"That can sharply increase the risk of heart disease, lung cancer and other ailments, Oropeza told the Senate Health Committee Wednesday."
LUNG CANCER AMONG NON-SMOKERS REPORTEDLY EXPOSED TO ETS IN CHILDHOOD
Author Average RR RR min/max
Correa no statistically significant association
Garfinkel 2 0.91 (0.74-1.12)
Wu 0.60 (0.2-1.12)
Akiba no statistically significant association
Gao 1.10 (0.7-1.7)
Koo 0.55 (0.17-1.77)
Pershagen 1.00 (0.4-2.3)
Svenson 3.30 (0.5-18.
Janarich 1.30 (0.85-2)
Sobue 1.28 (0.71-2.31)
Wu-Williams 0.85 (0.65-1.12)
Brownson 2 0.80 (0.6-1.1)
Stockwell 1.70 (1-2.9)
Fontham 0.89 (0.72-1.1)
Zaridze 0.98 (0.66-1.45)
Kabat 2 1.63 (0.91-2.92)
Sun 2.29 (1.56-3.37)
Wang T-J 0.91 (0.56-1.4
Jöckel-BIPS 1.05 (0.5-2.22)
Jöckel-GSF 0.95 (0.64-1.4)
Ko 0.80 (0.4-1.6)
It seems the Senator has had her own battle with cancer, and we will not ever be saved without her good efforts.
http://www.theksbwchannel.com/ne...625/
detail.html
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/
C...44,1801,00.html
They will never be satisfied or stopped.
Apparently there has never been someone so concerned:
http://dist28.casen.govoffice.co...7-A1993BA80AB6}
~snip~“Unfortunately, it seems more and more these days that it is no longer a matter of whether you will get cancer someday, but when,” Oropeza, a cancer survivor, said after passage of Senate Bill 7. “This measure goes a long way toward ensuring the health of our children and includes an education campaign to raise public awareness.”
Since the Senator is able to ensure the health of children...we have no further worries.
I tell you what I do not know how generations were raised without all of this protection is a....well a miracle. They were raised to be buffaloed by these do gooders.
Sorry tired of being nice.
James where did they find children not exposed during childhood?
The majority of those studies explore groups when more than 50% smoked and the exposure levels were much higher than they are today.
Do you believe any statement describing anyone as not expossed is credible?
Perhaps if citizens in California had the intelligence to check what is happening with lung cancer in their state, they would start realizing that smoking bans do not lead to lower occurances of lung cancer. It seems that the more bans on tobacco you have, the more lung cancer there is.
Soren;
It also seems the more hatred and bans they put in place the more smokers result.
http://www.phr.uwaterloo.ca/pubs...8-17-
288603.pdf
Go figure
Why do these folks always want what went wrong in their lives codified into laws??
Kevin wrote:
"The majority of those studies explore groups when more than 50% smoked and the exposure levels were much higher than they are today."
"Do you believe any statement describing anyone as not expossed is credible?"
You'd have to look at each study individually to see their criteria for exposure.
Whether credible or not was not my point. The majority of these studies have an average RR of less than 1. If childhood SHS exposure is a risk factor for lung cancer I'd like to know what evidence was looked at to make this staement:
"That can sharply increase the risk of heart disease, lung cancer and other ailments, Oropeza told the Senate Health Committee Wednesday."
Kevin,the BELIEF that SHS is harmful is at the root of "mobilizing the general public",so says your link.Now that they have sown the seed to such a degree that the public will inhale diesel exhaust fumes in a locked garage in preferance to a single breath of SHS,THE NEXT STAGE DEVELOPS.These individuals are so psychotic in their belief that they MUST legislate in order to stop death from occuring they are prepared to stretch the truth and even deceive the public they are supposed to serve.The only way forward is to shame these individuals in court by exposing the lies they are proclaiming.And from their all the so called specialists who have so willingly aided and abetted this cause that knows no limits to how low it will sink in order to control a sector of the community.Kalifornication of the facts.
Svenson 3.30 (0.5-18.0 )
that just about covers it.
west
----
James;
Your point is valid, what I am saying the reality is the risk is likely much less. Or at least untill a valid set of differing groups is found to compare the studies are useless along with other studies of this type.
Exactly what Thun stated in response to E&K findings the levels of exposure were higher than realized. This because in CPS1 and CPS11 all the participants were exposed.
I can assure you all the studies, compare those expossed to those not expossed which would hardly be possible then or now.
The possible RRs stradling one makes them less credible.
If we look at the reality as Michael pointed out has never been shown to be a significant risk.
Casual exposure can not be measured even with cotenine markers because cotenene is not permanent. To state anyone who has smelled the smoke is at risk means we are all at equal risk regardless of smoking
a non linear association or as they contend; no safe level exists.
If we know virtually all the subjects both control and case were expossed any result found would be due to failure to properly describe the situation in the epidemiological model.
IE; errors in calculations of confounding effect to find a starting point.
What Michael believes which is much more credible is a linear association exists which describes higher exposures result in increased health effects.
Non-linearity association may be possible however no one to date has demonstrated this to be the case. It does not align with science or timeline observations.
The actual linear risk assessment does not respect those timelines either, when we see a rising disease outcome from a stable cause. The disease rate increased exceeding even the population rise and in spite of medical innovation.
These are contradictions not discussed, which need some resolution in search of credibility.
Think of this;
If the message of TC were one of moderation;
The more you are expossed the higher the risk.
This agrees with the research this also gives smokers a reason to smoke less and smoking less makes it easier to quit.
This allows for known safe levels to be established eliminating un-necessary panic in communities resulting in exclusive descisions.
Smoking bans can be eliminated except by choice of private establishments and letting the market decide.
This allows regulation reducing toxic ingredients.
A Win Win Win Win Win
"If the message of TC were one of moderation;"
Thought about it Kevin. They are not willing to moderate their wallet$. Plus they get the 'ego kick' of controling others. The combination must be simply orgasmic for them.
.
Sunz;
In a successful negotiation everyone has to come to the table in good faith. Everyone has to put aside the animosities of the past and accept the fact no one goes away with everything they want, However everyone goes away gaining what is most important or as close as they can get.
If we approach this in that mindset I believe we can all find a way back to a unified community without the hatred this campaign promoted.
I believe selling the common ground can get us past the profiteers, who will be showcased in the discussions as those most opposed to a community approach.
I would like to see Michael’s perspective on what is being proposed here, and if he believes we could all gain from taking a shot at a more inclusive campaign. Smokers could make much better allies than foes obviously.
The article states that Sen. Oropoza:
"cited a 2006 report by the Harvard School of Public Health that said particulate matter in a smoker's car can be as much as 10 times higher than in a smoker's home."
Since levels of respirable particulates in tobacco smoke pollution are far more concentrated in cars than in workplaces (where smoking has been banned because the levels were deemed health hazards), its only common sense to ban smoking in cars if a child is present.
Mike is inconsistent in arguing that legislation should require all workplaces to be smokefree (even if particulate levels of the smoke are 30 mg/m3), while he simultaneously opposes legislation to protect children from tobacco smoke pollution in cars (that can easily exceed 1000 mg/m3).
Bill - I don't think you're following my argument.
Neither one of you are even willing to discuss my perspective?
Bill wrote: "Since levels of respirable particulates in tobacco smoke pollution are far more concentrated in cars than in workplaces"
Is this in general or in a specific case? Just a last draw on a cigarette or 5 adults smoking frantically and a child scratching the window trying to see through the smoke? Windows open or closed? While driving? Difficult to quantify an effect when the cause is not quantified, isn't it?
"(where smoking has been banned because the levels were deemed health hazards)"
As you say: "deemed", but not proven.
"its only common sense to ban smoking in cars if a child is present."
No, it's common sense not to smoke if a child is present, but if it happens, it's not a crime. There are a lot of things "common sense in life", but they don't necessarily warrant legislation, unless you want common sense to be dictated by government. In this case, don't forget to provide proof that all of our politicians have a master's degree in common sense, no flaws allowed.
Bill, I have a problem understanding your reasoning and your motivations: can you imagine any part of your life without a bunch of laws to tell you waht to do? Can you imagine to decide for yourself in a situation where there is no applicable law?
Benpal;
Doesn't this get boring after a while? If he answers at all you can almost write a Johnny Carson style answer and put it in an envelope. And he will recite it for you
west2 wrote:
"Svenson 3.30 (0.5-18.0 )
that just about covers it."
West, it's actually even funnier than that. It was: .5-18.8
(Those smiley faces pop up when you have an 8 and a ) next to each other)
One other thing to notice from these studies is Kabat's findings. Unless he's a different Kabat than the E/K Kabat, he must have been paid off by anti-tobacco when he got this result: 1.63 (0.91-2.92). LOL
I have asked a number of reporters to join the discussion on this topic. Including the author of the article Michael cited, Hopefully they will bring some comments as well.
Its becoming more obvious that pharma nicotine does seem to have a hallucinogenic effect. Bill seems to be on a constant dillusional trip. He needs to question his dealer on his dose response problems. He seems to have had a black-out on the Docs point.
benpal wrote:
"No, it's common sense not to smoke if a child is present, but if it happens, it's not a crime."
If legislation is enacted to prohibit smoking in cars with children, then it's not only common sense, but also a crime. But the increasing number of laws and proposed legislation make it a summary offense, which imposes modest fines for violators.
Guess I'm really dead then, and not alive..........along with several other baby boomers on this. I mean considering how deadly SHS, and the fact that we grew up being constantly exposed to it (unlike any kid today). Same thing for our own kids, guess they really don't exist either, eh?
How anyone can look at the number of baby boomers scaring the hell out of businesses and the government as we come closer to retirement, and say with a straight face that SHS is a "serious health hazard", is totally beyond me.
Now we know who the really delusion folks are (hint: it's not us baby boomer smokers).
Bill, you don't seem to get my point, either. Anything wrong with you?
Bill,there you go again spouting some nice high figures,that mean precisely nothing.I suppose if i sat in a car with the windows closed and smoked to my hearts content for several days,it could possibly reach the sort of figures you quote without any supporting evidence,maybe not.Bluff and BS again.It clearly proves you try to manipulate the situation in order to slip in those figures to prove your agenda.However,you dropped a clanger tonight,by not fully comprehending the issue is the "immediate" effects of SHS.
What an indepth understanding of the situation from Bill,"if legislation was enacted....".wowee Bill this is the crux of the matter ,i'm waiting for the next thrilling instalment .....nemo31 has got the situation sussed.
Its pretty clear Bill and Michael prefer to dictate our future before any thoughts to participate can be discussed.
Bill, picture this. Hundreds of people traveling by plane and several smoking in the last 12 rows of the aircraft. Flights ranged from 1 to 15 hours, but no one ever had a heart attack or got cancer from it. Now picture a car with the windows rolled down and air blowing into the back seat. Still no danger and no ill effects. I understand your logic though, as you want and need to control everyones life, no matter whose toes are stepped on. There is a medical term for it, seek help NOW. Unfortunately, you can write, lobby for and get any legislation passed that takes a right of a parent away, but it is not going to save a life. Naturally, with your small mind, you won't admit or believe it, but I am patient enough to wait it out with you and finally say, "told you so!"
Bill's so caught up in his own world he probably doesn't know we've been at war for years. Personally, I hope this idea catches on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7033002076.html
How many heads do you want to crack today, Bill?
Kevin-
Sorry, I needed to deal first with Bill's failure to understand my reasoning in opposing car smoking bans first, and also his comment to Josh on another post that speaking out against discrimination by a college is interfering with the autonomy of a college to make its own decisions.
Now, to your comment. To the extent that you are suggesting that smokers, as the "objects" or "targets" of public health policy, ought to be brought into the discussion about these policies, I completely agree. In fact, this is one of the basic ethical principles of public health practice - those who are the targets of a public health action should be consulted. This is not only an issue of ethics, it is also an issue of effectiveness. Policies and programs will be much more effective if the targeted population (in this case, smokers) are directly consulted, rather than merely developing programs without their input.
One of the major things I've learned from running this blog and listening to many smokers is that a lot of our current public health policies and programs are misguided because they ignore the reality of smokers' lives. If other anti-smoking advocates were to take a little time and listen (not just argue) with smokers, I think they would be better informed and better able to develop sound programs and policies that would be more effective.
Most importantly, I think that if smokers can be brought into the discussions, we can come up with a more unified approach that avoids the hatred that seems to have infiltrated into the anti-smoking community.
To tell you the truth, this was in fact one of the very purposes of this blog in the first place. There still aren't many other places where there can be a dialogue between anti-smoking advocates and smokers.
As far as Bill's understanding of my arguments against car smoking bans, I'd be curious to hear Bill's understanding. Bill - could you summarize what you perceive to be my reasons for opposing car smoking bans? I think this will be helpful, because if you are wrong about my reasoning, that could explain why you perceive there to be an inconsistency in my argument.
Thank you Michael. The question remains do you believe a message of moderation based in science is first credible and second a place of common ground we could nurture jointly.
Ok lets put the cart before the horse here.
A question for the smokers;
If it means legitamate dialog free of lies and exagerations.
Would you all forgive Bill and Cathy and others their insults of the past and actively avoid insults through self encouragement and get a dialog started in earnest?
Real participation in your own future.
What I'd like to know is why anyone would put forth the smoking ban in the article and not point out the Senator's hypocrisy.
"She's cancer-free now, but her experience has heightened her interest in legislation designed to reduce exposure to carcinogens." This is in the above posted article and not Doc's)
If she is really so concerned about reducing our exposure to carcinogens one would assume that she is also pushing car bans, plant bans, burning bans (trash etc), burning wood bans, barbecue bans. These are all exposing us to carcinogens, most unnecessarily.
Funny how her liver cancer she connects to smoking. Seems one of the leading causes of liver cancer in the US is cirhossis of the liver. Many causes listed for that too, but none are smoking and most are questionable in their umm morality and legality. Not all though, it can be genetic, but well, I'd like to know how hers developed before she starts attacking smokers. Especially since I have never seen or heard of smoking CAUSING any cancer.
Jelestra;
I belive what you pointed out is the crux of a problem, in narrow scope of vision. Most legislators and those in the public generally believe smoking to be the common denominator when even the most robust numbers indicate the other causes are creating much more disease.
Too little attention is sustaining the problems and making them much more devastating.
Kevin, I'd have to say no. Considering their whole arguement is based on lies and exxagerations, I just can't see it happening.
If it was though (able to happen), I would. If for no other reason to see Cathy actually converse with anyone. (Conversation being an "exchange of ideas and identifying with the other party" not "insisting you are right and refusing to acknowledge facts, or use them").
Many from the other side do not participate because they want to avoid the critisizm making this a place primarily to vent. We could if we were determined make it much more. All it takes is for the hatred on both sides to stop.
Someone has to step out on the ledge knowing others will be there to make sure they don't fall.
That includes all of us on both sides or we spin our wheels indefinitely.
For TC this is a much more perilous endeavor, than for the rest of us, to speak out against the crowd.
If they knew we were onside I would be willing to bet more of them would find that common ground.
The situation we face in this issue has a much broader effect concerning other issues.
Check out the submission at this link and see if anything sounds familiar
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.c...ult.aspx?
ID=788
Mike wrote:
"As far as Bill's understanding of my arguments against car smoking bans, I'd be curious to hear Bill's understanding."
I understand Mike's stated arguments for opposing laws that protect children from tobacco smoke pollution in cars.
Unfortunately, Mike's arguments are totally inconsistent with his arguments in support of smokefree workplace laws, and totally inconsistent with arguments for many other well accepted laws that protect children from other types of harm.
In an attempt to evade the real questions, Bill wrote: "for many other well accepted laws that protect children from other types of harm."
And what are parents for? Do they need laws to protect their children from harms. What a funny world you live in, but then, you don't seem to have children. You just misuse them to support your very personal cause.
Here's my question again: "Can you imagine to decide for yourself in a situation where there is no applicable law or would you be completely lost?"
Kevin,
In all honesty, I don't know. Perhaps if they had room for the words like "reasonable, compromise, fair, freedom to choose, etc" I could.
Given the nastiness that has come from both, not to mention the accusations that we smokers are basically murderers and rapists and child abusers; I seriously doubt that they be reasonable enough to listen and tell the truth.
The lies they believe are so much a part of them, I doubt they'd know what the truth is anymore.
For me, I'm not sure I could trust them even if they said they would listen.
Bill;
Do you view the exposure risk in a linear as in more means more risk or a non linear as in all is dangerous?
Perhaps the perspectives might help you understand what Michael is saying. Long term exposure vs short term higher exposures resulting in less total exposures.
Actually, in some poltical ads, smokers r portrayed as sex offenders. See for urself:
http://i168.photobucket.com/
albu...ingprison02.jpg
Lynda;
Some of them will never learn, granted. It is the ones who are willing to be reasonable I am interested in. Many of them value integrity despite what they are involved in, which partly represents their feelings and at the moment is the only option available.
I believe a new option could find much more support. All it takes is a few discussions between those who can rise above the anger.
The power of legitamate debate joined with respect.
Here's one for Bill.
Parenting involves having both the right and responsibility to set rules. This right belongs exclusively with the parents. The state has nothing to do with parenting at all. - http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/...a/
m.lora33.html
For all the zealous anti-smokers posting and reading here, I want it known that I distance myself from Kevin's point of view. I don't want it ever said "You ALL believe..." and then quote an idea of Kevin's thus lumping me in.
Kevin, 20 years ago your approach might have been viable. Not now. You cannot negotiate with zealots. They want to crush you, not talk to you. In turn, we must crush them.
That you think they want anything less than to reach their smoke-free society is extremely naive if not misguided.
An analogy: Asking your fellow Jews to join in you trying to get a seat at the table with the Nazis and to discuss as equals the compromise. Meanwhile, they are planning the final solution.
Wake up.
Google results in 8,580,000 for SMOKING IN CARS.
According to these people risk does = harm.
I have had people tell me that I should be charged with murder for smoking!
"HEALTH HARM
Recent studies have established that levels of exposure to secondhand smoke inside cars are significant, enough to cause serious health harm - especially to children. See for example Edwards R et al (Oct 2006), "Highly Hazardous Air Quality Associated with Smoking in Cars..." in New Zealand Medical Journal 119(1244); also Rees V and Connolly G (2006) "Measuring Air Quality..." in Amer J Preventative Medicine XX(x) doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.021
A March 2007 study published in the Medical Journal of Australia has shown teenagers risk of asthma is doubled by exposure to secondhand smoke in cars - the University of WA authors backing calls for banning smoking in cars carrying children. See ASH Australia media release 19/3/07 including link to the research
There's a mountain of research on the harm caused to other people by secondhand smoke - see the studies at SmokeFree Australia for starters. There is also much research on secondhand smoke harm to children - see information for parents under Passive Smoke Harms Kids.
You can simulate exposure to secondhand smoke in various types of cars under various conditions at the US site simsmoke."-source
Benpal;
I really enjoyed that,
kind of reminds you though why our kids today will not live as well as we once did.
Well JTF;
If you value the fight forever approach what makes you any different or better than them? Your the one being denormalized because you are playing the game by their rules.
Freedom of the press is limited by who owns the press remember? Have you got a few billion laying around to sit at the same table?
It's much easier to make the grass greener on your own lawn.
Linda what they believe is a result of the quality of information they are expossed to, and their confidence in the messanger. Propoganda works.
What do you believe?
Are they right because of their numbers?
Or are you right, because you took the time to look for yourself?
Kevin, it certainly reminds me that I also sometimes went buying beer or cigarettes for my father. Even at the age of 11, nobody ever asked me what I was going to do with beer or cigarettes.
In todays system, my parents would have had to spend the rest of their lives in prison and I would have grown up in a foster home, guarded by the nannies of gov'ment.
I'm convinced that the relentless and zealous calls for legislation for all and everything are doing tremendous harm to our society.
"what they believe is a result of the quality of information they are expossed to, and their confidence in the messanger. Propoganda works."
I dont think it has anything to do with the information they r given. Its more to do with the prejudice against smoking to begin with. Since they already dont/didnt like smokers, they will drink any koolaid they r given that says "smokers r bad people".
Claude
Prejudice will always be with us no matter how many laws they pass. What is objectionable and needs to be the focal point; is government and the sciences in this case are promoting the prejudice.
We saw the result of the many times this collaboration formed in history.
If we value our neighbors and families, we need to help bring them up to speed on what is really going on.
"We saw the result of the many times this collaboration formed in history."
Heh, ya know, i used to wonder how in the heck did those people pull that off and turn their whole population against another segment of their society. I dont wonder that anymore.
The problem is exagerated with so much cash flowing and too many trying to get rich by taking advantage of others genuine good intentions.
Leadsership in autocratic rule which will attack any alternate opinions, are pretty good indication of the profits based agenda.
"Leadsership in autocratic rule which will attack any alternate opinions, are pretty good indication of the profits based agenda."
Its also the sign of a religion. :-|
What might really be causing kids to get sick more often in present time...
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/
articl...1031002421.html
Claude;
Your link might explain this one.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/c...ci%3b90/19/
1440
Kevin,
If you are talking about people like Dr. Siegel, who possibly can be reasoned with, then I would willingly sit down for open and honest discussion, no problem.
Unfortunately, the bulk of those we would need to talk with are the likes of Bill and Carl and Cathy. There is no reasoning with them, for the word does not exist in their vocabulary, UNLESS your reason is in total alignment with THEIR way.
My distrust of those in public health, government, even advocates is such that even if I did sit and talk with them honestly...........I probably wouldn't trust a single thing they said.
That one does look good, at least from the abstract that i read just now. I cant look at the pdf yet (adobe isnt installed).
Lynda;
There are many even within TC who admire Michael and his stand on integrity.
He did noy take the easier road he took the right one.
He isn't alone.
Most simply are not being listened to if they are not saying what they are being told to say.
I want to meet more of them. We need to let them know they are welcome to express their own opinions without ridicule.
Opinions beyond the rhetoric of the cause.
Hey, I've been saying for years we keep our kids too clean...their immune systems never get a good workout anymore. One day some nasty little bug is going to come along that's a mutated version of something they normally would have developed some kind of immunity to (black flu???) and it's going to wipe us out.Noone will be left but our grandparents...
Anyhow Kevin, yes, when someone is *conversing* and there's an *exchange* of information and no name calling and accusations, it only benefits everyone. If those people want to talk, I'm all for it.
Here is another one which can't be explained in our current environment.
But it seems to fit the same mold.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/
he...L06339920070320
From this link you can see the message of moderation was in the original TC game plan
Somewhere along the way that ideal was lost. At the same time the 20% of future mortality risk was elevated to a current reality.
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/e...en/pr99-
04.html
" Research shows that unless more effective measures are implemented to help the current 200 million European adult smokers to quit or at least reduce their tobacco consumption, tobacco products will be responsible for 2 million deaths (20% of all deaths) each year by 2020. The World Bank estimates that tobacco products cause an economic loss to the world of at least US$200 billion per year. "
Before the drug companies came onboard perspectives where quite a bit different.
Now it seems there is no turning back. A pretty good indication of who is now in control.
Bill-
You seem to be evading my question. I don't really think that you do understand my reasons for opposing car smoking bans, because they are not in the least inconsistent with supporting workplace smoking bans. I think it would be helpful to hear how you interpret my reasons for opposing car smoking bans to make sure we are on the same page. My guess is that we are not. You're talking apples and I'm talking oranges. I'm trying to get other tobacco control advocates to respond to this issue at the same level and terms of discourse, but so far I've been quite unsuccessful.
Kevin-
As I've been finding out, there is a lot more common ground that I have with many smokers and smokers' rights advocates than I ever would have previously imagined possible. But as an insider in the anti-smoking movement, I had been trained not to listen to smokers or to be attentive at all to their concerns. It has been an eye-opening experiene to break away from that brainwashing and actually start to listen. The results have been surprising to me, as there is a ton of common ground. But even where there are disagreements, there is much more of an appreciation of the reasons for those differences in thinking. I like your suggestion. I think it would be difficult to get anti-smoking groups on board. There is too much extremism and hatred of smokers or anything associated with the opposition right now.
Well, Kevin, to answer Cathy's accusation that smoking does nothing but "kill people" we now say it does do something useful: lowers the risk of getting Parkinson's, or in anti-speak-you'll NEVEr get Parkinson's if you smoke LOL
Jalestra;
learn from their mistakes
Never say never
...Too extremist
lol
"There is too much extremism and hatred of smokers"
And that will be their downfall.
The good doctor does post on one of our forums occasionally. We dont bite his head off. We're fairly pleasant to him. Its because he's generally honest (even tho we're on different sides)as opposed to being a foaming at the mouth lunatic like i find so frequently among the anti's. Would be nice if more of them conducted themselves like doc siegel does, but i think that might require sedation.
Claude, Sedation! Does J&J or Merck make a patch for that? They no doubt have a ready made target crowd.
"Perhaps the perspectives might help you understand what Michael is saying. Long term exposure vs short term higher exposures resulting in less total exposures." -- Kevin
"To set the record straight, there is no evidence that brief exposure to secondhand smoke, such as that in a car, sharply increases heart disease and lung cancer risk among exposed children. In fact, there is not convincing evidence that even chronic childhood exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer." -- Dr. Siegel
So unless we're talking about acute effects, then isn't Dr. Siegel saying in effect that smoking in cars is so silly it doesn't even warrant any sane person's attention? At least, it's hard to see it any other way. [But what does he mean with the 'sharply' when he says, "no evidence that brief exposure to secondhand smoke, such as that in a car, SHARPLY increases heart disease and lung cancer risk among exposed children"? Doesn't seem to fit.]
Also, I think we can assume that children living with parents who smoke (as well as even with older siblings who smoke) are exposed to secondhand smoke in the home for 18 or 20 years, before they leave the nest or are kicked out. Now isn't that at about the minimum point in time where it is said long-term exposure MIGHT cause lung cancer or heart disease? So again, according to Dr. Siegel, "there is not convincing evidence that even chronic childhood exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer."
The inevitable question then becomes, What situations outside the home ever even APPROACH the 18-20 year span that Dr. Siegel concedes is not risky for the health of children? Unless, of course, kids are in some way different from grownups.
But I think we have here some sort of a BENCHMARK from the doctor that we can now apply to other situations.
.
Attempting to post mt comments for the third time!
Second-hand smoke hurts everyone, but children are particularly vulnerable,' said the bill's author, state Sen. Jenny Oropeza
Doc, you wrote a nice post about the second part of this paragraph and failed to address the first part. Statements as quoted above are repeated ad infinitum until they have mysteriously morphed into fact.
Even one of our posters claimed that it "just common sense" not to smoke around children.
I ask you all - why?
Pick apart the assertions.
Everyone is hurt by second hand smoke
Here you have to define hurt - don't you think? What is meant by that? If I eat dinner in a restaurant that allows smoking - how have I been harmed? Can you show me the damage?
children are particularly vulnerable
Why? Vulnerable to what?
Start trotting out the damaged children - show me where they are being so greatly harmed that legislation is required to stop the carnage.
"Common sense" tells me that millions of adults and children have been exposed to smoke both in and out of cars with no ill effects. So it makes no sense to me that government attention should be directed to this issue.
I've worked in hospitals since 1974, I have never once seen a case of a child that was sickened because they were in a car where someone was smoking. Not one.
I'm told that I abuse my children because I smoke in their presence. Can anyone out there demonstrate the abuse - except to tell me that "everyone just knows it's just bad for them"?
I seem to recall a time when "everyone knows it's better to eat margarine than butter". I rejected that bit of common sense that became "fact" by constant propaganda as well. Now the same people that solde the message are screaming to get trans fats out of our food supply.
Excuse me if I need evidence and not hyberbole to affect my behavior. I'm certain that it's us resistant subjects that drive the propagandists so crazy they have to make me a criminal to feel better about themselves not any real harm that we have done to anyone.
My "common sense" tells me that you're all blowing smoke - uh - I mean hot air.
benpal.....'I'm convinced that the relentless and zealous calls for legislation for all and everything are doing tremendous harm to our society'
And what they never seem to get is the wrath of all this will eventually get around to them; no one will escape.
BTW---had trouble posting yesterday as well. Two post said they 'successfully posted' and never appeared.
If more public health professionals were like Dr. Siegel, I'd listen; unfortunately, the majority I see are the likes of Bill Godshall.
Dr. Siegel is ethical and honest, which makes all the difference, no matter if I agree or not; those are honest disagreements. I can trust him to say "no more"; in return, I have become more polite in when and where I fire up.
Then there are the opportunists that piggyback on legitimate health issues, like Bill. There is nothing that will stand in the way of achieving his perfect world. Property rights, terms of employment, taxes, public opinion, and science are to be used only when it suits him.
For insulting my inteligence, I have little but contempt for him.
But he doesn't want to prohibit tobacco (de jure): you would be able to buy it, but due to 100 or so laws and regulations, you couldn't smoke it (de facto prohibition). Sort of like Absinthe in the US: you can drink it, but you can't buy it or import it. Cute.
benpal
Like this:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/...how/
119460.html
And they don't think all of this Big Brother dangerous.
Now for NYC (Mayor Bloomingidiot) there is really a 'Food Czar"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/
0...agewanted=print
~snip~
The city, he points out, has had a long history of making people healthier by controlling food. In 1918, the Board of Health condemned oyster beds in the East River because they were contaminated with typhoid. Today, typhoid isn’t killing New Yorkers. Heart disease is
I see a large difference in Typhoid and heart disease---and public healths role in regulation. What say you Doctor.
I also noted what the mayor enjoys in his own home and the difference in his demands for others. Like Bill and all the bully nanny statists----HYPOCRITES!!
"But as an insider in the anti-smoking movement, I had been trained not to listen to smokers or to be attentive at all to their concerns. It has been an eye-opening experience to break away from that brainwashing and actually start to listen. "
Michael;
This is what is really troubling to me; you are saying you were being trained to not listen to smokers at all? What an obscene idealism. It is really surprising with the training of many in the group they could be made to participate so willingly and so absolutely.
This would indicate the many statements they have made declaring a wish to help smokers are entirely fraudulent
Would you go so far as to demonstrate some examples of the brainwashing you were subjected to?
I was actually entertaining the thought of inviting some expressing more moderate statements to join the discussion however I don't know now if that would simply be bringing in a Trojan horse packed with those who would use what they learned to add to the dehumanization process.
Are there any you know who could be asked to participate we could actually trust?
I've visited the abstract of the Connoly paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
Which seems to state that tests were done with windows opened,and closed, and with ventilation on and off, and presents data on the worst conditions , but not with windows opened and ventilation on in the abstract, which is the only part many people ever read.
I have not been able to obtain a copy of the complete paper, but from what I know, I beleive the outcomes with common sense use of opened windows and ventilation in the Connoly paper probably show smoke concentrations well within reasonable limits.
However, in typical antismoking fashion, the data supporting this common sense approach would be ignored, and the usual selective reporting of research used by the antis to promote harassment of smokers is again in use.
It would probably be a good idea, to pass laws requiring that the ventilation be on, and atleast one window rolled down part way when a child is present, but common sense appraoches to regulating smoking fell by the wayside years ago.
As Bill quoted the Harvard school of public health above, ""cited a 2006 report by the Harvard School of Public Health that said particulate matter in a smoker's car can" ( note the use of the word CAN not IS!!!!) "be as much as 10 times higher than in a smoker's home."
The CAN probably refers to the condition of the windows being closed, and the ventilation turned off. But Haravrd conveneintly leaves that qualifier out of it's statement for the expressed purpose of fooling lawmakers into passing ridiculous laws which only harass smokers and do not protect kids from any serious health concerns when compared to the usual situation, where a smoker would have a window opened and the ventilation on just for their own personal comfort, as well as that of a child.
Dave K
Harry;
Correct me if I am wrong here but the "Sharply" descriptor was in reference to an ambiguous claim made by someone else he was shooting down,
The reality is children exposed to smoke even for 20 years in the home is much different from adults in a number of ways. First no science finds an increased risk largely because Kids spend much less time in the home; their metabolism is higher so they purge the toxins much faster.
If we find insignificant increases studying women who traditionally spent much more time in the home than kids with the differences mentioned it is unlikely any effects would be seen in children.
In the outdoors or the amount of time they are actually exposed and in what concentrations or to ETS in cars the total exposure is ridiculously low in comparison to home exposures.
Even with the windows roiled up kids being cooped up in cars is not easy to maintain even if we wanted to. "Are we there yet" or "I need to go to the bathroom" is the favorite escape route.
What the anti-smoking aficionados fail to realize is when smoke becomes accumulated smokers find it uncomfortable too. They are not immune to stinging eyes and sore throats. What that usually invokes is ventilating by simply opening a window and significantly reducing the concentrations The ban fans seems to think smokers deliberately bathe themselves in as much smoke as they can endure which is simply ridiculous.
Total exposure long term sets the only evidentiary level of minor risk. Not minor instances such as 10-30 minutes in a car and certainly not the ridiculous "no safe level exists" as chirped by the SG.
Parents tend to be protective of their own and will not subject children to uncomfortable situations any more than anyone else would.
Women as was pointed out earlier dye their hair and do their nails in the home and kids are no doubt exposed to the fumes, although the toxic mix is known to be much more dangerous than cigarette smoke short term, no risk is recognized because it is short term and is not known to exceed known safe levels.
ETS demonstrates all the tendencies of a linear association and the known safe level is not only possible to produce it would be relatively easy with all the tons of recent research to utilize even in a consistent bias seen, the numbers are still there for all to see. They are just refusing to look at them. It has been avoided deliberately in order to make all the hatred and divisions in communities produced to date possible.
Avoiding the assessment of that standard is quite likely increasing the mortality count.
That is how callous and determined these people have become; smokers and those around them are expendable, the cause is much more important.
Bill's comments argue in the extreme being proposed as the virtual norm.
"Has been measured as high as" does not come close to what is normally observed.
Do we set standards based in the population view, which allows for the worst possible scenario or do we base our decisions on what is normal?
That is the basis for smoking bans in bars and workplaces. Not observed risk but possible risk which takes us to a pretty scary place. Where they can simply imposes anything, which benefits the lobby and which produces more finances to buy our votes during elections in this chaotic downward societal spiral.
Industries selling gasoline who are now proud partners at the WHO can now brazenly declare; according to the World Health Organization [AKA their own words]; all the products we sell are safe and no one needs to concern themselves with any other unscientific opinions.
The Kyoto plan is based in this type of "there is no other valid opinion" methodology similarly fat pandemics and a host of campaigns being produced already.
The bottom line is we all eventually pay for lobby campaigns no matter how well intended. Very few industries will ever be hurt by TC style campaigns, which is why the others are being fashioned to replicate it.
The passing of all costs to the consumer while collecting taxes to sell the politicians will be used until the riots start, or the economy collapses giving them the power to do almost anything without explanation.
Dr. Siegel
thanks for the post setting forth your reasons for starting this blog to begin with.
While I'm not going to name anyone, for years, i've been getting emails from some smoker's rights people warning me that you are just a double agent, and have started this blog for the expressed intent of gaining info on smokers rights people's thinking, to develop more effective antsimoking campaigns by developing more effective counter arguments.
While some may object to my saying this to you in public, the antismoking groups have been visiting these comments anyway, and I'm sure abstracting comments of smokers rights people to develop more effective strategies against smoker's rights people so this is happening anyway.
I have never believed them, but I really think you should more thoroughly describe what you have learned, and what you intend to do with what you have learned in the future. Also, what you still wish to learn about smoker's rights advocates' way of thinking. I'm sure all of us would be happy to provide to you any missing info you wish to learn about smokers rights people.
When I first began to visit your blogs, I beleived you were placing the scientific aspects of the reasons to ban smoking above all else. many of us, myself included, have set forth scientific reasons disputing the very claim that shs harms nonsmokers.
In particular, several blogs over the past few years have evolved into discussions of whether the Enstrom/Kabat study has scientific merit, or not. Others have hammered away about the Bradford Hill criteria. Others have made more general arguments that scientific measurements of any kind should include all sources of error, not just a select few.
Many of us, who post here do have a scientific understanding of basic epidemiology. other are interested in emidemiology but wish to learn more. Debate is the best way to accomplish this. However, your answers have mostly been weak, in those rare instances where you do answer our scientific questions, and dispute our claims that shs is not a hazard.
Many of us are disappointed that you have not addressed our beleifs that shs is not harmful more thorougly. despite a plethora of media claims indoctrinating much of America, as you know, many people including those outside this blog still disbelieve the claim shs is harmful...and for good reason. For example I remember a St. Louis talk show, where people were calling in and saying that if first hand smoking kills fewer than half of all smokers after 50 years that they simply cannot unsderstand how shs could kill anyone. These are things a lot of uninvolved people really think. I also hear a lot of comments from the general public that traffic fumes are worse, so why bother banning smoking?
While all your posts are really informing, and I do understand issues other than sceintific ones need to be publically debated, the core issue is the health effects. And I think you, me, and all of us would learn much more concentrating on this core issue more.
Thanks, Dave K
WAYYYYY off TOPIC..
The Kyoto plan is based in this type of "there is no other valid opinion" methodology similarly fat pandemics and a host of campaigns being produced already.- Kevin
Kevin, on the Larry Kudlow show yesterday, they talked about measurements of the surface temp of Mars which are finding a parallel increase in surface temperature to the Earth's. and now, scientist are beginnign to realize that the solar constant is not constant, and has been increasing output in recent decades.
Of course, in the usual political strategy...the declaration 'The Debate is Over" rings a familiar bell. Why not wait until all the facts are in before destroying our economy to offset what may just be due to normal variations in the solar cycle?
Or "the Debate is Over' according to the Surgeon General, a bit closer to home.
Will we never Learn? dave K
From the Harvard study abstact a clear indication of it's scientific worth and the reason it was produced.
I would have though domestic environments were limited to homes however I suppose some Kids could live in their cars. The question is how many do?
"CONCLUSIONS: Private passenger cars are a domestic environment with the potential to yield unsafe levels of SHS contaminants. These data may assist policymakers and health advocates to promote protective strategies to ensure smoke-free domestic environments for children."
Dave
If you read the testimony from the bottom of this link you can get a pretty good idea how wasteful Kyoto really is. As well as a pretty good assesment of what is and is not a realistic scenario.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.c...ult.aspx?
ID=788
BTW do the mars probes produce greenhouse gasses?
LOL
"CONCLUSIONS: Private passenger cars are a domestic environment with the potential to yield unsafe levels of SHS contaminants. These data may assist policymakers and health advocates to promote protective strategies to ensure smoke-free domestic environments for children."
Anyone who doesn't think that "domestic environment" does not/will not include the home is truly delusional.
I have no children at home and this still scares me. I'm not stupid enough to believe that any home bans will be limited to multi-unit dwellings or homes with children only.
Please, someone just shoot me now. I'm really not sure how much more of this nonsense my brain can handle. Then again, I could just go crazy, be locked up and let all the health freaks pay for my care for the rest of my life, that I would then hope would be a very long one.
Lynda;
Can you immagine anyone so thick as to state the harm from cigaretes in cars with no scientific credibility to demonstarate that risk exists which posses any danger at the exposure levels and duration found.
A professional who reports cars are a domicile, and fails to identify the risk of toxins produced by the car itself, in the evaluation, declaring cigarette smoke to be the only point of concern?
Your not the one going crazy believe me.
It is only a matter of time before TC use is done They can all at that point actually protect humanity in a real way, by drinking the cool aid.
After which we will have the final say'
Smoke them if you've got them...
This is indicative of what Harvard recognizes as science today?
That says a lot about how standards have dropped entirely reflective of the value of a Hrvard education today.
A Rubber stamp for those who can pay for the brand name, with no scholastic value in real application.
I get emails all the time for purchased degrees, which are cheaper by the dozen. I wonder if Harvard is going to get into the same mail order game eventually. It would be fun for say a hundred bucks to get a Harvard diploma in the wall.
Kevin,
Regarding ‘sharply.’ Sloppy reading. Mea culpa. Apologies to Dr. Siegel.
You write that no science finds an increased risk, largely because Kids’ metabolism is higher so they purge the toxins much faster.
So – very important point – that raises the question, if in fact true, as to whether or not Dr. Siegel had that thought in mind when he wrote that “there is not convincing evidence that even chronic childhood exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer” – that is, whether he implied TWO categories of risk. Notice also that he says ‘chronic,’ which would seem to put in question your second point that “no science finds an increased risk largely because Kids spend much less time in the home.”
Frankly I have to question that, since one might believe that what with television, video games and going on the Web the opposite is in fact true. Moreover, I’d make a small wager that kids of yesteryear spent a LOT more time outdoors than kids do today.
“What the anti-smoking aficionados fail to realize is when smoke becomes accumulated smokers find it uncomfortable too. They are not immune to stinging eyes and sore throats.”
Excellent point.
Dave K.,
“It would probably be a good idea, to pass laws requiring that the ventilation be on, and at least one window rolled down part way when a child is present ...”
I can’t believe you wrote that. It seems a VERY unconsidered statement.
.
Harry
I have no doubt Dr. Siegel would argue a few of the points I made as well.
What no one can discount is the fact the majority of smoking related diseases occur after 60 most of the toxins believed to cause those diseases do not remain in the body for indeterminate periods of time which is why they told us for years; if you quit in time your risks would be equal to a non smoker. The idea children can be harmed and their bodies would not also exhibit similar healing [for lack of a better word] Kind of lessens the argument any benefit could be found in quitting doesn't it?
If children can sustain chronic effects from the smoke alone, the much higher volume a smoker inhales of both mainstream and ETS, pretty much kills us off theoretically anyway,
Why should anyone quit?
"CONCLUSIONS: Private passenger cars are a domestic environment with the potential to yield unsafe levels of SHS contaminants. These data may assist policymakers and health advocates to promote protective strategies to ensure smoke-free domestic environments for children."
Translation:
Since we wish to promote smoke-free environments for children because we just know that's whats best for them, we've created the worst data we can that they could theoretically be exposed to and insist that they be protected from our scary "potential" risks instead of the reality that these children are all doing just fine and are not dropping like flies from deadly exposures.
Mike wrote:
"I'm trying to get other tobacco control advocates to respond to this issue at the same level and terms of discourse, but so far I've been quite unsuccessful."
I don't think that other smokefree advocates are going to engage in discourse on these issues after Mike has repeatedly criticized many organizational smokefree policies and local smokefree ordinances, repeatedly criticized smokefree advocates, and repeatedly praised right-to-smoke advocates.
Well then Bill, the latter figure must be zero (thus nobody) unless you can produce the names of the "right-to-smoke" advocates. All I see around here are smokers' rights people. As in the right TO BE LEFT ALONE to smoke.
So Bill ? If the Total Control crowd take umbridge at being found out about their shady science and won't enter into any discussion post the event,it clearly signifies that their professional conduct is questionable.Are they in their official positions to do a job or become demi gods of TC ?Baloney man himself Stanton Glans failed to argue the science behind his disagreement with Dr Siegel on air,a short while ago.His only professional comment was "BALONEY" If do as i say is the ONLY mantra of TC ,then i am of the opinion that they obviously are unable to debate an issue since it cannot hold up to scrutiny,if they have to resort to ducking out.
I think Bill is right. As he states, anti-smoking advocates have no interest in engaging in a dialogue with anyone who opposes any aspect of their position or agenda.
"anti-smoking advocates have no interest in engaging in a dialogue with anyone who opposes any aspect of their position or agenda."
Might this be for lack of arguments?
Bill wrote:
"I don't think that other smokefree advocates are going to engage in discourse on these issues after Mike has"
"repeatedly criticized many organizational smokefree policies"
"and local smokefree ordinances"
"repeatedly criticized smokefree advocates"
"and repeatedly praised right-to-smoke advocates."
What kind of brainwashing have you people undergone?
You can't object. You can't state your mind. You can't criticize. And God forbid if you acknowledge the other side in a positive way.
The real reason there isn't discourse is because the average anti-tobacco lackey isn't smart enough to debate the topic.
Boy! Missed a lot here by missing one night.
KEVIN--
First, I think you're wrong in assuming that at mid-century there was no such thing as an "unexposed" kid. Even if 60% of adults smoked in the forties and fifties, it means 40% didn't, and lots of kids could grow up in a home w/o smoke.
As for other "exposure" (I'm using scare quotes bec. the concept is so foreign) the questions would be where? how long? how much? Kids never went to bars. And those were the days of the "stay at home mom" who actually cooked the dinners. So what's under discussion? "Exposure" twice a month in a Chinese restaurant from somebody smoking a couple of booths away? An "exposure" that itself might be easily confounded with "exposure" to campfires, fireplaces, barbecues, or birthday cake candles. Not to mention the exhaust from the far more polluting cars.
You seem to be buying into the anti's (selective) use of that "everyone was Exposed" thing they only try to use to discredit E&K, and also buying into their "no safe level." Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Secondly, everything the JTF said.
No, I would not forgive Bill & Co nor would I negotiate my civil liberties with them-- or in fact with anyone else. Also, I have to add that your lofty " what a reasonable fellow I am" shtik is really pissing me off. How do you negotiate with people who want your scalp? Give em HALF of your scalp?
BENPAL--
Sorry, I can't even agree that it's "plain common sense" not to smoke around (otherwise healthy) children.
DR. SIEGEL--
You talk about "consulting" with smokers. But as someone who's signed a lot of contracts in my life, I know that "consult" means "we'll listen to what you say and then completely ignore it and do what we want to do." Sort of like those just-for-show public "hearings" where the councils only hear what they wanted to hear to start with and the whole thing's pro forma.
Then too you seem to imply that the fruits of the "consultation" would help Public Health to find "more effective ways" of getting us to do what YOU want us to do. That's still pretty patronizing and parental.
I do, otoh, believe that you've learned a lot from listening to smokers here on your blog and I even believe it's helped to humanize you a lot. And to note that the steamroller smugness of Public Health is counterproductive for both sides. Until Public Health respects the autonomy and dignity of its "targets," and their god-given freedom to choose how they want to live, then nothing will be accomplished and the zero tolerance crowd will be stuck with brute force (the road they're on now) disguised as persuasion.
:
Walt wrote
"BENPAL-- Sorry, I can't even agree that it's "plain common sense" not to smoke around (otherwise healthy) children."
Walt, I agree with you. I meant it in the way Bill must vision it: a child in an airtightly closed car together with 4 smokers ...
I was myself exposed to ETS during my whole childhood. Not that I would have complained.
Harry,
It does get pretty bad in a car with the windows up, and the ventilation off when someone is smoking.
I see your point, from the regulatory view, no one is going to do that anyway, so we really don't need a law preventng someone from smoing in a car without any ventialtion, but given that these silly laws are being proposed ,and passed in some places, IF these laws DO appear on the books, then a reasonable variation would be to outlaw smoking in a car without any ventilation, but allowing it when ventialtion, be it from windows opened or heating/air cond on would be at least an acceptable alternative.
At least smoking in a convertable with the top down should be alowed when a child is present.
In other words, if were going to have laws regualting smoking in cars anyway, then such laws should address the main concerns of the connoly paper, which showed smoke CAN get pretty bad if people did things that in the real world they never do anyway.
However, in the real world, lwamakers never pass laws against things people never do, so the whole argument does default to no law at all is really needed.
That was the intent of my post. Dave K
As for other "exposure" (I'm using scare quotes bec. the concept is so foreign) the questions would be where? how long? how much? Kids never went to bars. And those were the days of the "stay at home mom" who actually cooked the dinners. So what's under discussion? "Exposure" twice a month in a Chinese restaurant from somebody smoking a couple of booths away?
Ummmm Walt, I don't know how old you are, but I was born in the 50's. I can assure you, that up through the 60's smoking was everywhere....including elevators. So, yes, there really was no such thing as UNexposed back then, for at some point everyday everyone was exposed, unless they never ever left their non-smoking home.
"What kind of brainwashing have you people undergone?
You can't object. You can't state your mind. You can't criticize. And God forbid if you acknowledge the other side in a positive way."
I just wanted to highlight James' astute comment. I couldn't say it better myself - (hence I'm simply repeating what James said)
Lynda;
If anyone ever tries to tell you "no safe level exists"
You tell them, they dont know Jack;
Look at precisely that group back in the 60s when virtually everyone was exposed
If you try to produce the cannon of proof in case control studies camparing exposed to non exposed, When everyone is expossed
THERE IS NO INCREASED RISK it is impossible. Because you are comparing apples to apples how can they find a difference?
Only if they are incompetent or simply lying?
Ask a croud today; if anyone in the group knows what cigarette smoke smells like, to raise their hands, Counting hands and defining the expossed "case" group now ask if anyone does not know what the smoke smells like.
How many would raise their hands?
Where is the control group?
"No safe level" is an absolute lie because they can not define a non exposed group for valid comparison. How did they do the studies?
How much less likely was it they found an unexposed control group in the 60s?
How credible were the studies defining the dangers of ETS?
Inconsistencies they will always avoid because if they recognized that reality; smoking bans would be as laughable a prospect as they have always been, made popular today purely in profiteering.
Taking advantage of those in our communities who trust far too much, those who obviously do not deserve that trust.
BTW
If this is all about protecting the kids, ask them to explain knowing the gold standard in none is too much ETS Why is it when they know how many babies die or are severly damged by forced innaoculations every year, why do smokers require a higher level of protection than those babies the Government and the doctors kill every year?
Lynda--- I still maintain there were unexposed groups of kids, except for the most minor and transient "exposure." (As for elevators, I grew up in rural and later suburban CA and rarely even saw one.) Mostly, kids spent their time at home, at school, and playing outside. So I still assert, unless you buy into "ever-exposure" to transient wisps as being "damaging" (and you'd have to include wisps from all other common sources of combustion) , then it's certainly plausible to find unexposed groups.
Then, too, remember that almost all studies of people with only minor exposure show zero effect on heart and lung disease.
:
Walt, i agree.
Thinking back to the 1960s when Im was a teenager, my friends Tim B and Bob W1 Jim C, Phil Z, Pat D etc lived in nonsmoking homes. My firends Bill S, Bob W2 and Tim G Lynda S etc, and and my sister and I lived in homes where both parents smoked. So, the first group of my friends were not exposed in cars, while the second group was. Unlike today, our parents did not drive us everyplace, we ahd to ride bikes, even with bowling balls when we went bowling, which was one of our favorite pastimes.
It is true that when my friends from nonsmoking homes went to malls, movies, bowling alleys etc, they were exposed to smoke, but mostly we played outside, where smoke was not an issue, it is also true that sometimes my friends from N/S homes came to visit in our home, and the homes of other friends whose parents smoked. The only place where smoking was allowed in school was the teachers lounge.
Do all ya other baby boomers remember it this way?
but the point is, that my friends from N/S homes were exposed to lots less smoke than my firends from smoking homes. All my friends were inside their homes about 12 hours a day...sleep about 8 hours homework and watching evening TV about 4 hours, outside play and school the remainder of the 24 hour day. school about 9 hours a day and in the summer when it was most likely my friends from N/S homes would come to visit in my smokig home, the windows were opened everywhere because air cond was not that common in any home.
So while it is true that all of my friends were exposed to at least a little smoke, it is not true that all were exposed to the same amount of smoke, and it is not true that my friends for N/S homes were exposed to lots of smoke.
So, studies on childhood exposure, should show more disease among these now age 50-60 adults from smoking homes than the N/S homes, but this seems not to happen in most studies. and I think it is overall valid to conclude that long term health problems in adulthood due to childhood exposure is not proven to be real. Dave K
Walt, perhaps then it is our definitions of "exposed and unexposed". To me, UNexposed means never exposed, and that is why I say there is no such thing. I don't buy into the wisps and brief encounters doing any harm at all, but to me those brief encounters do in fact mean they were exposed. So without clarification regarding how much exposure is being talked about, I made my statement and still feel that way. Though I do see your point.
Kevin, yes I remember those days well, and yes we were outside more and exposure was less. Given the fact that the number of smokers hasn't changed since then, and the population has doubled, that tells me that MORE children are from NON-smoking homes. Given that more and more places went smoke-free on their own, or had separate smoking areas, these *in the majority* children are really not exposed any more today than the children of smokers in the 50's and 60's. Therefore in MY mind, that tells me that something else is definitely causing all these problems in these kids today. Unfortunately it more than likely is from things that the majority happens to enjoy, like, find useful. Which makes us an easy target. Just like the bully picking on someone smaller than themselves.
Certainly some were less exposed than others most were not. What is being proposed here is “no safe level” meaning no exposure. The home and car bans contend any exposure causes harm. The teacher’s smoking lounges in the schools can be equated to a neighbors smoke. Health Canada is running commercials stating the smoke residue on a child’s toys are increasing their health risk. They are telling people the air was blue in a woman’s condo from smoke coming through the receptacles, disregarding how much air is in the room does that nonsense sound believable. They are banning smoking in parks with the same nonsense,
The studies are not compliant with that level of exposure demonstrated. If less means less affect, the studies should prove that, meaning a linear association. That leaves us with the question why no PELS have been calculated and applied in assessing the dangers, which made smoking bans viable.
They want to have their cake and eat it too. The science cannot support both linear and
Non-liner association so far no non-linear association has been demonstrated.
Doll's research demonstrated acceptable levels are possible giving reason for smokers to quit, why would we not assume the same of ETS?
This is the deal breaker if they admit in public a linear association is viable then it is their own fault the standards have not been established to test ventilation systems with applied science not supposition. If anyone was injured in the workplace because of stoked egos, they are also the responsibility of the agencies that should have been monitoring the levels of safety by measurement. PELS should have been in place instead of running around crying; no safe level, and it is too hard, in service of political goals.
Hi, guys.
What with inflation, this may be more than my two cents worth, assuming I can read my notes...
But I'd like to get to the roots of some of the aspects under discussion.
While those among the aware public, scientists of integrity, and a certain few governmental officials fight for protection against government-endorsed hazards instilled by giant industry in the interest of cost-cutting, increased profit, shares and monopoly, the welter of propaganda attributes the exponential health and environmental effects of these to long-standing personal choices never causing these throughout history.
The Bush Admin. in particular has been highly influential in enabling such tactics on a global basis.
In mid-2005, NASA deleted 'to understand and protect our home planet' from its mission statement.
According to the WHO, industrial and vehicle emissions and the indoor burning of fuels kills more than 4.5 million people annually.
These last two pieces of information and much more - and worse - from
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/mater...ions.htm?
id=608
The people latterly referred to must be non-smokers, as virtually anyone who has ever smoked typically has such diseases automatically and without verification attributed to having smoked, irregardless of multiple carcinogenic and otherwise damaging exposures accumulated throughout his/her lifetime.
This worked well in continuing the status quo when virtually all at-risk smoked to some extent, with the second-hand smoke tactic becoming necessary to continue the strategy as it became progressively more evident that the growing pool of at-risk never-smokers were developing similar diseases at similar rates regardless of tobacco use or exposure.
This astounding degree of protection for toxic industry enables the killing to continue.
And the 'single cause/victim blame' strategy prevents investigation and allows inculcated assumption to supercede science even among the uninvolved.
If there was real concern over, in example, children's health, vocal and well-funded groups capable of affecting legislation would be formed - not over eliminating tobacco smoke exposure while endlessly testing for cotinine traces provided from common foods and beverages consumed daily - but over such issues as those following -
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific...-
emissions.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific...tion-
panel.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific...-
proposals.html
The trend and tactic of distraction are both obvious and enforced world-wide in 'Mini-Me' governance (as with Harper and Blair) and vulnerable countries, while toxic industry gets away with literal murder of a world and democracy is deleted through (illegal) legal precedent by smoking legislation universally declaring citizens both incompetent and unequal, lesser in legal status than commercial industry given control in law of even the most basic of each adult's own individual personal acts and choices.
The pretence of concern over ETS is quite a give-away, considering form so far.
Giant industry is to be protected at public expense, while the long-standing tobacco scapegoat is dragged across the trail on every possible occasion to draw attention off the scent.
http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyb...2/execsumm.php/
Under related documents on the left side of page, see EWG Letters to Chemical Companies and the reply, and go back up to 'Human health problems on the rise' http://www.multinationalmonitor..../
editorial.html
http://www.epa.gov/Region06/6pd/...tos/
asbmatl.htm
Sample list of asbestos-containing materials, 3000 legally unlabelled in U.S., and I've no idea how many legal in Canada, which is evidently aiming at a return to position as the world's second-largest asbestos producer, a position from which it apparently slipped over the last few years.
So much disinformation from so many interested sources, so little time to search for verifiable truth to counter this and survive...
http://www.ewg.org/reports/
asbes...ate20050106.php
http://www.ewg.org/reports/
lungc...ltr20050524.php
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/...%20Nov%
2027.doc
According to calculations given, the number one killer in the U.S. is the health-care system, a high rate of this from adverse drug reactions.
Estimates of deaths from such causes are as high as 999,936, the authors extrapolating from the best peer-reviewed information available, when calculations are difficults as these are often - and understandably - misdiagnosed.
35-40% of autopsies show misdiagnoses contributing to death/with incorrect cause of death given on the death certificate.
Deaths due to medical error are likely to be coded according to some other cause of death.
Heart disease is over-represented as a cause of death and is likely not the No.1 killer it's cast as.
Only 1.5% of all adverse events result in an incident report and only 6% of adverse drug events are identified properly.
Costs for 2.2 million patients with serious drug reactions - $12 billion.
Health status is correlated with socioeconomic status.
(It is generally accepted among independent researchers that socioeconomic status is the single largest determinant of health and life expectancy, with a feeling of control over one's own life and life-decisions another major factor with sweeping health effects.)
'Expansion is the goal of free enterprise.'
(And the enormous profits are never enough.)
The U.S. spends one and a half trillion dollars annually on health care - and understaffing in hospitals and nursing homes causes a massive number of premature deaths, while many Americans cannot afford insurance or medical care.
(The U.S. healthcare companies are spreading into Canada in the expectation of gaining a few billion more, to be drained out over and above our already tax-paid system, gradually shrunken and starved for the purpose of secretly trade-agreed privatization.)
A study of 700,000 children born between 1947 and 1964, at a time of routine x-rays of the pelvic bones of pregnant women, showed a 40% increase in cancer mortality among those exposed in utero.
Medical radiation is thought to be contributing to 75% of new cancers.
100 million premature deaths over the new decade are anticipated due to ionizing radiation causing both cancer and heart disease.
It seems evident to me that there's a lot more behind the smoke screen than a few billion annual dollars in smoking cessation sales.
Big Pharma, producing most of our medical information, is in a position to direct the blame and liability away, and has certainly demonstrated a consistent tendency to alter fact to suitable fiction where interests are involved.
How did various Clean Air Act-type legislation proposed in multiple countries globally, pertaining to industrial air pollution and diesel and other exhaust, get turned into a global smoking ban issue instead?
And how is it that virtually every published study regarding serious health and survival issues becomes converted in the mainstream media into victim/smoking blame, with often only the name of the causal factor altered?
To touch on one of the many issues concealed behind the smoking scapegoat -
http://www.annistonstar.com/show...s-
5i01p3556.htm
http://www.paulsgraham.ca/2007/03/
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/
sea...y=1160817460000
http://
www.ibas.btinternet.co.uk...conf_rep_03.htm
Do continue to bottom: Footnote #29 has Dr. Takala admitting privately that his estimate of 100,000 asbestos-related deaths annually understates the problem by as much as 42%.
And I suspect that's as much underestimation as the original.
Relate the information and characteristics of toxic industry PR propagators to the all-too-familiar anti stance and profile: the true merchants of death also accuse others of what they do themselves.
Having a problem with Explorer, will continue another time.
But this is something to think about and look into.
If we don't do it now, there may not be a later to worry about.
Excellent comment again Ellen,i think the closing statements made in your annistonstar link says it all,how can anyone receive 81 Billion dollars for choosing to smoke.Governments are so pro smoking bans (though panic would ensue should smokers quit big time ) that since they are prepared to ignore and deceive the public over this issue,what they are hiding and never mention must be in the region of multi billion dollars.There is no Government in the world that has nothing to hide.
999,936 DEATHS ATTRIBUTABLE TO MEDICAL MISADVENTURE,yet smoking is purported to kill 440,000 per annum .Now i read into this that the medical profession either are very slapdash or they have a slight problem in understanding what is going on.However,they keep coming out with research that states smoking does this ,that and the other.Statistically speaking ,i think i'll stick with smoking,i've got less chance of the medical profession killing me prematurely.SEE ARTICLE ABOVE,DEATH BY MEDICINE.
Commenting by HaloScan
