It is highly questionable that existing research on SHS indicates potential health problems after years of constant exposure,so 30 minutes is merely playing to the crowd who wish to remove smoking from society.Tobacco Control=Total Control.
I think the Lung Assn and all other health police type organizations should be held liable, for these outlandish claims. All donations should be returned to donor when they make fraudulant claims.
I believe that we have hashed and rehashed these claims several times, but it is also quite obvious that the reason the Lung Association is now claiming this is because Maryland is only a few days away from announcing a total smoking ban. It is called "fear factor" and the Maryland Legislators should be warned of these lies while being duped at the same time.
This is a job for you Doctor Mike. Send them your proof that this is ridiculous, false and just plain old lies. I would love to hear from a Politician on how they felt when they found out the truth. Any Politician out there who is ready to fess up?
Who has just 30 minutes of tobacco smoke exposure?
For many people I know its at least 30 minutes every day. And for some I know its 8-10 hours a day.
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported that as little as 30 minutes' exposure to secondhand smoke can have a serious and even lethal effect for people with heart disease or at risk for heart disease."
Has there ever been a recorded case of a 'lethal effect in any of these circumstances, on indeed the circumstance that Dr Siegel describes? Is this all theoretical?
west
----
Looking at asthma again, something that rolled over in my mind--
I remember how shocked I was when I took a university abnormal psychology class and learned that asthma attacks not only could be psychosomatic, but it was relatively common. I also remember dismissing people who I agreed with on this blog about indoctrination.
But then I did some thinking myself, and I sure don't remember hearing about asthma being psychosomatic in health class. Maybe they felt it was too big a word for us high schoolers.
But asthma has been on the rise while cigarette consumption and exposure to cigarettes has decreased.
If anti-tobacco campaigners state there's no real way of knowing the "real" cost of SHS in health terms, I would counter there's no way of knowing the "real" cost of scare tactics on people's health, well being, and quality of life.
Secondhand smoke MAY cause asthma in conjunction with these scare tactics if the ALA etc. keep it up. And some charlatan will see a "funding opportunity" to lobby for the Next Step in Bans.
One thing that's baffled me is that charity comes from the greek word for comfort. But it sure looks like the ALA, registered as a charity, is agitating people before giving them comfort.
BTW, was it the ALA who had the line about "If you can't breathe, nothing else matters?" Or was that a PSA? While strictly true, it comes across meaning "If you feel like you can't breathe for a few seconds, other people shouldn't matter" when I hear/read charities and politicians talking about how people "can't breathe" anywhere near cigarette smoke.
Who has just 30 minutes of tobacco smoke exposure?
For many people I know its at least 30 minutes every day. And for some I know its 8-10 hours a day.
Well, you in effect answered this question yourself by saying "many" and not "all." Unless you would like us to understand "many" with "all" at your convenience so as to make your job convincing us easier in the future.
I look at this and say, I don't have that the vast majority of the time. But I certainly have 30 minutes of automobile exhaust exposure every day(No, I can't see it. Yes, exhaust contains greater quantities of the carcinogens the anti-tobacco people say kill you even if you can't smell them,) when I walk to the bus/train stop or go out for lunch, or when I walk to a local grocery store on the weekend. Sometimes I pass a person smoking a cigarette, but that is transient and for a few seconds. I suspect my routine is not unusual.
It's funny that I never realized how little time I spent around tobacco smoke except when I did so voluntarily. That's when I put off my "oh I'm biased because I like an occasinal cigar so I better shut up" blinders and started figuring that claims were overblown and that people who smoke every day and have a conscience probably have to deal with these messages much more intensely than I have--which, quite frankly, stinks.
The Lung Association is also lying about asthma and SHS. While SHS may trigger an attack I do not believe there is evidence showing a causal effect between smoking and asthma.
What happened to President Bush's idea that his OMB do peer review on every public funded study paid for by taxpayers to start removing the junk political fabrications and start giving Americans sound science for their investment in science. Oh that's right the "hip" science study folks are simply insulted by the idea of anyone checking thier work. That must be the infallability clause.
Archie...
LOL.
And the god of the internet Algore is the latest of the bunch.
Oh no, I'm a (human caused) "Glow-ball" warming denier.
Dr. Siegel, you note that "A brief secondhand smoke exposure could potentially trigger a fatal asthma attack." At the risk of being quoted out of context by the slimy folks on the other side of this issue, I would agree with that statement. HOWEVER, in context, I would point out that "A brief exposure to a pet owner could ALSO trigger a fatal asthma attack." and "A brief exposure to the frigid air coming in a doorway when a nonsmoker enters a restaurant in February could ALSO as well trigger a fatal asthma attack."
Indeed, and probably far truer than either of the above scenarios, "A brief exposure to antismoking propaganda designed to frighten people about invisible wisps of secondary smoke could again, ALSO trigger a fatal asthma attack when individuals so exposed find themselves in a room with a smoker."
Given the degree of hysteria, or even the degree of absolute madness, that has been created by the antismoking lobby (as evidenced by such things as concern about smoking on stages, or smoking on another floor of a hotel, or smoking within 25 feet of an openable window or air vent) I believe in all seriousness that it is actually quite probable that far more fatal asthma attacks have been caused by Antismokers than by smokers.
I will address heart attacks in a separate post.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Dr. Siegel, it was gratifying to see you qualify the Otsuka exposures as "heavy." While I've done so before, I would like to again display my analysis of the Otsuka study here to help newer visitors understand just the sort of lies these smoking bans are based upon.
=======
Case Study of a Lie: The 30 Minute Heart Attack Study
(Otsuka, R. et al. Acute Effects of Passive Smoking…. JAMA. Vol 286. #4. 2001)
In July 2001, Ryo Otsuka supposedly showed that simply sharing a room with a smoker for 30 minutes could kill you and the news flashed around the world. But the news was more fraud than fact. Unless you actually read the study itself you’d never know that:
The level of smoke exposure (6ppm of CO) was 300% more than a 1989 FAA report found in the middle of airplane smoking sections. This was not just “a room with a smoker” or a decently ventilated bar. Copycat studies cited by the Surgeon General have used even smokier chambers: up to FORTY ppm of CO!
The study subjects were extremist nonsmokers devoted to avoiding smoke in their daily lives in the smoky Japanese culture. They were forced to sign a “protocol” acknowledging potentially dangerous conditions and were then stuck in a smoke-choked room for 30 minutes. The result? A small change in blood chemistry/physiology similar to what’s seen after a meal. The most amazing thing is that there were no heart attacks just from the stress!
There was no control model used. Even a high school science project would have included a sham model and “protocol signing” with control subjects exposed to harmless but eye-stinging levels of skunk scent and fog. The control results would probably have been identical to smoke.
Why wasn’t such a control set up? Could it be simply that the results would have negated the point of the study and the Antismoking grant money would have dried up? Perhaps… I actually can’t think of any other reason. Otsuka’s study didn’t show a physical reaction to smoke: it showed a physical reaction to fear and stress… conditions promoted more by Antismokers than by smoke.
Otsuka is at fault for deliberately avoiding use of a reasonable control to balance extreme experimental conditions. The media is at fault for not acknowledging those conditions or the likely reaction of extreme nonsmokers. And Smoking Prohibitionists are at fault for using this study to frighten people with the idea that simply being near smokers for short periods causes heart attacks. This study and its use is an example of fear-mongering in its ugliest sense.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Er,sounds like the 21/2 packs of Nitrosodimethylene filled barstaff sort of science to me.
Here's a question for you.
Is the American Lung Association a publicly funded public health organization or a private advocacy group? Are they made up of people on the public payroll or volunteers or people who are paid privately? From what I can tell on the web, it looks like they are private. If they are paid for with tax money then this is misuse of tax dollars.
But if they are not and they are an advocacy group, honestly, why would you expect them to do anything but push their arguments as hard as they can to advocate for their cause? I mean if I'm giving money to a group for a cause I care about, I think I want results. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, PETA and all these groups don't shy away from making strong statements that arguably push the facts more than what you'd expect a reasoned and government paid scientist to do.
So I'll say I think you are right, they should have deleted the part about people at "risk for heart disease."
I just don't think it's reasonable to expect that advocacy groups will be as conservative with these kinds of statements as a government scientist would and should be.
But aren't they also a tax exempt group? And IF they are, are they allowed to lobby and advocate? I thought their whole existance was for research?
I'm not clear on those rules and right now don't have the time to start looking and researching.
The ALA and AHA and ACS get most of their public donations based on the perception that they are working to cure diseases with it. While I am not sure how their various percentages break down, I believe I have seen figures indicating that only a few cents out of every donated dollar (if that much!) actually goes for such activity though.
Do you remember how Philip Morris tried to prettify its image by becoming "The Altria Group" ? Try to imagine what would happen to the donation stream to the ALA if they changed their name to the "American Smoking Ban Association"
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Would you happily accept pro smoking groups to deliberately lie to you Carl,like you seem to happily accept ALA,well if they are both advocacy groups ?
So doc, someone with "severe" heart disease is told to fear SHS because it could trigger the big one. He walks into a restaurant and is shocked to see it allows smoking, he smells smoke and drops dead of an MI.
How do you determine whether it was the SHS or the fear that killed him?
Someone with severe heart disease will die of advanced heart disease one way or another, no?
si, pro-smoking groups aren't exactly saints when it comes to representing the science accurately. Are you kidding me?
Michael Mc, I hear what you are saying, but aren't the figures you quoted public? I mean, you're not saying that you have evidence that ALA lies about how they spend their money do you?
I don't have any idea what would happen if ALA changed their name to American Smoking Ban Association. With the polls I've seen lately, it might be one of the most lucrative changes they could ever make.
And last, I'm curious, how do you know what's in the minds of people who donate to ALA? It seems to me that would be a pretty hard thing to gather data on.
Margaret - You make a very good point. Someone who has such fragile coronary blood flow that they can have a heart attack triggered by a brief secondhand smoke exposure is basically a heart attack waiting to happen. If they are not exposed to secondhand smoke, it is quite likely that something else would trigger the heart attack. I'm not arguing that brief secondhand smoke exposure is a major cause of heart attacks among nonsmokers. I'm just noting that technically, it is not implausible to claim that a brief exposure could cause a heart attack. But I also am not aware of any documented evidence that this is by any means a common phenomenon. At any rate, the idea that a brief exposure could cause a heart attack in someone without heart disease is not only unsupported by the evidence, it is technically impossible.
Perhaps the public should be more concerned with how many of their dollars were invested in this charity and the sum total of intelligence gained from the investment includes the belief heavy metals now grow on trees and tobacco plants. Perhaps they believe the manufacturers poison their customers intentionally because they hate taking the money?
Tobacco Control snake oil sales are a much larger health risk than anything they rail against. Science will never have the respect it once had, because too many are now aware of the malleability of the process and how it can be directed when profits are at stake.
The cheers for those with the literacy skills today will one day be laughter and taunts when crying wolf is past its current fad state.
As for the list I have a smirk on my face already;
" Secondhand smoke contains more than 250 toxins and cancer-causing chemicals, such as carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, and lead."
Benzene in gasoline 1 part per hundred known safe level 1 part per million in ambient air or 360 MG /M3
CO2 second to air one of the most common gases found on the planet
Arsenic although known as a favorite in murder mysteries it is quite commonly used in many medicines, consumables and in the manufacture of many products and chemicals we use every day
Formaldehyde man made AKA embalming fluid also has a variety of medical and industrial uses quite common and thought to be safe if used properly. “ In known safe levels”
Lead now? I haven’t seen that study; it must be a real work of literary art.
LAB RAT ALERT!
here we go again...doc and all...
It is NOT the smoke IT IS THE SMOKER
I personally have been "the one who shall be branded with THE LETTER (you pick)..a mother walking by with her child and PHYSICALLY covered that child's face with her hand - yes I was smoking a cig.
I personally have been confronted by a "recovering" smoker...who I promptly put up the HAND and said NO MORE...I do NOT have to LISTEN to your garbage.
I personally have been accosted by the ANTI who have 'run me out on a rail' out of town.
So yeah, you can scare someone to death if THEY BELIVE IT IS TRUE.
Dr Mike-this is so much bullcrap and you know it too.
Stand and Deliver!
No one can dispute the cannon of proof it is growing like and epidemic or perhaps pandemic might be a more appropriate term in defining the purpose and the evidence produced. A lot more of us should be considering the reality found in these papers. The American and bargain basement cheaper by the dozen Canadian research focus in public health fact finding, is allowing a large gap to form in the research which is needed to prevent disease and increase our ability to cure, and the inconceivable amount of resources being used to promote little more than politics.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/f...ull/175/11/
1389
“We summarized the findings of several studies of ours to compare the quantity and quality of published research from around the world for the years 1995 to 2003. We evaluated the number of articles published and their mean journal impact factor. We also studied the research productivity of various areas adjusted for gross domestic product (GDP) and population. We found that Western Europe leads the world in published research on infectious diseases–microbiology (82 342 articles [38.8%]) and in cardiopulmonary medicine (67 783 articles [39.5%]), whereas the United States ranks first in the fields of preventive medicine, public health and epidemiology both in quantity (23 918 articles [49.1%]) and quality of published papers. However, after adjustments for GDP, Canada ranked first, with the United States and Oceania following closely behind. All of the developing regions had only small research contributions in all of the biomedical fields examined. “
Everyone needs to be very concerned with where this is taking us.
The reality is demonstrated clearly in the citations. Lobbies with little or no no medical experience have hijacked legitamate science for determined cause and effect. Primarily those lobbies are financed by large Corporations and their directly funded charity foundations to promote product sales as the primary intent. Tax deductable funds used to promote sales through the Public Health [what ever you wish for a price coalition.]
BTW
Most of Oceania consists of small island nations. Australia is the only continental country, by some definitions. Indonesia has land borders with Papua New Guinea, East Timor, and Malaysia.
Doc- Why would we want to scare healthy people into thinking that they could drop dead from merely a 30 minute exposure to secondhand smoke?
A rhetorical question Doc?
I don't know, but one possibility is that scaring people into believing the risk is that great might increase support for the ever-expanding smoke-free agenda, which now aims - apparently - to ban smoking not only indoors but just about everywhere outdoors as well.
"Possibility" Doc? "I don't know" It must be getting uncomfortable sitting on the fence.
Even if the intention were to scare people into supporting workplace smoking bans (which I support),
Why the compulsion to reaffirm what you support? To convince us or yourself? or are you sending a message to the Gods of TC? (Agent Siegel is still onside and has not turned to the dark side)
I don't think it is appropriate to use false or misleading information to advance even a well-justified policy.
2 packs a shift!!!
GreatScot
From the title;
" American Lung Association Claims that 30 Minutes of Secondhand Smoke Can Kill People Without Existing Heart Disease"
The CMA up staged them with the announcement the fat pamdemic causes more anual mortality than smoking and illegal drug use combined.
Over his three chubby chins the head of the CMA declarred Acording to the WHO predictions for the first time in history Canadians will not live lomger than their parents.
Parents who in the majority smoked?
TC has competition? the 220 million dedicated to prpoganda from health Canada's anual budget will now result in some belt tightning in the TC community.
As far as ETS coronary risk? we can all stop worrying about it, Pfizer has a cure.
http://www.pfizer.ca/english/new...1&
releaseID=227
" Pfizer announced today that Lipitor® (atorvastatin calcium) Tablets 10 mg provided a significant 61 per cent reduction in stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome but without heart disease. In a separate study, patients who had suffered a recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) during the trial had a significant 53 per cent reduction in the risk of major coronary events (death from cardiac causes, heart attack, or resuscitation after cardiac arrest) with Lipitor 80 mg."
Margaret beat me to the observation that anyone that fragile would, smoke or not, keel over the same night, or over his ham and eggs in the morning, or stuck in traffic driving to work.
You agree with her that she's right, and even agree that it'd be rare-- in fact well nigh impossible-- even with CHD to drop dead from a half hour's smoke, but then still, in your posted article, you seem to agree it's true and give a pass to the ALA. This is driving me up the wall.
Why won't you admit it's not the SECOND part of the sentence that makes it a load of crap, it's both clauses, all of the words, even the commas, "this's" and "ands."
As far as I understand it, carbon monoxide's the fingered "killer." But-- and I've cited the studies (nearly a dozen and probably more)-- where many people with CHD and other cardio-vascular kinks have been exposed, experimentally, to up to 300 ppm, and told to exercize while they breathe. And most of those studies have shown no or little effect. Were half an hour's exposure (sitting down, in a friendly boite) such a highly potential killer, all those researchers ought to be shot. How dare they expose their subjects to certain death in the interests of science!
Nevertheless, you go on to defend an even bllion to one chance of something never, in fact, observed. For what reason? In whose cause?
Sooner or later, Doc, I think your crotch will begin to hurt from madly straddling the damn fence.
:
Walt-
I see a huge difference between making a statement that is totally absurd and has no scientific basis and making one that has scientific plausibility but may not be as meaningful as it seems. This is a line that I'm not straddling. I'm clearly on one side. That side is the side of not misrepresenting scientific evidence and making fallacious claims.
I agree with you that there is not a whole lot of basis for claiming that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure is causing even people with heart disease to have heart attacks, but it is theoretically possible and plausible, so while I wouldn't go around making that claim myself, I'm not going to take anti-smoking groups to task for stating that.
In contrast, claiming that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke causes heart attacks among those without severe pre-existing heart disease is completely fallacious, and I will take the groups to task for making such a statement.
I understand your frustration that I am not taking the groups to task for this lesser infraction, but with the huge infractions taking place, I just don't see the use of worrying now about the lesser ones and don't want to divert attention away from the big ones. If they aren't going to correct those statements, I can assure you that they are not going to worry about trying to clarify the others.
I agree with you that there is not a whole lot of basis for claiming that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure is causing even people with heart disease to have heart attacks, but it is theoretically possible and plausible, so while I wouldn't go around making that claim myself, I'm not going to take anti-smoking groups to task for stating that.
Well, Doc, it is also theoretically possible and plausible that you could be struck by lightening while out walking in a thunderstorm, or hit by a car while crossing the street because some driver chose to run a red light, or die if the plane you are traveling on should for some reason crash, or someone’s car exhaust causes you to have an attack. It is theoretically possible and plausible that one of your kids could drown swimming.Do we now pass laws banning being outside during a thunderstorm, or banning crossing a street, or airplanes and cars? Do we prohibit (ban) parents from allowing their children anywhere near any water (bathtubs included) to protect the children from the risk of drowning? Because basically that is exactly what you are saying. IF it is technically possible and/or plausible that something MIGHT occur, it should be banned.
I mean, seriously, think of the preventable deaths we could eliminate by banning these things.
And THIS is where our frustration comes from. Your concern is ONLY in regards to cigarette smoke while totally ignoring other risks that are equal or greater. Meanwhile everything else with the same or higher risk factors is perfectly acceptable because to ban them would infringe on YOUR life.
Do you see OUR anger and frustration now?
An article in the Harvard Gazette (2/22) exemplifies the scientific ignorance which government agencies and antismoking groups propagate regarding the putative toxicity of cigarettes.
Nitrous oxide is referred to as a "notorious compound" found in tobacco smoke and automobile exhaust. There is no explanation why or in what dose the compound should be labelled "notorious."
Later the reader is told, "Nitrous oxide is a versatile gas that could lead to new treatments for high blood pressure, blocked arteries, heart failure, stroke, dementia, and impotence."
It is no more than a PR job, winning the hearts and minds of the public.However the anti faction believe it perfectly acceptable to try to scare the public into acceptance of bans etc.Dr Siegel,you are guilty of this by describing the 21/2 pack per shift scenario.You were speaking to the press,what did you really expect them to print ?What did you really expect the general public to make of it ?
Sunz wrote:
"I think the Lung Assn and all other health police type organizations should be held liable, for these outlandish claims."
Sunz or anyone else who shares that view is free to sue the ALA. Some folks just constantly bitch and moan about something, but rarely or never take action. That's one characteristic I love about most folks in the right-to-smoke camp, and a characteristic I loathe about many of the well funded public health and tobacco control organizations.
Lynda inquired:
"Do you see OUR anger and frustration now?"
Lynda's anger and frustration (and ignorance) comes through load and clear on most of her postings.
Some folks just constantly bitch and moan about something, but rarely or never take action. That's one characteristic I love about most folks in the right-to-smoke camp,
That's strange of you to say, Bill. I thought we were bullies.
Bill,the only "load" i ever see is from your regular offerings,where you never address anything other than your one line specials," i concur" or your more rhetorical snipe at those who are not so bigoted as you.Luckily the majority of your recent posts see you disappear immediately you are challenged or advised that you are wrong.
WLC wrote:
"I thought we were bullies."
WLC is correct. In addition to bitching and moaning, most are also blog bullies.
si wrote:
"Luckily the majority of your recent posts see you disappear immediately you are challenged or advised that you are wrong."
Whenever I'm wrong, I admit it. In that regards, I misspelled "loud" as "load" on my last posting. Regarding my disappearing, I've been too busy with different inititives to reduce smoking to respond to nonsense.
BTW It looks like Minnesota and Maryland will soon join the ranks of smokefree workplaces states, and it appears that smoking will end in Colorado casinos next year.
Also, the US Senate recently approved a preliminary vote to raise the federal income tax by $.61/pack to a $1/pack.
And the progressive state of Kentucky just enacted a Reduced Ignition Propensity (RIP) cigarette law.
Those are examples of taking action instead of bitching and moaning (and bullying).
No, Bill. How could we be bullies if, as you put it in past posts, we won't even defend ourselves. It's called sarcasm.
And your insecurity is showing.
Bill states...'Sunz or anyone else who shares that view is free to sue the ALA'
One problem God$hall: It is not free to 'sue', though I may be free to do so.
You and TC have limitless boatloads of cash to plow your way acrossed the nation...bitching and moaning 'it smells' and dictating how we are governed. I resent it. And someday you will be sorry for your actions....the karma will end up on your doorstep
Dr, Siegel writes: "I see a huge difference between making a statement that is totally absurd and has no scientific basis and making one that has scientific plausibility but may not be as meaningful as it seems. This is a line that I'm not straddling. I'm clearly on one side. That side is the side of not misrepresenting scientific evidence and making fallacious claims."
You're absolutely right, doctor. When you gave it out to the press that a bartender inhales the equivalent in those chemicals of 1/2 to 2 packs a shift, you were being absolutely accurate.
.
And "This is a line that I'm not straddling." Are we to understand from that, doctor, that there ARE lines that you straddle?
.
I see Bill,you've been producing more of your load than usual.I would have thought you would be concerned that reduced ignition cigarettes lead to a higher tar and carbon monoxide intake for the smoker.SIMPLE EVIDENCE YOU CARE NOT FOR SMOKERS,JUST YOUR PATHETIC AND VILE AGENDA,DUE TO YOUR INABILITY TO COPE WITHOUT NICOTINE.
Dr. Siegel, while you've accepted the need to qualify descriptions of studies like the Otsuka one by adding the word "heavy" to "exposure to smoke" you still have an unconscious tendency to sometimes phrase things in ways that are misleadingly sympathetic to the smoke-banners.
An example from your post above:
"technically, it is not implausible to claim that a brief exposure could cause a heart attack. But I also am not aware of any documented evidence that this is by any means a common phenomenon"
By saying that last part in the way you did, you are pretty clearly implying that you ARE aware of documented evidence of brief exposure to ordinary levels of secondary smoke causing heart attacks although not as "a common phenomenon."
If indeed you do have such documented evidence, please share it. I think it is more likely though that you simply, innocently, misspoke: slipping into the comfortable sound bites of prejudice that are sprinkled so freely throughout all the thinking of tobacco control. Unfortunately those sound bites get in the way of clear thinking.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
MJM - I think a week of reading all this propaganda about the Kick Butts Day has gotten in the way of my clear thinking, but your point is well taken. I did not mean to imply that there is ANY documentation I am aware of that in practice, nonsmokers are having heart attacks due to brief secondhand smoke exposures.
It's kind of similar to a claim that eating a Big Mac and fries could cause a heart attack. There's no question that eating a Big Mac and fries can cause endothelial dysfunction and platelet aggregation. Thus, it is THEORETICALLY possible that eating a Big Mac could precipitate a heart attack in someone with severe existing coronary artery disease. But we wouldn't go around telling people that Big Macs are causing heart attacks unless there was documentation that this was occurring in actual practice.
Doc,
Big Mac & fries? Are we looking at second hand obesity here? What about all those people cooking all those Big Macs and Fries? Whats the RR for them or all people that work cook stoves, friers or barbies? Why no concern for their health?
You have still got to explain. How a relative risk ( kind of, sort of, maybe) as real as percentage 0.003% (not the scare tactic headlines of 30%)of additional possible chance from
CHRONIC exposure to SHS justifies smoking bans.
it is THEORETICALLY possible that eating a Big Mac could precipitate a heart attack in someone with severe existing coronary artery disease. But we wouldn't go around telling people that Big Macs are causing heart attacks unless there was documentation that this was occurring in actual practice.
Well. Look. You make my point again (and Lynda's too.) If health groups wouldn't -- on the grounds of looking like idiots or liars--go around saying that consuming "one big Mac" can give you a heart attack why are they, quite analogously, saying that half an hour's smoke can? (Or, for that matter, a hour's and 2 Macs? )) And why are you not taking them on for it, since it's just as clearly designed to mislead and panic the public and to further ostracize and criminalize smokers?
You're right, of course, that "they" won't correct this misleading statement, but, hey, they don't correct any of em, do they, so why not point them ALL out?
:
Mr Bill, who just posted that he always admits his errors when he's wrong (tho he never believes he is) and that he always answers the charges of such, left this one unanswered. Since it's the final post on another thread and he may have "overlooked" it, I reproduce it here. And will keep doing so till Mr. Bill responds:
-----------------
Ah, Mr. Bill. So "Sick Building Syndrome" is a fantasy creation of Big Tobacco, eh?
Here, then, are some of Big T's propagandists:
A brochure produced by a collaboration of the EPA, the American Lung Association, The American Medical Association and the Consumer Product Safety Commission titled "Indoor Air Quality: An Introduction for Health Professionals" (c 1994) lists workplace symptoms likely to be caused by SICK BUILDING SYNDROME resulting from exposure to biological pollutants (molds, mites, dander) volatile organics and combustion products (products other than from lighted cigarettes) as including the following:
Rhinitis and nasal congeston; epistaxis, pharyngitis, cough, wheezing, worsening asthma, shortness of breath, severe lung disease, eye irritation, headache or dizziness, lethargy, fatigue, malaise, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, cognitive impairment, personality change, rashes, fever, chills, rapid heart beat, myalgia and hearing loss.
These symptoms are reported to have commonly occurred in "smoke-free" workplaces-- the most and among the worst because of Sick Building Syndrome
And in fact, a well-conducted NIOSH study showed that symptoms that were previously blamed on secondhand smoke were actually the result of "inadequate or malfunctioning ventilation systems."
-Melius, "Indoor Air Quality: The NIOSH experience," Am Conf Govt Indl Hyg 3, 1984
Further, a 1984 World Health Organization report suggested that as many as 30% of all new and remodeled buildings might be rightly considered "sick."
-----------
Another error he might fess up to is that he meant the feds are discussing an increase in the "excise" (not the income) tax. Though, actually, they're considering a whopping increase in the income tax TOO-- removing child credits and reimposing the marriage penalty.
:
Bill wrote
" Whenever I'm wrong, I admit it. In that regards, I misspelled "loud" as "load" on my last posting. Regarding my disappearing, I've been too busy with different initiatives to reduce smoking to respond to nonsense.
"
OK Bill time to put up or shut TF up
Your own research stated the real number of smokers has not changed which appears to be true, in 50 years. The number remains stable.
Or perhaps as a result of TC interference the numbers are now rising for the first time in decades which remains controversial.
TC has been lying to the public for years in the deception of prevalence numbers making the public believe TC efforts have been successful in reducing the number of people smoking when in fact the real numbers remained constant.
Either your research is expressing fraud or smoking has not been reduced.
So are you lying now or were you lying then?
Are you prepared to own up now, or run away like a coward as usual?
BTW you ignorance comment directed against a woman demonstrated your fear driven propensity to project your own unresolved defects on others. Your born again personal perspectives do not hide the fact every ignorant thing you project against smokers is in fact an unresolved guilt you need to deal within yourself.
The cheering for increased taxes demonstrates your lack of empathy and common courtesy. If your mother had taken the time and done an adequate job of parenting, you might somehow understand how community values would view your hypocritical actions.
Knowing full well the price increase will affect the most disadvantaged of society more than anyone else. Your cheering for taking money out of the hands of the poor is an excellent example of pure and absolute ignorance.
Call me a bully all night long Bill but I believe some people who express impunity in search of self justification need to find a size 10 firmly lodged in their backsides from time to time.
It teaches humility, obviously something someone should have taught you a long time ago.
I've been too busy with different initiatives to reduce smoking to respond to nonsense. - Bill Godshall
Bill,
What is the driving motive that makes you believe it is your responsibility to "reduce smoking"?
What gives you the right to punish smokers and business in pursuit of your holy grail?
Is it a pathological hate of Big Tobacco? Does the mere sight of someone smoking provoke rage in you?
If you are correct that 70%+ of smokers really want to stop should you not be lobbying Government to provide free cessation assistance? Short term pain for the tax payers leading to long term gain and the ultimate death of the tobacco industry as their customer base disappears.
As Kevin points out above the regardless punishment of smokers as a means to an end speaks volumes about your lack of social values.
GreatScot
Bill G. wrote, "I've been too busy with different initiatives to reduce smoking to respond to nonsense. - Bill Godshall"
Heh.. such as stealing the cutesy "Ashtray of the Northeast" label your fellow antismoking lobbyists tried to stick on NJ last year and apply it as though it was a nice shiny new idea to Pennsylvania? Of course Bill and his cohorts never admit that it's THEY who calling NJ or PA by that name: they always fly it as though the state is simply becoming "known as the Ashtray..."
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
P.S. to Walt: repeating requests for answers to Bill is usually fairly pointless other than to show up his lack of supportive evidence. I believe I once repeated (with updated blogged counts) a request to him eleven times without a response.
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
"[R]epeating requests for answers to Bill is usually fairly pointless...I believe I once repeated...a request to him eleven times without a response."
Talking politicians into becoming bullies must take more time than we imagine.
And then there's his volleyball playing...and subsequent months of physical therapy.
I'd say we're darn lucky Bill has even the time to stop here and do the occasional commercial for smokeless tobacco.
"Smokeless Tobacco. For those times you want to smoke, but we've made sure you can't."
Excellent James! What's the award they give for commercials? The Obie, is it? (or in Bill's case The Obey).
Commenting by HaloScan
