Social engineers and anti-tobacco grant junkies aren't earning their paychecks. Come on, you can do better than that for all of the grant money you are getting from the fedrul Gubmint. Give me 1% of your grant and a six pack and I can prove that dildos cause cancer.
Let me help them rewrite their study:
Rates of hospital admissions for everything and anything [acute myocardial infarction, Gonorrhea, mental retardation, Angina, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH), Erectile Dysfunction (Impotence), Hair Loss (Baldness), Prostate Cancer,] were reduced by 100% after a comprehensive ban on smoking on private property, including hospitality venues (e.g., bars and restaurants and JTF's house), in the Democratic People's Republic of New York and the world. This is equivalent to a reduction of approximately 3800 AMI hospital admissions in 2004 as long as those people didn't eat Big Macs and drink beer and an estimated cost savings of $560 gazillion. Our results show that enactment of clean indoor air laws (communism) was associated with a complete elimination of hospital admissions and that a comprehensive statewide law had the largest effect since giving the sheeple a choice might mean that they would be able to smoke."
"By jumping the gun and drawing conclusions prematurely, I fear that we are hurting our overall scientific credibility."
There you go again, doctor, with that 'we.' In god's name, what exactly will it take?
"In the long run, that may harm the effort to promote smoking bans far more than spreading the belief that such bans are going to immediately prevent heart attacks is going to help enact these bans."
It's statements like that, doctor, that make many of us wonder whether your major concern is the TRUTH or whether your major concern is WHETHER OR NOT YOUR BELOVED TOBACCO CONTROL MOVEMENT RETAINS CREDIBILITY. In other words, it goes to the heart of whether or not you retain any ethical and moral integrity, both as a man and as an educator.
Now, you've shown repeatedly that tobacco has lost much -- or most -- of ITS credibility; but may I suggest that your friendly neighborhood posters have shown as well that YOU yourself lack credibility? Here. On this, your own blog?
I think it was Walt who said many months ago that you've lost the argument here -- and that was BEFORE the July 5th blog with all its devastating postings that turned your arguments even moreso into mincemeat! And a good indication that you have indeed lost credibility with the posters here is seen when questions are asked -- some many times over -- and you continually evade those questions. Moreover, you refuse to engage the posters in a meaningful collegiate discussion on very basic matters -- isn't that true?
Well, that's the game we've been dealt, now isn't it? We press and you evade -- press and evade. So it's hi-ho, hi-ho, and off to the snake pits we go! Thank you -- I've never had so much dismal fun in my entire life.
.
Since nobody knows how to analyze a study, including the press, don't fear for your "credibility," ; the credulous give all of this crap credence and the juggernaut rolls on.
In fact, soon we'll be hearing that the heart attack rates fell in South Carolina BECAUSE of the ban on smoking in New York. Something or other about prevailing winds. Repace will testify.
The study itself reads like a Rube Goldberg machine, with so many parts, cogs, variations, mathematical regressions, and the pits of discarded cherries that almost any rabbit could've popped out of its hat.
Seems one of the few factors they adjusted for (on a gross statewide level since they claim to know nothing on a personal level) was "clinical care." Could you explain what that means, or possibly means?
I also note too that where elsewhere they claim a tremendous quit rate, it seems to have somehow magically disappeared (?)
:
Eric Blair:
...were reduced by 100% after a comprehensive ban on smoking on private property, including hospitality venues (e.g., bars and restaurants and JTF's house)..."
My house?! Nevah
Walt:
I also note too that where elsewhere they claim a tremendous quit rate, it seems to have somehow magically disappeared (?)
THAT'S what **I** want to know and hear more about too.
That and this -- two things that stand out most glaringly to me:
"Estimated regression coefficients were used to predict the number of hospital admissions averted as a result of the implementation of comprehensive smoking bans."
Estimations and then predictions on those estimations??
Doctor, just one thing more. Do you think any of us here have been UNFAIR to you? I know several of us have been angry, harsh and perhaps even a bit intemperate, but the question is: Have we been UNFAIR to you? Do you think we've been UNFAIR? I'm sure several of us would like to know.
That's all.
.
Walt, though Doctor Siegel has not yet fully engaged ventilation/filtration evidence like the Bellagio tests, he has blown the whistle on Stanton Glantz and the ACS. I DO think we need to be more grateful.
http://www.americangaming.org/as...APER_7-7-
06.pdf
Sorry Walt, I meant Harry.
Just a quick note before I hit the sack here.
This study notes a VERY important finding that seems to be ignored by the authors and probably by the press:
"Smoking prevalence was relatively stable during
the study period (1995 to 2004),"
This was a period in which smoking bans proliferated wildly in NY: the study shows CLEARLY that smoking bans have no effect on smoking rates! Any grant/tax money allocated on the grounds of reducing smoking through bans should be immediately withdrawn!
ALSO: the period of 1995 to 2004 in NY was a period of WILD increase in cigarette taxes. I haven't run the numbers yet, but I believe cigarette taxes (including the MSA tax that people like Cathy would like to pretend wasn't a tax) increased by ... hmm... 300% ???
If I'm right, then this study clearly shows that even a THREE HUNDRED PERCENT tax increase has NO effect on reducing smoking. All it does is punish smokers, an unorganized and relatively defenseless minority... stealing their money and transferring it to a generally richer group.
This is the sort of thing that serves as justification for outright revolutions. **ANY** politician that calls for higher taxes on cigarettes at this point should be voted out of office if the spirit of fairness still means anything in this country.
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/
From NYC and Marriott Hotels:
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/C...oke/
BS_NYC.html
???????????????????
Just makes you wonder.
;(
Do my eyes deceive me or did the NY Times NOT prop this study up as definitive and gospel:
Report Says Smoking Ban Helps to Cut Heart Attacks
NY Times - September 28, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/2...ion&
oref=slogin
[Excerpt]
Using a statistical model incorporating the 10 years of heart-attack data, state health researchers identified factors associated with heart attacks: people suffer more heart attacks in winter; there are different rates in different counties; heart attacks are dropping anyway because of better medical care; and, more important, local governments have been curbing smoking since 1995.
If researchers, in effect, subtract these factors that affect heart attack rates, then what is left is likely to be the effect of the 2003 ban, said Harlan R. Juster, the Health Department’s director of tobacco surveillance, evaluation and research and an author of the study.
By this indirect reasoning, the number of hospital admissions for heart attacks should have been 49,225 for 2004, but was 45,412.
*
Worth a read. How scientific research is deteriorating.
http://www.dcscience.net/lawrenc...iology-
2007.pdf
GreatScot
I really hate to go OT on a very important thread but it must be done.
Good job by FORCES getting the Nuttall fund in the news. And an interesting response by Mr. Nuttal:
US GROUP VOWS: 'WE'LL PAY FOR SMOKER'S CARE'
cornwall.co.uk - September 27, 2007
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/
...tentPK=18510715
A pro-smoking group in the United States is pledging to pay for the private treatment of a Newlyn smoker who is being denied surgery on the NHS.FORCES International is waiting for permission from John Nuttall to start a fund-raising campaign.
The human rights group, which proclaims to protect personal lifestyle choices, was alerted to Mr Nuttall's plight after it was documented on a Boston physician's website.
Michael Siegel's article stimulated 131 replies with many involved in a debate demanding action.
Twenty-nine pro-smokers pledged 1,545 in individual donations of 20 to 100.
FORCES International president Maryetta Ables said the John Nuttall fund-raiser would meet the full cost of private care.
Speaking to The Cornishman from West Virginia, she said: "All we need to know is our target goal and he will be free to go get his surgery."
Mr Nuttall's story hit the national headlines this month.
The 57-year-old, who broke his ankle two years ago, has been repeatedly turned down for surgery and is being prescribed a daily dose of morphine tablets for pain.
Steve Parsons, an orthopaedic surgeon at Treliske Hospital, is refusing to operate on the grounds that Mr Nuttall's smoking habit would adversely affect the outcome and hinder the healing process.
Mr Parsons was unavailable for comment. A hospital spokesperson, however, reiterated his decision and said "he would not be changing his mind".
And as Mr Parsons is also the consultant surgeon at Duchy Hospital, which is the leading provider of private health care in Cornwall, Mr Nuttall may be forced to consult a surgeon outside Cornwall.
He is considering the offer after being contacted by FORCES International this week.
"I was over the moon when they said they would pay for it," he said.
"But then I realised that I don't want to accept charity.
"For me this is all about getting the NHS to give me some of the money back that I've paid in my National Insurance all these years.
"If I let them pay it'll mean the NHS is getting off with it. I will have to think this over and let them know next week."
*
Scientific credibility? Who cares? It's not about scientific credibility.Never has been.
You've blown this whistle four or five times now, doctor. And they keep releasing these studies. They don't care. They don't care. They don't care.
You. Were. Duped. And continue to be.
Want to know why it doens't matter? Because these studies offer political cover for selfish people who want to seize property and businesses and make owners cater to specific demands. Proof? Go here and check out how these very well-educated people justify smoking bans:
http://
matthewyglesias.theatlant..._are_taco_b.php
That's your team, doctor.
Sam,
I went, I read and I confirmed that our very well educated are dupes for the establishment media. I am sure you read what they think of smokers (stupid hill-billies). Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Albert Einstein, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas McArthur and on and on and on, all stupid hill-billies.
You're dong it again.
"As much as we might like to believe"
AND "I fear that we are hurting our overall scientific credibility"
Still a part of the team, eh Doc?
I think Harry has it right.
Have we been unfair?
We ask specific questions that you should be readily able to answer, and you routinely ignore them.
We consistently point out the incongruities of Smoking ban laws, and you shrugg them off.
We point out the parralels between this current rush toward socialism and the rise of the Nazi machine, ..you refuse to acknowledge those parralels.
You are clearly blinded by your hate for the smoke. (not so much the smoker), but the smoke itself and your perception that YOU get to decide what's best for anyone that enjoys the activity.
How are you able to reconcile the psychotic hatred by you and your TC buddies and the willingness to forfeit the civil liberty, property rights, and general freedoms of expression, assembly, and personal risk assesment against the absolutely, unequivocal holy "scientific" quest to rid the world of Tobacco useage at any cost, no matter how high that cost may be?
Clearly, this is your goal.
You are evasive, routinely misdirect, and have yet to provide the direct responses required of somone who claims to want to set things straight in the "scientific" community as it pertains to the Passive Smoke Fraud.
It seems your interest lies in getting TC to recognize and somehow admit that they are deceiving the public, and not at all in making the public aware that they ARE being deceived. You approach seems to be a lot more like; "you guys better stop it, before someone finds out"
That "someone" is the general public.
Most smokers already know.
You're singing to the choir, so if you really want to make a difference, provide some answers, and make sure that "someone" other than the posters here get the message.
Based on the tables presented in this "study", there were fewer ami admissions in 1995, 1997, and 1998 than in 2004, yet they trumpet 2004 as a magical year.
I don't get it. This is a whole new way of looking at figures.
They also don't discuss population demographics, population shifts (downward, generally), the increased use of better pharma treatments such as statins, or even the aspirin-a-day campaign.
However, they did state that strokes have NOT decreased.
This goes into the troll bin.
The study was published online ahead of print
Another one. *yawn* It gets old and tired after a while. All the same, an awful lot of people are gullible enough to still believe anything they read...just because it's in print.
One lesson here is that even if a study is published, you still need to review it critically and you should not necessarily assume that its conclusions are valid and well-supported.
Can I...getawitness?! Amen to that. Interestingly, I left a comment to that effect on the Scotish study just a day or two ago.
BTW, nice info on SC, Nebraska and "all other states." I didn't realize that a doctor was *capable* of actually looking into things--ya know, like researching anything. Mmmmm, how enlightened. IMHO, this one (blog) is much better written than the last.
Admittedly, my mind is still on island dreams. Think: Majoraca.
MJM: This study notes a VERY important finding that seems to be ignored by the authors and probably by the press: "Smoking prevalence was relatively stable during the study period (1995 to 2004),"
This was a period in which smoking bans proliferated wildly in NY: the study shows CLEARLY that smoking bans have no effect on smoking rates! Any grant/tax money allocated on the grounds of reducing smoking through bans should be immediately withdrawn! ALSO: the period of 1995 to 2004 in NY was a period of WILD increase in cigarette taxes. I haven't run the numbers yet, but I believe cigarette taxes (including the MSA tax that people like Cathy would like to pretend wasn't a tax) increased by ... hmm... 300% ???
*snort* Nobody uses their brains anymore. Oh, that's right, they have ANTIbrains. "Impaired cognitive ability". After that bit o' research on heart attack trends in other states for comparison...I guess that the Doc can't technically be diagnosed with ASDS. (The occasional bout with humor is also a sign of recovery.) How could an antismoking group/researcher not notice the admission that bans and insane taxation don't curb smoking? Ah, but that's New York, where they use MSA money to buy golf carts...oh, they're so worried about the cost of tobacco-related diseases. *snort*
MJM continues: This is the sort of thing that serves as justification for outright revolutions. **ANY** politician that calls for higher taxes on cigarettes at this point should be voted out of office if the spirit of fairness still means anything in this country.
I have lists of how politicans voted on antismoker legislation. I should put them on the Political Empowerment page.
Majoraca. Think: Majoraca.
PS
Eric Blair was George Orwell. Correct?
First person listed on http://www.jusonline.nl/smokers/.../
gallery02.html
rrgabe: I went, I read and I confirmed that our very well educated are dupes for the establishment media. I am sure you read what they think of smokers (stupid hill-billies). Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Albert Einstein, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas McArthur and on and on and on, all stupid hill-billies.
Other famous smokers http://www.stahlheart.com/wispof...oke/
famous.html (The lady on top is a friend of MJM.) I should add Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas McArthur.
If smoking bans do not lower the overall ETS exposure of nonsmokers, what could explain a heart attack reduction?
http://www.ifs.org.uk/
publicatio...ication_id=3523
LeanderJ "However, they did state that strokes have NOT decreased"
Noticed to too. Funny, that didn't make the headline.
.
Eric Blair was George Orwell. Correct?
Yep.
I'm really surprised that no one mentioned that the increased use of perventive heart medications during the period in question might not also be a factor worth monitoring - in the control groups as well.
Of course admission rates are down for heart attacks and they will continue to go down. There was a time, not so long ago, where if you suffered with a "mild" heart attack, you were admitted as a patient and stayed in the hospital at least one week. Now, "mild" means a lecture on what not to eat,smoke or drink, a prescription from the friends at big pharma and you are sent on your way. No admissions means the smoking ban is working, even if they are treating patients as nothing more than cattle and a claim to the insurance companies. I remember when I admired Doctors. Now they spend more time in conferences deciding how to cover their butts incase of a malpractice lawsuit. By the way Doctor, is that why you no long practice medicine, but would rather teach behaviour?
Michael Siegel said: "I am arguing that it is inappropriate to interfere with parental autonomy to make decisions regarding health risks to which they expose their children. The only exception would be for truly life-threatening risks, such as the risk of a fatal car accident (thus, I support the required use of car restraints)."
But SIDS is a life-threatening risk, and secondhand smoke increases the risk of SIDS. Since Dr. Siegel apparently does not wish to dispute this (after I have asked him about it several times now), there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the statement quoted above: Michael Siegel now agrees with measures that would restrict parents from smoking around infants indoors, including cars.
I will accept this as a retraction of his previous statements on the matter. And on behalf of the children of America, I accept his apology.
www.geocities.com/corporate_opposition
Actually there may be a second conclusion one could draw here. When confronted with the hypocrisy of his arguments, Dr. Siegel either tries to change the subject or disengages completely. He needs to limit himself to discussing these issues with other smoke-free opponents, or better yet, with smoke-free supporters who are not able to expose the flaws in his arguments.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
Mr Nuttall's *reluctance* to "accept charity" makes me even more determined to support his cause. I respect that, and I hope he determines that our assistance is more on the lines of *standing together* (no pun intended) than charity.
tobaccoscamalysis, try to stay on topic.
"He needs to limit himself to discussing these issues with other smoke-free opponents, or better yet, with smoke-free supporters who are not able to expose the flaws in his arguments.
If the smoke-free supporters are not able to expose the flaws in his argument, why are you interested in getting them together?
.
DTB,
Keep thinking of island paradise's. It helps when trying to deal with all the lies, persecutions and de-normalisation we are assaulted with every day.
GreatScot
PS I had one S of an holiday.
Sun, Sea, Sand, Sex, Sangria, Swims, Sails, Strolls, Smiles, Socialising, Songs, Snacks and Smokes....Superb
Cathy -- Car restraints seem to be a pretty simple cause and effect question. (although I am not offerring an opinion on that topic).
However, effects of infant exposure to various substances has been a topic of much debate over recent years. Early cat exposure is good, early cat exposure is bad... witness the recent policy change on peanut exposure (mothers were warned to avoid it, now that avoidance seems to have increased allergy rates). I posted before about the various health advice policy changes about infant sleeping positions that took place over my parenting-of-infants years. I could relate a similar story about giving babies water - it was a good thing one year and a bad thing the next. I know personally 3 children who had severe vaccine reactions -- although vaccines may have saved lives on a population level, I wouldn't suggest that these three particular children should have further immunizations.
It is possible that SHS exposure may increase the risk of SIDS (or not). It is also possible, as Kevin suggested, that such exposure may have protective effects in other ways. It is also possible that genetic, or other environmental influences may interact - to produce seemingly inconsistent outcomes.
That is why health policy does best to inform parents of all sides of an issue and then get out of the way while parents, who have the most knowledge about their particular children and circumstances, make decisions.
tobaccodefender wrote:
"But SIDS is a life-threatening risk..."
The mere act of putting a child in a car and driving somewhere is a life threatening risk. Going out to dinner with the little squirt in tow, to church, to the movies, to Grandma's for Thanksgiving, are all needless life-threatening instances parents put their children in.
Please point out any studies which link Driving With Junior with SIDS. Fow all we know, Driving With Junior (and smoking) prevents SIDS.
Since tobaccoscamalysis has not answered my repeated request to produce one person who can be documented to have died from SHS. I must assume tobaccoscamalysis agrees that there are none.
There could be a second conclusion drawn from a non-response. When tobaccoscamalysis is confronted with having to produce real facts other than fabricated nonsense, the subject is conveniently ignored.
Cathy,
your desperate contortions to twist Dr Siegel's words are painful to witness. Please stick to what you are good at. I would list them, however I can't really think of one.
GreatScot
Harry asked: "Doctor, just one thing more. Do you think any of us here have been UNFAIR to you? I know several of us have been angry, harsh and perhaps even a bit intemperate, but the question is: Have we been UNFAIR to you? Do you think we've been UNFAIR? I'm sure several of us would like to know."
No, I don't think anyone has been unfair to me.
When you are in a position of promoting public policies - policies that will affect the lives of many people, then you have to be willing to accept public scrutiny and criticism of your statements and actions. When you publish papers and disseminate scientific findings, you have to be willing to expect and accept that people have a right to react to it, question it, analyze it, and so forth.
So no - so far I don't feel that anyone has been unfair to me.
HOWEVER, I do think that some of my colleagues have been unfair to me. While they certainly have the right to disagree vehemently with any of my opinions, I don't think it is appropriate for them to personally attack me, blacklist me, and attempt to ruin my career. I certainly don't think it was fair, for example, for ANR to refuse to take MY article off their website.
So I have to say that I while I feel I've been fairly treated by my blog readers - even those who vehemently disagree on certain issues - I do not think I was fairly treated by the people in my own movement.
Lightning Boy stated: "You're singing to the choir, so if you really want to make a difference, provide some answers, and make sure that "someone" other than the posters here get the message."
People should be aware that this blog is now read by many media outlets, organizations, policy makers, and tobacco companies. So while the regular readers may be the "choir," there are many other readers and prominent organizations that are reading this.
In addition, I am getting a fair number of media interviews due to this blog. For example, I was interviewed by the AP for the story that broke this news yesterday. At least that article presented an alternative viewpoint, which I think was great, because otherwise only one perspective would have been provided.
Don S. makes a very interesting point, which is that with the increased use of medications, heart attacks could well be declining independent of smoking bans. The ONLY way to assess this possibility would be to include a comparison group. Only if trends in New York differed from trends in other states without smoking bans or in the nation, then could one rule out the possibility that the observed decline was not attributable to increased medication use or better control of angina.
This is why the conclusions of this study are completely unwarranted.
Walt - "The credulous give all of this crap credence."
.....
Oh, I like it!
Let's hear it for "Crap for the Credulous!" So, are the credulous to be known as "The Credulescenti?"
Maybe, "Garbage for the Gullible?"
Or, "Glantzum for the Gullible?"
Doc:I certainly don't think it was fair, for example, for ANR to refuse to take MY article off their website.
Well, you're on plenty of other websites. I'd be happy to put one of your articles on my website. You might not like the idea of having one of your articles on a site that is anti-ban--but, OTOH, as you've said many times over, presenting a *balanced* picture/argument is the right thing to do. So, if you want to write something--even if it's pro-ban, as long as it's relatively fair and well-written--then I would present it as "the other side of the coin" or "playing devil's advocate" or whatever. It might not do much for your career but, hey, the offer stands.
PS In fact, just today, I started to outline the "Healthy Living" page. That might be a good place for a good Rx pice.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"In addition, I am getting a fair number of media interviews due to this blog."
I think you're spreading yourself too thin. You can't possibly be getting enough sleep. According to a recent study you may be putting yourself at risk of premature death.
It's not that I care at what age you die, but you may cost society money by your sleep deprivation lifestyle choice. Rather, it's a question of money. Please provide your health insurance company name so I may contact them to raise your premium twofold. Thank you.
"I will accept this as a retraction of his previous statements on the matter. And on behalf of the children of America, I accept his apology."
Cathy you seem to believe you have a right or an empowerment to make decisions on behalf of strangers children, contravening that right from their parents.
To set you straight on the issue Parents!!! right or wrong have in a legal form and description, the final say as to what they or their children are exposed to.
It is not justified to make up a description in your imagination and apply it to all parents simply because they smoke? People and their lives vary entirely and to promote the "box lunch" as any similarity is completely ignorant and deserves the vilification you heap on your innocent victims.
You have no say over the affairs of other peoples children and to believe you do even in opinion, speaks volumes.
People have personal rights to choice, so far, despite your protests. It is my hope one of the parents you slander takes your slang to task with a healthy lawsuit to silence your intolerant and quite ignorant yapping.
Doc Siegel said; "People should be aware that this blog is now read by many media outlets, organizations, policy makers, and tobacco companies. So while the regular readers may be the "choir," there are many other readers and prominent organizations that are reading this."
This is of course encouraging, but not unknown to your regular posters. What's really encouraging is that YOU specifically are aware of it.
Could this be the reason you are so hesitant to answer some of the tough questions posed to you here?
Afraid of being mis-quoted perhaps?
I can't say I really blame you, but don't be.
As you have already clearly demonstrated, you are quite capable of adopting a position and standing fast in your beliefs and statements made no matter how contradictory they may seem to be.
So really, why not answer some of the questions that have been repeated dozens, if not a hundred of times by now?
If any media outlets of any real merit, (meaning less biased than most) ARE actually following this blog, it could only help your position, and help get "science" back on the right track....unless of course, you know you're wrong.
By all means continue to shine the light on the weakness of "the movement", but don't ignore the tough questions that ALL readers are awaiting answers to, whether they actually post here or not.
It's a disservice to "the movement" as well as to the public.
This is way off topic, but I thought our friends from the US might like to use it. I recieved a post card today from a friend who said that "She thought of me when she recieved this." It is sent by Phillip Morris and it is about the tax increase on cigarettes so to finance the children's health care program. It says:
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH
Let Congress know targeting smokers with a $6.10 a carton tax hike is going to far! Say NO to Higher Cigarette Taxes! Stand up and Speak Out. State and federal cigarette taxes have been raised 73 times since the year 2000---increasing the average price of cigarettes 80% a pack. Everyone should pay their share of taxes---but it's unfair to single out smokers once again for a 156% tax increase. Tell congress They're going to far. Paid for by Philip Morris USA. Visit www.stopthe FETincrease.com or call 1-866-527-4494.
I went to the site and all you have to do is enter your name, address and email. It will direct you to another page where you put in your zip code and you can find out how your represevative voted. If they were against it and voted no, then it sends you to a thankyou note, if they were in favor, there will be a note telling them how you feel about it. My represenative voted against it. He might just get my vote again someday. Maybe it is time we all let our represenatives know how we feel.
Acording to Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration quarterly, June 2003, an article titled " New York's Smoke-free Regulations: Effects on Employment and Sales in the Hospitality Industry", by Hyland, Puli, Cummings, and Sciandra, 63% of the state's population was already covered by a local ban by the end of 1998 ( see exhibit 1)
So, it also seems odd that the 2003 ban could cause a 8% drop in 2004, since the 2003 ban made little difference to 63% of the population. The antis have claimed the reason why McFadden and I can't detect a supposed AMI decline in state data, is because states have too many local bans, and states are not isolated enough. Now, of course they "change their tune" when THEY find a decline.
For the USA, overall, yearly heart attack admissions through the emergency room are as follows:
1997=441497
1998=468771
1999=462767
2000=479000
2001=487010
2002=499730
2003=485953
2004=446100
source, the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.
So, as you can see, the USA, overall, had a 8.9% decline between the same 2 years that the authors ascribe the NY ban to an 8% decline.
Doc's right..they should have added a control.
I had wondered why they didn't..
now I think we may have an answer.
Dave K
Diane--on ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, RJ Reynolds is doing the same thing.
At the moment, I'm trying to put a list together of how politicians have voted. (Interestingly, I just got to something on Iowa reported by Reuters taken from this blog! Sheesh, it's like playing Gossip!)
GreatScot: DTB,
Keep thinking of island paradise's. It helps when trying to deal with all the lies, persecutions and de-normalisation we are assaulted with every day.
GreatScot
PS I had one S of an holiday.
Sun, Sea, Sand, Sex, Sangria, Swims, Sails, Strolls, Smiles, Socialising, Songs, Snacks and Smokes....Superb
Mmmmmmmmmm.......mmmmmmmmmmm........
*DTB drifts to her daydreamy state*
James Austin wrote, "Please point out any studies which link Driving With Junior with SIDS. Fow all we know, Driving With Junior (and smoking) prevents SIDS."
Quite correct. It could be that since most smokers would crack the windows more than they might normally do when driving with Jr in non-smoking mode that the increased forced air movement might stimulate Jr's breathing patterns in a way that make SIDS less likely than if he had simply stayed at home in a bubble.
It's also quite possible that driving with Jr. all on its own presents a far greater SIDS risk than any the Antis claim for ETS: the increased exposure to exhaust fumes could very easily be a far more potent contributor to SIDS. Of course since we have no heavily tax funded anti-automobile lobby to produce studies on this we may never know if that's the case.
Cathy's playing the usual game of the antismoking lobby: taking some extreme or poorly constructed or disputed studies as biblical fact written in stone and then extending their findings to much different situations and acting as though those disputed findings apply there as well.
Tobacco Control propaganda at its finest.
========
Rod, The Credulescenti... Beautiful! And accurate. People like Cathy will take a study like this, probably not even actually read it (and if they DO read it, it will certainly not be with a critical eye), and then simply go on to trumpet the headlines that support their position in complete confidence that their position has once again been "proven by studies".
========
And finally, Dr. Siegel wrote, "I was interviewed by the AP for the story that broke this news yesterday. At least that article presented an alternative viewpoint, which I think was great, because otherwise only one perspective would have been provided."
Yes, they interviewed you, and even gave a good quote from Audrey Silk of CLASH... but then an editor undid their good reportorial work with a smashingly bad headline of "Law Prompts Drop in Heart Attacks". And that headline of course was repeated in dozens (that I've seen) and probably hundreds of newspapers and outlets around the world.
Looking at the data provided in the study offers an interesting alternative headline though:
Between 2003/4, after the small final link in NY's smoking ban was welded together, AMIs dropped by 2,270.
BUT... between 1999 and 2000, after extensive smoking bans locally* the number of AMIs INCREASE by 2,420!
A better headline might have been, "NY Smoking Bans Prompt Massive Increase in Heart Attacks!"
*(The study notes that by 2002 75% of NY had bans even stronger than the 1989 state law.)
But of course the AP, NY Times et al would not have been "responsible media organs" if they'd gone with the latter headline, now would they?
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/
Special Bonus Note for the next Antismokers' Awards Ceremony:
This study managed to use the word "Estimate" or its forms a total of TWENTY ONE TIMES in its four meager pages of derived findings.
Where are the paparazzi when we need them?
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/
Airline HEPA filtration systems remove Avian flu and SARS but can't handle tobacco smoke?
"Q6: Will the cabin air filters remove the SARS and Avian flu virus?
Yes, provided that they are ‘true HEPA’, microbially validated to 99.999% microbial removal. These are effective at removing viruses (refer to Q2).
Following standard practices used in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, Pall has performed challenges of its HEPA cabin air filters using the bacteria Brevundimonas diminuta and Bacillus Subtilis. The bacteria removal efficiency has been measured to be greater than 99.999%. Similarly, using the MS2 Coliphage virus, the virus removal efficiency has been measured to be greater than 99.9995%.
In response to recent airline requests, we can advise that the MS2 coliphage virus is approximately 4 times smaller than the corona virus which scientists believe is the cause of the disease, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The corona virus particles are about 0.080 to 0.160 micron (80 to 160 nm) in size.
The Avian flu virus, H5N1 current strain, is approximately 0.1 micron (100 nm) in size.
http://www.pall.com/
Aerospace_43...43636.asp#36277
This ANR sheet on ventilation/filtration cannot be reconciled with available sources of information independent of the ETS issue, such as I have posted above. What's up?
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=268
Cathy argues that sids is a life threatening risk, however I have yet to see a documented case of a 16 year old die from sids. Secondly I am still awaiting her demonstration of a documented case of sids attributed to a smoke filled automobile ride. Lastly, as for the analogy for car restraints is in error. People are not forbidden to ride with their children in their cars, they are required to have them restrained, as this reduces the risk of injury, but does not eliminate it. To make a comparison with smoke would be to require an open window as this has been demonstrated to significantly reduce smoke exposure. However Cathy promotes a zero risk approach for smoke, and the corresponding zero risk to car restraints would be ban the transport of children.
Since Cathy does not support the elimination of risk to children from automobile accident she by her own expectations should throw herself on the mercy of the children subjected to a far greater risks of lethal proportion by her callous obsession with attempting to punish smokers.
Can anyone explain the filtration concept of MPPS to me? Why would particles of that particular size range be more difficult to stop?
"This characteristic curve shows that the minimum capture efficiency occurs at about 0.1 to 0.3 micron particle size, which is defined as the "Most Penetrating Particle Size", or MPPS, for the filter medium and conditions applicable to a fine HEPA cabin air filter. For particles both larger and smaller than the MPPS, the capture efficiency is higher."
http://www.pall.com/
Aerospace_43...43636.asp#36277
I loved this from Bill H.'s reference from ANR:
"There is no safe level of exposure for Group A toxins. Reducing or diluting the level of smoke through ventilation does not equate to protection from the health hazards of secondhand smoke."
Thus:
A. There's no safe level of exposure for Group A toxins.
B. Secondhand smoke is a Group A toxin.
c. Therefore, there is no safe level of exposure for secondhand smoke.
So thus:
A. There's no safe level of exposure for Group A toxins.
B. Ordinary tap water contains arsenic, which is a Group A. toxin.
C. Therefore, there is no safe level of exposure to ordinary tap water.
Or:
(But we could go on and on, spending days and weeks on the misery and lethality of Group A chemicals, in whatever dosages.)
So, we live in a world of Group A. toxins, but there's no safe level, so we're all dead or dying. Obviously. Q.E.D.
The people in ANR are unprincipled and deceiving. And if the above doesn't prove as much, then I'm all ready with sackcloth and ashes and a hefty donation.
I wonder: Does anyone from ANR ever read the posting on this blog? Or do they all live in their sterile little cocoons sealed off from truth and honor?
.
Michael McFadden: "And finally, Dr. Siegel wrote, 'I was interviewed by the AP for the story that broke this news yesterday. At least that article presented an alternative viewpoint, which I think was great, because otherwise only one perspective would have been provided.'"
Not so The Paper of Record, which took everything the NY State Department of Health put out and simply reported it. The article was by some guy that goes by the name of Anthony Ramirez ('Conduit Ramirez'). Of course his masters on the paper smile benignly on all of this fine professionalism, as past performance has shown.
And here's something fresh (now it's kids' cold medicines):
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/2...Wiwu/
EKCdIv6V2Q
Snippet:
" Safety experts for the Food and Drug Administration urged the agency on Friday to consider an outright ban on over-the-counter, multisymptom cough and cold medicines for children under 6."
Something else for the caring Cathy to exercise her hot umbrage about.
.
I'm fascinated by this:
For the USA, overall, yearly heart attack admissions through the emergency room are as follows:
1997=441,497
1998=468,771
1999=462,767
2000=479,000
2001=487,010
2002=499,730
2003=485,953
2004=446,100
What are we to make of this? Heart attacks increased steadily from 97 to 02, and then dropped abruptly, while still being greater in 04 than in 97. Back in 97, we were still smoking on planes and of course at the corner bar.
But what does this say about the true "secular trend" or the effectiveness of statins, aspirin and the unrelenting"lifestyle" hectoring?
Does a key to this lie in the fact that it;s limited to ER admissions? (As opposed to Mr. Vanderbilt calling Dr Smythe?) Are we talking demographics here? Or some kind of bubble in the aging of populations? Or pointing up the randomness of roll of the dice Numbers and the folly of seeking patterns?
Serious questions. Michael? Dave?
:
Dr. John Kramer, a member of the sociology faculty at Penn State University, University Park sociology faculty, said: "The health risks of the habit — emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease, among others — aren’t news to anyone, least of all smokers."
Does 'anyone' include bartenders? Certainly not! For bartenders a warning has to crafted that simply CANNOT be crafted. And that's the honest damn truth! (Just ask what's-his-name.)
Who is this nut job Kramer, anyway?
.
Who cares? They're not bartenders, are they?
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0...-
name_page.html
Snippet:
" A CENTURY-OLD cigar factory responsible for the production of Hamlet cigars is to close with the loss of nearly 200 jobs, it was confirmed yesterday.
"Tobacco giant Gallaher blamed the smoking ban for the closure of its JR Freeman factory in Grangetown, Cardiff, which will close in 2009 with the loss of 184 jobs."
.
The TC argument against bar and restaurant ETS filtration:
OSHA tolerates yet limits worker exposure to airborne toxins and carcinogens generated by valued economic activity such as indoor welding. Since indoor smoking has no positive social or economic value, state legislatures and city councils should act to ban it unless ventilation and filtration measures can be proven to perfectly eliminate worker exposure to ETS toxins and carcinogens.
"Since indoor smoking has no positive social or economic value,"
It wouldn't be too hard to challenge that statement on both fronts.
Hot off the wires;
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Articl...0928?
hub=Health
"TORONTO -- High-school students who take part-time jobs for pocket money may be more likely to start smoking than teens who don't join the after-school and weekend workforce, a study suggests."
The reason?
"The work itself may also contribute to the decision to pick up the habit, he said. Often repetitive and monotonous, part-time jobs may make taking a smoke break a means of escaping boredom.
Stress may also be another factor, Ramchand offered.
"Kids don't report that their jobs themselves are very stressful, but what they will report is that managing their time and their responsibilities - getting all their homework done, sports if that's part of their lives, as well as their work responsibilities - the combination of those things creates stress.
"And they may turn to cigarettes as a kind of self-medication to relieve that stress." "
Now the analysis;
"Dr. Roberta Ferrence, executive director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, said she is not surprised at the findings."
""I think what makes more sense," said Ferrence, "is to make sure if they're working that they're working in smoke-free workplaces, because we do know that bans in homes, in workplaces, wherever, they do reduce smoking initiation, increase cessation and reduce relapse.""
Take note of the words "bans in homes" in her analysis of what she knows and we are to believe a home is a place they will never go?
In a similar report on the news spool the verbal content included an analysis which stated "exposures to adult smokers would almost certainly influence a non smoker to try it."
Here's some Must Reading about contemporary science:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....about-
that.html
Here's why.
QUOTE:" In an investigative report, “Why most published research findings are false,” ,... Ioannidis wrote:
Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable.
Reporting research findings that bring notoriety, career opportunities, promotions, speaking engagements, publishing opportunities and countless other nonfinancial rewards can be the most compelling biases. " END QUOTE.
How bout it, Doc?
Way I understand it, you had your first big success in AT epidemiology while still in graduate school. And while I'll grant you the benefit of "belief in your theory," didn't you see Anti as a route to Making A Name? And didn't it reward you for providing it with fodder? And use you till your usefulness generally gave out? And mightn't you have clung to your "committment to your findings" for a thousand and one reasons having nothing to do with the "findings"?
The article goes on:
QUOTE: "But Dr. Ioannidis’ most astounding finding, not mentioned in the WSJ, was that findings claimed to have been found in studies may simply be measures of the prevailing bias.
“The majority of modern biomedical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and post-study probability for true findings,” he said. And science has a long history of wasting efforts on research with absolutely no true scientific information to ever be discovered, he said. But what scientist or doctor would ever admit they’re working in a “null field”? As Dr. Ioannidis poignantly explains:
For example, let us suppose that no nutrients or dietary patterns are actually important determinants for the risk of developing a specific tumor. Let us also suppose that the scientific literature has examined 60 nutrients and claims all of them to be related to the risk of developing this tumor with relative risks in the range of 1.2 to 1.4.... Then, the claimed effect sizes are simply measuring nothing else but the net bias that has been involved in the generation of this scientific literature.. It even follows that between “null fields,” the fields that claim stronger effects (often with accompanying claims of medical or public health importance) are simply those that have sustained the worst biases. END QUOTE
Would you give that possibility a couple of minutes' thought?
:
Bill H,
The ANR and all other anti-smoker organisations both made up and follow the same game plan. The "no ventilation is good enough" and "no safe level" arguments are in place purely to prevent the de-normalisation tactic being derailed. They all point to each other as proof and ultimately the WHO FCTC document to validate their policy.
http://ash.org/fctcguidelines
Excerpts
Principle 1
6. Effective measures to provide protection from exposure to tobacco smoke, as envisioned by
Article 8 of the WHO Framework Convention, require the total elimination of smoking and tobacco
smoke in a particular space or environment in order to create a 100% smoke free lawsenvironment.
There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and notions such as a threshold value for toxicity
from second-hand smoke should be rejected, as they are contradicted by scientific evidence.
Approaches other than 100% smoke free lawsenvironments, including ventilation, air filtration and the
use of designated smoking areas (whether with separate ventilation systems or not), have repeatedly
been shown to be ineffective and there is conclusive evidence, scientific and otherwise, that
engineering approaches do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke.
“Smoke-free air” is air that is 100% smoke-free. This definition includes, but is not limited to,
air in which tobacco smoke cannot be seen, smelled, sensed or measured.1
1 It is possible that constituent elements of tobacco smoke may exist in air in amounts too small to be measured.
Attention should be given to the possibility that the tobacco industry or the hospitality sector may attempt to exploit the
limitations of this definition.
25. No safe levels of exposure to second-hand smoke exist, and, as previously acknowledged by the
Conference of the Parties in decision FCTC/COP1(15), engineering approaches, such as ventilation,
air exchange and the use of designated smoking areas, do not protect against exposure to tobacco
smoke.
For those interested here is the new resolution 56.1 of the WHO contract with over 150 Sovereign Nations.
http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_...HA56/
ea56r1.pdf
Destroying peoples lives unless they change sides is perfectly acceptable to them. By definition, we must be seen to be abnormal. Non-smokers must be united in their disdain and intolerance of smokers in all aspects of life.
GreatScot
In assessing the children in cars bans; if smoking mothers are all believed to be child abusers, wouldn't the logic involved in this belief also find; if mothers know they will be punished for taking a child in the car, wouldn't that increase the likelihood an abusive mother would simply leave the child at home, while she goes shopping or to work for the day. What would be the risk of a baby being left at home for 9 hours unattended?
And we can't say it wouldn't happen, it already does for a number of reasons, logically the frequency of this happening would have to increase.
If a belief exists all mothers can be considered capable of child abuse a belief requiring legislation to end the abuse, one would have to assume the frequency would increase tremendously, that couldn't be considered a benefit no matter how you look at it.
Kevin: What you describe is (intentional) "linear thinking" which we commonly find among TC members, because they must make sure that their conclusions match the ends. Synonym: brainwashed thinking.
Each person only sees his or her "truth" limited within their relative position, that as a human being, as a human culturally conditioned, socially trained, linguistically molded, historically constructed.
We then take our "truth," our religion, our philosophy, our moral and ethical codes, our political ideas, our science, and so on, and view them as our absolutes, without perceiving the whole. And we do this very seriously. The word SERIOUS is an understatement. For we die and kill for our "truths," which we consider absolute, when in reality, they are only relative, while we are failing to perceive the whole.
Ironically, each truth we perceive to be true is only a relative part of a greater whole, a whole that cannot be seen in linear thinking, logic and language, but can only be seen in pictures, symbols, images, metaphors - experience not explanation. But to understand the big picture is to take in the contradictions, to perceive the sudden images of intuition. - http://www.escapefromwatchtower....m/
elephant.html
A deal with corruption at it's core.
"WHO FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON TOBACCO CONTROL
Preamble
The Parties to this Convention,
Determined to give priority to their right to protect public health"
The above precedes statements which empower the single sentence; stating the parties lay claim to a right "to protect public health"
This would seem to require an agreement; those rights are no longer afforded to the individual and participation in the agreement guarantees the signatory Nation no longer respects the tenant of autonomy. Because the right of health protection of one's own body and the choices that involves can not belong to the individual and the state at the same time.
In the reasons and agreements it is further stated;
"Recalling Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966,
which states that it is the
right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,
Recalling also the preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization, which states
that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every
human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition,
Determined to promote measures of tobacco control based on current and relevant scientific,
technical and economic considerations,
Recalling that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979, provides that States
Parties to that Convention shall take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women
in the field of health care,
Recalling further that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on 20 November 1989, provides that States Parties to that Convention recognize
the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health,"
It is no guarded secret, the level of hatred and discrimination which has resulted from TC efforts in direct contravention to the agreements made.
The level of hatred deliberately promoted under the guise of "protection" has grown to unacceptable proportions while the deliberate ignorance and further promotions of discrimination in targeting of individuals with contempt and slander only increases daily.
For these reasons I and others would have to see TC and Public Health authorities fraudulently guilty of breech of this international agreement
I can see no reason to believe the document or any associated agreements are valid, or can anyone recognize any claim to "a right to protect public health" is anything more than a fantasized extension of rights which did not exist among many of the signatories at the time of the signing or in the ratification behind closed doors, without any public discussions of, or with, the effected individuals specifically targeted for ridicule and defamation by this international United Nations agreement.
Off topic I know, but it does occur to me that if they can get rid of one ancient herb in popular use, it will be a whole lot easier to denormalise herbal medicine.
"The second attack takes the form of the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive, which says that herbal remedies can only be licensed if they can be shown to be safe and produced to high standards. That sounds reasonable enough - until you learn that herbal remedies will be licensed in the same way as drugs"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
weeken...,790733,00.html
Look at the way Glantz introduces, to his own people, the NYS DOH's press release on their AMI "study." They're not even straight among themselves and to each other:
This is the fifth study documenting this effect. The 19% drop they found (compared to no law at all) is well within the 95% confidence interval from our Helena study and the results of a meta-analysis of the other 4 studies.
http://www.ucsf.edu/its/listserv...ntz-l/
0700.html
Compared to no law at all? That implies it did something it didn't do.
I won't even bother with the silliness of boasting its strength on the back of the Helena study. Good god.
JTF,
Excellent point.
Doctor, I would point out that Dr. Glantz is one of the "experts" who created the "consensus" regarding SHS.
So should we trust what he says about SHS here? Is he using confidence levels and other terms correctly? Or is something else at work?
He is either a trustworthy expert--in which case it would seem we should trust him here--or he is not--in which case we would have to remove his earlier work fom the "consensus."
In which case the argument for SHS as a significant workplace hazard would seem to disappear.
So which is it? Do you trust his work or don't you? If you question it in this case, why not in others?
From Walt's link:
"What can be done? Dr. Ioannidis said that instead of chasing statistical significance, we should improve our understanding of risk values and make sure researchers are testing true relationships, not those based on bias. He suspected that several large, established “classic” studies would fail the test. Even with statistically significant associations found in a multitude of studies performed around the world, he said, the probability that they are true is only one in five, hardly any better than chance and the probability known before the extensive research was ever undertaken."
“Diminishing bias through enhanced research standards and curtailing of prejudices may help,” he wrote. “However, this may require a change in scientific mentality that might be difficult to achieve.”"
Thanks for the great post Walt.
.
The above was me. Sorry Si for not seeking permission first.
What Glanz was never taught about statistical analysis, could obviously fill volumes. What he doesn't know it appears, he can compensate by blowing larger smoke rings.
The first and most credible reality in regards to scientific evidence found by theoretic calculation;
Sometimes you have it, most of the time you don't.
The Illinois Licensed Beverage Association has Glantz's methodology figured out:
"The integrity of the studies cited by these groups is questionable. For example, anti-smoking advocacy groups boast of recent statistics from Pueblo, Colorado citing a dramatic decrease in heart attacks since the inception of their ban. These groups consistently point to the reduction in heart attacks in Pueblo, Colorado and Helena, Montana as incontrovertible proof that secondhand smoke is doubling the heart attack rate among non-smokers.
These two studies comprise a population base of roughly 200,000 people. However, when you look at the 70 million people that comprise the non-smoking states of California, New York, Florida and Oregon-the heart attack rate has either not decreased at all or decreased such a small amount as to be statistically insignificant.
Researchers can deliberately sift through enough small local jurisdictions with smoking bans to find a few aberrations in heart attack rates and then claim that elimination of exposure to secondhand smoke will dramatically reduce incidents of heart attacks. Please don't be taken in by misleading claims based on very select data samples."
http://www.ilba.net/cgi-bin/
ILBA...name=SmokingBan
Walt said
For the USA, overall, yearly heart attack admissions through the emergency room are as follows:
USA NYS
1995=438454--44683
1996=455371--45449
1997=441,497--45961
1998=468,771--44651
1999=462,767--45589
2000=479,000--48010
2001=487,010--48015
2002=499,730--47943
2003=485,953--47683
2004=446,100--45412
What are we to make of this?
As you can see, I now carried the unadjusted USA data back to 1995, and added all the adjusted data for NYS from the actual report.
There are numerous factors at play here, of course in the non-age adjusted USA data, over the long haul the baby boomers moving into the heart attack age group are one of the strogest facors influencing these data. The increasing obesity rate is another. I also fear many of us are more sedinatary too.
In the late 1990s, a new class of drugs known as statins, which are taylored to fool the body into thinking it has more cholesterol than is actually present came into wide use. These cause the body to reject real cholesterol, and it really looks like the use of those has helped reverse the trend in both NYS and the USA, another is more combating of pre-diabetic conditions, and increasing public awareness of heart attack risk factors, may have been efective.
But notice the striking parallel of the nonadjusted usa data and the adjusted NYS data. It really looks like NYS took an unusual big jump, considering that it is highly unlikely that NYS uderstook a major shift in other risk factors during the period 1998-2000.
Probably, it was just by chance, and I think for whatever reason NYS took that big jump in 1998-2000, it simply hapened to reverse itself after 2002, and the data seem to become more ordered with the USA after 2002.
it is also possible the diagnostic criteria used to classify heart attacks may have been different in NYS 1998-2000 than the rest of the usaThe biggest difference between the usa and NYS is in the age-adjustment, but right now, they are doing ade adjustment to the standard usa2000 polulation, and since most of these data are near 2000, i think year to year differences due to age adjustment would be minimal.
The bottom line, is of course, one could divide the USA data by 10, claim it is actually the NYS data and still make a claim the data proved the NYS ban prevented heart attacks.
So, since my Big tobacco check has STILL not arrived, do you think I should just divide the USA data by 10, and claim it is NYS data, and it proves the ban worked, and get a big grant from the NYS Dept of Health and support myself that way?
( bettcha I could get it published too)
dave K
Although this research study is not posted and linked on the internet or peer reviewed, it is an independent evaluation of places where smoking bans have been implemented associating pretty definitive proof the bans increase violence and crime.
TC are now likely responsible for inciting the largest crime wave since the days of Al Capone.
Excerpt;
Compiled and Written by Guy Desrosiers
On behalf of:
Manitoba Association of Rural Hotel Owners
Box 71, Brunkild Manitoba R0G 0E0
---------------------------------
Los Angeles is the largest city in California. The numbers below show the
number of murders from 1994 to 2004. Again an increase from 1998 to
2002. In a city where ten years ago eight hundred murders plus was
common, a “modest” rise from 428 to 645 would not be as shocking for L.A.
residents. Would anyone even consider that this increase was more than an
17
“adjustment” after several years of decline? It is, however, interesting that
this rise in the number of murders corresponds with California’s restrictive
smoking law.
Number of Murders in Los Angeles 1994- Dec 31, 200412
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
850 838 707 569 428 432 551 587 645 517 515
Source: LA Police Department
Continues,,,
It is argued that the selection of these regions is random. It is
also argued that the date of implementation of the smoking ban is also
random. To randomly select seven regions and years and find an increase in
murder in every location, particularly when crime and homicide rates have
fallen sharply over the past 10 years is troubling. More research needs to be
done and done immediately. If our analysis is accurate and the shift to home
based consumption of alcohol is directly related to violent and criminal acts,
many people, with no relation to smoking whatsoever, will die.
Our analysis is incomplete because of a lack of access to complete numbers
regarding sales of alcohol in the regions that were examined. This is
especially true for the U.S. (El Paso, Boston, New York and California)
because relative to Canada, American alcohol sales are unrestricted. Beer
and other spirits can be purchased at convenience stores and supermarkets,
where in Canada alcohol is restricted to specific licensed facilities. This may
be a factor for consideration of future research.
As well, the sample size is quite small. This directly relates to the small number of communities that have instituted smoking bans. However, over
the next two years dozens of communities and several states will be
implementing smoking bans. It is hoped that this document will encourage
others to examine crime statistics in these locations closely.
Cont...
Smoking bans do not operate in a vacuum. If the result of smoking bans is
an increase of police activity (as in Fredericton) or more murders, then
society should have this information to make an informed decision on the
unexpected negative consequences of these bans.
Other Tobacco Restrictions That Are Associated With
Violence
Cigarette Price Increases
Cigarettes used to be something that a bandit stole from a convenience store
after taking the money. Now, with cigarette prices in Manitoba over $11 per
pack, cigarettes are now a motivation for robbery.
Cigarettes are light, easy to sell and untraceable. Within days nothing is left
but ash.
Since 2000, the Manitoba Government, through a program called “Operation
Provident”, has warned tobacco retailers about the increasing frequency of
cigarette thefts. To quote from this warning:
“In cooperation with Municipal Police and the R.C.M.P. we are
again asking for your help to stop the alarming increase in
cigarette thefts from retail stores.
Tobacco, Alcohol and Marijuana
Enough research has been done to show that intoxicating or addictive
substances share relationships of substitution and complementation. An
argument can certainly be made that restrictions in terms of price and
consumption for both alcohol and tobacco are, at least in part, responsible
for the increase in illegal drug consumption.
This increase in marijuana use is directly funding criminal activities. Gangs
fight over territory and money, and with a doubling of marijuana use there is
a lot of money to fight over. Gang violence hurts the reputation and safety of
communities. It is argued that a more pragmatic attitude to legal drugs may
reduce the problems caused by illegal ones.
Final Comment
Smoking bans and other tobacco strategy are intended to keep people
healthy. However, this research indicates that these policies are costing
some people their lives.
----------------------------------------
I can email this report to anyone who is interested.
Dave;
Do you think heart attacks declined in Helena because more people were shot or died in knife fights, at house parties as a result of smoking bans?
Shooting deaths, in place of those who would normally have died of ""natural causes"" [what we used to call a heart attack mortality.]
You should do the numbers; I know you could retire, to a Spanish villa on the money made selling that one.
Kevin--You said that article/research was not linked on the internet or peer reviewed. Where did you get it? Is this the only report of its kind on pro-ban areas?
Kevin, also to consider is the black market. If one criminal group has better territory/access/what have you then another group will want it, thus more violence as they fight over the territory/access/etc.
Rose: "The second attack takes the form of the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive, which says that herbal remedies can only be licensed if they can be shown to be safe and produced to high standards."
Thank god that's no problem with homeopathic medicine, which dilutes the remedial substance in water to the point where no trace of the substance can be found but where the water retains a MEMORY of the substance. Now we're talkin' real science!
Which reminds me of the 'no safe level' argument. Why do I think that instead of equipment removing 99.99 percent of cigarette smoke in a bar it removed 100 percent that TC would claim the air still retained the MEMORY of the tobacco smoke. Who can doubt that they would?
Idle thought: I wonder if there's any trace of tobacco smoke on Mount Everest. Surely, there must be.
.
"What Glanz was never taught about statistical analysis, could obviously fill volumes. What he doesn't know it appears, he can compensate by blowing larger smoke rings."
Yes, Kevin, and we know what orifice he blows those smoke rings out of.
.
Thanks Dave K. for providing this important information: After remaining rather stable from 2000 through 2003, heart attack admissions in the U.S. dropped by nearly 5% in 2004.
This is important because it demonstrates that there DOES appear to be a national secular trend of a decreasing heart attack admission rate in 2004. The New York decline doesn't look so impressive anymore when you compare it to the national trend.
This is why it is ESSENTIAL to include a control group in a study of this nature. And why the absence of a control group renders the conclusion of this study invalid, or at least unsupported.
DTB;
"Kevin--You said that article/research was not linked on the internet or peer reviewed. Where did you get it? Is this the only report of its kind on pro-ban areas?"
I received a copy quite a while back from a friend of the author in Manitoba, and I came across it today.
It is in PDF format 25 pages with a lot of charts and graphs which encompass police records of 7 cities studied and some detailed info on alcohol sales shifts, post ban. I can not say if any of the sites have it, although I am sure the author would not mind having it posted and linked, although to be fair He should be contacted first, which because it is dated might not be a bad idea in case he has updated it.
As he indicated in the report he was seeking a published researcher to follow up and do a more comprehensive investigation which as he indicates could be quite fruitful as demonstrated.
He was not too successful in getting it published and I haven't talked to either of them in quite some time now.
As a footnote I remember from discussions at the time the authors intent was to bring forward how ill concieved an idea, without investigation of deficit factors, the implementing smoking bans seem to be. The bans could provide a much larger danger. Certainly an obvious health risk to communities who will be forced to adapt to the new circumstances.
In forcing people to drink in large groups in unsupervised environments the chances of increased violence associated with drinking is compounded. The study details a large shift of alcohol sales from supervised venues to home consumption.
Originally the thinking after prohibition ended was; it would be the responsibility of a bar owner to maintain order. With a shift to home drinking the home owner [if any can be identified] now has that responsibility, with few having the ability as detailed in licensing regulations or the proper training to administer those duties, including the limiting of consumption when someone obviously has had enough. or the ejection of unruly patrons before things get out of hand.
Remember the Tennessee cig tax posted several days ago that stated:
"Starting today, state Department of Revenue agents will begin stopping Tennessee motorists spotted buying large quantities of cigarettes in border states, then charging them with a crime and, in some cases, seizing their cars"
Check out this blogsite
"Why They Call Them Tax Regimes"
'For those who seek to increase sin taxes as a means of funding social engineering, the experience of Tennessee should give pause.'
'I can't wait for the first legal challenge to this enforcement. As far as I can see, it violates federal sovereignty in interstate commerce, the 4th amendment, and the spirit of the entire Constitution'
Comments section is worth a look too.
http://
www.captainsquartersblog....99.php#comments
.
I remember on the occasion of my Brother's wedding reception 30 years back, there were a large number of people from three groups in attendance; Italians,East coast Irishmen and Polish.
This, when drinking is involved is a deadly combination. The night ended with 50 cops dispatched to break up the brawl.
With the promotion of more street parties especially in the summer time when the heat shortens a lot of tempers, the obvious effects seen in assaults, Sex crimes, Drunk driving, Disturbing the peace and property damages should prove to be quite predictable. If not entirely understandable.
The study I mentioned only investigated murders the other crime rate increases should not be too difficult to confirm if anyone took a close look and documented the findings.
Kevin said of Desrosiers' study indicating an increase in murder rates after bans, "He was not too successful in getting it published and I haven't talked to either of them in quite some time now."
Kevin, from the experience Dave and I have had (See:
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp )
I'm not surprised he's had difficulty getting published.
Imagine for a minute a world in which the funding/momentum was on the other foot: there'd probably be a dozen studies out there by this point showing vast increases in prison violence, rapes, murders after prison bans go into effect.
Have we seen a dozen? Have we seen even one? Nope: it's not politically correct to fund or do or publish such a study. Just too bad for the dead/raped prisoners... at least they died with clean lungs. :/
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/
Here is a story from NM---I hope Mr. Smith goes to Washington with this. I wish him luck.
http://www.alamogordonews.com/ne...news/
ci_7033336
This state has a large problem with violent crime and this is how our law enforcement is used.
;(
i found this while surfing the internet. have at it, folks.
http://businessshrink.biz/psycho...d-test-results/
"Have we seen a dozen? Have we seen even one? Nope: it's not politically correct to fund or do or publish such a study. Just too bad for the dead/raped prisoners... at least they died with clean lungs. :/"
Michael, Big Tobacco has agreed to not fight these bans. Who else has the money to pay for such non PC studies? I myself had to be ready to pay a ventilation/filtration expert to talk to a St. Louis County Councilman. No other money was available.
We have to weigh with all the law enforcement personal patrolling smoking bans and tracking the black market cigarette trade, in addition to the increased duties resulting from domestic drinking.
How many will die while resources are being stretch to their limits and how long before organized crime realizes; a new existence, of the increased time to respond? Which of course opens up a world of new possibilities with all the extra time allowed to escape.
Yes, Doc, it seem the good news continues.
In 2004 there were 446100 amis> the er as stated in my table above,
in 2005 there were 419925 amis> the er
in all of the USA another 6% decline after the almost 9% decline the previous year. .....
Yes, the trend does continue. Why should anyone be suprised when a place such as NYS reports fewer amis post ban? it's definitely happening everwhere, now verified by yet another additional year of national data. and your state statistisas well.
heart attacks are declining, but not because of smoking bans.
dave K
Reductions could be related to layoffs in the auto sector, or a number of other factors, including how many rainy days occur year over year.
The proposition is ridiculous unless you can accurately predict the number expected, how can you claim a reduction even occurred.
The annual numbers by head count only tell a small part of the total observation. reductions occurred with respect to what they have been telling us all along a process which takes over 2 decades to develop.
Is the cure or reduction of effects really so swift? How then can non smokers face any risk in respect to casual exposures seeing how long before the lifetime effects are now found to be mitigated.
I just ran across a very interesting 2005 quote by Caroline Flint, the British Minister of Public Health, in the British Medical Journal.
She was referring to an earlier proposed version of a British ban that would have exempted only "wet-led" British pubs, and said of it, "When the legislation is on the statute book we will have 99% of workplaces smoke free [and] most public places smoke free, with a few exceptions."
The legislation she spoke of was VERY similar to what existed in NY before the 2003 ban.
So, if the British Minister of Health is to be believed, roughly 99% of NY workplaces were smoke-banned BEFORE the final ban was put in place.
And we're supposed to believe that a reduction of 1% in workplace exposure led to an 8% drop in overall heart attacks?
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/
Re my comment above: Obviously the reduction was not 1% below what was there AFTER the 99% reduction. But the general point, that exposure reduction supposedly only affected 1% of the workforce, is valid. And when combined with things like the lack of controls, the bigger "jump" in AMIs in 1999 to 2000, the repetition of the Helena "bounce back" claim when it's been clearly repudiated with full editorial approval in the BMJ, the egregious overuse of the concept of "estimates" (21 times in four pages? Come on...), the lack of any statement of conflicting interests by people whose entire livelihoods probably depend totally on churning out studies supporting the antismoking mantra, and the seeming indifference to making the simple distinction of smokers vs. nonsmokers (in an era when you'll probably be asked for that status if you show up at the ER with a hangnail!), and the ignoring of the important (although "not published in a peer reviewed journal") DK/MMc study, all come together to show the very questionable basis of this Helena copycat.
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/
Anyone who wants more proof about the existence of the conflict of interest the authors of this NY "study" suffers from need only read and then listen (there's an audio link) to what Andrew Hyland tells a Buffalo radio reporter about his study. (And once again the headline given to it will make you vomit):
Smoking Ban Supporters Have Data To Back Them Up
WBEN Radio - October 1, 2007
http://www.wben.com/news/fullsto...hp?
newsid=08458
Buffalo, NY (WBEN) - A new study shows since the state instituted its clean indoor air law in 1993, heart attacks have dropped eight percent.
Dr. Andrew Hyland is thrilled with that word. He says some of teh drop is likely smokers who quit since the ban took effect. He says he plans to share that information with policy makers to create similar smoking bans across the country and around the world.
The audio link (where he says a bit more) is http://eod.liquidviewer.com/wben...nssmoking-
1.wma
Even the headline, aside from it's false definitiveness, screams bias. Wonder if anyone would also not bat an eye if it said "KKK Supporters Have Data to Back Them Up."
Hi, guys.
Just wanted to give a likely indication for reduction in heart attacks. And I kept going...
I'd suggest reading this monster carefully; you'll see why.
And I do hope Dave K notices the improvement in ozone reduction after 2002, a factor (among many) which might have a bearing on the drop in U.S. heart attacks beginning from arund that time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20750970/
'Exercising in areas with high levels of diesel exhaust and microscopic soot particles is especially risky for people with heart disease, according to the first study in which heart patients were directly exposed to pollution.
'European researchers found that brief exposure to diluted diesel exhaust during exercise reduced a key anticlotting substance in the blood and worsened exercise-induced ischemia, or insufficient flow of blood and oxygen to the heart — changes that can trigger a heart attack and even death.
' "We now have evidence that being exposed to diesel fuel during exercise will cause cardiac ischemia and that if you have heart disease, it can only make things worse," said Dr. Abraham Sanders, a lung specialist at New York-Presbyterian Hospital who was not involved in the study.
'16 million in U.S. have heart disease'
'The results have big implications: About 16 million Americans have heart disease, according to the American Heart Association. In addition, people with asthma, bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease also should use caution and avoid polluted air when exercising, Sanders recommended. But heart and respiratory patients should keep exercising regularly because it is so beneficial to overall health, doctors stress.
'Numerous studies have shown a link between short-term and long-term exposure to air pollution and higher rates of hospitalizations and deaths due to poor blood supply to the heart, abnormal heart rhythms, gradual heart failure and stroke.'
(My comment - not smoking or ETS. Nothing can logically be termed a 'cause' which has no consistent or reproducible effect.)
'This study adds to that knowledge about how air pollution harms people and aims to show what pollution is doing in the body, information that might eventually give clues for preventing such problems, said Dr. Howard M. Kipen, director of clinical research at Rutgers University's Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute.
' "It's quite amazing, what they found," but not a surprise, he said. Still, "most doctors aren't aware that little bits of pollution can cause heart attacks."
'The European study was reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
'Researchers in Sweden and the United Kingdom tested 20 men aged about 60 who had survived a heart attack at least six months earlier, had blockages cleared and propped open with a stent, and were getting treatment to prevent a second heart attack. The researchers noted they only tested men with stable heart disease and good tolerance for exercise, and monitored each closely to ensure none suffered any health problems.
'On two separate occasions, each man was put in an enclosed chamber for an hour and exposed to either diluted diesel exhaust or clean, filtered air. They rode an exercise bike for two 15-minute periods and rested in between. The men had electrodes attached to their bodies to monitor the heart's electrical activity.'
'Not enough blood to heart muscles'
'While exercising and exposed to diesel exhaust, the men experienced drops in the heart's electrical activity two to six times greater than when they were breathing filtered air. Those reductions indicated the heart muscles were not getting enough blood.
'While diesel exhaust contains many harmful chemicals, the researchers said they believe that particulates in the exhaust are the main harm to the heart patients.
'A 2000 study in six U.S. cities found the strongest association between risk of death in heart patients and air pollution exposure was for microscopic air particulates, such as those in diesel exhaust.'
Just used this following in another post, but it's explanatory (at least partially) of why, specifically, diesel particulate and exhaust gasses pose such a hazard.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/rep...3-0816-
2371.pdf
'Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture that consists of both a gaseous and particulate fraction. The composition will vary greatly with fuel and engine type, maintenance, tuning, and exhaust gas treatment.(6,10) The gaseous constituents include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxides of sulfur and hydrocarbons. The particulate fraction (soot) of diesel exhaust is comprised of solid carbon cores produced during the combustion process. More than 95% of these
particles are less than 1 micron diameter (:md) size. It has been estimated that up to 18,000 different substances from the combustion process can be adsorbed onto diesel exhaust particulate.6
'Up to 65% of the total particulate mass may be these adsorbed substances and includes compounds such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), some of which are carcinogenic.6 Particles in this size range are considered respirable because when inhaled they reach the deeper, non-ciliated portions of the lungs where they may be retained. In general, particles greater than 7 10 :md are all removed in the nasal passages and have little probability of penetrating to the lung. Particles
smaller than this can reach the air-exchange regions (alveoli, respiratory bronchiole) of the lung,
and are considered more hazardous.'
(My comment - the term 'organic carbon', like such terms as 'organic chemicals', include those from once-living sources, as with fossil fuels.
Combusted carbon particles from vegetative sources do not have the same properties or produce the same effects when inhaled.
Uncountable millions of solid, non-piercing particles are inhaled into and removed from the lungs on a daily basis - but the solid carbon cores of diesel exhaust may, like cell-piercing asbestos fibres, remain in the lungs or other tissue until after death, producing cancer and other disease.
It has been made evident that the effects and results of multiple lucrative industry-produced substances have been attributed in PR to tobacco smoke as a strategy, while attention and disapproval are carefully focussed on the supposed fault and incapacity of the public to maintain health under a barrage of profitable industry poisons and, importantly, the stated inability of individuals to make independent personal decisions better made by industry CEOs seeking endless expansion over a world already dying from such abuse.
When politicians allow industry ties to place self-interests over the public they are sworn to serve, the health, lives and rights of others may seem a cheap price to pay for increased share prices every quarter, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.)
http://cta.policy.net/regional/oh/
'Ohio's Dirty Power Plants'
'Buckeye State Air Pollution'
'Ohio is home to some of the nation's biggest and dirtiest power plants. We are often blamed for the pollution we send down wind, but our pollution has the greatest impact on our own health and environment. Whether it's premature deaths, asthma attacks or heart attacks, Ohioans are suffering the damaging effects of power plant air pollution more than nearly any other state. Likewise, almost no state has more to gain than Ohio from the cleanup of our nation's biggest industrial polluter, the electric power industry.
'Power plants: The number one polluter'
'Today, the nation is facing a health crisis from power plant pollution. Every year power plants spew billions of tons of pollution into our air. Nationally, 50 percent of electricity comes from coal, but coal-fired power plants are responsible for the lion's share of dangerous pollution from the electric power industry. Within the electric power industry, these plants generate:
97 percent of deadly fine particle soot and sulfur dioxide emissions;
92 percent of smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions;
86 percent of emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary global warming pollutant; and
almost 100 percent of toxic mercury emissions.
Moreover, power plants are responsible for more than 68 percent of the total annual emissions of sulfur dioxide, the primary ingredient of deadly fine particle pollution, from all sources, including cars and trucks.
'Harming your health'
'Recent scientific studies by researchers affiliated with the American Cancer Society, the Harvard School of Public Health and other top universities and research institutions have made it possible for scientists working for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to predict how many premature deaths, heart attacks, and other impacts are caused by power plant pollution.
'Power plant pollution cuts short the lives of nearly two thousand Ohioans each year'
'EPA's own consultants estimate that fine particle pollution from power plants shortens the lives of 1,743 Ohioans each year. Ohioans have the fourth highest risk in the country of dying from power plant pollution. Fine particle pollution from power plants also causes 227,521 lost work days, 1,638 hospitalizations, and 39,703 asthma attacks every year, 2,268 of which are so severe they require emergency room visits.
'Leads to lung cancer and heart attacks'
'A recent scientific study by researchers affiliated with the American Cancer Society found that people living in the most polluted cities have approximately a 12 percent increased risk of cardiopulmonary death over those living in the cleanest areas of the country. Similarly, for lung cancer, there is approximately a 16 percent increased risk for those living in the more polluted cities. Based on EPA data, each year, 212 lung cancer deaths and 2,873 heart attacks in Ohio are attributable to power plant pollution.'
(To be c
(Con't)
'Children at risk '
'Children are the most susceptible to the detrimental effects posed by power plant air pollution. In Ohio, 2,577,634 children live within 30 miles of a power plant, the area in which the greatest health impacts are felt. Additionally, researchers have found that infants in areas with high levels of particulate matter pollution face a 26 percent increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and a 40 percent increased risk of respiratory death. '
(In the following paper, please especially note 2nd-last paragraph regarding recent cuts in ozone levels, in view of drop in heart attacks previously discussed.)
http://lungaction.org/reports/
so...protecting.html
'Appendix A: Description of Methodology'
'Protecting the Nation from Air Pollution'
'A log jam of long-delayed measures finally broke loose in 2005, bringing us steps closer to much cleaner air. Unfortunately, the year also brought more efforts to protect selected polluters from cleaning up and left locomotive-sized holes in the rules for power plants and diesel engines. Then, early in 2006 came a victory in court that closed one of those big loopholes EPA had tried to open.
'Blocked for years by industry lawsuits, the Environmental Protection Agency took steps in 2005 to free the states and local governments to begin new plans to clean the air in their communities. EPA proposed new limits on particle pollution and finally announced a new major program to clean up coal-fired power plants. Unfortunately, polluters and their friends in Congress and the Administration are also working to delay and diminish the impact of these steps. Several proposals would handicap or block clean up measures from some sources entirely. The American Lung Association and our allies are fighting those changes in Congress and in the courts to keep our nation’s ability to fight air pollution strong.
'States renewed their fight to clean up local and regional pollution
'In 2004, EPA officially told each state which areas still had too much ozone and particle pollution. Those announcements set states and cities to work to determine how to meet the health-based limits, or standards, for each pollutant. In 2005, state and local officials began the long process to decide which sources of pollution to trim and by how much. State and local governments began holding community meetings and analyzing various approaches to map out a strategy to reduce local sources of pollution. These areas will have to put some clean up measures in place beginning in 2007; some areas with especially dirty air have until 2021 to complete the clean up.1
'However, states and cities would have taken these steps years ago had industry lawsuits and EPA decisions not blocked them from getting started. As it is, state and local governments are working to reduce emissions to meet the limits on air pollution, called the national air quality standards, that EPA set in 1997. In the ensuing decade, thousands of studies have confirmed that those standards are set too high, forcing communities to continue to breathe levels of pollution that threaten human health.
'Steps backward'
'Unfortunately, in a step the Lung Association is challenging in court, EPA changed the procedures state and local governments must follow to clean up air pollution and, in the process, weakened the protections the public expects. Under these new regulations, many cities with serious air pollution problems, like Cincinnati and Phoenix, will not have to put in place effective strategies to clean up local sources of pollution. In addition, EPA will allow these communities to have unhealthy levels of pollution for years longer than other cities. These changes violate requirements clearly spelled out in the Clean Air Act.2 The American Lung Association and our allies are fighting these changed rules in the courts.
'EPA proposed new standards that failed to adequately protect public health
In December 2005, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson finally proposed new standards for particle pollution (particulate matter or PM). Lamentably, the proposal fails to protect the public health as required by the Clean Air Act. The standards were last reviewed and revised in 1997. The Clean Air Act requires a review of the standards to be completed every five years. Thus, EPA should have proposed new standards in 2002. The Agency finally proposed new standards because the American Lung Association and other environmental groups sued the Agency to force it to review the 1997 standards. In September 2006, EPA will announce the final standards.
'Late as they are, EPA’s proposals for the particle standards failed to do what the Clean Air Act requires: Protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
'EPA’s proposal for fine particles (PM2.5 and smaller) was much weaker than the proposal recommended by the American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society, American Public Health Association, American College of Cardiology, and other public health and medical groups. For the first time, EPA’s proposal was also less protective than that recommended by its own independent scientific advisors and staff scientists, air pollution specialists who had explored the research for seven years.
'EPA’s proposal ignored health risks from larger coarse particles (PM10-2.5) from agriculture or mining and exempted them from control. EPA even decided to stop monitoring for these pollutants in cities smaller than 100,000 people, despite having no scientific basis to decide that these particles were safe to breathe.3
'EPA accepted public comment on its recommendations until April 17, 2006. Under a court order, EPA Administrator Johnson is required to determine the final standard by September 27, 2006.
'The ozone standard is also finally under review. EPA is in the midst of reviewing the national air standard for ozone, having last set that standard in 1997. As a result of a court settlement with the American Lung Association, EPA must propose a new standard for ozone by March 2007 and announce its final decision in December 2007.
'EPA empowered the states to clean up power plants'
'Old coal-fired power plants are among the biggest industrial polluters, especially in the eastern half of the United States. The toll of death, disease and environmental destruction caused by coal-fired power plant pollution continues to mount. An analysis released in 2004 attributed 24,000 premature deaths each year to power plant pollution. In addition, the research estimates over 550,000 asthma attacks, 38,000 heart attacks and 12,000 hospital admissions are caused annually by power plant pollution.4
'On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule, or CAIR, that will require 28 states and the District of Columbia to reduce power plant emissions by 2015. CAIR is similar to an approach EPA used successfully in 1998 that resulted in major power plants installing new pollution control measures by 2004 in 11 states, with reductions coming in parts of two additional states in 2007. The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to force the plants to clean up by requiring states to reduce the pollution blown across state lines.
'The Clean Air Interstate Rule targets the problem of pollution blowing across state lines, especially from sources that may be hundreds of miles upwind. Under this rule, these 28 states and the District of Columbia are directing power plants and other sources to clean up emissions that contribute to ozone and particle pollution. Power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide also contribute to pollution problems nearer to the plants, so cleaner smokestacks mean less harm to people living in a widespread geographic area.
'According to EPA, CAIR will help 450 counties in the eastern United States reduce pollution enough to meet the current national standards for ozone and particle pollution. Critically, CAIR protects the authority of the states to reduce pollution even further. EPA estimates that cleaning up these power plants and other sources will have the following important health benefits by 2015:
prevent 17,000 deaths annually;
prevent millions of lost work and school days from asthma attacks, and other respiratory and cardiovascular problems; prevent tens of thousands of non-fatal heart attacks; and
prevent tens of thousand of hospital admissions.
EPA estimates that cleaning up these polluters will provide $85 billion to $100 billion in annual health benefits, which totals 25 times the cost of implementation. When the clean up is finished in 2015, EPA estimates that emissions of sulfur dioxide, which are major sources of particle pollution in the eastern states, will be 57 percent lower than in 2003. Emissions of nitrogen oxide, a key ingredient in ozone, are expected to be 61 percent lower than in 2003.5
'Despite these benefits, EPA could have and should have required power plants to reduce even more pollution and to make those cuts sooner than 2015. The American Lung Association repeatedly urged EPA to use this opportunity to clean up even more pollution, faster. To ensure that EPA acted, the Lung Association, Environmental Defense and Earthjustice took legal action in March 2004, alerting EPA that the Clean Air Act requires the Agency to clean up the widespread pollution produced by power plants and other facilities.'
(To be continued. Sorry, but this is what's really killing us.)
(Con't)
'What caused EPA to delay and limit its clean up when the public health benefits are so clear? Until late December 2004, EPA had publicly promised that it would publish the final rule before year’s end, putting the requirements into effect. At the last minute, the Administration decided to delay this workable measure to try to push forward a bill (S. 131, the Administration’s so-called “Clear Skies” bill) favored by corporate polluters. S. 131 weakens the Clean Air Act in many significant ways (see description below). On March 9, 2005, a bipartisan group of senators defeated the bill in committee. However, the Administration still supports S. 131 and, according to EPA, still “remains committed to working with Congress to pass legislation.”6
Does cleaning up power plants really help cut pollution?
'Yes! Recent cuts resulted in more than 5 times the annual drop in ozone levels each
year than before, announced EPA last year. In 1998, EPA required 13 eastern states to
greatly reduce the tons of nitrogen oxides they spread across their borders. EPA examined
what happened to ozone levels between 2002 and 2004, when power plants had
installed the required equipment in eleven of the 13 states. In a study that controlled for
changes in ozone levels due to weather, EPA found that before these measures, ozone
levels dropped about one percent per year in most states. After 2002, ozone levels were
dropping by about 5 percent per year on average.
'Source: US EPA. Evaluating Ozone Control Programs in the Eastern United States: Focus on the NOx Budget Trading Program, 2004. August 2005.'
http://www.commondreams.org/head...s04/0523-
02.htm
Published on Sunday, May 23, 2004 by the Denver Post
'When Advocates Become Regulators'
'President Bush has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.'
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/...05-11-15-
02.asp
'State, Local Air Officials Urge Rapid Mercury Emissions Cuts'
'WASHINGTON, DC, November 15, 2005 (ENS) - State and local air pollution control authorities Monday issued what they call a "quicker, more effective approach" to cleaning up toxic mercury emitted by coal fired power plants than a "highly flawed rule" issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some emissions reductions would be required by 2008, while the EPA would not require any before 2018, although some earlier cuts in mercury emission are projected as a byproduct of emissions limits for other pollutants.
'Under the auspices of the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), the state and local regulators have developed what they call a "model rule" that they say could be adapted by air agencies around the nation to cut emissions more quickly.
' "We all agree that mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin – something that threatens the health of babies and adults alike – and that coal-burning power plants are a significant source of mercury emissions," said John A. Paul, supervisor of the Regional Air Pollution Control Agency in Dayton, Ohio and president of ALAPCO. "The real question is, what’s the best way to address this problem?"
'Gavin is the largest power plant in Ohio and has two of the seven largest coal fired generating units ever built. The plant is equipped with scrubber systems. (Photo courtesy AEP)
On March 15, 2005, the EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the world's first attempt at limiting airborne mercury. About 75 tons of mercury are found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two-thirds of this mercury is emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually.
' "We believe our plan is a much better way to go," said Eddie Terrill, director of the Oklahoma Air Quality Division and president of STAPPA.
' "EPA’s approach would allow too much mercury for too long. The STAPPA/ALAPCO model rule gives state and local authorities a better option as they move forward on this issue," Terrill said.'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...70930083243.htm
'While it has long been known that exposure to ozone, a major component of urban air pollution, is associated with increased cardiovascular and pulmonary hospitalizations and deaths, the actual mechanisms involved remain unclear. New studies by Duke University Medical Center pulmonary researchers on the effects of ozone on the innate immune system, the body's "tripwire" for foreign invaders, may provide part of the answer.
'The Duke-led team found that ozone exposure in mice at levels approximating unhealthy levels for humans appears to enhance lung injury in response to bacterial toxins, but more importantly, it also appears to enhance programmed cell death in critical innate immune system cells that gobble up foreign invaders, keeping the airways clear.' (PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT)
' "Small amounts of inhaled foreign material can be relatively harmless, since they stimulate an appropriate innate immune response that protects the lungs," said John Hollingsworth, M.D., pulmonologist and lead author of study whose results appear Oct. 1 in the Journal of Immunology. "However, it appears that ozone causes the innate immune system to overreact, killing key immune system cells, and possibly making the lung more susceptible to subsequent invaders, such as bacteria."
'The innate immune system is the most primitive aspect of the body's defenses. Its cells react indiscriminately to any invader. One of the key cells in the innate immune system is known as a macrophage, Greek for "big eater."
'For their experiments, the researchers had mice breathe either room air or air with levels of ozone meant to mirror what an exercising human would experience on a high, or unhealthy, ozone level day. After exposing all mice to the active portion of E. coli bacteria in aerosol form, the researchers studied how the innate immune system responded.
' "In the mice exposed to ozone, the airways of the lungs were hyperactive and we found higher concentrations of inflammatory cells," Hollingsworth said. "But more significantly, ozone pre-exposure reduced the number of macrophages in the lung after secondary exposure to inhaled bacterial endotoxin. Exposure to ozone in this context had stimulated them to undergo programmed cell death, or apoptosis."
'The researchers also found that the effect of the inhaled ozone was not limited to just the lungs. Mice exposed to ozone were also found to have lower levels of immune system cells circulating in the blood.
'The Duke team plans further studies on the mechanisms behind ozone's ability to induce cell death in macrophages in the lungs. They will also focus on the pollutant's ability to interfere with system-wide immune responses.'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...70921130738.htm
'ScienceDaily (Sep. 26, 2007) — It was a murder mystery playing out in major cities across the country and perplexing scientists. Thousands of people were dying from strokes and heart attacks within 24 hours of a spike in microscopic pollution -- tiny particles that spew from the exhaust of diesel trucks, buses and coal-burning factories.
'But scientists didn't have a smoking gun. They couldn't figure out why the pollution was triggering the deaths. All they had to go on was a vague lead: the particles -- too small to be filtered by the nose or mouth -- caused inflammation of the lungs. But what was the link between particles trapped in the lungs to the strokes and heart attacks?
'New research from the gumshoes at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine has solved a key piece of the mystery. The study identifies how these tiny pieces of soot -- called particulate matter air pollution -- kill people at risk and tells how they can protect themselves from these pollution-related strokes and heart attacks.
'Northwestern researchers have discovered that this microscopic air pollution -- smaller than 10 microns or less than one-tenth of the diameter of a human hair -- spurs hyperclotting of the blood. The study found that lungs inflamed by the pollution secrete a substance, interleukin-6, which causes an increased tendency for blood to coagulate or clot. This raises the risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke in people with cardiovascular disease such as coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure or a history of stroke.
'Previous epidemiological research has linked the pollution to cardiovascular death and disease, but this is the first study to show how it actually happens in an animal model.
' "This is a critical missing piece of the puzzle that has eluded scientists for decades," said Gokhan Mutlu, M.D., lead author of the study and assistant professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Feinberg School, and a physician at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. "Now we know how the inflammation in the lungs caused by air pollutants leads to death from cardiovascular disease."
'People at risk can probably help protect themselves by taking low-dose aspirin to keep their blood thin, Mutlu said.
'Mutlu collaborated on the study with co-authors Scott Budinger, M.D. associate professor of pulmonary and critical care medicine, and David Green, M.D., professor of hematology and oncology, both at the Feinberg School and physicians at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
'The paper will appear on-line Sept. 20 in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and will be published in the print issue October 1.
.'
(Con't - point nearly made)
'In the study, researchers used particles of pollution collected by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, mixed them into a saline solution and injected the pollution cocktail into the lungs of mice. The blood of the mice exposed to the pollution clotted faster than mice not exposed. Researchers observed a 15-fold increase in interleukin-6 24 hours after the mice were exposed to the pollution.
'In people, interleukin-6 also raises the levels of a substance called CRP, which is correlated with death from cardiovascular disease.
'Particulate matter pollution is highest near expressways or truck routes. It's hard for commuters to escape. People are exposed to the pollution inside a car (even with the windows rolled up), a train or walking outdoors, Mutlu said. The only safe location with lower levels is indoors.
'People with previous blockages in the coronary or carotid arteries are at the highest risk. "It's important to get screened to see if you have one of these conditions. If so, when there are high levels of particulate matter, you should try to stay indoors and limit your exposure to the outside air," Budinger said.
'Exercising hikes the risk because it floods the lungs with more polluted air. "If you're sitting down, the amount of air you get into your lungs is about five to six liters per minute, but if you're running the amount is 20 to 25 liters," Mutlu noted. "If you're close to an expressway, you're actually breathing more particulate matter into your lungs."
'The doctors also warned that heart attacks and strokes occur at relatively low levels of particulate matter pollution. "We haven't found a safe level yet," Mutlu said. He hopes the study helps encourages the EPA and local regulators to reduce the limits on particulate matter levels.
'The American Lung Association State of the Air: 2007 report said the most "ominous trend" in air pollution is the increase in particle pollution, particularly in the eastern United States. Among the metropolitan areas, Los Angeles has the most year-round particle pollution. Chicago ranks 11; New York, 17 and Washington D.C., 20. All received an "F" or failing grade for their pollution , which was in excess of the EPA annual average limit of 15 micrograms per cubic meter.
'The risk of dying from a heart attack or ischemic stroke jumps a whopping 30 percent with each additional 10 micrograms of pollution.
'While the current Northwestern study looked at the acute effects of this microscopic pollution, Mutlu also has begun to research its long-term exposure on cardiovascular health. He is piping air on the street from Huron and Lake Shore Drive in downtown Chicago into a chamber with mice. Over the next several years, he will examine the effect of breathing this air on the mice's cardiovascular health.'
(My comment - it's being tested on smokers already.)
'The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences supported the study.'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...71010131201.htm
'Despite some success with air pollution, current levels — mainly nitrogen oxide, fine particles and ground-level ozone — are estimated to shorten average life expectancy in Western and Central European countries by almost a year and to threaten the healthy development of children. In Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia, the situation is assumed to be similarly bleak: here most air polluting emissions have increased by 10 % since 2000 as a result of economic recovery, increases in volume of transport and persisting poor effectiveness of air pollution policies.'
(My comment - instead of action, redirection against the public through propaganda, with restrictions on their choices and behaviors raher than on destructive industrial practices, creating precedent in law initially through smoking bans terming the public incompetent to make personal decision and rendering them subject to the claims of industry studies and stratagems destroying the public's ability of defense.)
http://iowapirg.org/newsletters/...mer06/
news.html Summer 2006
'Soot Pollution Makes Air Unsafe For 96 Million'
'More than one third of all Americans live in areas with unsafe levels of fine particle pollution, or soot pollution, according to a Jan. 19 PIRG report, “Plagued By Pollution.”
'PIRG researchers analyzed nation-wide data on 2004 emissions of soot, which can trigger asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer and even premature death. Recent scientific studies show that adverse effects occur at levels below the current national health based air quality standards.
'Even at these too-lenient standards, 96 million Americans breathe air polluted with soot at levels that could cause harm. Iowa PIRG is urging the Bush administration’s environmental officials to adopt a tougher standard for soot pollution.'
'FDA Lets Drug Makers Off The Hook'
'In a sweeping change to longstanding policies, the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new drug-labeling rules would give drug makers protection from lawsuits filed in state court.
'The change comes despite lessons from unsafe drugs like Vioxx, which find their way to the pharmacist’s shelves even after safety trials expose dangerous side effects. There have been 60,000 deaths from Vioxx-associated heart attacks.
'According to FDA whistle-blower Dr. David Graham, the “FDA is part of the problem.”
The FDA’s new rule would shield drug makers from the only recourse for consumers, by throwing out the claims of consumers even if the drug maker defied state law, or if the FDA review was proven inadequate.'
My comment -how much of this is also related to the proposed FDA control and alteration of tobacco, with the pharmaceutical interests desiring monopoly on tobacco - and promoting toxic RIP cigarettes by law world-wide - effectively controlling the FDA?
The above collection shows part of the reason we have smoking bans instead of adequate protections and the vicious scapegoating of anyone vulnerable, in the hope that the distraction will work.
I feel, my RVN tours, and servicemen before this time, wasted time and lives, under a false feeling of fighting for freedom.
I feel that my freedom and rights are being controlled by big business and the government. First we have no control over the gas prices. Now we won't have control over the cigarette tax increases. If the government needs more money let them increase the taxes on the big business owner and the millionaires who can afford to pay.
There is really no logical reason to raise the price of cigarettes. I am totally against it. They are too high now.
Why are cigarette smokers the only ones being targeted? If you want to get right down to it, there are a lot of other things that cause health problems that could be charged high taxes, like all the fast food, if there's any truth in the reports. And what about alcohol? There are a lot of taxes on that, but why aren't they raising the taxes on that too. Everything and anything can cause health problems. Personally, I think that most of the health issues come from having our food supply tampered with to supposedly make it better and to preserve it to get it to the market and make it last longer. We didn't have near the health problems before the government and food industry started that. And what about the freedom of choice involved? By putting into effect all these laws that are supposedly "for our own good" we are having all our freedom of choice taken away from us. How long before someone decides that the color purple is harmful and we can use that color for anything anymore? I feel that the lawmakers are getting way out of hand and that a lot more should be put to the public before a decision is made. In this day and age of technology, cell phones, and computers, there's no reason why the country can't vote on most anything.
Quit persecuting smokers already ! We know the risks. Concentrate on child molesters, rapists and others breaking the law. Fine the FDA for all the mistakes they have made and all the recalls. Don't let politicians give themselves 6 figure salaries. Enough is enough. No wonder this country is going down, look at the stupids that run it.
If smoking is going to kill us all, why do you not pass laws to prohibit the sale, possession, and distribution of tobacco products? It wouldn't be because of the money now would it? Hey ass-clowns, you get enough money from tobacco products so just knock it off. Go after the corporate pirates and corrupt politicians and you'll be rewarded with alot more money that you can raise by taxing tobacco products.
I believe it is my right if I want to smoke to smoke whe are supposed to be land of the free and brave. Yeah what ever you say you can't hardly afford cigs or anything else for that matter due to the governments hands in your pockets and I believe that you should put a stop to all this higher tax stuff. It is gonna get to where everyone can't afford nothing and our economy is going to hit rock bottom. Stop the tax on everything not just cigs but EVERYTHING.
OH WELL, WE HAVE THE OBAMA ON TRACK HERE TO TAKE US ALL DOWN THE TUBES. PEOPLE ARE SMOKING MORE NOW BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY. WITH THE TAXES WE HAVE TO PAY IN FLORIODA SUCH AS HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE, CAR INSURANCE, AND PROPERTY TAXES AND ALL THE OTHER "TAXES" THAT ARE WAY HIGHER HERE THAN THE STATE THAT I JUST MOVED FROM, MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST MOVE THE HELL BACK OUT OF HERE LIKE ALOT OF OTHER FLORIDIANS ARE DOING. I KEEP TRYING THAT 1-866-527-4494# FOREVER BUT CANNOT GET THROUGH. IT MUST BE OFF THE HOOK, RIGHT? US SMOKERS DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS. WE CAN'T SIT BACK AND LET THESE POLITICIANS STEP ON US ANYMORE. WE SHOULD HAVE A SMOKE IN....LET ME KNOW, AND EVERYONE SHOULD JOIN IN OUR CAUSE. WE'RE TREATED LIKE CRAP BY THE NON-SMOKERS AS IT IS ANYWAY. IN RESTAURANTS, BARS, SPORTING EVENTS, AND ALL THE REST. IT OUR RIGHT TO SMOKE AND IF WE NEED IT FOR OUR SANITY WE HAVE THAT RIGHT. THIS IS TOTALLY CRAZY. LET'S TAX THE NON-SMOKERS, WE'LL GET ALOT MORE MONEY THAT WAY,HUH? AND LIKE THEY SAID ON FOX NEWS THIS MORNING, LET'S PUT 33% OF THE MOM AND POP STORES OUT OF BUSINESS. US SMOKERS ARE KEEPING THEM IN BUSINESS. CONGRESS SUCKS!!!
all the taxes are for is to make someone rich, they really don't care who they stick with the taxes as long as they get it passed. I would like to know everyones name that voted for this tax, because i would try my damnest to get them voted out of office. all it is for is to make rich people richer, and poor people poorer.
Kerry
THIS TAX IS JUST GOING TOO DAMN FAR. THIS IS DEFINITELY A TAX ON THE LOWER CLASS AND POOR. THEY WILL SUFFER FROM THIS TAX. WITH THE REDUCED NUMBER OF SMOKERS IN THIS COUNTRY HOW TO THEY EXPECT TO MAKE ANY REAL MONEY FROM THIS TAX INCREASE? THE TAX WILL FORCE MORE PEOPLE TO HAVE TO QUIT AND LOOK FOR OTHER OPTIONS TO SMOKE. IF THEY NEED THE MONEY THEN WHY NOT ADD THAT AMOUNT TO A SIX-PACK OF BEER INSTEAD. THAT WILL DEFINITELY RAISE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY WOULD MAKE BY LEAPS AND BOUNDS.
THIS COUNTRY WAS MADE ON THE SELL AND USE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS. MAYBE WE HAVE FORGOTTEN WHERE WE HAVE COME FROM.
i think that this tax is very unfair and if anything is going to be taxed it should all be added to alcoholic beverages instead. after all more people are kill by alcohol abuse than smoking any day.
lets face it. the health nazi think we are totally stupid and believe every word they say. this is the age of the internet. many of us have read the medical information in other countries that totally contradict what health professionals in this country sell to the people. this country tends to deny the existence of any information that is contrary to their desires. this tax is just another communistic move to make things harder on the lower class and poor.
the credibility of the medical society and has been falling for many years and as people become more informed on a global level their lies become more apparent to the mass public. however you will always have idiots that believe everything they are told by those of use who choose to do a bit of research find the truth.
Commenting by HaloScan
