Merry Christmas to all:
Our first set of Christmas visitors arrived yesterday afternoon. One of them is smoking those Camel Crush cigarettes. Haven't tried one yet, but I can not see one thing on the package that would suggest they are marketed for "the kids". Another flight arrives tomorrow and I am hoping that one of them brings along those camel #9's or whatever they are. I might then give each a try. On Friday, another 6 people arrive and I am thinking that by then, I will be needing something much stronger than any of that stuff that is targeted for kids. Just bring on all the adult smokes and maybe a couple of beers too. (I don't drink)!
Happy New years!
Hi All,
home for 2 days from my latest project in Holland, 3 weeks on, 16 hour days at present,2 days off, back to work 26th. Have a great time. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I will be back speaking more often come next July (ish)
GreatScot
A Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas, and all that jazz to everyone here!
I hope you all enjoy the holidays.
And just in case I get busy and forget....I wish you all a very Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year!!!
Merry Christmas everyone! And all my Colors for you and your loved-ones for a terrific New Year!
Merry Christmas To ALL and To ALL a Good Night!
Happy New Year all. Don't forget to light that cigarette at midnight! In response to that never-ending "For the New Year Resolution..." nag.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays to all
Happy Holidays and New Year...
... and thanks to all of you.
One of the most important events for me in 2008 was discovering all of you here. I am so thankful I had the experience to discover people so passionate for liberty, truth, justice, life.
New Year's Resolutions!
Enjoy my American Spirt handmades and Parisienne manufactures!
Become active in Zurich in the liberty movement, including start going to the Neumunster (unfortunately rather a hike from my usual stomping grounds) - they have declared themselves in advance of the ban in force next year the "1st Zurich Smoking 'Beiz'."
:
Merry Christmas everybody. Don’t be too harsh with yourselves when making those New Year’s resolutions. Have fun, but stay safe.
I make only 1 resolution each New Year......to try to make the new year a little better than the last.
It's a resolution that does not put any unreasonable weight on top of the load I'm already carrying and is one I fulfill just by the act of "trying".
No guilt as long as I do the best I can. And that's about all we can ever ask of ourselves or anyone else.
Merry Christmas and happy New Year everyone!
1st Zurich Smoking 'Pickle'? LOL! 
p.s.: It looks like my area in Kentucky will not have a smoking ban!! So far, so good.
|
What a great Christmas gift Kayci! Keep up the good work in 2009 too!
Thanks, Diane! I'll let y'all know how it goes ;}
Best of the season to all, and to hell with "tobacco control."
Whoops, Kayci,
I forgot, I've seen some articles translated with an online program where Beiz becomes pickle. In www.dict.cc, it's pub (Br.), saloon (Am.).
For me, it's neither one of those. They are simple restaurants where the "regulars" also hang out and play cards in the afternoons and nights and drink coffee, beer and wine, and maybe play the Swiss national card game, Jass. Usually plaid tablecloths. Not what you could call a bar or cafe.
So I didn't translate it since for me they aren't pubs or saloons - at least the ones that traditionally kept kids out!
Maybe the Neumunster is more of a bar - I'll find out as soon as possible!
I hope you're all having a happy day, ours starts at my husband's mom's in about 5 hours.
:
Happy holidays to all !
Oops, Kendra, LOL! Thanks
A new study claims that third hand smoke harms children, and advocates its removal.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...81229105037.htm
But before angry smokers throw a hissy fit, nobody is calling for extremist clean up measures, like those used to clean up asbestos or lead.
Rather, the overwhelming majority of tobacco smoke residue can be removed with scrubbing using soapy water, a fresh coat of paint or new wallpaper, new carpet and drapes.
Those with air duct heating/cooling would need to hire someone to clean the system.
Bill wrote: "the overwhelming majority of tobacco smoke residue can be removed with scrubbing using soapy water, a fresh coat of paint or new wallpaper, new carpet and drapes."
I'm curious Bill - are you suggesting that parents of children in such situations should be required to do this type of remediation or are you simply throwing this advice out there for those who are interested?
Today's US CDC MMWR credits Pueblo's smokefree ordinance for reducing hospital admissions due to heart attacks. Unfortunately, the article cites the several studies that found declines in heart attack deaths or hospitalizations following the implementation of a smokefree law, but fails to acknowledge that similar declines have not been found in hundreds of other municipalities that implemented a smokefree workplace law.
Reduced Hospitalizations for Acute Myocardial Infarction After Implementation of a Smoke-Free Ordinance --- City of Pueblo, Colorado, 2002--2006
http://www.cdc.gov:80/mmwr/
previ..._cid=mm5751a1_e
A new study claims that third hand smoke harms children, and advocates its removal.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ rele...81229105037.htm
But before angry smokers throw a hissy fit, nobody is calling for extremist clean up measures, like those used to clean up asbestos or lead.
Rather, the overwhelming majority of tobacco smoke residue can be removed with scrubbing using soapy water, a fresh coat of paint or new wallpaper, new carpet and drapes.
Actually, Bill, far from throwing a hissy fit, we appreciate your new year's gesture. Is this part of a resolution? Your statement certainly goes against a main argument in favor of smoking bans in the home...I've read special cleaning materials are needed to get rid of the 3rd hand smoke. It was in the local Chicago Tribune semi-tabloid spin-off RedEye earlier.
And of course Michael McFadden discussed the negligible impact of third hand smoke in his book.
As I see it, people should be keeping their homes clean every so often anyway. So thanks for pointing out something that should be a non issue.
Oh. As a tenuous segue, a nonsequitur about bans I can't resist--a coworker said "No smoking in bars. It's great. I can wear the same shirt out three nights in a row!" Hygiene hypocrisy at its finest.
Oh. Back on topic. Happy new year to everyone, both old and new, lurkers and active.
It's great to see new people posting, and to see people who've been around a while continually coming up with new ideas. I can't think of many blogs that give such value per comment post.
a coworker said "No smoking in bars. It's great. I can wear the same shirt out three nights in a row!" Hygiene hypocrisy at its finest.
Andrew |
EEEWWWWW I just noticed a girl here in my office as I walked right past her yesterday and couldn't believe the stink of her! Figured I must be imagining it. Then today, I pointed out to her that she needed to look in the mirror as she had a smudge/blob of mascara under her eye. She then commented that it must be from last night.............which means she didn't shower this morning and I wasn't mistaken yesterday about the smell then..........EEEEWWWWWW
And they claim us smokers stink? Spare me......at least WE ARE CLEAN!!!
HAPPY NEW YEAR to all!
Let's hope 2009 starts the return of sanity, because I'm not sure how much more of this insanity I can actually handle.
Today, I see that Victoria in Australia is banning electronic cigarettes, a smoke free, tobacco free alternative to smoking. They do so while encouraging smokers to use nicotine inhalers and other NRT. I find this the height of a new level of hypocrisy. I have invested in a couple of e cigarettes and like them. I do not intend to quit smoking, but they provide a way for me to cut down on cigarettes that I smoke out of habit rather than desire. If anyone ever doubted that anti smokers are not ALL about money and power, this will be the proof that they surely are. The move to ban e cigarettes in this NAZI country happened virtually overnight and with no fanfare. Most people who were using these will simply return to smoking regular cigarettes, just as the government in its greed for tax money and control intended. With recent reports on "third hand smoke" and another worthless claim about heart attack rates following smoking bans, the anti smoking movement is about to implode. Hopefully, the new year will bring that gift to all of us, non-smokers and smokers alike.
Godshall, -"Rather, the overwhelming majority of tobacco smoke residue can be removed with scrubbing using soapy water, a fresh coat of paint or new wallpaper, new carpet and drapes."
In light of the manufactured hysteria surrounding SHS, this sounds like a prime business opportunity, and because there are so many people that have obviously bought into it, ...this could be a real money maker. The terrorifying, paralyzing fear of SHS sells the service for you.
All your customers would be idiots so you're sure to make a bundle.
Who says TC has run out of ways to turn a buck?
It does sound like Bill is planning to change careers. I can see his business card now, "From health department to a healthy home, call Bill Godshall now for a free estimate. We will remove all contaminated air".
Sorry I won't beable to write endorsing articles for you as I do my own cleaning. Everyday a different room gets scrubbed while the rest of the house gets a general cleaning. Now if someone could just explain how and who brought this flu bug into my house last week and why did it end up with me. Oh that's right, I smoke, but then again, so do most of the 14 guests that I housed last week.
Happy New Year to Everyone!
I guess they forgot to mention that people who smoke are also considered "contaminated" with third hand smoke.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an...112?
hub=Toronto
Those who smoke outside can carry the residue inside on their clothing, transferring it to children, other adults and pets, said Ferrence, who advises smokers to wash their hands and change outer clothing before picking up a baby, for instance.
You got to love this quote from her:
"And if you're huddling with other smokers, you might as well be smoking indoors with them, because if you're within one or two feet (less than a metre), you're getting almost identical exposure (as smoking) indoors.''
Thanks to all for including me in the discussion, it has been most enlightening and I wish a very Happy New Year to all and that includes Mr. Godshall.
Dr. Siegel, I hope you will let us know your opinion of this study in the new year. Personally I find it kind of scary.
Beliefs About the Health Effects of "Thirdhand" Smoke and Home Smoking Bans
http://pediatrics.aappublication...print/123/1/
e74
Similar to low levels of lead exposure,35 low levels of tobacco smoke markers have been associated with cognitive deficits among children.36
The highest tobacco exposure levels were associated with the lowest reading scores; however, the lowest levels of exposure were associated with the steepest slope in the decrement in reading levels.36 These facts underscore the possibility that compounds in tobacco smoke are neurotoxic at extremely low levels and the prudence of advocating for absolute restriction of all smoking in indoor areas that are inhabited by children.
Even when absolute bans are maintained, nonsmokers can be exposed to tobacco toxins by off-gasing from the smoker’s clothing, through open windows and doors,3 and from exhaled toxins for several minutes after the cigarette is extinguished.37 Therefore, strict smoking restrictions should be encouraged as an adjunctive strategy as the smoker is treated for tobacco dependence and advances toward the goal of permanent abstinence.
Dr Winickoff was supported by a grant from the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (FAMRI 024032) and the National Cancer Institute (K07 CA100213 A 01). This publication was also made possible by grant 4 D1A RH 00005-01-01 from the Office of Rural Health Policy of the Department of Health and Human Services through the Rural Health Safety and Security Institute, Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University, and the American Academy of pediatrics Julius B. Richmond Center of Excellence also supported by FAMRI.
Footnote #36
Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Cognitive Abilities among U.S. Children and Adolescents
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...i?
artid=1253717
This study has some limitations. The NHANES III design did not include measures of cognitive abilities of parents or of the quality of the home environment. Instead, we relied on maternal education, income, and marital status as surrogate markers in our analyses.
Footnote #37
Residual tobacco smoke: measurement of its washout time in the lung and of its contribution to environmental tobacco smoke.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cg...reprint/16/1/
29
Conclusion: These data reveal a definite although marginal, role of RTS as a source of hidden indoor pollution. Further studies are needed to understand the relevance of this contribution in smoke-free premises in terms of risk exposure; however, waiting for about 2 min before re-entry after the last puff would be enough to avoid an unwanted additional exposure for non-smokers.
"Let's hope 2009 starts the return of sanity, because I'm not sure how much more of this insanity I can actually handle."
I think you'll just have to steel yourself, Lynda. This quote from Lily Tomlin might help:
"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."
.
Third Hand Smoke Poster
http://www2.massgeneral.org/ceas...and%
20smoke.pdf
Ann, what a strangely phrased sentence on that poster:
"Your child's doctor can help you quit smoking and have a completely smoke-free home and car."
So are these pediatricians now treating adults? Do they get a bonus?
Or are they getting into the Merry-Maid business? What a spin-off...
Gilster, it would appear that Dr. Jonathan Winickoff is picking up from where Dr. Siegel left off, your home.
Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Development of Framework and Intervention
http://pediatrics.aappublication...rint/122/2/
e363
Some of the concerns raised in the focus groups, such as fear of legal action if clinicians treat parents, have been partially answered by the American Medical Association and are now emphasized in the CEASE materials. The American Medical association amended its tobacco-control policy to “support efforts by any physician to identify and treat tobacco dependence in any individual, in the various clinical contexts in which they are encountered. . . .”90
http://www2.massgeneral.org/ceas...lease%
20_3_.pdf
“Secondhand tobacco smoke kills three times more children than all childhood cancers combined,” says Winickoff. "While laws protect adults in the workplace, no laws protect children in their own homes and cars.”
Clinical Effort Against Secondhand Smoke Exposure (CEASE), aims to teach pediatricians to help parents quit smoking and establish and enforce no-smoking rules in the home and car.
http://www2.massgeneral.org/ceas...bacco/
index.htm
The CEASE team would like to thank all who have supported and funded CEASE: National Institutes of Health, the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the American Legacy Foundation. CEASE was developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, the American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) network, Smoke Free Homes, other tobacco control experts and child healthcare clinicians across the country. CEASE was originally adapted for child healthcare practices from the Massachusetts QuitWorks progam. Developed in collaboration with Massachusetts health plans, Quitworks is a universally endorsed fax-referral program linking providers and their patients who smoke to the state's quitline and other treatment resources. The CEASE Module adapted the QuitWorks program model, the enrollment form, and the implementation guide (for CEASE) with permission of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
It's never about money, yet here we have lobbyists spending hundreds of millions not on research, but just getting touchy & feely with politicians to pass legislation and get their products approved.
Lobbying Health
Sector Profile, 2008
Total For Health: $356,113,932
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby...?lname=H&
year=a
Contest. What will Dr. Siegel's first column of the new year be about? Will it be 3rd hand smoke, the newly released Pueblo heart attack study, or the banning of electronic cigarettes? It may well be tomorrow's hard hitting lie. Whatever the case, there is lots of material for him to present.
I never even knew there existed an EPA program called “Smoke Free Homes” – shows what an ignorant fellow I truly am.
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
Excerpts:
“You can become a child's hero by keeping a smoke-free home and car.”
Gloriosky! A hero!
“Secondhand smoke can cause children to suffer bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections and more severe asthma attacks.”
From Wikipedia:
“Pneumonia is an inflammatory illness of the lung. Frequently, it is described as lung parenchyma/alveolar inflammation and abnormal alveolar filling with fluid (consolidation and exudation).
“The alveoli are microscopic air-filled sacs in the lungs responsible for absorbing oxygen. Pneumonia can result from a variety of causes, including infection with bacteria, viruses, fungi, or parasites, and chemical or physical injury to the lungs. Its cause may also be officially described as idiopathic—that is, unknown—when infectious causes have been excluded.”
And from eMedicineHealth:
“Chemical pneumonia is an unusual type of lung irritation. Pneumonia usually is caused by a bacteria or virus. In chemical pneumonia, inflammation of lung tissue is from poisons or toxins. Only a small percentage of pneumonias are caused by chemicals.”
Sounds to me as though the EPA just sweetened the pot with the pneumonia bit, which hasn’t much going for it.
So I don’t get the link between secondhand smoke and an inflammatory illness caused by a bacteria, a virus, a fungus, or a parasite.
Surely this is a meat-ax approach to public health. ALL homes with kids in them are supposed to go smoke-free, even though the vast majority of kids show none of those conditions that might be attributed to secondhand smoke?
All part of The Big Campaign to run evil off the face of the earth, I assume.
.
Great find Harry!
There is a list of Qs&As on the page.
http://iaq.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...ser/
std_alp.php? p_lva=&p_li=&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&
p_page=1&p_cv=&p_pv=1.376&p_prods=376
Question 2 - "How long do the harmful elements of secondhand smoke linger?"
Answer - "There has been no determination of how long the harmful effects of secondhand smoke lingers in the air. Depending on a room's ventilation the smell of tobacco smoke can linger for some time. If tobacco smoke is in the air, it can and does present potential health problems to all, but particularly children. If secondhand smoke or the smell of secondhand smoke is not currently in the air but has been allowed to pass through clothing and furnishings, the odor may still be present and irritating. Exposure to secondhand smoke and/or its contaminants can cause or exacerbate (make worse) a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma."
To repeat - "If secondhand smoke or the smell of secondhand smoke is not currently in the air ... the odor may still be present and irritating "
Just another confirmation of the hazards posed by all of the smoke that you can't smell.
This means that working in a bar that used to allow smoking, but doesn't anymore because of a ban, is still bad for bartenders and wait staff. Bans aren't enough because there is no safe level of smoke that used to be there but isn't there anymore.
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
ES
I know this one, I researched it last year.
What is Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)?
"Smoke has been listed as a human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program, in its 11th Report on Carcinogens (April 2005), on the same list of chemicals as asbestos and mustard gas"
http://www.cctc.ca/cctc/EN/prote.../protection/
faq
"Gas hung around in sunken roads for weeks, and it was possible to be overcome merely by removing a patient’s clothing, so it was not only during an attack that one could become gassed"
http://www.ramc-ww1.com/
chain_of..._evacuation.php
Incidentally
"The first drug used for cancer chemotherapy did not start out as a medicine. Mustard gas was used as a chemical warfare agent during World War I and was studied further during World War II.
During a military operation in World War II, a group of people were accidentally exposed to mustard gas and were later found to have very low white blood cell counts.
Doctors reasoned that an agent that damaged the rapidly growing white blood cells might have a similar effect on cancer. Therefore, in the 1940s, several patients with advanced lymphomas (cancers of certain white blood cells) were given the drug by vein, rather than by breathing the irritating gas.
Their improvement, although temporary, was remarkable
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ET...sp?
sitearea=ETO
Wouldn't have been my first choice I have to admit, but then I'm not a doctor.
If [...] the smell of secondhand smoke is not currently in the air ... the odor may still be present"
If you can smell it, it's an odor. If you can't smell it, there is no odor.
Merriam-Webster: "smell" - The quality of a thing that makes it perceptible to the sense organs in the nose.
Synonyms: odor, redolence, scent, sniff
But as someone (ES) likes to incessantly repeat:
"It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous."
Kids sent to hospital because of smoking.
"Part of the reason for it was because smoking was affecting patients, but officials at BSA say that's not enough, with disturbing numbers of kids coming in with respiratory problems because of their parents smoking at home"
"Nurses say even if parents aren't smoking in the same room as their kids, it's still in their hair and in their clothes, which means your child is still exposed.
Officials say if you do have to smoke, to make sure you don't do it near your kids, and change your clothes before being close to them."
http://myhighplains.com/content/...ltext/?
cid=6399
If the plant chemicals in a baked potato are really as dangerous as toxic waste, I would say that was standard procedure.
The EPA site (Einstein's link) is mainly devoted to radon.
Geoffrey Kabat has a chapter on it in his book "Hyping Health Risks," in which it is pointed out that, despite the EPA’s radon policy (and campaign), “this is an area of uncertainty beyond the resolving power of currently available methods and data.” Which didn’t stop the EPA from hyping the risk:
“As recently as September 2005, in it’s ‘A Citizen’s Guide to Radon,’ EPA cited the figure of 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year due to radon exposure and displayed a dramatic bar chart comparing deaths from radon to deaths from accidents, including drunk driving, falls in the home, drownings, and home fires.”
Is this the same EPA whose 1992 report (Dr. Siegel’s darling) pronounced secondhand smoke to be a Group A carcinogen responsible for 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year? You betcha.
And there’s what we’ve all come to know too well:
“Scientists and regulators with a professional stake in radon may not be in a position to give an objective assessment of its importance.”
A job, a profession, a career, bread on the table, prestige, loot ...
.
Glad the radon link was helpful Harry. I don't how that happened because I didn't have a page open about radon. This is the right link to the list of Q&A about tobacco smoke.
Question 2 was the one that caught my attention.
http://iaq.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...376&
p_prods=376
Rotating the sign off because everyone already knows that the smoke you can't smell kills without warning and leaves no forensic evidence behind.
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
holy cow, the EPA's comments on outdoor exposure
http://iaq.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...li=&
p_topview=1
Is outdoor exposure comparable to indoors?
Whether the exposure occurs indoors or outdoors the adverse health effects remain the same. The only difference is that indoors the concentration of the harmful chemicals, compounds, and particles is kept in and doesn't go away as quickly as outdoors.
Is outdoor exposure to ETS in public venues, such as parks, harmful to children?
Regardless of where the exposure takes place -- outside or inside, secondhand smoke poses health risks to children. The U.S. Surgeon General has found that there is no safe level of exposure.
Dr, Siegel, thank you for mentioning that other interventions could be at the cause of the reduction. I would like to remind you that if you have diabetes, you are at least twice as likely as someone who doesn't of having heart disease or a stroke. Most doctors treat diabetics as if they have already had a heart attack, so better control of blood sugar levels could also have an impact of the number of heart attacks.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/ne...rt-
attacks.html
One academic argued there's not enough evidence to conclude the smoking ban was the cause of Pueblo's heart attack decline.
The decline could have had more to do with a general decline in smoking in Pueblo County, from about 26 percent in 2002-2003 to less than 21 percent in 2004-2005. If there were stepped-up efforts to treat or prevent heart disease in the Pueblo area, that too could have played a role, said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.
"I don't think it's as clear as they're making it out to be," Siegel said.
The EPA’s web site on asthma (ES’s delightful link);
“What are some asthma triggers?”
It may not be significant but, reading the list, I see they’ve got secondhand smoke right there at the top.
“How long do the harmful elements of secondhand smoke linger?”
Or elements of perfume, Sir or Madam? The language is pure hype. To those of us who have never slopped pigs ... Or introduced a pellet stove into our home.
“What can I do about secondhand smoke coming from my neighbor's apartment?”
Read your rental lease or condominium agreement. If that doesn’t help, sue. And if the cost and time involved in suing are excessive, blast the bastard with a shotgun, preferable while he's taking a drag on a cigarette. No court will convict you.
And here’s the defining justification (judges please take notice):
“The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke and that eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure.”
Hmmmm.
“What is EPA's position on children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke?”
Why, it's our old standby: “The U.S. Surgeon General has found that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”
“Is outdoor exposure to ETS in public venues, such as parks, harmful to children?
“Regardless of where the exposure takes place -- outside or inside, secondhand smoke poses health risks to children. The U.S. Surgeon General has found that there is no safe level of exposure.”
Even a guy as dense as I am is finally beginning to get it: THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE! ANYWHERE!
“How Does Secondhand Smoke Enter An Apartment?”
“... light fixtures, wall electric outlets, ceiling crawl spaces, and doorways into all areas of a building with smokers. Secondhand smoke cannot be controlled by ventilation, air cleaning, or the separation of smokers from nonsmokers. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”
Until you manage to get the bulls down on those smoking neighbors of yours, there’s only one solution to all this territorial incursion: DUCT TAPE! Seal yourself in, and for God’s sake, don’t for the life of you neglect those light fixtures and wall outlets! And you city folk, don't neglect the traffic fumes insinuating themselves through the spaces around your windows. As everyone knows, there's no safe level of traffic-fume pollution.
What was that about the U.S. Surgeon General, again? I must have missed it.
Having fun, neighbor against neighbor, with your tax dollars. So what say you, Dr. Siegel? After all, it’s one of your pet agencies.
.
No safe level means no unsafe level once everyone is expossed.
Smoke your brains out, if we get them all they will stop whining.
some interesting observations from Spiked.
http://www.spiked-online.com/ind...e/article/6066/
Happy New Year all.
GreatScot
"DUCT TAPE! Seal yourself in, and for God’s sake, don’t for the life of you neglect those light fixtures and wall outlets! And you city folk, don't neglect the traffic fumes insinuating themselves through the spaces around your windows"
I do worry about your building regulations, after all, if secondhand smoke can enter, so can any passing airborne plague.
With all the threatened pandemics heading your way,I'd do something about it quickly.
What is it?
"Airborne transmission occurs when bacteria or viruses travel on dust particles or on small respiratory droplets that may become aerosolized when people sneeze, cough, laugh, or exhale. They hang in the air much like invisible smoke. They can travel on air currents over considerable distances. These droplets are loaded with infectious particles.
With airborne transmission, direct contact with someone who is infected is not necessary to become ill.
http://www.drgreene.com/21_1022.html
Airborne Disease Transmission 1944
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4y...h?v=4y-
dH2WWaFY
CBS reported on the Pueblo heart attack study last night and then went on to gloat about Mayor Bloomberg's smoking ban in NYC and how much everyone hated it at first, but it has shown to have saved 1000's of lives. For the life of me, I can't figure out how they knew in advance who might have had a heart attack if people were still smoking, but anyway, just wanted to tell the Doc that his statement or name was not mentioned in this report, though he was quoted in the article. You must be ticking some big names off Doc!
Re: Pueblo study
The new Pueblo study is an updated version of the previously published study of 2006 but with the addition of a further 18 months of data. What are the chances of us seeing an updated version of the Scottish heart study with the data for 2007-08 included?
Also, the Pueblo study uses AMI rates per 100,000 person years. Why not just count admissions? Is using person-years even appropriate?
Just incase we are smitten with a series of pandemics
Medicinal Smoke Reduces Airborne Bacteria
"This study represents a comprehensive analysis and scientific validation of our ancient knowledge about the effect of ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products' smoke for therapy and health care on airborne bacterial composition and dynamics, using the Biolog microplate panels and Microlog database. We have observed that 1h treatment of medicinal smoke emanated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri=material used in oblation to fire all over India), on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24h in the closed room."
http://www.agri-history.org/pdf/...nal%
20smoke.pdf
Medicinal smokes
"Most of the 265 plant species of mono-ingredient remedies studied belong to Asteraceae (10.6%), followed by Solanaceae (10.2%)"
"The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production. This review highlights the fact that not enough is known about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form. Furthermore, this review argues in favor of medicinal smoke extended use in modern medicine as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients."
http://tinyurl.com/6ybwso
Apparently nicotinic acid is anti-viral and anti-bacterial, its in lots of useful plants.
I suppose it all depends if you believe the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years right across the world,or a 80 year old theory that had the effect of protecting heavy industry and the petrochemical companies for decades.
Christopher, I agree: why person-years and how are they calculated?
I found the following definition:
"The total sum of the number of years that each member of a study population has been under observation; e.g., years of treatment with a certain drug."
And I found this from another context:
"The person-years saved model, which uses survival to weigh outcomes, assesses the impact on population mortality and has particular strengths. - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...bmed/15283898\"
Christopher, probably because it was the ONLY way they could get the results they wanted................they don't give a damn if its accurate, as long as it says what they want it to say.
http://epi.klinikum.uni-muenster...mp/
pamcomp.html
PAMCOMP (Person-years And Mortality COMputation Program) is a free application for calculating person-years and standardised mortality ratios (SMRs).The program was developed with Visual Basic 6.0 (SP5) and Visual C++ (SP5) and runs under Windows 95/98/2000/ME/NT and XP. The calculation of person-years allows flexible stratification by sex, and self-defined and unrestricted calendar periods and age groups. Furthermore it is possible to lag person-years to account for latency periods. The SMR computation includes calculation of 90%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals. Import and export filters for standard personal computer file formats (such as ASCII, dBase, MS-Excel, Paradox and MS-Access) to import cohort and reference data and to export distributions of person-years and deaths are available. In addition importing of external ODBC data sources is possible.
Person years mortality is useful when calculating ratio trends, or when used irresponsibly as they are used here, in creating media tuned drama.
Most often what is being measured is a weight ratio which really do not relate directly to real populations. It is purely misrepresentation when the public is expossed to inflammatory information of this kind, which the public can only believe they understand.
The weighted ratios would be useful in capturing trends of frailty data which is an inescapable confounder not revealed to the public very often and certainly not at all, when discussing public health issues and lobooist. campaigns.
The risk numbers we hear about every day, do not reveal that they will affect every one of us in a different way and for some, we will likely realize positive aspects of exposures.
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/...wp-2003-
025.pdf
http://ideas.repec.org/p/dem/wpa...p-2003-
025.html
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/
The majority of us are in reasonably good health and are not nearly as frail as the ETS shysters would have you believe.
The truth of that observation is seen with the baby boomers, who lived life to its fullest potential, with a much higher standard of living than is possible today. They ate the fatty foods they smoked in the majority and they were expossed to much higher polution levels than we would ever accept today. Yet they proved to be the longest living healthiest generation to ever walk this planet.
The increased risks of virtually every potential harm we see today is proof; resilience and health is more pronounced by exposures than by protections from them.
Challenging your body to build up defenses is more beneficial than all the medicine ever concocted to do what we do on our own, by natural progression of learned defenses.
Human frailty is a designed over hyped media invention, with monetary goals, not unlike the snake oil sales in the past, played out with a more efficient process of communications.
The largest majority people who should get sick according to the "experts", don't actually get sick. While most, who shouldn't get sick because of the extremes of modern protections, actually do get sick in ever expanding numbers, which suggests someone is on the wrong track.
This study seems to indicate cigarette taxation may increase the risk of heart attack for the smoker's children, irregardless of ETS exposures.
Being born under adverse economic conditions leads to a higher cardiovascular mortality rate later in life: evidence based on individuals born at different stages of the business cycle
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/...wp-2008-
023.pdf
Looking back at 2008, let's see how price increases affected gas consumers:
Gas tax shortfalls due to decreased consumption--this is a parallel to the SCHIP plan of taxing tobacco to 1) lower use and 2) fund a government program. This has happened WITHOUT any competing concurrently raised state taxes, and the least ugly solution seems to be...raise taxes some more.
With this precedent, it's possible SCHIP may be uglier than Dr. Siegel suggested, since it throws in other factors such as state taxes and anti-smoking campaigns. This all happened in just one year.
And this was just something I noticed from the headlines in my yahoo inbox. Maybe some actual research would yield even more.
Here is a long list of TC detractors, any number of the studies on the list deflate almost entirely the usefulness of the trash talk "public health authorities", have been selling for years.
http://ideas.repec.org/s/dem/wpaper.html
Mike inquired:
"I'm curious Bill - are you suggesting that parents of children in such situations should be required to do this type of remediation or are you simply throwing this advice out there for those who are interested?"
The latter.
Ooh look. Another Yahoo headline. While I'm not a conspiracy theory fan, editors can be encouraged to publish one story over another, and perhaps this beginning push for the new year shows a switch from taxing Big Tobacco to Big Oil. Oops, that's "customers of" each. Small dif.
The parallels of taxing gas to taxing tobacco is interesting. People do what they're told, and it leaves governments scrambling all the worse for funding.
Of course, you can't foresee ALL effects of a social movement, but in this case they are proposing taxing the people who seem to do right under "we must do something." And they really need to--this is a fiscal necessity. If government were as proactive as they want their citizens to be...maybe there would be a rainy day fund for the big things they want(SCHIP) and the necessary stuff(roads from the gasoline tax.)
But don't worry, drivers, the simplest solution is only a small invasion of privacy, to require a GPS to track drivers' miles! Kind of like the simplest solution to sidestream smoke exposure is, kick em out in the cold from places they pay to visit. That's all they did to smokers...erm, for nonsmokers...right?
Can't resist posting this:
Europe's Smoking Culture Lingers, Despite Bans Article
By CHRISTINA PASSARIELLO
VIENNA -- A new antismoking law goes into effect this month in Austria, one of the last European countries to tighten rules on lighting up in public spaces.
Yet, the law's many exceptions -- eateries can avoid creating nonsmoking sections, tobacco companies can continue to hand out free cigarettes and smoking is allowed in college dorms -- highlight a deeper predicament across Europe.
Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
A new law in Austria allows small bars and restaurants to choose to prohibit smoking, but requires larger establishments to set aside at least half their space to a nonsmoking room. Above, Vienna's Cafe Hawelka.
Although countries including France, Britain and Italy have introduced bans on smoking in public, Europeans are having a hard time stamping out their nicotine habit. In some cases, that has forced governments to soften antismoking legislation.
In Italy, nearly as many people smoke as did before Rome passed a law in 2005 prohibiting smoking in cafés, according to the Health Ministry.
In July, a federal court in Germany, after a slew of lawsuits from restaurateurs, ruled that one-room pubs don't have to offer separate rooms for smokers and nonsmokers.
Spain banned smoking in public places in 2006, but the law contains loopholes and is loosely enforced. In practice, people can smoke in most bars, and most restaurants allow smoking for fear of a backlash from consumers.
Lighting up doesn't carry the social stigma in Europe that it carries in the U.S. Many famous Europeans -- including the Pope, French soccer star Zinedine Zidane and Britain's Prince Harry -- have been known to puff in private without burning their public image. U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, on the other hand, has spoken publicly about the pressure he feels to quit smoking.
The number of U.S. adults who smoke dropped below 20% in 2007 for the first time on record, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a November report. Smoking and secondhand smoke kill 443,000 people in the U.S. annually through cancer, heart disease and other causes, the CDC said.
In the U.S., says Tigrane Hadengue, co-founder of the Museum of Smoking in Paris, "a smoker is a source of evil who imposes evil on others. In Europe, it's seen as part of an art de vivre...the same as eating and drinking."
But smoking has become a heavy burden for Europe's state-run social-welfare systems, with smoking-related diseases costing well over $100 billion a year.
One out of two teens and adults smokes in Austria, one of the highest smoking rates in Europe. In 2007, 14,000 people died from smoking-related diseases out of an overall population of 8.2 million.
Smoking is common among women and teenagers as well as men. Austrian girls light up, on average, before their 12th birthdays, the youngest age in Europe, according to the World Health Organization.
The Austrian love for cigarettes dates from the 19th century, when artists and writers gathered in locales such as Vienna's Café Griensteidl to read the paper, write, socialize and smoke, says Kurt-Jürgen Heering, editor of the anthology "The Vienna Coffeehouse."
In 2005, Austria passed a law calling for voluntary bans on smoking in hospitals, train stations and other public places. In 2007, when the Austrian government came under pressure from the European Union to toughen its smoking legislation, then-Health Minister Andrea Kdolsky took up the issue of smoking in public places.
Many attribute the laxity of the new antismoking law to Ms. Kdolsky, a proponent of free choice when it comes to cigarettes. The 46-year-old former anesthesiologist and hospital director had been a smoker since the age of 16 until she recently ditched the habit.
"Smokers are old enough to decide on their own," she said in an interview last year.
Opinion polls showed that most Austrians were against a full-blown smoking ban, says Ms. Kdolsky. She dismisses claims about the dangers of secondhand smoke. "No international study tells you that sitting in a restaurant for two hours as a passive smoker brings you harm," she says.
Under the law she sponsored, small bars and restaurants can choose if they want to be nonsmoking. Larger establishments have to dedicate at least 50% of their space to a separate nonsmoking room.
In early December, a new center-right government took over in Austria. It named Alois Stöger to the post of health minister.
Sigrid Rosenberger, a spokeswoman for Mr. Stöger, says his goal is for fewer people to smoke in fewer locations. He plans to monitor the new law's effects in 2009, she says, before deciding on possible amendments.
—Almut Schoenfeld and David Crawford in Berlin and Thomas Catan in Madrid contributed to this article.
Write to Christina Passariello at christina.passariello@wsj.com
now this is one hell of a headline and Dr. Terry F. Pechacek, (oh,oh he is only a doctor because of a PhD) really sends home the message with ""It really is dangerous, and even brief exposures, like eating a meal in a restaurant that allows smoking, can cause a heart attack," says Dr Terry Pechacek."
http://www.3news.co.nz/News/Heal...59/
Default.aspx
Smoking bans saving non-smokers' lives, study shows
A new study in the US on secondhand smoking is providing more ammunition for banning smoking in all public places.
The Centre for Disease Control says there is dramatic new evidence that smoking bans are saving lives.
Researchers focused on the residents of Pueblo, Colorado. In 2003, the city banned smoking in all bars, restaurants and indoor workplaces.
Hospital admissions for heart attacks there plunged 41 percent over the next three years.
The three-year study is the longest ever done on the effects of secondhand smoke.
"It really is dangerous, and even brief exposures, like eating a meal in a restaurant that allows smoking, can cause a heart attack," says Dr Terry Pechacek.
That is why in 2003, Mayor Michael Bloomberg drove smokers out of New York City's public places.
"You don't have a right to hurt others," he said, but many smokers were furious.
Fifteen states and 330 municipalities across the US now have similar public smoking bans.
Like the air in the bar, the health benefits are now more clear. This new study suggests second-hand smoke was even more of a threat than most people suspected.
"We probably have been underestimating the population effect," says Dr Pechacek.
It is estimated 46,000 non-smokers die every year from heart disease related to secondhand smoke. But because of this new research, the Centre for Disease Control now believes that number could be far higher.
Smoking bans saving non-smokers' lives, study shows
"We probably have been underestimating the population effect," says Dr Pechacek.
How can he say these things with a straight face when the study admits
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/...ml/
mm5751a1.htm
"the study did not directly document reductions in SHS exposure among nonsmokers after the city of Pueblo smoke-free law took effect, although studies elsewhere have reported such reductions (1,5,7,10)."
With regard to this "new" Pueblo study, I have the same question:
Did actual deaths decline, or did people simply die from some other condition?
To think that we can "save lives" is laughable. All we can POTENTIALLY do is delay deaths, and that is questionable. Only the person themselves decides when and how they will die. It is part of absolute, unalienable, intrinsic, essential autonomy.
Happy New Year, everyone. It should prove to be colorful
I've been busy commenting on the rash of smoke and mirror articles which started on December 24th.
The thought of the Health Department as a religious or moral leadership diocese, would normally be repugnant to most of us.
The delineation of anyone who choose to use cigarettes with little scientific validity and even less in regards to historical observations to support the exaggerations of ETS. How can anyone seriously claim we are not witnessing a moral crusade.
If a person can be insulted and denormalized based on the fact they choose to use cigarettes, they are said to be lessened and morally repugnant, yet the same people if they do as they are told and repent by the use of another nicotine product they are reborn and made morally whole once again?
Clearly what is being marketed by moral punishments and indignation are alternative products with little support for encouraging moderation or realistic strategies for quitting.
It is all about fast cash grabs, when hatred is accepted as a legitimate marketing tool, to excuse what would be otherwise classified as; false and misleading advertising.
Harry - do you remember this?
Acetaminophen may raise asthma risk in kids
"Study covered pain reliever's use among children in 31 countries
In the United States acetaminophen is widely sold under the brand Tylenol and is used to relieve fever, minor aches and pain. It is used in a liquid suspension for children.
Medium use of acetaminophen in the past 12 months increased asthma risk by 61 percent, while high dosages of once a month or more in the past year raised the risk by over three times.
Medium use was defined as once per year or more, but less than once a month.
Suspicions of a possible link between acetaminophen and asthma emerged in recent years when experts observed an increased use of the drug to a simultaneous rise in asthma prevalence worldwide." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26788879/
How poetic is the justice that a product of JnJ may just be the reason for the increase in asthma when they've dumped so much money into Tobacco Control. Having Splenda be a cause of diabetis would be the daily double.
Bad news Bill, the jig is up.
http://news.cincinnati.com/artic...DIT02/
812290361
"Remember the freedoms we once had to think and choose for ourselves in the not-so-distant past, before our state allowed the SmokeFreeOhio advocacy group to declare us too stupid to do so with the Issue 5 smoking ban in 2006?
Private property business owners chose smoking or nonsmoking.
Employees chose their preferred working atmosphere.
And members of the general public were not so simple-minded that they lacked the ability to guide their own feet inside or away from a business that was not of their own preference.
I suppose Ohio smokers should bask in the safety that forced protectionism affords them - I mean the safe protection of being forced outside to smoke, where they risk being robbed, mugged, raped, or murdered. It's supposed to make people healthier in the ice, rain, snow, and extreme heat or cold?
I bet the senior citizens and disabled really appreciate that.
I'm sure some freedom-hating nuts will say: "They shouldn't smoke."
How kind of them to force smokers to accept them as their master. That's a powerful example of a loss of liberties.
Ohio citizens were so "fortunate" to have the right to allow the American Cancer Society, a.k.a. SmokeFreeOhio, fan the flames of our constitution by forcing private property business owners into servitude and obedience at all cost.
When Ohioans wake up, they might remember how to speak for themselves and ask SmokeFreeOhio and the American Cancer Society who funded the smoking ban, and what product they market and profit from. I bet someone's profits increased from the sales of smoking-cessation products. What a concept!
The Issue 5 smoking ban ballot initiative in 2006 was nothing but deceit and lies.
Despite what the initiative's proponents may say, Ohioans voted for family-owned business and private club exemptions - period.
Shame on SmokeFreeOhio, and shame on Ohio for letting them get away with it. Ohio citizens and business owners deserve better."
From the Telegraph, not that our "masters" will give a hoot, still nice to see a national paper reporting this at all.
Government 'fixing health consultations' with taxpayer-funded groups
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ded-
groups.html
The Government has been accused of fixing the outcome of public consultations on health policy after it emerged that reviews were flooded with block votes from groups funded entirely by the taxpayer.
Mr Johnson boasted that the display ban was favoured by an "overwhelming majority" of 96,000 responses to a six-month public consultation on the subject.
Yet only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.
Among the groups submitting block responses were SmokeFree NorthWest, SmokeFree Liverpool and SmokeFree North East, which were all set up by the Government to lobby against the tobacco industry.
GreatScot
The Impact of State-wide Smoking Bans in AMI Admissions in California and other States:
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot....y-finds-
no.html
The worse the air pollution , the more they smoke
Role of Niacin as a Chemopreventive Agent in Lung Cancer
"Dr. Chatterjee is studying the effects of niacin or nicotinamide deficiency on damage to cellular DNA and how supplementation prevents such damage."
http://www.aicr.org/site/News2?J...Article&
id=5831
Mapping the role of NAD metabolism in
prevention and treatment of carcinogenesis
"Abstract
Studies presented here show that cellular NAD, which we hypothesize to be the relevant biomarker of niacin status, is significantly
lower in humans than in the commonly studied animal models of carcinogenesis. We show that nicotinamide and the resulting
cellular NAD concentration modulate expression of the tumor suppressor protein, p53, in human breast, skin, and lung cells."
"Because we have shown nicotinic acid supplementation to
decrease incidence of UV induced skin tumors in mice,
concomitantly with elevation of skin NAD [10], we have
begun to examine how niacin status in human skin affects
carcinogenic processes."
"The association of lower NAD with malignancy in skin supports
the hypothesis that niacin maybe an important preventive
factor in cancer."
http://www.mentorcorp.com/pdfs-
g...Dmetabolism.pdf
NIACIN AND NIACINAMIDE IN FLUE-CURED CIGARETTE SMOKE CONDENSATE
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/a...pnx69d00&
page=1
Isn't human instinct wonderful?
And TC have been calling them nicotine addicts tsk tsk
By the way , what happens to people living along the sides of motorways and in polluted industrial areas when you force them to give up smoking without telling them the correct substitute?
The studies that find niacin creams prevent skin cancer would appear to be confirmed by Fritz Lickint's observation that the "first three fingers of the right hand of man have a natural immunity to cancer" after observing the phenomenon in smoking tar workers. Top of page 80
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/...d&
start_page=81
I thought it must be the solanesol but seemingly not.
Vitamin lotion may help skin cancer fight
"Scientists have found a cream containing vitamin B3 can significantly increase the skin's ability to stop skin cancers forming.
The results will be presented at an international dermatology conference this weekend.
Even as little as six minutes in the sun can weaken the body's defences against skin cancer.
Researchers at the New South Wales Cancer Institute painted healthy volunteers with a lotion containing vitamin B3 or nicotinamide.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/healt...ms/
s1366452.htm
Don't you just love it when the science works.
The niacin in tobacco smoke was confirmed by Conrad Elvehjem himself.
"Elvehjem commented frequently on nutrition as it affects both scientist and layman. "Vitamins should be obtained from natural foods if possible," he cautioned. "Generally they are cheaper, more palatable, and in better balance with other factors when taken in this form." He acknowledged the value of synthetic vitamins in treating deficiency diseases, but warned that their use should be temporary"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Con...Conrad_Elvehjem
http://news.cincinnati.com/artic...DIT02/
812290361
If the population norm in a 320 million population is 2.3 million mortalities from all causes every year and that ratio reflects a death rate of .7%
If we take the number of people who smoke and apply the same .7% to the total. Which according to B.Godshall et al, has remained consistent for close to 50 years at 60 million. we find .7% of 60 million is 420,000 which is quite close to the 450,000 figure claimed to be caused by smoking related diseases today.
It seems that smoking related diseases are not as dangerous as people once believed, because without them, almost exactly the same number of people whether they smoke or not, would die every year.
So where do we find the savings in healthcare?
Simple!
People are being led to believe the deaths are "preventable" and without them, people who currently use cigarettes would gain immortality and the number of those currently dying of smoking related diseases would not.
This presents another problem for advocates in explaining if the so called related diseases occur in the vast majority in old age, 80% how does an increased number of elderly people reduce the costs of healthcare? It seems the opposite would be true.
Unless a significant and much less political answer is found; I have to conclude the savings of healthcare expenses by eliminating the so called preventable diseases is an absolute lie, and the politicians along with the general public have been conned into chasing rainbows.
Many have wondered why a radical and criminal lobby group, such as PETA has been voluntarily taking over humane societies internationally. The answer is in the wind this week.
PETA is looking for funding by means of a new cigarette styled pet tax, sure to be all the rage in political circles quicker than you can invoke a spin doctored tornado, to clear the air.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/39599
From Kevin's link to Cincinnati.com. Lightning Boy wrote a great comment.
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/
...4#pluckcomments
But I have a question about a comment above his from revcrash.
"The ACS. barely received a c+ rating for integrity and expenditures for there supposed solicitations of funding. 60% went to funding adds another 35% went ot administrative cost (salaries for John Hocter and Tracy Sabetta) and 5% to research."
35% is a lot of overhead for most "tax exempt charities". Can anyone add to this?
Advocate for CASH
In training to become a highly paid shill for the ACS.
ES;
"expenditures for there supposed solicitations of funding. 60% went to funding adds another 35% went ot administrative cost (salaries for John Hocter and Tracy Sabetta) and 5% to research.""
The situation in Canada is virtually identical. The Globe and Mail in Toronto revealed recently only 5% is allotted to research by the CCS apparently this is an industry standard.
The problem as I see it is, the researchers are selling themselves well short of their true potential, as a vital component in the entertainment industry, they should take a lesson from the NHL PA.
Players were being retired every day after generating billions in revenues as household names everyone knew, to die forgotten by most in paupers graves. It wasn't until they achieved a collective bargaining agreement did they start to realize the true value of their contributions.
Researchers who help create media shock and awe increase the profitability of the product tremendously and as the work horses behind the highly profitable campaigns, they should be receiving a much larger portion of the revenues being generated.
If a Hockey player can sign a contract in the hundreds of millions of dollars, why do we see researchers in a marketplace 1000 times larger, fighting over the scraps of contracts for a year's labor amounting in the barely tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars?
The answer is obvious they need to hire agents and demand compensation in line with the profits of the large corporations and politicians who feast while throwing them the scraps.
People like Glanz and Repace who have entertained audiences for decades on the international stage, should be recognized as superstars and afforded their proper due as all entertainers in the same industry enjoy.
Where are the acting awards and the best original commercial screen play awards for the writers, or best rendition of original drama, for the repetitive 60 second emotionally charged soaps?
Health scare workers are all being duped along with the rest of us, making other people rich.
I would be willing to bet if Michael had an agent handling his affairs and promoting his image, he could have retired a wealthy man, years ago and be living comfortably off the residuals generated every time the 220 bartenders study was cited.
Michael stop killing yourself, hire a pro and get paid.
Your giving it away for free. Look at groups like the Who and AC DC they are living your life and eating your lunch.
Bill;
You don't even get paid for all your work? Please take a look at the opportunities your foregoing by delaying you might have lost millions already. Why go through life as a washed up ex-smoker tell the world about your plight
I smell a movie in your future and a best leading man nomination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tal...ki/
Talent_agent
"Monkeys will work to postpone nicotine injections (Spealman, 1983). The fundamental uncertainties in
this area are reflected in Jaffe's statement: "We don't even know for sure what the principal reinforcing
ingredient in tobacco is" (Jarvik, 1977, p. 122)"
"There is one widely cited paper suggesting that nicotine is powerfully reinforcing for humans
(Henningfield, Miyasato, & Jasinski, 1985). Humans reported that intravenous injections of nicotine felt similar to cocaine.
The face appeal of these findings is reduced by methodological problems.
First, all of the subjects were hospitalized with unspecified histories of substance abuse. Additionally, some of the
subjects who reported that nicotine was like cocaine had never experienced cocaine (Clark, 1990).
Additionally, some subjects thought nicotine was like cannabis, morphine, or Valium®. Such gross
errors suggest that the subjects were fairly confused.
In summary, apart from numerous conceptual and definitional inadequacies, the notion that nicotine is an addictive substance lacks reasonable empirical support.
There are so many and such grossly conflicting findings that adhering to the nicotine addiction thesis is only defensible on political, not scientific,grounds.
More broadly, addiction may have some use as a description of certain types of behavior, but it fails badly as an explanation of such behaviors.
It is commonly assumed that questioning the addiction hypothesis is to condone and even advocate drug
use.
Such an assumption is incorrect. In order to develop effective treatments for drug problems, it is
necessary to escape from the unproductive ideology that is currently dominant.
Abandoning the concept of addiction is a step in this direction.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/
d...e_addiction.pdf
So now that mass experiment with nicotine patches has disproved the nicotine addiction theory, what next?
Its the centre of the whole TC campaign!
I believe this is what the Rev was talking about:
http://www.charitywatch.org/arti...les/
cancer.html
The famous American Cancer Society (ACS), which reaps far more contributions ($848 million in 2005) than any other cancer charity that AIP covers, is only able to get 60% of its budget to program services not related to solicitations and receives a C+ grade from AIP. The $1.6 billion fiscal 2005 budget of the AIP A rated Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is nearly twice the size of ACS’s, yet only about $206 million of it comes from public contributions. Unlike ACS, which utilizes contributions to cover 97% of its budget, Sloan-Kettering’s hospital and medical care fees fund over 75% of its budget.
Some of the highest pay available in the nonprofit field is at cancer charities. The cancer category of your Charity Rating Guide has more Top 25 Compensation Packages (see page 19) than any other Guide category. Cancer charity executives hold the first and third spots: Harold Vamus, MD President/ CEO of Sloan-Kettering at $3,016,138 and Donald E. Thomas, COO of ACS at $974,819
http://www.charitynavigator.org/...mary&
orgid=6495 (make sure you click on the comments tab)
Charity navigator gave them a 48.11 (2 out of 4 stars). http://www.charitynavigator.org/...mary&
orgid=6495
(make sure you read the comments)
http://charityreports.bbb.org/pu...x?
CharityID=186
Chief Executive : John R. Seffrin, Chief Executive Officer
Compensation*: $1,101,119 *expense account, compensation, etc.
Per Rose, "So now that mass experiment with nicotine patches has disproved the nicotine addiction theory, what next?"
Time for some real science.
Tobacco consumers who routinely inhale should be technically defined as self-inducers of sub-acute hypoxemia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxemia
http://medical-dictionary.thefre...y.com/
hypoxemia
"Typical symptoms are apnea, increased blood pressure, tachycardia, restlessness, stupor, coma, Cheyne-Stokes respiration, hypotension due to increased initial cardiac output that has rapidly fallen, ventricular fibrillation, and other conditions."
These are the symptoms of involuntary acute hypoxemia.
When smokers inhale they are manipulating the oxygen level in their blood stream by substituting CO2 for O2. If you try to smoke an entire cigarette without taking breaths between puffs you will certainly experience the symptoms of involuntary acute hypoxemia.
This explains many things. NRT's don't address the hypoxemic aspects of inhaling smoke which is why they don't work. Cigarette smoke inhalers are not usually satisfied with pipe or cigar smoking for the same reason.
Many of the things that researchers have attributed to nicotine are actually effects produced by very low levels of highly controlled hypoxemia controlled by: the smoker inhaling more or less smoke, more or less frequently, and by regulating the depth of their inhaling.
If you inhale correctly you can experience an increased pulse, increased blood pressure, euphoria and relaxation. Relaxation? Nicotine is a stimulant and the "experts" have not been able to explain how the "magical" effects of nicotine can both stimulate and depress the nervous system at the same time.
Well, there are two different things happening at the same time when tobacco smoke is inhaled. Nicotine is being absorbed by the soft tissues of the mouth and gums and CO2 is displacing O2 in the bloodstream. Ask a pilot how relaxed, or euphoric, he or she feels at 20,000 feet without supplemental oxygen.
Real science, wherever it is these days, should be developing CO2 therapies to use in conjunction with NRT products.
http://webreq.msu.edu/Strstock/A...ve/
10016000.pdf
Page 7
"16053340
Cylinder, Carbon Dioxide Gas. 56 Cubic Feet/Cylinder.
Medical Grade. 99.5% of Purity. Size: E. CD EM"
Advocate for CASH
In training to become a highly paid shill for medical grade CO2 producers.
Aside from what the latest Pueblo data might legitimately show (and there’s a huge question mark hovering there), notice that the hacks at the CDC (Godshall’s link) start off – BANG! right out of the box! – with what can only be called a bare-faced propaganda statement, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the raw study itself:
“Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) has immediate adverse cardiovascular effects, and prolonged exposure can cause coronary heart disease.” (Reference is to the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report.)
This is then followed immediately (not even a paragraph separation) by a statement obviously meant to link the opening statement about SHS with the latest data:
“Nine studies have reported that laws making indoor workplaces and public places smoke-free were associated with (sic) rapid, sizeable reductions in hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction.”
Oh, the beautiful chicanery of it all! No linkage has been shown between secondhand smoke and the drop in hospital admissions; all that the nine studies (plus the newest one) really show, if accurate, is that there was a ban and then there was a drop.
But then the CDC, at the end of that same opening paragraph, states:
“This effect likely is mediated through reduced SHS exposure among nonsmokers and reduced smoking, with the former making the larger contribution.”
Wait a minute! Is there any evidence at all that the part about reduced exposure to nonsmokers is responsible for the decline – let along that it represents the “larger contribution” (greater than that of reduced smoking)? No there ain’t. And yet this bureaucratic rabble, who live off the taxpayer’s dollar, use the term “likely”? How the hell do they know that?
Further down:
“Compliance with smoke-free laws typically reaches high levels rapidly and then increases further over time. In addition, smoke-free laws are associated with increased adoption of no-smoking rules in private homes. Smoke-free policies have been found to prompt some smokers to quit smoking; because active smoking is a major risk factor for heart disease and AMI, this effect also would be expected to reduce heart disease and AMI rates at a population level. The continued decrease in AMI hospitalizations observed in this study might be (sic) a result of a combination of 1) the immediate reduction in SHS exposure among nonsmokers that occurred when the city of Pueblo smoke-free ordinance was implemented, 2) further reductions in this exposure that occurred because of increased compliance with the ordinance and increased adoption of smoke-free home rules over time, and 3) increased quitting among smokers as a result of the ordinance and associated changes in social norms.”
In other words, it’s all speculation. But that hasn’t stopped the faceless ones from assigning causes.
Is it any wonder that we have the urge to raise the black flag?
.
"You don't even get paid for all your work?"
The only information we've got out of Godshall as to how he puts bread on the table is that he says he doesn't collect a salary. But that bit of information has never been fleshed out, and we're entitled to think of it as cute. Naturally, if he puts bread on the table without taking smokers' gold in any form, near or removed, then we'd have an entirely different and perhaps benign view of him. But since he's refused over the years to answer the question, though often asked, we're entitled to think what we think. After all, there is such a thing as civilized discourse among men and the necessity for full disclosure when involvement is close and has a claim to motive.
.
Here's Bill Godshall:
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-announce/
http://www.tobaccofree.org/panel.htm
http://no-smoking.org/august99/0...08-30-99-
1.html
This one...Bill, with Pharmaceuticals/Health #1 in Lobbying ($1,499,696,090 1998-200
and Agriculture not even in the top 20, can you show us what PAC contributions were in 2006 in Ohio from Pharmaceuticals? I'd like to have that information so I know who was strong armed into stepping down (the threat by the ACS to our legislature, courtesy of a Stanton Glantz paper http://repositories.cdlib.org/cg...1&
context=ctcre page numbered 73)
http://static.pennpirg.org/pap.a...d2=7215&id3=PA&
Here is another myth being postulated by public health lobbies.
Targeting a specific group in society with special taxes, can invoke a positive result and reduce the costs of healthcare. While the funds stolen from the pockets of that group can reduce the tax burden to everyone else.
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/...0359&s=d&
page=1
Among the many comments primarily opposing the tax, the following was interesting;
"A paper is being published in the Jan. 2009 Am. Journal of Public Health by Anne Landman and Stanton Glantz . On pg. 52, 1st paragraph: "On April 24, 1996, the House Appropriations subcommittee held formal hearings on the issue and Richard Klausner, the new NCI director, told the subcommittee that NCI had ceased funding the portion of Glantz's grant involving campaign contributions. (The grant was not cut; these funds were shifted to the grant's other aims). This action appeared to satisy the subcommittee. The American Cancer Society made a $74000 grant to Glantz to fund the aim dropped from the NCI grant, and the work continued." Does this say the ACS gave Glantz a grant to make campaign contributions?
Shouldn't we be checking into the campaign contributions of those who push for smokefree laws?
Tobacco-Free Kids was given an add'l 1.5 MILLION DOLLAR grant (from the RWJF) to get cig taxes increased. Are the laws in this country are being bought by "non" profits?"
Here is a pretty good look at the companies currently dictating our moral obligations and punitive oversight. Interfering directly with individual freedom and the choices we make every day.
http://www.healingcancernaturall...reatment-
5.html
"At the heart of the various investigations into drug industry marketing is the question of whether drug companies are persuading doctors — often through payoffs — to prescribe drugs that patients do not need or should not use or for which there may be cheaper alternatives. Investigators are also seeking to determine whether the companies are manipulating prices to cheat the federal Medicaid and Medicare health programs. Most of the big drug companies, meanwhile, are also grappling with a welter of suits filed by state attorneys general, industry whistle-blowers and patient-rights groups over similar accusations.
In many ways, the investigations are a response to the evolution of the pharmaceutical business, which has grown in the last quarter-century from a small group of companies peddling a few antibiotics and antianxiety remedies to a $400 billion behemoth that is among the most profitable industries on earth."
Always consider the source and follow the money.
Exemptions from Pennsylvania's smoking ban soar in numbers. Allowing owners to decide has clear social and economic benefits.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/f..._-
_legally.html
"Tracey Wesolowski, who owns Joe's Bar in Chester with her husband and his brother, said she had picked up customers from bars that don't allow smoking."
"Upscale restaurants say customers no longer linger over drinks after dinner because they can't smoke, Christie said, "and if you know anything about the restaurant business, you make your dollars on alcohol, not the food."
"We actually would like to see the exemptions increased," Christie said. "We want it to go from 20 percent or less to 30 percent or less. That's much more fair."
The people are not only speaking but they are voting with their feet and their dollars.
Breeze Detector & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
It is obvious the largest bankroll will always have the loudest voice.
From Jenny McCarthy demanding an audience with the overlords of medicine to demonstrate how she minimized the effects of autism with non traditional methods, to the literally thousands [Commonly referred to as Conspiracy nuts? and tobacco company shills?] who claim cancer cures are deliberately being suppressed.
If you believe the truth has to lay somewhere between the two sides of an issue, you are forced to admit modern medicine is not as effective or legitimate as it used to be.
Again it is all about the money...
http://alternativecancer.us/canc...iracy-
books.htm
ES
With regard to your previous comment, I do take your point.
Strawberry milkshake always tastes much better when sucked through a straw, rather than sipped from a glass.
Unfortunately I'll have to miss out on the nicotine. Working with that stuff last year gave me my first ever attack of hayfever.
I does explain my lifelong dislike of raw tomatoes though. I grow them purely as ornamentals and give the fruit away.
I have to say that raw nicotine does exactly what they say, a crushed green leaf stops bleeding from garden-related injuries very speedily.
Like having a living first aid kit.
Nicotine Poisoning
NOTES TO PHYSICIAN:
Promptly wash contaminated skin and flush eyes with water.
Ingestion of nicotine requires immediate gastric intubation, aspiration, and lavage, the latter preferably with 1.5% tannic acid solution, of 1:5000 potassium permanganate solution. Before withdrawing the lavage tube, instill 3-4 ounces of activated charcoal in a slurry of water. Diazapam and/or barbiturates may be required to control convulsions. Atropine and phenoxybenzamine (Dibenzaline) may help to control the autonomic manifestations. Positive pressure ventilation of the lungs with oxygen may be necessary to sustain life when respiration is arrested
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/prof...f-
nicotine.html
Science by press release and the use of science in politics:
Pro-choice group Freedom To Choose have huge reasons to celebrate this New Year. The group has lobbied hard for policies to been drawn on official statistics and data, and to demonstrate how ‘public consultations' are in fact ‘fixed' and ‘seriously flawed'.
Andy Davis, chairman of the group, is delighted that Sir Michael Scholar of the UK Statistics Authority is advising that official data should only be used to draw up political arguments when it is released. (1)
Mr Davis states, 'this would have been tremendously important with regard to the Scottish ‘Pell Report' which had been systematically used to further enhance tobacco control policies. Official data now released prove it to be fundamentally flawed, with heart attacks on the increase in Scotland since the smoking ban.'
'Had the recommendations from Sir Michael been applied, then this misinformed report would not have seen the light of day.'
Related article: http://news.scotsman.com/politic...s-
of.4840713.jp
Benpal I posted the following;
"Why would it matter; when they were allowed to see research, funded with taxes through a third party.
The international convention of tobacco control, was like a lottery win for the lobby groups like ASH.
Free access to unlimited public funds to produce politically convenient research and moralist cast designations of law abiding citizens? All to serve a commitment made prior to the invention of the "danger of second hand smoke"?
With no safe level and everyone expossed, it must have taken some political pretzel making to create an increased risk. Unless the fix was already in.
A government acting as a protector while producing bigotry through propagandist fears, has a well understood definition. Once the real investigations begin, perhaps a few dozen ministerial convictions will remind them, why the second world war was necessary and why they hanged Doctors when it was over."
Lets see how long the moderator allows it to remain.
"Chief Executive : John R. Seffrin, Chief Executive Officer
Compensation*: $1,101,119 *expense account, compensation, etc."
Gee, I think it was only $300k back in the late 90s. And last time I saw it, a couple of years ago, it was $500k.
I wonder if he's getting ready to retire and his retirement check is based on his last year's wage? That increase certainly isn't from COLA raises.
Disabling smoke alarms on airplanes and social diseases:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/loc...ews/
ci_11363206
“O'Connell has mentioned several times, in books and in conversation, that Mallory is sociopathic, but readers note that Mallory always seems to do her sociopathic thing on the side of good.”
I believe Walt has taken a nibble at this sociopathic thing with rabid Antis (and some who have learned that being rabid and appearing reasonable at the same time is not so hard a thing to do). And I myself have wondered for some time now whether the guiding lights in Tobacco Control can’t be tagged with the label sociopath, even though they don’t, except figuratively, go around defenestrating smokers.
Give a man a cause that will save the world and the trait may very well show itself, is my opinion. And forget about collateral damage; it's a concern of pansies.
Now here’s a put-upon dear heart:
http://www.hometownlife.com/arti...EWS25/
901040342
Life can be damned tough, Mrs. Olis; hang in there. This too shall pass.
.
James,
Would you have virtue not rewarded? And don't forget to post that check for $20.
.
Rose,
I liked that link you provided re lung cancer and NAD.
"Tissues at risk for NAD depletion include breast, lung
and skin" ...
"We predict that tissues that
undergo cell division and/or are exposed to oxidative stress
will be at increased risk for niacin deficiency"
It fits with "the disease causes the smoking" hypothesis.
Fredrik
If those studies are correct and I suspect they, then the niacin lotions deliver the protective effect to the place where its needed.
To protect the outer tissues of the lung , you would need a niacin inhaler.
A cigarette, is a rather crude niacin inhaler amongst other things.
"men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer"
No wonder he dropped the survey question.
However, any thin protective film in the lungs can be overwhelmed eventualy if you are constantly breathing emissions downwind from a coking plant.
Using fuel oil to cure the leaves wouldn't improve matters either.
But you were never meant to see all that, you are just meant to look at the smoke.
Ah riiight ...
THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlC.../08/
wtob08.html
Commenting by HaloScan
