"The inconsistency, exaggeration, and blatant hypocrisy of the anti-smoking groups is ripe grounds for satire. If only I had Buckley's wit, perhaps I could write my own film. Any ideas for what I could call it?"
Okay -- I'll bite..
"Dumb and Dumber"? Oh -- Sorry! That one's taken...
"Eyes Wide Shut" -- darn - that one's gone too...
Now all these folks have to do is ban the movies (or any other outlet) from depicting the Nazis or Holocost historically correct and the anti's should be free to do whatever they'd like. Historically correct or not.
Article in the LA Times reporting the action had this little snippet:
"Some advocacy groups, such as the American Cancer Society, called the MPAA's decision an important first step"
When the Burbank city council passed an outdoor smoking ordinance, the two instigators said almost exactly the same thing: "It's a good first step."
When the NAZIs first gassed the mentally retarded, I am sure these nuts said the same thing: "It's a good first step."
The American Legacy Foundation is as much a domestic terrorist organization as another group with the same ALF acronym.......Animal Liberation Front. About the only redeeming difference between the 2 is that the Animal nuts are not hypocrites. Remember folks, Legacy is funded by SMOKERS - through the MSA.
Here's a PS to Healton and the rest of the busybody do-gooders in the anti-smoker cartel MIND YOUR OWN (bleeping) BUSINESS.........and when you finally get around to that, then go out and find a real job, one that is productive to society, like cleaning septic systems........
Wouldn't an R-rating give young adults (teens) the impression that smoking is an "adult activity"? Might make it more enticing.
"Sure, smoking is a problem. But to be honest, it's not my first concern when it comes to my kids starting to watch movies in theaters. Violence, sex, and alcohol use are also major concerns."
This sounds a bit like the outdoor smoking argument. If someone has an attack (of asthma or anything else) from OTS exposure, then the odds are pretty good that other factors are actually more important than the smoke from tobacco.
"it seems to me that alcohol use is another factor that the MPAA should start addressing if it is not already"
Well, that doesn't seem hypocritical. (I'm not being saracstic.)
The inconsistency, exaggeration, and blatant hypocrisy of the anti-smoking groups is ripe grounds for satire. If only I had Buckley's wit, perhaps I could write my own film. Any ideas for what I could call it?
Ask McFadden. He's got a knack. 
godownfighting--
I did reply to you, but it was this morning:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...5361293/
#119975
/S
While Mike states that he thinks smoking in movies contributes to youth smoking, he endorses the MPAA's response without even acknowledging that it could very well result in no changes in movie ratings.
Although the proposed movie rating policy advocated by health groups appears a bit excessive, the MPAA's newly stated policy is little more than self promoting PR that allows them to perpetuate the status quo.
It appears that Mike is far more interested in criticizing public health organizations (which is the primary focus of his posting, like many other previous postings) than in objectively analyzing policy options to reduce youth smoking.
I know Steph -- I emailed you.
Rod -- I completly agree with you. That IS the mentality.
Michael -- that was a lot of words for what we would just call 'round here "yer making fools of yerselves".
Since the real problem seems to be kids.............I say we start banning kids, period. Why should the entire adult population have to be regulated and cowtow to "protect the children" just because parents today are too friggin lazy to do their jobs?
I let my son see R rated movies because most of them, in my mind didn't warrant an R rating to start with. They were great ways to open up communications on so many subjects with him. Unfortunately, most parents can't be bothered being parents today............and I resent having to adjust MY life to suit their negligence.
What's next? Book burning?
Bob G wrote: It appears that Mike is far more interested in criticizing public health organizations (which is the primary focus of his posting, like many other previous postings) than in objectively analyzing policy options to reduce youth smoking.
On the contrary, the doc takes an awful lot of heat for *not* denouncing public health organizations that aren't exactly doing a whole lot for real public health these days.
BTW, you forgot to include any conflict-of-interest funding considerations in your post.
Doc: You really hang with these people? Man, maybe *you* need a nice, tall glass of sweet tea as much as anyone. (Or is there a ban on caffeine now? *wink*)
Lynda--
I say we start banning kids, period. Why should the entire adult population have to be regulated and cowtow to "protect the children" just because parents today are too friggin lazy to do their jobs?
Actually that's another one of my ideas. Look at the trouble kids cause on airplanes. Planes have had delays from a child throwing tantrums and a teen who coughed before take-off (presumably a health alert?). I'm sure there are other instances. Then there's the fact that little ones are often "germ factories" and babies are very unsanitary (you shoulda heard the story I got from one flight attendant). There's also the irritation factor--ever sat next to a kid that the flight attendant assumed you would baby-sit? (That happened to me on a Delta flight. At baggage claim, I had four people approach me to say, "You have the patience of a saint.) So, maybe there should be business flights and, say, family friendly flights. (Also, see Smintair http://www.smintair.com/THOUGHTS...S/
thoughts.html ) So, yes, Lynda, I do think that we should seriously consider banning children from places, events, films and such that are inappropriate for them--again for their own good. No joke.
Nahh... the answer is to ban movie theaters. Seeing Carrie's hand come up from that grave almost gave ME cardiac arrest. Not to mention those stinky, unhealthful popcorn fumes. Will someone please protect me?
DTB,
I totally agree..............if the anti's can ban what they don't like, so can I.
Somehow we all new it would come to this. What I caught out of some of the anti statements. Is just a picture or a film of people smoking is causing the deaths of thousands. What type of exposure should this be classified? Do we call it the emaculate infectious syndrome. Or is it really an extension of AHJS (ANTIHYPOCHONDRIAJUNKSCIENTIFICA)
Let's sanitize this country!
Children should be told that sexuality is filthy, dirty and unhealthy and therefore they should not even know what sexuality is until the are grown up and can consult with a psychiatrist.
Likewise, children should be told that smoking is filthy and unhealthy, deadly even. They should not know that some people take pleasure in smoking until they are grown up. What a surprise when they find out they don't drop dead from the first cigarette. That's probably when they will find out that they have been lied. That's a tremendous good start in their life, isn't it?
Bill says Dr Siegel is more interested in criticizing Public Health groups,well if they act so stupidly and attempt to deceive the public by using the most ridiculous "facts" they can come up with what on earth does he expect a carrot ?
Further to nemo31's point--3rd hand smoke by virtual transmission.
Lynda, Remember when we were youngsters "Children should be seen and not heard"?
You're right, RAISE YOUR OWN DAMNED KIDS. I raised my two, didn't choose to have more----now you take care of what you brought into the world.
Saw a story on FOX news yesterday that told of companies having real interference with the 'parents' showing up with new college grads for job interviews!!! Then trying to negotiate their salaries. Do these people honestly believe that all of the protection is doing 'little Johnny' one bit of good?
Bill God$sall----YOU are way beyond a little bit excessive. Don't you have to get your speedos on for a vollyball game?
DTB---That should be a Long Island Iced Tea for the doc---clear out his mind and body at the same time.
Lets see now; Popeye, Mr.Mcgoo, Elmer fudd, The Flintstones and many others
All guilty of smoking and all to be X rated soon.
Join the tamborine brigade at Rockefellar square for the weekly book burnings, to show support for new Health Scare global government strategies...
In a name I would call it
"The Burned identity"
This yet again confirms that the public are being lied to by the radical anti movement,since they continue in their attempts to denormalise smoking.This will emphasize the fact that the US has become one of the wackiest countries in the world.Heroes will presumably be allowed to snort cocaine on film but please the villains must be the only smokers and how long will it be before the villains are portrayed as chronically invalided with smokers coughs and go knows what else ?If it keeps them happy carry on,the more ridiculous they get,the less they will win public sympathy.
BTW Lynda,
The head of the National Coalition of Womens issues in Hamilton Ontario was quoted as stating
"all men should be castrated at birth"
your not one of them are you?
LOL
The doctor writes "But you can't have it both ways."
Oh yes they can and they are. The smoker are supporting these 'charity foundation' all the while banning us from everywhere. That is having it both ways. Why, Doctor would you think they would expect any different here?
.
DancingTigerBait asked "Doc: You really hang with these people? Man, maybe *you* need a nice, tall glass of sweet tea as much as anyone."
DTB - For what I'm putting up with, I'm afraid sweet tea isn't going to cut it. Give me something at least 86 proof for a start.
I wonder how the anti-tobacco groups would feel if it were legislated/agreed that NO kids' sitcom could EVER have a "very special" episode about smoking.
Just to level the playing field, you know.
Bill - I agree with you completely. I should absolutely not be criticizing anti-smoking groups. After all, as someone within the movement, it is wrong for me to criticize the actions of these groups if I disagree with them. Even if there are severe problems with the consistency and strength of their arguments, I should keep my mouth shut. Even if I don't think their proposed solutions will be effective, I should keep my mouth shut. And I should probably stop providing such detailed, carefully crafted arguments since they don't represent any objective analysis of public health policy as I am a tobacco stooge and cannot offer an objective opinion. Or is it because I am expressing criticism that my opinions are not objective?
At any rate, your point is well-taken.
My bad! Mea culpa! No more criticism!
The doctor writes:
"If it is indeed true that depiction of smoking in movies is going to result in killing people (as the American Legacy Foundation has put it), then what possible justification is there for allowing kids to be exposed to any depiction of smoking, whether it is historically correct or not?"
OK. Allow me to amend that a bit:
"If it is indeed true that breathing SHS indoors is going to result in killing people (as Doctor Siegel has put it), then what possible justification is there for allowing people outside to be exposed to any smoking, whether it is present in the same concentrations or not?"
I also like this from the Doctor:
"Most importantly, even if one accepts the conclusions of the research, there is absolutely no evidence that a single depiction of smoking in a movie causes kids to start smoking. In other words, there is little scientific support for a zero-tolerance policy, such that any depiction of smoking in movies must be eliminated from movies which youths are likely to see."
Could we amend it thus?
"Most importantly, even if one accepts the conclusions of the research, there is absolutely no evidence that a single act of smoking in a bar causes bartenders to die of SHS-related diseases. In other words, there is little scientific support for a zero-tolerance policy, such that any smoking in a bar must be eliminated."
That is, for all his concerns about zero-tolerance, the Doctor seems to have exactly zero-tolerance for smoking inside.
He seems willing to make some exceptions. Even when he admits that SOME kids will smoke because of the movies they see.
In effect, he is willing to risk at least SOME degree of movie-related smoking. Which will necessarily, according to his statistics, cause people to die.
But he is not willing to accept ANY risk associated with indoor SHS.
Is it possible that the doctor like movies, but does not like smoking? How else to explain zero-toleance in one case, and tolerance on the other? That is a cynical read. And I think more of the doctor than that. But still, this seems kind of surprising. ESPECIALLY since movie-makers would still be free to make whatever movies they want. They could just accept the R rating and the lower box-office take. Or they could just release the movie without a rating.
See, MPAA is NOT A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. You know. Like health departments that bar owners have to face if they decide to say screw the ban.
You know, as a libertarian, I don't much care about the movie ban. For the reasons mentioned above. You certainly have less of a right to have your movie rated as you see fit than you do to operate your own bar as you see fit.
Or at least that's the way it ought to be.
Seriously, Doctor. What's going on? Hypocrisy and exaggeration taint all of the TC efforts. That's what happens when you lie. But you seem ever so eager to give them a pass on the bar ban.
(And even less eager to offer me a threshold level of SHS.)
The head of the National Coalition of Womens issues in Hamilton Ontario was quoted as stating "all men should be castrated at birth" your not one of them are you?
Kevin,
LOL, no I'm not THAT bad......though locking them in a chastity device until we are ready to use them does have a delightful apeal to it.........hehehehehe
I wonder how the anti-tobacco groups would feel if it were legislated/agreed that NO kids' sitcom could EVER have a "very special" episode about smoking.
Just to level the playing field, you know.
Andrew,
I totally agree with that. TC does more cigarette advertising now than the tobacco companies ever did in the past. Your normal average teen will go out and try smoking just to see what all the fuss is about.
I saw 2 teens at my bus stop about 5 months ago and I asked them why they started. Both had only recently taken up smoking, after seeing all the anti ads on TV, and in school, to see what the big deal was.
You gotta luv the irony....
Wow! This place is jumping! And it kinda looks like y'all went and got the doc a wee bit tipsy! LOL, he needed it!
benpal: "What a surprise when they find out they don't drop dead from the first cigarette. "
That's a bit like teenagers in days of yore who realized that smoking marijuana (sp?) didn't really lead to using hard drugs. The exageration nullified the whole campaign effort. All I did was go to give a wedding present to my dentists and get some lunch. I get back and the party's already started!
Lynda: "if the anti's can ban what they don't like, so can I."
Now, you're getting the idea. In one way, it's making fools out of all of the pro-banners. On another level, it could lead to far more convenient dining, traveling and entertainment options for the grown-ups--as long as the bans are "for their own good". See si's comment.
si:"If it keeps them happy carry on,the more ridiculous they get,the less they will win public sympathy."
See Lynda's comment. (Gosh. This is like a crossword puzzle!)
godownfighting: "Will someone please protect me?"
*sigh* Dah-lin, you need muh parasol? Why, you just use this here fan to keep those pesty little wisps away from yore delicate sef. ... *snort*
Kevin: In a name I would call it "The Burned Identity"
LOL!!!
Sunz: " DTB---That should be a Long Island Iced Tea for the doc---clear out his mind and body at the same time."
See Doc's comment.
The Doc zez: "DTB - For what I'm putting up with, I'm afraid sweet tea isn't going to cut it. Give me something at least 86 proof for a start."
See Sunz' comment. And...uh...how do you suppose we make *real* sweet tea south of the Mason-Dixon? Starts with a still and ends with a little white lightnin' for sweetener! You might start in a smoke-free bar, but you'll end-up dancing on tables in any ol' dive! Careful, Doc, Lynda's weilding a chastity belt and she's headed your way!
Later, the Doc sez: "I should probably stop providing such detailed, carefully crafted arguments since they don't represent any objective analysis of public health policy as I am a tobacco stooge"
Larry, Moe or Curly? Shemp perchance? (FYI: My grandmother actually *met* the three stooges! Said she laughed so hard that her sides ached!)
Shoot, I screwed up that last one. The reply to si is messed-up.
*sniffs glass*
Maybe *I'm* the one with 86 proof something in my glass!
If I might indulge myself with some possible movie titles --->
Raging Bull (referring not to the animal but to the claims being made by anti-smoking groups that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke can cause atherosclerosis; and many other fallacious claims)
Going Overboard (self-explanatory)
Because I Said So (movie about the reasons why anti-smoking advocates should listen to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and support the proposed FDA legislation)
Rumor Has It... (film about the undocumented accusations being made by Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights and other groups)
Paycheck (a comedic flick about the folks responsible for the national smoking cessation guidelines' recommendation that every smoker be treated with NRT)
and of course...
A Cock and Bull Story (a disturbing comedy about the campaign of deception being waged by anti-smoking groups in support of the proposed FDA legislation and their attempts to convince the American people that Big Tobacco is uniformly opposed to this legislation)
No, I screwed up the reply to benpal.
That tears it. I'm switching to decaf.
Doc writes:Paycheck (a comedic flick about the folks responsible for the national smoking cessation guidelines' recommendation that every smoker be treated with NRT
So, what do *you* recommend for smoking cessation? Sew the lips shut? No, I'm being serious. What would you (or do you) reccomend?
DBT,
OMG that was too funny....
Very creative indeed. Yes, those male chastity devices can be sooooooo much fun......hehehehe
As the late Jack Valenti said, if they did what Stan Glantz had been asking for, it would have led to groups like MADD, etc., demanding similar treatment for films that depict actions counter to their positions.
It still might. It just happens the anti-smoking lobby is better organized.
Here are some of the new truths:
1. ETS has been found to be the only substance that defies the scientific principle that "the poison is in the dose."
2. Protecting, shielding children and adults from perceived risks makes them stronger.
3. Censorship of all forms of communication by a Blue Ribbon committee has been proven to be of vast benefit to society.
4. Physical strength and endurance are achieved by being sedentary.
5. Nations governed by a Constitution that guarantees individual rights, not group rights and that does not stifle freedom of choice have been proven to be complete failures.
This is nothing more than an a butt kissing rule. I couldn't care less what the rating is and what is in it. If I don't like a movie, I know how to turn it off, if on DVD, and I know how to walk out of a theater. Should I have one of these R rated movies with smoking in it at my house and my grandchildren were here and wanted to see it, I would have no problem letting them view it. When the American Legacy Foundation or Mr. Glantz shows up at my door, to take the movie away, they will be having a butt to kiss before they leave and I am sure you all understand just what it is they will really be kissing. What I am seeing though will be a boycott of these new R rated movies with sales and rentals in decline and gradually the whole nonsense will go away and you will once again be shocked at all the dirty smoking taking place.
Still waiting for all that evidence and the ice tea is getting weak. Think maybe I will switch to a cold beer this weekend. That should go good with those nachos while I wait. Come on over and wait with me guys, the beer is on me this weekend!
You're right weak tea is not for weekend get togethers. Be right over.
Doc Missed an obvious tittle;
One flew under the Koo Koo's nest seems to fit the mood.
"Under" signifying the low road campaign strategy.
In a crawl back under a rock sugestion or describing some TC advocatres [Not Bill of course, Chatty Cathy? HMM] as; so low they could wear a top hat while walking under a snakes belly
An unnecessary [Inconvenient]truth could also be on the list.
Cheers, anyone have a light?
It is getting way too comfortable here in the virtual smoker allowed bar. Like the calm before a storm Please don't anyone tell Bill what area it's in, we don't need another ban or increased internet charges to pay for it.
Lynda--
Okay, you, me, Sunz, Diane, we all need a stiff one. Ah, Kevin's coming by for smoke--but don't tell Bill and don't bring the kids or any asthmatics. I'm not much of a drinker; so, I'll just have a Pink Squirrel. *hic* Looks like Rod could use a happy drink, too--I'll even put a little umbrella in it. Okay, the doc really, really deserves some R&R...so, he can have a little space somewhere terribly smoke free. (Now, now. We can't have him drinking alone. But the only smoke-free space I've got is down in the cat room--and that would surely make SHS seem...preferable.) I know, the doc can go out on the back deck--don't worry, the stilts have integrity. Geez, those death certificates take forever to write. Darn, some noodly appendage swiped the umbrella. (Sorry, Rod.)
You folks watch a movie--maybe Fun with "Dick" and Jordan? I'll just read "Smoking is Good for You" until this Pink Squirrel makes me cross-eyed. (Hey, can I sue the Pink Squirrel company for that?)
Okay, godownfighting and I are gonna go plan a conference now.
"I'll even put a little umbrella in it"
I recently read a report that adding alcohol to fruit enhances (I dunno, anti-oxidents or some such thing). It was a serious press release, but apparently at least one reporter had a sense of humor -- 'cause s/he ended it with
"Treating the berries with alcohol increased the antioxidant capacity that cancels out the cell damaging effects of compounds known as free radicals. No word on whether adding an umbrella made a difference."
Diane,
I'm on my way, but if you don't mind I'll stick to the iced tea. I hate beer and am not much for alcoholic beverages anyway............UNLESS someone can make a really good chocolate frozen mudslide (now THOSE I can do easy) LOL
I had no idea in this day and age that it took so long to produce a few death certificates...geeeeeze
And to be nice to the Doc, I promise not to chain smoke........LOL
Hey, count me in! I'll take a virgin strawberry daiquiri if you've got it, sweet iced tea if you don't. I don't drink, but I love the virgin fruity concoctions--like daiquiris and pina coladas. Oh, and I'm not afraid to be around all those carcinogens evaporating off the alcohol either.
Sorry, I can't promise not to chain smoke.
Awww c'mon Tnsmoker........if'n the Doc promises not to do that exaggerated hand waving thing and fake cough might you consider not chain smoking (you can still smoke)....huh huh huh? hehehehe
godownfighting, as long as we treat the berries...nicely. And, BTW, treating berries with alcohol doesn't really increase their antioxidant effect--those results were altered by His Noodliness.
Diane, no little umbrella for you--but we'll scare up a straw for your mudslide.
tnsmoker, you get the virgins. Lynda has the chastity belt for the fellas who get outta line. Any chance we could find a muzzle for Glantz?
BTW, as per McFadden's tutorial on how to get publishable experiemnetal results, SHS *has* caused one death...but it involved an exploding oxygen tank and we still haven't seen the actual death certificate.
DTB;
We will have to put in a spitoon for Bill and Cathy just so they don't feel left out and think we are expressing intolerance and hatred or something.
You know how those rumors get started.
If Bill wants in, we will have to blindfold him so he doesn't bring back his gang to cause trouble. Banging those tamborines can be so aggrivating to listen to when you just want to kick back on a Friday night, especially when good quality tunes are in play.
DancingTigerBait_
"Any chance we could find a muzzle for Glantz?"
I have a covered dish would that help?
Lynda: ...if'n the Doc promises not to do that exaggerated hand waving thing and fake cough might you consider not chain smoking (you can still smoke)....
Yeah, if the Doc can restrain himself, I reckon I can, too.
DTB: tnsmoker, you get the virgins.
Drinks, right?
I have a covered dish would that help?
Only if it is a pietrie dish,
Bill says we need to cure the Cancer in this blog.
DTB, I don't have any muzzles but could probably find a ball gag or two or three if necessary. Will that do? hehehehehe OH, and the mudslide is mine, don't you be trying to give it away to Diane now....LOL
Kevin, do you have a blindfold or do I have give you that also? LOL
Tnsmoker, I knew you were a reasonable person, I don't care what these guys here said about you....ROFLMAO
Great way to end what was a not so great week here for me.....thanks so much guys (and gals).
Sorry I'm late to the party folks........any body got any crackers? I've got fresh batches of hot pepper jelly and a couple blocks of cream cheese, also a big pitcher of margaritas to go with it (personally I'll stick to beer)
Okaaaaay....
Let's see...
We need a mudlside and a straw (for Lynda!), frutiy concoctions, ineberiated berries, a little umbrella, a petrie dish and a covered dish, a chastity belt, a spitoon for Bill and Cathy...no they can use the petrie dish...sweet tea, long island tea, 86 proof something, a blindfold, chastity belt, two or three ball gags, virgins for tnsmoker...
...
...
Omigosh! We really *ARE* R-rated!
You guys sure you don't wanna come to a conference?
(And, Kevin, we probably could find a cure for cancer--with or without Bill--if we put our heads together. Best way to put ACS outta business.)
The anti-smoking movement has already glamorized smoking, by making it naughty.
The one thing that sticks out to me is:
"..let me state clearly that I do think that smoking in movies is a problem. I do think that the widespread media depiction of smoking is a major problem. I do think that it contributes to smoking initiation."
The doc says that there is "little scientific support" for removing all depictions of smoking from films that unhelmeted youth might see.
My inference, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the doc wants depictions of smoking removed from all media.
Where is the science to support that depictions of smoking are "widespread"? I watch TV every day and see very little smoking.
Where is the science that such depictions encourage our youth to start?
Kevin, Everyone knows that Bill is a half a pair of Speedo's short of a head cold. Shame on you for being so harsh.
*pulling up a chair*
What did I miss -- sorry - I was exchanging emails with my state rep (who voted unsucessfully against the ban). Funny guy!
Harsh Me?
Just chillin with my Bud the wiser one.
I did offrt yo bring Bills spitoon indoors. The covered pietyrie dih was just to tone down Glanzies orration so we can hear the invited guests.
I want to hear the music and those tamborines and constant halelujous would just mess things up.
The musician is going to give us a preview of a few sets to be played at the outdoor jazz festival, and we can't forget the old folks who did the my generation thing on U tube.
BYW Bill in a speedo? That picture is going to make it very dificult to keep the beer down.
Ask Lynda if she can bring him one of her leather dresses to go with the cue ball gag and other accesories he requires while she dominates the situation,
Just trying to keep things fairly civil. We don't need complaints from the neighbours bringing the smoke police nosing around.
I hat to break-up the party, but I need to share:
http://www.lse.co.uk/
ShowStory.a...tory=RO1929177J
Medical Journals Slammed By Former Editor (former BMJ editor, Dr. ?Richard Smith...LOL, "Dr. Simth")
19th September 2006
Dr. Smith
Danger Danger
Run away Will Robinson
Danger Danger
godownfighting, you ain't missing nothin'. I've got your inebriated berries right here!
LOL, Bill in Speed-os. Glantz in an outfit designed by...oh, whats his name...the guy who headed the CIA.
And, Kevin, we'll also use the Jackboot tune adopted by Forces. (hope you've heard it. Kinda rustic.)
LOL, everybody's gettin' looped--except tnsmoker..who gets to be the designated river. (We'll reimburse for gas tomorrow.) We'll blame on the stuff doc keeps in his medicine cabinet--those fumes can seep through brick like a bartender's smoke.
"LOL, Bill in Speed-os. Glantz in an outfit designed by...oh, whats his name...the guy who headed the CIA."
Do you mean Bill Godshall?
sorry that Anonymous was me above
Okay, I've just zipped off three shorties. But I need to put in a word about slamming medical journals.
They have their place. To a large extent, the reason that we find fraud or gross sloppiness so repugnant in medicine is that we hold that profession very high. It's like finding a crooked cop or a teacher who abuses his/his authority. We need *good* medicine--and a doctor with a conscience is appealing. Yes?
Also, I should add that, personally, my heart has been much softened this week. Lo and behold, my chiro is an MD. I love my chiro. She's the best--and no drugs to date. (Now, dentists...okay, I have a good one of those, too--finally.)
Still, even with those qualifiers, there's no excuse for effectively turning perfectly good medical journals into drug adverts.
Sunz: I assumed that's who Kevin meant. He left a message for us here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=39675#120020
That's probably just an peurile attempt at flaming. Gettin' the doc's goat--and ours, except that we're too cool.
Also, sorry about all of the typos. The kitten keeps walking across the keyboard, hopping down and pouncing on my favorite aloe plant!
Thought provoking as always. I actually think there comes a time when a parent should parent. You can ban smoking, etc. and limit children's exposure, and it is all well and good, but parents need to inform their kids as well.
I don't think the MPAA has ever gone back and re-evaluated ratings. It is kind of like law. If it happened after this time period.... I can see your point though.
The point isn't "sloppiness" -- it's corruption.
godownfighting--touche
The point is fraud and bad faith,as they are duty bound. Corruption is a branch of both.
(Lynda- this isn't directed at your comment -- just something I've been thinking)
Ya know -- honestly -- with all the criticism of parents... I think most parents ARE parenting. The problem comes when we (prodded by others like TC) start to criticize each other's parenting. I mean, I'm quite proud of my kids -- but they still do things (even or especially as adults) that *I* wouldn't choose. I think blaming all ills on bad parenting is a lot like blaming all ills on SHS.
DBT, you're killing me here today!!! My sides hurt from laughing. Sure you're not dipping into our drinks too? hmmmm hehehehehe
Kevin, alas, I must disappoint you dear, I have no leather dresses....actually I don't care for leather except for shoes, purses, and ummmmm......well that's not for this list......hehehehehe But I do have a corset around here somewhere that we can have Bill model for us......LOL Actually I might have two so Cathy can model the other one............ROFLMAO Now the question is what other interesting toys should I throw in my bag...........LOL
Gabz,
It's about time you joined us, you're late......LOL I've got crackers, no problem. What kind of cheese you have there? Some of us are picky yannno? LOL
Smokenreader ;
"the guy who headed the CIA."
I believe the head of the FBI Herbie Hoover was into wearing womens clothes
DancingTigerBait;
Jackboot tune adopted by Forces?
No can't say I've heard that one, of course nothing surprises me anymore Bill says Big Tobacco is financing all of us, then he expresses amazement realizing Doc is doing as he is told. Then Bill damgles the carrot of allowing him back into TC, but only if he learns to speak for them as instructed.
To me it seems Doc has a high demand commodity he should hold out for a better deal If you have a publicist to get you on the promo circuit this could get into retirement numbers.
Need an agent Doc? For 10% of the action I know I could negotiate you a primo deal, A no trade clause and a bonus for each playoff game
Oh wait thats the other game on the tube, never mind we can talk after Toronto beats these imposters...
Where is the tarbender we need more pretzels.
*waiting for my check from Big Tobacco*
*tapping foot*
*still waiting*
We should ask Bill how to get that expense account activated. Maybe we could get them to pick up the tab for tonights festivities.
Bill knows how these nicotenne companies operate. How about it Bill any pointers for the rest of us?
If you don't give it up, Lynda will have to convince you to talk.
{Believing he wouldn't enjoy that} LOL
Kevin, as I read other treads on this blog. It is Bill who wears (hold your Bud) the speedos and enjoys volleyball. Frankly, Bill is like a tick on a lions back when he enters this blog arena. I.m sure he knows it.
Kevin,
Lynda could only succeed in making him talk, after collecting herself at the site of Billy Boy in that Speedo. Very sharp Bill LOL
Kevin Herbert Hoover! That's who I was thinking of! It's on their main page...hang on...here: http://www.forces.org/articles/j...es/
jackboot.htm
godownfighting: I understand *exactly* what you mean. Although, I think that it's a little different from parenting because what we hear and see is the screw-ups. Everybody pays for those who really don't bother to parent.
Okay--throwing in my two bits
I think Lynda should use the chastity belt on Bill, regardless of whether or not he talks. (How come Bill knows so much about big tobacco? Is *he* getting paid on the sly?)
I hearing tapping in the background...ah, it's godownfighting tapping a foot waiting for the tobacco check. (LOL, it'll get here about the same time as the deth certificate.)
Kevin...tarbender...LOL..and I thought theese Pink Squirrels were potent.
Alas, I have little leather in my wardrobe, but I can contribute some highg heels to go with the corest!
DTB and Kevin,
It's J. Edgar Hoover, who headed of the FBI.
yeah... I figured the check must be in the same parcel as the death certificates.
LOL @ Sunz -- who must be the only sober one. Yeah... J. Edgar...
All the hospitals around here announced together today that they are going tobacco free on their "campuses" (all but one hold out). Apparently they need a "level playing field" too. That means chewing tobacco too -- and they include inside cars on their parking lots.
Before even thinking about the severe nursing shortage around here -- or the patients... My head is spinning from the lack of compassion for hospital visitors under stress. Who would it hurt to have an outdoor smoking area -- away from whatever they want it away from?
Now I know what happens to the kids who tear the wings off bugs -- when they grow up.
Lynda asks of Gabz: What kind of cheese you have there?
SMOKEY cheddar. What else?
J. Edgar..yeah, that's the one...the one in the fishnets...just for Bill...or, I dunno, maybe Glantz is jealous. somebody take the ball gag off him and ask.
godownfighting...I don't know what to say. My hubby's dissertation was on the nursing shortage--back in 1990.
LOL, tnsmoker. What else? So, we're R-rated *and* cheesey!
Certain things get to me more than others. Nursing homes, hospitals... places that are SUPPOSED to be COMPASSIONATE. Places that are supposed to COMFORT. Bans in those places, which could easily find ways to be accomodating, are the most blatant reminder that "health", as they define it, is held above all other virtues.
I just can't believe that that's the world we really want to live in.
I think I meant values rather than virtues -- but it amounts to the same.
It isn't the world we want to live in. Like airports, the smokers are only the first--like a test case to see whther or not people will allow general intolerance. We need to vote the morons who've legislated these bans right outta office. If all the smokers, ocassional smokers and anti-ban nonsmokers did it...there ya go. We'd be seeing politicans running on the premise that they'd overturn the bans.
I'm getting the munchies. (I didn't really drink. Just working on papers. I'm gonna have nightmares about p-values.) And, bow, I'm gonna have some decaf and cookie dough.
That's right. I smoke. I drink coffee. I eat raw cookie dough. Wanna make somethin' of it! (I think the doc just fainted.)
yeah well... I can beat that ! I let my kids watch South Park!
South Park...did you see the one on smoking? "Smoking is bad...m'kay." The big anti was Rob Reiner--big in more ways than one. Showed how the evils of smoking were conjured by the antis--scared the kids half to death.
Respect my authorit-eye!
DTB: That's right. I smoke. I drink coffee. I eat raw cookie dough. Wanna make somethin' of it! (I think the doc just fainted.)
Yeah, I just made a pan of fudge. It's cooling now as I type. I used real butter and substituted part of the milk for real cream. Oh, and raw sugar and sea salt. It will be awesome!!
tnsmoker: That makes my mouth water! I *love* good fudge.
There was a doctor was used to stop by the same bar after work and order a daquari with a hunt of almond in it. One day, the bartender ran out of almonds. So, he substituted a little hickory. After the first sip, the doc noticed that it wasn't quite the same. The bartender replied, "No, it's a hickory daquari, Doc."
Seems apropos after this evenings frolicking.
Ohhh.. I LOVE fudge! Peanut butter fudge 'specially!
No DTB-- I've heard about that one (my son described it to me) but I haven't seen it yet. I DID see recently the N----r Guy episode. Brilliant!
Actually -- watching South Park is now part of their "question everything" training. And Boy DO they!
Guys - Is there a smokers chat room anywhere? I mean -- for discussing this sort of stuff?
I was wondering about that. Seems like more of a chat here--but delayed responses are tough.
I don't know. Actually, I'm starting to get tired, but I think we should try to find a nice chat room somewhere--or set one up.
godownfighting
"Actually -- watching South Park is now part of their "question everything" training. And Boy DO they!"
I could beat that.. try it with twins! South Park is must see TV...Won't be long before the ants pull out the Boogieman (save the kids)that is if they ever finish with people who smoke.
All said, The Boogieman might be a good title for the docs film.
LOL, The Boogieman.
When they san figure out that Gone Wtih the Wind is outdoor tobacco smoke, then we'll be in business.
There's a way to chat from my website, but it seems fairly primitive:
http://stahlheart.com:2084/?
nick...=stahlheart.com
Or try going to the bottom of http://www.stahlheart.com/
Legisl...egislature.html
hey y'all follow DTB's link and come chat?
We went to bed. Sweet dreams, all.
Outdoor wood burning needs banned. Schuylkill County USA
http://www.republicanherald.com/...id=530483&
rfi=6
Excerpt
An Environmental Protection Association study concludes that breathing wood smoke particles during a high pollution day is equivalent to smoking four to 18 cigarettes. Wood-burning releases pollutants including the same toxic chemicals found in cigarettes. Even more alarming, 12 chemicals in wood smoke are listed as carcinogens by the U.S. government; 25 chemicals found in wood smoke are indicated as hazardous chemicals with a toxicological profile. Some of these chemicals include arsenic, benzene, dioxin, formaldehyde and lead.
Wood smoke can also penetrate inside the home.
“When your neighbor is burning wood, deadly pollutants are inside your house as well.”
GreatScot
I'm glad someone suggested taking most of the chatter here into a chat room. This place has been a forum for hardball debate and for on-point or on-a-related-point posts.
As such, it's been read by the folx in the media who at least have gotten "exposed" to some of our data as well as our perspective. IOW, we want them to keep reading the" Comments."
But clutter the place up with a lot of tearoom chatter and you'll turn them off and away-- and lose them way before they'll ever get to the few posts that have some real meat and potatoes.
:
Debate?
Careful Walt Bill's staying on topic brainwashing might be getting to you.
lol
You are correct of course. It would be great though if we could inspire the pro ban people to actually defend their positions. Even when you make light of them, they stay silent. The brainwashed ones are apparently very well programed as Michael indicated.
The silence is excellent proof to demonstrate his point.
GreatScott; Does this sound like plagiarism to you?
From your link...
"Open-burning should be banned in Schuylkill County — right now. It is a public safety issue, but more importantly, it is a public health issue.
Open burning is a serious health hazard for everyone, but especially those suffering from asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, allergies, sinusitis and cardiovascular disease.
“The elderly, newborns, children, adults who exercise rigorously and those with existing heart and lung disease are most at risk for premature death due to particle pollution exposure.’’ (American Lung Association, “The Perils of Particulates.”)
Smoke from burning of wood alone results in high concentrations of toxic air pollution at ground level and generates hundreds of toxic compounds — many of them carcinogens."
Now we have to determine what came first the chicken or the egg.
Are boy scouts causing a health hazard for those around them? Scoutmasters need to be protected.
Ban campfires.
The sheer volume of what comes off a single log could equate thousands of packs of cigarettes they put food in there and eat it like marshmallows and fried fish, Oh the horrors, how do they get out of the woods without medical assistance.
Cancers must be rampant among campers and those poor souls who are forced to work near wood fires.
Has anyone really listened to their local media when they report on the new R ratings for smoking in movies? Here in the Dallas area, they are all having a hard time keeping straight faces while they report it. Every major network too. I picture them rolling on the floor once the camera is off them. Looks like TC is finlly making themselves the laughing stock for the year 2007. Oh yeah, there was one segment where Glantz and Meyers was saying how this will stop 200,000 kids from starting to smoke every year and when it went back to the news, the gal doing the news was wiping tears away.
We can put a stop to this though. We just won't rent or buy a movie with their new rating while we are partying while waiting for all that evidence. Boycott is the word for the day. We also stay away from theaters. Money does talk.
Diane,
I was surprised as well at the coverage. Even MSM seemed to take the whole thing as the joke it is.
I found this of interest on Mr. Glickman
http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUsGlickman.asp
~snip~
Mr. Glickman served as the Secretary of Agriculture from March 1995 until January 2001.
~snip~
'During his tenure, the department also focused extensively on improving our nation's diet and nutrition, and on fighting hunger. Secretary Glickman led the effort to ensure that an effective regulatory approval process that is based on sound science governs new agricultural technologies'
As the Clinton's banned smoking in the White House during 'their' term this just seems like a natural fit. Another Nanny!! ;(
Anyone else notice this thread is acting very strangely? Walt, GreatScot and Kevin and Diane are there then they're gone. I posted something 'successfully' it was there now it's gone. 
Now they're back again.
Kevin and Si,
Thought you would find this of interest
http://www.tobaccoatacrossroads.com/
I really enjoyed the sections on Transparency,Accountability and Unintended Consequences.
Enjoy
.
It appears that Mike is far more interested in criticizing public health organizations (which is the primary focus of his posting, like many other previous postings) than in objectively analyzing policy options to reduce youth smoking.
Bill, and what is this? No criticism of public health? Straight from your website:
The Philip Morris/CTFK/Kennedy/Waxman FDA legislation perpetuates that misinformation by requiring all smokeless products to contain even larger misleading warning labels that state "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes," and by prohibiting smokeless products from truthfully claiming they are less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. - http://www.smokefree.net/bg-anno...ges/
247627.html
Benpal,
That's because he's the only one allowed to do so when it's HIS favorite enjoyment under the microscope. Didn't you get the memo?
Walt,
You are right, we should keep it to topic for the most part....then again, this is what happens when people's exasperation levels and frustration levels become overloaded. Laughter is sometimes the best medicine after all. But I agree, we need to create a chat room for us when we reach these levels.
GoDownFighting,
Sorry, I was offline then rolling some cigarettes.......hehehehehe
Doc,
Sorry for the disruption yesterday, apparently more than one of us needed some relief and needed it with our comrades. We'll work on a separate venue for times like this.
Sunz;
Whoever wrote this piece has an obvious problem with consistency. If you look at the description of harm reduction on page 14 on the left side of the page the description seems quite reasonable in presenting a balanced approach, however moving on to the right side of the page they proceed to ignore every point made.
The three points I noticed immediately;
1] This is designed as a bottom up approach as opposed to top down That in practice needs no comment beyond where is my ability to participate without singing in harmony of what has already been decided. If Michael smoked he would be a perfect example of how those participants would be treated.
2] Harm reduction in the view of the author does not include regulation of the product or modification of the product to reduce what is believed to be harmful. IE the research I have posted a number of times, which indicates carcinogens can be reduced, and histamines through curing processes can be almost eliminated.
3]The acknowledgement poverty creates conditions which promote drug abuse is offset with an endorsement of higher taxation. The WHO millennium goals indicated health scare associates sought to decrease health scare dependence on tobacco and alcohol while in practice such measures as the tobacco settlements permanently entrench those profits into budgets at every government level. That works well in achieving their goals? It seems when cash is on the line integrity of purpose becomes a secondary goal.
It also seems harm reduction requires the danger levels to remain high to make their promotions that much more frightening. If anything frightens me at the moment it would be associated to TC and health scare monopoly members and how extreme they have been allowed to go without substantial media balancing. This is a point which could prove to be much more dangerous than cigarettes will ever be.
Grouping tobacco and alcohol use in with illegal drug use indicates one solution will fit all, which is clearly foolish and poorly reasoned. They are independent issues and require independent observations. Could you ban the users of alcohol or even users of cocaine from bars and restaurants to punish the users into abstinence as they attempt to do with cigarettes?
Rating this document I would give full marks for lobby group promotion in playing to the crowd, however the lack of expertise and foresight of the authors in observing or even considering real world effects is certainly controversial to say the least.
*stands outside the virtual bar looking sad* I know I got asthma, but can't I PLEASE come in? I brought tobacco and papers. *sniffles pathetically* I'm not oversensitive like SOME people...
I'm glad they've made movies that depict smoking R rated, and I'm glad that no advertising is allowed by tobacco. When the general public finds the rise in teenagers using tobacco, well, I think it's *PERFECTLY* clear who's to blame.
Sunz;
I have to admit I only skimmed through the document you provided it seems once you've read a thousand of them you've read them all...
The point I made the other day indicating Tobacco industry ads were the problem meaning regulation of the ad industry needs regulation as the industry is only making use of tools available to all industries is highlighted in this and other similar chants.
Drug company execs who recently pleaded out, admitted they had mislead the public in the addictiveness of their product seems to have found no public awareness in the parallels to what the tobacco companies were demonized with. The current execs are being held to account for promotions of their predecessors and this is not lost on the public. We all know the Tobacco industry is being served up an ostrich like advocacy the tobacco walls being put behind curtains and elimination of advertising actually serves to promote the industries image. The public can be confident now they don't do that anymore because we don't see them advertising to kids and as crack use became hugely popular by ignoring the problem so too will tobacco sales increase while we all pretend it doesn't exist.
The bottom line here is if Tobacco companies were allowed to advertise under restricted conditions, which applied to all industries, they would loose their controversial edge and other companies who promote their products were held to ethical standards health effects and public safety would improve as a result of the accuracy and confidence, which could be inspired.
Ad agencies protect themselves from examination because they own the press until Government regulators are put to task in the failures of their duty this controversy will not end. Elimination of cigarettes from public view will only increase the number who will be drawn to smoking as the forbidden fruit.
TC fails to understand the power of out of sight is out of mind. When the public is lulled into believing the product is no longer significant TC wolf cries will become mundane and irrelevant in the public eye.
Sorry let me rephrase that;
The point I made the other day indicating Tobacco industry ads were the problem meaning the ad industry needs regulation as the Tobacco industry is only making use of tools available to all industries is highlighted in this and other similar chants. TC uses the flaws in ad agency tools to their deceptive means as well. The fact these ads were created many years ago and it is still possible to replicate them should be the real issue.
Reading the last few posts here, it appears that a lot of you believe TC wants to eliminate smoking, but that isn't really the case, at least not yet, there is still money to be made for TC from the sale of tobacco, and until they can't get any of it, they will continue to use that money to demonize the use of tobacco while "allowing" the sale of it so they get their cut. Wait until the MSA is finished, then watch the push for making tobacco illegal, until then, they aren't going to take any actions that would jeopardize their funding.
Doctor,
I am really interested in your thoughts on "zero tolerance."
You write:
"I also think that we have become somewhat narrow-minded. Sure, smoking is a problem. But to be honest, it's not my first concern when it comes to my kids starting to watch movies in theaters. Violence, sex, and alcohol use are also major concerns. To single out smoking as warranting a zero-tolerance policy, but not treat violence, sex, or alcohol in the same way seems quite narrow-minded and inconsistent to me."
So how would this apply to your stance in smoking in bars and restaurants? I keep asking, and keep not getting an answer: What level of SHS exposure would you deem "safe" in bars and restaurants? Or, if not "safe," at least a tolerable risk? From time to time you say that the exposure people experience at outdoor venues should not be banned. So you are not a "zero-tolerance" guy.
But as far as I can tell, you ARE a zero-tolerance guy indoors. Because you have refused to name a level of exposure that would be tolerable.
Let's say we could reduce exposure by 80 percent? 90 percent? 99.99999999 percent? Would you be OK with that?
I don't know. Because you don't seem willing or able to say. As such, I have to assume that you would still be for a ban. Because your current position does not stipulate a change of heart given different exposure levels.
So... isn't that "narrow minded" in the same way you criticize above? Aren't "violence, sex and alcohol" also concerns? Aren't they bigger concerns that SHS, if we could reduce the associated risks of SHS by 99.9999 percent?
The only reason I can come up with to explain this zero-tolerance approach that you have taken is that the air would still not be "as clean as it could be," and that it would be "easy" to make it cleaner by forcing smokers outside.
But in what sense is it "hard" to ban smoking in movies? In fact, why leave it up to the MPAA? Why not legislate it, as we do with smoking bans?
You readily admit that smoking in movies and other media lead to initiation. And as we all know, smoking is addictive. And as we all know, some percentage of addicted smokers die of toballo related illnesses. (And, in fact, through your research, we know that many of these smokers will kill nonsmokers with all their SHS.
So good grief. Why would you DEMAND legislative action in the case of bars and restaurants, but be so flippant about deaths CAUSED by smoking in movies? Perhaps it is because smoking in bars and restaurants causes more deaths? OK then. Am I correct to assume that less exposure to SHS would result in fewer deaths? OK. Again great. YOU ARE TGHE EXPERT. THE RESEARCHER. Please, please, please tell me the level of SHS exposure that would reduce the number of saloon-related SHS deaths to something closer to the movie related SHS deaths.
And then please explain whether you would then be willing to leave SHS in bars and restaurants open to consideration. If not, WHY NOT?
Jerry;
I never believed anything of the kind. This is purely oportunistic investment and tremendous profit taking. Making profitable use as unpaid slave labour, of those who actually want to eliminate smoking.
Someone else struggling to take the MPAA seriously.
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/new...ews.php?
id=6039
GreatScot
Ok, now when R-Rated movies fail to reduce smoking uptake by 200,000 kids per year, will the media hold Glantz's feet to the fire?
Or will Glantz produce his own study to show a 60% reduction in heart attacks by adolescents because of his intuitive?
Or will some objective independent researcher go out and do a study on the effects of R-Rated movies and smoking uptake, and on publishing the results contrary to Glantz's contention, and be labeled an agent of Big Tobacco? And be blacklisted for the efforts, his/her character assassinated, labeled a heretic, and join Galileo in the ranks of scientists persecuted for their failure to find in favor of the prevailing dogma.
My predictions:
1) Smoking in movies will increase. Several factors leading to this. One a desire by film makers to resist authority. After being falsely accused of taking product placement through the use if innuendo and unsubstantiated accusations, they will be looking for a way to sleight those making the accusations. Another factor will be their distain for censorship and imposition of moralistic values upon their medium. And lastly, many people actually avoid kiddy movies, and an R-Rating is one way to escape those stereotypes. Often a gratuitous sex scene is included just to change the rating, and DVD producers are quick to promote "uncut" versions of films to appeal to this crowd.
2) Adolescent viewing of R-Rated movies will increase. "Aw mom, it's ok it's not a dirty movie, someone smoked in the movie and that's why it's rated R". As a kid, I remember the first time I snuck into an "R-Rated" movie. It was "M*A*S*H", and as such was something I was quite proud of. As only a minority have such a view that smoking in a movie is something children must be protected from, the tendency to look the other way will grow, thus making it easier for more kids to see these child restricted movies.
3) Uptake in kids (because of the attention to smoking in the movies) will increase. We've now reinforced the concept of smoking being a badge of adulthood, like sex, drinking, driving and gun ownership. We saw a large uptake in smoking uptake when nation attention was drawn to sales of tobacco to minors. However very few in tobacco control will admit to this unintended consequence, and some have tried to attribute it to other reasons... Increased advertising, (a lie since advertising dollar have steadily decreased, with more promotional money being diverted to reducing the end user price of cigarettes), and Glantz's hard-on for the movie thing. One of the greatest motivations of an adolescent is to be accepted, especially as an adult. To reinforce the idea that smoking is an adult behavior is ludicrous. The message should be... "Smoking isn't an adult behavior, it's a foolish behavior because smoking is a very hard behavior to give up. Smoking is a very expensive behavior, and smoking cuts years off your life, and contributes to various health issues, especially as you grow older. Many adults have been fooled into believing that they could smoke for a while, and then give it up just like that, and have gone to their grave thinking "yes, I'll quit tomorrow." If you've already tried your first cigarette, you probably asked yourself why couldn't anybody give that up, but trust me... it grows on you slowly, until one day, you'll be making sure you have at least one cigarette ready in the morning when you wake up. By that time, it's too late, and you're hooked. {and if dealing with a "goth"} While smoking may seem to be a revolt against the establishment, in fact all you are doing is supporting and giving those people a wage to promote the kind of intrusions into the lives of others, and boy do they get off on it too. If you think smoking will make you be accepted as an adult, think again, all you have established, is your lack of good judgment."
It's for this reason I firmly believe these efforts promoted by Glantz and others are counter productive to reducing uptake in children, and could be either deliberate or miguided providing the tobacco companies, and ultimately the tobacco cessation industry with continued revenue streams by providing and recruiting replacement smokers.
Greatscot--nice link. Thanks, I'll add it to my "funnies" folder. But there is one thing I noticed, "Look, I don't want to be a downer here but 6.23% of ALL the world's deaths are caused by unintentional injuries. Guess how much lung cancer is? 2.18%." He got that from a wikipedia page. It's actually an interesting page.
Walt--For the first of your precitions, "Smoking in movies will increase," there is another reason to add. It's my humble opinion and observation that many people in the movie industry are "closet" snmokers. (I could qualify that, but I don't want to take the space right now.) As such, I think that many people in that industry will be more than happy to work on a film that has smoking in it. Thus, it could become a popular theme.
Bill wrote: "It appears that Mike is far more interested in criticizing public health organizations"
I guess we will soon see Bill opening his own blog to criticize public health organizations and fallacious studies in order to protect his smokeless business:
Use of Swedish 'snus' is linked to a doubled risk of pancreatic cancer - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_re...i-
uos051007.php
Walt wrote: "... I firmly believe these efforts promoted by Glantz and others are counter productive to reducing uptake in children"
Maybe the answer can be found here:
License to sin -- Asking people to think about vice increases their likelihood of giving in. The study, forthcoming in the June issue of the Journal of Consumer Research, found that asking people questions, like how many times they expect to give in to a temptation they know they should resist, increases how many times they will actually give in to it. - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_re...p-
lts051007.php
Sidenote: I'm always amazed to see how much funding there is available for non-sense studies.
Sam-
It's not that I have a zero-tolerance policy for secondhand smoke in a workplace; it's just that I'm not aware of any existing ventilation system that can remove the smoke in such a way as to substantially mitigate the health risks.
I think Walt H. makes some very insightful comments about the potential effects of a forced R-rating for movies containing any smoking which are worth re-reading. In particular, the comments about the potential undermining of the
ratings system is quite important.
Doc says, in response to Sam: I'm not aware of any existing ventilation system that can remove the smoke in such a way as to substantially mitigate the health risks.
That's the point I was making earlier. Look, the SG said, "The report finds that even the most sophisticated ventilation systems cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure and that only smoke-free environments afford full protection." ( http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/20...s/
20060627.html )
Now, I now that there are ventilation systems that are very powerful. The most powerful that I've read about have not been in relation to eliminating SHS but to making microchips. And, then, there's the one in Chicago, designed for a smoking lounge. The SG took it upon himself to pretend to be a ventilation expert--and that's pretty much what you're doing now, too. And you're talking about *existing* systems; I was suggesting a way to find a *better* system because technology is not stagnant. I don't know; maybe marcus aurelius would know more about this.
We talk about ventilation, but we could just as well be talking about "air purifiers." The instructions for the APs that I have don't warn about tobacco smoke--they have cautions about needing to be immediately changed/replaced the filter if it's been anywhere near a burning candle!
The reason for harping on this is that it could be an easy way for TC or antitobacco or *whatever* to correct itself, i.e. lose the absurdities without losing face--well, except for the zero tolerance declarations that most people don't believe.
Aside: Just before the ventilation comment, the SG referred to smoke-free indoor environments as "simple approaches." After all of this, is anyone really bonkers enough to believe that smoking bans are "simple"?
Dr. Siegel writes:
"It's not that I have a zero-tolerance policy for secondhand smoke in a workplace; it's just that I'm not aware of any existing ventilation system that can remove the smoke in such a way as to substantially [sic] mitigate the health risks."
And what does Dr. Siegel mean by 'health risks'? Well, we now have him ON RECORD, that unless a person can walk away from someone smoking, or away from a place where smoking occurs, then he's in favor of laws that prohibit smoking, EVEN IN OUTDOOR SITUATIONS SUCH AS PATIOS, based SOLELY on secondhand smoke's ACUTE EFFECTS, and forget about any of those long-term effects.
Brick wall. Total and absolute end of discussion.
And when he says, "I'm not aware of any existing ventilation system that can remove the smoke in such a way as to substantially mitigate the health risks," he's already justified that, not on a situation of cleaner air overall in a bar or restaurant, but (to repeat) on this: "Iro asked whether I think that ventilation can solve the secondhand smoke exposure problem [sic]. Unfortunately, I don't think it can. The reason is that in order to remove the health hazard, you would have to eliminate the smoke immediately after it left the cigarette but BEFORE it reached the nonsmokers in the room [his emphasis]. I don't see how that is possible."
In other words, the air in a bar or resturant can be made HEALTHIER overall than the outside air, but STILL Dr. Siegel would not countenance it because the smoke leaving a cigarette and before it wafted into the great hereafter would impact the delicate lungs and noses of the nonsmokers in the room, presumably mostly asthma sufferers!
Now that's the kind of stuff we get from Dr. Siegel: 1. No smoking in bar, restaurant or even PATIO situations because of the ACUTE 'dangers' from secondhand smoke; but also, 2. that bit about smoke leaving a cigarette on its willful and dangerous journey into overall ambient dissipation.
Now if you, Sam, want to argue with that kind of nonsense, then good luck to you! Would you like to use a few choice descriptive nouns, adjectives and adverbs to describe that kind of over-the-top stuff? If you do, then good luck! Because that's the position Dr. Siegel is hunkered down in; and like a bulldog, he ain't budging. (Or, as Clarence Thomas early on once said, "I ain't evolving!")
You know, Sam Rayburn once said apropos of his fellow legislators, "It doesn't matter how smart you are, it's whether or not you have judgement."
So that's it, then, the end of the line with Dr. Siegel. For all of us. And too bad for him if these positions are, in fact, not sincerely held but are purely to maintain his position in TC. That would be too awful to contemplate.
Someone has already commented on "I also think that we have become somewhat [sic] narrow-minded," which is its own doctorate on farce. Sadly, it's hip-high in the stuff already and the tide is rising.
.
I understand that Bloomberg and the City council used one of Dr. Siegel's studies to justify a New York city ban. Guess they didn't go far enough, however, because people are still allowed to smoke at the outside tables, bars and restaurants. My only question is, since, as I understand it, ashtrays are verboten in bars and restaurants, is staff only allowed to clean them OUTSIDE and are they not to be taken INSIDE? Problems, problems.
Has anyone taken a good read of Harvard School of Public Health Dean Bloom's presentation to the MPAA? Here's just one piece of it:
Addressing the issues of "Directorial Freedom" and "Academic Freedom"
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/
mpaa..._conclusion.pdf
[Excerpt]
In 2000, a year after I became dean, the Harvard School of Public health voted as formal policy unanimously to forswear accepting money for research from the tobacco industry or tobacco-related industries.
• One of the understandings that came out in our discussions of academic freedom was that we could not, in conscience, be party to the hypothetical “Auschwitz Experiment”, arguing that, “We are scientists only measuring the temperature”. Scientists have greater responsibility than just measuring the temperature.
Look who dares to invoke Nazi references in their case. And isn't that amazing considering that within the same portion is this:
What has been remarkably effective has been local laws and regulations that are making smoking socially unacceptable.
To be clear to any lurkers, making smoking "socially unacceptable" means making smokeRs socially unacceptable -- one way is by removing THEM [read Jews] from sight.
Seems to me that in objecting to working FOR Auschwitz (how Bloom references BT) they want to RUN that show themselves and their way.
Dr. Siegel says: I'm not aware of any existing ventilation system that can remove the smoke in such a way as to substantially mitigate the health risks.
You might not be aware of any such system, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The problem is that the debate is declared closed since Repace, with the help of his sponsors, stated that it needs hurricane forces to eliminate particles from the air.
But there is a study
http://secure.awma.org/journal/
p...89.57.5.522.pdf
which proves the contrary and you bring it up yourself in
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....-of-
health.html
when you cite: OTS levels in a constant upwind direction from an active cigarette source were nearly zero. OTS levels also approached zero at distances greater than approximately 2 m from a single cigarette.
Science commonly calls these phenomenons "dilution and elimination by natural convection". Now imagine adding forced ventilation to natural convection ...
This is exactly what this study has done: http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/pce/
do...raft_report.pdf. The graphs in this document show very nicely the effect of ventilation at different rates. Do we need more proof that ventilation works?
The only flaw of this study lies in the conclusions, certainly inspired by and copied from J. Repace, when they repeat after James: "... these preliminary results show that “wind tunnel”-like rates or other high rates of dilution ventilation would be expected to be required to achieve pollutant levels close to ambient air limit values. Our findings are comparable with the results obtained in studies in the US, carried out at different hospitality venues"
The study measures exposition in a specially designed room model (INDOOTRON) of 30m3. However the exposition levels used are unrealistically high compared to the actual measurements recently published by the German WHO Collaboration Center.
N.B: Nobody can realistically expect "to achieve pollutant levels close to ambient air limit values" (whatever ambient air means when measured in an enclosed lab). There is no such thing as pure air, unless you live in a bubble.
The question has been asked countless (not equal zero!) in the comments to this blog: what are acceptable levels for the substances found in SHS?
If EPA/OSHA/NIOSH are worth their money, then we know the acceptable levels, because these organizations have defined PELs for exactly these substances. E.g. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/...DARDS&
p_id=9992
As stated: An employee's exposure to any Substance listed in Tables Z-1, Z-2, or Z-3 of this section shall be limited in accordance with the requirements of the following paragraphs of this section.
Suffice to compare actual exposure levels in hospitality venues and to compare them to these PELs.
Here is an example of the results of such a comparison: http://www.geocities.com/
madmaxm...cToxicology.htm
and here (German):
http://www.passiv-rauchen.de/
Gef...tofftabelle.htm
and here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
An inconvenient truth?
Why should hospitality workers be exempt from the occupational limits all other workers have to "endure" over their entire active life?
Does one need to have a degree in sciences to estimate how much of that exposure remains in an outdoor patio?
Harry--
As you may know, smoking is banned in outdoor cafes in NYC if they're covered by an awning, which most of them are. Of course most of them are also on major traffic routes (everything in Manhattan is on a major traffic route) but obviously the car and truck crap can't get under an awning. Then, too, there's construction on almost every block and a subway being tunnelled, but those RSPs are full of Vitamin C and also subject to awning-repellent.
On the movie topic. Having written for Hwd on a couple of occasions, here's what I speculate. First, the writers have little to no control over what gets onto the screen, so don't count on writers to bail this out. The producers may well want to avoid the R rating for financial reasons (which is likely to have figured in Glantz's strategy) but the folx who can override that-- and the only ones who can-- are the actors if they're stars .( If DiCaprio, DeNiro, Penn or Travolta --all chain smokers-- insist on smoking, then smoking it'll be.) For the same financial reasons. Then, too, there are Star Directors with clout who might want to thumb their nose. Artistic protest.
The reason Glantz & Co didn't go for the whole hog wasn't, as Dr Siegel implies, hypocricy, nor even impracticality, tho it is impractical. Demanding, off the bat, that the classics be, say, digitally doctored to remove the cigarettes from cold dead hands of Bogie and Bette Davis, would have made them even more of a laughing stock than they are; and so would demanding that Murrow not smoke in "Good Night and Good Luck." However, they're also boiling the frog, or believe that's what they're doing. Remember, they started out by "only" wanting nonsmoking sections on planes. Time alone will tell how lightly or seriously Hwd takes this. But the industry's not a virgin when it comes to censorship. The Hayes Office and the Breen Office were the official censors of the 30s and 40s and are the reason that nobody ever slept in a double bed and that generations grew up thinking sex was a bird flying over the ocean or a curtain romantically rustling in the breeze as the sun comes up behind it. And the Hollywood Trials of the late 1940s changed the content of movies, away from the political and into Doris Day.
True story: The guys who wrote.. just forgot the title...that movie that sanctified Wigand.. wrote most of it in a bar because "workplace smoking" had been banned in CA but bars were still free and both writers were smokers.
Dr Siegel,but where is the evidence that CLEARLY supports your hypothesis that SHS is so SUBSTANTIALLY HARMFUL that it necessitates the REMOVAL OF AN INDIVIDUALS CHOICE TO WORK IN SUCH AN ENVIROMENT ?UNTIL you are prepared to fully debate this aspect then your dogma prevails and is open to question.You appear to rely on certain elements of research,but fail to adequately respond to contradictory studies,and also utilise evidence that has exceeded Hooke's Law of elasticity,regarding 15Million asthmatics all suffering life threatening attacks courtesy of but 1 trigger of tobacco smoke.Dr Siegel,you are reliant on several factors that are not co-dependent nor sufficiently analysed to be used as you are doing.Was this not the original concerns of the data you used to provide your first "evidence" from your early research ?
benpal,
in Schiphol Airport (Amsterdam) they have smoking booth canopies in the hall where you collect your luggage. You can stand right next to them and you would never know someone was smoking.
Sad to say now that the WHO has determined that indoors must be 100% smoke free and it does not matter that ETS cannot be seen, smelled or even measured they are to be decommissioned next year. Even the Dutch, famed for their tolerance have joined the ban wagon.
Doc,
on a previous thread you were asked for you opinion on the WHO guidelines about ETS and in particular their 100% ETS free even if it cannot be measured policy. You gave a woolly answer about losing respect for the WHO because of their non-hiring of smokers. I would appreciate a more specific answer please.
GreatScot
Michael;
"I'm not aware of any existing ventilation system that can remove the smoke in such a way as to substantially mitigate the health risks."
This reasoning is based in the technology advancement of any excuse will do.
I have a right even as a non-smoker to enter that room if I understand the risk may exist. I have to be absolutely certain I am making a choice based in the accuracy of what is presented. If I am given accurate information to base that decision in and choose to accept it no one is to blame if injury occurs but me.
If the information provided is wrong someone should be held to account.
A sign on the door mitigates the conflict. If workers are at risk, by their own balanced judgment they also have a right to enter as long as they are informed of the possible increased risk and life goes on in harmony.
The “no safe level exists” can also apply to outdoor air risk which is much more of a risk. If we follow TC rumors we get to assess risks individually and add them all up and pretend each component has no other source or any safe level, meaning outdoor air risks [containing over 43,000 chemicals] which is of course the origin of all indoor air, trumps your standard of risk to a degree no one should be allowed to enter any building.
The elevated levels of risk from onsite measurements forsaking all other sources of ETS components it still takes 45 years of constant exposures in maximum levels, to find a slight increased calculated risk. We have to ask what employee would truly be at risk and how likely a patron even attending daily would be at risk. Your use of the word significant is self-serving, as no significant risk has ever been demonstrated any minimalist ventilation levels can indeed mitigate substantial risk when none is known to begin with.
TC denies the effectiveness of clean rooms, which protect us from biological hazards. One has to ask how we can obtain concisions based in forensics when we know no level of ventilation could hold evidence as uncontaminated by other air sources. Your level of perfection substantiates fears of smoke drifting through electrical receptacles 3 blocks away from a smoker.
You are not talking about risk in biological terms you are of course speaking in opinions of political prose, consistent with calculated fanaticism. An irresponsible exaggeration of what is possible in the precision calculation methodology Political speech presented as proof to those lacking the training to understand, who don’t know any better. I call that fraud. You can find reasons to moralize it any way you like, I still see fraud.
In theory engineers always strive for perfection when designing an electrical circuit. It is amazing how few times we actually find it in physical application.
We understand outside influences are the cause. In all the studies many of these incalculable factors not the least of which is the resilience of the human body in an ability to defend itself are not being considered in most cases it now being denied.
Timeline and biology do not agree with your self-serving estimates [[[not even close]]] so why do you persist in selling nothing more than fear, knowing full well how many are profiting from those promotions.
If I sold my work the way you do I would be jailed for fraud and I believe a few on the TC side of the fence should be judged in kind to put this spin doctor pandemic to rest.
I can understand why this site is named Haloscan,it's in the lap of the Gods whether it eats your comments or records them.It is abysmal.
GreatScot: "Sad to say now that the WHO has determined that indoors must be 100% smoke free"
The WHO's visions and concepts:
- No trace of human existence may be measurable or detectable on this planet. This is the only way to prevent mortality.
- We must strive at eternal life, even if it means eradicating the human species for the sake of the human species.
It looks like the UK Government is giving up all pretense.
Ban all drivers from smoking.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/
u...2078600,00.html
Excerpts
The Department of Health said last night that it would seriously consider a ban, which is also being looked at in Germany, Australia and America.
The Department of Health said it was 'looking at how we can get further momentum towards smoking cessation beyond the introduction of the smoking ban in England'.
'We are looking at further proposals and this could be one of them. If the road safety officers put information and evidence before us about this, and explain the case for it, we would study it,' said a spokeswoman.
Amanda Sandford of the campaign group Action on Smoking and Health said: 'We fully support this proposal. Not so long ago it would have seemed inconceivable that we would have a total ban on smoking across the country, but in a few years time people will think it's inconceivable that we allow people to continue to smoke while driving.'
The systematic, incremental persecution of smokers continues.
As far as (lack of)justification goes for banning drivers from smoking.
http://www.forestonline.org/outp...put/
page338.asp
Driver distraction - international studies
(1) The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, USA
The most frequent secondary tasks contributing to crashes were internal distractions, wireless devices, and passengers. The most frequent types of inattention for near crashes and incidents were wireless devices and passenger-related tasks. Accidents caused by smoking were negligible by comparison.
(2) The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes,
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, USA
Specific distraction % of drivers
Outside person, object, or event 29.4%
Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4%
Other occupant 10.9%
Unknown distraction 8.6%
Moving object in vehicle 4.3%
Other device/object 2.9%
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8%
Eating and/or drinking 1.7%
Using/dialing cell phone 1.5%
Smoking related 0.9%
Other distractions 25.6%
For the cause!!
Greatscot
If you took the time to compare technologies of just the relatively simplistic circuit of a control board which maintains levels in a ventilation system. To the crude estimations of epidemiology it is not hard to understand TC is given a lot more credibility than they ever deserved. Is it any wonder we hear such ridiculous claims of 30% increased risk as opposed to a .3 actually found increased risk, making opportunistic use of language when they all know better, and the public generally doesn’t, are any of them coming forward to explain it? For obvious financial reasons they are not likely to. They all loose credibility by cashing in on the ignorance of others. The concept of TC was always promoted in fraud and misdirection. If this is a legitimate issue you will have to explain why deceptions are always at the top of the list in every campaign.
Electronic design factors have to evaluate the effective ranges of every component on the board first, then you take into account the reactance and capacitive features of the entire circuit together controlling for heat and humidity air pressure and corrosion between dissimilar metals as electrons flow. The data and high power circuits employed, the voltage adjustments to accommodate components, the ranges of probes and triggering of multistage relays which direct data and power, The effects of environmental factors on the board and the environment which requires control in which it resides and a number of other factors which no one ever takes into consideration when they turn on the switch.
You are comparing the engineering standard put into the circuit design with a level of evaluation of epidemiology, which by comparison is prehistoric in function. A process which can only measure possibilities on a linear scale, the effects of biology which are more complex in many ways than the most advanced electronic design analysis, which by the way is multi dimensional design.
If an engineer of electronic circuits says the level is controlled it likely is. The only credible obstacle found is in self-serving impossible standards claiming “no safe level.” You tie the hands of a designer who cannot produce what you cannot describe, you then present arguments to the public the system is impossible to build so no safe level can be found. Not in design language but in childish political abstinence.
You are promoting fear based in a system of analysis, which is entirely crude, and judging by the difficulty in finding cause to date and the number of failures compared to successes a process totally ineffective in the application of accurately assessing risk. 5% accuracy is huge by today’s standards The EPA moving to 10% accuracy to establish risk is an incredibly huge allowance for mistakes and we hear in the press once again irrefutable proof?. Think about someone working in a dust free room [Yes they are possible to build] designing the processor in your computer, margins of error are in the billionths and trillionths of 1% of accuracy, at the design stage and even those standards are being reassessed daily.
The health scare community if putting forward such ridiculous claims and declaring “irrefutable proof” are no less crude than witch doctors howling at the moon. The public is starting to slowly realize in seeking second opinions as the norm, how little confidence medical science actually deserves. Far more than they give themselves credit for to be sure.
If you take the no safe level as credible, Michael would have to agree [if he is honest] by the same standard of language. flipping a coin is every bit as acurate an evaluation process for assesing risk as the most detailed epi model ever produced.
Epi models consistently demonstrate more exposure creates higher risk which means in plain english no safe level is a lie.
Doctor Siegel writes:
"It's not that I have a zero-tolerance policy for secondhand smoke in a workplace; it's just that I'm not aware of any existing ventilation system that can remove the smoke in such a way as to substantially mitigate the health risks."
What do you mean by "in such a way"? What way would you prefer? Who cares which way?
The only thing that matters is the extent to which ir reduces the risk. And I have asked you, repeatedly, how you are mesuring that risk. Is it some sort of "parts per million"? Is it some concentration of particles? At what point does that concentration rise to such a danferous level that state action is justified?
You say over and over again that you are not "zero-tolerance." But you have spent your career peddling the idea that we must have an indoor ban--and your colleagues have drummed up support my constantly shouting the "no safe level" mantra. Which is basically the definition of zero-tolderance.
And I keep asking, OK, if you are NOT zero-tolerance, what's the level of risk that you would tolerate in an enclosed working environment? And you won't say.
So let's say that the technology is something that we can hardly fathom, something that would be decades or even longer in development. I don;t know: Billions of microscopic nano-technology robots that fly through the air and disassemble SHS particles one by one, then reassemble those particles as dlowers and puppies. Whatever.
The question is, how many of the SHS particles would the nano-robots have to remove for you to say that the ban should be lifted?
I don't know what measure you would use. Like I said, maybe it's something along the line of a concentration. Maybe some measure approved by OSHA.
But you need to name that level. And it doesn't matter if you are aware of any systems that can provide that level. The only thing that matters is if such a level exists. If it does not, you are, in fact, zero-tolerance. Which a lot of people are. So you will have company. What you won't be, though, is consistent.
Doc, did you really write this with a straight face? It's not that I have a zero-tolerance policy for secondhand smoke in a workplace; it's just that I'm not aware of any existing ventilation system that can remove the smoke in such a way as to substantially mitigate the health risks.
You don't have a zero-tolerance policy, BUT unless all the smoke is eliminated as it leaves the cigarette and the poor fragile super-ill non-smoker can't even smell it, you feel bans are necesary. You don't see this as a zero-tolerance policy?
Because basically that is exactly what you are saying........you'll be willing to relax on the bans IF no one can ever see or smell cigarette smoke. Because we all know damned well that the majority are not suffering from super-sensitive asthma and/or heart conditions.
THAT is a zero-tolerance policy, Doc. Like it or not that is what it is.
Lynda;
What he is saying is until the crude measurement process he employs can find a level where no one can possibly be harmed, he will not support methods to mitigate risk.
Which by the way is a much higher standard than we normally accept, AKA acceptable risk.
In ETS technology the failure of the experts promoting the Epi. Method to define acceptable risk is deliberate; through refusal to do so, or in refusal to recognize those who did. E&K by example. ETS assessments will always be inconsistent for political reasons alone to comply with standards of risk we accept in other elements every day
The argument is; because the process fails when logically it shouldn’t, we all have to suffer the effects of their failures in risk assessments. When we all know the failures are absolutely by political design.
What he is saying is until the crude measurement process he employs can find a level where no one can possibly be harmed, he will not support methods to mitigate risk.
And THAT, Kevin, is "zero-tolerance" in my book.
There is to be NO tolerance of the sight or smell of cigarette smoke. It doesn't matter that hundreds of other things (exhaust fumes DO smell too) cause more illness and death than anything else.........those things we like and find convenient and useful. Since we dislike the smell of cigarettes, and we don't see any useful purpose in smoking......it is easy to blame it for everything and ban it's use (not the sale because it is a cash cow after all).
Like I said.............it IS zero-tolerance. How the good Doc doesn't see that is beyond me. One doesn't need a degree in anything to see it.
Great Scot,
Schiphol Airport is my second home. I am there at least twice a month as I use it as a hub for my international flights.
I can confirm that the smoking hoods you described earlier have already been removed. Normally this does not affect me as most of the time I stay within the airport and simply board a connecting flight to wherever.
I only noticed they had been removed last month whilst I waited for my luggage as I was staying in the Netherlands for a week.
As you say the smoke was almost undetectable. I guess the doc has never seen this type of equipment in operation.
BTW Lynda;
"You’ll be willing to relax on the bans IF no one can ever see or smell cigarette smoke"
His standard goes well beyond levels we can see or smell or even detect by measurement, Read some of the Repace assessment trash and that becomes quite obvious.
If you go back to a time when EPI had much higher standards in documentation to the 1964 SGs report you might notice primary smoking at that time was a likely cancer causal agent among men and only suspected among women at a time when both smoked in higher percentages in population than they do today. As prevalence and documentation standards dropped risk increased significantly. That demonstrates how exacting the standards are among those dedicated to promote a cause.
Consider this study;
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cg...nt/full/30/1/
24
Or this one, which describes the origin of the first.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cg...jepid%3b30/1/
31
Which indicates smoking is related to lung cancers however not significant related as a cause of all other cancers. Compare that to prose we hear which tells us about totals of all cancers related to smoking.
look closely and see how many inconsistencies you can spot between cause and effect claimed in observations reported, changing over time demonstrated in this one;
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi...?maxtoshow=&
eaf
So with primary smoking so low in actual consistent risk how much of an issue is ETS by comparison?
Even considering the rare instances of those with severe health problems who might react they also would react in identical manner to exposure to the smoke of their neighbors fire logs or candles and incense in the restaurant, Those who suffer the effects from cigarette smoke will tell you, any organics you burn are also consistent triggers.
GreatScot-
I don't know what 100% ETS-free even if it can't be measured means. If it can't be measured, then it seems to me that it isn't there. So doesn't that automatically make it 100% smoke-free? It's hard to give an intellligent response because the statement doesn't make much sense to me.
GreatScot, thank you for the AAA info! Great stuff.
Colin, wow, you do get around, don't you?! Listen, when we do have a conference or get-together, I think you and others from out of the US should be there. I'm not being American-centric, but I'm recalling your comment that America is "half price" right now. Maybe North carolina--last I knew the airport still had fairly comfortable smoking areas. Sound good?
Walt may be right that the reason for the exception for historically correct depiction of smoking is that the anti-smoking groups wanted to appear reasonable. However, I think it seems unreasonable to want to give a mandatory R-rating to any film with ANY smoking - even a single puff on a cigarette. And in ANY context, even if shown in a negative light.
I also think that it seems unreasonable to want to have a zero-tolerance policy for depiction of smoking in a movie, but not for depiciton of sex or violence. If the health groups were calling for an overhaul of the ratings system, such that any violence, sex, smoking, profanity, etc. would yield an automatic R-rating, that would be one thing; but to single out smoking as demanding an automatic R rating, but not the others - that seems unreasonable (as well as rather narrow-minded).
In this particular situation, I think the MPAA comes out of this looking quite reasonable, and the anti-smoking groups don't.
But doctor:
"I also think that it seems unreasonable to want to have a zero-tolerance policy for depiction of smoking in a movie, but not for depiciton of sex or violence. If the health groups were calling for an overhaul of the ratings system, such that any violence, sex, smoking, profanity, etc. would yield an automatic R-rating, that would be one thing; but to single out smoking as demanding an automatic R rating, but not the others - that seems unreasonable (as well as rather narrow-minded)."
I just don't get it. You seem to hammer away at consistency. Then hammer some more. But I don't see you advocating for a ban on open barbecues in bars and restaurants. Or a ban on forcing staff members to dance. Or any other hazards. Just tobacco smoke.
And again, I still don't understand what your standards for sufficient ventilation or mediation are. You responded to GreatScot, but not to me.
All I want to know is at what level SHS stops being enough of a health threat to trigger a government enforced ban.
You say that SHS can be measured. OK. How? And at what stage does the dose pose a significant health hazard? And at what stage does it not?
If you answer is that it ALWAYS does, no matter what the level, the you are, in fact, advocating for a zero-tolerance policy.
Which is not consistent with allowing people to smoke outdoors if staff members can walk away from the exposure. Because they would have to smell it to know it is there to know to walk away. And that whiff would, in fact, be at least some minimal level of exposure. Which you are not willing to tolerate indoors, as far as I can tell.
Maybe there is some technical thing I don't understand about how things are measured or how particles float around. Or whatever. Please explain. Or point me to some resource so I can learn on my own.
But as it stands, I can't figure out why you are not answering the question.
You have stated time and again that you have real concerns about property rights and personal autonomy and all the rest. I believe you on that count. As such, I can only assume that prior to deciding that a ban is the only proper response to SHS, you explored the way ventilations systems work and found them insufficient.
Please explain IN WHAT WAY they were insufficient to eliminate the public health hazerd? Did they not remove enough of the SHS particles? How many would they have had to remove to be effective? How many could they leave in the air? Ten parts per million? One part per trillion?
Again, if you are demanding that it be no parts per anything, you are, in fact, zero-tolerance. Which I guess is a defensible position. But go ahead and defend it.
Doc,
I am glad that the WHO statements make as little sense to you as they did me and undoubtedly will to all rational people.
However it does bring into question the real purpose of their guidelines.
Could it possibly be that the true agenda is to maintain the de-normalisation of smoking and people who smoke? They appear to be attempting to ensure that compromise is taken out of the equation.
GreatScot
Sam asked: "All I want to know is at what level SHS stops being enough of a health threat to trigger a government enforced ban."
If you want an idea of what a ball-park figure might be for a threshold below which we could talk about adequately controlling exposure, then you'd have to get the level of nicotine below 0.008 ug/m3. That's the level at which the cumulative lifetime risk of death due to exposure is approximately equal to the level which federal regulatory agencies generally consider acceptable.
In other words, if we want to regulate secondhand smoke in the workplace the same way that we regulate all other carcinogenic workplace exposures, we would set an acceptable level of approximately 0.008 ug/m3 of nicotine. That is way below the capability of any current ventilation system.
I would be willing to submit that if someone designed a system that could achieve a level of 0.008 ug/m3, then that would be acceptable. But it would require 100,000 cubic feet of air exchange per minute per occupant, which seems unachievable.
So in theory, I am not arguing for zero-risk. In practice, the only way to achieve acceptable risk is to have zero risk (i.e., to eliminate the smoking).
While this may seem like saying the same thing, it's not exactly the same. I am saying that if the risk could be kept to an acceptable level using ventilation, I would be OK with that. The problem is that it cannot. And the only way to adequately control the level is to eliminate smoking in that workplace.
You can tell me how you would characterize this. Am I arguing for zero-tolerance in your view, or am I arguing that I'm willing to tolerate a low level of risk - equal to what we tolerate with other workplace carcinogens - but simply that existing ventilation systmes can't achieve that level of risk.
I understand that in practice, my argument amounts to a zero-risk argument, because there's no way to achieve acceptable risk with ventilation, but at a theoretical level, I am agreeing that we can and do tolerate a certain level of acceptable risk with workplace carcinogens.
I also should emphasize that I'm not suggesting that we should treat secondhand smoke any differently from how we treat other carcinogens in the workplace. In fact, I believe we should treat it EXACTLY the same way, which is to regulate it so that the lifetime cancer risk among workers stays below the level that federal agencies like OSHA have set for workplace exposures, using conclusions about the health risks derived from reviews by OSHA and other federal health agencies. In this case, OSHA has concluded that about a 0.008 ug/m3 level of nicotine would be acceptable. To achieve that level, we unfortunately need to ban smoking in the workplace, because you can't get to below 0.008 with just ventilation, even a modern system.
I would note that those who oppose smoking bans are the ones who are suggesting that we use a different standard for secondhand smoke than we use for all other workplace carcinogens.
That's OK - I respect that argument because smoking is very different and there are reasons why I think one might argue compellingly that we should treat it differently from other workplace carcinogens. But I just want to make it clear that it is smoking bans that are consistent with how we treat other workplace carcinogens, not the other way around. Opponents of these bans are asking government to treat secondhand smoke differently from all other workplace carcinogens.
Sam M,
To repeat. On the subject of ventilation, Dr. Siegel has hunkered down into this position: "in order to remove the health hazard, you would have to eliminate the smoke immediately after it left the cigarette but BEFORE it reached the nonsmokers in the room. I don't see how that is possible."
(Well, that may only be possible with hurricance-force winds blowing through the joint, Dr. Siegel! If then.)
Well, it's all pathetic nonsense. And Sam, all the questions you ask Dr. Siegel about ventilation are rendered moot from Dr. Siegel's position by that explanation. Which isn't so much an explanation as a justification.
Now I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't look upon that argument as anything but a GIMMICK whose purpose is to forestall further discussion. Previously, his argument had always been that bans were necessary to protect the staff, which everyone had ASSUMED meant only long-term effects and only to staff alone, since patrons are not forced into places that allow smoking. But now, abracadabra, it's acute effects as well, and on patios no less! And with ventilation, it's the gimmick. In other words, he's finally got all bases covered.
What I'm saying is that his reasons all have the earmarks of evasion. Which Dr. Siegel is good at, incidentally.
Walt,
Yeah about the awnings. A bar patron taking a smoking break who stands under the bar awning in a rainstorm is breaking the law. No smoking while standing under awnings, you perverts!
.
"So in theory, I am not arguing for zero-risk. In practice, the only way to achieve acceptable risk is to have zero risk (i.e., to eliminate the smoking)."
Is it true or is it not true, doctor, that (cigarette smoke aside) the air in places with ventilation and aircleaning equipment is actually healthier to breath than places without ventilation?
I've read, and assume it's true, that the air on airplanes is now unhealthier to breath since smoking has been banned. The reason being that ventilation is expensive to run, and now that tobacco smoke has been eliminated and the odor problem removed that airlines no longer ventilate as formerly.
Moreover, doctor, you've just opened up a fierce new aspect of the topic with your above explanations. I hope those with expert knowledge on the subject will not miss this glorious opportunity!
.
Dr. Siegel,
I can't seem to find reference to OSHA's 8ng/m3 nicotine content, do you have a citation on this. Also do you know what the specific cancer risk was a 8ng/m3 to which you called acceptable, and comparable with other workplace standards?
Doctor,
Thanks. That gets at what I was after.
I will check around. In the meantime, does anyone know why it is so much easier to clean wood smoke? You know, in restaurants that offer BBQ and all the rest? I understand that burning wood also creates certain carcinogens. Are the safety standards for these the same as they are for the nicotine Dr. Siegel is talking about? If not, why not?
Last, wouldn't the number of burning cigarettes have an impact on such things? Let's say I opened a bar the size of the Louisiana Superdome, but only allowed two people in it at a time. Let's say both of them smoked constantly.
Is it true that there is not a ventilation system in existence that could keep my workers "safe"?
Is it really true that the guy serving them beers will actually be endangered by working in this environment?
That is, I can perhaps see the doctor's point in a tiny hole-in-the-wall place in which 85 people are all smoking, a gray haze drifting around, floor to ceiling.
But the bigger the place and the fewer the smokers... It would seem to have a huge impact on the "dose" of SHS, no?
The Doc writes:
If the health groups were calling for an overhaul of the ratings system, such that any violence, sex, smoking, profanity, etc. would yield an automatic R-rating, that would be one thing; but to single out smoking as demanding an automatic R rating, but not the others - that seems unreasonable (as well as rather narrow-minded).
I don't know whether I'll get hammered for this, but I agree with the doc on this one. I do believe that smoking should be unacceptable for children just as I believe that other things are unacceptable for children. For example, I wouldn't condone giving a martini to a five-year-old.
On the other hand, I think that the response by the MPAA demonstrates the increasing impotence of antismoking guns--as evidenced by the newsreaders having trouble keeping a straight face while reporting on it. Agreed that it could be a "boiling frog" move on the part of TC...but I really don't believe that's the case this time.
I would be willing to submit that if someone designed a system that could achieve a level of 0.008 ug/m3, then that would be acceptable. But it would require 100,000 cubic feet of air exchange per minute per occupant, which seems unachievable.
Okay, that's a start. However, and I don't wish to sound overly-critical, you are again making an assumption about removal of contaminants from the air. I'm not convinced that air exchange is *exactly* necessary. Now, not being an expert myself, I can't speak with authority; however I would imagine that certain materials exist to attract and trap certain types of particles. (And remember that smoke, if left alone, tends to rise. Also, smoke tends to have tar, which makes it good for getting trapped.) If such a material were used in ceilings, then that might take care of a good part of the problem--and, as mentioned by someone earlier, the tar would take other contaminants along with it.. Then, there are conventional methods as well. Seems to me that this is not only possible, it's likely development in that particular field--but, again, I'm not an expert.
Finally, I don’t see ban opponents asking for different criteria for secondhand smoke than for other things. If anything, I see ban opponents who greatly oppose the hypocrisy of bans that ignore OSHA guidelines for ingredients of SHS. (I’m thinking of marcus aurelius’ site at http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html among others.)
On a separate note…
Harry writes: I've read, and assume it's true, that the air on airplanes is now unhealthier to breath since smoking has been banned. The reason being that ventilation is expensive to run, and now that tobacco smoke has been eliminated and the odor problem removed that airlines no longer ventilate as formerly.
Harry, I have believed this to be true for a long time. Again, I’m thankful that I don’t fly as much now—and this is part of the reason. I’ll also add that it seems that quality goes down with smoking bans in other areas. For example, and this is merely personal observation, from the few times that I’ve returned to some of my favorite haunts prior to a ban, I’ve noticed that food quality (esp. veggies) has gone down.
Dr Siegel,i'm sorry but i don't believe that smokers seek a REDUCTION in standards of risk at all,i for one,see the standard you refer to as being way higher than the rest.Why won't you come clean and debate this issue fully ,put your cards on the table and stand behind what you are stating.You ignore EVERY study which suggests a result contrary to your own view,SO I TAKE UMBRIDGE AT YOUR SUGGESTION.
UK Health and Safety Executive
NICOTINE
CAS 54-11-5
OES 0.5 mg m-3, 8h-TWA; 1.5 mg m-3, STEL
IOELV 0.5 mg m-3, 8h-TWA
0.5mg per cubic metre for 8 hours exposure.
OHSA
the same
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/...DARDS&
p_id=9992
Doc,
where are you getting your figures from?
GreatScot
In a letter dated July 8, 1997, Greg Watchman, Acting Assistant Secretary at OSHA had this to say:
“Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that, under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). For example, various studies referenced by Guerin et al. in The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measurement indicate that many substances are well below the individual permissible exposure level [e.g., acetaldehyde values in enclosed places varied from 65 to 1080 g/m3 (Page 295) and acrolein values ranged from 20-300 g/m3 (Page 295-296)]. IT WOULD BE VERY RARE TO FIND A WORKPLACE WITH SO MUCH SMOKING THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL PEL WOULD BE EXCEEDED.” (My emphasis.)
And that’s BEFORE ventilation.
So what, really, are we talking about, doctor?
.
Did i read this correctly,we are referring to NANOGRAMMES ?as an exposure.
.008ug/m3 I read as .008 micrograms per cubic meter. Looks to me line nano grams to me.
I found this.
8 ng /m3 x 8 hours x 40 years = death. courtesy of Repace.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com...e%2CJames+L.%
29
Is this your source Doc?
GreatScot
With all the bans outdoor being sought,the reduction in cumulative exposure WILL ALLOW smoking at work,especially if FDA regulation were to occur and reduce the level of nicotine in cigarettes.It appears the cumulative effect of diesel is of no concern since the danger arises from tobacco alone.This is not science,it is the setting of factors to allow for the agenda to occur.
EErr what's a lifetime,a non smokers eternity or a smoker's reduced expectancy,more hocus pocus variables to play with.
But in the above Hurricane Repace special,it refers to cotinine but allows for food sources ? I'll bet it does (not).
OSHA do not have a standard for ETS
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/...IONS&
p_id=19641
Excerpt
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not have a standard on worker exposure to cigarette smoke in the workplace. OSHA does have an air contaminant standard, 29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-1, for the components of cigarette smoke, such as nicotine and carbon monoxide (copy enclosed).
Table Z1 is the one I linked to above.
Therefore back to 0.5mg/M3/8 hours.
Doc,
where did you get the 8ng figure? I can only find the Repace study and given "the cause" I would have been astounded if he had arrived at a figure that would allow ventilation to be a viable solution.
GreatScot
Not only do bartenders have to worry about being exposed to secondhand smoke at work, they then have to worry about eating a simple meal when they get home!
Wednesday, May 25, 2005 (SF Gate):
“Buying cereal, olives, potatoes, bread, almonds -- even prune juice -- at the grocery store soon might come with a cancer warning from the state of California.
“State officials are considering a requirement that grocery stores, retailers and restaurants alert customers about acrylamide, a carcinogen created when starchy foods like potatoes and breads are baked, roasted, fried or toasted.”
(These guys will make hypochondriacs of us all.)
I wonder if Dr. Siegel thinks that ventilation might work on patios. Of course, agreed, it would have to be a hell of big damn piece of ventilation equipment!
.
I wonder to what extent the "8 hour shift" plays into this. If we are worried about cumulative exposure, could we double the mg if we halved the time? That is, what if the bar owner ran 4-hour shifts? Might be hard to staff. But that would be up to the owner. Right?
We can still leave something up to the owners, I hope.
And going back to the .5 mg/m3/8, are there any ventilation systems that can accomplish that?
So how about it doc? This is OSHA we are talking about. The agency in charge of... worker safety. If what I am hearing is correct, it seems that the exposure they will tolerate is that .5 mg/m3/8.
Using a stricter standard would, in fact, be treating SHS differently. Meaning that it would be inconsistent with a policy of using standard government tolerances.
No?
Or are the numbers amiss?
Dr. Siegel,
I'm a bit confused here. It would appear the 8ng/m3 comes from Repace, and not OSHA. Replace seems to be using an acceptable figure comparable to the EPA standards of 1/1,000,000 however OSHA limits for carbon tetrachloride is 2ppm/8 with a lifetime risk of 3.7 per thousand. Now if I take the risk factor of SHS which was estimated based on 3000 annual deaths and I'd liberally consider exposure at 38% of the population. 3000x40 = 120,000 over 40 years. 300,000,000 * .38 = 140,000,000 yields about .85 per 1000. This would be at existing exposure limits, and not the 8ng/m3 promoted by Repace. Not it would appear based on these results that ETS is being treated differently than other workplace exposures. Perhaps I've made an error, and if so, please let me know where I went astray, but I think this is leading to much of the misunderstandings.
Repace: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com...e%2CJames+L.%
29
opps,
Carbon Tet: CarbonTet: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pel88/5...el88/56-
23.html
Doc, it seems to me that you and TC are the ones setting up "special" guidelines for cigarette smoke. And you've not lowered the level, you've raised it so high that ONLY zero-tolerance is acceptable.
Are the 3000 deaths attributable to SHS based on SAMMEC style wizardry or based on an epidemiological study that fits the required bill ? Either way aren't we working backwards from the result to the calculations ? Lynda, those are my sentiments exactly.
Lynda wrote: Doc, it seems to me that you and TC are the ones setting up "special" guidelines for cigarette smoke. And you've not lowered the level, you've raised it so high that ONLY zero-tolerance is acceptable.
si echoed: Lynda, those are my sentiments exactly.
This also agrees with what I'd said earlier. I fear that we might wond-up creating super-ventilation for smoke-free venues.
More than that, I think Jerry Thomas was correct that the science matters not at this point because the "socially unacceptable" excuse is being given far too frequently. In the last few weeks, I've noticed many references in the local paper from readers who are wise to the fallacies presented as "science". This would explain the reason that I've seen the "socially unacceptable" excuse more freqeuntly in the last few days--antismokers know that they can't argue on the basis of science (hence the tiresome cry of "The debate is over"); so, once again, they have to switch tracks.
However, this time, it could be a fatal flaw. Specifically, if it is socially unacceptable, then there is no reason for laws because the free market will eliminate a socially unacceptable behavior. Moreover, there is still the matter of holding people accountable for grossly flawed presentations of "science".
“Buying cereal, olives, potatoes, bread, almonds -- even prune juice -- at the grocery store soon might come with a cancer warning from the state of California.
“State officials are considering a requirement that grocery stores, retailers and restaurants alert customers about acrylamide, a carcinogen created when starchy foods like potatoes and breads are baked, roasted, fried or toasted.”
Well, if we're all gonna die anyhow from bread, cereal, and potatoes...who needs smoker bans? And I love "baked, roasted, fried, or toasted", they made sure to cover all the bases. I wonder, is raw bread good for you, I mean before you damage it by actually cooking it. And is like the hot dogs? Where one day they caused cancer unless they were cooked, but 2 years later it turned out...whoops, we were wrong. Or maybe the eggs..the milk? Wow, wait, everything causes cancer. QUICK! INTO THE PADDED ROOMS! Crap, I think the padding causes cancer too, we are so screwed.
DTB wrote:
"I fear that we might wond-up creating super-ventilation for smoke-free venues."
Interesting, that people who smoke are asked to step outside. Yet upon their return inside, they are forced to breathe air which clearly can be made healther by way of mondern day "super-ventilation" systems.
Wouldn’t it be nice if some of the MSA money could be used to super up grade ventilation systems in Smoke- free buildings. Why should people have to breathe 2nd class air when it seems that near full protection (from whatever)can be achieved.
About levels of airborne nicotine.
OSHA and Repace are not synonymous. I'll go with OSHA as per Great Scot: .5mg/u3. And I'll note he says "mg" not "ug" (let alone "ng.")
Here, for comparison, are the levels of airborne nicotine as measured by state of the art equipment by the US government in smoking v. no-smoking airline cabins (DOT Report, 1989)
In the boundary rows (the 3 rows in front of and behind the smoking sections on planes filled with smokers) the airborn nicotine level wass 0.26 ug/m3 (note that's micrograms, not mgs);
Iin the middle of the plane, it was already down to 0.04 ug/m3.
As compared to planes on routes on which smoking had already been banned for 2 years, where the level was only half of the mid-cabin level of the planes with a lot of smokers: 0.08 ug/m3
So if Repace were to be correct, then even those planes that don't allow smoking are 100 times too dangerous for anybody to board??
Harry - "Wednesday, May 25, 2005 (SF Gate):
“Buying cereal, olives, potatoes, bread, almonds -- even prune juice -- at the grocery store soon might come with a cancer warning from the state of California.
“State officials are considering a requirement that grocery stores, retailers and restaurants alert customers about acrylamide, a carcinogen created when starchy foods like potatoes and breads are baked, roasted, fried or toasted.”
..............
As I said in an earlier post, the state of California has, by law, set the bar so low that almost anything can be labeled as hazardous.
Everywhere you go in California there are signs posted at entrances to almost every establishment that "The State of California has determined [insert whatever you want]is [insert the favored disease of the year]"
Children and pregnant women are the main target of these warning signs.
Once again, it becomes more and more apparent that Americans can be easily conditioned just as the Germans were under the NAZIs.
Typo alert. The OSHA standard should read .5mg/m3 (square meter) not u3, which is obviously meaningless.
I've had this in my "hypocrisy" file for a while.
"ASH Asks Indoor Air Purifier Makers to Stop Claims That Products Rid Indoor Air of Tobacco Smoke" at http://no-smoking.org/march04/03...03-03-04-
6.html
These people really do breed fear and hatred. Ya know?
A piece by Norman E. Kjono February 2, 2004 about conclusions about ETS by OSHA reads in part:
“In its August 2001 response [to an ASH petition filed] with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Washington D.C. OSHA presented numerous conclusions that it had reached about ETS. Those conclusions included:
“1.) Page15: “Critically, there is no longer any basis to assume, as the proposed rule does, that all workers in all workplaces face an elevated risk equivalent to that found in homes during the1980s.”
“2.) Page17: “Here, as we have explained above, the proposed rule appears to be based upon outdated information and methodology and its risk estimates are not supported by the weight of evidence now available.”
“3.) Page17: “OSHA does not believe that over 74 million workers are exposed to ETS at work at levels equivalent to those faced by a nonsmoking spouse of a smoker at home.”
“4.) Page18: ”Nor does OSHA believe that issuance of an ETS rule would prevent between 2,234 and 13,723 excess deaths annually, or anything like that.”
“5.) Page18: “This potential hazard is not, as ASH’s Petition suggests, so egregious as to demand instant action, especially to the exclusion of all other safety and health matters before the agency.”
“What is telling about OSHA’s conclusions is that their review addressed work places that typically have 2 to 3 air exchanges per hour to comply with building code. How is it possible that a work place indoor air constituent like ETS presents risks for which OSHA says “This potential hazard is not, as ASH’s Petition suggests, so egregious as to demand instant action”in 2 to 3 air exchanges per hour work environments, yet “Secondhand Smoke Consultants” funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation conclude that air flows tens of thousands times greater are required to mitigate the risk? The answer to that question appears to me to be that as one hot-air-theory balloon about air exchanges is punctured tobacco control advocates simply loft a new hot-air theory about airborne particulates ...”
Elsewhere, Mr. Kjono has written that, as the result of a study, “ facilities with comprehensive air quality systems to address ETS can be healthier than those without such capabilities. The same system that addresses ETS also reduces levels of carbon monoxide and many other gasses (such as off-gassing fluorocarbons), pollens, dust, airborne bacteria, and other harmful constituents while it addresses ETS.”
I believe the point that air quality systems can also reduce along with tobacco smoke OTHER harmful constituents has not been addressed by Dr. Siegel. Obviously, even if the reduction of harmful constituents in ETS isn’t to Dr. Siegel’s satisfaction, weight must be given as well to those OTHER harmful constituents which are also reduced.
.
Dr. Siegel wrote: then you'd have to get the level of nicotine below 0.008 ug/m3. That's the level at which the cumulative lifetime risk of death due to exposure is approximately equal to the level which federal regulatory agencies generally consider acceptable.
I don't know where you got this figure, but certainly not from OSHA guidelines nor form any European Occupational Health authority. They uniformly specify 500 micrograms for nicotine.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/...DARDS&
p_id=9992
By the way, what's the lifetime risk from nicotine, freely available in any NRT?
The German WHO Collaboration Center (!!!) has recently published a study with actual measurements of nicotine and PM in hospitality venues.
http://www.lgl.bayern.de/
gesundh...chbelastung.htm
The results are summarized in this diagram: http://
bernd.palmer.googlepages....hospitality.pdf
- Discotheques 193 µg/m³ mean
- Restaurants 15 µg/m³ mean
- Bars 31 µg/m³ mean
OSHA limit: 500 µg/m³
Michael;
You actually believe 8 ng per cubic meter of air is required or even credible?
I realize Nicotine content is a small part of total ETS however what you believe here is hardly credible even with 8 foot arms quite the stretch. Are you aware ETS decomposing sediment in a non-smoking bar emits levels, which could easily surpass your acceptable limit.
Benzene has a known safe level of 1 part per million which equals 360 Micrograms or 360,000 nanograms per cubic meter of air. ETS is 45,000 times as deadly as benzene???
That is absolutely ridiculous.
Where is the applied science or observational research to back that one up?
What is more dangerous than ETS in your assessments? Certainly few known toxins, which don’t glow in the dark, and I assure you, cigarette smoke doesn't
Well the word is out People better start smoking right away this should be enforced by law, because it is obviously protecting smokers from a level of immediate risk, which could kill us all. Why on earth are you not raising warnings and demanding the entire population start smoking immediately? This is almost as serious as the fat pandemic if that sucker mutates and goes airborne we are all in deep dodo.
Obviously anyone who knows what ETS smells like is surely doomed unless they run out and grab the cure distributed in a smoke shop near you.
Repace Burswood assessments demonstrated after a smoking ban and no smoke in the room, levels were still 120 times [if memory serves] above his stated safe level His methodology is a joke if you look closely at how he created that safe level. About as credible as his tornados and smoke plumes which form like vipers outdoors and pounce on unsuspecting victims.
He should write fiction novels, he sure could outdo the Harry Potter conjuring.
I was going to say "off topic," but in a way it's not. Do we live in la-la land? Soon, "gunman on the loose" will be replaced by a "crazed smoker."
Teachers Stage Fake Gun Attack on Kids
AP
MURFREESBORO, Tenn. (May 13) - Staff members of an elementary school staged a fictitious gun attack on students during a class trip, telling them it was not a drill as the children cried and hid under tables.
The mock attack Thursday night was intended as a learning experience and lasted five minutes during the weeklong trip to a state park, said Scales Elementary School Assistant Principal Don Bartch, who led the trip.
"We got together and discussed what we would have done in a real situation," he said.
But parents of the sixth-grade students were outraged.
"The children were in that room in the dark, begging for their lives, because they thought there was someone with a gun after them," said Brandy Cole, whose son went on the trip.
Some parents said they were upset by the staff's poor judgment in light of the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech that left 33 students and professors dead, including the gunman.
During the last night of the trip, staff members convinced the 69 students that there was a gunman on the loose. They were told to lie on the floor or hide underneath tables and stay quiet. A teacher, disguised in a hooded sweat shirt, even pulled on locked door.
After the lights went out, about 20 kids started to cry, 11-year-old Shay Naylor said.
"I was like, 'Oh My God,' " she said. "At first I thought I was going to die. We flipped out."
Principal Catherine Stephens declined to say whether the staff members involved would face disciplinary action, but said the situation "involved poor judgment."
Kevin,
In the DOT report DOT-P-15-89-5, Airborne nicotine levels were monitored and found in the middle rows of the non-smoking section were 80ng/m3. The significance of this is these were non-smoking flights.
To achieve 8ng/m3, maybe smokers shouldn't even be allowed on planes as they present a significant health risk according to the Great Oz er Repace, and Dorthy and Toto are looking for a one way ticket back to Kansas.
Benpal;
FYI When I went to school back when science was still credible or so I believed.
Nicotine and caffeine were both classed as mutagens. Nicotine is not harmless. They use nicotine to identify if smoke does exist however if one cigar is smoked or if there is a fire log burning in the room the volumes measured are pretty well a guess, as to how much ETS actually is in the room. The variety of what is smoked how it is smoked and for how long is not considered or how much it is actually possible to inhale without hyperventilation. Much like EPI research a lot is left to chance and competence of the person holding the meter along with a number of other factors not disclosed in the studies.
Repace's smoke assessments were based in Particulate measurements with an unknown factor by which he calculates PPAH. He neither defines surface description specific mass or any specific methods by which he determines the source of the particulate he attributes solely to ETS.
If you take him at his word and accept his averaging methods to determine the amount of particulate in a bar where all bars are built in standard dimensions, he does himself one better with an inverse association to number of smokers in the room to measure effectiveness of the ventilation system which demands all smokers as many as 90% of the occupants in the room are chain smokers who never leave or open a door.
The risk to everyone is assessed as though it would be possible for everyone in the room to inhale every trace of smoke in the room at the same time.
Walt;
I read a couple of studies, which agree with your info. The measurements in one of them indicated decomposition of tobacco smoke sediment from two years previous was responsible for the high readings.
In other words smoking bans are not effective we need to tear all the buildings down and dispose of the toxic waste in the customary prescribed fashion.
The EPA is going to be real busy cleaning up the toxic waste if as Michael states his figures are accurate we have no choice the hospitality workers need to be protected after all.
I guess Hospitality workers won't be alone most work places which ever allowed smoking will also have to be dealt with as well.
Doc--
When your only source is Repace and his neurotic sleight of hand (vs OSHA + DOT + the Jenkins study, the Phillips study, the Hazelton Labs study + several more studies by the British government --to cite just a few of a couple of dozen more), and when you're down to a .0008 of nicotine, you've lost the argument.
The only question left is: why can't you see it?
Or maybe the question is: why won't you see it?
:
Nice post! You have said it very well. Keep going.
The values advanced by Repace explain why his criticism of the Enstrom study pivots on the statement that at the time of the study "everybody was exposed to SHS".
How much from the 8 ng/m3 nicotine in the air will be detectable in the serum or urine of those exposed?
Doc,
8 ng (or 7.5 ng iaw Repace) is absolutely ridiculous when compared to all the international standards of 0.5mg.
1 gramme
deci [d] 0.1 (a tenth)
centi [c] 0.01(a hundredth)
milli [m] 0.001(a thousandth)OSHA PEL 0.5mg or 1/2000th of a gramme
micro [µ] 0.000 001 (a millionth)
nano [n] 0.000 000 001(a thousand millionth)Repace 8ng or 8/1000,000,000th of a gramme
pico [p] 0.000 000 000 001= 10^-12
I will stop at pico gramme as I have seen studies using it!!!
I wonder what standard do other industries use for workers exposed to airborne nicotine??
GreatScot
BTW I forgot to say that the Repace limits are 62,500 times more stringent that the international standards.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?
GreatScot
All the above excellent science based comments boil down to one simple fact THE BAN DRIVES THE SCIENCE.
Well, I guess we can consider his can of worms officially opened.
Nice work, crew.
Michael;
Consider the following information in understanding what I see in your assessments of substantial risk.
If excess risk among lifetime smokers in over 100 years demonstrated [with I might add a pretty unique study group] the increased risk is below two for the most heavy of smokers.
If you were to graph cause and effect according to exposures you would quickly find as Doll did a liner relationship does exist in that real world scenario we would understand casual exposure to be relatively harmless without political bantering to the extremes.
Doll research of doctors who smoked;
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/3...t/328/7455/
1519
The smoker versus non-smoker relative risks in table 3 are,
therefore, much more adverse for smokers born in the 20th century
than for those born earlier, particularly for cigarette smokers.
For the cohort born in the 19th century the cigarette smoker
versus non-smoker relative risk when they were over 60 years of
age was only 1.46 (excess mortality 46%), but for the cohort born
in the 20th century it was 2.19 (excess mortality 119%). For heavy
cigarette smokers (25 or more a day at their last reply) the
smoker versus non-smoker relative risk was 1.83 for the cohort
born in the 19th century and 2.61 for the cohort born in the
20th century, corresponding, respectively, to 83% and 161%
excess mortality among the smokers.
If we expand on that perspective, we have to assess at levels of 9 ng per cubic meter of air in the room we would have to attach attributable risk to how much someone who remained in the room actually inhaled in an 8-hour timeframe? And how much they could possibly inhale in a working lifetime.
According to the IWORX Spiro meter instruction manual Lung vital capacities can be calculated by the following formulae.
A=age in years
H= Height in centimeters
Vital capacities [VC] do not include residual capacities, which are averaged at one liter due to difficulty in measurement in a consistent manner. These would not affect the total respiratory volumes in question for our purposes.
Men VC= [.052xH] – [.022 x A] – 3.6
Women VC= [.041xH] – [.018 x A] – 2.69
Calculating reasonable averages in age at 40 and height at 5’10 male [178centimeters] and 5’6 female [168 centimeters]
We see total mean average of combined male [[9.256]-[.88]-[3.6] = 4.8 liters]
female = [ [ 6.888] – [.72] – [2.69] = 3.5 liters]
Averaged vital capacity = [M + F] / 2 = 4.15 liters
According to the seer stat database;
“The average adult takes 12 to 15 breaths a minute. A breath is one complete respiratory cycle that consists of one inspiration and one expiration.”
CALCULATIONS
Mean average would see 13.5 inhalations per minute or 6480 per 8-hour day, times average inhalation quantity of 4.15 liters = 26,892 liters per 8 hour day
Converted to cubic meters this would find on average each person who remained in the room would inhale approximately 27 cubic meters of air per day.
If we multiply the safe level at 9 ng nicotine per cubic meter we find average inhalation would be 243 ng per day.
Over a 45 year working lifetime a maximum exposure of 2,733,750 ng or 2.7 mg nicotine
About 2 cigarettes on average over 45 years would constitute a significant risk?
Please feel free to check my math, I am no expert but your level of harm seems more political than factual in a common sense perspective.
The following article (excerpt with link to the full article) appearing in the LA Times today. Other than scaring the hell out of women by warning them they are surrounded by lethal contaminants, what useful information did it impart?
http://tinyurl.com/32tnr8
Common chemicals are linked to breast cancer
Of the 216 compounds, many in the air, food or everyday items.
By Marla Cone
Times Staff Writer
May 14, 2007
More than 200 chemicals — many found in urban air and everyday consumer products — cause breast cancer in animal tests, according to a compilation of scientific reports published today.
Writing in a publication of the American Cancer Society, researchers concluded that reducing exposure to the compounds could prevent many women from developing the disease.
The research team from five institutions analyzed a growing body of evidence linking environmental contaminants to breast cancer, the leading killer of U.S. women in their late 30s to early 50s.
Experts say that family history and genes are responsible for a small percentage of breast cancer cases but that environmental or lifestyle factors such as diet are probably involved in the vast majority.
"Overall, exposure to mammary gland carcinogens is widespread," the researchers wrote in a special supplement to the journal Cancer. "These compounds are widely detected in human tissues and in environments, such as homes, where women spend time."
The scientists said data were too incomplete to estimate how many breast cancer cases might be linked to chemical exposures.
But because the disease is so common and the chemicals so widespread, "the public health impacts of reducing exposures would be profound even if the true relative risks are modest," they wrote. "If even a small percentage is due to preventable environmental factors, modifying these factors would spare thousands of women."
The three reports and a commentary were compiled by researchers from the Silent Spring Institute, a women's environmental health organization in Newton, Mass.; Harvard's Medical School and School of Public Health in Boston; the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.; and USC's Keck School of Medicine. Silent Spring Institute Executive Director Julia Brody led the team.
In response to the findings, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a breast cancer prevention group that funded the work, pledged an additional $5 million for developing research tools to root out environmental causes.
Reviewing hundreds of existing studies and databases, the team produced what it called "the most comprehensive compilation to date of chemicals identified as mammary carcinogens." No new chemical testing was conducted for the reports.
The researchers named 216 chemicals that induce breast tumors in animals. Of those, people are highly exposed to 97, including industrial solvents, pesticides, dyes, gasoline and diesel exhaust compounds, cosmetics ingredients, hormones, pharmaceuticals, radiation, and a chemical in chlorinated drinking water.
Supreme Court action (Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute et al. 448 U.S. 607 [1980]) was instrumental in defining acceptable occupational risk for OSHA. The court suggests that significant occupational risk be determined by comparing the risk in question with other common occupational risks levels. The court suggested that an occupational lifetime cancer risk of 1 × 10-3 is significant. On the basis of actuarial data from 1984, the average lifetime (i.e., 45 years) risk of work-related death in a private company with 11 or more employees was 2.9 per 1,000. Risks in high-hazard occupations, like mining, range between 7.6 and 18.6 per 1,000, and risks in low-hazard workplaces, like the service industry, range between 0.9 and 1.8 per 1,000 (Cotter 1986; Rodricks et al. 1987). These rates are measured, not estimated risks, and show little variation from year to year. pg 138
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) used an approach similar to that of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by not defining “safe” as the equivalent of risk-free, because many activities considered safe by most people entail some risk of accident or health damage. Workplace activities or exposures are not considered unsafe unless a significant risk of harm exists. In addition, because of the benefits accrued from employment (e.g., income), workers are presumed to be willing to accept higher levels of risk than would someone to whom little or no benefit accrues from accepting risk. Some studies have shown that salary is commensurate with the level of risk inherent in an occupation (Starr 1969; Whipple 198
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA has been at the forefront of the issue of acceptable risk in virtually all of its programmatic areas, primarily as the result of court challenges to its regulations. In response to the 1987 Section 112 Clean Air Act decision (Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 824 F. 2nd 1146 [1987]), EPA decided it would base its regulatory decisions on quantitative risk assessments using the general policy that a lifetime added cancer risk for the most exposed person of 1 in 10,000 (1 × 10-4) might constitute acceptable risk and that the margin of safety required by statute and reinforced by the court should reduce the risk for the greatest number of persons to an added lifetime risk of no more than 1 in 1 million (1 × 10-6). However, EPA (along with the courts) has not viewed “safe” as the equivalent of risk-free and has determined that standards should protect against significant public health risks (EPA 49 Fed. Reg. 8386 [1984]; Rodricks et al. 1987;
Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute et al. 448 U.S. 607 [1980]). EPA has repeatedly rejected the opinion that it can establish a universal (i.e., brightline) acceptable risk that should never be exceeded under any circumstances, and they maintain that guidance provided under one statute might have little relevance to others because of differing program goals. In practical terms, EPA almost never regulates at a theoretical risk below 1 × 10-6 (de minimis) and almost always regulates at a theoretical risk below 1 × 10-4 (de manifestis). -- pg 140.
From the "Review of the Army's Technical Guides on Assessing and Managing Chemical Hazards to Deployed Personnel (2004)
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
As for pel limits on nicotine, I could argue that Repace figure used nicotine as a tracer to quantify ETS exposure, rather than on nicotine, and thus really isn't a valid comparision.
However his use of 1 x 10-6 are more in line with EPA standards for ambient air quality, and not generally held for workplace regulation at 1 x 10-3.
Rod;
I find it interesting how often that diesel word keeps coming up in the majority of these studies, yet the public is apparently comfortable in the belief no significant risk is evident while waiting for a bus or train in enclosed environments with idling diesel engines all around you. As I demonstrated above the amazing fact seems to reside in the realization smokers actually survive with what is considered an extreme risk in ETS exposures for many decades. The risk is much more extreme than heavy smoking which apparently protects smokers from the effects of ETS. That is of course if we can trust the experts in Health scare who create public perception realities.
Walt;
you may also like to add 1x10-4 is equivalent to "one" or the base in most Epidemiological studies as the point where non exposure risk is calculated to be null.
Thanks for all of the great info above! (I'll have to re-read the numbers of the lung capacity/inhalation, though. 2 cigarettes over 45 years...no, I don't see how that could be a significant danger either.)
Walt: I read a couple of studies, which agree with your info. The measurements in one of them indicated decomposition of tobacco smoke sediment from two years previous was responsible for the high readings. In other words, smoking bans are not effective we need to tear all the buildings down and dispose of the toxic waste in the customary prescribed fashion.
Walt, could you tell us which study that was?
When your only source is Repace and his neurotic sleight of hand (vs OSHA + DOT + the Jenkins study, the Phillips study, the Hazelton Labs study + several more studies by the British government --to cite just a few of a couple of dozen more), and when you're down to a .0008 of nicotine, you've lost the argument.
As I said, thanks for the info!
Walt H,
Repace is almost certainly using Nicotine as a trace for ETS. His use of EPA risk limits allows him to accentuate the risk and reduce the ETS marker to unachievable levels. All the time conveniently ignoring the fact that OHSA have limits for all of the individual ETS ingredients.
Si,
You are right. The whole ban scam has been reverse engineered from the beginning, and as James pointed out recently the ground swell of smoker haters is such now that they no longer even have to pretend about the science. Smoking is no longer socially acceptable.
GreatScot
Kevin
"Rod;
I find it interesting how often that diesel word keeps coming up in the majority of these studies, yet the public is apparently comfortable in the belief no significant risk is evident while waiting for a bus or train in enclosed environments with idling diesel engines all around you. As I demonstrated above the amazing fact seems to reside in the realization smokers actually survive with what is considered an extreme risk in ETS exposures for many decades. The risk is much more extreme than heavy smoking which apparently protects smokers from the effects of ETS. That is of course if we can trust the experts in Health scare who create public perception realities."
Kevin, anyone who has ever stood outside LAX waiting to be picked up, almost smothered in gas and diesel exhaust, must smile at the signs that say no smoking within 20 feet of the entrances.
Our closest diner has outdoor dining in the parking lot, within 5 feet of the entrance to the parking lot, within 10 feet of a two lane residential street, with 30 feet of a 4 lane major boulevard (often backed up for two blocks from the intersection - cars and trucks idling), a parking slot which abuts the dining area (which is frequently used to park (idling)while someone dashes in to pick up a phoned in order).
Starting yesterday, no smoking in or within 5 feet of the outdoor dining area.
The situation I describe above (proximity to gas and diesel exhaust fumes) is only a little worse than most of the outdoor dining areas in Burbank.
....................
I posted this on another thread (excerpt):
Why is ETS so much more deadly than wood, peat or coal smoke - or any other environmental substance?
Humans have been heavily exposed to the smoke of burning wood for hundreds of thousands of years.
I cannot get around that fact and I cannot ignore the scientific principle that the "poison is in the dose."
The nicotine PEL refers to the risks of health effects from nicotine. You wouldn't want to use that as the basis of a standard for secondhand smoke, because it is not the nicotine that is causing the bulk of the health effects. So the 0.5 mg/m3 standard is meaningless in this case.
What you need to know is the level of secondhand smoke at which the risk of lung cancer is the same as that considered acceptable for other workplace carcinogens - and that level turns out to be somewhere around 0.008 ug/m3.
I realize this sounds very low, and it is very low, but I only make this point to demonstrate that if people really want consistency in regulation of workplace hazards, one would have to adopt a "zero-tolerance" policy and simply ban smoking in the workplace.
One could argue that we don't need to be so stringent, which is reasonable. But just recognize that in doing so, one is arguing that we should apply a different standard to secondhand smoke than we do to other workplace carcinogens.
I would note simply that even if one relaxed the typical standard by a factor of 100, you would still need to get nicotine levels down to 0.8 ug/m3, which is about 100 times lower than the level in most smoky bars. The point being - ventilation has a far way to go before it can bring the exposure levels down to acceptable levels.
To put a little perspective back into this discussion, take a look at another study and how precisely the particulate was defined, in review of Repace’s students running around taking measurements with a battery powered and likely non-calibrated portable meter in vastly dissimilar locations. Distributing a belief regardless of the size of a room there exists an inverse association between smokers in the room and air quantities flowing through a room expressed simplistically in non-dimensional air exchanges.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/re....cfm?
deid=23969
Michael apparently believes safety requires the volume of air exchange required would be in the range of 100,000 cubic feet of air exchange per minute per occupant, without first considering the dimensions of the room or even how many are actually smoking. Beyond that how much is actually inhaled per minute by each occupant and for how long.
You begin to appreciate eventually why at one time scientists could be insulted by referring to them as politicians, and today the reference makes them gush with pride.
"I realize this sounds very low, and it is very low, but I only make this point to demonstrate that if people really want consistency in regulation of workplace hazards, one would have to adopt a "zero-tolerance" policy and simply ban smoking in the workplace."
Michael have you ever considered in the same bar what the lifetime risk of evaporated alcohol would be in respect to bartenders?
Take a look at that, and you will quickly find ETS discussions are deeply flawed from the outset.
From Junkfoodscience:
Whenever you hear about some new danger linked to a food, remember correlations make for completely nonsensical reasoning.
This old article by an unknown author made its way around science forums years ago and I used it as a handout for a talk on junk science for an international conference of culinary professionals. While many of those of a food activist bent didn’t appreciate its humor, I think Junkfood Science readers will.
Just Say No to Toast
A recent Cincinnati Enquirer headline read, "Smell of baked bread may be health hazard." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone (I'm not making this stuff up).
I was horrified. When are we going to do something about bread-induced global warming? Sure, we attack tobacco companies, but when is the government going to go after Big Bread?
Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice....
1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.
------------------------------------------------
In light of these frightening statistics, we propose the following bread restrictions:
1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. The establishment of "Bread-free" zones around schools.
------------------------------------------------
Please ask every reporter you know to inform the public about this crucial issue.
Remember - Think idiotically, act globally.
Rod;
I can only add you reminded me of the research, which demonstrated a 25,000% increased risk of breast cancer among women who wear bras.
No acceptable level of safety is known.
Don't just burn them, ban them, in the persuit of Public health subservience just like cigarettes.
Public health now demands
respect for the effects of sight and smell respectively of course.
BTW; Michael not knowing if this referred to my calculations or to other comments, the numbers still remain IMHO; valid and are after all in a lifetime exposure only half of your .5mg PEL for nicotine regardless.
"The nicotine PEL refers to the risks of health effects from nicotine. You wouldn't want to use that as the basis of a standard for secondhand smoke, because it is not the nicotine that is causing the bulk of the health effects. So the 0.5 mg/m3 standard is meaningless in this case."
Nicotine was used as a marker for ETS so I was consistent using the same marker it makes sense in order to come back to how many cigarettes are involved, I used the same marker you feel comfortable with, referenced in the acceptable risk you indicated.
No deceptions or misdirection was intended or exhibited. I simply attempted in the calculations to stay consistent with your own indicator of what constituted to you a safe level to strive for in consideration of ventilation standards.
As for the risks in ETS we need to take a closer look at the oxidization and dispersal of the known toxins and which are actually a long-term risk by accumulated or long-term effect before we can even attempt to estimate a compound risk over a working lifetime.
Failing that we need to decide which component or known enduring compound actually represents the most predominant risk and at that point we can realistically estimate a viable risk number.
I have always considered the lumping of what is actually smoked into a single smoking category entirely irresponsible and without scientific credibility.
Is it any wonder we know so little about Cancers when we consistently research undefined risk factors.
Kevin,
The next step by Herr Doktor Glantz, aspirant to the title of Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer, is to insist that smokers wear special emblems to warn the public that a disease carrier (Typhoid Mary) is nearby and mandate that smokers must register with the police. A database will be compiled and posted on the Internet (similar to sex offenders).
Soon, a person who has Coronary Heart Disease will be able to sue his smoking neigbor as being the cause of his latest heart seizure.
Of course, the fact that this victim of ETS continually uses his fireplace and outdoor barbecue will not be considered a factor nor will his volunteer work as a school crossing guard be taken into consideration.
Dr Siegel wins on the PR angle,but of course this doesn't make it right that SHS exposure IS TREATED DIFFERENTLY.But this is all still ONLY THEORETICAL,since WE HAVE NO DEATH CERTIFICATES SHOWING CAUSE OF DEATH AS SHS EXPOSURE,NOR SMOKING RELATED.Alter a computer programme here,tinker with the figures and it could lead to a restoration of smoking in bars.So smoking bans are still a show of power and not a lot else.Now Dr Siegel,how about discussing your original research to see where you say you are correct and notable others say JUNK SCIENCE.
For those that haven't read it the rapid responses to Konrad Jamrozik
Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis are well worth reading. Here
Michael McFadden gives the Alcohol example in bars and Alastair G Browne describes why many studies of this sort are invalid.
As for R rating, does this apply to Chewbacca?
west
----
Dr. Siegel writes:
"I realize this sounds very low [0.008 ug/m3], and it is very low, but I only make this point to demonstrate that if people really want consistency in regulation of workplace hazards, one would have to adopt a "zero-tolerance" policy and simply ban smoking in the workplace.
"One could argue that we don't need to be so stringent, which is reasonable. But just recognize that in doing so, one is arguing that we should apply a different standard to secondhand smoke than we do to other workplace carcinogens."
Question: Is that standard applied as well to a diner, say, with a grill five feet away on the other side of the counter on which your morning ham and eggs are being fried? I don't think so, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
.
Doctor,
The initial question did ask about how to measure exposure. And you provided your answer in terms of nicotine. So that's where the discussion went. I don't think anyone was being deceptive or foolish.
So... if nicotine is not the measure to use, what is?
KRYPTONITE ?
Sam M wrote: "The initial question did ask about how to measure exposure. And you provided your answer in terms of nicotine. So that's where the discussion went. I don't think anyone was being deceptive or foolish."
Exactly, hence my detailed answer (above) based on actual measurements by a tobacco control organization.
Dr. Siegel: "What you need to know is the level of secondhand smoke at which the risk of lung cancer is the same as that considered acceptable for other workplace carcinogens - and that level turns out to be somewhere around 0.008 ug/m3."
Wrong: not for other carcinogens, for the same ones! Comparing asbestos for example with benzene doesn't make any sense.
So what exactly does the 0.008 ug/m3 stand for? SHS is not a substance that can be "measured". Either we measure some or all of its components or we measure a reasonably reliable marker, such as nicotine.
It doesn't seem all that long ago Dr Siegel,that you stated no one was quite sure of what component in tobacco smoke poses the greatest threat to health,if you recollect i believe it occurred when you stated a bar worker inhaled the equivalent of 2? packs of cigarettes per 8hr shift,but then miraculously a figure appears as a risk of developing lung cancer.From WHAT precisely as benpal quotes above ? Why can a specific chemical from SHS be utilised when it suits,but then not be acceptable when PEL's are quoted that are substantially higher than achieved in SHS ? THIS IS A CASE OF MIX AND MATCH ISN'T IT ? To get to the bottom of this SHS and every epidemiological study must be reviewed TO PROVE THERE IS A CASE FOR PROMOTING BANS.
Doctor Siegel, first you say this:
"If you want an idea of what a ball-park figure might be for a threshold below which we could talk about adequately controlling exposure, then you'd have to get the level of nicotine below 0.008 ug/m3. That's the level at which the cumulative lifetime risk of death due to exposure is approximately equal to the level which federal regulatory agencies generally consider acceptable."
and then, when challenged, you say this:
"The nicotine PEL refers to the risks of health effects from nicotine. You wouldn't want to use that as the basis of a standard for secondhand smoke, because it is not the nicotine that is causing the bulk of the health effects. So the 0.5 mg/m3 standard is meaningless in this case.
What you need to know is the level of secondhand smoke at which the risk of lung cancer is the same as that considered acceptable for other workplace carcinogens - and that level turns out to be somewhere around 0.008 ug/m3."
Are you sure you realise what you are saying here? Doesn't the value 0.008 ug/m3 refer to the level of (alleged) carcinogens in the air, rather than the level of nicotine? If not, why don't you just state the total level for the carcinogens, rather than for nicotine which you say yourself presents no health risk and thus only serves to blur your argument.
If you would then like to break down this number into the respective levels of each of the carcinogens separately - we should then, of course, arrive back at a list of defined PELs for these same carcinogens. I trust you can do this for us to enable us to verify your claims.
You see, just quoting a number like 0.008 and then preceeding it with the words "What you should know..." is somewhat condescending unless you are prepared to show how it was arrived at. Isn't that what teachers do, Professor?
I would also be interested to know how the figure of "100,000 cubic feet of air exchange per minute per occupant" was arrived at. Empirical evidence or just throwing out big scary numbers? You see this sounds suspiciously like James Repace's 100,000 air exchanges per hour (AA/H - required to clear ETS from a New York bar - allegedly).
This was, of course, Repace's third such scary number within a short time - he apparently quoted 34,000 AA/H to Toronto and 50,000 AA/H to Tacoma-Pierce (wherever that is!); see:
http://www.forces.org/writers/kj.../tide-
flats.htm
Given your avowed commitment to consistency, I would hate to think you would align your views with those of someone who is deemed capable of advising on required ventilation standards, yet disgracefully increases his scary number by a factor of three within 2 months! Not that your cabal has ever shown itself to care about changing numbers to suit the audience - the bigger the number the bigger the scare, eh?
Unless you are talking acceptable levels of ETS, of course, where it seems that the only acceptable number is zero (as in 'tolerance', 'compromise', 'compassion' - and 'common sense')
.
Indeed, this is bait and switch and the eternal changing of subjects. I was, in fact, surprised at your initially invoking nicotine at all since I've never heard it mentioned as, per se, linked to anything. The component in ETS that's supposedly linked to heart disease isn't nicotine but CO.
When pressed, you say Actually nicotine is irrelevant and, ha! so's its PEL. Using nicotine as a marker for everything else in smoke (as you now say you were) and using an even more arcane means of tallying the angels atop the pin, you arrive at a level monumentally sub-PEL. And if OSHA's wrong on nicotine, then using the same criteria, it's wrong on everything else. So in other words, all OSHA's PELS are wrong (!?) (Or is OSHA only wrong when it comes to ETS?) And by now we've travelled so far away from reality, not even Rod's poisoned breadcrumbs can get us back.
Begin with the fact that nicotine, tho an easy to use marker, is universally acknowledged to be a lousy one, too. Neither its presence let alone its amount is indicative of the presence or amount of the other stuff.
And as far as the consistency of nicotine PELS with the PELs for the other stuff, let's go back to that chart. Constituent by constituent, how many cigarettes would have to be smoked in a small, windowless-doorless room to reach OSHA's PELS. Okay, here we go:
www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html
These numbers were also reached in another study by Gori & Mantel, which I've cited before.
Dancing Tiger--
Both of us (Walts) were referring to the same airliner study. You'll find the chart we referred to in the summary of the DOT report:
www.forces.org/evidence/files/lin-air.htm
:
Hmm. Maybe those links need http's to make them clickable. One more try:
http://www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html
http://www.forces.org/evidence/f...les/lin-
air.htm
Doctor, I think you've got yourself into a terrible muddle here, and the posters are quite right to call you on it.
Just to make a couple of points:
You say, "I am saying that if the risk could be kept to an acceptable level using ventilation, I would be OK with that." Really? You've previously said (and pardon me for repeating it a third time), "Iro asked whether I think that ventilation can solve the secondhand smoke exposure problem. Unfortunately, I don't think it can. The reason is that in order to remove the health hazard, you would have to eliminate the smoke immediately after it left the cigarette but BEFORE it reached the nonsmokers in the room. I don't see how that is possible." Obviously, those two statements are in contradiction, since there's no possible way an air-cleaning or ventilation system could change that situation. So, given your latter statement, why even talk about ventilation? It makes no sense.
You state as well, "If you want an idea of what a ball-park figure might be for a threshold below which we could talk about adequately controlling exposure, then you'd have to get the level of nicotine below 0.008 ug/m3." Here you're talking about nicotine, and later you're talking about nicotine as well when you say, "The nicotine PEL refers to the risks of health effects from nicotine. You wouldn't want to use that as the basis of a standard for secondhand smoke, because it is not the nicotine that is causing the bulk of the health effects." What am I missing here? Aren't those two statements in contradiction.
And as far as the 0.008ug/m3 standard is concerned, would you please tell us where you got that? You said that "In this case, OSHA has concluded that about a 0.008 ug/m3 level of nicotine would be acceptable." But the only thing I could find on the OSHA site was this:
“Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
“Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”
Isn’t that in contradiction to what you’ve written?
.
Also from OSHA, a letter date July 8, 1997 from Greg Watchman (I think I've already posted this);
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that, under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs), as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). For example, various studies referenced by Guerin et al. in The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measurement indicate that many substances are well below the individual permissible exposure level [e.g., acetaldehyde values in enclosed places varied from 65 to 1080 g/m3 (Page 295) and acrolein values ranged from 20-300 g/m3 (Page 295-296)]. It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
So what's your reply to that last sentence, Dr. Siegel?
.
One final thing, Dr Siegel (promises, promises).
As far as I can see, you make no distinction between workplaces. All workplaces are workplaces and should follow the same health standard, you seem to be saying. But that's obviously false, since the requirements of the particular business determine the degree of risk that must be accepted for the business to operate as a business, even after all necessary steps are taken to minimize the risks.
That's been pointed out by several of us when we tried to show that the risk accepted in a business office is not the same risk that should be accepted in the hospitality business, where exposure to ETS is a part of the hospitality. Now if you refuse to buy that reasoning, I would ask that you tell us why.
ETS aside, a short-order cook accepts a greater degree of risk than a waitress in a non-smoking diner, since cooking on the grill throws out chemicals and he's intimately exposed to them. Or should he be required to wear a surgical face mask to lessen the risk? Of course, when the grill is directly behind the counter, that wouldn't make many patrons happy, and they'd probably flee and never come back.
.
Harry;
The PEL as I demonstrated by calculation in the last thread is ridiculous and if you look closer at the final product of that calculation and look at the quantity delivered directly into the bloodstream by a smoking patch or gum we see the PEL suggested has no physical credibility because millions of times higher doses are administered by the alternatives they promote in TC sales campaigns.
TC gained popularity for no other reason than the advantages it brought to stakeholders in political and financial gain.
The promotion of ETS fears was never credible or was it ever about the physical health of anyone. This was always about building power bases to promote Industrialized political power while downsizing the influence of personal rights.
I must be alone in observing the monolith of public health institutions created in the past few years and how similar those institutions remind one of the Taliban power process enforced with a watcher on every block.
Chasing ETS arguments can only be useful in sharpening debating skills because it is an imagined danger created in an ad agency it has no actual legitimacy and every smoker on the planet proves it's entirely ridiculous.
What should be evident to all is how many politicians and so called health scare professionals are promoting it's legitimacy and how much so called science has been created to support it, is truly amazing. The advertising flunkey that dreamed this one up must be flabbergasted in the power of advertising and just how influential a promoted suggestion can be, when placed in the wrong hands.
To think we once feared nuclear weapons???
Now we are encouraged to fear everything short of our shadow, and they are likely working on that somewhere as well.
Perhaps what is needed to balance out the damage caused by the term ETS is a campaign to locate its author.
We should put a lost ad in local papers throughout North America and seek out the creator of the term. A publicist who signed this person up could represent a superstar if properly compensated that person should be richer than Bill gates pictures of that person should be on the covers of Time and Fortune magazines Talk show circuits, movie rights and speaking engagements even kids toys could net out untold fortunes for a person who is lost in obscurity, likely still taking crap from the boss for not continuing to pump out similarly profitable spin.
This person has been ripped off, by others who make billions from an invention, which will likely never be properly compensated; they stole a truly earned 15 minutes of fame and untold fortunes.
It would be interesting to see the results should this person ever be found and claimed what is owed.
Harry;
"Iro asked whether I think that ventilation can solve the secondhand smoke exposure problem. Unfortunately, I don't think it can. The reason is that in order to remove the health hazard, you would have to eliminate the smoke immediately after it left the cigarette but BEFORE it reached the nonsmokers in the room. I don't see how that is possible."
From your post above the solution to this is possible and easily accomplished Ventilation solutions could include air stream curtains or vacuum tables to suck all the contaminants out of the room. More simply by regulations promoting a sign on the door. If health were the issue this would have been the solution promoted and likely employed. The fact solutions are not even discussed demonstrates the actual agenda is punishment to force compliance. Compliance will increase the sales of alternate products without any risk of eliminating smoking or addiction, which is along with alcohol a primary funding source of government administered health care systems.
If this mysterious health risk we know so little about is so frightening and banning it is the only solution, banned because we are told science knows so little and can offer no assistance in minimizing this huge unexplainable health risk. All we know is we must fear 5000 deadly toxins found in the smoke while Diesel exhaust, incense, candles and fire logs are apparently harmless, heightening the mystery; why would governments promote an addition to the chemical soup with fire safe cigarette paper? More puzzling is how do they in that promotion, avoid human experimentation criticism from the so-called ground roots movement known as TC and a multitude of so-called professionals all silent and not realizing this is happening?
Apparently not as well informed as they lead us to believe are they?
IMHO Ventilation systems are flawed primarily because they are designed to draw contaminents upward forcing cigarette smoke to enter the space where breathing occurs, if the draw were downward virtually no smoke would be inhaled which was not desired. If the regulations were written to acomodate normal breathing space regulations and not the entire room PELs could be satisfied including those which Lobby groups created for no other reason than to administer their will on others.
btw-Kevin, Thanks for you analysis on the tabacco crossroads site. After I posted I spilled Iced Tea on my keyboard, and that was the end of posting for the weekend!
Sunz;
Have you seen this?
http://www.aapsonline.org/testim...ony/
parwjf.html
Marcus will be doing cartwheels.
To summarize the RWJF account of its objectives and strategy:
Ø The goal is a government-controlled "public/private partnership," which is another name for "corporatism" or "corporate socialism," and could also be called fascism.
Ø Enactment and implementation of such programs is expected to meet resistance. Thus, it is desirable to remove the process as far as possible from the political arena.
Ø Grantmaking is part of the strategy for overcoming resistance, passing legislation, and making sure that the means for implementing it are solidly in place before opposition can build.
Ø The desired outcome requires a radical change in societal values and institutional arrangements. Change is facilitated when institutions are financially weak, with heavy managed-care penetration. Government intervention is often needed.
Conclusions:
AAPS is strongly in favor of H.B. 975. This bill helps to preserve the proper role of the elected legislature in overseeing programs that otherwise could subvert their originally stated, apparently benign purpose, imposing on the people of the Commonwealth a system that is repugnant to them and deprives them of the right to make their own decisions about matters intimately affecting their very lives.
It is funny how that Fascist reference comes up so often in connection to TC strategies.
In 1997 the Association for American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. Called TC promoters Fascists. Too bad that thought was lost in the paper shuffle.
Sunz,i did actually read the report and tried to leave a comment much along the in depth feedback Kevin left,though less in depth,unfortunately this site decided to dispose of it and i never got around to revamping my comments.Dr Siegel i really look forward to your views of the above comments.The Independent today contained an article about how the Mediterranean Diet reduces lung cancer risk,perhaps i am too cynical but "they" had to try to close the loophole whereby Greeks are phenomenal smokers who don't keel over to promote smoking kills.No way could it ever be,that Tobacco is not quite as harmful as we are always told.Raise a glass of Metaxa and light up a Papastratos.
Someone mentioned a surgical mask above. I wonder, Doctor. Forget about ventilation. What if I opened a business and provided gas masks to waiters and waitresses?
Thanks Si, The posting over the weekend was difficult (early Sat AM) which I find quite frustrating!! Then my clumbsiness of spilling tea is not helpful.
Keep up the good fight. Your efforts and consistency are very much appreciated.
Kevin--
I got a lot out of the AAPS site when I first went through it. There's something that occurs to me every time I read it. In particular, it's almost as if RWJF is trying to control *doctors* even more than smokers, which is probably the reason the AAPS hasn't been in favor of RWJF's meddling in hospital affairs. For starters, look at the "brainwashing" that the doc talked abut earlier. Also, look at how many times the word "right" appears in the following passage of AAPS's discussion of RWJF's book, "Chronic Care in America":
The "challenges for the 21st century" are: "creating correct financial and other incentives to rebalance resources; creating the "right mix" of medical services; providing the "right mix of personal assistance and custodial care services"; "creating processes to coordinate, manage, and allocate resources so that the right services get to the right people."
The emphasis appears to be a strong-arming of physicians into "right" thinking. :-/ This is something that has struck me for a while in the funding of research, i.e. no funding from pharma unless you write the "right" conclusion regardless of actual evidence. (Mind you, the same has undoubtedly been true of funding from tobacco--or, at least, was true.) Ditto for NRT; if doctors didn't prescribe patches/gum often enough, then it was time make them OTC drugs/devices. Choice is being taken away from doctors left and right; wonder what will happen when neural nets take over the decision making process in resource allocation?
INRE ventilation and measurements: It looks like the only risk-free choice is to tear-down all structures in which smoking has ever taken place.
INRE smoking initiation via the movies: I don't recall one nonsmoker asking a smoker, "What encouraged *you* to start smoking?" Lots of percentages and numbers, but nobody really interested in finding out what initiates smoking.
A critique of the 8ng /m3. I know,that it is inadmissible since it came from Big T. Although, the Doc has lamented the fact that Big T no longer challenge TC in any of their claims.
Worth a read and gives some food for thought.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2...e=1&
end_page=27
GreatScot
Kevin,
“TC gained popularity for no other reason than the advantages it brought to stakeholders in political and financial gain.”
That’s an astute statement, but is it true? I don’t know.
“The promotion of ETS fears was never credible or was it ever about the physical health of anyone.”
Again, is that true? If you believe Dr. Siegel to be sincere and honest, then it certainly doesn’t apply to him.
“This was always about building power bases to promote Industrialized political power while downsizing the influence of personal rights.”
Sounds like one of those big conspiracy theories that I’ve always distrusted: dozens of individuals plotting the fate of society and nations in dimly-lit rooms. Trouble is, activity like that inevitably gets out. So I remain skeptical.
“Chasing ETS arguments can only be useful in sharpening debating skills because it is an imagined danger created in an ad agency it has no actual legitimacy and every smoker on the planet proves it's entirely ridiculous.”
If the posters on this blog are only here to sharpen their debating skills, then vanity of vanity, all is vanity. I don’t believe that. I think we feel we’re foot soldiers in a war and that we’re all very serious about it, and that we look upon ourselves as a small part of a larger group trying to get the truth out. Maybe we’re just tilting at windmills or maybe we’re just pissed off at all the lies and injustice TC has created, and maybe we believe that there’s a tipping point, and that if we could only move the flunkies in the media to stop parroting everything TC has to say, then perhaps there can be a change. Personally, since I only smoke when I drink, the bans have had little effect on me. What outraged me – totally outraged me – was 10 or 15 years back when they disallowed smoking in veterans’ hospitals. (I’m not sure, but I think it was under Koop.) Here these guys had fought in wars, had had serious injuries including limbs blown off, had developed mental problems because of their service, and a bunch of prissy, mean-spirited little do-gooders with their petty authority took away their right to smoke without having to wheel their wheelchairs out into the snow? Talk about health fascism and injustice!
“What should be evident to all is how many politicians and so called health scare professionals are promoting it's legitimacy and how much so called science has been created to support it, is truly amazing. The advertising flunkey that dreamed this one up must be flabbergasted in the power of advertising and just how influential a promoted suggestion can be, when placed in the wrong hands.”
Yes. That this cruel farce has spread around the globe is a triumph of The Big Lie and Advertising (Propaganda). But I think it’s obvious that in the long run – say 20 or 30 years – when they’ve either found a cure for cancer or learned to control it, that tobacco will make a comeback. Then you'll see movie stars -- and, as formerly, doctors! -- again peddling their favorite brands on the backs of magazines.
.
Zero 'tolerance', zero 'compromise', zero 'compassion', zero 'common sense'.
Sounds like somebody's epitaph, Brian. (Make that: 'several somebodies').
Happy to see you're still with us.
.
.
Then of course Repace doesn't have an agenda does he?
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/tobacco/
do...FedOHSHAets.pdf
Sure did earn his $300,000 award from RWJF
http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom/new...il.jsp?
id=10211
GreatScot
Make all bars self service,and the person who takes the money can be placed in a self contained bubble.Ridiculous it may sound but so is the threat of SHS to such a degree when many studies highlight the minimal risks entailed.
"A critique of the 8ng /m3. I know,that it is inadmissible since it came from Big T."
Why, Scot, why is it inadmissible? Please don't start to believe this to be true, just because the anti-smokers want you to. You know as well as I do that they try and censor all opposing views (Doc Siegel excepted - at least for now).
Actually it seemed like a pretty good destruction job of loony Repace's egregious work to me - but I intend to have a much more detailed read of it when time allows - so thanks for posting the link.
BTW did you notice the date of Repace's report? 1980! 27 bloody years ago! 27 years and this shoddy piece of work is the best that the anti-smoker movement can use to justify the ridiculous claims made by Doc Siegel in this thread. I'm absolutely amazed just how flimsy the evidence really does turn out to be.
And Michael Siegel really does seem to believe that James Repace is the sole world-wide authority on ETS exposure limits, since it is now obvious that his numbers (ie 0.008 ug/m3 etc) have come directly from Repace.
Well that just about says it all to me so, Harry, can I add another 'zero' to my earlier list?
Zero credibility!
This only confirms what Walt said many postings back, Doc Siegel has lost the argument. No doubt about it now.
Harry, I haven't strayed far. It's just that I have more time to read than I do to write at present. Too busy working on trying to get Healthcare managers using data and statistical information properly. It's always an uphill battle!
.
Harry;
You’re a soul dedicated to burned bridges; I can see that in you.
I know you don't presume to speak for me in your generalized absolutes.
TC seems to do the same sort of thing in acquiring proxies and claiming no other opinions are relivent.
You march off to war if you must, and I will throw confetti as that ship sails. I prefer a more sensible non-violent approach in my simplistic conspiracy nut kind of way.
To me arguing over how harmful something is spells defeat, because that battle demands both combatants agree upfront a harm exists at all. You see that battle to me is lost before it begins. Common sense tells me in observing an ability to survive the most extreme levels of exposures with no increased risk known Smokers themselves are living proof ETS has always been a sham.
TC can not attribute an increased risk of smokers to ETS without diminishing the risks of smoking now can they? Only so many bodies to go around.
A spin-doctor created ETS fear mongering. You’re just another victim in denial of a persecution process, which defined a lot more than your lost right to have a smoke with your beer and involves a lot more than cigarette smoke.
I will make a special effort to wave at the tanks though as they roll by, just because you were so nice in sorting me out and explaining which way is up.
BTW Is Harry short for Gian
I know I heard your war analogy rhetoric somewhere in the recent past.
LOL
Kevin wrote: TC can not attribute an increased risk of smokers to ETS without diminishing the risks of smoking now can they? Only so many bodies to go around.
I'm hearing that more and more fro mpeople--in lots of different places. It's almost as if people are starting to *think*!
On the ventilation front:
I believe this is something to be pursued, obviously. I recall an old poem by Mother Theresa, "Do It Anyway". Although I haven't seen anything to convince me yet that ETS is harmful (except, possibly, in extreme situations with very special people), I do believe that generally keeping our environment clean is a good thing. I found something at Forces, http://video.google.com/
videopla...074311987080167 . It's about 35 minutes long, but the ventilation bit is right up front. (The rest is also very good, IMO.)
DTB;
Thanks I did rather enjoy that. If Harry took a listen perhaps he would understand I, as a conspiracy nut may not be completely alone in my assessments.
The best arguments reside in motivations behind the TC agenda and in demonstrating who is doing what to whom.
Who was it who said "The truth will set you free"?
Why, when fumes like welding smoke for example, are monitored against their individual constituent elements, and measured against OHSA's individual PEL's,is ETS treated differently?
GreatScot
Kevin,
“You’re a soul dedicated to burned bridges; I can see that in you.”
If I understand you correctly, how far have unburned bridges gotten you in all the time you’ve spent on this blog? And I think you’ll find that I’m not alone in the view that we've all been very patient up until the last few weeks. And I’m not talking about differences of opinion; I’m talking about confronting nonsense. And please remember that the posters’ audience here isn’t an audience of one.
Besides which, I’m very temperate when addressing my state representatives, for example. It’s simple politeness when provocations are absent.
“To me arguing over how harmful something is spells defeat, because that battle demands both combatants agree up front a harm exists at all.”
That’s FORCES argument I believe, and that may be the right position. But what do you do when attacked on that position with a bunch of garbage? Stand mute? It seems to me that's giving the battle away.
“You’re just another victim in denial of a persecution process, which defined a lot more than your lost right to have a smoke with your beer and involves a lot more than cigarette smoke.”
Please, Kevin, I don't look upon myself as a victim nor do I feel like one; and I'm quite aware that the persecution process extends far beyond the simple issue of a lost right to have a smoke with a beer. That’s unwarranted. Besides which, bans affect me hardly at all. This isn’t personal with me, far from it.
If you don’t like the war analogy, how about dumping tea in Boston Harbor?
.
Brian- "A critique of the 8ng /m3. I know,that it is inadmissible since it came from Big T."
Why, Scot, why is it inadmissible"
My apologies Brian, I was being a little tongue in cheek.
I was always encouraged to view all information from ANY source with a vested interest, whether that interest be emmotional or fianancial (or both as is often the case with TC)with a large dose of scepticism.
Honest, neutral assessment of anything is becoming a rare beast indeed.
Everyday we get another scareline with an appeal for more research. Here is todays.
Unfairness "increases heart risk"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6653025.stm
People who feel they are treated unfairly, including in the home and community, may have a higher risk of developing heart disease, a study says.
I wonder if that includes people who smoke being persecuted at every opportunity??
GreatScot
Kevin,
Excellent link. Wonder whatever happen to that legislation. I see what I can find out. From PA, Bill was probably most unhappy with that.
Kevin wrote:Thanks I did rather enjoy that. If Harry took a listen perhaps he would understand I, as a conspiracy nut may not be completely alone in my assessments.
You're not a nut. You're not alone.
The best arguments reside in motivations behind the TC agenda and in demonstrating who is doing what to whom.
Yes, exposing these motivations can do a lot of good in getting people to start to listen. One obvious motivation comes from the Glantz quote (mortgages--and that's just an intro to the motivations of PhRMA. Another thing that can help is to show people how they've been duped; the one trait that antismokers share--from the greiving to the greedy--is self-righteous arrogance. That last thing such a person can handle is being shown to be a fool.
Who was it who said "The truth will set you free"?
Jesus. He said lots of cool things. Come to think of it, he had quite a bit to say about *hypocrites*.
Walt,
In regards to nicotine and a pel limit established for that. As far as I can see, the pel limit was for the toxicity of nicotine. Repace on the other hand was attempting to use nicotine as a marker to quantify the amount of cigarette smoke. He's done this with both RSP's and nicotine. Unfortunately there are limitations with both. Nicotine is metabolized rather quickly and varies between one individual and the next, and used cotinine as a marker to relate it back to smoke concentration (and more specifically nicotine concentration in the air). You must also be aware of dietary contributors, which would skew cotinine metabolites, and then there is the issue of nicotine absorption into environmental sources, which could be later evaporated. If you go back and look at the DOT report you'll notice on a non-smoking flight, there were nicotine readings on a non-smoking flight in the non-smoking section. I've never really heard a good explanation of why this occurred. Was the pilots smoking in the cockpit? Someone smoking in the boy's room, 3rd hand content from a passenger or just evaporated content from prior years?
With RSP's you run into the issue of what was the source of the RSP's, and also the background level to begin with.
I don't think that trying to compare a pel limit on nicotine (for the toxicity of nicotine itself) means that the same amount of ETS comes with the same degree of risk, and it a bit taken out of context. The alternative is to take all known components and establish pel limits on each, and then sum the risks. While this may lead to under estimation should there be synergies within these components.
If you will note, in the DOT study, there were several forms of risk assessment done with ETS concentrations, and one using a method devised by Repace. While I haven't undone the math, there seems to be a quantifiable different risk associated with ETS exposure using the RSP's. I would like to reinforce some other points in addition.
1) OSHA categorizes significant risk as being > 1 attributable lifetime death out of 1,000 exposed for (either 40 or 45 years not sure which), and regulates at this level.
2) Nobody uses the term "safe level", but traditionally people aren't the least bit concerned when the attributable risks are less then 1 out of 1,000,000. Hence beware of semantics.
3) The 8ng/m3 (I calculate 9ng using the data provided) is at the 1 in 1,000,000 level.
4) A smoking ban represents a zero tolerance threshold, where as an established pel limit would treat ETS as any other workplace hazard.
5) By circumventing the OSHA process, it creates the appearance of impropriety and ETS being treated as a special case.
6) The calculations done by Repace seem reasonable, provided the hazards are properly qualified, and significant sources of error don't exist in their establishment. Any body that knows me, knows I don't have much faith in Repace, as his hyperbole and zealotry to which he displays, limits the amount of credibility to which I place in him. As for the numbers themselves, unless he's misrepresented on the low side the degree of exposure, his numbers seem to jive, with the above mentioned limitations.
7) Unlike much of the hyperbole associated with airline cabins being a sealed tube, in my opinion they represent the best case for an indoor environment, as they are limited in space, and have (had) an extremely high air exchange rate. This was in the order of 30 exchanges per hour. Since cigarettes have been extinguished, this rate has been reduced to around 6 per hour. To achieve this with traditional buildings would be a task, where normal air exchange rates are in the 2 per hour range.
The only way to satisfy the ventilation argument would be for an independent and "non-partisan" organization to establish a real pel on ETS.
I should also note, I've not had the chance to read the critique of the 8ng standard done by Big T, but again I place as much faith in it, as I do Repace, and the truth probably lay somewhere in between. Thanks Scot for the link, it should be interesting to say the least.
One of the lessons that should be noted is that hyperbole mixed with science equals diminished credibility.
Harry;
you could use use some of that
"It’s simple politeness when provocations are absent."
"how far have unburned bridges gotten you in all the time you’ve spent on this blog?"
I don’t understand, how far should they have gotten me?
A blog is an exchange of ideas nothing more, perhaps you attach too much importance in a territorial sense I find value in discussions and in identifying why people think as they do There are many more than two opinions and many more than two sides to this discussion, although many tend to divide camps into for and against. Personally I believe I have gained a lot. Of course I don’t view this blog or it’s participants from an entirely adversarial perspective.
"But what do you do when attacked on that position with a bunch of garbage? Stand mute?"
I would identify the garbage as garebage and mnove on affording it as little importance as it is due. In one respect you seem to refute I should be allowed my opiniuons on a public blog, and now you imply I stand mute? Give me a break.
how about dumping tea in Boston Harbor?
Can't do that anymore the public would cite environmental issues.
McCarthyizms were also quite effective in gaining support. I personally like the prospects of the "Enough is Enough" promotion.
Come on Harry, Lighten up It's hump day and the rest of the week is downhill.
GreatScot;
Great point,
When you add in as I discussed with Michael the personal environment established in "denormalizing" smokers is hardly conducent to enabling a smoker to quit. Telling them how difficult it is and how how inferior they are consistently has to have some stress building effects as well.
The TC campaign is hardly what could be described as having even a marginal chance in the goal to reduce the use of cigarettes or as they put it "Helping" smokers to quit.
With friends like that who needs enemies?
Excellent points Walt W.
IMO
Expanding on Repace assessments with current technologies Repace's assessments and continual beating of his own personal drum in citing himself dilutes the fact he has always been archaic in methods of identification of the subject contaminant.
He makes virtually no effort to distinguish particulate by size or surface description or identifying unique characteristics. Use of single component in nicotine is self-serving because it may accumulate for longer periods than faster dissipated components giving an impression of a higher overall quantity of other components. He continues to ignore or evaluate possible sources of identical particulate. He deliberately and fortuitously includes all particulate while implying all particulate will affect all persons in the room to a maximum extent regardless of how much it would be possible to actually inhale. He implies a direct correlation between particulate and specific tobacco toxins in all environments tested on a linear scale. Further lacking in what specific components found by estimation alone would actually have effect and which would not.
For reference to identification of the particulate take a look at how one could identify a suspect component.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...i?
artid=1350952
What I believe is lost in the entire process, TC campaigns make use of selective effects and avoid completely the overall problem.
Smoking may be argued adds to the effect of sick buildings however removing the smoke does not eliminate sick buildings. The failure is in assessments and application of airflow engineering. Higher particulate indicates ventilation has not been applied sufficiently to address the issue at that specific site alone. Making the existence of an undesirable level the norm deflates the importance of improving ventilation technologies and their proper application.
If you look at the solution in creating smoking rooms we only deal with one targeted element in a reverse thinking with divided focus.
If we seek a clean air environment non smoking rooms would be much more efficient in reducing all particulate for those concerned.
Making outdoor standards as Repace and others who support his stance employed as an indoor standard this can only be accomplished by getting the thinking on track to achieve those ends, which of course would include controlled environments indoors currently by limitations of technology in non smoking rooms designed to achieve those ends.
This would not require smokers be denied shelter and association with those who do not seek the ideal situation, simply an indication with a sign of where those environments are available would suit the needs of all in an inclusive manner conducive to harmony within all community life.
GreatScot;
Why, when fumes like welding smoke for example, are monitored against their individual constituent elements, and measured against OHSA's individual PEL's,is ETS treated differently?
One of the fundamental successes in TC advocacy is ability of instilling in the public the idea the summing of all risks can be the overall risk as opposed to the maximum risk of any component is in reality the maximum risk in analysis.
SAMMEC in adding up calculated financial cost, added to the perception we can view risk factors in a similar way.
Maximum risk is maximum risk of any specific component and not the totality of all risks in the mixture. That is why welding fumes are consistent with risk analysis and ETS is not. Unless it can be demonstrated a compound mixture demonstrates a higher risk as interactions of components change the physical characteristics into a new higher risk compound element. This is not the case with ETS as toxic elements can be readily distinguished and listed separately and no new compound element has been demonstrated as formed by component interaction. TC advocates sell the lie ETS is a single element despite what it may contain. No safe level solidifies the impression deceptively crafted to deceive public response. That is the nature of propaganda the art of selective prophesy.
This allows them to ignore the many studies, which demonstrate the components demonstrating the highest risk probabilities, can be reduced in significant numbers by the manufacturers, allowing, maximum risk to decrease.
We are having none of that thinking; that smoking could actually be safer? Which of course would reduce the political pressure to substantially eliminate the smell.
For Reference;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
In reality TC promotes the sustained higher levels of risk for no other substantial reason than to maintain maximum gains of stakeholders, ignoring the fact by protecting maximum risk you contribute to maximum mortality figures directly.
In a consistent cold and clinical sense;
More bodies simply means more profit in political and financial success.
Kevin,
“you could use some of that It’s simple politeness when provocations are absent.”
And when provocations are not absent?
“A blog is an exchange of ideas nothing more ...”
Come on, Kevin, you know as well as I do that many blogs weren’t set up to exchange ideas and nothing more; they were meant to push a point of view or argument. And yes, I do think that Dr. Siegel’s blog was set up for ‘an exchange of ideas,’ and that he wanted to hear other voices. So we’re exchanging ideas – WITH REAL-LIFE ILLUSTRATIONS – and when we get baloney we react, as we should, and as the doctor himself does and has done on several occasions in reaction to certain notorious postings. What’s your point? Do you think this topic is just an academic classroom exercise?
“In one respect you seem to refute I should be allowed my opinions on a public blog, and now you imply I stand mute? Give me a break.”
I don’t know what that means, Kevin, since I can’t connect it with anything I’ve thought or written.
how far have unburned bridges gotten you in all the time you’ve spent on this blog?
“I don’t understand, how far should they have gotten me?”
I’m glad that’s been clarified. Your postings remain, then, an academic exercise and nothing more. But when I see some of the steam rolling off of some of the postings here, I’d wager that many, perhaps most, of us think a battle metaphor is more accurate. Serious mischief is going on in the world, and you believe that we should simply and politely exchange ideas? Give me a break.
As for the bridge metaphor, burning a bridge to nowhere hardly qualifies as an act that warrants anything but horse laughter.
Please be advised, Kevin, I am now trying to lighten up.
.
Thanks for this, Kevin, and I think it should be emphasized: "Unless it can be demonstrated a compound mixture demonstrates a higher risk as interactions of components change the physical characteristics into a new higher risk compound element. This is not the case with ETS as toxic elements can be readily distinguished and listed separately and no new compound element has been demonstrated as formed by component interaction."
Because that very question has been raised by an OSHA official, with the official -- and hence OSHA -- withholding a determination on the question. So I take it that that means we're solid in the argument that, since no individual PELs in certain real-life situations have been exceeded, no health risk has been demonstrated.
.
We still are due an answer Dr Siegel to the many points of scientific concern.Why won't you debate this issue singularly ? Many excellent comments still require a response,if you refrain from answering them you are doing a disservice to the ethos of what i thought you stand for.Frustration is getting to people as you can see above,if you won't respond what is the point of discussion ,other than to prove your view is fixed and you become no better than every other neanderthal anti.
Don't burn any bridges, si.
.
No Harry ,i prefer to dynamite them,to make of an impact.Honestly,if no answer is forthcoming then what is the point ? I've lost more comments than i've re-written and the antis are becoming totally insane in their demands,talk about having a screw loose.If we cannot debate then the only thing i will look forward to is FORCES persuing the legal option to force the issue.We all have slightly differing views but when we start arguing amongst ourselves then everything is lost.
Harry;
I am obviously not your friend, however I certainly am not your enemy either agree to disagree and move on to something important as I will.
Enough?
BTW if you were being sincere in thanking me above [Not sure?] you are most welcome.
si wrote: ....i will look forward to is FORCES persuing the legal option to force the issue.
God forgive me, but I believe you are "spot on" as our British friends might say. I don't like encouraging litigation to solve problems, but I think it might be the only way this time. Also, I believe that the antismoking movement will be attacked on many fronts at once. Frankly, given the anger that has been stirred-up, I think that people like Seigel (and some others) will serve as good reminders to everyone that we need to at least *try* to be reasonable.(*)
We all have slightly differing views but when we start arguing amongst ourselves then everything is lost.
In my letter to the Governor, I told him that the whole controversy is conducive to a society in which people quickly forget that our greatest gift is each other. We might not always *like* each other or agree with each other, but courtesy, consideration and decency prevail. We really do need wach other, sometimes to fight a common enemy sometimes for survival and sometimes just...because.
(*) "Reasonable" probably needs a qualifier. An example is smoking and children. Although we don't want children to be brainwashed and never question propaganda, we really don't want children to start smoking. Even if someone really-and-truly believed that smoking isn't unhealthy and that children should experiment, it's just not a good idea for little ones to be playing with fire. Where movies are concerned, I have to agree with the Doc that parents should be forewarned of things that their children might see that will need to be approached as an opportunity to open discussion on certain topics. There are instances where common sense should be applied, yes? There is always hope.
"BTW if you were being sincere in thanking me above [Not sure?] you are most welcome."
Yes, Kevin, I was sincere. And no, I don't think we are enemies.
Let's just move on.
.
Kevin--
You've won the "nicest boy in the class" award. Now put a sock in it.
Walt H.--
I agree with everything you said about nicotine/ cotinine ( just didn't spell it out) and understand that the .5 mg/m3 was for the toxicity of nicotine per se.
My "problems" with the Repace/Siegel criteria are several tho if I'm wrong I welcome correction--and there's zero sarcasm there.
Main problem: the criterion-- and then the math-- of "risk of death." Seems to me this is just an abstract and arbitrary calculation. As we all keep saying, "Name 3." That anybody's died from ETS is entirely speculative, which doesn't stop anyone with a dog in the race from romantic speculation. 3,000, 53,000, 65,000. And when you look at how THOSE numbers are "calculated" you can either laugh or weep. OTOH, OSHA's criteria seem to be empirical. I believe it's only when facts fail them that the Repaces need to formulate an alternate universe.
The second problem is, that I still maintain that nicotine's an unreliable marker. And not only in terms of cotinine (what it does in the body once it's IN the body and the many confounders) but even in the air. Smoke a Gauloise and then a Carlton. The Gauloise may put a lot more nicotine in the air but it's not necessarily putting the other ingredients in the air in greater proportions along WITH the nicotine, probably because it's got the same amount of-- pick your other poison-- as the low-nic cigarette. Nor is it creating more RSPs. And that's before we get to what happens to the other constituents with age. How fast they dissipate (faster than nicotine?), whether they rise or fall with combustion, etc. etc.
About the DOT: my presumption was that the nicotine in nonsmoking planes was residues from preban days or perhaps more realistically that the same planes had alternately been used on smoking and nonsmoking flights. (I believe back then the ban only extended to 3 hour flights.) Nicotine, unlike the other stuff, is sticky and might stick around, but .08 ug's of it is no way a danger. And there's the point again: the air might have nicotine, but the other constituents weren't there at all. Ergo: nicotine=lousy marker.
But correct me where I'm wrong.
As for RSPs on planes, as you note in your comment about declining ventilation, they're much higher now. And so's CO and CO2. And so are germs and viruses. Unintended consequences.
:
Walt H-The alternative is to take all known components and establish pel limits on each, and then sum the risks.
Walt H, I am not sure I understand why you would sum the individual risks. Are risks cumulative or individual from a datum? I haven't expressed that very well, but I hope you know what I mean.
GreatScot
OK Walt
Here are you socks
Your first point
"Main problem: the criterion-- and then the math-- of "risk of death." Seems to me this is just an abstract and arbitrary calculation."
Statistics prove although those people may be difficult to identify, if the risk factors support an increase some people likely have died according to again the numbers from the increased risk demonstrated. Until you can prove the numbers are wrong the exercise of finding them is not really necessary is it?
Statisticians who have for the most part no view of motility or biology other than the numbers, created the numbers. The numbers are in the most part likely entirely accurate and consistent with CONSENSUS VIEWS of the medical community. However they may or may not be appropriately applied which forms the controversy.
Your second point;
"The second problem is, that I still maintain that nicotine's an unreliable marker."
In order to identify a substance finding a component, which makes it unique, is the most effective way of identifying it, like it or not it is compliant with methodology and common sense. Unless you have another source of Nicotine commonly found in indoor environments Nicotine is an excellent indicator of ETS existence and if properly assessed likely the most accurate means beyond a more detailed large scale physical Spectral analysis study [in a quick and dirty estimation world, driven by the cost of analysis] to indicate volumes of presumed to be linearly consistent components of Tobacco smoke.
"But correct me where I'm wrong.”
“As for RSPs on planes, as you note in your comment about declining ventilation, they're much higher now. And so's CO and CO2. And so are germs and viruses. Unintended consequences."
This is not an unintended consequence created by smoking bans, just poor assessments of who sets the ventilation standards, if contaminant levels have increased it is most likely due to ventilation levels being set too low and can be corrected once those levels have been adjusted
So what's your point?
You get the tool of the day award
So you can stick a sock in it
Harry;
In my opinion; I do not believe anyone can demonstrate ETS is more dangerous than any component in the mixture. If all identified components fall below PEL standards they do not represent a substantial risk to anyone. This is according to the rules of applied science, therefore ETS as a significant health risk has never been demonstrated to be credible.
Further by reviewing the PM site [I can get you the link if you want it.] The component base of what is in that mixture both pre-existing in the content and in the resulting smoke remnants varies tremendously so no truly appropriate ETS research has ever been presented, other than summing average risk factors of a number of completely different products.
The research which looks at how the products vary in different countries demonstrates a vast differential in carcinogenic content a differential of more than 90% in volume between brands of only one manufacturer how can we view the array of products and come to such finite conclusions as demonstrated by the consensus crowd and relayed to the public, and claim irrefutable proof anything was realistically determined?
This is politics and has never been about scientifically sound reasoning.
As for RSPs on planes, as you note in your comment about declining ventilation, they're much higher now. And so's CO and CO2. And so are germs and viruses. Unintended consequences.
Walt, I've been trying to find a reference for this. Get you give one to me?
==> Steph
Kevin
"Statistics prove although those people may be difficult to identify, if the risk factors support an increase some people likely have died according to again the numbers from the increased risk demonstrated. Until you can prove the numbers are wrong the exercise of finding them is not really necessary is it?"
I would argue from the opposite viewpoint and say "until you can prove the numbers are right (and the numbers I refer to are the statistical 'risk ratios') then it is totally irresponsible, and arguably criminal, to convert these into thousands of 'estimated' dead bodies.
Remember that these ratios (which were not created by statisticians, but by 'researchers' - usually medics) are all derived from typically small, non-randomized and often self-selecting samples, with long-discredited methodologies being applied in the vain attempt to identify significant correlations between cause (ETS) and effect (death). Yet even within those samples it is not known if even a single case (of eg lung cancer, heart disease etc) was in any way caused, or even exacerbated, by second-hand smoke. All that there is is an apparent increase in victims among those who were apparently exposed to second-hand smoke when compared to those who apparently were not exposed to SHS. Now we all know that and we are well-rehearsed in all of the reasons why the various ETS studies are unreliable - both mathematically and otherwise.
So, if it cannot even be proven that any one of the 'cases' within any single study really was a victim of second-hand smoke, then how can it be credible to apply those alleged 'risk ratios' to the whole US population and state so unequivocally that "XX,000 deaths each year are caused by SHS". It is, to me a total non-sequitur and, far from accepting that "some people likely have died" I would like to see the evidence that any single person really has died from a disease caused by SHS - and I include every case in every study's sample in the pool of potential evidence.
You see this approach would be perfectly legitimate when looking at the effect of (say) driving while drunk as a possible cause of RTA death, as we have the empirical evidence. Someone dies in an RTA - that is a fact, cause of death - RTA; driver had excess alcohol in his bloodstream - again a simple measurable and indesputable fact. So we can calculate 'risk ratios' in this case which are credible as they are based on clear and unambiguous mesurements. But death from lung cancer being related to how much the victim's spouse chooses to 'remember' about SHS exposure up to 40 years previously? Give me a break, this is nothing more than school-project style of research. Or, even worse, it is the outcome of arming mean-minded single-issue fanatics with statistical software tools that they don't understand, but have the effects of electronic Viagra in equipping said individuals with the power to screw the people whose habits they so despise.
The burden of proof is not ours - it is theirs, and they have so far failed to deliver.
Finally Kevin, can I respectfully ask that you, Harry and Walt cut the sniping at each other. You all make valid and interesting comments on this blog and you are all on the same side of the argument. It causes me great pain to witness such unnecessary arguments breaking out between people who should see themselves as comrades-in-arms on the right side of a worthy cause. God knows there are few enough of us as it is.
And yes, I do support the concept of 'in-arms'. On this I am on Harry's side - even if he is really Gian Turci (which of course he isn't).
All best wishes to everyone.
.
GreatScot,
While I'm not an OSHA expert by any means, I offer this up in defense of my statement as to risks being additive:
Often an employee is simultaneously exposed to a variety of chemical substances in the workplace. Additive toxic effects on a target organ is common for such exposures in many construction and manufacturing processes. This type of exposure can also occur when impurities are present in single chemical operations. Permissible exposure limits [or Threshold Limit Values (TLV's) such as the welding fume TLV of 5 mg/m3] for mixtures address the complex problem of additive exposures and their health effects. In addition, 29 CFR 1910.1000 contains a computational approach to assess exposure to a mixture. This calculation should be used when components in the mixture pose an additive threat to worker health. -- http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm...i/
otm_ii_1.html
This is all a learning process for me, and my inquisitive nature, and have tried to form my own opinions based on what I know, and what I consider reasonable assumptions where I don't. The more I learn about OSHA compliance, the more I understand why safety officers and production managers cringe at those initials... You'd think you'd spelled IRS by mistake. Not sure how well that culturally translates.
Walt,
As for OSHA, while on the surface you might think that they count accidents and accidental deaths, but if you stop and think about it, how could OSHA ever develop a PEL for a carcinogenic material without epi data and lab animal testing. Take for example Cr(IV) aka Chromium Hexavalent, a common component in many industrial settings and a class B carcinogen. This is frequently cited as one of the larger risks most frequently associated with welding. Yes, some hazards OSHA counts are just that empirical counts, but to establish a PEL, one has to be able to quantify the risk, and with cancer, direct cause and effect are not as obvious and easily obtained, and must rely on epi models and data.
As for cotinine, in the absence of any other measurement is better than idle speculation. And would not be my choice measuring stick (so to speak) to judge the amount of exposure, and agree it leaves a lot of room for error. When you couple this nicotine concentrations, the error only grows larger. I think cotinine is best used as a confirmation of exposure, rather than an actual degree.
With that being said, it would be noteworthy to determine the degree of difference in the DOT report using nicotine vs RSP's for calculations on flight crews, as both these indicators were given. If they don't jive, then obviously one of them is wrong, and this is a starting point to begin the discussion based on science.
As for the mystery of the nicotine in the middle of the nonsmoking rows on a nonsmoking flight, I do discount (not reject) the theory of old latent content because the level was half that on the smoking flights, and near zero in the smoking section on a nonsmoking flight to where I'd expect it to be the highest. An inconsistency that makes you go Hmmmm.
However without an accepted benchmark, PEL, or some sort standard, the argument for ventilation is moot. So what if you can reduce the volume of pollutants to 1/1000 if you can't quantify a level to which represents the line between significant hazard, and acceptable risk, then queue the angels to dance on the head of a pin because that's all you really have to debate.
I hope Kevin was talking about your sox, because mine are definately a hazardous environment.
Kevin,
Good points.
Harry,
I think it's nearly impossible to prove anything causes cancer with your criteria.
However...
Since consensus is now mandated within the tobacco control movement, and contradictory opinions are systematically rejected, the authors blackballed, and funding is withheld to prevent publication, we may never have a reliable estimate of any risk associated with tobacco. Politics and propaganda now drive that science.
Walt H;
No disrespect;
Just to clarify,
If you take a view as most would, of a list of toxins all adding up to a higher risk, it does sound reasonable to assume summing to a total risk value is appropriate, however in risk assessment the rules are different than adding up cash deposits in a bank.
The added dimensions of time and volume to danger level require us to create a linear number for use in comparisons so even politicians and health scare advocates can understand them, in use of our more comfortable linear or single dimensional perspectives. Like for instance money in the bank a perspective both of them understand all too well.
A lesser risk cannot increase the risk value of a larger risk component unless the two physically interact and form a new compound with a more dangerous effect.
If we add up all the chemical risks in a room for instance to a sum total we would quickly find a total risk which could go beyond 100%, which in common sense is irrational because we are still breathing.
It gets a little more complicated when we are assessing lifetime risk or long term risk adding more dimensions to the mix, however the doctor does not ask if your will is completed just because you are a drinker, a smoker and you like to race fast cars on a track on the weekends which would spell certain doom if we add it all up, yet many do survive well into old age.
The assessment process is geared more to creating comparative risk numbers so we can compare one to another and determine which is more dangerous and assess a need to take precautions or protective action when safe levels are exceeded.
The numbers are not created so we can add them all up to doom the world in a few minutes, as most lobbies like to do.
In risk if say ETS [Relatively harmless] is present and liquid chlorine is spilled in the room we would normally [and I know some of the ban fans would argue.]
Don respiration suits before entering the room, but only after the chlorine is spilled. The suits would be prescribed for the more deadly Chlorine toxin while the less deadly toxins “if any” by comparison would not increase risk above the level of risk with the chlorine present.
Does that make sense?
Kevin,
No disrespect taken. As for the example chlorine and tobacco smoke, I would say yes you add them together if you always dip your cigarettes in clorox before you smoke them.
If for example ETS had 3 components that contributed to causing lung cancer and at that each had a lifetime risk factor at that concentration of 3.3 out of 10,000 then I would say the risk of ETS at that concentration was 1 out of 1000, and not 3.3 out of 10,000.
I would also expect that epi studies would also support those numbers if the exposures were linearly dose dependant with no threshold and provided there were no synergies between them.
It could also be noted that some synergies may act in reverse, as was pointed out by the nicotine free smokes increasing the risk of heart disease.
Be it right or wrong, the way I believe OSHA interprets mixtures within a working environment, and how I think it would be viewed if regulated, with no TLA or pel on ETS itself.
This is all fairly moot, in that I don't believe we will ever see a pel for ETS. It's much better for the political position to assume a zero tolerance, "no safe level" position to enact legislation rather than OSHA regulation, and hence why they dropped their petition and lawsuit.
Do you know where I can find a per cigarette breakdown of the components of the smoke by volume? I lost my bookmark.
Kevin,
The way I read the CFR 1910.1000 the contributing parts to be added together must affect the same organ. I forgot to add that caveat.
So in some of your examples you wouldn't add them together.
Hi Brian;
My opinion
The numbers created were primarily by epi process, which is always political.
Political in nature because personal opinions always play a vital role in analysis of the final numbers and in the creation of the model in deciding confounding values and inclusions The stated goal in the first paragraph of most of these studies is all the proof you need to understand bias does absolutely apply, proof is found in a stated goal and not in a purpose to challenge the null to see what develops.
This is as opposed to real science, which reports what is found without bias or opinion beyond where the proof could lead.
Epi can be designed to state any opinion you want it too limited only by your imagination. As such it will always satisfy those preaching consensus when none really exists.
Applied science is reproducible and consistent. If epi were reproducible and consistent, it would indicate foul play was afoot. In fact that is one of the methods of testing for impropriety. Chance always plays a role if chance is absent as we all have seen in the consistent cherry picked although insignificant findings obviously the game is rigged.
Walt H;
Sorry I just read your link I am talking apples to oranges, sorry.
If you go further down you see another calculation to add different pels in varying levels which is a quick calculation affording maximum safety Beyond what is actually necessary however the standard does apply in the workplace.
I was refering to PELs themselves which in their creation afford individually generous safety margins which cumulatively in the summed calculation are likely far too high.
Consider if you were a tradesman and the suppliers normally gave a 40% discount to the trades because you are a preferred client he gives you an additional 40% by summing you calculate your cost is 20 cents on the dollar however when you get the bill you are charged 36 cents.
The difference lies in the second discount being applied on the total after the first discount is taken.
The total PEL is probably closer to
1/P1+P2+P3... + margin of error
Total PEL minus margin of error or safety would appear to be less than the highest PEL, due to PEL calculations individually expressing a worst-case calculation, which would inflate unrealistically the true value of risk in total combined PELs when the margin is replicated with each additional component. The safety margin as added on at the end in a consistent percentage.
Sorry got clipped...
The net result is a slight increase above the highest component PEL however nowhere near a summed total.
Walt H.,
"I think it's nearly impossible to prove anything causes cancer with your criteria."
Not sure about that 'anything.' But generally, I think you're right. My question is, since we swim in a sea of chemicals, how to sort the whole thing out (1,000 in coffee alone, some of which are carcinogenic)? Seems like an impossible task unless all that doesn't have enough weight or they can find a mechanism or causitive synergy of some sort.
Besides, isn't it up to them to prove a case against the individual PELs? And doesn't that dump us right back into the epidemiological studies, which Brian has had some choice words about?
But here's a foolish thought. Remember all those ulcer causes and treatments (stress on the job, etc.) which proved to be crap when it was found out that ulcers were caused by, wonder of wonders, a virus!? Ho-ho. Now wouldn't it be something if they found out that cancer is caused by a virus as well? Not that I buy it, but isn't that what Carol Thompson suggests, or am I wrong?
I guess I'll just have to stick with the individual PELs -- PROVISIONALLY at least -- until science proves otherwise or you can argue me out of it.
.
Brian--
Of course you're right. Sock/socks is bad business.
I (respectfully) disagree with Kevin's original rebuttal. The "risk" is speculative; the Numbers projected from the speculative risk are (ergo) speculation to the 2nd power.
I also believe Kevin actually bolstered my notion that airborne nicotine is a lousy marker. I.E., when he said that studies had shown:
a vast differential in carcinogenic content, a differential of more than 90% in volume between brands of only one manufacturer
I would (respectfully) ask him to expound on the relationship between "carcinogenic content" (presumably constituents other than nicotine) and whether they were consistently proportionally related to the amount of nicotine. Or not.
FTR, I was never suggesting that airborne nicotine wasn't a marker that cigarettes had been smoked (unless tomatos had been fried ), but merely that there are too many variables-- in the cigarettes, the other constituents and their varying behavior, not to mention the room, its ventilation, the time, the distance, and so on and so on, for the nicotine itself to signify much.
Walt H.
Yes, IIRC the RSPs, CO and CO2 were high or equivalent on the nonsmoking planes-- in fact, CO2 was notably higher on the nonsmoking planes then even in the smoking section of the smoking ones-- and remained so on all post-ban planes. I think a lot of the that tho, may be caused by the revving of the engines on the ground and the time spent taxiing. Then, too, I believe the ventilation never fully kicks in until the plane gets off the ground.
As to your q, if I got it right, I think proportions of the measurable constituents on a per cgt basis are in the chart I linked to above (and below) tho if that's not it, I'll go through my files and see what else I come up with.
http://www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html
Similarly, Dancing Tiger--
While I recall a lot of studies that measured air in cabins post ban and found them sorely wanting, the first big one was mentioned in "Breathing on a Jet Plane," Consumer Reports, c. 1994 (?) and the NY Times has done many reports thru the years-- mostly as they relate to people getting sick on planes w/ greater frequency than pre ban. I'm pretty sure you'll find references to at least some of them in the footnotes of the forces article I linked to earlier. One mo time:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/f...les/lin-
air.htm
And a google should give you more.
:
Walt: the forces article I linked to earlier. One mo time
Thanks. I knew I was just missing it somewhere.
/S
I don't know if the cited articles would reveal this, however it stands to reason; on a plane idling on the tarmac if smoking is allowed ventilation would be increased to keep everyone comfortable. If no smoking is allowed there would be no need, which could explain the resulting higher numbers of particulate on non-smoking flights. With the elimination of smoking many are falsely believing smoking was the only source of particulate, so ventilation levels are being allowed to be set too low.
Does that sound reasonable?
Walt
Sorry i missed this one
" I would (respectfully) ask him to expound on the relationship between "carcinogenic content" (presumably constituents other than nicotine) and whether they were consistently proportionally related to the amount of nicotine. Or not. "
As I posted previously I don’t believe anyone can establish a consistent relationship between tobacco smoke and carcinogenic content much less make even in a reasonable estimate between cause and effect using nicotine volume as a calculation component, because things can change in a bar or casino environment so drastically throughout any given day. If we look at Repace studies forming a linear carcinogenic risk based in particulate measurements. In the link Walt H demonstrated the measurements have to be made through an 8-hour day and averaged to allow the summing to apply in either average or in highest measured amount.
Lets say for instance in a Repace casino a tour bus arrived full of Blacks who more predominantly smoke menthol cigarettes how would that compare with a bar which attracts young people or a legion which attracts mostly the older crowd? It is well known different age and minority groups prefer different products which all are not created equally [speaking in carcinogenic terms] we again can see an expanded variance in products internationally yet all TC rhetoric claims cause and effect are stable and apply internationally in estimating mortality figures. Nicotine can be a marker of Tobacco smoke however it is not reasonable to associate Nicotine with carcinogenic content or in estimation of causal effects of smoke which has never been described other than as an irritant.
Kevin: I don't know if the cited articles would reveal this, however it stands to reason; on a plane idling on the tarmac if smoking is allowed ventilation would be increased to keep everyone comfortable. If no smoking is allowed there would be no need, which could explain the resulting higher numbers of particulate on non-smoking flights. With the elimination of smoking many are falsely believing smoking was the only source of particulate, so ventilation levels are being allowed to be set too low.
Does that sound reasonable?
At he risk of being rude...YESSSS!!!! That's what my letter to the editor was primarily about! That's what's happened on planes. In fact, that link from Walt utlimately got me to a NY Times article that explained what happened. In the 80's, planes were made to use *outside* air. The fresh air came in, got heated and then circulated. But, in the 90's, the manufacturers evidently started installing systems that would just re-ciruclate cabin air, which is much cheaper to operate. Do ya think that might have had something to do with SARS and whatnot getting around so quickly on airplanes? Now, we expect some transmission of cantagious illnesses, but the current setup *increases* the problem--in terms of all kinds of nasty things, including particulates. Now, we can't keep track of the actual numbers because it would be virtually impossible. Many people pick up a bug on a plane but don't actually feel il until later. Also, even if someone starts to feel ill on a plane, they just want to get home and don't wish to be detained. Even so, common sense dictates that this is *exactly* what happens in smoke-free venues.
Look at how the Doc characterized Boston bars--packed! Not the best place to start skimping on ventilation and air filtration. Moreover, as noted by many people, bars (standalone or in restaurants) give off a class A carcinogen. Cooking gives off benzopyrene (sp?). Again, not the best places to start getting a false sense of security just because there's a smoking ban in place.
Sorry. I'm ranting again, aren't I? I'm still in a snit over that letter to the editor. Well, shoot, being a smoker, I couldn't possibly have any ideas, right? *sheesh*
/S
Kevin--
Thanks for the helpful answer which at least apparently reconfirms my assertion. So unless you say otherwise, I'll take it that we agree: ambient nicotine per se is a lousy marker.
As for the planes: smoking was NEVER allowed on the ground--fire hazard due to the recent fueling-- and not until the plane reached a certain altitude, at which point the (literal) smoking light went on (or maybe it was the other way: the "no" sign went off to the sound of communal sighs and the instant clicking of Bics.)
Dancing Tiger--
By now I'm getting curious. What did your letter originally say and then what was the edit? How bout reproducing them , side by side. (And what are you dancing? And why are you baiting cats?)
:
Walt—Thank you for asking.
My letter:
I hear an awful lot of people whining that other people are whiners. Rather than a smoking ban, why don't we have a whining ban? I also hear people saying that a repeal of the smoking ban would be a step backward. Think about that a sec. Repealing an ordinance that is reminiscent of Prohibition would be a step backward.
Let’s take a truly enlightened, progressive step forward. Despite the zero tolerance mentality of the Surgeon General and the World Health Organization, let’s require beefed-up ventilation and air purification, especially for establishments that allow smoking. Even anti-tobacco experts, such as Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, have denounced The Surgeon General's "no safe level" stance. (The EPA report has been debunked by all kinds of hotshots.) The WHO has actually run long-term studies showing that environmental tobacco smoke is not a health hazard. Really. Honest. In fact, a recent article in the medical journal, The Lancet, criticizes the WHO for neglecting evidence when issuing guidelines. So, let's not panic and just do the best we can. We will always have plenty of businesses that choose to be smoke-free for nonsmokers who need that special environment.
In addition to removing the bulk of secondhand smoke, air purification mandates would remove toxic air contaminants such as airborne ethylalcohol, benzopyrene from cooking, heavy perfumes, et cetera. This is America. If American ingenuity can build a better mousetrap, then surely we can build improved ventilation. Take a step back and think about it.
Stephanie Stahl
Champaign, IL
Notice that I specificly stated “especially for establishments that allow smoking” only because everybody’s in such an uproar over smoking bans. (Oh, but the SG thinks that smoking bans are a “simple” solution!) They changed it to restrcit the suggestion to “smoking establishments” AND they restricted it to the venues that were affected by the recent repeal, bars and private clubs, which makes no sense in light of the rest of the letter! It sounds like, "Oh, please let us have a dinky corner in which to smoke! We'll clean-up after ourselves! Promise!" *sheesh*
Their modification (with the obnoxious title):
Smoke bars still can have cleaner air
Friday May 18, 2007
I hear an awful lot of people whining that other people are whiners. Rather than a smoking ban, why don't we have a whining ban? I also hear people saying that a repeal of the smoking ban for bars and private clubs in Champaign is a step backward. Think about that a second. Repealing an ordinance that is reminiscent of Prohibition would be a step backward.
Let's take a truly enlightened, progressive step forward. Despite the zero tolerance advice of the U.S. surgeon general and the World Health Organization, let's require beefed-up ventilation and air purification for smoking establishments.
Even anti-tobacco experts, such as Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, have denounced the Surgeon General's "no safe level" stance. The EPA report has been debunked by all kinds of hotshots. The WHO has actually run long-term studies showing that environmental tobacco smoke is not a health hazard. Really. Honest.
In fact, a recent article in the medical journal, The Lancet, criticizes the WHO for neglecting evidence when issuing guidelines. So, let's not panic and just do the best we can. We will always have plenty of businesses that choose to be smoke-free for nonsmokers who need that special environment.
In addition to removing the bulk of secondhand smoke, air purification mandates would remove toxic air contaminants such as airborne ethyl alcohol, benzopyrene from cooking, heavy perfumes, et cetera. This is America. If American ingenuity can build a better mousetrap, then surely we can build improved ventilation. Take a step back and think about it.
STEPHANIE STAHL
Champaign
PS I'm dancing on tables and I'm baiting men of the Tiger persuasion on the Chinese Zodiac! LOL! Now, all you have to figure out is which Tiger men I'm baiting, right? But DancingTigerBait just sounds good. Heck, you can call me Dancin'.
Ya know... I don't think it's a bad edit and certainly not a criminal one. Tho God knows, as a writer, I've kicked a lot of cans and growled at the dog over altered commas. Likely it was merely edited for length, or bec. they genuinely misunderstood you, which, in the larger context of the ban, isn't all THAT dumb of them. But, having left the last paragraph untouched, the implication is there that places w/o enhanced ventilation (the nonsmoking joints) will still have that other crap in the air while the better ventilated smoking places won't. Also, they left your likeable tone intact, so I'd say you managed to score one for the team.
:
Thanks, Walt.
I guees you're right. The foolisheness of zero tolerance does come across. I know it was edited that way because the oridinance was partially repealed after I wrote it; so, they wanted to make it more political. But the result is the same--their misunderstanding comes from a conviction that only smokers in bars should have clean air, LOL! It really belies their lack of concern for health and/or clean air. And you're right that they at least left the last paragraph in tact.
And thank you for the "likable tone".
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
