found health benefits for peanut consumption for the non-allergic. I'm not sure the same can be said for tobacco smoking.
In addition, exposing a child to peanuts prior to the age of three isn't always the cause of peanut allergy. Sometimes the child is destined to be allergic due to genetics.
Leave us out of it
Not that I expect an answer but I'll give it the old college try again.
Just because a particular activity may not consitute harm to every child doesn't mean that the activity doesn't cause harm to many or most children.
Dear Bill, can you produce any of these "many" or "most" children? Can you define "harm" as you express it in this instance and demonstrate the "harm" that smoking parents do?
Of course, exposing children to tobacco smoke pollution indoors and in cars is child abuse.
I smoke in the presence of my children Mr. Bill. I'm offering you here a golden opportunity. I'm all ears - convince me that I'm am abusing my children and I'll stop this very day. This is your opportunity to personally put an end to the abuse of 3 children.
Give it your best shot.
That goes for you too Doc.
I need evidence not propaganda. After all I have 3 happy, healthy children and it's difficult for me to understand how some stranger who hasn't ever met them considers them horribly abused.
Margaret-
I say that you are not abusing those children. Apparently, it is not causing them harm. So no abuse. Many anti-smoking advocates seem unable to understand or accept the concept that child abuse relates to direct and immediate harm.
We can wait and see what Bill says in response.
The health effects of secondhand smoke on ear infections are reviewed at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/
envi...p3partb2005.pdf, pages 6-31 through 6-38.
But please don't lose sight of my main point. I argue that secondhand smoke increases the risk of otitis media by a small amount. This is NOT therefore equivalent to child abuse.
Lacy Jones wrote:
"Please don't lump kids with peanut allergies in with this arguement!"
I think you're missing the point. Or making it.
"Studies have found health benefits for peanut consumption for the non-allergic. I'm not sure the same can be said for tobacco smoking."
Smoking has a few benefits. Here's one:
Conclusion: These findings, obtained by using laboratory assay, confirm the reduced risk of developing preeclampsia with tobacco exposure. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1192-6.)
"In addition, exposing a child to peanuts prior to the age of three isn't always the cause of peanut allergy. Sometimes the child is destined to be allergic due to genetics."
That's exactly the point being made here.
"Leave us out of it"
That too. LOL
Smoking has also been shown--consistently-- to significantly lower the risk of Parkinson's, Alzheimers, and inflammatory bowel syndrome. It also reduces tension, sharpens concentration, and quickens physical reflexes. To name just a few of its proven benefits.
As for secondhand smoke, if you've followed these threads, the majority of studies (not just the WHO's) show it seems to protect children from later life lung cancer (or, at the very least, can in no way "cause" it.) And aside from a lot of evidence that it doesn't "cause" the general condition of asthma, a more recent theory is that, just as with lung cancer, it may be protective.
When you say, after staunchly defending peanuts, "Leave us out of it," who're you referring to? I mean, who's the "us"? You and the other nuts?
:
Well, well, what do we have here. But first, how is it that the antis calculate rates of childhood asthma much of the time? Visits to emergency rooms, isn't it?
More poor go to hospital for asthma
PA News - April 24, 2007
http://www.channel4.com/news/art...r+asthma/
462947
Poor families are more likely to take their asthmatic children to A&E than those who are better off, new research suggests.
Rising feelings of panic and a belief that their child will get quicker treatment leads such parents to take them for emergency care, researchers said.
They discounted factors that might lead to more poorer children attending A&E, such as damp housing or living with a smoker.
Instead, they argued, parents of inner city children had other reasons for believing their child should go to A&E.
Writing in the journal Thorax, from the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the researchers studied more than 1,400 children living in south-east London.
They found that children who had attended the hospital as an outpatient in the previous year were 13 times more likely to go to A&E.
Children were also more than twice as likely to attend if their parents felt alone, or panicky or fearful about their worsening symptoms.
A belief that the child would be seen more quickly also more than doubled the likelihood of them attending A&E. But the likelihood dropped if parents felt confident their GP could effectively treat asthma attacks.
The authors, led by Dr Lindsay Forbes, a consultant in public health medicine at Wandsworth Primary Care Trust, said: "There is no evidence that passive smoking, damp homes or poor routine asthma care explains heavy inner city use of A&E in children with asthma.
*
Michael;
Thanks for providing the link. The proof is hardly conclusive is it, on either front? The report is unusually disorganized almost rambling, chock full of self-serving language, however when you cut through the language and weigh the quality of the reports listed, I could not say on balance anything determining cause can be demonstrated. It seems as though only positive correlations are considered viable, while non-favorable findings are dismissed almost as a rule of the evaluation. It is certainly a determined effort if only one conclusion is acceptable there certainly is little room for the alternative.
Sorry got clipped...
I noticed none of the studies listed as covariates or was there any discussion of hours spent outside vs. indoors or how many people in total were in contact with these children. Considering the majority of children whether smoking is involved or not have these problems. It is really stretching things to point at ETS as a significant factor, although it should be just common sense not to smoke around a child below 3 years of age. It should also be common sense if you have the flu or dirty hands to stay away from the child as well. The studies in both Respiratory infection and ear infections seemed to be consistent in not demonstrating any increased risk of children above 3 years of age which should be relevant to the discussion of smoking in cars and homes. Lobbies are seeking un-necessary legislation above education in a presumed guilty stance, implying all parents are stupid apparently whether they smoke or not.
Child abuse seems to be a pretty ignorant statement, considering what demonstrates the harm the accusation is based in.
JTF
Consider how the info provided at your link would affect the harm found by calculations here from Michael's link. Hospital visits are the principle harm calculation feature.
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/
envi...p3partb2005.pdf
Page 6-38
Combining the above data, one obtains an estimate of 50,184 office visits per year among
California children under age three years for ETS-attributable otitis media episodes:
Table 6.29 ETS-attributable Office Visits for Otitis Media Population at risk x Age-specific Otitis Media visit rate = OM-Related
Office visits x ETSattributable fraction = ETS-attributable visits/year
Age ≤ 2 yr 969,730 x 102/100 = 989,125
Age 2-3 yr 489,336 x 48/100 = 234,881
Total 1,224,006 x 0.041 = 50,184
According to this and earlier estimates, some 84,000 pediatric physician office visits per year for
otitis media may have been avoided by virtue of changes in smoking behavior on the part of
California adults since the calculation in the 1997 document (based on smoking data from Wiley,
1991).
Now from the new information;
http://www.24dash.com/health/19720.htm
"The authors, led by Dr Lindsay Forbes, a consultant in public health medicine at Wandsworth Primary Care Trust, said: "There is no evidence that passive smoking, damp homes or poor routine asthma care explains heavy inner city use of A&E in children with asthma.
"Reducing A&E use is unlikely to be achieved by improving these, but identifying appropriate settings for treating children with asthma attacks and communicating these effectively may do so."
It appears the reasons children attend emergency rooms being misunderstood, represents a significant portion of the percieved harm currently attributed to ETS.
James Austin,
Lacey is just afraid that her peanuts will be next on someone's hit list, so what if a few are allergic and public health wants to protect them from this danger.
And yes, I've seen rabid non-smokers actually make statements like that regarding the things they like, while constantly spouting how disgusting and filthy smokers are and they should all die horrible deaths.
I don't recall ever seeing Lacey commenting here before, but now that someone's trying to compare peanuts (something she obviously enjoys) to SHS (something she's probably all for banning) she's going to defend HER enjoyment.
It's always amazing to watch how they still can't connect the dots isn't it?
Talking about peanuts and throwing in one of the old scare factors,what about those nasty,nasty AFLOTOXINS,that are probably the most toxic substances known to man.Why should a peanut be reading all about tobacco issues and then order a hands off our nuts ? Weird to say the least.Brandz that link is so apt given what is happening to smokers,and obese,and drinkers,and..........
This all reminds me a a situation that came up in my local. An eleven year old family member ended up with cancer. The head of the household was a smoker. One of the neighbors become quite upset that the head of the household was smoking in presence of the eleven year old. The neighbor contacted the local authorities to intervene. The complaing neighbor became upset when the authorities did not respond as he/shes liking and posted on the local message board his/her feelings. The complaining neighbor did not agree with the local authorities policy. It appears from the complaining neighbors post that the lead official. The Animal Enforcement Officer stated there was no policy in place to charge an owner with animal abuse for second hand smoke exposure even if the eleven year old dog does have cancer. True story! From what I have been told there actually are studies out that do address the issue of pets exposure to ETS. I am beginning to wonder if many of these people in tobacco control may have been hatters in a former life. They seem to have gone quite mad. I wonder if Big Pharma has a drug for this type of maddness? Or are they only helping to create the madness only to supply a cure $$$$?
The relationship between passive smoking and middle ear disease was reviewed. The hypothesis that acute otitis media, serous otitis media, and related diseases in children are caused by inhalation of second-hand smoke has been accepted by many. We reviewed the literature on this topic. There are many studies that do not support the hypothesis. There is no indication that the smokers themselves have a higher incidence of middle ear disease. Considering the difficulty of publishing negative studies, the need for academics to publish significant findings, and the poor foundation for some authors' conclusions in the literature, we find that the literature does not offer sufficient support for the hypothesis that second-hand smoke causes middle ear disease to accept the hypothesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...st_uids=7870447
. RESULTS: For the outcome recurrent acute otitis media data from 210 children were used and winter season, male sex, passive smoking and persistent symptoms for more than 10 days at presentation were independent prognostic determinants. For the outcome persistent middle ear effusion data from 190 children were used and winter season, bilateral disease at entry, a sibling history of recurrent acute otitis media, and a previous episode of acute otitis media independently predicted the outcome. No sufficiently discriminatory prognostic model could be constructed for either outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Prediction of recurrent acute otitis media or persistent middle ear effusion in individual young children remains poor.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...t_uids=16107490
Dave K
Dr. Siegel, You wrote:
"The health effects of secondhand smoke on ear infections are reviewed at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/ envi...p3partb2005.pdf, pages 6-31 through 6-38."
Unfortunately, the California Scientific Review Panel is not exactly composed of unbiased members. Many of these members are long time Anti-ETS advocates and are, in fact, approving their own work:
John R. Froines, Ph.D., Chairman
Director, Center of Occupational
and Environmental Health
Roger Atkinson, Ph.D.
Director, Air Pollution Research Center
Paul D. Blanc, M.D.
Chief, Division of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine
Craig V. Byus, Ph.D.
Professor of Biomedical Science
and Biochemistry
Gary D. Friedman, M.D.
Consulting Professor
Division of Epidemiology
Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D.
Professor of Medicine
S. Katharine Hammond, Ph.D.
Professor of Environmental Health Sciences
Environmental Health Sciences Division
Joseph R. Landolph, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Molecular Microbiology
and Immunology, Pathology, and
Molecular Pharmacology and Toxicology
Charles G. Plopper, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Cell Biology
How come i am not surprised in the slightest with the above revelation.Isn't it a case that this is the normal ? Ethics and integrity got lost in most scientists somewhere in the fifties.
Si, Colin, benpal & branz:
re: this like posted above
link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/
0,,2064157,00.html
Great article but....
Ms Wolfe is the person the Dem. Nat'l Com hired in 2000 to make Al Gore into a 'alpha male'---her contribution to the campaign was to advise him to dress in earth tones.
Please be aware there is a rest of the story with her:
From the left leaning Slate mag:
http://www.slate.com/id/2096152/
Be aware of how easily she blames GW Bush for all of this----this has been happening since the mid sixties at least. She is a good writer---just be careful of her bait and switch tactics.
Newswise — Protecting infants from viral infections may prevent the development of asthma late in childhood, according to new research in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI).
The study, “Early-life respiratory viral infections, atopic sensitization, and risk of subsequent development of persistent asthma,” conducted by Merci M.H. Kusel, MBBS, PhD, Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, The University of Western Australia, and colleagues, can be found in the articles in press area of the JACI Web site located at http://www.jacionline.org. The JACI is the peer-reviewed journal of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI).
http://www.newswise.com/articles...529179/?
sc=mwhn
Yet we also heard in the letter that smoking causes asthma, and according to Canadian Lung Assoc. it may be a trigger (reason for a single attack)in some cases(since everyone different), not the cause of asthma to occur in the first place as well.
Thanks Doc for you commentary, although I am concerned that you used the technical and not "lay mans" wording and meanings in your post (although to the public (the layman) version words have different meanings for same word).
We also know that with only 5 constituents in tobacco smoke (Nicotine, Scopoletin, 3-ethenyl pyridine, solanesol, and myosmine) that can be measured as unique (only in tobacco smoke. We all come in contact with these 5 substances through living the nonsmoking lifestyle too (eating, etc). The inability for people (layman) to know this, leads to advocates saying that its SHS that caused these diseases, while ignoring the same particles or chemical's coming from everywhere/something else in our world.
EG:
Nicotine 1 - 2.5 mg, Toluene 100 - 200 mg, Pyridine 16 - 40 mg, (the other 2 are too small and/or inconsistent to measure) coming from undiluted smoke from Undiluted Mainstream Smoke (MS) and Diluted Sidestream Smoke (SS) from Nonfiltered Cigarette types in the Cal Air resouces report APPendix3-part b page III-4,5
Now your telling me that people can know the difference is the smoke they were exposed to at home is the cause of the disease, and not the fact that their school is near the road or diesel/coal hydro generation centre, or the fact that there's more cars on the road generally (more pollution), or even the fact that most studies are done on urban (not rural) participants?
PS. I won't mention that once you get dilution through bringing in "fresh air" from the outside to measure the "chemicals" found in bars there is a immediate doubling or more of the things (chemicals) normally mentioned that extremists like to use (benzene, particles in the air) to make the air (after a ban)seem better in their study they use these chemicals, but don't mention exact methods and controls (ways to make sure that there's no ability to play with figures). (1)
(1) http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=3248
Now how is the public to know that the pilot light on their propane gas stove puts out benzene, and that we shed 0.5 to 1.0 gram of skin daily, and that causes (not a confounder) for asthma studies? Ignoring dander or that it may actually be the pilot light; not the smoking; that is causing the damage (older stoves have a flame going all the time for pilot light) years ago.
Now how is the person who house is less then 500 Metres form a busy road suppose to know that it is a confounding (also a)factor for the study on smoking related diseases? Shouldn't they tell the epidemiologists (health statisticians) they live/work/are consistently that close to a road? How many people don't and should know???
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2296
I realize that you centred on the ear infections, but I also realize that in your post you used the "scientific" meaning in your head, but left the lay person (majority of readers I think) to figure out that there is a double meaning to the term that they had never realized. Could this be how the extremists are able to say they know the cause while actually saying that there is other confounders (traffic road, infection) that in 1992 (and earlier) haven't been considered as confounders, and not asked about in the data even used today?
Another example would be, for decades leading scientists etc. have said that chlorine dioxide was fine and safe. Yet there's been very little study on it to prove this. While we (the public) are told to drink 8 glasses of a substance(water) that has it in it daily. How can they say its not the reason for cancer, asthma, etc increase that the epidemiologists have ignored/not studied, since there's not enough information?
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0496.htm
Otitis media in children under 3 is most attributed to bottle feeding. Again, I'm not a breast feeding advocate, I had to bottle feed 2 of my children. (Had to put that disclaimer in there). You would have to get a group of solely breastfed children together to really prove that smoking was a factor.
oh, and you guys be nice to Lacey, at least she wasn't really offensive, and she said she "not sure" there was no benefits to smoking. The fact that she says "not sure" as opposed to "know" means she's open to the possibility she is wrong...we shouldn't alienate her. Lacey, the point is not whether there are benefits to smoking, the point is whether there is HARM. Although in some instances smoking seems to offer a protective effect, the most important point is if there is HARM at all. It doesn't have to benefit someone if it isn't harming them. There has been no proven harm in smoking around children at all. There is a lot of assumptions, however the science doesn't support those assumptions. You should read what some of these guys write, they put it so much better than I could. The science doesn't support a NEED for making smoking child abuse.
If someone considers it so based on risk, then you must also consider many other things as child abuse, based on increased risk. Which includes exposing your child to peanuts.
In terms of parental responsibility for "child abuse", what about those parents who allow/encourage their children to take up horseshow riding activities or get involved with the school football team? Both activities are VERY dangerous, not just to the longterm life of the child (although some of the recent research/news about multiple concussions should give parents of footballers particular pause) but in terms of immediate life threats. I don't know the figures on horseback or football deaths, or the figures for severely disabling/maiming/paralyzing injuries from them, but it's quite probably true that there are far more "children" killed or severely injured WHILE THEY ARE STILL CHILDREN every year than from smoking.
Should such parents be charged with child abuse?
Or how about the parents who can't deal with the concept of withholding the car keys until a potential driver is past the most dangerous teen years?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Si asks....Why should a peanut be reading all about tobacco issues and then order a hands off our nuts...?
of Lacy the nut person.
Line of the week LOL 
.
Aren't peanuts banned on most airplane flights? Isn't that the first step?
tn wrote, "Aren't peanuts banned on most airplane flights? Isn't that the first step?"
Yep. And in the zero tolerance world of the Antismoker they should be banned from restaurants etc as well: anywhere there are peanuts there is almost inevitably going to be some peanut dust. As an allergen that dust always stands the potential for triggering a fatal allergic attack in sensitive people.
Zero tolerance would dictate that peanuts actually should be outlawed in any place where there are workers... perhaps even in peanut butter factories. After all, why should workers be forced to risk their lives to make a paycheck? Every human being has a right to clean, safe, peanut-free air.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Michael McFadden...'Every human being has a right to clean, safe, peanut-free air.'
I propose "NUT FREE AIR"
That would shut down TC ETS and the entire social engineering movement immediately.
Hi, guys.
The hazard to children in cars is not from smoking but from such things as exhaust and industrial pollution.
Why is concern not redirected to control of diesel exhaust hazard, now that the risks are publicized?
The evidence points toward - among other issues - the use of smoking as a scapegoat, with a number of tactics long evident.
As many of us know, studies of occupational and other risks are often stopped short of accepted latent periods, whereas estimates regarding smoking risks are typically life-long enumerations of disease appearance in groups having high rates of tobacco use which ascribe all such disease to smoking, ignoring the entire life-time of accumulated exposures as though tobacco smoke can magically protect from all ills, in order to cause these itself.
(Note that asbestos exposure - which must be separately addressed - produces a wildly varying and often lengthy latent period ranging from a couple of months to 60 years, as the microscopic, indestructable fibres embed in dividing cells, effectively causing - as would be expected - Russian roulette on a perpetual basis regarding DNA damage and the potential 'knock-out' of genetic cellular replication controls with each formation.)
While lung cancer has a standard averaged latent period (the point where disease most commonly appears following exposure to the causal agent) of about 20 years, this has never been apparent as an effect of even the heaviest exposure to tobacco smoke.
But chronic, heavy exposure to directly inhaled carcinogens or otherwise damaging substances tends to bring obvious results not apparent among smokers per se.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transpor...n/ebd/
chap2.asp
Why is no one concerned about children and pregnant women being in cars or near roads in the first place?
Diesel exposure causes the diseases/effects (including low birth weight, premature births, etc.) claimed of tobacco smoke - but does so both in the population and the lab, repeatably, consistently, and linking directly to exposure levels, unlike tobacco smoke.
http://www.nbejn.org/factsheets/...cerNBEJN-
05.doc
Typically, this applies universally; industry pollution and other ills are suffered at higher levels by the poor generally and disadvantaged minorities in particular.
So doesn't that make low-paying employers child abusers?
We are repeatedly misinformed that all airborne particles are equally deadly, although the bulk of natural provenance are solid, nonpiercing particles removed by the millions daily on the mucous layer of the lungs, as throughout evolutionary history.
It's likely now that many will assume anything they read regarding particulates will involve tobacco smoke, and they may not realize that many of the hazardous chemicals in fossil fuel emissions are not present in tobacco smoke, or that the microscopic traces in ETS are laughable compared to the universal onslaught generally encountered.
It's made to seem that Clean Air Acts exist to monitor and control tobacco smoke and the individual.
The hazardous carbon particles produced by fossil fuels and the toxic particulates of industry smokestacks go unmentioned.
Reducing pollution costs industry money and so risk, liability and restriction are transferred to the public in anti PR and smoking bans, although tobacco smoke does not produce or contain such deadly chemicals as sulfur dioxide or sufficient toxins of any kind to create a health hazard in surrounding air from cigarette smoking.
Note direct transference to smoking blame of effects caused by industry pollution, diesel and other exhaust.
This is standard in PR media release confusion strategy, often with only the cause altered to 'tobacco smoke exposure' with each publication of studies showing negative health effects of profitable, protected products produced by the powerful.
Industry-conducted/funded/influenced studies have proven unreliable, to say the least, and provide most of the 'medical information' officially used.
http://www.environmentaldefence..../
4936_caa35.pdf
(This is only two-thirds as long as it looks, as there are many citations.
But I'd suggest reading it carefully, including the deaths, diseases, damages and costs involved - see how familiar they look, almost as if they might have been presented as smoking stats...)
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific...ate-
matter.html
(Do check out the 'letters' link, especially the letter at the bottom, begging for some level of concern for children's health from the White House-picked EPA admin.
Kids are a renewable resource, and damage done to them - and us all - in the interests of global industry merely forms an excuse to further weaken citizen and environmental protections and inflict further harm through PR strategic redirection to victim blame and restriction.)
http://newstandardnews.net/conte...tem&
itemid=2128
Most sources say 2000 new chemicals are now added annually to the mix in the U.S. alone, although this may include drugs/food additives and 'special list' others possibly not considered in the 700 mentioned here.
In any event, every year, infants form and develop in worsening circumstances of rapidly expanding artificial chemical contamination.
Every few years we see also worsening headlines regarding such things as (I believe, in Canada, it was) a 65% increase in obesity among 2 year olds over a 5 year period.
Each year, each new batch of 2 year olds is affected prior to and throughout conception and growth by further annual additions of hundreds or thousands of new chemicals added to an existing mix of thousands producing unknown compounds as well.
According to PR, the metabolic damage, obesity and other signs of toxicity and malnourishment are due to toddlers taking less exercise and eating yet more sugary snacks than those of each previous year, the increase in damaging industry chemicals immaterial and production-enhancing GM hormones and other drugs fed food animals bringing obesity and health problems only to them and not their consumers.
This includes cats (like us, fed toxic, ill-nourished, GM food from the giant agribusiness supply chain) purportedly also now spontaneously annually more lazy and greedy to the point of exponentially increasing obesity and disease rates.
Virtually all we hear about are tests for harmless cotinine supplied by common food sources, supposedly to 'prove' ETS the source of all ills.
And while the 'least burdensome' method of dealing with health threats must be applied to industry toxins (including asbestos) unwanted by the public, this evidently does not apply where the public is concerned.
How is it that industry is being illegally given control of the public of and for which democracy exists?
We're told we need commercial industry to control our every move and purchase - we're supposedly 'out of control', like wildlife also loaded with industry-profiting chemicals and associated disease, behavioural and other problems similar to our own 'personal choice' maladies.
http://www.fwhc.org/german.htm
And what about GM hormones in the food supply and the relation to the creation and promotion of cancer? Or regarding potential effects on the developing foetus - and with premature puberty occurring in infants and young children?
The mainstream media has carried reports of studies stating that a single glass of milk daily consumed significantly increases risk of both obesity and cancer - but without mention of the production-enhancing drugs causing these in factory farm animals otherwise fed garbage including animal waste and diseased animals, vermiculite, and antibiotics, and passing the results - lack of nutrition and rapid weight-gain - down the food chain.
But we're told that personal choice victim blame is the key and that stopping smoking will eradicate cancer in 50 years time - although I doubt we'll survive that long.
The oceans are expected to be dead within 40 years, with aquatic life long since so heavily poisoned with industrial chemical and hazardous metals pollution as to render toxic the very droppings of feeding seabirds in their turn.
Next expected headline - 2nd hand smoke strikes again - underwater?
http://www.maebrussell.com/
Artic...Fertilizer.html
http://www.ewg.org/reports/facto.../
fertpress.html
Smoking is 'too dangerous' to be allowed = not profiting the 'right' people.
http://www.worldenergy.net/pdfs/
...lcancerrisk.PDF
EPA previously failed to mention diesel particulate emissions, admitted as far and away the biggest outdoor air toxics hazard in numerous respects.
All of these effects were assigned to ETS instead, and, evidently, a special report written to 'prove' this, enabling health damage and death to continue while blaming smokers.
Thousands died annually while bars were closed to 'protect' the public from their own choices.
Please note - major hazards remained unseen because nobody was looking - they were, naturally, distracted by personal choice blame.
The smokescreen is killing us. Fast.
http://www.ucsusa.org/
scientific...pollutants.html
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Mer...Forest-
Fire.htm
Of course, the forests and fires aren't 'a source' - the source is toxic industry producing pollution affecting and destroying life world-wide.
But according to industry PR, if we'll all just quit smoking and exercise more, especially in the womb and cradle, it'll be just fine.
And we're supposed to be the stupid ones?
Ooops. Thought my corrections went through; wind's up pretty high here and I was wondering about power outages and a darn long post.
Just reviewed for the usual silly errors one doesn't really want to see once it's too late and noticed the qualifier of 'Most sources I've seen say 2000 new chemicals' etc. was missing (and would likely not hold true if mainstream media sources were referenced) - which means nothing else went through either.
Oh, well.
But at least the facts are out - again.
Air pollution is the problem - not wisps of herbal tobacco smoke, for Pete's sake.
Let's save our breath for the real problems.
We'll need it.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
