While I hesitate to criticize a study that does not yet seem to be publicly available, the abstract alone provides sufficient information to make some comment.
The Helena heart attack study examined a base population of 25,000 and reported a 40% decline, although the authors refused to divulge any numbers indicating the percent of reported decline in nonsmokers.
The Pueblo study, with a base population of 100,000 only reported a 27% decline, with the authors of this study evidently not even collecting data on nonsmokers despite extensive previous criticism of the Helena's authors' failure to provide such an analysis.
And then the Piedmont Region in Italy, population 3.5 million was studied and a decline of 11% was found, again without any breakdown of smokers and nonsmokers.
Given that if I go to the hospital with a broken tooth one of the first questions I am asked is whether I am a smoker, it always seemed odd to me that these studies of smoking bans and heart attacks were always so oddly deficient in this regard, particularly when some of their authors became so outspoken about the meaning of their results regarding secondary smoke exposure by nonsmokers. (See:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/e.../7446/
977#67440
and
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/e...7446/
977#123038
Now finally we have a study that claims to have broken the two populations down. and has examined a total population of 625,525. While the Telegraph article's lead-off sentence claims the study found a 14% drop "in Ireland", of course this 625,000 is only a 15 % sampling of Ireland's 4.23 million. The authors of the study offer no rationale for why they didn't compute the figures for the other 85% of the population, at least they didn't in the abstract. Perhaps they will here?
On the plus side, this study finally seems to have taken the brave leap of both recording AND reporting on the relative drops in smokers and nonsmokers, obviously a very important improvement for a study that will be widely used to promote the perception that secondhand smoke represents a significant danger.
The study abstract reports a rough reduction of 23% among smokers and 10% among nonsmokers. As Dr. Siegel has accurately pointed out in his analysis a drop of 10% or even a drop of 23% could very well be completely meaningless in terms of any causality: if the authors had examined longer term data for that area of Ireland they might very well have found that drops and increases from year to year in heart attacks might very well normally make such jumps. Again, it seems odd that they did not take such a simple step, but again, maybe they'll explain their reticence here.
In terms of the size of decrease and the size of the population studies, this Irish study fits in perfectly with the extension of the trend findings of the study I conducted with Dave Kuneman almost two years ago, the essentials of which are available at:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/
h...admissions.html
In the expanded study submitted to the British Medical Journal and rejected primarily on the grounds that the editors did not think it "added enough, for general readers, to what is already known about smoking and health" (See the reproduction of the ACSH article at:
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=4503 )
This seemed a bit odd, since our results were diametrically opposed to the three main previous studies that had been done and was also based on a far larger population base: 70,000,000. However it is clearly within the province of a medical journal's editor to make such a decision.
One of the points we noted in that rejected submission was that large heart attack variations seem to be larger in smaller selected population groups and smaller in larger more generalized ones. Helena, with the smallest population base, reported the largest drop: 40%; Pueblo, with 100,000 reported 27%; Piedmont, with 3,500,000 reported only an 11% drop. Our own study, roughly 20 times the size of the other three studies combined, found no drop.
The Irish study falls perfectly in line with this trend: with a population base of 625,000 its reported drop of 14% falls quite nicely between Pueblo's 27% and Piedmont's 11%. It reinforces the conclusion that in large populations it is likely that there is no drop experienced at all... that the drops are statistical artifacts unique to selected populations.
Without seeing the full body of the study it is difficult to say much more. Dr. Siegel has already done an excellent job of analysis with the available information and I am sure that we are all eagerly waiting to see the rest of the details (Well, maybe not all of us: I'm quite sure that the media will jump in head over heels spurred on by press releases from antismoking organizations and authorities seeking to reinforce the threatened ban in England against the brewing revolt there.)
Hopefully as well we'll see the authors respond to the two questions I raised above.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
I find it amazing how smoking bans in selected areas work (Helena, Pueblo, Ireland, etc) yet there are now dramatic decreases in other areas.
[mocking anti-smokers]There is only one logical explanation, the tobacco companies are in league with the Illuminati, RAND Corporation, and the Trilateral Commission to give people heart attacks to cover up how effective smoking bans are. There is no limits to the evil they commit.[/mocking anti-smokers]
Harley, I know what you've been watching 
But I think the drop in heart attacks is the direct result of man-made global warming./sarc[if needed]
Any prophesies for the study that will be taken concerning mortality and the English smoking ban ? However i suspect there will be one from Scotland,followed by one from Wales.AND THEY WILL ALL HAVE THIS NEW STYLE OF TRICKERY AND MEDIA SEEKING CRAP.
Si
I look forward to some UK-based 'studies' of this kind. Data here is much more readily available - and relevant - than in Ireland and I can assure you that I know where the bodies will be buried!
Posted in the previous thread;
In research such as the Helena study; the belief would be the effects of smoking are "long term effects" taking many years to develop. If smoking bans are demonstrating reduced heart ailments short term, smoking could not possibly be the cause of those ailments.
Further investigation of what else occurs when smoking bans are put in place needs to be considered in order to find the actual cause.
Otherwise the "long term" understanding held so confidently by the medical community for so many decades, would have to be seen as a mistake, and other assessments to adjust for that mistake would also have to be made.
Those re-assessments would make epidemiology into a much larger industrial enterprise, as the majority of smoking related research is readjusted to find a new integrity of the research and of the so called experts.
I am in complete agreement with Dr. Siegel's blog entry on this subject, as well as the coment made by my partner, Mike McFadden,
But I wish to bring up one other important point. That is the lack of any external controls in the Ireland study.
For all it's fallacies, the Helena study did employ Lewis and Clark County, ( which had no ban) as an external control. Likewise, the Pueblo Study utilized El Paso County (which had not ban) as an external control.
Our own study, already linked to above by McFadden, utilized many states without any statewide ban, or many local bans, as external controls.
And, yes, good science utilizes external controls. It is possible that when the entire Irish study sees the light of day, that some external controls will be included. However, like the other so-called studies claiming to link heart attack declines to bans, this one is issued in press release form to the media before the entire content of the study is available to be included for proper dissemination.
This is exactly the equivalent of a drug company providing the FDA with clinical trials on a new vaccine, without including patient data on those with the same infection, who did not recieve any vaccine, and claiming that just because some of the patients recovered from the infection, that the vaccine must be effective.
In such an instance, it would be just as possible as many patients without the vaccine would have recovered.
Of course, the FDA would never approve a vaccine based on such sloppy data. One should never suggest a smoking ban based on such sloppy data either. Dave K
I note that the conclusions drawn in the study extract include this:
Conclusions: A national ban on smoking in public places resulted in a decrease in admissions for ACS, especially in smokers.
This is just blatantly untrue. What it should have read was...
"Conclusions: A national ban on smoking in public places was introduced and there was a decrease in admissions for ACS, especially in smokers."
There is absolutely no basis on which the words "resulted in" can be used in such an analysis without measuring the exact relationship between individuals' smoking rates and cardiac events during the period in question.
The rest is just speculation at best. But since the authors and their audience are all members of the European Society of Cardiology, they all know damn well that there is no physiologically plausible cause and effect relationship between the smoking ban and changes in AMI within one year, for goodness sake. So the only conclusion can be that they are lying through their teeth.
You can rightly call this Junk Science, Dr Siegel, but such obvious dishonesty by supposed health professionals can never be excused. It is nothing less than deliberate fraud.
.
Reported at what appears to be the same European Society of Cardiology conference:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/
20070...Vex5ccHSMcR.3QA
Pfizer study shows risk of cholesterol pill switch
"Patients switching from Pfizer's branded cholesterol pill Lipitor to Merck & Co's Zocor -- now available as a cheap generic -- are more likely to have a heart attack or die, according to a Pfizer-backed study."
Now if it was a Merck & Co. "backed study" - that result might have surprised me.
more junk science or do we have to ban popcorn next...
Doc Warns That Prolonged Exposure to Microwave Butter Popcorn Fumes Could Cause Lung Disease
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,295761,00.html
Brian siad: "It is nothing less than deliberate fraud."
Of course it's fraud.
The real problem, and the ONLY reason you get this in press release form is that the headlines:
"Heart attacks tumble after Irish smoking ban"
or "Smoking ban reduces heart attack rate" is all that needs to be said.
It simply doesn't matter to the press, or the government, and certainly not to the sheeple that unquestioningly accept this as fact. It wouldn't matter if the study was made publicly available for dissection, and it wouldn't matter if every third word was an outright, fully obvious lie to any 10th grade highschool student.
The science, or in this case (like so many others) the methodology is irrelavent.
THE HEADLINE IS THE EVIDENCE.
Lightning Boy wrote, "THE HEADLINE IS THE EVIDENCE."
There was another wonderful example of this just a couple of days ago. The NY Post ran a story on Hillary Clinton's national smoking ban stance. Then CNN.com picked the story up and reprinted it on their own pages.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn...l-ticker-am-50/
BUT... CNN.com added a headline:
"HILLARY SUPPORTS NATIONAL SMOKING BAN"
while deliberately DELETING the very last sentence of the NY Post Story:
"Asked whether the feds should impose a nationwide ban, Clinton deferred to local governments."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/
0828...al_cig_curb.htm
I.E. the original story VERY clearly and explicitly said Hillary did NOT support a national ban. But, that runs counter to CNN's editorial policy of supporting the antismoking lobby. So, what did CNN do? They simply chopped off the "inconvenient truth" and headlined the story with a lie.
Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies: they are not proper laws at all and deserve no more respect than the Collaborators and Informers that make them possible.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
These Helena studies all seem to assume that smoking bans reduce the secondhand smoke exposure of nonsmokers. But the best research found that "smoking bans have on average no effects on non smokers."
http://www.ifs.org.uk/
publicatio...ication_id=3523
Just how long will it take for the sheeple (or muppetts more like) to finally comprehend the lies and propaganda being fed to them.There always used to be a hard core of the public who realised the hard sell and treated the science promoted as supporting evidence as being garbage and totally ignored it.Where have they gone ?Wacky science and the need to discriminate against smokers is all that is left to Tobacco Control.What a society we must live in ,if we accept this as being reasonable.Smokers are not the problem,the problem lies in a handfull of rantis demanding "their rights ".If they have the problem,they should be the ones who change and who force bars to open who are non smoking.It's time to stop putting the cart before the horse,and state those who want to change the status quo that has existed for umpteen years vary their demands and leave smokers alone.Non smokers and rantis SHOULD OPT OUT,NOT FORCE THEIR DEMANDS ON US.Now if the rantis want to stick to science and debate the issues ........
I is pretty obvious to all of us by now, including Doc, that these claims of reduced incidence of amis post ban are based on both bad science, and selective use of bad science.
And if they are doing it here, then why should we not believe they are also doing it in the published epidemiological shs studies themselves?
dave K
Dave K,
Exactly! The next time we hear this the numbers and percentages will change. It all depends on who the audience is that they are lecturing at the time. Fear mongering at the worse!
Diane
I'm starting to wonder what it takes to participate in the European Society of Cardiology...
Global warming may pose threat to heart
"On the sidelines of the European Society of Cardiology's annual meeting in Vienna this week, some experts said the issue deserves more attention. It's well-known that people have more heart problems when it's hot."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...VC3lEKdNuXVJRIF
Great advice from Dr Cleland in the above article.People should cycle more he states,now can we sue him if middle aged unfit people jump on bikes and think they are like kids again,only to end up having a heart attack ?I always believed cycling provided quite a cardiovascular workout.Actually i can see the scenario ,baking hot sun ,above average temperatures,old smokers TRYING TO FIND A PUB THAT CATERS FOR SMOKERS OR SOMEWHERE TO BUY THEIR FAGS.ALL THAT HAPPENS IS THEY DIE OF EXHAUSTION.HENCE THE INCREASE IN MORTALITY.Sometimes science just has too much funding for its own good.
When I was a kid, we (old smokers included) used to sit out on the front porch on summer evenings, drinking sweet tea and exchanging pleasantries with the neighbors, while we waited for the window fans to "cool the house off" so we could go to bed.
Now the neighbors complain about the smoke drifting toward *their* porches so everyone goes inside and turns on the TV and the A/C.
Dave K said:
"It is pretty obvious to all of us by now, including Doc, that these claims of reduced incidence of amis post ban are based on both bad science, and selective use of bad science."
Dave, where is the science in counting admissions, noting that the number for one year is less than the number for a previous year and then making a huge leap of conjecture in blaming your personal bete-noire for the change?
Nothing scientific about that - unless by 'science' you mean Primary School-level arithmetic!
.
The source of all this irrefutable fact finding is again under fire. The UN agencies are being manipulated in many other ways consistent with the Fascist complaint repeated often by observers, reflective of the Health Scare movement and its all to familiar methods we have seen before. The last time Doctors were hanged the lesson may have been forgotten.
No one can deny the familiarity of what is said in this letter and that description of another campaign we are all too familiar with. The misuse of terminology to enrage and inflame sensitivities is seen to promote the very abuses the terms describe.
The Health scare Industry is entirely open in promoting its similar manipulations of the WHO, using identical claims of purpose and a campaign to actually promote the very problem described, all the while encouraging hatred within communities.
The UN executive flagrantly looks the other way and pretends they have no knowledge of the actions being undertaken by the subsidiary agencies it supposedly governs ignoring promotions of hatred and human rights abuse encouraged openly and without restraint.
From the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies newsletter.
At the United Nations in Geneva, an inner circle of 20 UN member-states, including Iran, convened last week to plan the 2009 UN World Conference Against Racism.
Remember Durban I?
Anti-Israel Protest Durban 2001
No funding for Durban II left in the hands of Iran and other human rights abusers!
SIGN THE PETITION
At the first UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001, I, along with other Wiesenthal Center representatives, witnessed a continuous barrage of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment which culminated with thousands of demonstrators at the conference’s Friday closing “March Against Racism” where a synagogue was surrounded and banners proclaiming “Hitler was right” were waved by participants while chanting, “Death to the Jews!” Inside the conference, the worst anti-semitic rhetoric since the Nazi era was spouted under the banner of the United Nations.
Most disturbing are those helping to craft the 2009 Conference agenda. They include representatives of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad -an unabashed Holocaust denier and proponent of a genocidal campaign against the State of Israel. In a preview of what we can expect from the Durban II process, the Syrian representative stated, “This Conference should fight discrimination against semitic people focusing on Islamophobia.” We cannot expect any help from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Cuba -countries with the some of worst human rights violations on record.
And as for the UN’s own human rights watchdog? At the opening session, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, praised the last Durban conference, “Durban I [the 2001 UN Conference on Racism ] established a vision and clear parameter of tolerance, appreciation of diversity and harmonious coexistence.”
As the Wiesenthal Center’s Director for International Relations, I was horrified to witness a virtual ‘identity theft’ under the aegis of the UN. There is emerging a systematic effort to totally recast anti-semitism as a form of Islamophobia, no longer the UN-acknowledged title for hate crimes against Jews. Therefore, I, along with others from the Center, will monitor every preparatory meeting to expose and confront each and every move to demonize and deligitimize Israel to help exert pressure to prevent this process from degenerating into anti-semitism.
And, we need your help. I ask you to take the following two steps immediately:
First, sign the petition to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon , urging him to withhold requested funds for the Durban II process as long as it is left in the hands of nations like Iran which openly seeks Israel’s destruction and other regimes with dismal human rights records. Secretary Ban must bring the full weight of his office to stop this mockery of the UN’s own charter.
When I was in school, I worked as parking lot attendant in a completely enclosed and heated garage. The garage held perhaps 200 or 300 cars, most of which would enter the garage within an hour of a sporting event or concert. Ventilation kept me safe. But it can't handle cigarette smoke? Come on!
http://www.garasjeventilasjon.no...g%
20garages.pdf
Dr Siegel, you'll hate this:
from http://www.independent.ie/nation...t-1071344.html:
"Dr Cronin told specialist website theheart.org he was not surprised by how quickly the benefits of the smoking ban were played out, considering that within 30 seconds of inhaling smoke the blood platelets get thicker and cardiovascular system stops working so well."
Sorry, I put an incorrect email address in my first post
Kevin--
Got a link to that petition?
:
Bill; Carbon with two oxygens is carbon dioxide carbon with a single oxygen is carbon monoxide a much more deadly gas The use of Carbon Monoxide is used extensively in Industry. So it seems strange CO would be the tartget of Global warming replacing all efforts to reduce othewr poutants in a Global effort asrrising from the WHO which only has a single stakeholder partner that being Shell Oil.
CO has a use with a not well known history going back coincidentally to prewar Germany and the plundering of German technology and science post war as claimed reparations of war by the Americans specifically, as well as the UK to a lesser extent.
WIKI has a pretty good explanation of what the American Gov called Operation Paper clip. With a recipe to turn coal or organic mater into petrol to power your car.
tobacco
The fight over the use of coal or biomass is the real foundation for the global; warming theory and may well be the underlying urgency for TC campaign support as Tobacco is one of the best sources on the planet of biomass concentratios with as little property used as possible. The process of both methods is cost prohibitive. With the current price of oil it allows the oil companies significant competition as long as the price of raw materials remains low.
The drive to reduce tobacco use and the subsequent closing of many tobacco farms signed over in cheap purchases from bankruptcy receivers is an entirely fortunate situation for those who may wish to produce fuel.
Sometimes you see conspiracies and at other times you just see the facts.
With so many coincidental happenings at the UN connected to Oil, biomass, coal and big money, one always has to be suspicious in anything they report.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fis...Tropsch_process
Walt;
The link to the petition.
http://www.wiesenthal.com/siteap...N8LzH&
b=3265781
Re: Me being sarcastic with my post above- however, scientists NOW say Global Warming will increase heart attacks...LOL...you can't make this stuff up.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2...ming-
Hearts.php
scientists NOW say Global Warming will increase heart attacks
This explains why people in the warmer regions of this planet, like Japan and Andorra, die prematurely: cold preserves. Eskimos must be close to eternal life.
This explains why people in the warmer regions of this planet, like Japan and Andorra, die prematurely:
Intersting, there's that damned "die prematurely" again. Isn't it also true that many retirees (meaning folks OVER the age of 65) try to retire to warmer climates? THAT alone would account for an increase in death in those areas.
And once again, we need to ask them to define "premaure death". At what age is it "premature" to die when NO ONE has the book that states that everyone is supposed to live to a certain age. Just because the average live to a certain age, does NOT mean everyone has to OR is supposed to.
Just because the average live to a certain age, does NOT mean everyone has to OR is supposed to.
Average means - mathematically - that about 50% live longer, and 50% live shorter. Even if the average was 250 years, there would be 50% that die prematurely. Basic maths!
I'm telling you Lynda, the anti's have the LIST. And I think it's damn selfish of them. I mean, with that list we can find out when we are supposed to die and when we do die and then stop whatever it is that kills us!!
The bad thing, is I bet you every anti is on that list and they probably die early and that has them scared to death (which is probably what kills them, constant anxiety).
Michael Siegel, that was a most interesting statistic you had from Ireland http://www.cso.ie/statistics/
pri...usesofdeath.htm
I note that there has been a continous drop in CHD deaths during the period 1998 - 2006. I also note that one of the smallest drops occurred in 2003 - 2004. That was the year the smoking ban was introduced. So, the smoking ban 'caused' a low drop in CHD mortality. Smoking bans kill! Is scientifically proven!
Soren-
Nice observation. This is precisely the type of reasoning that is being used in the research that was presented at this conference.
Dave, where is the science in counting admissions, noting that the number for one year is less than the number for a previous year and then making a huge leap of conjecture in blaming your personal bete-noire for the change?
Nothing scientific about that - unless by 'science' you mean Primary School-level arithmetic!
.
Brian Bond | 09.05.07 - 6:46 pm | #
Brian,
Yes, I'm afraid I'm just as guily of using the term "science' as badly as everyone else these days.
I stand corrected
Dave K
Ah, there is more from that statistic from Ireland.
The greatest drop in CHD mortality occurred in 2002 - 2003. That was before the ban was introduced. So we see that the lack of smoking ban caused the greatest drop in CHD mortality in Ireland. Science!
Then consider lung cancer. There was an increase in lung cancer deaths in 2003 - 2004. That was the year the smoking ban was introduced. Oh, oh. We now have incontrovertible evidence that smoking bans cause lung cancer!
I can do stratification too. And I don't need fancy computer software statistics to do it. I just use Eyeball Mk. 1.
Sheeesh. We couldn't make this stuff up if we TRIED!
If I read that chart right, for total heart disease type deaths, the numbers have been going down EVERY year since 1999!!!
13,380
12,666
11,886
11,652
11,038
10,666
9,984
9,662 (2005 figures)
Someone with a bit better grasp of stats than I have should be able to analyze those numbers to see how big a total drop WOULD have been needed if the ban had an effect, or conversely to see how UNlikely it is that the ban had an actual effect.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Mike J, those numbers are circulatory diseases. CHD is in the row called Ischaemic Heart Disease. Remember, it is british english, not american english.
European Conference 2007 - Tobacco or Health. Look who will be there:
http://asp.artegis.com/index.jsp...-46-4-118103-
89
Sorry, the link only leads to the front page. Click on Sponsors ...
Thank you Soren. Although the pattern for IHD is just as strong from 1998 to 2005:
Ischaemic Heart Disease
7,240
7,059
6,589
6,163
6,107
5,583
5,485
5,064
4,860
While it's true there was a drop of 421 between 2003 and 2004, there was also a drop of 524 between 2001 and 2002 and 470 between 1999 and 2000.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
one word: STATINS
Michael McF--
About your heart attack death stats. Any clues about the relationship between deaths and hospital admissions which are the subject of this study?
Out of curiosity, I did the math, tho trying to match the years to your final summary, I came up with a double year somewhere along the way:
Ischaemic Heart Disease
7,240-------- ( 1998 )
7,059 (-181)-- (1999)
6,589 (-470)-- (2000)
6,163 (-426) --- ??
6,107 (-56)--- (2001)
5,583 (-524)-- (2002)
5,485 (-98 )--- (2003)
5,064 (-421)-- (2004)
4,860 (-204) -- (2005)
I reckoned or misreckoned the years based on your saying:
While it's true there was a drop of 421 between 2003 and 2004, there was also a drop of 524 between 2001 and 2002 and 470 between 1999 and 2000.
Other rhetorical questions arise. Why did deaths decline considerably less in 2005 than in 2004 (the hallmark year in which the ban started at the crack of the 2nd quarter) and how to account for the whopping decline in 2002 and the punier ones in '01 and '03, except by sheer randomness?
Or IOW, what do you make of these stats?
Kevin--
Thanks for the link. I signed it and sent it to a list.
:
Hello Walt! 
I was doing the year labeling of stats in my head so I may have simply mixed them up. Not sure how there could be more than there was supposed to be though... LOL~ It's simply a cut 'n paste from the table!
Re: heart attack deaths and hospital admissions. Hospital admissions are probably a more reliable indicator since they are not as strongly affected by medical and technological improvements or things like more helicopters to bring in emergency cases.
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Table corrected:
7,240-------- ( 1998 )
7,059 (-181)-- (1999)
6,589 (-470)-- (2000)
6,163 (-426) ---2001
6,107 (-56)--- (2002)
5,583 (-524)-- (2003)
5,485 (-98 )--- (2004)
5,064 (-421)-- (2005)
4,860 (-204) -- (2006)
See graphic: http://bernd.palmer.googlepages..../
IHDIreland.pdf
DR seigel
I bet the Scottish board of health used the same "science" in this study too.
"The Scottish smoking ban has led to a significant advance in public health, the most detailed scientific study of the measure so far has suggested.
Research found that there has been a 17% drop in heart attack admissions to hospitals since the ban was introduced in Scotland in March 2006."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...ast/
6986554.stm
Hi, guys,
just in case others also wade through the files periodically:
much as Big Pharma would like us to believe that statins and other toxic 'wonderdrugs' to alter the body's processess save lives, these numbers correlate with industrial/traffic air pollution reduction.
In example:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/...ses/2001/09/
220
Scotland leads UK in pollution reduction targets
17/09/2001
Scotland has been set the toughest targets in the UK for the reduction of air pollution levels over the next decade.
In a strategy that focuses on the long-term implications to human health of particle emissions from traffic and industry, medical experts have conducted a wide-ranging review of scientific, technical and economic evidence.
Their latest recommendations, against a background of steadily improving standards of air quality, have been accepted by the UK government and the Executive who expect to see an overall reduction in air pollution of more than 50 per cent by 2010.
The proposals for Scotland are tighter than for anywhere else in the UK but computer modelling and monitoring work indicate they should be achievable.
Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development Rhona Brankin said:
"Air quality is improving year on year. We have seen significant reductions in recent years in the levels of particle air pollution as new policy measures to reduce emissions from industry and traffic take effect.
"But the latest advice from health experts shows that particle air pollution continues to have a significant impact on health. Recent evidence suggests that long-term exposure to particle air pollution can contribute to a number of serious health problems, including heart disease. It is clear that we must do more.
"The proposals published today involve a significant strengthening of our air quality targets for particles and other important air pollutants. They confirm the Executive's commitment to respond promptly to the latest advice from health experts."
The UK Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution (COMEAP) considers that the long-term effects of particle air pollution on health are at least ten times greater than the short-term effects on which present policies are based.
Ms Brankin said that the Executive believed the latest expert evidence pointed firmly to the need for further action to ensure that levels of particles in air continue to fall. Today's new targets, set in response to COMEAP's findings, are intended to encourage significant further reductions in particle air pollution and improvements in the nation's health.
The new target for 2010 aims to cut long-term pollution levels by at least 50% so that:
for Scotland, the target is a 24-hour mean of 50 m g/m 3, not to be exceeded more than 7 times a year, and an annual mean of 18 m g/m 3 to be met by end 2010.
for UK, except London and Scotland, the target is a 24-hour mean of 50 m g/m 3, not to be exceeded more than 7 times a year, and an annual mean of 20 m g/m 3 to be met by end 2010;
for London, the target is a 24-hour mean of 50 m g/m 3, not to be exceeded more than 10 - 14 times a year, and an annual mean of 23-25 m g/m 3 to be met by 2010.
It is also proposed that the Mayor of London and the city's local authorities should work towards a provisional annual mean of 20mg/m 3 after 2010, with the aim of achieving it by 2015 where cost effective and proportionate local action can be identified.
Today's proposals also involve tougher targets for benzene and carbon monoxide and, for the first time, a target for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The targets proposed for benzene and PAH both reflect latest health advice. The target for carbon monoxide has been strengthened in response to the recently agreed EU limit value.
BACKGROUND
1. Air Quality Strategy
The latest Air Quality Strategy was published in January 2000. The Strategy is part of the UK Government and devolved administrations' overall aim to improve the quality of life across the UK. It sets targets for reducing levels of eight important air pollution and the framework in which everyone, from individuals to big business, has a role to play in improving air quality.
The Strategy explains that the present target for particles to be met across the UK by the end of 2004 is seen as a staging post and not a final outcome; work had been set in hand to consider the prospects for strengthening the target.
Particles and health - Advice from Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP)
The new targets for particles announced today are the outcome of a wide-ranging review of scientific, technical and economic evidence. It is in particular a response to the latest advice from the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) which suggests that people exposed to particles over the long term are at greater risk of premature death, particularly from heart disease.
Particles are associated with a range of short-term health effects, including effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, asthma and death. In its 1998 report, the UK Dept of Health's expert Committee (COMEAP) suggested that that in 1996 the early death of 8,100 vulnerable people and 10,500 hospital admissions in the UK were associated with respiratory disease affected by particle air pollution. These deaths are among people who are already very ill and are likely to be brought forward by a few weeks.
COMEAP has since looked at the health effects from long-term exposure to particle air pollution. In its report published on 1 May 2001, the Committee suggests that emerging evidence points to the chronic health effects of particle air pollution being substantially more significant than the acute effects. The Committee considers that on the basis of studies carried out in the United States, an estimated 0.007 to 4.1 million life years might be gained in this country per 1m g/m 3 (microgramme per cubic metre) drop in concentrations of particle air pollution. This represents a reduction of about 5% on present levels. The wide range reflects the uncertainties involved. The Committee takes the view in its report that an estimate towards the lower end of the range (0.2-0.5 million life years across the population) is more likely.
This represents an average gain of 1.5 to 3.5 days per person. However, although everyone is exposed, it is likely that only some of the population is susceptible to the adverse effects of long term exposure to air pollution. This would mean that some people would not gain anything, whilst those affected would gain more than the average figure of a few days. For example, if only 1 million rather than 52 million people were affected, the gain would be around 3 to 6.5 months per person. The Committee's report explains that the number of people affected is unknown, and so an accurate calculation of the gain in the susceptible population is not possible.
This effect is at least 10 times greater than the short-term health effects of day to day changes in particle air pollution suggested by the Committee in its 1998 report.
(Con't)
...
2. Sources of particles
Particles (PM 10) have three predominant source types. Concentrations of PM 10 consist of primary particles, arising from combustion sources (including road traffic), secondary particles, mainly sulphate and nitrate formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere, and coarse particles, suspended soils and dusts, seasalt, biological particles and particles from construction work.
PM 10 is composed of each of the three source types. In general terms, the three source types each make up roughly one-third of total long-term average PM 10 concentrations at urban background locations. However, the relative contribution of each source type varies from day to day, depending on meteorological conditions and quantities of emissions from mobile and static sources. The fine particle fraction (PM 2.5) is composed predominately of primary and secondary particles. Coarse particles are particles in the range from PM 2.5-PM 10.
UK emissions account for about 80% of the primary fraction. Emissions in mainland Europe contribute up to about 20% to primary particles in the UK. This may be much larger during short-term peak episodes. Emissions from mainland Europe make a more significant contribution to secondary particles. In a year with typical meteorology, about 15% of total annual average PM 10 concentrations (about 50% of secondary particles) are derived from mainland Europe. In years when easterly winds are more frequent, emissions from mainland Europe account for a much higher proportion particularly in south and east England.
3. Air Quality Strategy's present objectives - new proposals
Pollutant
Present objective
Proposed objective
Particles (as PM 10)
UK
24-hour mean of 50 m g/m 3 not exceed more than 35 times a year
annual mean of 40m g/m 3
both to be met by end of 2004
Scotland
24-hour mean of 50 m g/m 3 not exceed more than 7 times a year
annual mean of 18m g/m 3
both to be met by end of 2010
UK (apart from London & Scotland)
24-hour mean of 50 m g/m 3 not exceed more than 7 times a year
annual mean of 20m g/m 3
both to be met by end of 2010
London
24-hour mean of 50 m g/m 3 not exceed more than 10-14 times a year
annual mean of 23-25 m g/m 3
with the aim of this being met by 2010
It is also proposed that the Mayor and London local authorities should work towards a provisional annual mean of 20mg/m 3 after 2010, with the aim of achieving it by 2015 where cost effective and proportionate local action can be identified
4. Action to reduce particles
The Executive has already set in place a range of measures that will help to reduce emissions of particles. A Transport Delivery Plan for Scotland, to be published in the autumn, will set out proposals for tackling traffic congestion and reducing pollution over the next 10-15 years. Tighter European vehicle emission and fuel standards already in place and coming in during the next few years will reduce emissions of particles and other air pollutants substantially. The new Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control (IPPC) authorisation regime for industrial processes will also contribute to the downward trend in particle air pollution.
4.1 Trend in air pollution
The trend in urban air quality is continuing to improve. The UK Environment Minister Michael Meacher announced on 4 May this year (DETR News Release No.ENV-011) that in 2000 in urban areas there were 16 days of moderate or higher air pollution on average per site, the lowest figure recorded since the series began in 1993. Days of moderate or higher air pollution caused by particles have fallen from 34 in 1993 to 5 in 2000.
Somebody's blowing a smokescreen with no emission controls...
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
