Small correction to the last line there Doc,...
There can be no public debates about the lack of wisdom in tobacco control.
Your conclusion is fine of course, but mine is more accurate.
Either way, ....the result is the same.
"...why is the opinion of this researcher, who clearly represents a substantial contingent within the anti-smoking movement, hidden upon secret documents that were only able to be obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request?"
Who benefits when the members of the public are at war with each other? That entity does not want truth or cooperation or balance or health for all. What entity could that be?
I've never felt like this was a smoking issue. It feels exactly like a control-through-fear issue. It is the Anti's and the TC researchers who are afraid and are being controlled.
It's clear to me that segregation and annihilation of 25% of the population is a preliminary goal...
When the 75% of the population who do not smoke are 100% of the population, who can feel safe enough to protest anything, after that?
No one's health issues are worth installing a fascist government.
So who benefits? WHO, UN, ... ???
Any movement built on lies cannot stand forever. I intend to be alive when all the smoking bans are lifted.
OT as usual, sorry.
Bill G. please see my recent post, I would be very interested to hear your thoughts.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...431810/?
a=18556
However, you will not find these views expressed publicly in any forum. To do so would be fatal to these researchers' careers in tobacco control.
Why would any "respected" researcher wish to have a career with such a fraudulent movement as "tobacco control" is beyond me. Any scientist not willing to put his money where his mouth is does not deserve a career in any aspect of science, and believe you me, "tobaccoo control" is so far removed from science as to not even be funny.
That you, or any other scientist, would be more concerned about the opinion of yourselves held by such power/money hungry frauds does not speak well of the scientific credibility of any of you. You are putting recognition, prestige, and power within your "movement" above your scientific integrity, thus making you no better than the charlatans of the cult of anti-smokerism that you all insist on bowing down to.
These 2 postings of yours in regard to this specific situation just further provide proof of what many of us have known about your "movement" for many years. The "movement" does not, and never has, cared about the integrity of the science. The only concern has been to gain "legitimacy" and thus power, and of course lots, and lots of money.
The entire "movement" is made up of narccisistic, money grubbing LIARS.
Dr. Siegel said that Dr. X wrote "I would be very cautious with this and I think the first couple of paragraphs are far too strong for the data presented in the paper. I have seen earlier drafts of this paper with more complete descriptions of the data that were far less compelling."
I am horrified to read that the researchers edited their earlier drafts so as to provide less complete descriptions of the data.
Why didn't Dr. X just tell them to scrap the whole thing?
This is "junk" science but there is also another way to describe it. It's "Tabloid Science." It was obviously, also "peer reviewed" by "tabloid scientists".
But even after reading "tabloid science" it still has a 1,001 other handy uses... everything from lining the bottom of bird cages to wrapping up expensive crystal when moving to a new home.
On a more upbeat note Atlantic City has decided to postpone the Casino smoking ban for one year. Based on my own meta-analysis of all of the studies that support my position I have concluded that 2 to 4 percent of one card dealer will probably die prematurely due to the delay.
http://www.philly.com/philly/bus...s/
30672994.html
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
BTW I would like to hear Michael's thoughts as well;
Do you agree by the way "smoking related disease" is framed by Public health, smokeless tobacco is, if not an equal risk, at minimum a very close risk, in estimating the risks of smoking related diseases, compared to smoking?
The effects of endothelial dysfunction and importance [Stanton Glanz; et al] in the development of atherosclerosis, the same effects would be seen. TSNA is not known to be more or less dangerous by linear measures; by inhalation or dermal effects. It seems only the long term lung sedimentary effects would differ although smokeless tobacco still accumulates in different ways.
So would you agree smokeless tobacco products are just as dangerous as smoking and likely contribute by ratio measures close to 10% of the now framed; "smoking related" diseases.
"It is really a McCarthyist-like movement. You cannot express dissent publicly. You must tow the party line. You are allowed to disagree - privately. You are allowed to express your disagreement - privately. But you can't talk about it. You have to keep it to yourself. If you go public, that's it - you're ostracized, attacked, victimized. Thrown off the list-serves. Not allowed to present at conferences. Defamed behind your back"
I am grateful you have finally realized my identification of McCarthyism, is legitimate. Knowing also, it is only a matter of time before public conscience will force the pendulum to swing back.
I wonder if, even withouit admitting it, you would also agree; Hitler called it National Socialism, Public Health calls it disease management, and the UN calls it Public Health.
Whatever you call it we all know instinctively it is wrong, we will all one day pay be burdened with the price and the shame, for an incredible mistake. Looking back, it is not as though we have never been there before. [Robert Proctor et al]
Chapman put it well also, when he said; "Your Hubris awaits."
Just a personal opinion here...
Seems to me that there have been scientists/researchers who have chosen to maintain scientific integrity. ( *ahem* Not a haphazard choice of words there.) Also, consider others, like Richard Smith who was the former editor of BMJ; he's been fairly vocal about certain funding that has biased published medical research. But...well...things seem to be changing a bit. Don't you think more scientists are coming out of the closet? And the more that happens, the safer scientists will feel about coming clean?
Also, don't you think that going along with over the top scientific reports is damaging to the respective fields in science? I mean can epidemiology really afford to keep pushing "research" that doesn't really hold water? And that isn't the only field at stake. I don't know, but I get the feeling that this sort of thing--getting something out in the open through Freedom of Information or whatever--isn't really all that much of an accident.
...sorry...sorry...just one more quick thing...
To quote, "Each of these individuals has served as a frequent editor and reviewer of the Surgeon General's reports on smoking and health."
Um...gosh, there's so much to say....but I can't seem to find the words right now. Oh. My. Goodness.
Here's one that the biggest bunch of hooey I've ever seen:
From Join Together (funded by RWJF)
http://www.jointogether.org/
news...teractions.html
Research on Interactions Between Tobacco Use and HIV/AIDS
September 30, 2008
Email Print Subscribe Funding Opportunity
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) will fund research into the Unique Interactions Between Tobacco Use and HIV/AIDS under its R01 and R03 grantmaking processes.
The grants from NIDA and the Fogarty International Center "propose to stimulate research related to the unique, interactive health effects of cigarette smoking and HIV/AIDS."
With the financial devastation facing this country, do we really need to throw money away like this? How many things do they want to link to cigarette smoking? When they get to it causing our cars to rust, I'm jumping off a cliff.
At this point, Doc, you're like a 40 year old "kid" still wailing that daddy didn't love you enough, even tho daddy was a drunken, sadistic, control-freak liar. Get over it. Daddy was--and is-- a drunken, sadistic, control-freak liar. See him for what he is (and always was). Stop craving his "respect." Stop cataloguing his slights. Move out of his house and don't look back. Or, to put that another way, just grow up.
If you need to have some kind of "movement" behind you, start your own. A couple of scientists acting like grownups can take away daddy's bottle and whip, and show him up for what he is.
And just btw, Thomas Freiden, NYC's rabid control-freak head of our local DOH, even wrote a letter (a rapid response) to the BMJ saying that Helena was unrealistic. Tho it's hard to say a brand new reasonable Movement would want him as a member, if you study his general (not limited to smoking) fascistic tendencies
:
"See him for what he is (and always was). Stop craving his "respect." Stop cataloguing his slights. Move out of his house and don't look back. Or, to put that another way, just grow up."
Too much at stake, Walt: his "career." It seems he's addicted to it. And why his family doesn't make him sleep in the shed, I have no idea. Must be very tolerant people.
.
There they go again (Stay strong, stay smoke free.):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
ne...0,2376936.story
.
Dr. Siegel: “However, you will not find these views expressed publicly in any forum. To do so would be fatal to these researchers' careers in tobacco control.”
In an abstract from a commentary by Dr. Carl Phillips, University of Alberta School of Public Health, he notes: “This commentary accompanies two articles submitted to Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations in response to a call for papers about threats to epidemiology or epidemiologists from organized political interests. Contrary to our expectations, we received no submissions that described threats from industry or government; all were about threats from anti-tobacco activists.”
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/.../content/4/1/
13
The articles to which Dr. Phillips refers were submitted by James Enstrom and Michael Siegel. I suspect you’re more familiar with these articles than I am.
So, you’re obviously not alone Doc. You may not agree with the findings of Enstrom and Kabat, and you may not be entirely supportive of Dr. Phillips’ research into smokeless tobacco or his source of funding. But I think you see the truth in the title of his commentary: “Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science.”
And, there is common ground in the fact that all three of you have suffered serious damage from attacks by the anti-smoker extremists. In addition, Dr. Phillips’ commentary suggests there were other submissions which weren’t published; all of which represent potential allies in your fight against junk science.
Walt said, “If you need to have some kind of "movement" behind you, start your own. A couple of scientists acting like grownups can take away daddy's bottle and whip, and show him up for what he is.”
And, he’s right, Doc. Unless and until you’re ready to take the fight public, you’re butting your head up against a brick wall. But, you won’t make much headway by yourself. You’ll need allies. And, you might be surprised at how many will step forward.
Yeah, I know. It’s easy for old armchair generals to give advice. We don’t have to suffer the consequences. But, you’ve got to make up your mind as to whether to just lie there and take the licking or fight back and get in a few shots of your own.
Matt said: And, you might be surprised at how many will step forward.
Amen to that! 
There really are doctors, scientists and researchers stepping forward. It was bound to happen.
I suggest that the time is now for readjusting. Home values, stock values..the Perfect Storm is approaching. Everything seems to be trying to "right" itself...
And for anyone who does want to come forward, link to the web page I listed above. Four groups (I am co-founder of Opponents of Ohio Bans) have filed complaints with the ORI, HHS, against Carmona's report. Press release here: http://uspolitics.einnews.com/ar....php?
nid=557769
If ever people were waiting for the perfect time or for the Perfect Storm to do the right thing and speak out, this IS the time.
(BY the way, we used the extended quote from Dr. Phillips in one of the complaints and both he and Dr. Siegel are quoted in our press release)
sorry...the URL is above when I comment but below when it posts...it is www.opponentsofohiobans.com
And Dr. Siegel is also quoted in one of the other complaints.
Dr Siegel wrote:
That is what many scientists in tobacco control did. And for good reason. If you go public, they will ruin your career. They will do everything they can to discredit you
Arn't you already compromised and discredited? Tacit agreement is agreement, isn't it?
To write internaly is at least partly a redemption, though where are your values and ethics when the chips are down?
How can you trust a scientist that is prepared to stay silent for the sake of their own career?
west
----
I'm sorry if it's something I just missed. Then excuse the following question, which is...
You say it took a FOI Act request to obtain this information. But how did you (or someone else?) KNOW it existed to ask for it?? Was it mentioned in passing on one of the secret listservs which prompted a request? Or was it a surprise piece of material found in a stack of papers provided due to a FOI Act Request over something else or something associated in respect to Helena?
The one uptick on the stock market slide is knowing how much is being lost by the mega charity foundations backing the public health movement. With those losses goes their major source of power and ability to wage TC style ad campaigns on the rest of us.
Where is TC going to find the money to purchase ad campaigns and fund their "research" in the next few years?
It seems the rats abandoning the ship movement is a foregone conclusion. I suspect many of TC's numbers will be coming out soon to reclaim their integrity in denouncing the style of science being produced for TC advocacy.
How else will they ever find a future career with the resumes they hold today?
"If you go public, they will ruin your career. They will do everything they can to discredit you."
I think that's why the concept of "nazi" is associated with TC. But they would find it difficult to ruin careers, if a number of them go public together. Time is getting very short to be able to do that. It may be too late already.
Were you brave or naive when you came out alone? Or both?
An aside: I wonder when we will all act on the idea that conclusions, truths and perceptions are temporary and flexible?
Pam P, - "Everything seems to be trying to "right" itself..."
Pam, glad to see you posting here.
Pay attention Doctor,...she's right.
The word "Socialism" in conjunction with where we are, or where we're going as a nation is appearing more and more in print, radio, and televised "news" media nearly every day.
The talking heads are of course always slow to acknowledge what the growing majority (both smokers and Non-smokers) already know, but with politicians always being the last to acknowledge the obvious.
This would be a good time for some demonstrated "integrity" among "scientists" that actually know, but more importantly understand the definition of the word.
Man Made Global Warming skewed 'science' is finally coming to light for the general public, more and more people understand man made global warming scare mongers are the latest round of carpetbaggers.
Now is the time to show Tobacco Controls scare mongers as the carpetbaggers they always were.
Doctor, time to be the 'John Coleman' of Tobacco Control.
For too long TC has creamed the bucks for screwing the smoker and to a lesser extent the Tobacco Companies.Being part of a witch hunt for so many years Dr Siegel must have taught you that it is identical in structure to Organised crime,you don't get out of it without incurring its wrath.Perhaps you can call it "natural justice" i'm quite happy to deem it that.Perhaps you have lost your exalted position Dr Siegel,perhaps you miss the adulation you received,i don't know nor really care,you DO have employment where you can continue to influence society and it concerns me that you help churn out mini stanton glans fanatics all be it that their mindset may not be quite so fanatical ,but you yourself have oft repeated the brainwashing you were subjected to.Do you take pride in seeing the comments of a person who appears to echo those of your own,or a sense of not being so isolated ? I sincerely hope that it isn't an attempt to oust and discover this person's identity,because publicizing it to such a degree may just antagonise TC to go on their own witch hunt.
JustTheFacts asked: "You say it took a FOI Act request to obtain this information. But how did you (or someone else?) KNOW it existed to ask for it?? Was it mentioned in passing on one of the secret listservs which prompted a request? Or was it a surprise piece of material found in a stack of papers provided due to a FOI Act Request over something else or something associated in respect to Helena?"
I guess a little bit of both. I heavily suspected that there were many other tobacco control scientists who felt the same way I did about Helena and about the 30-minute heart attack claims. I was thinking that there might be some documentation of this in the reviews of these papers. On the other hand, I really wasn't sure.
My FOIA request was specifically related to documents relating to the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke.
Michael Siegel said: I heavily suspected that there were many other tobacco control scientists who felt the same way I did about Helena and about the 30-minute heart attack claims. I was thinking that there might be some documentation of this in the reviews of these papers. On the other hand, I really wasn't sure.
My FOIA request was specifically related to documents relating to the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke.
But that's just it. You must’ve been pretty sure that such documentation existed, which is one person coming forward. Then, you actually did get something, which means that one person somewhere must’ve made sure that your request for information was honored.
It just seems to me that people ready to set things right. Okay...maybe they need a little coaxing at first.)
As LB said, This would be a good time for some demonstrated "integrity" among "scientists" that actually know, but more importantly understand the definition of the word.
The truth is that scientific integrity is extremely important in the US. "Education" is a big export--just look at how many students from other countries pay dearly to go to school here. We can't afford to have our science in that much disrepute--in teaching, research or business. It just seems to me that the time is pretty much here for people to step forward and be honest.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org...ed.0050201&
ct=1
The current system of publication in biomedical research provides a distorted view of the reality of scientific data that are generated in the laboratory and clinic. This system can be studied by applying principles from the field of economics. The “winner's curse,” a more general statement of publication bias, suggests that the small proportion of results chosen for publication are unrepresentative of scientists' repeated samplings of the real world. The self-correcting mechanism in science is retarded by the extreme imbalance between the abundance of supply (the output of basic science laboratories and clinical investigations) and the increasingly limited venues for publication (journals with sufficiently high impact). This system would be expected intrinsically to lead to the misallocation of resources. The scarcity of available outlets is artificial, based on the costs of printing in an electronic age and a belief that selectivity is equivalent to quality. Science is subject to great uncertainty: we cannot be confident now which efforts will ultimately yield worthwhile achievements. However, the current system abdicates to a small number of intermediates an authoritative prescience to anticipate a highly unpredictable future. In considering society's expectations and our own goals as scientists, we believe that there is a moral imperative to reconsider how scientific data are judged and disseminated.
This is really...good...from the previous link :
"Much data are never formally refuted in print, but most promising preclinical work eventually fails to translate to clinical benefit [22]. Worse, in the course of ongoing experimentation, apparently negative studies are abandoned prematurely as wasteful."
and more from the previous link>>>> really ya all gotta visit that link...it fits the current helena discussion to a tee
"Early decisions by a few influential individuals as to the importance of an area of investigation consolidate path dependency: the first decision predetermines the trajectory. A related effect is herding, where the actions of a few prominent individuals rather than the cumulative input of many independent agents drives people's valuations of a commodity [40,41]. Cascades arise when individuals regard others' earlier actions as more informative than their own private information. The actions upon which people herd may not necessarily be correct; and herding may long continue upon a completely wrong path [41]. "
From Dave K's link: "...the strongest associations, or the most unusually novel and exciting biological stories) may be preferentially published."
In News media this is often refered to as: "If it bleeds, it leads"
In Tobacco Control this equates to:
"Frame it as lethal, scare the people"
Also; "The delay between the reporting of an initial positive study and subsequent publication of concurrently performed but negative results is measured in years [10,11]"
If those negative results are printed at all,...ever. Science by press release has been a proven success, ....the damage is done, and no one cares to rock the boat after the "fact" has been made public.
Agenda driven science (TC) is a disgusting direct manifestation of the aforementioned lack of integrity that permeates TC and nearly everyone associated with it.
And one more:
"Even though its goals may sometimes be usurped for other purposes, science is hard work with limited rewards and only occasional successes."
That doesn't seem to be the case at all when it comes to Tobacco research since every known ill on the planet is now somehow connected to tobacco useage. There's plenty of success to be realized in Tobacco Control since everybody is in on the scam, nobody questions the methodology, and certainly not the results if it will result in a pat on the head, or just a plain 'ol "attaboy" from the leaders in the "movement", and of course, as long as everyone involved makes a buck or two along the way.
Afterall, How much integrity could there really be in movement where one of the leading rays of sunshine within it uses the battle cry "We've got the bastards on the run" in order to rally support for ever increasing "research" funding in order to further that agenda?
TC equals greed, corruption, and fraud. And just like our current economic crisis, the lack of principles and integrity brought it on themselves.
Something DIFFERENT for Public Health to take on board and promote http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...-long-
life.html
Too late Si, -
From: International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:795
Poetry for Epidemiologists
http://tinyurl.com/4otbq7
There is hope yet and the TC crowd might want to start looking for other employment.
According to my local news media health scare report:
Losing weight will reduce your chances of getting cancer so maybe having that lost weight surgery is the way to go.
People who drink 2 glasses of red wine a month will lower their chances of getting lung cancer, but of course, you should also think about quitting smoking.
I assume this was brought to us by the gastric bypass surgeons and grape growers/wine makers worldwide.
Diane, they are even pushing that gastric bypass surgery for children....especially in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/societ...p/09/
health.nhs
http://www.guideline.gov/summary...spx?
doc_id=5728
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
societ...dicineandhealth
More from Atlantic City:
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.c...ory/
281206.html
Excerpt:
“On Wednesday, Atlantic City is supposed to become the largest casino market in the country to go completely smoke-free. No one will be allowed to smoke on the casino floor, but they will be able to light up in lounges that contain no slot machines or gaming tables.”
Perhaps Dr. Siegel can explain the rationale behind the restriction on slot machines in smoking lounges. (Gaming tables obviously require an employee). Why do these people insist on giving fanaticism a bad name?
.
The dreams in which I am dieing are the best I ever had..... It's a mad world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4...h?
v=4N3N1MlvVc4
GreatScot
In 2002, three of my friends had gastric bypass surgery. One year post-op, one nearly croaked from GI bleeding. Only his bypass surgeon could operate due to the alteration of his organs. Two years post-op, one friend had the surgery completely re-done as the sutures or staples had come out.
One of these friends has remained in a support group of bypass veterans for six years. Not only must they adhere to a complex regimen of vitamins and B12 injections, but all three plus everyone in their support group has gained ALL their weight back.
They are kicking and screaming in Atlantic City over the vote to delay the casino smoking ban.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/b...g/
30719994.html
"It's disappointing that the casino industry took the opportunity to prey on the economic fears of the public," said Michele Gallagher of the American Cancer Society. "Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risks of developing lung cancer by 20 or 30 percent."
20 or 30%?
Ernst Wynder once said, which I quoted in an earlier post ...
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/...-smoke-
the.html
"Dr. Ernst Wynder, president of the American Health Foundation, a pioneer who in 1951 had connected active smoking and lung cancer, asked a question unanswered to this day: "If passive inhalation in fact increases our risk of lung cancer, there should have been a steady increase in the incidence of lung cancer among nonsmokers. This would have been observed in the female population for the last forty years. As more and more men smoke, more women passively inhale the smoke of their husbands. [Yet] there has been no significant increase of lung cancer in male or female nonsmokers. In this case we have a non-fit.""
All I can guess is that when you start with a risk of next to nothing you can mathematically increase the risk by 20 to 30% and no one will ever notice because no one will ever find the dead bodies. Michele Gallagher didn't miss her opportunity to promote fear by exaggeration, though.
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
Haloscan erased my nom de guerre.
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
Funny how the fear of a casino losing money could keep it from a total smoking ban, but no thought is given to LighteningBoys or any other business from losing revenue too. To the casino workers who are disappointed over this action: fill out an application at your local nonsmoking restaurant or bar. I doubt they are hiring though, seeing all their customers went to the casino you are currently employed at!
Wonder how they will feel once they are laid off too and added to the list of people who are losing their homes to foreclosure due to no tips from those ugly murderous smokers.
There is another health epidemic coming down the pike for you all to watch out for too. This past week, I have a married couple friends who were both diagnosed with "fatty liver" disease. Neither is over weight and neither drinks, yet they were accused of being alcoholics. Both were seeing their Doctors for completely different reasons but both were diagnosed for the same thing. They both take between 10 and 15 different prescriptions daily and not wanting to sound an alarm, my feelings is these different prescriptions mixed together might be playing a big role, if in fact they each do really have a fatty liver.
From the "CASH" link above:
Or, -A variation of it to make it a little more relevant:
"How to Read a Study," lays out the flaw in this approach:
All it does (epidemiology) is, it counts things up, and then relates one set of numbers to another: In a group of 10 people, 6 regularly use smokeless tobacco products. Of those 6, 3 wear eyeglasses. Of the 4 that don't use smokeless tobacco products, 1 wears eyeglasses. Epidemiology can then give you a formula: People who use smokeless tobacco products have twice the rate of poor eyesight. What it can't do is offer a connection: "Smokeless tobacco products cause blindness.
Which brings us to the first role of epidemiology: Correlation does not prove causation.
Seriously,...how difficult is this to understand?
They both take between 10 and 15 different prescriptions daily
I think I'd kill myself if I had to live taking THAT many drugs daily. Seriously.
Seriously,...how difficult is this to understand?
LightningBoy | 10.10.08 - 4:59 pm |
For an anti-smoker fanatic, such as Dr. Siegel or Bill Godshall, or Ed Sweda, the answer is VERY DIFFICULT.
Normal people understand exactly what you are saying. Anti-smoker fanatics are NOT normal people. In fact, they are extremely ABNORMAL people.
Dr. Siegel, are we finally going to know who that person is? Have you talked to that person about a possible coming-out?
Benpal - I don't know which researcher the person is. In giving me the documents, they deleted the name of the individual on the email.
This is an excerpt from our correspondence to Congress about the complaints we filed against Carmona's report:
"When our Surgeon General, the most highly respected medical position in this country, committed scientific misconduct in not only "creating" his findings but in reporting those findings, he did more than encourage others to follow in his footsteps. He has wreaked havoc with the hospitality industry. Small family owned businesses in the hospitality industry are closing at alarming rates where smoking bans are imposed...bans which in many cases are based solely on Carmona's report. His misconduct has irreversibly damaged the medical and scientific communities. Researchers who don't come up with the "right" findings have learned the hard way that they get discredited and are virtually kicked out of the scientific community. Carmona, by his actions, has given credibility and even laid the foundation for how to get away with reporting the "right" conclusions. Not only did Carmona commit the same transgressions that a federal judge and three congressional committees determined the EPA committed in its 1992 report on SHS/ETS, he also used that same invalid report to validate his conclusions. One of the largest exports of our country is education for those who seek higher learning from our colleges and universities. When the highest medical authority in this country commits the kind of scientific misconduct Carmona committed, do you think our education system will be held in the same esteem? The Citizens of the United States of America should be able to trust our Surgeon General. He/she should be above reproach. When they are not, it is the duty of those governing this country to see that they are held accountable."
We're leaving the door WIDE open for those who have feared "coming out". Like I said, the Perfect Storm is now.
Michael Siegel wrote: Benpal - I don't know which researcher the person is. In giving me the documents, they deleted the name of the individual on the email.
But you said that you'd kinda narrowed it down to about four people, yes? Also, you do know people who share your views, at least privately. Correct? Why not invite them to tea some time and get a constructive dialogue going. I know that I'm sounding like a broken record here, but this really is a good time to approach people. It's getting to the point that an awful lot of people would like to do the right thing. And, you're a good example because, no matter what any crusaders have done or tried to do, you're still standing pretty darned tall--and you're in good company with a few others who've opted to step away from the more alarmist hype. So, that might alleviate some fears.
Dr. Siegel
I am having trouble understanding how your decision to publicly denounce the science behind some of these studies has hurt your career. You hold a prominent position at one of the world's most prestigious universities. You are called by the media to express your views of TC. You still gain research money to conduct studies. You are a name recognized by nearly anyone who studies this subject. How have you been ruined? Is it because you have been attacked by the loonies that run this crazy movement? You do know that at some point in the not so distant future that they will be exposed and perhaps even go to jail. You have not been ruined. You have been saved by being cast from the loons. Please rush that along for us.
What are your thoughts about the Rylander affair, Tobacco research, science and public opinion, http://www.tobaccoscience.se/bac.../
background.htm
Sheri wrote: Is it because you have been attacked by the loonies that run this crazy movement? You do know that at some point in the not so distant future that they will be exposed and perhaps even go to jail.
Well, uh, HairyChestnuts does kinda wonder why Stanton Glantz isn't up on attempted homicide charges... http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=b...feature=related (Quite humorous...humourous? *sigh* Brits.)
“Not only did Carmona commit the same transgressions that a federal judge and three congressional committees determined the EPA committed in its 1992 report on SHS/ETS, he also used that same invalid report to validate his conclusions.”
NOT invalid. Just ask Dr. Siegel, who stands by it, with bulldog tenacity. Even though he spouts scientific integrity. Even though, in order to find 3,000 deaths, the EPA had to lower the CI from 95% to 90%. And Dr. Siegel’s response to this criticism of his stance? Never explain, never complain. Fraud. NOT honest. Although he likes everyone to believe he is.
This must have been pointed out already, but it bears repeating:
The Enstrom/Kabat study came up with the following figures (RR/CI):
LUNG CANCER:
Former smoker: 3.5/2.8-4.4
Current smoker of 1-9 cpd (cigarettes per day): 4.1/2.9-5.8
Current smoker of 10-19 cpd: 7.9/6.1-10.1
Current smoker of 20 cpd: 12.5/10.0-15.6
Current smoker of 21-39 cpd: 16.4/13.0-20.8
Current smoker of 40-80 cpd: 18.7/14.5-24.0
HEART DISEASE:
Former smoker: 1.2/1.1-1.3
Current smoker of 1-9 cpd: 1.2/1.1-1.3
Current smoker of 10-19 cpd: 1.4/1.3-1.5
Current smoker of 20 cpd: 1.6/1.5-1.7
Current smoker of 21-39 cpd: 1.8-1.6-1.9
Current smoker of 40+ cpd: 1.9-1.7-2.1
Now compare that with the supposed victims of secondhand smoke:
LUNG CANCER: 3,000 corpses
HEART DISEASE: 50,000 corpses.
Compared with the supposed victims of secondhand smoke, there’s clearly an inversion (and even though smokers are exposed to secondhand smoke more than non-smokers are). Here, with active smokers, lung cancer takes precedence over heart disease. But with non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke, it’s heart disease that takes precedence – and by a huge amount. Even if you believe, as does Dr. Siegel, that the Enstrom/Kabat study is flawed, there’s no way a correction could even approach a discrepancy of that magnitude. And yet the good doctor stands by the 50,000 figure. Let him explain it, or drop, once and for all, this pose of honesty.
Of am I missing something?
.
Confusing. Here's the original "How To Read A Study" whose analogy was parallel to the one quoted above, but simpler and quite different. And written long before the Zion article:
www.forces.org/Articles/linda/linda-k.htm
:
Sorry. I'll heat that link:
http://www.forces.org/Articles/l...nda/linda-
k.htm
:
Sorry again. That link's seemingly dead. Try this.
http://www.nycclash.com/
HowToRea...tudies.html#How To
Damn. The "To" didn't take
One more try and then just go to Clash.
http://www.nycclash.com/
HowToRea...dies.html#HowTo
I'm laughing now. It's late. Hard day.
http://www.nycclash.com/
HowToRea...tudies.html#How To
I'm not laughing any more. I'm obsessed.
http://www.nycclash.com/ HowToRea...tudies.html#HowTo
http://www.nycclash.com/
HowToRea...dies.html#HowTo
#@!!!$%!
This is the right link or I will report directly to Bellevue and bother no one ever again. (Oh wait. Bellevue is "smoke free." Never mind):
http://www.nycclash.com/
CaseAgai...eadStudies.html
There are a great many influences being ignored it the promotion of TC. Just the existence of a Tobacco Control section at the British Medical Journal highlights the fact this is no more than a popular dogma, which is being exploited to the full ability of best practices in wealth generation. In evaluation of any of these fad generated “Research” study herds, we can categorize all of them easily into five basic sub headings for dismissal, which take away from their credibility as real science beyond the more direct basic marker of consistent reproducibility.
Bayesian Inference
http://www.pnas.org/search?fullt...e&
submit=Submit
Quality of science
http://www.pnas.org/search?fullt...e&
submit=Submit
Text Mining
http://www.pnas.org/search?fullt...e&
submit=Submit
Experimental Interpretation
http://www.pnas.org/search?fullt...e&
submit=Submit
Information Cascade
http://www.pnas.org/search?fullt...e&
submit=Submit
Both Michael and Bill will always avoid the question of whether smokeless tobacco is more dangerous than second hand smoke, because they know; their promotion of TC herding drives unwitting victims to other sources which might very well be many times more dangerous than the ETS demons they have created in the general public. A public who now widely believe smokeless tobacco to be virtually harmless. The ethical failure in TC should be obvious to anyone who weighs the alternatives.
The promotion in the public that ETS is even 1% as dangerous as smoking, despite the quantitative differences in lifetime exposures, which are hundreds of thousands of times reduced, fails precisely for the reason chewing tobacco is known to be more dangerous than second hand smoke. The data mining at TC has failed to inform the public properly of the factor which is in play which deflates their credibility. The existence of Clara cells whose primary function is to protect the body from inhaled toxins. Clara cells which line the surface of the lungs and bronchia protect a non smoker from second hand smoke, whereas dermal injection places so called TSNA toxin directly into the blood with no defences in play. The endothelial function of maintaining blood quality which eventually deals with most toxins over a longer period of time will have its effect, however the deliberate belief ETS is toxic to anyone because it enters the blood stream through the lungs and could possibly have an effect even within 6 magnitudes of smoking, rises to a level of uncertainty which makes even the effects of smoking controversial.
Can't quite remember the fine for having a cigarette in a pub,but this puts into perspective that illegal drugs are OK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...capes-
jail.html
Thanks Sheri. I guess that's a better way to look at it.
Not sure which was funnier -- Walt (poor Walt, we've all been there! -- trouble with links, I mean, not Bellevue), or Sheri's phrase "cast from the loons"...
Today, smoker control advocate, Dr. Michael "Cast from the Loons" Siegel, announced...
Got a nice ring to it.
Walt;
I find if you add two carriage returns immediately after pasting in a link you get stable link postings, for some reason Halo scan needs at minimum one of them.
Thanks Sheri for the link to the Rylander analysis at http://www.tobaccoscience.se/bac.../
background.htm
Although I live near Geneva, I was not aware of this. However, I'm very well aware of the frauds committed by Rielle and Diethelm who brougt this case to the court.
Rielle is MD and employee of the state of Geneva in multiple public health and youth functions. His anti-tobacco organization is grossly payed (definitely more than $1 million per year) both by the state and the confederation. He was one of the initiator of an initiative which led to one of the strictest smoking bans in Switzerland (work places, hospitality industry, prisons, homes for the elderly, hospitals).
However, this initiative was challenged by two members of the state government. They lost the case but for one exception: the state was ordered to draw up a law stipulating reasonable exceptions before introducing the ban.
Nevertheless, the state went ahead in a hurry and introduced the ban by July 2008 without any exceptions. Only 2 weeks later, the ban was challenged and 2 months later the ban was declared invalid by the court of the confederation.
Funny, Walt! We were agonizing right there along with you.
Over on 1st Avenue last night, sitting at the serving end of my favorite bar, air-conditioner up behind the serving area LIGHTLY blowing cool air out. Immediately realized how perfectly SIMPLE it must be to 'protect' bartenders from the evils of secondhand smoke -- and there would be no nonsense about eliminating the smoke BEFORE it reached the bartender either, as it never possibly could. That combined with effective ventilation/air cleaning equipment would remove completely any risk to bartenders that Dr. Siegel could possibly manufacture out of his dream-up mind. Although I really shouldn't underestimate the inventiveness of the good doctor, who's proved himself to be so fertile with excuses in the past. Or (to coin an image), nailing Jello to the wall.
.
"Thanks Sheri. I guess that's a better way to look at it."
Absolutely. Sometimes it takes an outsider to view things as they really are. I guess that's why people enter therapy, for they cannot be objective about emotionally laden issues in their lives. What I see here is not that your career has in any way been ruined but that you have lost your peer group. People in general like to hang with those who have similar interests, and when they are no longer a part of the inner workings of that group, they feel injured. That leads to self doubt and a bunch of "what if's and damn, I wish I hadn't done/said that so that I could still hang with my buds" You got kicked out, but you are still pissed that they could do that to you. Sometimes people will stay in toxic relationships just to avoid being alone and feeling vulnerable. Later, when they have healed from the toxic marriage, they look back increduously at why they stayed and wasted their lives and talents on a loser jerk. You need to step away and see that there is no value in remaining amongst destructive groups. As I would tell my high school students and my own teenagers: you need to find new buds. This one's not for you. Should you actually reach that stage of acceptance that your old friends are not who you thought they were, what will you do? A healthy way of moving forward would be to bond with others who felt as you do and kick the loons' collective asses. Form a new movement, based upon truth, for it is universally true that "the truth will set you free."
"If you go public, they will ruin your career. They will do everything they can to discredit you." I think that's why the concept of "nazi" is associated with TC. - Kayci
Could be. It could also be because smoking epidemiology started in Germany, much of it funded by the Nazis. 'Passive smoking' first made its appearance there too, in a climate of lifestyle healthism much like our own.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/329/7480/
1424
http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor5.html
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/313/7070/
1453
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/313/7070/
1450
Okay, most of the mystery over the background of this FOIA request resolved (which I think was a relevant piece of information in regard to this puzzle). Thank you, Dr. Siegel.
One more associated question though, if you don't mind. And again, maybe I missed it so apologies in advance if I'm asking you to repeat yourself but...
WHO did you file this FOIA request with that provided the material? What office or agency?
I might assume it was the CDC but just because the letter you obtained was written TO the CDC doesn't have to mean that was the only place a copy of it resided. So I'd rather not assume when there's that chance it was sitting somewhere else.
OT
Having just read the comments of some anti-smoking posters on Topix, here is some useful information
Sugar can help make you a sweeter person, researchers claim.
"The report said: The findings suggest a link between glucose levels and the expression of prejudice and the use of stereotypes"
"Those who had drunk the sugary drink used far fewer stereotypes in their essays than those who had the artificial sweetener, leading to a theory that people can use restraint to keep objectionable thoughts to themselves when they have higher amounts of glucose in their body."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ou-
sweeter.html
"Based on human study, niacin may increase blood sugar levels"
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlinepl...ent-
niacin.html
"As far as for the sugar levels, nicotine in fact works much more efficiently than food. If you use food to elevate blood sugar levels, it literally takes up to 20 minutes from the time you chew and swallow the food before it is released to the blood, and thus the brain, for its desired effect of fueling your brain. Cigarettes, by working through a drug interaction causes the body to release it's own stores of sugar, but not in 20 minutes but usually in a matter of seconds."
http://www.msnusers.com/
FreedomF...D_Message=65741
JustTheFacts asked: "WHO did you file this FOIA request with that provided the material? What office or agency?"
I sent the request to CDC. However, the request was also sent to the Department of Health and Human Services, as I had requested documents related to the Surgeon General's press release about the secondhand smoke report.
Surely after banning smoking you are ment to leave it more than a week before you start on the next phase?
After ban on smoking, Ramadoss to focus on liquor ban
"Buoyed by the nationwide enforcement of the ban on smoking, Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has geared up to launch a campaign against alcohol by bringing in a policy to regulate its sale in the country"
"We need a strong policy to prevent the young generation from getting addicted to alcohol. We have initiated talks with various agencies to come out with a national-level policy to regulate the sales of alcohol in the country and it will be made into an Act after considerable deliberation," Ramadoss told reporters on the sidelines of a seminar on "Alcohol Control Policy" in Chennai on Saturday.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/
St...+liquor+ban+now
"Ramadoss hoped the WHO would soon designate October 2 as the global prohibition day."
"The Constitution mandates all states to exercise prohibition but except J&K and Gujarat none of the states follow it. Prohibition is a state subject, I would urge all state governments to enforce to total prohibition."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...how/
3585304.cms
There were reports last week that groups in India hung Ramadoss in effigy, and that was in response to the smoking ban. Things could get much uglier should he go the prohibition route.
Sheri
Last week,he helpfully informed us that-
"152 countries had signed a WHO-supported international agreement to ban the production of tobacco products in a phased manner"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...how/
3553096.cms
I'll be fascinated to see what happens next week.
Okay, what I obviously got wrong in the above is that with lung cancer the risks are figured on a lower base, so that the absolute numbers are lower.
Hoist by my own petard.
Mean culpa stupido.
Apologies to the group.
.
I urge the right-to-smoke activists who post on this blog to become even more irrational and obnoxious, as that will further increase the spread of smokefree policies and laws. - Bill Godshall
I usually try to skip Bill Godshall's posts, but I'd read this one by accident before I saw his name at the bottom. I've been musing about antismokers ever since.
I guess that when antismokers start out being antismokers, at age 12 or whatever, it probably all looks very simple and straightforward to them: They know that smoking causes lung cancer, and they wonder why anyone who knows this would carry on smoking, and they conclude that most smokers must be halfwits, slaves of their addiction, and not really fully in control of their own lives, not fully rational, and that if they won't freely give up smoking of their own accord, then governments will just have to compel them to give up. All that, and tobacco smoke stinks too.
That explains why antismokers (Michael Siegel perhaps excepted) have no time for smokers or for smokers' opinions or (laughable idea) smokers' rights. Smokers are morons, and the opinions of morons are irrelevant, and morons have no rights.
In their own eyes, antismokers are just out to rid the world of another one of its many plagues, just like previous medical pioneers set out to rid the world of typhoid, leprosy, and tuberculosis. They probably think that people who can be cured of smoking will be as grateful as people who have been cured of leprosy. Antismokers see themselves as enlightened, progressive, and above all doing what's right.
They haven't read much history, that's for sure.
500 years ago, England's newly enlightened, progressive, and right-thinking parliament banned Catholic forms of worship in all churches - the 16th century equivalent to banning smoking in pubs. Anyone who disagreed was just a moron, addicted to the incense and candles of the irrational old religion, ignorant of the latest, advanced theological thinking from Germany's Luther and Geneva's Calvin. The reformers came out with a brand new English language service: the Book of Common Prayer. There would be no more Latin, no more incense and candles and ashes, and no more of the poisonous doctrines of the Pope in Rome - the 16th century equivalent of Big Tobacco. Everyone, they figured, would like the clean new churches with their wall paintings whitewashed over and their sculptures of saints thrown out - the Starbucks of their day. People, even those who never went before, would flock to the churches in droves.
It didn't quite work out that way. Some people liked the new Anglican service, but quite a few people didn't. And they kept on holding Catholic services in secret - just like some pubs have smoke-ins now. The people of Cornwall were particularly incensed, in large part because they didn't speak English, and the new English service was incomprehensible and alien to them.
So began hundreds of years of conflict all over Europe between the modern, enlightened, progressive Protestants and the benighted, superstitious, conservative Catholics.
And the upshot of it all? Was Catholicism successfully denormalised? Nope. My local English town has got an Anglican church at one end, and a Catholic church at the other end. Which is just like having a non-smoking pub at one end of the town, and a smoking pub at the other end.
And just up the old Roman road that runs west is the little village where the irate Cornishmen armed with pitchforks and staves first met the Crown's mercenaries with their blunderbusses and cannon. There was an awful slaughter, and 200 Cornishmen died that day. A stone commemorating the event stands below the motorway and the railway that sweep through Bloody Field now. It's all so much more modern these days, with the rush of traffic overhead.
But really nothing has changed at all. History is repeating itself, as smoking is now banned in the village pub, just like the Catholic mass was banned in the village church 500 years before.
http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/
Doc...k_rebellion.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pra..._Book_Rebellion
Unlike Idlex I completely ignored Bill Godshall on the last thread when he ranted, "I urge the right-to-smoke activists who post on this blog to become even more irrational and obnoxious, as that will further increase the spread of smokefree policies and laws.
Bill Godshall | 10.10.08 - 3:33 pm "|
I am always willing to cut others slack when they might be upset or when they may not really mean for their post to come out the way that it sounds.
But I think that Bill Godshall may have many reasons for feeling defensive. Recent events have cost the anti-smoker cartel a lot of the credibility they once enjoyed. And most of this loss of credibility is their own fault too. As Doctor Siegel has pointed out repeatedly the anti-smoker cartel has left science in the dust and pursued an "irrational" and "obnoxious" anti-smoker campaign that is just noise without substance. They are starting to be perceived as silly by an evergrowing portion of the general population.
In a statement released today CASH, the Campaign Against Smoker Harassment, asked this question; "Did Bill Godshall miss his nap or what?"
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
idlex: I usually try to skip Bill Godshall's posts,
Me, too! When I do read them, they give me an icky, unclean feeling afterwards.
.....
Michael Siegel: In giving me the documents, they deleted the name of the individual on the email.
Is it standard procedure for information to be deleted from documents obtained through the FOIA?
I may be wrong, but it seems to me deleting any information from the documents or altering the documents in any way would be contradictory to what the FOIA is.
.
From someone who used to work for a state agency, yes they legally can redact information in public records requests (or freedom of information). I worked for a state workers' comp system that redacted names from Occupational Disease reports to protect the claimants (clients).
Thanks, Pam P.
idlex, you cut to the heart of the "your opinion doesn't matter" matter. Whether spoken or unspoken -- depending upon the anti-smoker (professional, legislator, or grassroots) being dealt with at the moment -- it all rests on the belief that we are not in our right minds. It's the nicotine talking and were it not for having this "addiction" we would never say or take the positions that we do.
Smokers' rights advocacy dismissed summarily on the grounds of chemically induced mental defect. Beginning and end of (their) story.
Though, it's then I like to point out that many columnists, pundits and other intellectuals from all sorts of various institutions (i.e. art, literature, sciences, etc.) who DON'T smoke and never have have expressed the same protests and objections, on all the various grounds, as we have.
I like to point out that many columnists, pundits and other intellectuals from all sorts of various institutions (i.e. art, literature, sciences, etc.) who DON'T smoke and never have have expressed the same protests and objections, on all the various grounds, as we have. - JustTheFacts
Yes, there's them. And then there are also all those smokers - all the way up to Albert Einstein (and Issac Newton)- who somehow or other managed to think dead straight about absolutely everything - except smoking. It's a highly selective form of dementia that we smokers seem to suffer from.
The simple truth of the matter is that smokers generally perceive the risks of both active smoking and passive smoking as either being far less than antismokers see them, or see them as acceptable everyday risks. Antismokers are very highly risk-averse, and smokers are not highly risk-averse.
In some ways, smokers actually like to take risks, and not just with smoking. They're more inclined to drink, to eat, to gamble, and do all kinds of risky things. It's what gives life a buzz, makes it worth living. But antismokers don't like taking any risks. The antismoker who dreads tobacco smoke is probably also abstaining from alcohol, counting his calories, and not betting on horses.
And each each side regards the other as more or less insane. If antismokers disregard the opinions of smokers, well, smokers are learning rapidly to disregard the opinions of antismokers. Why else do I not read Bill Godshall's posts?
When things get to this point, there ceases to be any real discussion. The dispute cannot be resolved by reason. Just like the disputes in England between Catholics and Protestants could not be resolved by reason. (What religious disputes can be resolved by reason?) It can only be resolved by force, whether that is the force of law or the force of arms. And antismokers have already set out to use force - the force of law - to oblige smokers to comply with antismoking dogma. And so smokers must meet them with yet greater counterforce.
The simple solution, of course, would have been toleration, an agreement to disagree. In the end, toleration prevailed in England (after about 300 years), and so we now have Catholic and Protestant churches in the same towns. But antismokers seem to be unable to tolerate any dissent whatsoever. Smoking has to be banned everywhere, all over the world. There can be no exceptions. And so we are now facing exactly the same sort of civil conflict as was faced in England 500 years ago. Many people died in those religious wars.
tnsmoker-
There are certain exemptions in the FOIA law. I'm not an expert; however, one example is pre-decisional documents. So, for example, drafts of documents that were eventually released in a final form are usually exempt. The reason for this is to protect the integrity of the decisional process.
So, for example, drafts of documents that were eventually released in a final form are usually exempt. The reason for this is to protect the integrity of the decisional process.
Given how we've seen little to NO integrity from most government and "health" agencies/organizations the past several decades........exactly WHAT is there to protect except the lie they put out as a final decision?
Dr. Siegel, thanks for the explanation.
Lynda F, good point.
.
Thanks again for this. Pr Siegel: "If you dissent, you are allowed to write polite, personal, and private emails expressing your opinion, but you are not allowed to go public with your dissenting comments […] If you go public, they will ruin your career. They will do everything they can to discredit you. You will be evicted from the movement […]It is really a McCarthyist-like movement. You cannot express dissent publicly […] If you go public, that's it - you're ostracized, attacked, victimized. Thrown off the list-serves. Not allowed to present at conferences. Defamed behind your back."
This is the point. On one hand, they appear on TV, the radio and all kinds of media (public, no ?), get their publications (public, no ?) printed in scientific journals now in open access on the internet (public, no ?) and the latter are always commented upon by the former (“A New Study Reveals…).
On the other, they criminalise any analysis that is not in tune with their unspeakable agenda. They want you to say it in private and, preferably, within private forums such as Globalink... And when you speak it out there, you are Globa-lynched... Yes, this is neo-Mc Carthysm.
Partially relevant to the issue discussed here:
Rothman KJ. Conflict of interest. The new McCarthyism in science. JAMA. 1993 Jun 2;269(21):2782-4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm.../pubmed/
8192721
THE AIR, ACCORDING TO OSHA
Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."
OSHA begs to differ.
OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.
Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)
There. Feel better?
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
Indeed it would.
Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.
As you're about to see in a moment.
In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.
Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.
The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:
CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.
"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.
"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?
"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.
"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."
Chart (Table 1)
-"Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel
Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.
Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.
It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.
So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.
In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.
Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.
Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.
This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:
"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...
Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.
As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement
Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:
"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."
Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."
And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.
Commenting by HaloScan
