Good for you, Dr. Siegel.
I can't wait to hear (read) the howling from Bill Godshall about how you have misrepresented his comments from yesterday. (you haven't, that is exactly what he said and yesterday was not the first time)
Better yet, Gabz, I'd like to see Bill deny that ANY tobacco control group is condoning such a thing..........even with proof they are, I can see him trying. 
Dr Siegel you forgot one other reality that they don't want people to realize.
The people in old age homes that smoked years ago are actually abusers as well. That 70% of the population at one time was abused! Yes if your parents ever smoked then you come from an abused household. If something is abuse now, you have to look back and see its abuse years ago as well.
I see a conspiracy of neglect here. Maybe even a "yeah, it's important but not as important as SAVING LIVES. We'll get to the details later." For go getters that are gung-ho about the next claim to make, many anti-smoking charities are not so quick to say "This is wrong."
And for entities that are purportedly trying to reduce risk and who believe they will win in the long term, they are certainly making risky statements now.
from yesterday: Bill G. said, - "Repeatedly exposing a child to hazardous tobacco smoke pollution is child abuse."
Why?
What's different today?
It wasn't child abuse in 1940,50,60,70,80,90, not even in 2000.
What has changed so much that this activity has become a criminal offense? (according to you)
Nothing except the TC budget allotted to promote and claim that it is.
Claiming that it is in any way the same as ACTUAL child abuse is the real criminal offense.
By doing so you seek to lessen the severity of the term, and definition of REAL child abuse, and would cheerfully turn MILLIONS (possibly 10's of millions) of people into criminals for your own twisted psychotic pleasure.
Fortunately for you, freedom of speech prohibits your arrest for making such bizarre claims.
Fortunately for me, there is no Federal TC sedition act, .....yet.
It wasn't child abuse yesterday, and it's not child abuse today.
Clearly, there is no negative statement regarding SHS that is too sensational for you and your minion.
It is comments like this from Bill and smokefree Pennsylvania that makes me all the more determined not to give up my seat on the bus. Just yesterday I asked for the proof, yet he remains silent. I want and am now demanding irrefutable proof that I was abused by having smoking relatives, and that I abused my children. I promise to sit and read it all, study the findings very carefully and then I will and can show that Bill and his gang are total fraudulent liars and actually abusers themselves.
In the 1954 Doll & Hill doctors' study, 87% of the doctors were smokers. So it looks like 87% of doctors were child abusers back then. Kinda amazing that nobody noticed.
I'm with Diane. Prove to me that I was an abused child (my father smoked) because I was exposed 24/7/365 as everyone smoked everywhere when I grew up. Funny how very few of us had asthma back then too.
Prove to me that my healthy, 27 year old son, who had 2 parents smoking 2 packs a day EACH, and was exposed to this 24/7/365 was an abused child. Better yet, try asking him, but don't be surprised when he laughs in your face and slams the door on you.
Hope this doesn't show twice, but I just posted a comment and it seems to have disappeared.
I'm with Diane. Prove to me that I was an abused child, or that my healthy 27 year old son was an abused child.
We were all exposed 24/7/365 and managed to live without allergies, without asthma, without any ailments at all that you claim smoking and SHS causes.
Show me the proof of the abuse.
Excuse me now, while I go off and have another ROTFLMAO moment.
ok, THIS is too weird even for me............I just refreshed 3 times to be sure my comment was gone, and as soon as I repost it appears?
*hearing music from old Twilight Zone television series* Think I'll go back to work now..... 
"Why?
What's different today?"
They have products to sell and a lot of money.
Thats when gentle persuasion turned to attack.
And all those people working, as they thought, to help people, got swept away.
The REAL child abusers, such as paedophiles, will probably be thankful to Smokefree Pennsylvania for diverting the attention from them to smokers and for lessening their crimes to the same level as "repeatedly smoking in front of a child".
Lightning Boy-
What's different today is that many anti-smoking groups have lost their common sense and good reasoning. Their zeal (and hatred of smokers) is now taking precedence over good reasoning, science, policy analysis, and judgment. And they're not willing to back off from anything they say or do, even when publicly exposed. You simply can't admit having made a mistake. It's forward or else. There is no taking a step back and re-examining. There's nothing to re-examine. This is all to protect the children. That makes it right and anyone who opposes this agenda is against protecting kids from secondhand smoke.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"And it also means that if there is no evidence that secondhand smoke exposure is causing any health problems for your children (they are not getting ear or respiratory infections or developing asthma because of it), you are still abusing your children if you repeatedly smoke around them."
Developing asthma from SHS exposure?
"Asthma is not caused by smoking.
The reason asthma develops in one person and not another is not well known. Asthma tends to run in families, but not always."
(Canadian Lung Association)
If smoking doesn't cause asthma, why would passive smoking?
" Does tobacco smoke prevent atopic disorders? A study of two generations of Swedish residents.
BACKGROUND: Earlier studies have given conflicting results regarding the effect of exposure to tobacco smoke on atopic sensibilization....CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children... "
------------------------------
" Asthma and allergy experts from around the world convened at a major conference in New York on Friday to discuss one of the critical public health issues of our time — the increasing rate of asthma across the country....Dr. Andy Liu...thinks he knows the reason for the increase.
“Our clean living ways perhaps might be leading to this global rise in asthma and allergies,” Liu said.
Most people assume asthma results from air pollution or other dirt in the environment. But it may be caused by just the opposite. The latest research shows the cleaner the environment, the more cases of asthma. It has to do with our immune systems..." "
---------------------
"Like most people, I assumed tobacco smoke and pollution were the problem--this was the politically correct way to think. But these factors turned out not to play a major role. In high-pollution areas, in low-pollution areas, among all ethnic groups, there was asthma. Clearly, something else was involved."
(Dr. Fernando Martinez, who years earlier had co-authored the chapter on asthma in the 1993 EPA report)
Quoting Martha Perske:
More recently, Dr. David Stempel of the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, said, "Passive cigarette smoke often has been thought to increase the risk of active asthma, but studies to date have not demonstrated this association convincingly." He said that at a 1999 conference co-sponsored by the American Lung Association, so the anti-smoking groups cannot claim ignorance of the current state of scientific thought. [11]
As a child, a friend of ours was abused and raped over many years by her father. About 10 years ago, then in her 40's and after many years of therapy, she finally went to the police. Turns out that other family members were also abused and her father was jailed. I will ask her the next time I see her if she feels that exposure to ETS compares to her own experiences.
Bill, I will let know what she says, if it is printable.
GreatScot
Their zeal (and hatred of smokers) is now taking precedence over good reasoning, science, policy analysis, and judgment.
I think their zeal and hatred of smokers is what fueled their drive to begin the implementation of the "nanny-state" (my attempt at being polite and not calling it what it really is which would be offensive to the Jews and Germans).
It's always been their zeal and hatred of smokers that fueled this from the start.
IF you had stopped to consider how your parents survived and how anyone over the age of 40 survived the enormous amounts of SHS smoke exposure that was prevalent prior to the mid 70's, do you honestly believe you would have started spouting "causes", "serious health hazard", or been behind banning a legal activity on PRIVATE PROPERTY (which is exactly what ALL businesses are)?
I think had you not had your own hatred of the smell of cigarette smoke that you would have been able to find more reasonable measures that would not have stripped private business owners of their basic rights, and would have allowed everyone choices.
Seriously Doc, how can look at baby boomers, healthy and enjoying life, and not even question your own motives, comments, etc?
What's different today is that many anti-smoking groups have lost their common sense and good reasoning.
I'm sorry, Dr., but it is not the anti-smoking groups of today. this has been going on for more than a decade. In 1992 I had a Delaware state Senator (John Still, R-Dover) tell me to my fave that smokers "hasve NO rights." He repeated the exact same line in 2002.
During those 10 years he received much in the way of campaign contributions from the "health industry" including PHRMA, the Medical Society and the Insurance Industry. He did tone down his anti-smoker rhetoric a bit in 2003 when he lost big bucks from the racinos, liquor industry, and horse racings interests because of the total smoker ban in Delaware.
If SHS exposure is ever (legally) considered a form of child abuse, then child abuse cases will rise considerably, taking away resources from REAL cases of abuse, such as in the article below.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/...=rss-
topstories
It is already difficult enough to find and prevent instances of real child abuse...this little girl had a history of abuse that they are only now discovering. Real abuse cases (like in this article) would increase if focus was directed toward smokers. How many public resources would be wasted following up on "second-hand smoke" cases..? Children will be encouraged by teachers to turn in their parents...nosy neighbors and family members will turn smokers in...and the authorities will be compelled to respond to every accusation. And of course, next there will be follow-ups on parents who have been accused of feeding fast food to their kids. And maybe after that, case-workers will be assigned to track parents who have been turned in for having a beer or a glass of wine in front of their children.
It is absolutely disgusting to even remotely compare smoking around a child to child abuse.
Julie, you said an absolute mouthfull with your final sentence, which needs to be repeated and emphasized:
It is absolutely disgusting to even remotely compare smoking around a child to child abuse.
It is absolutely disgusting to even remotely compare smoking around a child to child abuse.
And, I might add, anyone who sees making such a comparison the norm as the wave of the future, or as a sign of progress, is exposing innocent bystanders(ie anyone in the scope of the message) to second-hand bile and nastiness at a shocking rate.
A knock-on effect of assuming smoking is not child abuse could be as follows, too: very anti-smoking parent is willing to yell that much louder at a kid, because hey, at least they're not SMOKING around them.
Smoking seems to be the most fun and convenient thing to be disgusted about and look down on these days. But I know I got to the point where I'd heard it all, and the repetition got tiresome unless I made sure I had arguments in place to refute at least the more egregious nonsense.
Julie---'Children will be encouraged by teachers to turn in their parents...nosy neighbors and family members will turn smokers in...and the authorities will be compelled to respond to every accusation. And of course, next there will be follow-ups on parents who have been accused of feeding fast food to their kids. And maybe after that, case-workers will be assigned to track parents who have been turned in for having a beer or a glass of wine in front of their children"
IOW-----The NAZI STATE.
.
Lynda F., -
In Ohio, before the rise of the TC machine, this was the previously existing definition of a "Public Place" (place of public assembly)
(3) Each portion of a building or enclosed structure that is not included in division (A)(1) or (2) of this section is a place of public assembly if it has a seating capacity of fifty or more persons and is available to the public. Restaurants, food service establishments, dining rooms, cafes, cafeterias, or other rooms used primarily for the service of food, as well as bowling alleys and places licensed by the division of liquor control to sell intoxicating beverages for consumption on the premises, are not places of public assembly.
The exemptions noted for division (A)(1) or (2) were theatres, classrooms, elevators and buildings specifically OWNED by the state.
(Owned, as in the true definition of PUBLIC PLACE)
Under the new and improved BAN definition:
(B) “Public place” means an enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted
and that is not a private residence.
The problem lies in the fact the the previously existing law relates specifically to the requirement of a "No Smoking area" to be designated in all "places of public assembly"
The old law (which is STILL on the books) was a Criminal offense for violation, possibly resulting in JAIL TIME.
The new law which is clearly far more generic, is a civil ordinance violation, resulting in significant monetary forfeiture.
Even when proposing laws to restrict and rescind liberty and rights, TC takes the same road they do as when presenting their "science" in support of such traitorous assaults on liberty in the first place.
Make it as broad, grossly over-reaching, and non-descript as possible in order to be as "all-inclusive" as the sheeple will allow.
This makes it so much easier to dumb-down terms like Child Abuse.
It becomes all inclusive.
It doesn't matter that it lessen the true definition so long as it suits the purpose. (End justifying the means)
Just like every business that is open to the public has now magically become a "Public Place"
Smoking within sight of anyone under 18 is now supposed to be Child Abuse.
Incremental inception of generic concept into the public conscience;
This is what TC does best.
OT - But not...it is, after all, for the children.
http://www.bostonherald.com/
news...ticleid=1047241
'Spanking Ban being proposed in MA'
Everyone is jumping on this bandwagon, including TC. It's sensational and sells papers and garners revenue [to study some more], bans and fines.
Makes people all warm and fuzzy; like they are doing something to make the world better for themselves.
And it pays the mortgage.
Gilster, I saw that earlier this morning and commented there.
WE, the people, need to take control back from the government. WE, the people, need to remember we are a republic NOT a democracy where mobs rule.
I've about had it with this world, truth be told.
Amendment 1:
"And it also means that if there is no evidence that secondhand smoke exposure is causing any health problems for your WORKERS (they are not getting ear or respiratory infections or developing asthma because of it), you are still abusing your WORKERS if you repeatedly smoke around them."
So... what if there is no evidence that the workers in my corner bar are dying? Is evidence important for such considerations or isn't it?
Amendment 2:
"After all, reason would tell you that exposing a WORKER to secondhand smoke is not, in and of itself, a form of WORKER abuse. Only overzealous thinking that is unchecked by reason would lead one to a conclusion that virtually every EMPLOYER in the 1980s and earlier was a WORKER abuser (since exposure of WORKERS to secondhand smoke in that era was virtually ubiquitous)."
So... was virtually every employer in the 1980s an prior a despicable, callous worker-hater? If not, why do you apply a different standard? Because it suits you?
Perhaps Mike could inform readers the levels of different carcinogens, poisonous gases, particulate matter and other hazardous contaminants in tobacco smoke pollution that he considers to be acceptable levels of exposure for children.
Since Mike strongly advocates smokefree workplace laws to protect adult workers from smoke emitting from just one cigarette, it is extremely hypocritical for Mike to advocate in defense of exposing children to ten, twenty, thirty, fourty, fifty or more times greater levels of tobacco smoke pollution.
Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public health community and a growing majority of parents and the public realize that repeatedly exposing a child to tobacco smoke pollution is child abuse.
That's why increasingly more laws are being enacted to protect children from tobacco smoke pollution.
A 1994 federal law required a smokefree indoor policy for k-12 schools, pre school programs and child day care facilities.
Increasingly more laws are being enacted to protect children from tobacco smoke in cars (where smoke is highly concentration), increasingly more child custody cases are being awarded to ensure the child has a smokefree home, and increasingly more child welfare agencies have been requiring a smokefree policy for foster care homes.
And also Mr, Godshall, increasingly likely that we will soon be living in a fascist country.
You should be so very proud.
You and your kind sicken me---and I consider you all to be a public health threat----the health of this very nation.
.
"That's why increasingly more laws are being enacted to protect children from tobacco smoke pollution."
No, Bill. Laws are being enacted because no one is believing this crap. If they did, a law would be unnecessary.
We all need to remember the mentality of who we are dealing with here:
http://www.thepittsburghchannel....il.html?
rss=pit
“Having a smoking section and a non-smoking section in a public building is like having a pissing and a non-pissing section in a public pool,” Godshall said.
And this blog rolls Billy over the coals pretty good
this is what a joke people think you are)
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/fo...51&
f=8821083241
"I don't know how long the interview lasted, but considering the importance Godshall attaches to himself I'm surprised he'd mention the stupid swimming pool analogy. That's what greenhorns in anti-tobacco spout from cue cards.
"But he got me to thinking. Just how much difference would Bill Godshall make if he went around urinating in swimming pools?"
See folks we are not delusional at all there are others (don't know a one of them) who see what he is.
.
above sad face is error.
Bill is obviously not a fan of "local option" as they put it prior to national prohibition:
"This is not a local issue, it's a statewide issue," the president said. "We can't have a solution for Allegheny County and a different one for Butler (County) or Washington County. If we're going to ban smoking in work places, we should ban it in all workplaces, no exception."
I suppose in a few years, it will be a national--no--international issue, right Bill?
Great link Sunz 
Perhaps Bill would like to inform readers the levels of different carcinogens, poisonous gases, particulate matter and other hazardous contaminants in automobile smoke pollution that he considers to be acceptable levels of exposure for children. Is repeated exposure to automobile exhausts also child abuse Mr. Godshall, or are you just on a tobacco crusade?
While I have no issue reminding parents to avoid either around little ones, Mr Godshall's efforts to greatly overstate the obvious by characterizing only tobacco smoke as child abuse shows the degree of extremism for his crusade to which he professes.
Perhaps Mike could inform readers the level of different carcinogens,poisionous gases,particulate matter,and other hazardous contaminants in tobacco smoke pollution that he considers to be acceptable levels of exposure for children.
No Bill, we are demanding that YOU prove that it is dangerous and child abuse. Let's not play the dirty trick where we turn the tables and change some words and make someone else the villian. YOU call it child abuse. NOW PROVE IT. It isn't up to Mike at this time to prove anything. You and smokefree Pennsylvania make the accusation. While you are backing it up, don't forget to throw in the names of those 3 people who died of secondhand smoke too. Still waiting, twiddlying the thumbs.
Doctor Mike,
I also take exception to the phrase in your response to LighteningBoy, where you say "they simply can not admit to making a mistake." Still waiting for some of those admissions from you too.
Walt H. wrote:
"Perhaps Bill would like to inform readers the levels of different carcinogens, poisonous gases, particulate matter and other hazardous contaminants in automobile smoke pollution that he considers to be acceptable levels of exposure for children."
The EPA's Air Quality Index
http://www.ccairquality.org/
caut...utionPM25C.html has long informed the public about different levels of exposure to outdoor air pollution (including automobile emissions).
The Clean Air Act http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/
c...carstrucks.html also regulates levels of other automobile emissions to protect public health.
When burned indoors, tobacco products emit far greater levels of air pollution than would be tolerated outdoors by the Clean Air Act.
Bill G., - "When burned indoors, tobacco products emit far greater levels of air pollution than would be tolerated outdoors by the Clean Air Act."
Are you insane?
Could you please try a little harder to be even more vague than usual.
Thanks so much.
"increasingly more child custody cases are being awarded to ensure the child has a smokefree home,..."
Look, ma, no smoke and no parents ....
Bill: "that repeatedly exposing a child to tobacco smoke pollution is child abuse."
Put me on the list of the abused children. I'm 64 and still counting ...
Air pollution causes early deaths
Traffic fumes Pollution can penetrate deep into the body Air pollution is responsible for 310,000 premature deaths in Europe each year, research suggests.
A study by the European Commission calculated that air pollution reduces life expectancy by an average of almost nine months across the European Union.
Poor quality air is thought to result in more than 32,000 premature deaths in the UK each year alone.
Experts say many of these deaths could be avoided if measures were put in place to cut pollution levels. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
4283295.stm
Exhaust from diesel engines accounts for 78 percent of the total added cancer risk in outdoor air from all hazardous air pollutants combined, shows a new analysis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.
The analysis by the conservation group Environmental Defense is based on a massive EPA study, which provides detailed estimates of the levels of 41 top hazardous air pollutants in every community in the U.S. EPA's previous version of the air pollutant report did not include information on diesel particulate emissions.
"The dominance of diesel in the unhealthiness of our air is a revelation," said David Roe, Environmental Defense senior attorney. "It couldn't be seen before, only because studies weren't trying to look for it." - http://www.rag.org.au/buc/cancerrisk.htm
Diesel exhaust and many individual substances contained in it (including arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and nickel) have the potential to contribute to mutations in cells that can lead to cancer. In fact, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles poses the highest cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant evaluated by OEHHA. ARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles. - http://www.oehha.ca.gov/
public_i...ieselfacts.html
Bill wants to know what are acceptable levels of "different carcinogens, poisonous gases, particulate matter and other hazardous contaminants" for children. That's easy. The amounts found in tobacco smoke. The only thing "hazardous" about those levels is a possible increased risk in ear infections.
"Since Mike strongly advocates smokefree workplace laws...it is extremely hypocritical for Mike to advocate in defense of exposing children to ten, twenty, thirty, fourty, fifty or more times greater levels of tobacco smoke pollution."
So now the home is worse than workplaces? Funny, you people used to say it the other way around when trying to impose workplace bans. You're a bunch of liars, Bill. I don't even think you're aware of that anymore.
"Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public health community and a growing majority of parents and the public realize that repeatedly exposing a child to tobacco smoke pollution is child abuse."
They don't realize anything. They're merely repeating what they've heard from the extremists in the movement.
Bill: "When burned indoors, tobacco products emit far greater levels of air pollution than would be tolerated outdoors by the Clean Air Act."
Little technical detail: Whether burned indoors or outdoors, the emissions are exactly the same.
And there are good reasons, why there is a difference between PELs indoors and outdoors - worldwide.
Sunz wrote:
"See folks we are not delusional at all there are others (don't know a one of them) who see what he is."
That was actually me, Sunz, but you're correct, most people, when informed of Godshall, see him for what he really is.
Bill's replied "When burned indoors, tobacco products emit far greater levels of air pollution than would be tolerated outdoors by the Clean Air Act."
The question was "Perhaps Bill would like to inform readers the levels of different carcinogens, poisonous gases, particulate matter and other hazardous contaminants in automobile smoke pollution that he considers to be acceptable levels of exposure for children. Is repeated exposure to automobile exhausts also child abuse Mr. Godshall, or are you just on a tobacco crusade?"
Since indoor measurements are not conducted in the same manner as outdoor regulatory measurements any comparison is disingenuous and a knowing perception of fraud. Is this your intent Mr. Godshall?
Since indoor measurements are not conducted in the same manner as outdoor regulatory measurements any comparison is disingenuous and a knowing promotion of fraud. Is this your intent Mr. Godshall?
Thanks LighteningBoy, you said exactly the same thing I was thinking. Still waiting Bill, with thumbs atwiddlying. Isn't being caught in a downright lie humiliating? I have a sister who slams the bedroom door when she gets caught in another one of her lies. You might want to try that for the rest of the evening, but don't forget to report back tomorrow with the proof.
increasingly more child custody cases are being awarded to ensure the child has a smokefree home
So Bill, IF both parents smoke are you seriously suggesting that neither get custody? If both parents smoke are you seriously suggesting that children be put into foster homes?
And you still say you don't hate smokers? How did we all ever get this far IF SHS is as deadly as you claim? Hell, you shouldn't have survived your childhood, and here you are, harassing us. Explain it please, I keep asking and I'm still waiting for an answer.
Ah, now I understand, he thinks the interior of smokers homes are more toxic than the chimney on a municipal waste incinerator.
The outside tolerated levels round my way include Guy Fawkes Night bonfires, so I would have to be really trying to achieve that.
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/
krsm...0Woodsmoke2.pdf
Normal people have mastered the art of opening windows.
Rose, - "Normal people have mastered the art of opening windows."
Anti-smoker zealots in Pennsylvania are prohibited from such self-help measures. Without TC approval, this is strictly prohibited.
Hopefully, this particular learning disorder is limited to only the zealots in PA.
There may still be hope for the rest of the nation.
"When burned indoors, tobacco products emit far greater levels of air pollution than would be tolerated outdoors by the Clean Air Act."
So said Bill Godshall talking through the back of his neck again.
Having just studied, for a public inquiry, the comparisons between the same key substances emitted by vehicles and cigarettes, the number of cigarettes required to match CO, Hydrocarbon, NOx and other chemicals per day from 75,300 vehicles on a three mile stretch of road, runs into trillions, billions and millions per day.
It transpires, as a result, that the Health Act 2006 and the EU standards for clean outdoor air with regard to roads completely contradict each other.
I can't work out whether Bill just told an outright lie or he's not terribly bright. Which is it?
I can't work out whether Bill just told an outright lie or he's not terribly bright. Which is it?
Both?
LB
Darwinianism in action
Blad
By now TC fractured logic must be so convoluted, it would be like trying to unravel the Gordian knot.
Don't try to undertand, just marvel at its complexity.
Madness. This is all pure madness.
I can't work out whether Bill just told an outright lie or he's not terribly bright. Which is it?
Blad Tolstoy | 11.27.07 - 6:39 pm | #
Lynda F. is correct -- the answer is both.
I have said it before, I would love to sit down and have a chat with Dr. Siegel if I had the opportunity, even in a smoker-free venue. When it comes to Mr. Godshall, the opposite holds, I would only sit with him to chat in an establishment that is free to choose their clientele.
Blad,
If you read the footnote on the CCairquality link says
"** An AQI of 100 for PM2.5 corresponds to a PM2.5 level of 40 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over 24 hours."
Key AVERAGED OVER 24 HOURS
What he is trying to compare is against a mobile "Sidepak" monitor like the activists which covertly attended the Cigar Convention used with instantanious samples.
While I can't prove he knows better, it is extremely dishonest and deceiving to make such a comparision.
With drifting smoke one can move away from it. The use of these mobile devices allow activist to get very close to the source of the smoke to saturate the reading and make it appear to be worse then it really is.
The protocal designed for outdoor air quality specifically restricts measurements from anywhere close to a source of smoke as it is designed to measure overall backgroud (ambient) particulate count. This is not something you can turn or move away from. And is why the levels are set so low.
It is disengenious to attempt to make such a comparison, yet despite pointing this out on a number of occasions, Godshall persists.
Lynda,
Both
++++
Walt H--'It is disengenious to attempt to make such a comparison, yet despite pointing this out on a number of occasions, Godshall persists.'
Yes, he does. Frustrating, isn't it? And he'll just bounce to the next accusation, claim, or outlandish....whatever, without even accounting for himself.
Gabz wrote:
"When it comes to Mr. Godshall, the opposite holds, I would only sit with him to chat in an establishment that is free to choose their clientele."
I'd only sit and talk with Bill if he was a car enthusiast, but seeing how he drives a Prius I know he isn't.
First of all, if Mr Bill thinks he's never swum in a pool with piss, he's never swum in a pool.
Brought forward-- and, indeed, pace Walt H as well as the dead horse-- but on a previous thread Dr. Siegel-- whose recent efforts are impressive and commendable-- nonetheless said this:
As I teach my students, a fatal flaw is one which, by its nature, invalidates the study conclusions by presenting a reasonable alternative explanation for the observed study results. A non-fatal flaw is a limitation which may raise some caution, but does not invalidate a study's results. It's always important to discriminate between the two.,,,So I do stand by my 1993 study...
Is it a fatal or non-fatal flaw that
a) except for one of the underlying studies (which only accounted for current smoking and, that, by questionnaire) you had no real idea whether the small number of workers with lung cancer were themselves either current or former smokers? Could that, in itself, not provide a "reasonable alternative explanation" for the occurrence of lung cancer? (I vote for Fatal.)
b) that you had no idea whether they'd been exposed to secondhand smoke at all, let alone (if so) to how much or for ( rather crucially) how long ?
If 2 of 12 cases actually worked in The Nun's Pantry, and 2 at a mid-morning shift in a diner where a couple of old geezers smoked a True over coffee from 10 to 11, and 1 bartender-- recently retired from the Coast Guard had worked at Smoky Joe's for exactly 10 months before diagnosis, and 1 of the workers in the "food service industry" actually worked at a drive-in window (catching fumes from all those cars) wouldn't that throw those RRs into question? ( I vote for Fatal.)
c) knew nothing about other confounding factors-- including that bartender's previous exposure to shipyard asbestos, and his alcoholic past, or his pet parrot or his family history...
d) knew nothiing about the exact occupations of any of those "other food service workers" or other "workers in the hospitality industry" who might, for all you knew, have been back office bookkeepers working part time, or after-hours janitors or linen suppliers and therefore absolutely never exposed? (in both c and d, I vote for serious limitation.)
No, I'm not even asking--let alone demanding, nagging or baiting-- for an answer. Just musing aloud.
Though I would like a link to the MA study that allegedly confirms those 1.5 findings.
:
There is a wolf that has come out of its door now for Stanton Glantz and Michael Siegel.
A spirit wolf that will kill them both.
They have set in motion things that they don't understand, which will destroy them, and their families, and their children, and all their friends.
They have set in motion terrible and unstoppable forces, which will destroy the lives of many innocent people.
Walt H ----"** An AQI of 100 for PM2.5 corresponds to a PM2.5 level of 40 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over 24 hours."
This is, to my knowledge correct, Walt H, and the EU is now seeking to reduce this to 20 micrograms. Given the number of vehicles on our roads (and growing) then, even allowing for improvements to fuel and engine design, this is going to be some task I think.
"Increasingly more laws are being enacted to protect children from tobacco smoke in cars (where smoke is highly concentration)[sic]" ~ Billy G.
Rose - "Normal people have mastered the art of opening windows."
Car windows, too! Is the smoke in the car more "highly concentration" in a moving car with open windows, Bill?
I live in the middle of a large city, so I keep my windows closed most of the time. Even closed, I get greasy black soot on every window sill.
In the spring, when we remove the plastic sheeting from the windows, the soot buildup is amazing.
This is the "clean" air they want to protect, in the bars where the Smoke-Eaters are now off.
I have heard enough of this child abuse trash talk to make me puke.
What could be more damaging to a child than to be told; their parents are trying to kill them? or that they are insensitive enough to not think of others they harm while satisfying an addiction. Regardless of how or where someone smokes all smokers are guilty by definition and stereotype prosecutions.
A physical beating is much less damaging than the long term scars left by emotional abuse. Which is the after effect of real abuse. The self punishment sometimes for a lifetime after being emotionally assaulted, is the real harm.
If anyone is guilty of child abuse it would be the insensitive and abhorrent attacks on parent child relationships by the ignorant among Public Health who dare to interfere. Enlisting a child to sell torment for coercive gains is entirely abusive and should be an indictable offense.
Exposure to the daily onslaught of TV commercials and pep rallies at school demonstrating extreme physical injuries, and linking them absolutely and inescapably to smoking, can only increase a child's apprehensions and discomfort with a parent's smoking ""AS A DELIBERATE ACT"" there could be no doubt of who is the abuser here.
Exposure of a child to Bill Godshall would be child abuse. As would any teacher in that child's school, who hasn't the professional ethics to leave their personal beliefs and politics at the door.
Public health is a theological institution which reigns by the abuse of science, ethics and morality not to mention an absolute aversion to common sense.
When anyone screams child abuse with little in evaluation, to substantiate such a claim, I would suggest investigation of that individual to see if the claim is a result of projection. As described by Freud in trying to resolve self loathe for acts they may have done in the past, or continue to do in the present.
In evaluation of Freudian projection, and as any police profiler will tell you; it is highly likely many in public health who promote this child abuse rhetoric, should be high on the list of suspects, and it would be highly credible they are in fact legitimately child abusers.
It may be well within the publics best interest for Public Health to look within their own ranks, and try to ascertain; who threw the first stone? and which members promote this advocacy most aggressively.
To identify those individuals and seriously scrutinize their personal lives, could reveal another truth. An effort which may well save a child or perhaps many the scars of child abuse.
Two good post, Kevin. Thank you.
.
Wow. Excellent posts, Kevin.
I dunno. As much as I disagree with Bill G., and as much as I despise the policies he is recommending for the state in which I live... he has a point. Not so much with regard to "smoking=child abuse," but with regard to the lack on consistency in Dr. Siegel's argument.
This would not be so important in most cases. As someone once said, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. And most people, if they are honest, will admit that they occasionally espouse ideas that contradict each other in subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) ways.
But you have to take a look at who is pointing fingers here. Doctor Siegel has made great sport of TC extremists, mostly by... pointing at inconsistencies in their arguments. Smoking equals child abuse? Well then, he says, to be consistent you have to go back through history and call anyone who has ever smoked around a child an abusive parent. Which is of course just a crude little rhetorical maneuver that holds little weight in terms of historical analysis.
For instance, I do not consider my father a male chauvanist pig. But if I, today, employed the same language and attitudes towards my wife that he employed in the 1960s, I think someone could fairly call me a chauvanist.
Similarly, and a bit more directly, if I used my children as economic engines in the same way that, say, Charles Ingalls used his in Little House on the Prairie, I would be violating all sorts of laws regarding education and child labor. That, of course, does not argue that Charles Ingalls was an abusive father or an exploitive man. It simply indicates that times have changed.
Seriously. If we are going to apply today's standards to all parents through history, it makes sense to apply them to all of society. Including employers.
So... Is doctor Siegel prepared to say that anyone who owned a bar and restaurant in NYC--and allowed smoking prior to the smoking ban--was a callous, abusive employer? Because that is what he is calling on Bill Godshall to do regarding parents from a different era.
Again, I think Godshall is dead wrong on this issue. But the Doctor has created the playing field with this blog. And the playing field is one on which he plays a game of "gotcha," scouring statements for what he sees as inconsistent statements. And he clearly makes some of his own.
Am I demanding to much in terms of consistency here by demanding that Siegel lambaste generations of good, hard-working bar owners as abusive employers because of his current defninition of a "safe workplace"?
I think so. But if you agree with me about that, you have to agree that Siegel is being equally inconsistent by demanding that Godshall apply his current views on child-abuse historically.
And you also probably have to change your views about Little House on the Prairie.
idlex
Very well put, I felt this coming in for 10 years, but I didn't know what it was, it felt like an asteroid coming far off, a horrible feeling of foreboding.
Good points, Sam M.
Oh the irony
"A statement from Pfizer said: "There is no scientific evidence establishing a causal relationship between varenicline and the post-marketing report events."
Statements like that haven't worked for us.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
7115696.stm
Sam M. Points well taken. Should be considered by all. Yet it is now the next day so I await Bill's proof of child abuse by a smoker. In case I wasn't clear Bill, I don't want any Clean Air reports. That isn't proof. Any 6 grade creative writing student who wants to enter a science fair could write that. I want proof. Names, email addresses, phone numbers would help. I did promise to study the evidence and I will need this information so to follow up on it. Be aware though, for every person who claims they were abused by a smoking cigarette, I will be giving you names of 2 who weren't. So, you better have a nice long list.
Sam -
Just to be clear, I don't consider ANY bar owners who allow smoking, now or in the past, to be "callous, abusive employers."
Yet you call people who disagree with you about the body count "callous." And you do so regularly enough that a regular commentor here changed her name to reflect your propensity in that regard.
And you consider SHS so dangerous, a threat so profoundly horrific, that you would use the full force of government violence to ban any bar owner from allowing patrons to smoke--regardless of ventilation, regardless of worker tenure, regardless if a ban's impact on business, regardless of how many workers are active smokers--all in the name of worker safety.
If SHS is that dangerous, how is it possible that allowing it is not "abusive"? And if it is not abusive, why use government force to ban it?
Surely, you don't use threats of violence, fines and license revocations to deal with actions that don't obviously and profoundly affect worker health. And if the threat that SHS poses is indeed that obvious and profound, how can you call allowing it anything other than abusive?
Or is it possible to expose people in one's charge to an obvious, profound health hazard without somehow deserving the adjective "abusive"?
If you say that it would be possible for people who are unaware of the threat, or people who disagree with you about it, then surely that would apply to parents from eras past. That is, parents from the 1950s were often unaware of the threat that active smoking posed. So clearly, they were unaware of the alleged dangers of SHS. So clearly, by your own definitions, Mr. Godshall would not, in fact, be required to smear any and all parents from those eras as "abusive" for exposing their children to SHS.
But that's what you said he would have to do to remain consistent. Allow me to repeat your exact words:
"Only overzealous thinking that is unchecked by reason would lead one to a conclusion that virtually every parent in the 1980s and earlier was a child abuser (since exposure of children to secondhand smoke in that era was virtually ubiquitous)."
That is, Mr. Godshall can clearly charge current parents with "child abuse" without applying that same term to parents from a different era. Unless, of course, you are prepared to defend the notion that modern norms of ethics, morals and public health can be applied retroactively.
Are you prepared to say that or not?
Kevin, I wouldn't go so far as to say physical abuse is less than emotional. I believe it depends on the level of physical abuse. The physical abuse I underwent in no way measured up to the emotional abuse myself and my second youngest brother underwent. But in worse cases, I could see why someone would feel that their physical abuse was equal or even more than my emotional abuse. While I wouldn't ever want to hear someone compare my childhood as 'mild' as opposed to this person's, I do believe that (if we were to assign measurements) the abuse we went through is mild by comparision to the little girl down the street who was sexually abused in a violent manner on a regular basis. While the whole idea of measurement is repellent to me, if we are going to what types of abuse outweigh other types, then I have to put in my two cents here. Perhaps though, I'm oversensitive.
In regards to smoking as child abuse, I WISH my abuser ONLY smoked around me. Believe me, you don't notice a cigarette when you're getting the crap beat out of you. The two aren't even in the same universe, let alone in the same category. I smoke, my children are HAPPY. If you are being abused, you know you are. You aren't HAPPY. You may not know or understand the source of your unhappiness, but you are unhappy. I didn't realize that my childhood wasn't normal until I was 12 years old...I didn't know why I was unhappy, only that I was. And children are too honest in their emotional reactions to be able to "put on a happy face". Hell, I went through my oldest two children just watching emotional reactions, since I had no really decent example of how to treat a child. If they ever looked unhappy a reason was found. I know, by the fact that my children don't cringe when I raise my hand to wipe their hair from their eyes, by the fact that they run TO me and don't try to dodge me, that they WANT to be around me, call for me, come to me whenever something goes wrong, ALL the things I would never have done, I know I'm doing right.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and sometimes I wish you did, and THAT makes me ashamed of myself.
Bill wrote:
"Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public health community and a growing majority of parents and the public realize that repeatedly exposing a child to tobacco smoke pollution is child abuse."
Care to bring some evidence of that, or is it your usual blah blah?
PS: as you said "public health community", and not anti-smoker fanatics, they have nothing to do with public health.
Jalestra,
I phoned our friend and asked her about equating real child abuse to smoking around children. God knows I wish I hadn't. I was hoping for a relatively dispassionate view, but I forgot that although she is now an occasional smoker she was a regular smoker during her first marriage and had 2 healthy children (both now full grown with their own kids). Between the tears and shouting, and there was a lot, the only quote nearly printable is "How F**K*NG dare you compare smoking to what I suffered" I tried to protest my innocence and explain but ended up speaking to a dead line.
Flowers, chocolates and a long humble letter of apology and explanation are on their way.
GreatScot
Jelestra;
Forgive my poor use of words in making the point. Although both physical and emotional abuse are extreme; to compare and form a level of one vs the other was not my intent.
When physically abused the body will heal. What doesn't heal so readily is the memory and the emotional damage of being harmed, in many cases by those who above all others should be protecting you.
When public health coaches a child to question the bond between the child and a parent that confusion is deliberate and damaging. The result is torturous as a child withdraws and trusts no one.
Emotional scars don't heal easily and many times never do heal. If Health Care institutions are now promoting the scaring of others in order to fulfill their goals, in complete ignorance of what they do in process to vulnerable children by denormalization campaigns.
Public Health has evolved into something physically injurious, morally repugnant and implicitly ignorant, by the rules of the designed process.
Jelestra;
To further clarify I was initially attracted to martial arts and later to boxing, as a means to protect those closest to me. Yes, I do understand.
The first lesson? I remember to this day. At nine years of age I was told you make the best use of education to enrich others not to rise above them.
In short you are taught to respect others who may be lacking your skills. Never to be a bully in taking advantage of what you learn; Making you much less, than those who would bully others in ignorance of what they do.
"Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the public health community and a growing majority of parents and the public realize that repeatedly exposing a child to tobacco smoke pollution is child abuse.""
Why does this idiocy keep popping up? Aside from "the public health community," which in large part has itself been brainwashed, the general public knows absolutely nothing about whether or not "tobacco smoke pollution" (a phrase as used by Godshall right out of Orwell) constitutes a health issue, let alone being child abuse. First you propagandize them, brainwash them, fill their heads with lies; then you poll them and find out that they "realize," (sic) that repeatedly exposing a child to tobacco smoke pollution is child abuse.
I think Godshall must get his kicks out of repeating this crap over and over just so we can make asses of ourselves by refuting it over and over. Well, yeah, what can I say to justify myself, except that perhaps new people read this blog?
.
Oh Kevin, I wasn't trying to give you any grief. I was just putting in my two cents. Your sentence "What doesn't heal so readily is the memory and the emotional damage of being harmed, in many cases by those who above all others should be protecting you." perfectly clarified what you meant and I back that 100%. I was thinking you meant emotional abuse in the sense of screaming, yelling, degrading, etc.
Yeah, Scot, it's pretty hard to know how long someone is still carrying around the extreme emotional reactions and to what extent. I really thought I had left it all behind until that commercial we discussed quite some time back. But others still carry it around with them for so long and so close to the surface, it can be a mine field. I'm sure, as she calms down and you get a chance to explain her anger will shift to the appropriate people. *hugs*
I think Bill is deceiving himself if he thinks that the overwhelming majority of people in public health think that smoking around children is child abuse.
Maybe among anti-smoking fanatics - sure. But among the general public health community - I don't believe that for a minute.
"Maybe among anti-smoking fanatics - sure. But among the general public health community - I don't believe that for a minute."
Then you are delusional, and clearly underestimate the full scope of the TC plague.
Take the blinders off already.
On Kevin's theory of projection:
Remember Alfred Miller, the mayor of (the inaptly named) Friendship Heights, MD, the first man in the country to try to make his town completely "smoke-free" indoors and out. One of his main reasons was Protecting the Children-- not only from the smoke but the sight of a cigarette. His law was overturned on a legislative technicality but about a year later Miller was arrested for molesting a child in a bathroom at a church.
You can't make this stuff up. Google it and see.
:
Here's a hypothetical question:
What happens when you take a kid away from parents who smoke (removed due to child abuse) and he ends up in foster care?
Except for the part about why the kid was in foster care, this could be the REAL answer:
Man Accused of Killing Foster Son To Appear In Court
WBIR TV - November 28, 2007
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/ne...x?
storyid=96667
Foster parent Ken Taylor, 53, faces arraignment on the reckless homicide charge Wednesday morning. According to a police report, Taylor admitted he choked 16-year old Jordan Shelton Saturday.
An autopsy on Monday revealed Shelton died from what looked like an arm lock to the neck.
Taylor told police it happened when he was trying to discipline Shelton, after he caught him smoking cigarettes.
********
Be proud, Bill. This is what you reap. Ain't it grand?
JTF
So in order to 'save this child' from his own parents (again, I don't know why he was no longer with his own parents), he kills the kid because he smoked?
I guess the foster dad drank the kool-aid. Keep serving it up Bill, in big glasses. It is leading to such wonderous things.
.
JTF and Sunz,
Bill will just blame the kid for trying to smoke. He won't feel any guilt or sorrow at all. In other words, he'll say the kid asked for it. You know, much like women "ask" to be raped.
You know Lynda, when these folks have finally succeeded in turning us into a fully fascist country, they will be the first ones 'taken down'
you know the ones who are NEVER satisfied with anything. That they cannot get anywhere past their noses on this is astounding.
.
The entire foster system is full of abuse...violent abuse...it's pretty sad how little they care for the children as to not properly oversee foster parents.
Sunz
Scapegoats, always useful,government gets what it wants and the ones that the public blame for disrupting their lives and causing all the misery, end up on trial.
Recommended reading "The Prince"
Clearly Mr. Godshall is avoiding answering my question as to if his attempts to deceive the public were intentional or accidental.
Mr. Godshall presented information claiming the tobacco smoke pollution was higher then EPA standards, however the information he presented was attempting to compare a very short term duration in minutes measured mobile as to capture frequent transient puffs of smoke, against a established measurement that is measured from a stationary position, well away from transient influences, and is averaged over a period of 24 hours (which is stated in his own supporting links).
Furthermore, this is not the first time this argument has been raised about the obvious deceptive flaw in his comparison, and as of yet, I don't believe he has ever attempted to even refute it, however he continues to present this same fallacy over and over.
Needless to say if the EPA measured ambient air quality the way the sources Godshall cites for his tobacco smoke there could not be a single operating factory as the activists performing the measurements would place monitoring devices directly into the effluent plume a few feet from the chimney opening, and claim that air quality standards were being exceeded. As this is how Godshall's cited activists attempt to do their data collection, thus rendering any type of comparison, extremely illogical.
His further ignorance of this issue leads me to the conclusion he has been caught red handed trying to deceive the public, and this is why he is choosing to ignore the obvious.
This isn't science, but the parlor tricks of an illusionist.
Commenting by HaloScan
