"Our smoking cessation plan should focus on motivating smokers to quit, not on getting doctors to prescribe pharmaceutical products and making smokers think that quitting smoking is as easy as popping a pill or applying a patch'
The problem is I am an adult. I am motivated to do many things in life. Preaching, scaring, manipulating, ostrasizing, brow beating will not work either with what I am not interested in doing.
If I want help, I will ask for it.
I don't want help with this.
Do you remember the days when a parent 'insisted' you eat everything on your plate----even the detested lima bean. Still not a lima bean consumer, no matter how terrific they are for me.
I agree Sunz. If and when I want information and help, I will ask for it. Until then, what gives these people the right to assume they can lecture us on something we are not asking for?
We are not children, we know the risks and they are ours to take.
I really resent these people who assume they have the right to force their personal opinion and belief on me without my consent. I don't care how well intended it is.
IF I want the information, I WILL ask for it. Until then, keep it to yourself.
'paid by GlaxoSmithKline to conduct research with them, and has received funding from the pharmaceutical company for this research. According to his disclosure in another article, he "also has an interest in a new smoking cessation product."
Of course this is an effective MIRACLE Product----TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT!
Lynda, Sunz,
Maybe I am being over generous, but when the Doc wrote
Our smoking cessation plan should focus on motivating smokers to quit, not on getting doctors to prescribe pharmaceutical products and making smokers think that quitting smoking is as easy as popping a pill or applying a patch.
I did not take him to mean that people should "motivate" those who do not wish to quit but to find ways to assist those that have already made the decision without pushing them onto NRT.
Although I can see how could be read that way.
Anyway ex that ambiguous paragraph a good article.
I quit for 21 years and a little encouragement goes along way. It's quite ironic that my own Doctor's haste to put me on a prescription drug cocktail directly resulted in two suicide attempts and starting to smoke again. (Don't get me started on Big Pharma, peroxetine,suppressed evidence, Doctor conflict of interest and Governmental collusion)
GreatScot
Off-topic.
Since fresh posts tend to get lost on old blogs, I hope nobody missed Ellen North's late post to the Monday blog ('Trading Small Risk ...'). Being only a rank layman, I can't say I followed it closely, but I do believe I got the gist. Should be read by all, I think. Maybe Dr. Siegel might comment on it?
If there is any discussion on it, I think it should be brought forward, even though the last thing I intend is to give Bill Godshall a heart attack. I'm sure a few whisps of secondhand smoke might do that very nicely.
I am off topic as well.
In an earlier post Dr S said that non smokers ingest up to two packs of cigarettes in a smoky bar. Not according to this pulmonologist.
He says "But even in the smokiest of smoke-filled rooms, nonsmokers inhale only a fraction of one cigarette a day".
http://fredericksburg.com/News/F...dex_html?
page=2
Any thoughts, anyone?
Great Scot,
I see your point, but that is not how I see that statement reading. When I see wording like "Our smoking cessation plan should focus on motivating smokers to quit"
I see that the goal is to convince (more like coerce) smokers into quitting. I say that because the key words there are our, plan, focus, to quit
Had it been worded "our smoking cessation plan should focus on motivating smokers who want to quit to succeed in quitting I might be able to fully agree with you.
You see, we all know the plan is not to help those who want to quit, but instead to try to force ALL to quit and use the pharma product instead.
Hence my not being generous... 
GreatScot,
I had a very simular situation with doctors, their 'studies', and a months stay in the hospital (for a mere $30,000) to correct the problem.
Bottom line, they were s*it scared of the medication I was on and did not want the liability. Nice, isn't it. Long/short...back on the initial med for the past 20 yrs, doing great. This is, in part why, I have little trust in the medical community. When they cannot look at an indivdual but chose the 'study' I'm otta there. BTW --the 'study' has changed several times in the 20 years----(the goofs actually expect me to change what is working so THEY feel more comfortable.I HOLD MY GROUND!!!
That NRT does not work is old news. Please go to Surgeon Generals report on Smoking and Health from 1964, page 354, last sentence.
http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B.../Q/_/
nnbbmq.pdf
"Nicotine substitutes or supplementary medications have not been proven to be of major benefit in breaking the habit'.
Surgeon Generals that have advocated the NRT approach have knowingly been pulling the wool over the eyes of the public for decades.
Colin,
the Doc's friend Martha Perske comments on his early research and alleges cherry picking information before declaring to the world "a matter of life or death"
http://www.forces.org/research/f...les/
cooking.htm
The up to 2 packs a day refers to a selected component within smoke. A component that would require 222,000 cigarettes to be smoked simultaneously within a 100m3 hermetically room to reach the OHSA PEL limits.
http://www.nycclash.com/
CaseAgai...taurantAir.html
Thus, Siegel maintains that for one single constituent (benzo(a)pyrene) which had never been measured in either study he cites, bar workers may inhale the cigarette equivalent of, vaguely, from half a pack to two packs a day. Of this one single element If they were, in fact, exposed to over 3,000 cigarettes. In bad ventilation, with the hamburger grill on "high."
GreatScot
Hary---Great info from Ellen North.
This will give me reading for the weekend.
Ah...that's an oldie but goodie, eh. The 1964 SG report started it all. It was interesting that 11 of the 12 Docs who edited the report were smokers. The SG at the time, Luther Terry, smoked but peer pressure forced him to quit: "Luther, no longer can you smoke cigarettes, even in the closet. He went cold turkey."
The HBO special on addiction might as well been a promo for big pharma. The only people being "treated" were using one drug or another to get off another drug. What a business 
Ellen's post does make a case that diesel fuel seems to be getting a pass. The first article "Dirty Diesel" states that people who are regularly exposed (to diesel fumes) have a 30% increased risk of lung cancer. This is similar to the same figure that at least 29 ETS studies came up with. (yes I read the post that at least one pulmonologist says 30% isn't too bad) The lung cancer rate for smokers themselves is anywhere from the lowest figure of 300% to a high of 2000% higher than nonsmokers. Still, if I was working at a toll booth, I'd be all for hydrogen fuel...and I'd try NRT.
This smoke issue (what's worse) also has been studied a lot over the past 50 years:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi...int/9/9/
861.pdf
Here's the gist:
"Hammond and Horn, themselves smokers,
were skeptical of earlier case-control studies (17–20) that
implicated cigarette smoking as the major cause of lung cancer.
They believed it equally plausible that automotive exhaust, dust
from tarred roads, and/or air pollution from coal and oil furnaces
were partly or wholly responsible (14). However, after 44
months of follow-up, the increase in death rates from lung
cancer, coronary heart disease, and all causes in cigarette smokers
compared with lifelong nonsmokers (15, 16) persuaded
Hammond and Horn to stop smoking and to focus ACS attention
on tobacco. Strong and consistent evidence from subsequent
ACS cohort studies has sustained the organization’s
50-year commitment to tobacco control."
Lung cancer rates in all countries are highest among smokers regardless of their diet, car exhaust exposure, radon exposure, chernobyl and other nuclear reactor failures, burnt vegetable oil or even cat litter. Benzopyrene isn't too good no matter if it comes out of truck exhaust or a nicely formed smoke ring.
Colin:
Nice article -- and from a lung man.
I especially liked the information on the SG's report. Science pimping The Cause.
Yes of course geo,it must be smoking,i never realised you were a chemist ,physicist,biologist and numerous other specialisms.,all rolled into one.Oh i forgot,he Tobacco Files from 50 years ago told you.
I agree with Mike's posting and John Polito's criticism of NRT clinical research studies. Cold turkey is just as, if not more, effective as NRT for smoking cessation.
But NRT products are effective (and generate far more revenue for drug companies) as short and/or long term nicotine maintenance harm reduction alternatives to cigarettes. If drug companies put more nicotine in NRT products and if they advertised NRT as a harm reduction nicotine maintenance alternative to cigarettes, NRT could be as effective as smokeless tobacco products are for harm reduction nicotine maintenance.
But drug companies cannot legally say those things because the FDA has only approved OTC sales of NRT products for use as short term (10-12 weeks) smoking cessation aid.
I also collaborated with Saul Shiffman twenty years ago, when he and Tim Kline modified the American Cancer Society's Fresh Start cold turkey smoking cessation group program and facilitor trainings, for which I served as administrator.
Benzopyrene isn't too good no matter if it comes out of truck exhaust or a nicely formed smoke ring
What if it comes from barbecued or smoked meats (it does). How about the benzopyrene in wood smoke? How about in marijuana smoke?
1 kg of charcoal grilled steak may contain as much benzopyrene, a powerful carcinogen as in the smoke from 600 cigarettes. Scientists of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, engaged in a 5 year project cooking thousands of of pounds of hamburgers to see what toxic substances are produced in the overcooked meat, identified at least 8 chemicals which are linked to cancer and chromosome damaged.
Wow, BAN STEAKS!
Wow, BAN STEAKS!
OK, Jalestra, I usually agree with what you have to say, but THIS just goes TOOOOOO far......hehehehehe
I like my beef (steak, burgers) rare, and don't cook them well done, so is that safer to eat them then?
Michael;
Not wanting to rain on your parade on this issue in the least.
[BTW I wish to decline the offer of assistance with my smoking as well if I may, unless you have a light my lighter died]
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
ful...757C0A9649C8B63
No one likes to be criticized especially if what they believe is entirely consistent with their education. Peter Gotzsche although he adds to your observations of the obvious deficiencies in clinical trials. He also has some definitive views of what you believe is evident in observations of placebo effect. The effect of swamp gas is mentioned. Reflective only of a previously unknown and major flaw in the recording system. You know the depository of Common Knowledge which drives your belief in the numbers from which you calculations and estimates are formed.
His response at the end of the article reveals why he could really have such adverse opinions in respect to consensus science and its findings in the rest of the world.
Take away the conflicted self serving numbers and you see life in a whole new light.
Hey, they come after my meat and I'm getting out the shotgun LOL
I hear that Jalestra. Mine's all cleaned and ready to go.......hehehe
Dr. Siegel's acceptance of personal motivation being the overwhelming factor for stopping to smoke (I hate the word "quitting" -- as if smoking only has one right outcome: quitting) is helpful in getting back to the old debate of "70 percent of smokers say they want to quit." To which I've always argued that that figure is based on a half poll question. The part that is missing is "Why?" And that if asked "why?" most would respond, "because I'm supposed to," not, "because I want to."
And so with such a dismal success rate -- what is it? seven percent? -- then it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that only 7 percent -- the ones with an underlying true personal desire to stop -- of the 70 percent really mean they want to stop smoking.
To sum it up another way, another tool (the 70 percent claim) of the anti-smokers to influence the law to let them wield power over "those smokers who need our help" is shown for propaganda it is.
Correct me if I'm wrong; but isn't there a thing called the placebo effect to figure into this as well?
Isn't this where if you believe something will help you it will? There have been cancer cases etc. that have been cured just because the people think that the placebo is doing it (although it was only sugar).
That would also "play with" the numbers, wouldn't it?
Lets just ignore the fact that quitting is a word that means longer then 40 weeks; quiting forever usually means forever not 40 weeks.
Coming back to the Doc's "up to 2 packs a day" for hospitality workers.
1 kg of charcoal grilled steak may contain as much benzopyrene, a powerful carcinogen as in the smoke from 600 cigarettes.
Could the emotive testimony have been?
" Sir, I urge you to pass this proposed law banning smoking in all hospitality venues. It has been scientifically proven that hospiality workers, in unrealistically smoke laden, no ventilation venues are been involuntary exposed to benzopyrene, a powerful carcinogen.
This exposure level has been calculated, and confirmed to be the equivalent of grilling 1/15th of a kg of steak. Yes Sir thats right 2.4 ounces of steak and remember this exposure happens each and every shift they work."
GreatScot
More on topic. From Marcus' blog.
This recent RWJF grant says it all:
Improving the potential of U.S. quitlines to capitalize on tobacco policy control success
Grant Detail:
$399,925, (awarded on Nov 14, 2006, starting Dec 15, 2006 ending Dec 14, 200
ID# 58531
Grantee:
North American Quitline Consortium http://www.NAQuitline.orq 4142 East Stanford DrivePhoenix, AZ 85018-1657(602) 595-3273
Contact Information:
Linda A. Bailey J.D., M.H.S. (Project Director)lbailey@americanlegacy.org Phone: (602) 595-3273
For a time, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation tried to keep a low profile regarding their role and purpose for funding smoking ban efforts. With the grant information above, RWJF seems to be making a bold new statement......they no longer are hiding their method or motive for funding smoking bans.......it's all about the profit for them and their parent company Johnson & Johnson. (RWJF owns 80,000,000 shares of J & J stock, a $5.4 billion holding)
and
Active Grants
Tobacco Use & Exposure
Project:
Eliminating smoking in rental housing units
Grant Detail:
$74,901, (awarded on Dec 1, 2006, starting Dec 1, 2006 ending Dec 31, 2007) ID# 59343
Grantee:
City of Portland
389 Congress Street
Portland, ME 04101-3509(207) 874-8449
Contact Information:
Tina H. Pettingill M.P.H. (Project Director)
thp@portlandmaine.gov
Phone: (207) 874-8449
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/g...=59343&
iaid=143
Pro-smoking ban activists and complicit lawmakers have created an unstoppable corporate welfare monster which no longer is bound to adhere to any private property rights. Your property rights are free for the raiding, and many lawmakers are only too happy to oblige.
Sorry I can't put my thoughts into words.
GreatScot
GreatScot;
In your earlier post you refered to the 7 percent figure it is actually point seven percent decrease in smoker prevalence compared to population total. Which in fact aparently represents only population growth. Numerically smokers numbers did not change.
In case you missed this from an earlier thread.
Bill joins with Michael in dispelling the myths of TC. In fact if you look closely at his favorite research paper he makes a much bolder statement. He contends in the study just as many smokers are numerically smoking today as smoked in 1960.
Playing with the numbers seems to indicate all the efforts of TC over the years has been largely ineffective. TC may have in fact increased the number of those who start smoking or they are lying about the mortality figures I can;t decide which more closely represents their tenancies.
Bill reveals we have as many smokers today as in 1960 around the time the SG launched TC on their long and tremendously complicated and vastly expensive road.
Think about this one for a moment. The same number today would entail those who started would have to be exactly equal to a combination of those who quit and those who died?
We know two of the components the third would have to be the level of success in convincing people to quit.
The balancing act
total new smokers = 450,000 + [number who quit]
By their own exaggerations of smoker related deaths? The higher the mortality figure goes, decreases their own claims to success if any effect effect was seen at all. LMAO
What about it Bill did your research reveal is TC lying to the American public or are they simply ineffective.
Michael;
This is perhaps one of the most important questions asked of you in these threads. I really would like to know your honest feelimgs here. Denials just won't cut it in parroting others. How do you feel?
Your realization from this thread says a lot.
" - which is that smokers must be highly motivated if they are going to quit successfully and long-term.
In other words, smokers are not going to quit unless they really want to quit. "
The main thrust of TC is embodied in the experiment; to change the balance and hopefully create the "want" in smokers to quit.
Focusing on that word "Want" entirely embodied in choice which by design, the effort will fail in its objectives if you fail to create the "WANT".
Does it make sense to you those who are among TC, who by imposition and hatred expressed, only succeded in creating oposition the opposite of "want"
Question;
Does creation of opposition as you witness in these threads and growing universally, truly aid the Public Health innitiative, or does it in reality only favor Big Tobacco and their competition in Big Pharma?
The numbers of those classed as addicted to both have risen.
What is your prime directive?
Do no harm, wasn't it?
Isn't it time to re-asses the situation before it gets even more out of hand?
Conspiracy theory is also on the rise, with a solidifying foundation in reality;
The World Health Organization following other UN agencies, made a conscious decision to ally itself with the forces motivated by greed as opposed to the original mandate upon which it was formed;
An alliance with communities to protect them from those who would do them harm.
We have all as a result of Public Health making a deal with the devils been depreciated. The protections they once had a hand in control, are now in complete control of the charity foundations promoting only more greed.
Here is some interesting discusion from the most promiment of partners in TC. RWJF on selective eugenics.
Re: poly: Heinleinian eugenics
Carl writes:
>It is of interest to consider what traits are worth selecting for. ...
>(3) The trait should not be a positional good. ... Better to just
>not let it get started by banning selection for height.
This is a solid argument, but the tricky part is that most goods that
have a positional component also have substantial functional components
as well. So as usual, "where do we draw the line?"
Height is attractive not just because of the possibility of a job as
a basketball player, but mainly because it is a signal of health and
nutrition in childhood, which correlates with lots of desirable
characteristics.
We already have a vast number of positional goods which we do not now
ban efforts at attaining. I think we need to better understand this
behavior before being very confident of the value of analogous bans
in new areas such as genetic choice.
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-8614
http://mindstalk.net/polymath/po...lyarc/
0366.html
I would really like to know how Michael stands on creating health by selective breeding.
In playing God issues, now that communities no longer have any control.
Industry has a free hand in devising Morality and ethical values in determining how far we will go.
TC gave them that power.
UN-compassionate Gods, now walk among us.
Kevin asked: "Does creation of opposition as you witness in these threads and growing universally, truly aid the Public Health initiative, or does it in reality only favor Big Tobacco and their competition in Big Pharma?"
I think this is a very good point. I do think that public health messages can sometimes alienate people rather than resonate with them. In this case, I do think that the enmity that is being shown to smokers will result in many smokers becoming less, rather than more interested in quitting.
Kevin insultingly wrote:
"What about it Bill did your research reveal is TC lying to the American public or are they simply ineffective."
The lies are only in Kevin's delusional conspiracy theories.
It is a commonly known that there have been about the same number of cigarette addicts in the US during the past four decades.
It appears that Kevin doesn't realize that that US population has increased by about 50% during that same period, which is why the smoking rate has declined during that same period.
Bill ,why are you so upset about a question ?Your answer ,i believe confirms what Kevin was saying,namely that the quantity of smokers has remained identical to 40/50 years ago.You've proved his point,as such how on earth can he be insulting your exalted highness of Tobacco Control.
Actually, Kevin has pointed that out numerous times..you just didn't pay attention.
So therefore, smoking has not declined in the slightest. It is the same now as it was then.
Bill No insult was intended or offered
I just presented the facts in total agreement with your own research and by observing the numbers; a quite reasonable observation was formed.
If you have a constant result, with changing components in order to remain constant the variables would have to be inversely proportional,
IE; values moving in the opposite direction of the movement of the other number.
If more died less quit to result the same total in offsetting how many started.
How that is insulting I can not fathom.
I asked you in order to get your interpretation of the real numbers.
If not pointing out the inadequacies of TC what are you demonstrating here?
Excellent point Dr. Siegel, and I don't think this is as much an astute revolation as one might think.
I believe within many individuals within tobacco control, have fallen prey to the efforts to denigrate smoking and misdirected their attention to smokers as being the enemy.
In some they hold the enemy to being the tobacco industry (rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter), but see tobacco consumer as keeping the industry in business, and have projected that hatred to the consumer. All the while creating lucritive tax dependancies for which public sentiment doesn't want to give up for the continued consumption of tobacco in order to punish the consumer.
The time has long since past to begin to look for new strategies where smokers aren't vilified.
BTW Bill;
My interpretation [and please correct me if I am wrong here] is the population has doubled in the past 50 years not as you indicated increased by 50% but 100%
150 million in 1957 to 300 million in 2007
Is that at least correct, without insult?
Bill;
Can you explain to me by observing the same numbers the following is not correct.
1957 population prevalence was over 50%
Today close to 20% a decline of 150% from 50-20
If smoking causes 20% of total mortalty today by inversion we find smoking would have to be responsible for more than 50% of total mortality in 1957.
With a constant cause we need to see a constant effect!!! Time line demonstrates the assessment of smoking relation to be inaccurate and by a considerable margin.
As smoking prevalence numbers declined we should have observed at minimum a 50% decline of smoking related diseases. Without even taking into effect the advances in medical science.
We in fact saw more than a doubling and in some caregories close to quadrupling of individual disease categories. Rising more consistent with population than remaining as a constant in relation to the actual number of smokers. Regardless of how long diseases take to develop, because non smokers would not have ever smoked those diseases would be eliminated immediately with population increases in non smoking categories.
What I conclude from these observations is at minimum 50% and as many as seven of eight smoking related diseases and mortalities are not caused by smoking at all.
Without insult, show me where my numbers and observations are wrong.
If anyone believes 450,000 people die every year, because of smoking alone. we would also have to believe with the same number of smokers; 900.000 died anally in 1957?
Believe what you will Bill, I am only presenting the facts, your own research confirms.
Call it denial or conspiracy if you like I could claim the same thing with considerably more reliable numbers.
I am only trying to understand what is presented, and as I demonstrated your numbers despite how many agree with you, sound a little hard for most of us to believe.
What kills me in Anerican reasoning pool so many would like to see the end of George Bush.
If my numbers were demonstrated to the public in the media the "reigh of terror" would come pretty quickly to an end.
Ending the war in Iraq and the state of fear which promoted it.
Boy, the arguments got pretty quiet from the other side all of a sudden. haven't you found anything yet?
Allow me to make your arguments for you Bill, and disagree if you like.
You in fact should be supporting my numbers, if you need to validify ETS
in support of the bans, mortality risks have to balance [and you can ask an expert if you like] By reducing the effects of primary smoking in the population model you would be required to adjust the ETS calculation model, to offset the variances. This would in fact grow the ETS health risk tremendously much more than doubled.
The questioning of those involved in the surveys would have to be inaccurate because of the previous confidence in the smoking related numbers. With the new realization panic would set in and would find substantial adjustments, focusing on ETS as the culprit would establish ETS as much more dangerous than any of us could have imagined.
Although you may get away with this argument temporarily, Time Line observation would be again your worst enemy.
Care to comment?
"Coming back to the Doc's 'up to 2 packs a day' for hospitality workers" -- GreatScot.
Some of us -- or perhaps it's only me -- are still waiting for Dr. Siegel to give us some science on the health risk associated with the 'up to 2 packs a day,' meaning 'up to 2 packs a day' solely of the two chemicals he mentioned. If there's any way to get at the answer to that question without bringing in PELs, I don't know what it is.
Remember, that Dr. Siegel put this out in the public arena, and that makes his responsibility for it all the more intense. And I think that means he has to justify it; else we're justified in concluding that it's just another piece of TC propaganda.
.
Talk about motivating smokers to "want" to quit, do you really believe that banning them from vitually all public life generates a truly spontaneous desire to "want" to quit? (Do you believe banning Jews from public life would make them "want" in their souls to convert to Christianity?)
In line with Harry's request for justification, I also request justification for the notion that exposure to ETS "causes" ear and respiratory infections in The Children.
From Dr. Siegel's own study, "Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and health effects in children: results from the 1991 National Health Intrerview Survey." Tobacco Control, 1996; 5
Using data from the eponymous source--which itself was based only upon telephone interviews -- adjusting only for "age, socioeconomic status, race, family size, sex, season and region of the country," the authors came up with this-- statistically insignificant weak associations:
Children exposed to smoke v. those not exposed had a higher incidence of acute respiratory illnesses [presumably colds, ear aches etc] --RR 1.10 (0.95-1.26); and of chronic respiratory diseases-- RR 1.28 (0.99-1.65). They also had, "on average," 1.87 more days of restricted activity (0.20-3.45), 1.06 more days of bed confinement (0.20-1.92) and missed 1.45 more days of school per year (0.40-2.50.)
(That's 1 1/2 extra days of missed school! Or 1 1/2 more days of missed school than among the children of nonsmokers. Hardly "child abuse," even if true, and RR 1.1 w/o statistical significance is hardly a mortal peril-- or even a minor peril.)
The authors do add that since the confidence intervals "included unity...chance cannot be ruled out as being responsible for these findings."
A critic might also add that this data, weak in itself, was elicited on the phone (with all the pitfalls thereof, including faulty recall and a desire to be perceived as a "good"/ considerate parent--especially among smokers-- by claiming one always keeps the sniffling kiddies at home) and that other important confounders-- like family health history, day care, and diet-- were not factored in.
Nonetheless, the study confidently concludes that "ETS exposure in the home, which is completely preventable, is an important predictor of increased morbidity in children." and that "a portion of" these illnesses can be prevented by ...eliminating exposure to ETS."
The esteemed Martha Perske deconstructed this study, somewhere on forces.
:
Harry;
No disrespect to you but can't we just stay with this until we get one answer. first? Before we move on to your issue?
I can give you similar and logical calculations in reducing the Repace theories, to very poor in fact amateur estimates in the true volumes he presents if you like. Been there, done that over a year ago.
He and groups who make public statements parroting his political assessments refuse to discus fundamental and glaring inaccuracies with me as well. I do notice of late he has been toned down considerably.
His followers simply call me a liar, and tell me I am living in denial, yet true to form can not explain why; what I demonstrate is wrong.with such obvious proof I am not wrong.
The previous posts concerning Freudian projections perfectly describes as you saw right here in Bill's reaction. .Internal defense kicks in and anger takes them out of logical discussion, with words like liar.
When you are faced with reason which conflicts with everything reasonable in balancing your life it scares almost everyone.
I figured this out last year when the Leafs who I in denial, had convinced myself should win the Stanley cup.
I started yelling at the TV [irrational at best], using words for the ref, like liar, blind and who is your bookie. When in fact I had been the one not being truthful, it was me who had been betting on the game because enthusiasm had made me blind.
I would feel bad about it if it were not for observing the fans in Ottawa who really beat themselves up every year over a team with absolutely no heart or history. LOL
Kevin (I assume that's you),
Well, I have several issues -- and surely a quiet blog weekend is the time to get them out. And frankly, I think if we stuck to one issue at a time as Godshall would like us to do, we'd never get any answers, which is perhaps what Godshall has in mind. Not that we're getting any answers now!
And you'll have noticed that Walt's 4:17 posting, which you might have a similar quarrel with, beat you out by 2 seconds.
Further thought: I hope you're not comparing in any way Repace with Dr. Siegel.
Walt;
The studies if utilizing an epidemiology model can not be more than political in nature and no one ever wins that battle.
In use of pure reason none of the ETS assesments can pass the slightest of valididy tests.
Put them back into the proper perspective and Common Knowlege puts all these argumants to bed,
Politics is the oposite of Science and discovery, when people confuse Theory with Observation al hell breaks loose.
You start kicking drinkers out of bars, telling others how to raise their kids and attck the integrity of anyone who does not sing in tune.
Not a place I want to live.
Harry;
I did manage to get Bill to speak, I am just trying to determine if he is debating or cheer leading.
Leave him to me and I will join you directly. Your points are just as important I am with you completely.
Apologies to all who may take me the wrong way here.
Not dominating just trying to continue the debate, if others have the integrity to put their arguments into the light and prove me wrong.
Lets try it on Bill's terms and see if he has any thing to offer at all.
BTW Harry;
I have seen the research Michael is refering to with the 2 packs number. He is likely searching for it I can't find it either at the moment.
It is an argument which relies on Repace estimates and volume estimates establishing immpvable norms in a bar or all bars which is pretty rediculous in itself.
Repace establishes concentrations of smoke in ambient air as simply an inverse association with the number of smokers in the room assuming all smokers are chain smokers who neber take a break or leave, the size of the room and chamging air exchange rates have no effect.
Basically bunk.
Harry,Walt i've tried to bring together your earlier comments in my comment earlier today on the "wall street" thread.I still await an answer from Dr Siegel.Please add your comments.
So Bill;
As I demonstrated your numbers completely destroy what is commonly believed in Public Health.
Are you willing to state your research was flawed or is TC flawed? A simple question
Michael at least took a shot at it in the past, although I demonstrated the 30 year delay is not realistic in explaining the situation.
Do you have anything to say or shall we assume it is you who are lying and not me as you proposed.
Waiting....
Walt's reposting of the study results speaks volumes. It's the hard proof that's been missing in much of the discussion on those poor poor children and childhood ailments that we've all argued are the nature of being a child more than anything when one gets something like an ear infection.
That's some of the weakest evidence I've seen in any ETS study! Look at how all the RRs not only stradle 1.0 but just how far below! This (all of it) is the undeniable knife in the heart.
Kevin, with all due respect, you have been off base thinking the matter of ETS can be divorced from the battle... just because YOU have decided the only way to address it as nothing more than slick advertising. As if you saying or acting as if it's so then the entire world who has accepted it as gospel will suddenly see the light and give in and smokers -- who produce the smoke -- will be free to enter back into public places. Proving it's the smokers that have been harmed without also being allowed back into society is a nice start but falls far short of victory.
It may be slick advertising but they've harnessed it and it's the monster that has put us in the position we're in now. We have no choice in this matter. It's the one monster we have to beat down, not wave it off.
Walt,
Is this what you refer to?
(scroll about 1/2 pg.)
http://www.nycclash.com/
CaseAgai...taurantAir.html
JTF you miss the point, It is fear for the sake of fear with nothing else to say
Test them on It.
So called health care authorities? All seek the word of the prophet when confused, and that takes weeks to have the meeting and decide what is permissible speak. You can think on your feet, I presume confuse them by going away from traditional topics and watch them sweat. Stuttering and steamering panicked for anything to say. So out comes the liar and conspiracy nut speeches for lack of anything else they can find in the holly texts to match the situation. Total robots and your playing solitaire with the only opinion at the table.
Incredibly your loosing the argument!!!
Now look at what I am proposing;
We are consistent, credible and rejoined with community who realizes smoking is not the only fear they use to stuff their pockets. We are seen as a separate species, when people see real faces and hear smokers do care about their children the situation quickly changes.
ETS is only possible because smokers along with everyone else makes it real. Now only smokers keep it alive. You are your own worst nightmare. It isn't any more dangerous than outdoor air. haven't we rehashed the same diversionary bones enough times to make gravy and move on.
Bush and his war, Kyoto, Fat pandemics, Flu pandemics, Mad cow, SARS, Tricycle helmets, Seat belts, drunk driving, dead beat dads, Smoke detectors and alarm systems all around
Promoted with fear and in turn made a lot of companies a lot of money investing in selling those fears.
Move on and actually say something, like "I don't believe it" Your saying i don't believe the numbers because they are too low that is a reason to inspire debate "I don't believe it" says a lot more when you say "those people are just taking advantage by exaggerating" it puts the proof back on them to prove they are not. Why are you defending the smoke? it stinks so what? so does diesel exhaust and no one is baning that.
"I make decisions based in proof", show it to me so I can see it for myself. It doesn't seem what they are saying appears to match what is actually happening. They write the description in Latin so you have to depend on their word to do the translation [Job security]
Stop legitimizing them and make them adhere to your agenda for a change
They won't make much of an opponent when dragged out into the light.
Ask any Gay person how much their lives have changed recently. They used to get away with the research about Gays at one time too. Todays it's like it was never written.
Walt;
What would you expect research to conclude when the researcher made up his mind before he started the work?
I would categorize the research on ETS as follows;
The lowest numbers demonstrte a fence sitter who wants to protect himself should something go wrong.
The larger numbers would be those paid to express an opinion and could care less about caution, they can afford to purchase integrity.
All fraudulent and all meaningless would you take a look at what I demonstrated as proof and tell me I am wrong?
or
Tell nme how your statements or arguing the semantics says something more difinitive, the public can understand and buy into, than what I said simply put...
"I don't believe you" Or "you are just taking advanyage by scaring prople."
Harper's speech today said he is buying in and he makes it sound easy.
"we need to understand the words of Lobby groups are not the voice of the people".
"Working people are too busy trying to work and pay the bills to Lobby government."
We have to consider the voice of a few hundred while protecting the rights of tens of Millions.
"We have to fear what is said at kitchen tables, much more than we have to fear what is said at boardroom tables."
Run with it, oportunities like this don't last.
Dont be surprised when it pays off if you don't hear identical euphenizms expressed in the US election race.
It is the perfect political storm.
Kevin, I do not miss your point. I disagree with it. I've disagreed with it every time you said it (point being it's hard to not get it when it's been repeated so often). That's all. No need to convince each other with argument. Matter of fact, you've had the chance to argue it plenty so feel free to feel that I'm the one not backing up my opinion. It's just that I think time could be better spent.
I Agree to disagree then, and we move on.
or stay put depeding...
As for the ear infection, while plausible, the results speak volumes.
And speaking of volumes, I'm sure if we did a study on iPods, we'd find that children who use iPods or other personal music players suffer from a much higher rate of permanent hearing loss than those without music players.
Ear infections represent one of the most common childhood conditions, by selecting this type of malady, even as small a number as 10% represents enormously large numbers when applied to the overall prevalence. This I believe is one reason it was selected for study.
I'm not questioning your integrity Dr. Siegel, but more so questioning the integrity of those using your research, in their attempts lock up parents who smoke in the presence of their children. Please feel free to elaborate on how ear infections became the subject of study.
When the case against second hand lung cancer failed to produce huge numbers, attention was turned to find a disease with huge numbers, to which even small increases in risk represent tremendous body bag counts.
Also, multivariate analysis with small percentage differences can be easily manipulated by the inclusion and exclusion of confounding factors.
Nearly all these studies have one thing in common, the purpose is not to have a better understanding of the condition, but rather to support propaganda to promote legislation.
Case in point, how many times do you read about the number of second hand smoking related ear infections, rather than the increase in relative risk, and most oftenly presented as this was a counted diagnosis, rather than a projection based on weak association.
Propaganda, plain and simple, as it is being used. In stead of being used to educate parents of the possibility hazards, it is being used to promote legislation to coerse smokers into quitting.
This is the second time I have heard reference to ear infections filling body bags. Do the two ailments seem to be a reasonable associatin with TC campaign design?
Upper respratory tract infections although possible do not create large mortality numbers either.
To inspire child abuse charges the two seem like a proposal with little if any foundation. The ignorance of what is reasonable fails and emulates in anyone making such dehumanizing claims against a parent. When coming from medical profesionals the acusation is all that nuch more ignorant. Those actions are sure to create opposition and anger which do not serve the purpose of the so called tough love campaign making people want to quit.
Tough love does not include becoming an abuser yourself at least not within reasonable limitations.
Simply common chilhood diseases more associated with cold weather exposure than any other cause.
Smoking bans are based in saving lives as the primary concern, which requires action as a number of the so called preventable disease categories is said to be the purpose in public Health disertations. Both categories fail to meet the common criteria and do not deserve linkage to this discussion if not for the political advantage in using children as props.
A use only to alienate parents who smoke. A dangerous position which may well serve ro be an embarasemeent, when all points are considered.
Sorry Kevin, but I think faster then I can type, and didn't fully explain to say that when lung cancer didn't turn up huge numbers with second-hand smoke, attention was turned to heart disease to fill the body bag quota needed to inspire action.
Worse yet, heart disease is extremely rare in children outside of congenital defect, and studies to date on risk of second hand smoke and lung cancer caused by childhood exposure usually produce negative results, (i.e. childhood exposure to second-hand smoke is associated with a lower risk of lung cancer later in life). Therefore for positive studies with childhood exposure, they are left with ear infections, and asthma attacks. However asthma is better associated with poorer economic conditions. Further, ear infections are largely associated with asthma.
As to ear infections speaking volumes, this malady attributed to second hand smoke would be a minor factor in it's causes. This is why you see very little mention of the percentage of risk, yet the number of doctor visits is routinely trumpeted, and almost never mention how many visits are attributed to other causes or total number of doctor visits for this malady.
While on my soapbox about epi research driving scientific finding, what has largely been ignored or played down is this...
Heart disease associated with second-hand smoke, is causitively associated with chronic exposure to slight elevations in carbon monoxide. If this is truely the case, commuting, and combustive heating and cooking sources are the leading sources of low-level carbon monoxide exposure. I've seen Glantz profer the explanation that (CO) was the causitive culprit of SHS, but have yet to see a study of heart disease take into account chronic low level (CO) in correcting for confounding factors.
Most of the research being done today is being driven by its propagandic value rather than scientific discovery, and within the Tobacco Control has been the mainstay of research. I believe I read a long while back that DiFranza was searching for the wooden stake to drive through the Tobacco Industries heart, when he concieved the idea of the Joe Camel vs. Mickey Mouse study.
With the outcome already chosen, the only challenge remaining is how do you engineer a study whereby it produces the desired results. How can anyone be objective in these circumstances?
I agree with both Kevin and Walt H.'s sentiments here. The risk of ear infections and upper respiratory infections does not rise to the level of warranting a law that would allow a judge to lock up a smoking parent in prison for a month. This is dangerous thinking on the part of the anti-smoking groups supporting these laws because the apparent zeal to punish smokers is so strong that they are willing to actually cause harm to children. And to parents for that matter. I don't see the trade-off of a relatively minor risk for a severe harm to be a reasonable one.
The campaign at hand fails in the reality which escapes the education of it’s founders, Culture is the product of communities and those communities will strongly defend against a reality which allows them to be the creation of another’s design.
Reason is the focal point in the battle for cultural identity. If fear is the basis for our decisions above all else we create a culture of fear and chaos.
Fear is the tool of the propagandist. It was the fear of the Jewish which drove the into the ghettoes. RWJF is using fear to force smokers out of their dwellings in Portland. It is the fear of terrorism that permits the public to give up their rights to privacy, due process, and the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
Fear is a powerful message and a weapon which makes the common man give up the ideals to which they hold so dear.
What needs to be evaluated is if the fear has any true substance or is it simply the product of coercive activities.
Risk assessment is not an evaluation if true harm exists, but if it is possible. The common statements have evolved to including information from Government agencies stating the "harm is known to be real" despite no evidence to actually demonstrate any harm.
The methods of that propaganda are predetermined conclusions solved prior to beginning the studies The WHO call for an evidence base requires little further proof an intent to promote fear, was the basis for the research which has no intrinsic value for any other purpose but to create controversy and promote a political positioning.
The true value of creating this type of material and the promotion in the public with daily bombardment, also has an intended effect. An ability to blackmail politicians to get onside or be punished through savaging of personal reputations in similar press releases. Political Correction developed to undermine the democratic process goes beyond Lobbying it was once called treason, today simply freedom of speech. More of the effect of similar strategies
The chaos and fear culture has risen above the original Lobbies ability to control. Those who refuse to encourage expanded power for the sake of power are being discarded which describes Michael's current circumstances.
Bingo Kevin, I couldn't agree more!
Walt;
Now you really do understand.
Cheers
Here you go from the master himself:
http://www.nycclash.com/
CaseAgai...dix.html#Glantz
~snip~
"In each state one or two politicians seem to be taking the lead in pushing the industry's position (at least publicly). As soon as these politicians start floating trial balloons, they should be attacked publicly. If they can be bloodied, it could well scare the others off. Fear is a great motivator for politicians." ~Glanz~
-www.smokescreen.org
~snip~
'"...that's the question that I have applied to my research relating to tobacco: If this comes out the way I think, will it make a difference [toward achieving the goal]. And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don't know, then we don't bother. Okay? And that's the criteria." Glanz
- Written Transcript Of 3-Day Conference Called "Revolt Against Tobacco," L.A., 1992~ Glanz
It seems to have all worked out just as planned.
We have all seen the enablers in print, the person who states I wish they would outlaw smoking on sidewalks to stop these ignorant people from poisoning me and my poor children.
Obviously not members of the public but involved lobbiests who seek to raise the bar.
The appropriate response would be asking if the author believes a person who blows smoke in her face, should be convicted of attempted murder and be locked up for 20 or 30 years.
This tests the reason of her rediculous statements. The trial ballons in search of public support which also demonstrate; a level of hatred is not only permitted but encouraged.
No one in politics wants to be associated with that accusation.
I confess to being totally perplexed by Dr. Siegel’s stand on patio smoking, since it appears to me that in order to maintain an honest opposition to it requires a consistency of thought on his part that would strain credulity and break the bonds of level thinking (or common sense, if you like).
Remember that he’s rejected Dr. Whelan’s opinion: “To state that occupational exposure of bartenders is the ‘#1 killer in the American workplace’ is without scientific basis,” as well as her statement that, "There is simply no convincing evidence linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease." (And she added, “What is to be gained by overstating the case against secondhand smoke?” PLENTY, it seems.)
So how do we get from that opinion from an anti-smoking activist to a smoke-free patio, EVEN IF DR WHELAN IS OFF IN SOME DEGREE?
Remember that by way of arguing that secondhand smoke is “a substantial hazard” to bartenders, Dr. Siegel has told us that the secondhand smoke concentration in a bar is 5 times the concentration in a home (a statement that has been seriously questioned, in my view). And now we’re on a patio without a bartender, with perhaps a waiter mostly absent or perhaps not (bring your own drinks to the table); and with outdoor air, even with smokers, that is pretty damn smoke-free (and we won’t worry about automobile exhaust fumes if the seating is next to a street) – that is, air that is many times cleaner than the air in a bar (not to mention a home!); and yet – what?
Now we’re talking about PATRONS AND NOT BARTENDERS, patrons, moreover, who have the FREE CHOICE to drink on a patio or not (an argument previously rejected by Dr. Siegel in favor of the supposed risk to bartenders), and Dr. Siegel tells us that the reason he’s against allowing smoking on patios “is that people sit and work in outdoor patios of restaurants or bars for prolonged periods of time”! You really have to wonder, especially about those poor kids at home with smoker parents.
Because he’s written not only that “the short-term effects of secondhand smoke are relatively minor, but that “Where secondhand smoke becomes a substantial hazard, I believe, is when people are CHRONICALLY (his emphasis) exposed, at high levels and for many years. That is the workplace situation.”
So it all boils down to people, NOT IN A WORKPLACE SITUATION, sitting in OUTDOOR patios where smoking is allowed, OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, for “prolonged periods of time.” Not CHRONICALLY exposed “at high levels and for many years,” but, now, for “prolonged periods of time,” like what, perhaps an hour or two in the great outdoors a few times a week?
Sorry, doctor, I can’t make any sense of all that. First you disallow ventilation in bars because you maintain it’s ineffective because of a strained scenario, and now you disallow smoking in the great outdoors by people seated there by their own choice (and no bartender and probably no waiter in sight) – because of “prolonged periods of time”?
I’m sorry, doctor, but you’re out of your text. You’re now talking about COERCING THE BEHAVIOR OF CITIZENS WHO ARE FREELY ASSOCIATING, and not of any risk to waitresses and bartenders. How do you justify that?
.
Sunz--
Nope, the Clash link is Perske's analysis of Siegel's restaurant study. Somewhere on Forces, she has an article on his Children study, the one I referenced. IIRC, there's a "Perske" section on the Home Page that might take you there, or try a google with "Perske, Siegel" or use the title of his paper and her name.
Walt H--
You say (correctly, as usual) that "even as small a number as 10% represents enormously large numbers when applied to the overall prevalence. "
But: look at the means by which a statistically insignificant 10% was obtained! Look at the Bradford-Hill criteria. Look at any textbook on epidemiology, or the statements of almost every epidemiologist. RR's (and we're only talking about R's, not actual diseases) under 2.0-3.0 are generally thought of as statistical static, apt to be random chance, or bias or confounding.
Were 10% of actual disease attributable to (whatever) then large numbers of "victims" (tho still a small % of the total number of "victims") might then be tallied. But 10%'s not even an actual percent. Of what? Of risk. Not of victims and not of disease. All it is is a weak and possibly nonexistent theoretical percent.
Perhaps I missed your point, tho. Perhaps you were just saying that gullible people (and especially gullible legislators) upon hearing (or believing what they heard is) that 10% of all childhood earaches are caused by smoke, are convinced to jail smokers and demand bans in cars, homes, and even sidewalks.
But now let's ask about biological plausibility and proven-- not theoretical-- biological mechanisms. How --physiologically--does exposure to secondhand smoke (at what level? for how long?) even increase the risk of an ear infection, let alone "cause" it? No postulations, please; actual facts. (After-the-"fact" theories can be concocted for anything.)
And Dr. Siegel still hasn't answered how this insubstantial, questionable, and statistically insignificant increase in risk is sometimes referred to -- often by him-- as "serious effects" "endangering children", let alone as "abuse".
:
Harry,what is the difference between a bar patio area that is non smoking and being the other side of the wall,or whatever is used to ringfence the patio, smoking.No,i cannot fathom this out at all.
Perhaps,it's the mass use of windproof zippos and the particulate matter generated by the lighter fuel ?
Walt, supposedly smoke lowers the immune system, making a child more apt to have an ear infection. At least this is what I was told when I was finding out about my ear infections that smoking keeps your eustachian tubes from working properly. I'm not sure how exactly as my issue is genetic and I only pressed him once as to how that works. He just gave me the equivalent of "it just does" and something about lowering the immune system. The majority of ear infections in children are because those tubes are small and almost horizontal. Which is why bottle feeding presents such a problem. It's actually the major culprit in otitis media. The vacuum created by bottle feeding can play havoc with the ear's inner auditory tube. Negative pressure generated in the mouth is transmitted up the tube and into the middle ear where fluid can build up. The increased fluid can cause hearing difficulties and infections. Sucking on pacifiers, toys, thumbs and similar objects can cause the same problems inside the ear as bottle feeding. This can and has led to issues with permanent hearing loss.
Now, I have nothing against bottle feeding. One of my kids HAD to be bottle fed. The reason I include all this is that the MAJOR culprit is bottle feeding and WHY it's bottle feeding. As kids don't sit around sucking on cigarettes, I don't see it being a negative air flow issue. And if it's an immunity issue, then a smoker's kids should be sick more often then other kids. The infection causes immunity issues, especially in cases of long term infection. I had a 2 year infection and I think my immune system still isn't up to par thanks to getting pregnant twice and other illnesses that opened me up to. Once your immune system is down, it's hard to get it back up. So, I'm not sure if any study has seen about the lowered immunity due to the infection or if it is due to smoking. You can have an ear infection for a little while without knowing it. It would also be interesting to know if anyone compared the income levels in children of smoking parents. I have a feeling that the higher the income, the less problems in all. People with little money to take a child to the doctor is more apt to try grannie's home remedy for a few days before going to the doctor.
With all this information, if we're banning smoking on this basis, then we ought to ban bottle feeding. I suppose wet nurses could come back in style...
Walt,
Let me start with plausible. This is more a case of semantics rather than anything else. The ants like to say smoke exposure "causes" ear infections, I believe a more appropriate term may be contributes. While there is no known bacterial agent to "infect" the child, irritations to the eyes and nose, even dry air for that matter, is known to contribute to ear infections. Children with allergies also have a high incidents of ear infections. So yes, it is entirely plausible that smoke irritation contributes to an increase in ear infections, however I don't agree that it causes them.
As for the 10%, the point I was attempting to make is this is a very low number, and susceptible to other contributing factors, and it's nothing more than an educated guess based on a limited number of survey responses. However, frequently in press releases and testimony before legislative boards, the number is often treated as if there were actual counted diagnosis's directly linked to a parents smoking. This is how a propagandist uses this number. But in fact, it should serve as only a benchmark worthy of further attention, as a means to significantly reduce morbidity. With the widespread use of antibiotics in the medical field, between 1975 and 1990, the rate at which middle ear infections were reported grew by some 224% Now this is a significant factor. Are the two related? Don't know, but I'd be willing to bet, exposure to second hand smoke in children didn't grow by such large proportions. I whole heartedly agree the 10% increase in risk is extremely weak, but worse yet, it is presented as fact, rather then a SWAG. Coupled with the fact that plausibility rests with contributing, rather than actually causing, makes it almost impossible to prove it was the only contributing factor makes it that much more ridiculous to legislate. Somewhere I read, the single largest contributing factor with middle ear infections was exposure to other kids.
[sarcasm]How dare other people expose my kids to their offspring, causing my kid to suffer from in increased risk of ear aches, they should be locked up for not keeping their kids at home where they belong.[/sarcasm]
Now lets put this information back to the case of Santa Cruz, who believe it is their duty to impose a prohibition on the mere possession of tobacco products in order to make their parks smoke free. Yet provide fire pits and grills for the park patrons. Evidently smoke from these sources are magical in that they don't produce irritants to eyes and noses of children, yet smokeless tobacco, and unlit packages of cigarettes do. Go figure!
Thanks Walt
Kid's under 2 have 3 times as many ear infections now, as in the 1970s, and over age 2 have twice the ear infections as in the 1970's
Ok, this may help unravel the claim that bartenders get 16 cigs/shift:
A typical claim is presented at the Tobacco-free Massachusetts website: http://www.tobaccofreemass.org/d...nal%
20Draft.pdf
I traced the references made above back to Quan www-mcnair.berkeley.edu/98journal/cquan
who actually stated nonsmokers spending 2 hours in a bar get the equivalent of 4 cigs in 2 hours, bases on 4 - aminobiphenyl measurements, so harvard, just multiplies that 4- abp by 4 to claim 16 cigs/shift.
The probelm is 4-abp is not a good marker of shs exposure. Where Quan, 1998 is quoted as stating that Hammond 1995 used 4-aminobiphenyl as the marker to draw the conclusion that nonsmoker's intake of 4-aminobiphenyl is 15 times the intake of nicotine when ETS concentrations are constant, and that this is more serious than nicotine because 4-aminobiphenyl is more toxic. Quan assumed that all 4-aminobiphenyl exposure is due to secondhand smoke. However, this assumption is invalid, for the reasons cited below:
Heterocyclic amines: occurrence and prevention in cooked food.
S Robbana-Barnat, M Rabache, E Rialland, and J Fradin
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...314&
pageindex=1
4-aminobiphenyl was found in laboratory rats (obviously not exposed to any secondhand smoke) Effect of diet on hemoglobin adducts from 4-aminobiphenyl in rats: shows 4-aminobiphenyl is also present in foods. Sources as far back as 1987 have reported 4-aminobiphenyl is present in air, water, and food. http://cancerres.aacrjournals.or...stract/47/2/
602
and Richter, et al Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 74: 421-428
http://www.springerlink.com/
inde...VEM7HT7G074.pdf reports 4-abp in kids from smoking homes is no different that kids from nonsmoking homes.
So, I think what has happened, and I am not certain, is that antismoking groups are quoting Hammond, 1995 as sayinf 4-abp is a good marker fro SHS exposure, and Quan 1999 who said customers get 4 cigs in2 hours but this is probably due to eating food, and other sources. and the MA dept of ehalth just multiplying a the time a bartender spends in a bar by 4 times the average customer.
DR Siegel, is this where that claim comes from???? Dave K
Si,
Yes, Zippos is the culprit. I owe somebody an apology.
.
If nicotine patches or nicotine gum worked, it would work with those who don't want to quit. But it doesn't.
Hypnosis is the solution. But find a NLP practitioner, to work with. It is always the case that one part wants to smoke, and another part wants to quit.
Walt & Walt H
I think you are both being a bit too kind to Dr Siegel in your analysis of the kids' infections research paper.
Let's be abolutely clear, neither the 10% (Acute) nor 28% (chronic) findings are actually risks. Just because they are arithmetically produced as a statistic that goes under the name of 'risk ratio' does not mean anything. They are simply the one-off findings within a single (clearly limited) piece of epidemiological research.
Before one can even contemplate extrapolating such statistics into whole-population 'risk', one has to demonstrate at least an acceptable basic level of statistical significance in the calculations. Well both ratios singularly fail this test, with confidence intervals that span unity - and this (I presume without checking) is only at the 95% (p < 0.05) level!
In my days working as a Health Statistician we would have advised the researcher that the failure to achieve even such a modest level of significance meant the end of the road - the null hypothesis stands! But then, even if the 95% level were achieved, we would only advise that it merited further research with eg bigger samples, more accurate measurements, etc. Then we would be looking for statistical significance at least at the 99% level (p < 0.01), and preferably at the 99.9% level (p < 0.001). Only then would we have advised that it would be safe to conclude that the null hypothesis can be rejected - and only then would the researcher be justified in using the term risk.
And I just love this:
'The authors do add that since the confidence intervals "included unity...chance cannot be ruled out as being responsible for these findings"'
What appalling weasel words these are, and what a sad demonstration of the total lack of numerical ability and understanding of basic statistics by those who wish to be listened to. No, no, no, no! Far from not being able to 'rule out chance' the real conclusion is that chance must be most definitely ruled in and that these results are so likely to be chance findings that the null hypothesis must stand - nothing is demonstrated, no conclusion can be drawn except 'there is no relationship between ETS and acute or chronic respiratory conditions in children'.
No weasel words, no "ah yes, but"s. Failure to recognize the statistical reality places this piece of research into the domain of Junk Science. Only the acceptance of the statistical reality validates the research - in this case as evidence of non-causality.
There is no half-way house here, if you want to 'talk the talk', you must 'walk the walk'.
In my ever so humble opinion!
Brian ,what is you view of Dr Siegels's analysis of the 6 studies he undertook to produce his strong view on the risks of SHS to the bar trade ?
Dr Siegel ARE the use of Zippos perpetuating the problems of SHS on patios,or could it possibly be the diesel juggernauts parked nearby ?
Brian--
With numbers like that, derived like that, I figured it was junk, but I thank you heartily for your further analysis which adds heft and some useful bullets to that assumption.
:
Si
funny you should ask that but I have had difficulty in finding full copies of the Doc's own research papers - and I have tried!
Any help you could offer in linking to these would be appreciated. I may then be able to offer a view.
Regards
Brian
Same problem here Brian.The only information i could find was on CLASH's website .There are a couple of links i think on this thread.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
