"It's like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. All of the behaviors are listed which are similar in that they are all examples of parents harming their children. But the conclusion is that - magically - only smoking in a car ought to be regulated."
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Only you are guilty of the exact same offense. You say time and again that SHS poses this risk. But I and others have pointed out similar risks. In fact, they are risks that far exceed that posed by SHS.
Yet, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, you conclude time and again that SHS must be banned. You insist that you are consistent. And you say that you would ban things like racing if it rose to a given level of danger. The, when we point out that racing actually far exceeds that level, you pack up your hat and move it to a different stage.
Frustrating, no?
If so, please detail how you can justify a smoking ban in a boxing arena--if the main goal is to protect workers.
How you can ban smoking in luxury boxes overlloking a race track--if the main goal is to protect workers.
How you can justufy a smoking ban in restaurants that have an open fire for grilling steaks.
How you can justify a smoking ban in a bar that has a wonderful view of
a city--but only because a window washer dangled from the edge of a skyscraper to clean the windows.
You continually call hte integrity of TC into question because they want to ban smoking in cars--but not do ther things that would do far more to protect workers.
Well, you do the same thing. Constantly.
I mean it, doctor. The fact that you could walk into heavyweight boxing match and immediately identify the workers most in need protection as the ones standing closest to smokers absolutely boggles my mind.
You are demanding consistency from TC. Practice what you preach. Go on record as advocating a ban on boxing in all states that have enacted smoking bans. And spend real time lobbying for same.
Until then, you are part of the inconsistency brigade you so relentlessly harangue.
Dr. Siegel, you say that you've been trying for some time to initiate a debate with your colleagues in the TC community. Yet what have you been doing to try and get this debate going?
You've made fun of your colleagues with top ten lists, written sarcastic posts regarding their positions, you've over-reacted to their responses claiming you've been personally attacked at the slightest suggestion that they feel you are mistaken.
Your actions speak far louder than your words.
Dr. Siegel, I don't believe that you have any interest in a true debate with your colleagues at all.
If you do, then quit playing monkey games, or explain how you believe that your approach of making fun of people has any hope of opening an honest debate with them.
My son was recently scheduled to fight an unknown opponent in a boxing match in a smoky Illinois bar. The fight fell thru, and I felt relief, and not because my son had been spared an evening of secondhand smoke.
Boxing in that Illinois bar cannot be made safe. But the bartenders there can be protected from almost all risk by affordable ventilation/filtration systems. Most Illinois bar owners and bartenders want that option, but the Illinois legislature has taken it away.
Chicago aldermen voted for their smoking ban 45-1 because it allowed for smoking if a venue could thru ventilation/filtration make the indoor air cleaner that the air outdoors. The Missouri Restaurant Association told me that Chicago businesses were working hard to develop such powerful systems. The plan was to get the Chicago Health Department to then certify these legal smoking environments as safe and use this as a precedent for the rest of the country. That is why the extremists hated the Chicago ventilation exemption and got rid of it thru the Illinois ban.
As a parent of four I am much, much, much, MUCH more concerned about the "soul" pollution my kids are exposed to in todays culture than a little "health" pollution.
sexually saturated and morally corrupt vs SHS Duh!!!
Quilogn Mondack wrote:
"Dr. Siegel, I don't believe that you have any interest in a true debate with your colleagues at all.
If you do, then quit playing monkey games, or explain how you believe that your approach of making fun of people has any hope of opening an honest debate with them."
What, is Dr. Siegel the only person in the entire anti-smoking/anti-tobacco movement/industry on what would be that side of the debate?
What about you? Leave Siegel out of it and you bring it up with them.
If you're not interested in a debate, (IOW you don't want to bring it up) then why get on Siegel's ass about it? Why would you care?
The editorial ends up taking the side of car smoking ban proponents, arguing: "After all, if we can through government regulation increase the chance that children will grow up to become healthy adults, why not do so?"
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how all us baby boomers have managed to "grow up to become healthy adults" given that we were exposed far more than any child today is.
So, how about Doc, Cathy, Bill.....surely one of you, with all your brilliance and smoke-free intelligence can explain why us baby boomers are so healthy that we are a great cause of concern to the government AND corporations?
Michael;
I am sorry if this offends you but you continue to support hatred, in your continued use of the TC terms of abuse and misdirection.
It has been repeated enough times to establish the Lobby position; they believe smoking to be an addiction more potent than just about any addiction we know, yet glaring hypocrisies exist which can never be justified or moralized, in how you would treat people and especially the socioeconomic group most affected by all this vulgarity. in Ottawa they supply crack pipes to users, In Vancouver safe injection sites and clean needles. For the Pot smokers we have a ventilated room where two University of Toronto professors can smoke their pot.
Universally addictions are treated with compassion and support The Betty Ford Clinic is the toast of the town. For the most potent of them all? we offer hate and impunity in a belief smokers can be forced to quit. How totally ignorant is the notion, beyond that the ignorance of those who supported it?
Call it preventative medicine or tough love if it strokes your ego and soothes your conscience but what you lack in humanity and integrity speaks volumes of who you and others in your gang of vigilantes really are.
To encroach now, on parental autonomy with such a meager excuse is embarrassing to me, a community could be provoked into such a low place by your fine social experiments. What makes you or anyone in TC any more acceptable than Mengela or Amin?
You have provoked a hatred and division in society which will likely never be healed, simply because the message of moderation was moving too slowly for your collective groupthink who needed to make the changes according to a set schedule with ambitious time lines which simply had to be met, what ever it takes in support of some very prominent egos who made ambitious boasts for the crowds and for little other reason.
There was a time not so long ago when a smoker visited a non smoker accommodation would allow an ashtray to be provided, it was not an insult or imposition it was just good manners in a society who cared about each other.
Now non-smokers have been conditioned to believe a little smoke is so offensive no smoker should ever be allowed to smoke inside a building again. Why was it necessary? Your paltry numbers defining self serving risk certainly hold little credibility in evaluating time line or biology, despite what you have been preaching the smell of smoke should not provoke the irresponsible trash we hear in the media on a daily basis.
Now we will move into the cars and soon the homes of who exactly? By the numbers the poorest of those among us who society has now found another reason to hate.
There is nothing above disgusting in what you helped to promote and where they will go. The personality types you attracted to a campaign of hate are obvious and well represented in the many blogs and discussions with terms of endearment for those who smoke, replacing any discuission of science. The hate is more than amply demonstrated right here among the chants of Cathy and Bill and Carl who speak mildly compared to those you inspired on the streets.
The voice of government sanctioned hatred is growing and the new campaigns already afoot point at TC as the mark of how to get what you want on a short schedule and as an example of allowable loopholes in the treaties of Helsinki and Nuremberg.
Welcome to the new; fear everything, hate who you like society, where any irresponsible comment is allowed as long as a health authority sanctions it. All things are connected to health so Health scare gets to dominate all the rules.
How many will die at the hands of lobbies with no rules and no ethics left to guide where they might go.
Will we see another Hitler surfacing soon among the hate brigade, we know as Public Health? How long before he surfaces would you predict Michael in such a competitive and widespread feast of chaos?
Do the math.
All this talk of child abuse was replaying through my mind recently, when I watched a DVD of Stanley Kubrick's horror classic _The Shining_.
The film was quite unsettling, depicting, as it did, a child who was subjected to brutal physical harm & endangerment by one of his parents. That's right: HIS MOTHER SMOKED. Yes, his mother (played by Shelley Duvall) smoked cigarettes in her child's presence! I was horrified to see such abuse portrayed onscreen, even in a fictional movie. There is certainly a line that even horror films should not cross. This movie is rated "R" but I think an "NC-17" rating is more appropriate ... or better yet, ban such filth altogether. And I certainly hope the cigarette smoke was a special effect added in later! I shudder to think that a filmmaker of Kubrick's stature would expose a minor to lethal toxins during the filming process.
But again, what bothers me most is the horrible portrayal of parenting by Ms. Duvall. The wanton malice she directs toward her onscreen son.
(To make matters worse, the boy's father, played by Jack Nicholson, is not a model parent either. But at least he doesn't smoke near the boy.)
Question 1:
It will come.
They must start with the car first, but the home will come next.
The anti-smokers know that they must take baby steps.
Question 2:
That also will come, though to a lesser extent.
It's much easier to get a lot of people worked up over smoking than it is over junkfood or rollerblading or too much TV time.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the anti-smokers let their kids do many of these other unhealthy things.
These air purification systems allow the safe indoor welding of galvanized steel, though without ventilation and filtration such fumes and smoke can render a welder unconscious in 15 minutes and dead in an hour. Yet these same systems are inadequate to protect bartenders from ETS in a bar? James Repace, Stanton Glantz, former Surgeon General Carmona, and Dr. Michael Siegel, what am I missing?
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/a...com/
ambient.php
Movie review by Anon:
"The film was quite unsettling, depicting, as it did, a child who was subjected to brutal physical harm & endangerment by one of his parents. That's right: HIS MOTHER SMOKED. Yes, his mother (played by Shelley Duvall) smoked cigarettes in her child's presence! I was horrified to see such abuse portrayed onscreen, even in a fictional movie. There is certainly a line that even horror films should not cross. This movie is rated "R" but I think an "NC-17" rating is more appropriate ... or better yet, ban such filth altogether. And I certainly hope the cigarette smoke was a special effect added in later! I shudder to think that a filmmaker of Kubrick's stature would expose a minor to lethal toxins during the filming process."
Doctor, this about says it all in what environment TC has created. Can any real 'debate' you call for take place with this attitude?
Thanks for your part in this.
.
Your debate Dr Siegel,should have occurred between 1975 and your studies in the early to mid nineties.It was never an option whilst the anti movement worked on the premise that smokers MUST be affecting the lives of the antis and thus the rest of the population.You helped the movement bypass the need for discussion and debate .You know TC has been utilizing the Nazi Blitzkrieg modus operandi for years.And you now want them to relinquish control in order to discuss things ? There's more chance of you explaining the magical 220,and there's precious little chance of that occurring.
> smoking in cars is not the only thing parents do that can be construed as harmful to their children
Parents can do much more harm surely. But secondhand smoke for their children is enough to kill them.
Quit Smoking Pro Blog
Yes, his mother ... smoked cigarettes in her child's presence! I was horrified to see such abuse portrayed onscreen, even in a fictional movie. There is certainly a line that even horror films should not cross.
A horror movie, and the only noteable horror was some smoke from dried leaves?
That's the kind of perception created by the TC hate campaigns.
Parents can do much more harm surely. But secondhand smoke for their children is enough to kill them.
Have I missed something? Am I dead? Is my brother dead, my wife, my daughter?
Quote from your blog: "Change the way you look at things, and the things you look at change."
Have you tried that on yourself? You definitely should ...
Quit Smoking Pro...."Parents can do much more harm surely. But secondhand smoke for their children is enough to kill them"
Yes, parents can allow their children to be used as political pons in this social engineering experiment.
Then they will be mere zombies, a fate worse than death.
.
benpal asks..."Have I missed something? Am I dead? Is my brother dead, my wife, my daughter?"
Yes, I guess we are communicating from the great beyond!!! Even poor BillG---the involutary smoker, he must be dead too.
.
From the final statement in the last posted article from the doctor:
The Science Doesn't Matter:...
"It is the playbook of a crusade, not of a science-based public health movement."
You really think is is possible to debate with a crusade?
I think it's a bit late for that.
.
Allow me to reiterate. The doctor writes:
"If it is true that the government is justified in interfering with parental autonomy in order to merely protect children from an increased risk of adverse health outcomes, then why should we not also prohibit a host of other parental behaviors that cause significant harm to children's health, such as feeding them food with trans-fats... or sitting all day at the computer and television screen?"
Well then why can't we also say:
"If it is true that the government is justified in interfering with employer autonomy in order to merely protect workers from an increased risk of adverse health outcomes, then why should we not also prohibit a host of other employer behaviors that cause significant harm to worker health, such as forcing them to drive 200 mph around a track, forcing them to dangle from skyscrapers to provide crystal clear views, forcing them to cut down trees by hand, staging athletic evens requiring them to pummel each other about the head and neck, and allowing them to engage in health-risky behaviors such sitting all day at radiation-emitting computer screens?"
None of the activities mentioned are "inherent" to the businesses involved. You could clearly ban head contact in boxing without banning the sport. We know that, because they already ban groin contact. And it's still boxing. As for racing, you can still race without racing on an oval. And you can still race at 35 mph. As for the computer screens, remember the 70s? The New York Times got written on typewriters. And it could be again. If only the owners weren't so greedy. As for those views, there are millions of restaurants that survive without them, proving that a view is not inherent to the act of running a restaurant.
So... consistency dictates...
?
I sometimes have to wonder, have many of those that would support smoking bans in homes and cars actually have children. I have an eight year old currently in cub scouts. If given a list of things that can increase a health risk factors for children, I am curious, how most would order the following behaviors that increase risk factors for health or injury of a child.
1. At my son’s first camping trip he learned how to make a fire. I competition was held between difference den’s in his pack for building a fire high enough to burn through a robe.
2. The cub scouts most in 2 through 5 grades learned how to use a knife and widle sticks.
3. The scouts learned to cooks meals over an open fire.
4. Large barn type fires were built where the scouts and leaders sat around telling stories into the early hours of the morning.
5. At another event, kids’ road box cars down a hill, there were several minor injuries. Kids were wearing helmets and seat belts.
6. It is not unusual after cub scout events for parents to take there kids to Mc Donald’s
7. It is not unusual during packs events for scouts to be offered soda, cookies, potato chips etc.
8. Having a pack meeting or sending a child to school. I believe any parent realizes the likelihood of a kid getting sick increases many fold when their children go to school or are exposed to large groups of other children. This includes potentially deadly diseases like the flu.
9. Allowing a child outside without sun screen.
10. Allowing a child outside at dusk or dawn without mosquito spray. (West Nile virus, etc.)
11. Allowing a child to play video games (epileptic seizures).
12. Leaving a young child unattended at home for short duration while attending to an errand.
13. Letting a young grade school child play outside unattended.
14. Taking a child to a restaurant where smoking is allowed.
15. Smoking in a car with the windows open.
16. Failure to use a child safety seat or letting a young child drives in the front seat of a car.
17. Using a cell phone while driving.
18. Driving with a child at night or in poor weather (snow, rain, etc.).
19. Allowing a grade school child to watch an R rated movie.
20. Allowing a child to watch a TV show or movie where the smoking characters are presented as cool.
Almost all the above behaviors involve increase risk factors for health or injury. The list is not in any particular order. Where would smoking in a car with a child fall, given that I have hardly ever seen anyone smoke in a car without windows open even without a child present. From the above list, I would place a child attending school or events with a large number of kids to be near the top. I would be interested to hear where others would place the risk of SHS. I would think it would be close to the playing outside without mosquito spray. Only when the risk factors are placed in context with other things, will the public truly understand what the risks of SHS are. I am interested in Dr. Siegel's views on this topic.
Quiting Smoking Pro. "Parents can do much more harm surely. But secondhand smoke for their children is enough to kill them."
I would like to see you back that statement up. As far as I know, SHS smoke increases the risk factors for things like ear infections and can even have a protective effect for other things. If you are going to say SHS itself kills and has kill children back it up with science not emotional statements that are meaningless.
Sam M, The NASCAR racing family lost a driver to a fatal accident on the track at Thompson, CT on August 16th.
http://www.modseriesscene.com/pr...t_from=&ucat=1&
Out of 37 drivers that raced that day - one died.
James, I don't agree with Dr. Siegel. I don't believe that smoking in cars with kids is justifiable. I agree that a 30 second exposure has cardiovascular effects. I don't have any interst in debating whether those 30 seconds can cause atherosclerosis because no one I know has just a single lifetime exposure of 30 seconds - it is a moot point. We are all exposed for hours and hours and based on the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that 30 seconds is all that is needed to get that process started.
So my challenge to Dr. Siegel remains. Stop playing games, or explain how you believe that making fun of your colleagues is the best way to open an honest debate on the issue. Because I don't believe you have any interest in an honest debate at all.
Quilogn,
Well, you have to take into account that TC has not always been exactly straight with Dr. Siegel, either. And not just in terms of being impolite. I mean in terms of assaulting his professional reputation.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/...show/
27666.html
Seems to me he was being a real team player. Until his team hung him out to dry like they did.
He hasn't gone completely over. At least not yet. But his occasional jibes are hardly the most egregious actions taken in this little rhetorical war.
Quilogn Mondack--"We are all exposed for hours and hours and based on the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that 30 seconds is all that is needed to get that process started."
And being born is all it takes to start the process of dying.
.
Hmmm ... I posted the _Shining_ post (forgot to sign my name), and am wondering how the fact that it was satirical failed to come across. One would think, at least, that the last paragraph (about Jack Nicholson's character not exactly being a model parent) would have let the cat out of the bag? Anyway, Sunz, Benpal---I'm on your side.
I guess the anti-smoking movement has really become impossible to satire.
Melle,
Actually my first thought was, is this a joke? Thanks for the clarification. Your post is the tone and tenor of the anti smoking movement to a T.
It appears we have someone else posting with my name above, I didn't think you could do that, the post at 2:05am was not from me.
Comparing the ways a child may be harmed only legitimizes the idea others have a right to meddle in a parents right to decide what is good for their own children.
A point others have no say in deciding. It does not take a village to raise a child It only takes responsible parenting and reflective choices based in common sense.
A car has an ideal ventilation system which is employed immediately whenever anyone in the vehicle [children included] complain about the smoke, opening a window half an inch works wonders, its even better than hurricane force winds. So who is having smoke forced down their throats?
A child will be the least likely to not complain if they are uncomfortable and the huge risk being discussed is after all only a possibility of an ear infection. A risk found only in theory as well. A risk expressed in a way of negating the thought much higher risks which could produce the same effect [and many other harms as well] is found to be unavoidable out of the tailpipes of the many cars you will sit at stoplights with.
If banning smoking in cars is a path which could never mitigate the higher unavoidable risks what is the point. We see clearly now of course a secondary agenda is the more relevant point that being the punishment of anyone who smokes in any way possible to force compliance with other goals?
If a real harm exists it is a responsibility of Government to first legitimize the harm exists and second to inform parents in accordance with community values what steps could be taken. Not the invented social engineered values, but tried and true common sense grown in communities over generations who developed without the interference of governments new lobby tactics.
If it is a perceived harm based in Ideology alone, such as the fictitious harm of casual exposures to tobacco smoke, a lot more than theoretic ad agency spin is required. This is a huge step to take one which can not be reversed later.
Think about the idea of making spanking illegal and how insolence was borne in children who now talk back to their parents saying you cant control me because I now have the ability to report you for abuse any time I choose.
A lot more thought was neglected then and a lot more thought is needed here as well.
What needs to be decided first is if a risk is real or imagined and second if a law enforced with guns should be the proper route to follow.
On both Counts self important paid zealots are creating a belief they have a right to make those decisions for us through media campaigns.
They have no such right.
Quilogn stated;
"We are all exposed for hours and hours and based on the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that 30 seconds is all that is needed to get that process started."
All that is needed to get the process started is the first breath you take when you come into this world.
Endothelial Dysfunction will happen many many times through your lifetime regardless of exposure to tobacco smoke. loud noise is the most common cause, can you avoid that? and by comparison how many times are you exposed? add in as a reaction to insulin, eating a meal and not even a bad meal as they put it high in colestoral and fat. Even the adjustments to temperature as you move from indoors to outdoors and later come back inside. The warning from your grand mother "don't go swimming for an hour after lunch" is based in the same bodily function.
Research shows heart attacks occur more often in a situation when strenuous activity occurs soon after eating, which an hour later would not be likely to have similar effects. The balance of NO in your body has to be maintained when it is temporarily depleted [which can occur for many reasons] it just takes time to build it back up.
"Dysfunction" is a scary word to most which replaces a more accurate word which could also be used "interruption" which indicates the situation is only temporary and is self correcting.
The Irresponsible use of endothelial dysfunction for lobby purposes in invented fears is what should be the topic for discussion, not the fear generated from what amounts to medical fraud.
Yes, his mother ... smoked cigarettes in her child's presence! I was horrified to see such abuse portrayed onscreen, even in a fictional movie. There is certainly a line that even horror films should not cross.
Was that written in seriousness?
That is so laughable that I'm open to believe that is a smoker having fun with with antis.
I once wrote a homoerotic poem about soldiers for a conservative website (it is still up) that is a joke between me, a bunch of friends, and internet buddies.
Maybe that was along the same lines.
More on the same point if we consider a swede sitting in a sauna and running across the ice to jump into a frozen lake. Ask the experts if they would expect endothelial dysfunction would occur in that individual. We see the effects, we believe Swedes to be healthy and live longer than the rest of us on average.
If an open mind was utilized here, we could see exposure to ETS as a workout for the endothelial function which if not exercised would grow weak and more susceptible to failure in an ability to perform normal functions. This could be sustained in the proof seen in the research; proper diet and being fit mitigates the effects of ETS as a risk factor proportionately.
ETS in evaluation of children who lived with smoking parents has been found in studies to have a positive effect. Perhaps writing that finding off should be re-examined perhaps a good workout from time to time for the endothelial function is much healthier than living in a sterile dome.
I might also add, again, that the doctor seems eager to talk about the actual amount of time kids spend in cars. And that the limited amount of time they spend there significantly reduces their risk from that exposure, especially compard to other risks.
But for some reason, he was never all that eager to explore the actual number of hours real bartenders spend in smokey environments over the course of their careers. In fact, he over estimated it by several orders of magnitude when calculating the risk--which he then conveyed to a legislative body pondering a ban.
Seems that when the doctor supports a proposal, it's legitimate to take a risk and present it in its scariest light, regardless of reality. Even if you have to exaggerate that risk to make is scary enough. Even when NOT exaggerating it and presenting more accurate death estimates would take a matter of minutes. But when he does not support a proposal, there is a different standard. Anyone who takes the leap from "affects the heart" to "damages the heart" without taking real-world exposures into account is a ridiculous fraud.
Convenient. But not consistent.
I think Dan makes a great point in articulating a large number of the health risks to which parents expose their children. Many of these are more important risks in terms of childhood morbidity and health risk than smoking in cars. But would we ban all of these other risks? Why just smoking in cars? This illustrates the precise point I'm trying to raise here.
Particularly noteworthy on Dan's list are:
14. Taking a child to a restaurant where smoking is allowed.
According to the same reasoning that would make smoking around children in a car unlawful, should it not also be unlawful to force children to breathe high levels of secondhand smoke in other settings, such as in a restaurant where smoking is allowed? What is the justification for excluding this behavior from the list of banned activities that cause damage to kids?
17. Using a cell phone while driving.
Does it really protect the health and welfare of children to prohibit a parent from smoking in the car, yet to allow them to use a cell phone while driving and put the child's LIFE, not just their health, at risk?
Thanks, Dan, for taking the time to articulate all of these risks.
"should it not also be unlawful to force children to breathe high levels of secondhand smoke in other settings"
Michael;
What would be your measure of high levels of ETS? from the quote above, and what justifies even that level as harmful? in casual exposures in my definition of casual exposures 2-3 hours of total exposure once or twice a week.
Kevin,
I'm being facetious. I'm not arguing that we should actually ban parents exposing their kids to secondhand smoke in any setting. I'm using the proponents' own reasoning - they are the ones who view smoking in a car as being intolerable as a society - and I'm asking them why is it not also intolerable to expose kids to secondhand smoke in other settings, such as the home or a restaurant.
Everyone-
Please smoke. If you already smoke, please continue to do so. If you don't smoke, please start smoking.
Thanks!
Sorry about the above-
From Cathy's comments, I just realized that I am a smoking promoter and figured that I ought to start doing my job.
Thanks Michael; A good chuckle gets the day off right.
Poor Cathy, she will never get the punchline.
Cheers
Sam-
I'm not so sure that we SHOULDN'T get rid of boxing and race car driving, or at least seriously regulate these sports so that the risk of injury is much lower. After the death at the CT race track last weekend, it becomes very difficult to justify allowing the sport to continue as it is.
So I don't think I WOULD argue that we should ban smoking at race tracks, but allow the drivers to be at such high risk of killing themselves. It's not clear to me that we have to ban car racing and boxing completely, but I think there are probably some feasible things that could be done to substantially lower the risks. I'd support such measures.
Carl-
I agree with you that few people are going to be exposed only once to secondhand smoke. But if that's the case, then why not simply change these statements to say that REPEATED EXPOSURE to secondhand smoke can cause atherosclerosis?
In other words, why NOT make these statements accurate, as opposed to inaccurate.
I follow your reasoning as far as people being exposed repeatedly to secondhand smoke, but I don't follow your reasoning as to why we should make a false statement, rather than a true one.
Moreover, I don't see what the harm would be in making a true statement in lieu of the false one.
If the emotional impact of the statement depends on its being false, then is it not the case that these groups are deliberately misleading the public in order to create a greater emotional appeal?
Doc,
On a previous thread I asked you if you think the antis are trying to legislate smoking out of existance.
Not by making smoking illegal, per say, but by eliminating all the places where one can smoke?
thoughts?
and why did the newspaper list a whole bunch of health risks one could compare to smoking in cars with kids, and then for unknown reasons only support eliminating smoking in cars?
Simple, it is not pollitically correct due to lack of groups opposing kids getting too much computer time, eating too amny trans fats, or getting to little exercise, but there are groups opposing smoking. and these groups furnish ready made up press kits that the newspaper writers can use, to increase their productivity and that's important when newspapers are becoming less profitable and cutting staff to stay in business.
banning smoking in cars with kids is pollitically correct, Tobacco cos do not advertise, but groups like honeywell, 3M, and a whole host of businesses which contribute money to clean air campaigns, or are philisophically in agreement with clean air measures, are allowed to advertise. J&j, pfizer, galaxo, the americn lung assoc, the acs, etc are all potential revenue sources for the SUN.
so is McDonalds, the video game manufacturers, etc.
It's all about who the opinion offends. My wife has a degree in journalism, and writes fro magazines, and she tell me this is the reason the print media will attack smoking yet adopt a hands-off policy regarding other behaviors.
Dave K
"I agree with you that few people are going to be exposed only once to secondhand smoke. But if that's the case, then why not simply change these statements to say that REPEATED EXPOSURE to secondhand smoke can cause atherosclerosis?"
Michael could the statement be improved by adding the words may or might cause?
Dr. Siegel--
Have there been any reports on what tickets, if any, have been written in the cities and US states that ban smoking in minor-carrying cars? I thought I read a year or so ago that in Arkansas, one state with such a law, that only 6 parents had been ticketed since the law went into effect.
I just don't see how police will be able to enforce such a law-- or want to.
Carl???? What Carl are you responding to Doctor?
Do we have another switched idenity here? I thought it was the evil smokers who hide behind anon screen names? Or was that a slip-up on your part?
.
M;
There was a discussion in a news article comments section a while back which brought forward another significant complaint; the majority of those charged will be women.
This would be my guess
Quilogn Mondack==Carl. (the former weekend blogger)
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
.
OT of interest to US voters:
Question: When did it become a part of a candidates responsibility to legislate on THEIR health histories?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070..._cancer_forum_3
"Huckabee, for his part, argued that the United States can afford to fight the wars in Iraq and on terrorism, as well as a war on cancer and all chronic diseases. "It's not a matter of picking and choosing which wars to fight," he said.
He also said that if he were president, he would sign a bill to outlaw smoking nationwide in public places, and said he would go further to say "no smoking in any indoor area where people have to work."
.
Michael'
If we are to believe children raised in sterile environments will be healthier and live longer than those who's immune systems are constantly challenged, isn't it time we start to re-evaluate the inverse association to increasing risks associated with live virus inoculations for children as their environments are moving toward the sterile standard?
Child abuse begins at home for the Health scare lobby groups.
Sounds kind of like the big pharma world at RWJF is cutting off their nose to spite their financial face.
Kevin if we consider a swede sitting in a sauna
Shouldn't we legally restrict the temperature in saunas or - since then they are not saunas anymore - ban them completely? Or think of the temperature difference between an air conditioned car and the outside temperature in a hot summer ... this could easily kill a faint-hearted within 30 seconds.
"So I don't think I WOULD argue that we should ban smoking at race tracks, but allow the drivers to be at such high risk of killing themselves. It's not clear to me that we have to ban car racing and boxing completely, but I think there are probably some feasible things that could be done to substantially lower the risks. I'd support such measures."
Interesting. So you are open to simply lowering risks as much as possible and letting these entertainment venues operate... even if we can't make them "risk free."
Even more interesting is that you have repeatedly stated that the risk bartenders and others face is linked directly to how much smoke they are exposed to, how often and for how long. That is, the RR is reduced as the level of SHS decreases, as the number of exposures decrease and as the length of exposures decreases. As does the death toll.
Hmmmm. If only we could come up with a way to make sure that bartenders do not work 40 hours a week for 40 years. To the extent that we could reduce either of those 40s, the risk they face would fall. Decreasing the associated RR.
But wait! Guess what! Neither of those 40s actually applies in the real world! In fact, both numbers are SUBSTANTIALLY lower than 40 in the vast majority of bartending careers. The BLS says so.
So clearly, when calculating the RR--and the death toll associated with working in a smokey bar--an honest assessment would obviously take that into account. Right? Especially since it is so easy to do. And I mean, who would not strive to provide the most accurate numbers when communicating a workplace risk?
Unless, of course, you are going to insist that the risk workers face actually decreases to zero. In which case no level of regulation could save SHS. Or NASCAR.
If you ARE going to allow SOME risk, and if you ARE going to be consistent, you would caclulate the acceptable risk and apply it evenly across all industries.
And clearly, as it stands, a workplace that kills one out of 37 workers on a given day (NASCAR) has a long, long way to go. Much farther than SHS, I presume. Unless you are prepared to show me a bar that amasses that kind of death toll due. I have my bodies to make my case. Real numbers that make real ratios. Where are yours?
And perhaps when you do name a risk level you are not willing to accept, you ought to actually stick to it when observers point out that the industry in question already far exceeds that risk factor. By which I mean, if you say you would ban NASCAR if 10 people had died over the course of you lifetime, then change your mind as soon as you see the real numbers, that doesn't do a lot to support your claims to consistency.
The fact of the matter is, NASCAR and boxing and smokey bars all put workers at some risk. That risk can be reduced. With rules banning oval racing. With rules requiring head gear. With rules requiring an open window or some ventilation. No. These fields will never be risk free. As evidenced in racing when someone dies on a track that's not an oval. And when someone dies in a boxing ring despite wearing head gear. And when someone working in a bar has a heart attack. Would more stirnget rules havce saved them? Maybe. But that;s a slippery slope to an outright ban.
Or in your case, not a slippery slope. Your professional career shows you to be quite unconcerned about boxers and drivers. But almost maniacally infatuated with bartenders. Who you would protect with a ban. No matter what.
All while the boxers and rivers keep dying.
Michael;
I would love to see the results of a study of smokers asking if they find the cold bothers them more or less than others around them.
I work outdoors most of the time and as a child my mother would place her babies outdoors on really cold days. An act which would mortify a lot of people especially those who are so quick to scream child abuse. The effects have always allowed me to really enjoy that first really frosty day of autumn I find it invigorating while many of those around me are complaining.
The common discussion among smokers I have experienced is smoking actually helps retain heat in the body and makes you feel warmer in the winter and quickens the recovery from frost bitten fingers.
This may have a physical link to endothelial effects which thicken the blood and restrict blood flow to the extremities to keep blood in the body warmer for longer periods of time.
The inverse effect is the widening of arteries and thinning of the blood to cool the body on the hot days allowing the heat to escape and moderating temperature, which is a gradual process in slowed production of NO which may be a necessary function in its rate of production to avoid shock when drastic temperature changes are encountered.
Can you offer your views?
I think that, whatever is decided, there's still a blue eyes/brown eyes effect either way.
In other words, it's established(once we discuss autonomy) that NOT ONLY that smokers aren't as good parents as nonsmokers(few explicitly said otherwise) but that IT IS A SIGN OF ADVANCEMENT to find more reasons/evidence/legislation 1) that smokers are bad parents and 2) to make them less bad parents.
So I think there is a cost to this sort of legislation or even discussing it at length. It needs to be done. That is part of the exchange of ideas. But we have to evaluate these sorts of poisonous ideas because Tobacco Control put them on the table.
I know I am also throwing this out, but maybe there is a whiplash effect of a parent saying "well I may do X but at least I don't smoke."
One other thing:
Quilogn Mondack--"We are all exposed for hours and hours and based on the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that 30 seconds is all that is needed to get that process started."
Hours and hours IN A ROW? Even with smoking bans in place?
Or do you mean over the course of a lifetime? If so, it's misleading to say what you said and let people assume the most emotional part of the argument. You could just as well say that everyone eats a lethal amount of cyanide(or drinks it in tap water) in his lifetime--leaving out the "just not all at once."
But hey, at least it'd encourage exercise by giving people more reason to run around in circles screaming!
Sam
You might wish to add; At most racing events and boxing matches it is mandatory to have emergency medical teams at the ready, as with Hockey games and many other events involving the real possibility of immediate injury to the participants.
Ever seen an ambulance sitting outside your local bar waiting for the employees to drop?
The long term risk is no where near the urgency of immediate risk. Practicality in Health reliant statements should reflect that reality, when imposing protections or when acceptable risk are discussed.
It seems much more expedient and cost efficient than; waiting 20 years for theorized effects to occur, to simply educate the bar tenders who can weigh their own risks appropriately and be compensated appropriately for the choices they alone will make.
"It's not clear to me that we have to ban car racing and boxing completely, but I think there are probably some feasible things that could be done to substantially lower the risks. I'd support such measures"
I doubt you could reduce risk(actually I doubt you could reduce actual HARM) to zero. So, to be consistent with bar smoke bans I suggest you would have to ban these activities. Ban = zero.
But then you did also say:
"I'm not so sure that we SHOULDN'T get rid of boxing and race car driving"
Sam -- could you please alert the NASCAR and boxing folks that they're next in line?
Or (here's an idea!) maybe in bars there are "some feasible things that could be done to substantially lower the risks"...
Hmmm...
Just to elaborate on my previous post. I personally receive much higher compensation for doing identical work as others who do not work outdoors or at elevations.
The price employers are willing to pay offsets the equipment and safety gear but more predominantly I am paid more because I accept risks others will not.
Bartenders could be vastly underpaid because the message of risk is being confused with unnecessary urgency or as Michael claims as a non essential element to the trade.
As Sam pointed out racing at 35 MPH is possible, however the patrons demand more. The compensation of athletes and sports careers are compensated proportionately to the risks and longevity of average careers limited by the resources found within themselves which is dependent of their own physical longevity as a product for sale.
What's even worse about boxing and NASCAR is that they are similar to SHS in the way that provide no real "benefit to society."
That is, we can see why society might allow cops to take risks. Firefighters. High iron workers who build hospitals.
But SHS? That's just a barbaric by-product of a selfish minority. People who claim they have a "right to smoke" just so they can get their jollies and their nicotine rush, bartenders be damned.
But the same can be said for blood sports like NASCAR and boxing. We are going to allow Jeff Gordon to put his life at risk, just ebcause some redneck wants to see him defy death? Or not defy it? We are going to allow Boom Boom Mancini to kill a man in the ring, just because a few people like the rush of watching it happen.
Look. No one is talking about "banning" spectator sports. People can punch each other at home. Or by a field and wreck their own car into something.
All I am saying is, yo shouldn't be allowed to force a worker to do those things. And they aren't "inherent" to spectator events. The Antiques Road Show draws thousands and thousands of people. So do symphonies and events like Promise Keepers. So clearly you can stage large scale events that draw huge crowds without endangering people. Just like you can operate a restaurant without smoke. So, just like SHS bans aren't banning smoking, workplace punching bans aren't banning boxing.
No. Not all boxers die. Neither do all NASCAR drivers. But some do. In fact, a much, much higher percentage of them die compared to bartenders. Even given the most grim statistics regarding SHS. Even if you cook the books by assuming 40/40. (Apply that 40/40 standard to NASCAR drivers--it would be no more erroneous--and the death rate might be close to 100 percent.)
But that would require a consistent application of standards.
Doctor,
To what extent would a ventilation system that removed half the SHS "substantially lower the risks"?
To what extent would reducing the number of hours bartenders work every week reduce the risk?
To what extent would reducing the number of years a bartender works reduce the risk?
You say, "impossible" on those last two? I would reply that the market has already done it for us. As proved by the BLS. But let's say you want to be sure. And you continue to say it's impossible to regulate shifts and hours worked. Ummm... I have some pilots and long haul truckers for you to talk to.
To be honest, I would be against that kind of regulation. But I would prefer it to an outright ban. I would therefore be willing to at least consider it as a compromise.
That fact that you are not--despite the fact that you say time and again that you would be willing to "reduce" rather than "eliminate" risk in so many other industries, seems to prove that you apply a different standard to SHS. That is, you are inconsistent.
Quilogn Mondack: We are all exposed for hours and hours
The only way anyone is exposed for hours and hours is by CHOICE. IF you consistently choose to patronize or work in a smoking allowed venue then it is YOUR choice to do so. AND I might add, you have had that choice to make for at least the last 20 years now.
If you don’t like smoke, don’t go where smoking is allowed. I can’t stand drunks and nothing would make me happier than an outright prohibition against all alcohol and beer. However, I don’t have the right to force the world to live according to MY preferences, so I simply don’t go to bars and clubs where I know I will be surrounded by people drinking to excess.
Apparently, you haven’t the intelligence to make such a choice for yourself.
and based on the evidence it is reasonable to conclude that 30 seconds is all that is needed to get that process started.
OH? Then kindly explain how so many survived so long with NO ill effects? I really hate to break it to you, BUT, being born is what really starts the process of dying. Perhaps we should ban births?
Kevin: It appears we have someone else posting with my name above, I didn't think you could do that, the post at 2:05am was not from me.
I posted originally as Lynda, then noticed another Lynda (same spelling) so I started using my last name initial as well, and then noticed the other Lynda using her full last name also. Unfortunately, most of our real names are quite common and we have to add something to identify ourselves individually. Such is life sometimes…..hehehe
The common discussion among smokers I have experienced is smoking actually helps retain heat in the body and makes you feel warmer in the winter
I can’t make that claim. I have very little tolerance to cold (and I’m a winter baby from the Northeast whose mother always walked her babies out regardless of the temperature). To this day, after 39 years of smoking, I still have little tolerance to cold. It’s why I moved to Phoenix. As hot as the summers are, the warmer winter temps are easier for me to handle (even though I find them still too cold hehehe).
Dr. Siegel: I think Dan makes a great point in articulating a large number of the health risks to which parents expose their children. Many of these are more important risks in terms of childhood morbidity and health risk than smoking in cars. But would we ban all of these other risks? Why just smoking in cars?
They had to start somewhere and the easiest somewhere was to go after an activity that only a majority of the population enjoys. The smoking issue is just the groundwork paving the way for more and more intrusions into our daily lives until we are nothing more than “owned chattel”. And trust me, unless we stop this epidemic, and it truly is an epidemic” we will be returning to a time when a few of the richest elite control everything and everyone. Why we are just sitting back and allowing this is beyond me. And yes, until recently I too have been rather apathetic to the world around me. It’s not too late to take up arms and fight back and regain the “liberty and freedom” that is this country’s basic foundation.
It's not clear to me that we have to ban car racing and boxing completely, but I think there are probably some feasible things that could be done to substantially lower the risks. I'd support such measures.
May I ask what makes you think you have a right to dictate what risks others choose to take for themselves in their lives? Seriously. I actually think boxing and racecar driving are totally useless……….along with quite a few other activities………BUT I would never presume I had a right to tell others HOW to do what they enjoy doing.
Stick to infectious diseases Doc and leave the rest of the world alone to make their own lifestyle choices.
Of all the nerve.
As a reminder:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how all us baby boomers have managed to "grow up to become healthy adults" given that we were exposed far more than any child today is.
So, how about Doc, Cathy, Bill..any TC persona...surely one of you, with all your brilliance and smoke-free intelligence can explain why us baby boomers are so healthy that we are a great cause of concern to the government AND corporations?
Athletes pursue their careers because they are allowed the choice to do so. Why are bartenders not allowed the same choices, considering the compensation which could be a larger factor in making that choice.
A bar tenders career is thought to be 45 years and a pilot only 30. If the effects of harms were demonstrated consistently a bartender could shorten his time behind the bar his compensation would then be increased in offset by supply and demand which would increase his compensation for accepting a measure of risk.
Telling smokers if you quit soon enough you mitigate the effects of smoking is hardly supported in telling the world bartenders suffer permanent effects in drastically lower dosages seen in only 30 minutes of exposures.
Granted patrons should be aware of the true effects as well, and judge their personal decisions based on a warning sign on the door balanced against the entertainment value, The company and any comforts offered within.
The claims smokers are being selfish is self serving, they are merely seeking comfortable surroundings consistent with the product the hospitality industry provides, which in reality is not out of the question. Just as always simply a matter of choice.
Lynda F,
Keep waiting.... Just like they can't name one person who ever died of SHS exposure. Just like the 53,000, name one. Just like the 220, name one.
Someday these folks will be exposed for lying to the American people. There credibility will be less than Big Tobacco. I don't think personal integrity means anything to these people.
The agenda, the agenda, only the agenda.
Michael -- I think Sam deserves a reply to:
"That fact that you are not--despite the fact that you say time and again that you would be willing to "reduce" rather than "eliminate" risk in so many other industries, seems to prove that you apply a different standard to SHS. That is, you are inconsistent."
Is he correct?
Lynda;
"can’t make that claim. I have very little tolerance to cold "
We always knew you were a special person [I meant that in a nice way] I wonder though do you represent the norm?
In identical circumstances did you notice when you arrived in Phoenix you suffered more from the heat than residents who did not smoke. Now that your used to it, does the heat bother you as much compared to the same non smokers?"
As for the cold did others around you seem to suffer more frostbitten fingers and dig out the coats sooner?
This would be a different definition than someone Luxuriating in a love for the heat. More of a tolerance factor in an ability to withstand more extremes for longer periods and an ability to change environments quickly with the least discomfort.
Extreme heat I find uncomfortable as opposed to the cold as a working environment however I definitely sweat a lot less than others as well.
rrgabe23: Keep waiting.... Just like they can't name one person who ever died of SHS exposure. Just like the 53,000, name one. Just like the 220, name one.
Which is the reason why I think we need to continually ask these very questions, UNTIL they are answered or until those making these outrageous statements show their true colors.
Either way, they have egg on their face.
Kevin;
We always knew you were a special person [I meant that in a nice way] I wonder though do you represent the norm?
Awww aren’t you sweet……hehehehehe You see my mother knew I was special/different as evidenced with the different spelling of my name………..LOL
Actually I may NOT represent the norm. What I have observed, and I have a couple of doctors who would confirm this (I drive them nuts), is that my body does seem to react opposite of most. My pregnancy was the first time it was very apparent……..my OB wanted to bottle and sell whatever it was……..LOL
In identical circumstances did you notice when you arrived in Phoenix you suffered more from the heat than residents who did not smoke. Now that your used to it, does the heat bother you as much compared to the same non smokers?"
I honestly don’t know. I’ve not really paid attention to it. I do have a few non-smoker friends here, and they’ve lived here over 20 years and all they do is bitch about the heat……….hehehehehe I find the temp extreme in the Monsoon. Humidity is the biggest problem for me, and during Monsoon (approx 10 weeks in summer) our humidity is high, though still lower than back in NYC…….I feel the heat/humidity really bad. But would still prefer the heat over the cold anyday. I have to admit though, those around me who only have to go from A/C building/home to car seem to be the ones crying the loudest about the heat (and yes, they are non-smokers that I know doing this).
As for the cold did others around you seem to suffer more frostbitten fingers and dig out the coats sooner?
Don’t know about the frostbitten fingers, but I’m the one pulling the coat out early. I haven’t noticed that smokers or non-smokers are prevalent here. I’m a smoker and can’t handle the cold, my non-smoking family and friends seem to, but so do my smoking friends. I think it’s just me actually………LOL
Extreme heat I find uncomfortable as opposed to the cold as a working environment however I definitely sweat a lot less than others as well.
Extreme heat can be quite uncomfortable, especially if in direct sunlight (the sun is bitingly hot year round). I developed a disgusting and very unladylike habit of extreme sweating with any exertion, regardless of temperature in my mid 40’s. Makes me nuts when I sweat.
Bill Hannegan wrote:
"These air purification systems allow the safe indoor welding of galvanized steel...
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/a...com/ ambient.php "
I followed that link and noticed they had a link for tobacco smoke. Here's something on one of their systems:
"-Abbreviated Specifications-
for the SmokeMaster C-12 Smokemaster
(download PDF at bottom for full specifications)
Dimensions: 25" x 25" x 11.5" x 64 lbs
Air Flow: Up to 1250 CFM
Power Input: 120 Vac, 60 Hz, 3.3 Amps
Filters: Two electronic cells
Efficiency: 97% efficiency down to .01 micron
Accessories: Remote variable speed control."
The best Repace ever claimed with smoking bans was 95% reduction. This unit is 97% and down to an amazing .01 microns. Smoking bans may in fact be detrimental to people.
James;
Now that the controls are turned down post bans, one has to wonder about the significant PAH levels >.1 microns originating outdoors and internally from other sources which are no longer being removed from the indoor air simply because you can no longer smell them.
No one believes the other indoor smells are a potentially more significant health hazard despite the folly in that belief.
Doc said - "So I don't think I WOULD argue that we should ban smoking at race tracks, but allow the drivers to be at such high risk of killing themselves. It's not clear to me that we have to ban car racing and boxing completely, but I think there are probably some feasible things that could be done to substantially lower the risks. I'd support such measures."
Doctor, PUHLeeeeze.
"I'd support such measures."
WHAT!!,..Why on earth would you care?
And please spare me the faux altruistic concern for your fellow man speech. We've heard it ad nauseam.
What is this propensity you and your TC "colleagues" have for dictating acceptable risks to everyone on the planet?
What makes YOUR opinion about me and the risks I wish to assume any more credible than MY opinion about ME and the risks I'm willing to take in spite of your opinion of the acceptable risks, involved.
What is the deal with this non-stop effort to control lifestyle and personal choices that you likely have no vested monetary interest in, will likely never personally undertake, or participate in yourself, and will likely never be exposed to in even the most remote possible way?
The individuals that are assessing the risks involved in any activity they may be participating in, either don't need, or don't care what you or for that matter, what anyone else may think. It's their choice.
You are FREE to not participate, not assume the risk yourself, and not even concern yourself at all for any reason whatsoever.
It's called "Live and Let live"
Not "Live they way WE think is best for you and thereby better for everyone else as well"
Clearly, this is some form of mass psychosis, neurosis, or hallucination.
ASDS is a real disease, and you are clearly infected.
Sadly it's easily spread through an equally infected media, and is particularly contagious among Politicians seeking headlines about the "good" they do.
It may even be spread by contact or touch since SO much money changes hands SO often in the TC movement, it may be too late to ever stop the spread.
I no longer believe you can be saved as evidenced here with each and every double standard post you make.
You simply refuse to believe that ADULTS are capable of making rational choices for themselves, regardless of, or maybe more correctly, specifically because you don't agree with those choices and would never make a similar choice for yourself.
If you wouldn't make that choice for yourself, then their MUST be something wrong with the person that would. (clearly not sufficiently informed)
Delusions of Grandeur / megalomania
It's one of the major symptoms of the disease.
It's especially prevelant in those Anti-Tobacco proponents that proclaim themselves and their preferred approach to outlawing tobacco to be the only "reasonable" way to do it.
Bill,
it looks like the guns are a turning your way.
Headline
STUDY SPITS ON TOBACCO CHEW
http://www.nypost.com/seven/
0829...obacco_chew.htm
Excerpt
August 29, 2007 -- People who use chewing tobacco expose themselves to even higher levels of NNK, one of the prime carcinogens in tobacco, than tobacco smokers do, according to a study by University of Minnesota Cancer Center researchers in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
GreatScot
DOC-"I agree with you that few people are going to be exposed only once to secondhand smoke. But if that's the case, then why not simply change these statements to say that REPEATED EXPOSURE to secondhand smoke can cause atherosclerosis?"
Forgive me if I misunderstand.
Doc are you saying that ETS exposure is cumulative, that the body does not expel any ETS contaminant? That the body does not repair and recover?
If yes and you couple that with "no safe level" what is all the fuss about? Smokers, ex-smokers and all non-smokers ever exposed to ETS (everyone?)is already doomed.
GreatScot
GreatScot;
"If yes and you couple that with "no safe level" what is all the fuss about? Smokers, ex-smokers and all non-smokers ever exposed to ETS (everyone?)is already doomed."
By continuing that thought, no risk increase is actually possible. So where did the complimentary numbers come from?
In a failure to confound other risks or assess the findings properly perhaps?
" August 29, 2007 -- People who use chewing tobacco expose themselves to even higher levels of NNK, one of the prime carcinogens in tobacco, than tobacco smokers do, according to a study by University of Minnesota Cancer Center researchers in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention."
Do you think Bill in his only defense of the great love in his life; will
A;
come clean and admit the levels found are controlled by the manufacturer and can be eliminated if they so choose however in cigarettes to a much larger degree than in chew, which contains larger doses of virtually all the potentially harmful ingredients found in the natural tobacco plant and the ingestion method increases those levels even more.
Or B;
Will he simply accuse the authors of supporting the tobacco industry?
More shills of big tobacco revealed?
HMMM
Kevin, your question B:
Or B;
Will he simply accuse the authors of supporting the tobacco industry?
More shills of big tobacco revealed?
Chew is part of the tobacco industry, and since Bill promotes it so much, it tells me he is a shill of big tobacco.
We primarily buy loose tobacco and make our own cigarettes, but on the rare occassions a pack is purchased, we never buy from any of the major ones. We buy products from a small independent that was not part of the debacle known as the MSA.
Sunz wrote: "Carl???? What Carl are you responding to Doctor? Do we have another switched idenity here? I thought it was the evil smokers who hide behind anon screen names? Or was that a slip-up on your part?"
I don't think so.
Sunz, have you ever noticed that you never see Carl, Quabba, and Quilognmondack in the same place at the same time?
Just like Superman and Clark Kent......
GDF - I think Sam is incorrect. There is no inconsistency in my position.
My position is that substnatial occupational health risks should be reduced to the amount that is feasible.
It is "feasible" to completely eliminate the risk of secondhand smoke in a bar or restaurant, or any other workplace. In fact, not only feasible, but simple. Just get rid of the smoking.
It may not be "feasible" to eliminate the risk on a race track or in a boxing ring.
There is no inconsistency here.
I may be wrong in my beliefs about what is feasible or not, but my flaw, if any, is having a flawed view of what is feasible...not using different standards.
The standard is the same: how can you feasibly reduce the risk?
I'm not asking for miracles. I'm not asking to eliminate a sport, necessarily, to reduce risks. But if there is a feasible way to reduce that risk, then why not do it? Eliminating smoking in the workplace is a way to feasibly (and quite easily) eliminate the risk of SHS exposure in the workplace.
And I would add - bars having nothing to do with this. I support a smoke-free workplace for ALL workers. I don't only think that bar workers should be protected. I always have advocated for smoke-free workplaces for all workers - across the board. It just so happens that bar workers are workers. So it would actually be inconsistent of me NOT to argue for protection for bar workers.
Finally, I'll reiterate my position that if there WERE a way to use ventilation to substantially reduce the risk - to bring it to acceptable levels based on what we accept for other workplace carcinogens - I'd have no problem with allowing smoking but requiring those levels of ventilation. The problem is: I have not seen any evidence that ventilation could realistically and feasibly accomplish this.
Again, I could be wrong. But it's not an inconsistency, it's just an ignorance of the effects of modern ventilation.
I'd have no problem with allowing smoking
You are amazing. Truly. How bloody generous of you to have no problem ALLOWING smoking, on private property that you do not own NOR have to work in or patronize. An establishment that you have NO monetary, sentimental, livelihood investment in.
Your generosity is overwhelming Doc.
Pardon me while I get ill here.
"It is 'feasible' to completely eliminate the risk of secondhand smoke in a bar or restaurant, or any other workplace. In fact, not only feasible, but simple. Just get rid of the smoking. It may not be 'feasible' to eliminate the risk on a race track or in a boxing ring."
Of course it is. Just get rid of the racing and the boxing. Make those venue owners offers something else. Make them serve patrons other than "those who want to drink beer and watch people get hurt."
Just like in the case of the bar, you are willing to force owners to serve patrons other than "those who want to drink beer and smoke cigarettes."
Same exact thing. Only one you call feasible. And the other you consider some kind of horrible intrusion.
Clearly, Madison Square Garden does not need to offer boxing. Or hockey. Or any other kind of dangerous blood sport. There are venues all over the city that offer peaceful, nonviolent entertainment. The fact that they exist PROVES that such a business model works. Just like you say the continued existence of non-smoking restaurants proves that banning SHS is feasible.
"I'm not asking for miracles. I'm not asking to eliminate a sport, necessarily, to reduce risks. But if there is a feasible way to reduce that risk, then why not do it? "
But you have admitted that there IS a feasible way to REDUCE the risk of SHS. You have openly admitted that that there is a linear relationship between the length of exposure and the death toll. (Remember? You told me that the risk for 20/20 versus 40/40 in the case of Massachusetts bartenders would be half. And that you would expect the death toll to be 110 instead of 220 if you changed your assumptions accordingly. And you told me that a young kid who buses tables in a smoky restaurant basically has zero risk of heart attack or cancer from SHS.)
So.. we start at the 40/40 level of exposure that you used to calculate SHS as a DEADLY threat. Is there any way to reduce that 40/40 and thereby reduce the risk profile? Yes. You come back to reality. And realize that almost all bartenders are ALREADY way below the exposure thresholds that serve as the basis of your calculations.
Still not enough? Limit the hours the people are allowed to work. As I mentioned earlier today, this is quite feasible. We know it is, because the government currently takes those EXACT MEASURES regarding other professions. Such as long-haul trucking.
So... if you were not lying when you said that reducing the exposure time reduces the risk... and if you were not lying when you said "But if there is a feasible way to reduce that risk, then why not do it?"... and if the fact that the federal government currently regulates work hours in other industries proves that it is feasible...
You have just come down in favor of something that comes up short of a ban on SHS.
Although I am sure you will change what you said just enough to once again reverse-engineer your support of a ban.
"Finally, I'll reiterate my position that if there WERE a way to use ventilation to substantially reduce the risk - to bring it to acceptable levels based on what we accept for other workplace carcinogens..."
So you are OK with drivers being killed at an alarming rate because they are getting killed by blunt force trauma--but opposed to bartenders theoretically dying because the cause is cancer.
I am sure the families of all those dead drivers appreciate the distinction and applaud your consistency.
And by the way: I asked a question earlier: What would be the impact of removing exaclty half the SHS from a bar? What would that do to the RR? And what RR would be acceptable?
What if the the bartenders worked 10/10 instead of 40/40, and worked in a bar that had 75 percent of the smoke removed? What woud there risk be? Would it be acceptable?
"It just so happens that bar workers are workers. So it would actually be inconsistent of me NOT to argue for protection for bar workers."
Wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. And obviously so. The fact of the matter is, the "risk" that SHS poses is directly proportional to the time exposed. That is, SHS does not impact all workers equally. An analogy would be "gravity." Yes. Slips and falls pose an enormous workplace hazard. But we protect different workers differently, depending on their exposure.
Specifically, gravity accelerates human bodies at the rate of 9.8 meters per second squared. So being "exposed" to a gravitational free fall for 20 seconds poses a grater hazard than being exposed for a quarter second. That is, people falling from higher up get busted up a lot more.
We respond by crafting mediation efforts accordingly. High iron workers are required to wear certain harnesses and receive certain training and be protected by nets. Etc. People who work on stepladders are not. Because the danger that gravity poses is directly proportional to how high you are. Moreover, the mediation efforts meant to protect high iron workers are so expensive that if they were applied to all workers on stepladders, many people who ran such businesses would close.
Now back to smoking. The length of exposure is obviously a concern to Doctor Siegel. Which is one of the reason he opposes a ban on smoking in cars with children. They just aren't in cars enough to justify that kind of intrusion.
But if length of exposure is sufficiently important to impact how we protect children, it is sufficiently important to impact how we protect workers. So it makes sense for professions that experience less time-exposure to have different rules about exposure levels.
And it just so happens that the BLS has gone out of its way to identify food and bar service as one of the least time-intensive careers in the country.
So... maybe we need to ban smoking in accounting firms because accountants work 60 hours a week for 50 years. And that increases their exposure. But bartenders DON'T. And their rules should be different, just like we have different rules for stepladder workers and high-iron workers. And for the same reasons.
Unles, doctor, you think that since gravity works the same on all falling bodies, we should apply the same safety rules regarding falls in all professions? To be consistent?
This is also true regarding what such regulations would do to the businesses. No one goes to a law firm to file some briefs and have a smoke. But many, many millions of people go to a bar for a beer and a smoke. And many will stop doing so if smoking is banned. And as the doctor has already admitted, some bars that stop offering that environment will die.
So I for those people--and again, the doctor admits they exist--I guess banning smoking isn't quite so "easy" as the doctor glibly asserts.
"The problem is: I have not seen any evidence that ventilation could realistically and feasibly accomplish this.
Again, I could be wrong. But it's not an inconsistency, it's just an ignorance of the effects of modern ventilation. Dr Siegel,since you are the person constantly spouting that NO VENTILATION SYSTEM EXISTS that will do the job,don't you think YOU OUGHT TO BE ON THE BALL WITH EXISTING VENTILATION SYSTEMS ? It seems no more than laziness or a ploy to state that your ignorance could possibly be the CAUSAL FACTOR IN SPOUTING UNSCIENTIFIC FACT,SEE ABOVE IT CLEARLY STATES REMOVES 97% OF IMPURITIES TO LESS THAN 1 MICRON.ARE YOU LOOKING INTO IT ?PROBABLY NOT,SO YOU CAN STICK WITH YOUR POSITION !
Dr. Siegel wrote: “My position is that substnatial occupational health risks should be reduced to the amount that is feasible. “
The key here is substantial. I agree smoking is clearly a substantial health risk factor for heart disease, stroke, and cancer. While others here want to see bodies, saying smoking kills is incorrect. It is correct to say, that smoking is a risk factor for diseases that are known to cause morbidity in humans. Science cannot say that if when smoker gets a smoke related disease and dies, that the disease was caused by smoking and not something else. We can say that there is a high probability that smoking has caused the disease. Where I would disagree with you is the SHS is a substantial health risk. I do not disagree, if you were to say, that SHS research shows a weak link to increased risk factors for the same diseases linked to active smokers. To make my point I provided a list, not inclusive by any means, of parental behaviors and ask where you thought the risk of smoking in a car lies. The numbered list, above is currently in no particular order.”
“It is "feasible" to completely eliminate the risk of secondhand smoke in a bar or restaurant, or any other workplace. In fact, not only feasible, but simple. Just get rid of the smoking.”
By this argument, you should support a complete smoking ban. Prohibition? I will not address boxing, nascar, football, etc. The only point is we shouldn’t reduce risk where they are not wanted. I agree with that premise.
“And I would add - bars having nothing to do with this. I support a smoke-free workplace for ALL workers. I don't only think that bar workers should be protected. I always have advocated for smoke-free workplaces for all workers - across the board. It just so happens that bar workers are workers. So it would actually be inconsistent of me NOT to argue for protection for bar workers.”
Here is your failure. We either agree that SHS causes a significant increase in relative risk for diseases that are linked to active smoking or not. If yes, then you should want to extend this protection to the children who have no say. If no, then there is no reason to ban smoking through government action at all. Then we could have smoking venues that cater to adults. Proprietor could only hire smokers and customers could be warned of the risk of entering. Non-smokers could have their own venues. There would be know reason to take away others rights (and am I not talking the right to smoke, there is no right to smoke), the rights of property owners to hire, fire, and cater to those they want. The hiring and firing is at will except for the protected reasons. Should the market want more smoking or non-smoking venues the customers will decide.
“Again, I could be wrong. But it's not an inconsistency, it's just an ignorance of the effects of modern ventilation.”
You are inconsistent because you insist that SHS presents a severe increase in risk factor similar to active smokers and it that requires government intervention for adult workers, but is not severe enough to require government intervention for children who have no say. My position is SHS research shows a weak link to increase relative risk to the diseases for which active smoking is a risk factor. Recent research, if it holds, shows the increase in risk factors for heart related disease may be no more then drinking one soda a day, eating at Mc Donald’s, or walking in polluted cities. Some of these may be confounders not taking into account in SHS studies. If this turns out to be the case, most people would wonder what the fuss is all about, thus not requiring government intervention. It is making a mountain out of a mole hill. You colleagues realize that they cannot get their bans passed without invoking SHS smoke CAUSES death, and you are not helping by making their case. You know these kinds of statements are false, and I believe that you have doubts about the risks, but using these kinds of weak links can get government into everyone’s homes. Backing away requires turning your back on all your work.
Excellent point, Si.
Right doctor? Either intrusive government is a threat, or it isn't. And I think as you have discovered regarding the ban on SHS--and homes, soon enough--that is IS in fact dangerous.
And isn't it true also that the only people who can judge these dangers are people who are properly informed about the issues?
And isn't the efficacy of ventilation a huge part of the debate about SHS?
And being, admittedly, ignorant about such questions, should you not be banned from entering the discussion about it and be removed from the decision-making process?
Isn't it true that you are simply not yet sufficiently warned about the danger of intrusion versus safety in this case?
You know. Like the bartenders who are too stupid to decide whether or not it's safe to work in a smokey bar?
Who do you think would be a good choice to make decisions for you in this case? Who should get to decide when you get to speak, and judge your intelligence?
And how could we warn you sufficiently?
I promise. If you warn yourself accordingly I will let you be an adult again and make some choices on your own. Sadly, I am not going to able to tell what the warning should say. The fact that you need me to tell you proves that you do not really care about the dangers of government intrusion.
I am also not going to tell you what you ned to know about ventilation. I know exactly what you need to know to make good decisions. But until you prove that you agree with me, I am going to insist that the state use its monopoly on violence to keep you in line
I don't get it Michael.
"But if there is a feasible way to reduce that risk, then why not do it? Eliminating smoking in the workplace is a way to feasibly (and quite easily) eliminate the risk of SHS exposure in the workplace."
Why is that more "feasible" (i.e., eliminating smoking from "Sam's smoking and drinking establishment" )than eliminating boxing from places where boxing is held? Or eliminating NASCAR from racetracks? Or even eliminating contact from football?
Can you explain please?
as for your "why not do it?" I'm happy to answer that.
Cause it seems to me that the reason we go with the LEAST restrictive rules we possibly can as a society, rather than the MOST, is to preserve as much individual liberty as we possibly can and ward off the abuses that we know occur when liberties are restricted. It's not "why not do it?" that we must be sure to be able to defend -- it's WHY do it? I would suggest that one has to demonstrate that restriction of people and their choices and their property is the ONLY way to avoid a serious and provable and obvious harm (and so on). The burden is to prove restriction of liberty unavoidable -- not the other way around. That's the way our country was supposed to work.
But anyway -- can you please explain why one (smoking bans) is more "feasible" than the other examples?
GDF:
I doubt he can explain. Because it doens't make sense.
Football is obviously still football if you restrict some of its most dangerous elements. An inordinate number of NFL quarterbacks get concussions because of blitzing defenders. But aren't blitzing defenders "inherent" to football? No. Not at all. The NFL disallows blitzing in the Pro Bowl. Why? because it is dangerous. And they do not want quarterbacks getting hurt. But it's clearly still "football."
In fact, touch footbal is still football. There are entire leagues dedicated to the sport. It is quite popular. And it is still football. It might not fill as many stadiums, and it might lose some television ratings. But clearly it is safer. And clearly, we are willing to tell bar owners to go to hell if their businesses fail because of smoking bans. Consistency demands that we do the same with NFL owners. After all, there's no "right" to see huge men blindside each other. And such rules would clearly save lives. And making the change would be "easy." it would destroy a pasttime enjoyed by millions and millions of Americans. But we don't count that, apparently.
Same with NASCAR, as I have pointed out time and time again. If we want to reduce risk, we could reduce speeds to 45 mph. But, the doctor might argue, going as fast as possible is inherent to the sport. Well, that's crap. Many of the races already require restrictor plates that limit speeds to 180, even lower. There is no reason they could not engineer such plates to make the top speed 25 mph. Or lower. And as long as all the cars are the same, there would be competitive racing.
Of course, I am not sure if this reduces the risk to an acceptable level. Because--get this!--for some professions, certain activists are demanding zero risk. Or something close to it. And to be honest, tons of people die every year in accidents while driving quite slow.
So if we were to assume that NASCAR drivers are as susceptible as normal drivers to such dangers (They are not, but if we can assume all bartenders work 40/40 when we know they don't...) it might just mean we have to ban racing. Why not do it? It's easy. Particularly for people like me who are not racing fans. Sure, millions will protest. But there's no "right" to watch people circle a track until they crash and burn to death.
Examples abound. There are tons of jobs--hundreds when you think about it--that put their workers at risk, that could be safer, and serve no purpose but to entertain the people willing to pay. I would submit, as a matter of fact, that there are thousands of such jobs.
But the doctor only suggests banning one such risk.
Weird.
St. Louis has no smoking ban. The one room bar I used to go to had zero ventilation and mostly smoking patrons. Roger Jenkins says bars like this one are where the most intense secondhand exposure occurs. If I installed several SmokeMaster C-12 machines and ran them continuously full blast, the bar air would become cleaner and safer. Dr. Siegel, could I install a sufficient number of machines to make the bar air clean enough that you would consider the bar workers sufficiently protected from ETS?
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/c-12.php
And I would add - bars having nothing to do with this. I support a smoke-free workplace for ALL workers. I don't only think that bar workers should be protected. I always have advocated for smoke-free workplaces for all workers - across the board. It just so happens that bar workers are workers. So it would actually be inconsistent of me NOT to argue for protection for bar workers.
Your position is still inconsistent though. Permissible exposure levels for workplaces in general and for the same substances are much higher than what can be measured from SHS. Bar workers seem to enjoy an inconsistently strong protection.
Finally, I'll reiterate my position that if there WERE a way to use ventilation to substantially reduce the risk - to bring it to acceptable levels based on what we accept for other workplace carcinogens - I'd have no problem with allowing smoking but requiring those levels of ventilation. The problem is: I have not seen any evidence that ventilation could realistically and feasibly accomplish this.
I have the same problem: I have not seen any evidence that bar workers keel over from SHS.
I know however, that ventilation systems in road tunnels are considered sufficient to allow traffic through the tunnels, even with children and bar workers in the car.
i thought this was interesting, and might explain alot of what's going on.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story...8/26/213342/
486
I like that...regulate the number of hours that people can work in a bar.
"Sorry, you can't work 5 days in the bar, even though you need the money to feed your family. It's so hazardous here that we have to limit the number of hours that you can work."
"Well if it's so hazardous, then why not just get rid of the smoking?"
"Because - it would be inconsistent to get rid of the smoking while there is auto racing and boxing going on."
Guys - this is brilliant!
"Well if it's so hazardous, then why not just get rid of the smoking?"
Noo.. the answer is, (as given by the employer) because it's MY business model (with employment hours as restricted by government regulation) and if you want the job to exist at all -- that's the job. Now -- would you like the job?
Michael -- whether someone NEEDS the money (or a job) is surely not the responsibility of an employer. And even if you have some odd idea that s/he DOES have such a responsibility, an employer certainly has no MORE responsibility to employ one person 40 hours vs. 5 people each 8 hours/week.
If such a risk reduction strategy (as Sam offerred) would be unacceptable -- seems to me there's an agenda other than reasonable risk reduction being pushed here.
Just sayin'
And then there's Bill H's suggestion about ventilation...
But oddly, that seems to be rejected out of hand as well.
Just sayin'
Kevin wrote:
"James;
Now that the controls are turned down post bans, one has to wonder about the significant PAH levels >.1 microns originating outdoors and internally from other sources which are no longer being removed from the indoor air simply because you can no longer smell them."
Yes, that's where I was going with smoking bans being detrimental.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"Finally...if there WERE a way to use ventilation to substantially reduce the risk...I'd have no problem...The problem is: I have not seen any evidence that ventilation could realistically and feasibly accomplish this."
Well, maybe that's because ASHRAE was taken over by anti-smokers.
" Note from Professor Richard A. Daynard,
Northeastern University School of Law:
...June 20, 1999, the ASHRAE (American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) Board of
Directors approved Addendum e to ANSI/ASHRAE standard 62-1989.
...eliminates all reference in the body of the standard to smoking being permissible...The rationale for this decision is that ETS is a known carcinogen, and there are no thresholds for safe exposure recognized by cognizant authorities.
This culminates a 13-year effort on my part to get the 1989 language...changed. I was a member of the ASHRAE committee that proposed the change. The tobacco industry...fought me (and, eventually, the great majority of the committee) at every turn. "
If you read ASHRAE's code, "ASHRAE, founded in 1894...Its sole objective is to advance through research, standards writing, publishing and continuing education the arts and sciences of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration to serve the evolving needs of the public."
It sounds like advances through research might have died after being infiltrated by Daynard. To serve the evolving needs of the Public? LMAO
Here are some names who sit or have sat on the ASHRAE committee:
Dr. Jonathan Samet. (No explanation needed for him)
John Spengler, who's worked with Samet. One website has described Spengler as, "His work led to recommendation of the airline smoking ban in 1986."
Dr. David B. Coultas, who wrote, "Passive smoking and risk of adult asthma and COPD: an update"
Thomas P. Houston, MD: A Co-Director of SmokeLess States
Dr. Houston said this in 2001:
"Our nation does not have to suffer the consequences of a tobacco epidemic any longer. We have the resources and the knowledge to immunize ourselves against this public health menace. It is absolutely imperative that we as a nation commit the resources and knowledge to save the lives of millions of smokers. Women across the country and around the world should join together to denounce this scourge on society."
Found on another website he's quoted as saying, "Finally, I am pleased that Ms. Ronhovdee has informed Medscape General Medicine readers of my relationship with a variety of organizations, including the American Legacy Foundation, the American Cancer Society, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. She left off the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute. Most people would not call these groups "special interest" organizations in the pejorative sense that Ms. Ronhovdee attempts, but instead recognize that they are respected members of the health community, attempting to make a difference in the public health burden caused by the leading killer in the United States -- cigarette smoking. I am happy to be a part of these efforts."
I didn't realize so many doctors minored in Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning.
Perhaps doc, if they want a job that pays better they should go get it. McDonald's pays minimum wage, which I can assure you, you cannot live off of and feed a family. I don't see you making them pay more because those folks really need more money. However, there are adults who get the job and have families. When did it become the employer's responsibility to be sure the employees could feed their family? I was unaware we were already in a socialist society....
I have to ask, who is more responsible for my nieces death?
2 days before xmas 10:30 pm when goes to bars (after the ban) a taxi picks up 2 young girls going to visit her step mother and her father; which she never arrives at. All the bars in town have closed(except a strip bar); there use to be 3 bars before the smoking ban was enacted. This area has one of the highest drinking rates in all of Ontario, yet they tell me bans don't hurt business (NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE).
The driver was going to a bar 20 KM away, cause there isn't one locally anymore, to continue on with his "fun" night. I guess because he use to be able to walk to the bar, and now must drive 20 min to be social its his problem (not due to ban). Although you have to ask yourself is it really about the fact that he hasn't "denormalized" enough to quit drinking or is it really the social engineers of not allowing a place for drinkers who smoke to go and provide hospitality to smokers?
I guess you could say that the social engineering of drinking is needed, but you could also say that the smoking ban also caused this problem (closing formally profitable businesses). There was social way for him to interact formerly, now they are gone due to people not being "denormalized" enough to quit smoking or freeze in -20 deg Celcius weather (while they are at the bar) and keep the bars open.
What I advocate now instead is people to have people at their home, which can lead to better novel ways for smokers to socialize in comfort enabling hospitality (even during winter). Its not a perfect solution, although the perfect solution was to allow smoking rooms, or even letting owners decide. Now I put that death partially (not totally) on the social engineers who in a high drinking rate area didn't allow any wisp of smoke (but closed 3 businesses); when there were other options available (DSR, sign on door, etc).
Now what about this hidden death toll from social engineering and closing of these private businesses?
My sympathies l. duguay. And I agree about home socializing. Doesn't help the local businesses or tax base much but it's the way to wait out the insanity.
Jalestra -- You didn't get the *we're now a socialist country* memo, I guess. As for those workers - they'd better not try to get a job at an Atlantic City casino. I hear they're not hiring.
"'Because - it would be inconsistent to get rid of the smoking while there is auto racing and boxing going on.'
Guys - this is brilliant!"
Yes, I gues it would be just about as brilliant as calling people who support a car ban inconsistent while home-smoking is going on.
It is, in fact, inconsistent.
The difference being that TC has the integity to admit that they are on a crusade against tobacco and view it as a unique threat that deserves special measures.
You continue to hide behind the false notion of "objectivity" and INSIST that you are being completely consistent, and that you treat all threats equally.
Obvioulsy false.
The fact of the matter, doctor, is that even if the government were to try to regulate the hours that workers are exposed to SHS in bars and restaurants, that would be very, very easy.
Why?
Because, as I have pointed out time and time again, the vast, vast, vast majority of bar and restaurant workers are ALREADY working less than the 40/40 you used as the basis of your calculations. And as you have stated, working less reduces the risk.
That is, to get these workers to reduce their exposure, the federal government would have to enact a program that...
Does absolutely nothing.
And for some reason, you do not think that's feasible. But sending in the storm troopers to raid lutheran bingo parlors to arrest old ladies smoking Carltons--that's feasible. Weird.
And as for whether you really care about the families of working bartenders... perhaps you could point me to the measure you propose to take care of the people who worked at places that shut down after bans were enacted.
You admit such places exist. In fact, you made a huge deal about your INTEGRITY when you admitted it. So... where have you proposed helping these families?
Maybe you say they can go get a job at a different bar. But you say we should NEVER expect anyone to have to do that to find a nonsmoking environment.
Just more misleading banter, I guess.
I can't tell you how dissapointed I am. I really can't. I thought you an honest fellow arguing in good faith. You tested my faith a few months back. I was willing to chalk that up to a bad week or something.
But man. I just...
It's really a shame.
I like that...regulate the number of hours that people can work in a bar.
Hate to break it to you Doc, but plenty of retail/hospitality employers ONLY offer part-time work because they are not obligated to offer health insurance or other benefits to employees working less that about 30 hours per week.
There is NO law requiring employees to offer full-time employment to anyone. Yes, we need the income to live, but it is OUR responsibility to make that income, not a business owners to ensure it, as evidenced by the retail/hospitality industry's tendancy to not pay living wages (even if you did work 40+ hours).
Therefore you're argument, rather your sarcastic remark at the end of that little diatribe was totally uncalled for, and wrong.
Dr Siegel cares for the bar staff .In reality it allows him to maintain his strong view on the perils of SHS.If he opened his mind and reviewed the evidence,including his own,then it may force him to reconsider his position.This cannot happen,as it would make a mockery of the years he spent promoting smoke bans and reducing the incidence of smoking.He's already stated he made a promise to fight the evil of Tobacco.It is therefore irrelevant that ventilation systems could remove 97% of problematic pollution,IT WOULD STILL CONTAIN 3%.This is the problem in TC,the blinkers are on and science went out the window a long time ago.There is no-one in TC today who is able to approach a problem with an open mind and who can review the evidence WITHOUT EMPLOYING EMOTION AS AN INBUILT FACTOR.Your promise Dr Siegel ,do you keep it OR realise you cannot substantiate everything you want.
Parental smoking:
(1) poses at the very least a danger of illnesses and even death in infants and children, who lack the ability to protect themselves.
(2) provides no benefit to the child.
(3) is easily preventable. All that's required to eliminate this serious health problem is for parents to smoke outside or wait until there are no children in the car or home (or set a better example for the kids and don't smoke at all).
Nothing else causes as much damage to children and infants as parental smoking without providing any benefit, while being so easily preventable. And if there were, one does not justify the other.
"I have been trying for some time to initiate a debate within the tobacco control community about this very issue."
Maybe thay already had that debate. Frankly, I don't think there's much to debate. Now that science has shown secondhand smoke endangers children (and impairs the lung development of infants, according to the Surgeon General), we can have laws to restrict that exposure just as we have laws to restrict exposure of children and infants to other dangerous substances.
To answer Dr. Siegel's specific questions:
"1. If it is true that smoking around children in cars is intolerable and must be prohibited and that government intrusion into parental autonomy and privacy in their cars is justified, then why should we not also prohibit smoking around children in the home, or in other locations besides a car?"
Laws don't have to make the world a perfect place to be justified, only improve conditions, and car smoking bans would do that for children: first, by providing some immediate protection from smoking close by in a small enclosed space; and second, by educating parents that they shouldn't smoke around their kids at home. And it regulates indoor parental smoking in the one place where it can easily be regulated and enforced, when the car is out in full public view.
Dr. Siegel's argument is essentially the same one oil and coal companies use against legislated emissions limits: well, we can't completely stop global warming with this action alone, therefore we shouldn't have any regulations at all.
"2. If it is true that the government is justified in interfering with parental autonomy in order to merely protect children from an increased risk of adverse health outcomes, then why should we not also prohibit a host of other parental behaviors that cause significant harm to children's health, such as feeding them food with trans-fats, relentlessly feeding them excessive junk food, and allowing them to engage in health-risky behaviors such as rollerblading, playing hockey, or sitting all day at the computer and television screen?"
It's not merely an increased risk according to the conclusions of the Surgeon General: "Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems."
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
li...factsheet6.html
The government is doing what it can reasonably do. Note that in Canada we're getting rid of trans-fats, by law if necessary if the food industries won't do it themselves.
Feeding children excessive junk food? That's a harder line to draw. By contrast, is there any amount of secondhand smoke exposure that doesn't harm children or put them at risk? Unless you are prepared to say yes as a medical doctor, the comparison lacks merit.
As for "health-risky behaviors," see the list above. In contrast to these "health-risky behaviors," parental smoking indoors provides no benefit to the child and is easily preventable. Moreover, they are generally the child's choice and make up an important part of being a child. So those comparisons are just silly, and not what one would expect from a highly educated health professional.
Parental smoking is not "failure to protect one's child from exposures that merely increase the risk of adverse health consequences", as Dr. Siegel spins it in last week's post. Parental smoking is the act of imposing on their children exposure to a health hazard which they themselves created for the sake of satisfying their drug habit, making it all the more egregious.
Dr. Siegel frequently makes a big deal out of the prospect of children being taken away from their parents who smoke around them, even though no one has seriously proposed this as a remedy. I see this as a deliberate attempt to promote fear and anger in smokers, and very much in keeping with many of Dr. Siegel's writings on this blog in which he frequently claims that non-smokers hate smokers and wish to punish them. Well if he thinks that's bad, then what about the children who lose their parents to smoking-related illnesses? If confronting smokers on their drug habit makes it more likely they will quit, that's another good reason for Dr. Siegel to support indoor smoking restrictions (all of them), as a medical doctor that is.
Dr. Siegel says he favors education instead of regulation (just as oil companies advocate for voluntary targets and guidelines over regulation), but he also opposed a law in Bangor, Maine which would have allowed police to give warnings and at most a small fine ($50). Obviously education initiatives haven't worked if some parents are still smoking in the car with children present.
Dr. Siegel frequently emphasizes the spectre of non-compliance with car smoking bans. Parents will be sent to jail, have their children taken away. In another post, how children will be traumatized by the ordeal of seeing their parents pulled over by the police. But wherever legislated smoking restrictions have been passed, an amazing thing takes place -- people simply obey the law! Moreover, they find they don't need to be smoking constantly after all.
The only real downside to indoor parental smoking restrictions is for tobacco companies, as parents would smoke less and be more likely to quit.
In many of Dr. Siegel's posts he suggests that indoor parental smoking restrictions will lead to widespread state intrusion into what people may do in their homes. "Slippery slope" has been mentioned in at least one post. But legislated smoking restrictions do not signal the end of civilization as we know it.
It seems that Dr. Siegel has employed every conceivable argument against car smoking bans at one time or another. In fact, most of Dr. Siegel's arguments against car smoking bans have nothing to do with health. This seems rather odd for a medical doctor who claims to be doing this as an act of conscience because health authorities are distorting the health effects of secondhand smoke (or words to that effect).
For these reasons, I have serious doubts that Dr. Siegel will be "talked out of his current position" any time soon.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
tobaccoscamalysis said: "It's not merely an increased risk according to the conclusions of the Surgeon General: "Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems."
Actually it is only increased risk, what is says is:
"Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children." Then under supporting evidense it make the other statement. You should link to the actual report not someone conclusions. Not what the Surgeon General political statements were, but to actual conclusions in the conclusion section of the report. You are using appeal to authority a know logical error.
Please note also the an increased risk is not the same as actual risk. For example if I say that the risk of something is 1 in 1,000,000 then 2 in a 1,000,000 is an increased risk of 100 percent. The actual risk is still actually quite low and not worth worrying about.
You continue "The government is doing what it can reasonably do. Note that in Canada we're getting rid of trans-fats, by law if necessary if the food industries won't do it themselves."
Good to here that you are in Canada, but I feel sorry for Canadians. So you are a supporter of a Nanny state. Your arguments are not based on science but religion. You are so convensed you are right, that no amount of reason or evidense will convince you that you may be wrong.
On the topic of note answering questions, you have not answered may. If you had the power to pass all laws what is your end goal? Prohibition? You are the worst kind of religious crusader.
Actually, children HAVE been removed from the homes of parents who smoke. In divorce cases where one parent is a smoker and one is a non-smoker, the children end up with the non-smoker. Non-smoker doesn't mean good parent, but hey, it's ok if you neglect your kids, just don't smoke around them.
BTW, I won't quit smoking. I have 4 kids, I can assure you, their lungs are awesomely healthy. They can scream louder and longer than some non-smoking parents' kids. Do you know why? Probably because I LET them yell and scream. No little adults in my house, all kids. Since I let my kids yell and play as much as they like, they have better lungs than most kids these days do. Maybe if people weren't so busy putting kids in front of the tv, they're lungs would get more exercise.
BTW, again, there has been no evidence of instances of SHS killing a child. You should back that statement up with something, preferably something factual and linked...if you can. Smoking also provides a 22% LESS likely chance of a child growing up to get lung cancer, WHO report, I'm sure someone here has the link. That's called a BENEFIT...unless you like kids growing up to get lung cancer..then it's not a benefit.Try again, tobacco control shill.
BTW, linking your own website as "proof" you are right...*rolls eyes* oh yeah that works. I sure could link MY website as proof I'm right, but since I'm not so egotistical or deluded as to think I'M the center of the world, I don't. Why don't you try links from outside, SCIENTIFIC sources, from actual scientists, who haven't been shown to have lied...we believe the SG as much as we believe the EPA. Even Bill uses better links.
cameltobaccosysis wrote:
Blah blah blah blah blah.
I quit reading after you cited the proven idiot/liar former SG twice.
Btw, if you think reducing the risk of lung cancer (Garfinkel 2, Wu, Koo, Wu-Williams, Brownson 2, Fontham, Zaridze, Wang, Jockel, Ko, and the mighty WHO) "(2) provides no benefit to the child" then I don't know what does.
There's already an increase in lung cancer seen in never smokers. You people should be real proud of yourselves; maybe killing the very people you're trying to protect. LOL
I may well be talked out of my position if someone provides a compelling answer to the 2 questions I posed. So far, this has not occurred.
In terms of the first question, Cathy offers no compelling reason why NOT to promote and support a ban on smoking around children in the home. If people truly respond to a law by complying with it, then why NOT enact a law that bans smoking around children, period? So far, I have not seen a reasonable answer to this. The fact that we don't need to be perfect is irrelevant. Should we, or should we not, ban smoking in homes with children? Cathy is unable to make a simple statement that she believes we should do so. This leaves me uncompelled, and I am unfortunately left to remain with my current opinion on this topic.
In terms of the second question, while the Surgeon General's executive summary concludes that secondhand smoke impairs lung growth, if you read the actual report itself, you will find that the evidence is that most of the damage is done by smoking during pregnancy, not post-natally.
As the report states: "The meta-analysis also considered six prospective cohort studies and found only a small effect of current exposure on decreased growth in lung function. The researchers attributed most of the decreased growth to a lasting consequence of in utero exposure from maternal smoking (Cook et al.)."
In addition, the effect is very small and not clinically significant. It does not cause any impairment. According to the Surgeon General's report: "The evidence shows that parental smoking reduces the maximum achieved level, although not to a degree (on average) that would
impair individuals."
Thus, what we are really talking about is the lack of any impairment of lung function. This is why it is always important to read the actual report, rather than to rely just on the conclusions (although I don't blame Cathy - I think the report does a bad job of summarizing its own conclusions in this case).
The bottom line is that the effects of secondhand smoke for all but the youngest of infants are confined to increasing the risk of adverse health consequences, especially respiratory tract and middle ear infections and asthma. The only direct and clinically significant damage is for children who have asthma, but in that case, I would argue that current laws already prohibit parents from smoking in their cars if they are aware it is likely to cause an asthma attack.
As such, I remain unable to see a qualitative difference between secondhand smoke exposure and these other parental behaviors that I mentioned. So I remain unconvinced that the question has been satisfactorily answered.
But I'm still open to hearing other approaches to get us out of this predicament. Admittedly, it is a difficult predicament for me to be in, as an anti-smoking advocate.
I see scammer spammer is at it again, relying on press releases without knowing what she is talking about.
So typical of the TCfreak cultists.
The good Doctor's doublespeak is starting to get really comical.
Mr. Godshall is always going on about "tobacco smoke" pollution, well there has been much discussed lately here about the inherent risks of NASCAR racing. As someone that spent 11 years living in relative proximity of the NASCAR track in Dover, known as the Monster Mile, I can attest that such "pollution" is nothing compared to what is emitted from that track. If I could smell the exhaust and burning rubber 4 miles away, one can only imagine what the people who lived around it were smelling, and what was being inhaled by EVERYONE in the entire City of Dover. Then you add in all the excess vehicles and traffic backups, that are twice a year FORCED on all residents of Dover.
But according to tobacco control freaks like Dr. Siegel and Bill Godshall, all of that air and noise pollution is quite alright, even though it is FORCED upon people not interested. Yet tobacco smoke in locations people freely choose to patronize is absolutely deadly and must be stopped.
It is quite obvious common sense is not something required to be in TC --- in fact it is obvious that ANYONE WITH EVEN A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE is prohibitted from being a member of the TC cult.
In terms of the second question, all the comparisons you make – playing hockey, eating junk food, and so on – either provide a benefit to the child, represent a much smaller health problem than parental smoking, are not easily preventable, or all three.
In terms of the first, this is a classic all or nothing argument. We can't completely eliminate the health hazard all at once, therefore, do nothing. That's just not how things work, in terms of passing laws. Yes, home smoking bans would be the right thing to do. It may not be the practical thing to do.
The lack of a home smoking ban is not a valid argument against having car smoking bans. We do what we reasonably can, and car smoking bans will improve health conditions for children for the reasons I mentioned.
home smoking bans would be the right thing to do. It may not be the practical thing to do (at this time).
"It is therefore irrelevant that ventilation systems could remove 97% of problematic pollution,IT WOULD STILL CONTAIN 3%" - Si
Si, the WHO have decreed that ventilation must never be considered as a solution to ETS.
http://ash.org/fctcguidelines
Excerpts
6. Effective measures to provide protection from exposure to tobacco smoke, as envisioned by
Article 8 of the WHO Framework Convention, require the total elimination of smoking and tobacco
smoke in a particular space or environment in order to create a 100% smoke free lawsenvironment.
There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and notions such as a threshold value for toxicity
from second-hand smoke should be rejected, as they are contradicted by scientific evidence.
Approaches other than 100% smoke free lawsenvironments, including ventilation, air filtration and the
use of designated smoking areas (whether with separate ventilation systems or not), have repeatedly
been shown to be ineffective and there is conclusive evidence, scientific and otherwise, that
engineering approaches do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke.
16. “Smoke-free air” is air that is 100% smoke-free. This definition includes, but is not limited to,
air in which tobacco smoke cannot be seen, smelled, sensed or measured.
So you see Si, it has nothing to do with health. Smoking cannot be allowed, smokers must be denormalised, and if that means persecution, victimisation, bullying, hatred and the breakdown of society then so be it. Consequences be dammed.
GreatScot
The smoking lounges at Lambert Airport in St. Louis were extensively tested less than a year ago by Global Environmental Consultants, a firm whose chief scientist, Dr. Ray Narconis, is also an official indoor air quality spokesman for the American Lung Association. Dr. Narconis directed the extensive three part tests of the eight smoking lounges and found that the lounges posed no health risk to anyone who did not enter them. Dave K. and I used these tests to oppose the smoking ban at Lambert Airport proposed by Councilman Kurt Odenwald. The ban failed. The 8 lounges are there and still work just fine. These tests are proof that seperately ventilated smoking rooms can work. I can send the Lambert test results to anyone interested.
hanneganlounge@safeplace.net
tobaccoscamalysis said: "In terms of the second question, all the comparisons you make – playing hockey, eating junk food, and so on – either provide a benefit to the child, represent a much smaller health problem than parental smoking, are not easily preventable, or all three."
Based on what scientific evidence? I do not believe that to be true. Look at my earlier list of 20 of so things. Tell me what one thing do you think presents the most risk of harm and what one thing represents the least. I ask Dr. Siegel the same question, and he never answered.
You did however; answer my question as to what it is you seek. You seek total prohibition, but currently do not advocate it due to political impracticalities. Otherwise as you stated you think the government should regulate smoking with children at home. Little do you realize that you would open the door for other government intrusions into the home. This is probably why Dr. Siegel does not advocate the car bars because he knows this. By the thanks, Dr. Siegel, for clarifying what the Surgeon General’s report really said. If you are going to make a strong case do not repeat what the TC control religion says. Read the reports yourself. What Dr. Siegel, is trying to do, it get the movement away from it religious aspect and back to the science. He does still use words that are intended to evoke emotion, like smoking kills. When more correctly he should say, that smoking is one (possibility the leading) risk factor among many that could lead to diseases like heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc. which can kill. People die due to smoke inhalation in fire not from smoking cigarettes. The process of most of the smoking related diseases takes many years (20 or more). I believe on average a smoke lives 5 year less then a non smoker (cannot currently verify). Someone who is only exposed to SHS over a long period of time I believe will live (I suggest this without any proof what so ever) close to but not quite to same length of a non-smoker. With regard to children and smoking the greatest risk is that the will become smokers in the future. If they do not become smokers they will live as long and healthy as the average Joe. It is not that I believe the science is wrong, they have found a weak link for chronically exposed people to smoking related diseases. But the TC religion misrepresents the science findings, including our good doctor, in order to achieve political ends. But as I have stated before, should you achieve prohibition, you will save no children or prevent people from dieing from the very same illness that are currently attributed to smoking. The religion is trying to make a weak link into a serious concern. When it really is not.
GreatScot presented WHO guidlines the state "There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, and notions such as a threshold value for toxicity
from second-hand smoke should be rejected, as they are contradicted by scientific evidence."
My undergraduate degree in in Aerospace Engineering and the above statement is not supported by science. Here is a simple thought experiment. Consider a small stream, (water and air at low velocity are both incompressible fluids) and draw a line across the stream. Consider that the non-smokers are on the upstream side of the line and the smokers are on the downstream side and this is a low speed wind tunnel. Now add paper, dye, whatever and answer the question how much would go upstream. Correct answer zero. Yes it is possible to create an environment where smoking presents close to zero risk. The WHO though are medical doctors with agendas, not scientist who understand fluid flow. By the way you can use dye in water to simulate smoke in air. The Aerospace industry using wind tunnels with smoke or water with dye to test the aerodynamics of flight bodies. Wind tunnels are used for large full scale model, water for small models. The WHO should stick to what they know.
There's still hope GreatScot,the WHO only stated 100% smokefree.Don't you just love that smoking gets blamed for every ill ? So Kavalla is supposed to have a higher incidence of smoking population compared to the rest of Greece.That should remove almost every death of a non smoker from the equation then,arrgh but of course it must mean SHS is to blame,oh bugger does primary smoking kill you or passive smoking ? I'm sure Kevin would have a field day in logistically calculating the ratio between the national average smoking rate of around 50% to a perceived increase to 60% ? 70% in Kavalla due to its importance to the Greek Tobacco Industry.Logic hardly lies at the top of the antis agenda.Since Israel was created for those of the Jewish faith,how about creating a nice pleasant country for all smokers to go and live.Just make certain it has a bit of sun please.
Bill Hannegan wrote:
"Dr. Narconis directed the extensive three part tests of the eight smoking lounges and found that the lounges posed no health risk to anyone who did not enter them."
Didn't some anti-smoker group conduct their own test and found maybe one stray molecule from smoke, but still said smoking had to be banned to protect people from that stray molecule?
It could've been somewhere else, but Lambert sure rings a bell.
Dr. Siegel, I agree that a single 30 min SHS exposure will cause ateriosclerosis is not true. But they really aren't specifying repeated exposures or not. So with a literal and very concrete interpretation you may be right. But given that a single 30 min exposure does not exist in - it never happens, context is on their side rather than yours. So in my opinion it depends on how concrete you want to be.
That said, I had a question for you that I hope you'll answer. You said you wanted honest debate with your colleagues. I called you out on that, because I couldn't figure out how that could possibly be true. So I'd like to know how do you expect to open an honest debate with your colleagues when you constantly riducule them with your top ten lists, sarcastic news stories, etc, etc. How is that going to start this debate that you say you want so much?
It's an important question that I hope you'll answer.
So I'd like to know how do you expect to open an honest debate with your colleagues when you constantly riducule them with your top ten lists, sarcastic news stories, etc, etc. How is that going to start this debate that you say you want so much?
Yes, you've made this point before and I may have responded. But I want to practice my succinctness.
The humor and sarcasm are a relatively small percent of what is posted here. So either you are exaggerating or saying debates are only honest if they are humorless and emotionally unappealing. Or that your side is the only one that can use such tactics.
Compared to ASH's "Smokers have no rights"(or is it ANR?) from their website, a bit of humor/sarcasm is a good deal further down the ladder. Can we agree on that?
PS Quilogn, how do you feel about some of Bill's saltier comments? Given his position in the antismoking movement it's probably important he shows the same (overdone) respect to the opposition you demand from Dr. Siegel.
Hahaha Andrew, you've really twist my words around man. I don't see a demand anywhere in my post. And a writer of Dr. Siegel's ability is clearly capable of writing with humor and emotion without ridiculing those he disagrees with.
As far as Bill is concerned, he is a typical volunteer, he's not a professional and his comments make that very apparent at times.
It is ok that you've responded to my post, and I don't want to be rude, its that's great that you posted your personal opinion, but the Dr. Siegel is the only one that can explain his thinking on this issue.
And I do think ridicule pervades this site but even if you are right that it only happens on occasion, the question still stands. Why would someone who wants an honest debate ridicule and insult the very people is asking to step forward and debate him. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Quilogn Mondack wrote: "Dr. Siegel, I agree that a single 30 min SHS exposure will cause ateriosclerosis is not true. But they really aren't specifying repeated exposures or not. So with a literal and very concrete interpretation you may be right. But given that a single 30 min exposure does not exist in - it never happens, context is on their side rather than yours. So in my opinion it depends on how concrete you want to be."
Research shows that after a smoker quits, depending on how long he has smoke, that after time his/her risk of smoking related disease are often reduced to that of a never smoker. The body is able to heal itself. Even with many brief exposures, not so for the bar tender doing 40/40 but we are talking real life here, the body will correct itself. It is reasonable to assume that even many 30 minute exposures with several hour between exposures will not cause any real harm.
I believe that when non-smokers think of smoking that they envision a smoke filled bar with a low ceiling where you can see a visible layer of smoke. In most real life situations this is simply not the case. People who smoke in a car do not smoke with windows closed one after another. Smoker coming from the cigarette is often sucked directly out of the window. Unless one is having a house party with many smokers and no ventilation or air filtration this can happen in a home. Smoke rises. If a bar or eating establishment has a very high ceiling, good filtration, etc. SHS for the most part will not be a problem. Most smokers smoke less then one cigarette an hour unless drunk or in the company of others who smoke. You generally do not have a large number of smokers in a purely ventilated small room as I have seen at some airports. Just step in and take a breath and you do not need a cigarette. I think non-smoker equate smelling cigarette with smoke. This is also not the case. If you have been in a former smoker’s house and that person smoked in his house it will smell like smoke for years the come. This does not pose a health risk.
"Didn't some anti-smoker group conduct their own test and found maybe one stray molecule from smoke, but still said smoking had to be banned to protect people from that stray molecule?"
James Austin
Yes. This is the Lambert nicotine vapour study published in the BMJ that the Narconis tests superseded:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cg.../13/suppl_1/
i37
One antismoking activist claimed she could not enter Lambert Airport since the smoking lounges leak!
Bill Hannegan wrote: "Yes. This is the Lambert nicotine vapour study published in the BMJ that the Narconis tests superseded:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cg....../13/suppl_1/
i37
One antismoking activist claimed she could not enter Lambert Airport since the smoking lounges leak!"
I have followed the link but I did not have access to the full article. My first question would be: How was the room designed? If designed improperly it is possible it could leak. I have never been in an airport smoking room that did not leak. However, the risk would be minimal to non-smokers and unbearable to even smokers. The point is that a proper smoking room CAN be built. What probably happened is that the design specifications did not call for any leakage. Thus the minimum was spent to provide minimum exposure to non-smokers. In other words enclosed rooms with an air filter. As a patron of smoking rooms in airports I have never been in one I did not find unbearable. This does not support the conclusion that one could not be built. A simple solution would be a large fan that exhausts air to the outside (no one should complain with all the jet exhaust and all) and sucks air out of the airport (kind of like a slow speed wind tunnel air can only travel in one direction). Thus you have negative pressure in the whole room exhausting to outside. Easy isn’t it. Some design studies would have to been done to minimize cost and increase efficiency. Problem solved.
Dan, the ideal smoke room you describe is what Lambert Airport has. These lounges were expensive to build: one half million dollars for the eight lounges. A very aggresive exhaust fan in each creates negative pressure. They tested the lounges with colored smoke and gave us a video of the test.
The Pion study just used nicotine vapour tests which Narconis said he only also did at the insistence of airport officials. Narconis said it was too easy to get a false reading by measuring nicotine brought in from outside the airport.
Is there somewhere I can send you the tests?
Thanks, Bill H.
I went to the BMJ link you provided.
If I read it correctly, on 26 September 2002, after spending 4 hours collecting a sample in the nonsmoking area, they captured a total of 0.028 µg of nicotine (Mass of nicotine). That's 0.000028 mg, which is roughly 46,000 times less nicotine than a smoker gets from smoking one cigarette (using Jarvis estimate of nicotine intake).
If a smoker smoked one cigarette during each of those 4 hours we're now up to a nonsmoker sitting there 4 hours getting ~200,000 times less nicotine than the smoker.
Maybe more than a lone molecule, but not too many more.
Right, and Narconis did want to do the nicotine test at all because he said the test winds up measuring nicotine in people clothing and luggage.
Correction: Narconis did NOT want to do the nicotine test.
Bill Hannegan wrote: "Is there somewhere I can send you the tests?"
Yes use wagicalplace@yahoo.com. Thanks, I would be interested to see them. If they really had negative pressure, then cigarette smoke held anywhere near the room should have gone towards the room.
Quilogn,
I didn't twist your words around about the demand. I just looked at your other comment near the top of this thread. Is that cheating? Did you retract this comment?
Dr. Siegel, I don't believe that you have any interest in a true debate with your colleagues at all.
If you do, then quit playing monkey games,
And yet...you claim that an occasional satirical piece is ridicule. I don't see why we should go out of our way to respect your selective oversensitivity/blowing things out of proportion about occasional satire. I think the satire is a good way to change things up--why bang your head doing the same old same old. (He's been criticised for that too.)
And if people in the anti-smoking movement disagree with that, perhaps people will draw a parallel between requests for opposition to be 100% potential-hurt-feeling-free and requests for 100% indoor-smoke-free rules. Someone, somewhere, might be sensitive. And I think this is where it gets creepy for neutral observers if they see it.
As for potential insults from reading this blog I've read how tempers have flared at smoking ban hearings & this is a lot lower key than that. It's not possible(and not good) to rub out all traces of emotion--that is requesting voluntary gross self censorship. I think you are smart enough to know this and are playing games. But I think this sort of thing is important to clarify when one can.
I know the question was directed at Dr. Siegel, but I've seen examples of heated debates here, and frequently a new reader/responder gives an interesting view, or that 5th time a concept is explained, the light goes off for some lurker or poster.
I should make one further comment to my last post. Simply smelling smoke does not, I my opinion, pose any health risk. For those in smokey bars that come home with the yucky smell, if you are not in smoke but can still smell it (it is not pleasent), but smelling smoke is not a health risk. The smoke maybe.
"If they really had negative pressure, then cigarette smoke held anywhere near the room should have gone towards the room." Dan
I believe the test video showed colored smoke from far outside the lounge moving toward the lounge and entering.
In support of car smoking bans Cathy writes:
And it regulates indoor parental smoking in the one place where it can easily be regulated and enforced, when the car is out in full public view.
Repeating... "regulated...enforced...
when the car is out IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW."
I see, stepping out of our homes into the view of the government is to surrender to tyranny. Ideas like this scare the living daylights out of me.
Hey Cathy, why not install cameras in our homes that relay the images to govt. agencies? We'd still be "secure" in our homes but on public display. And as long as smoking around a child in the home is in the view of the "public" (read govt) it's fair game, isn't it?
As for Q(whatever).. Carl...
Historical chronology is in order. Something important that you selectively ignore.
Dr. Siegel started this blog with no "[ridiculing] top ten lists, sarcastic news stories, etc, etc." It was ALL honest debate. And then they censored him. And then they blackballed him. And then they attacked him and told others to ignore him. And then they said he was essentially uneducated on the issue. And during most of that time, Dr. Siegel tried to get them to discuss it with all seriousness.
When someone gets beat up, thrown out the window, then accused of being the villian, do ya THINK that maybe there's no more point in trying to be entirely serious and where all one is left with is some well-earned and deserved taunts?
Seriously Carl, if you knew what fair was yourself you wouldn't be asking this ridiculous question.
Since Sam has been brilliantly plowing his own field, I'll hoe some rows in another.
How about the other "health risks" to bartenders? Someone recently posted a study about noise and its relation to heart attacks, though we've always, of course, known that noise was a major stressor. Even short term exposure can lead to hearing impairment and tinnitus.
So what can we do about the noise in a noisy bar? Yes, we could reduce it. Make laws about sound proof materials and carpets. Ban music, live or canned. (Get rid of that juke box.) But still, it wouldn't be zero. And if 110 bartenders got heart attacks from the noise... and if 70 more bartenders lost significant hearing...and if 60 developed tinnitus, would that be acceptable? The answer, of course, is no. The solution, it seems to me, would be simply to ban talking and laughing in a bar which would lower the risk to zero, since zero is what we want.
There's a precedent for it too: It's known as... a library.
On parental smoking and asthma.
I Just read a medical article out of Canada. In the 70s over 62% of Canadians smoked; now they claim it;s 20%, but the asthma rates have tripled. Would someone kindly explain.
Melle, don't despair. Your satire was not only beautiful but clear.
:
tobaccoscamalysis - "The lack of a home smoking ban is not a valid argument against having car smoking bans. We do what we reasonably can, and car smoking bans will improve health conditions for children for the reasons I mentioned.
home smoking bans would be the right thing to do. It may not be the practical thing to do (at this time)."
Cathy,
Re quote 1
there is nothing reasonable in anything you (TC) say or do.
Re quote 2
Not that many weeks ago you were attacking and ridiculing the posters here when we suggested that home bans were on the agenda. Now according to you it would be "the right thing to do".
You have shown yourself to be hypocritical and more than a little ecconomical with the truth.
Heres a tip from Scotland. Liars need excellent memories.
GreatScot
Walt----" Since Sam has been brilliantly plowing his own field, I'll hoe some rows in another."
Walt, what a terrific line!!!
As one who cannot write to save my life, I so appreciated those who do so beautifully...many thanks
OOps--sorry Si forgot to ask for permission to use.
Above was me
LOL
GreatScot---"Heres a tip from Scotland. Liars need excellent memories."
Same tip from the USA. Kevin, how about Canada?
JustTheFacts writes: "In support of car smoking bans Cathy writes:
And it regulates indoor parental smoking in the one place where it can easily be regulated and enforced, when the car is out in full public view."
Not in any of my vehicles. My windows in the rear are all tinted. You cannot tell whether I have rear seat passengers or not.
I imagine those tinted rear windows will gain in popularity.
Well, I was tempted to discuss tinted windows. It's relevant and irrelevant at the same time. First of all, the length to which window tinting on cars is allowed depends on individual state laws. Some allow more, some less. So yes, depending on the state it could be a very handy-dandy tool to employ in foiling detection.
But what makes the discussion on window-tinting irrelevant is how easily laws could be written outlawing it. And not just because they've decided that it's getting in the way of their spying on smokers but -- and as recently experienced in NYC -- for police officers' protection. One cop killed and his partner wounded with some blame placed on the fact that they couldn't see the occupants reaching for guns due to (legally, I believe) tinted windows.
Ergo, how much, or for how long, should we depend on it as a poke in the eye to the antis?
Commenting by HaloScan
