What I really find offensive is the fact that these people feel they can determine what people see in a movie, and in everyday life. I was born with a brain and I have had lots of experience using it, making me quite the expert on what I watch and do. They have no right telling me what I can watch nor what actors do to earn a living or what they do in private for that matter. I have used several events that we viewed in a movie to teach right from wrong to our children. For instance, they have seen people being arrested for dealing drugs and going off to prison and being forgotten about once there. Wasn't that "Midnight Cowboy"? At any rate, neither of my children were ever drug dealers or drug users for that matter. Heck, I used commercials for sanitary napkins to bring up the subject when it was time for that "talk" with my daughter. So, if I wanted to use people smoking in a movie to discourage my child from smoking, I should have that right to do so. You know, If I was a member of your movement who was demanding anything, first thing I would do is slide down off that pedestal and peak out the windows of my glass house and see if there might be someone there ready to throw stones at me.
What happens when these folks see smoking and smokers in real life? Will we be branded with 666 on their foreheads? Just and "S" would be nice----wait scarlett fever has that one. We could always do the Star of David---and remain historical.
Bunch of ninny Nannys----
I watched "Man of the Year" with Robin Williams and Christopher Walken, last week.
In the movie,the secondary story was about Walken's character, a heavy chain-smoker, being hospitalized for smoking.
This movie was rated PG-13
It had a message to the audience to not smoke 'or this will happen'
If it needs to be rated R - I guess the writers and directors of movies will no longer be able to get messages like that out to their full audience that they intended to see the film.
So apparently even Anti-smoking messages need to be Adult only.
All Anti-smoking advertising should therefore only be on tv between the hours of 10pm and 4am.
And better limit anti-smoking ads at the beginning of movies to only R - NC-17 and X rated movies.
One turn deserves another:
Government Anti-Smoking Ads Banned:
http://www.4ni.co.uk/news.asp?id=61888
If the studios and MPAA had any spine they would agree wholeheartedly with this recommendation from TC.
Then produce every new film with a person briefly smoking in it so all new releases had at least an R rating.
This would result in a complete undermining of the ratings system and perhaps people might then see the real nature of this. I think that would sort the problem out - or maybe not.
west
----
From a strongly-worded letter: It is now clear that the studios are not yet willing, for whatever reason, to break themselves free from Hollywood’s history of collaboration with the tobacco industry.
Ah. So, now, they're accusing the movie mogula of being tobacco indistry stooges? Yep, that might influence the way we start seeing antismoking organizations in the movies.
Why, then, are these health groups not calling for an R-rating for any film that depicts any of these other behaviors.
Why, then, does this question not end with a question mark? Unles, LOL, it's a rhetorical question--and we pretty much know the answer.
As I've said earlier, I do think the ratings system should probably be more informative for parents. As someone who does not have a child (yet), I cannot justify blaming all of the world's problems on bad parenting if we don't give parents the information and tools they need to guide their children in ways that they see fit. Then again, for childrens' movies, there are other considerations. For example, although driving a car might not be considered unhealthy and harmful, I don't want a kid watching a movie that glamourizes drag-racing and getting the idea of "trying it at home." As noted above, if parents are informed and have the opportunity, they can use movies to discuss topics with their children--and that is undoubtedly the *best* solution.
Sunz--Were you thinking of Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlett "A"? LOL, well, maybe that would better suit the real moral hypocrites--"A" for Antismoker.
The Directors Guild would not have taken a "smoking = R" rule kindly, and the AMA, etc., know such a narrow rule would never pass muster if the MPAA were anything other than a voluntary organization. This was the best they could hope for.
Even this small carrot to the anti-smoking groups opens the door to MADD pushing for similar treatment of underage drinking, drinking and driving, and plenty of other causes and controversial issues.
This is exactly why the late Jack Valenti rebuffed such groups all these years.
Nevermind that smoking continues on broadcast TV. Anyone could see Neil Patrick Harris smoking a cigar on "How I Met Your Mother" Monday night on CBS, during the so-called family hour. He didn't even cough.
DTB----Thanks for the correction. 
DTB-
A=Anti's LOL (other A words would also apply)
I want to know what makes them so sure that an 'R' rating actually prevents children from getting into the movie? Ever been to an 'R' rated movie? Tons of kids in there with their parents. So what exactly is it that this is supposed to do? Protect the already over-protected weaklings? From?
I keep hearing how smoking is going to kill me. I'm still waiting for that, and the way things are going, the sooner the better.
All these wussies can have the years I'll be missing, I don't want them.
So, what's a parent to do if he/she thinks smoking is Ok in movies, but they don't want their kids to see explicit sex scenes? or hear bad language, if everything has an r rating, then how's 's a parent to tell if it's just because of smoking, and not some objectionable content?
better the antis had insisited on a "S" rating, or somesuch to make the distinguishment obvious. this way, parents would be able to make an informed decision about what films their kids are watching, without ahving to review each film first.
Kids are huffing more than smoking, but I've never seen a movie whih anyone inhaling static guard, so what's ther explanation for that? More kids smoke pot than cigs, but pot in movies is very rare, so what's their exlanation of how kids start on huffing and pot, obviously, movies can't be blamed for that.
Let's face it, these groups know movies don't make kids smoke; they are just trying to further denormalize smoking to make it even easier to kick smokers around.
Lynda writes:I keep hearing how smoking is going to kill me. I'm still waiting for that, and the way things are going, the sooner the better. All these wussies can have the years I'll be missing, I don't want them.
Alas, Lynda, you'll probably be waiting longer than many antis live. See WORLD'S OLDEST -- ALL SMOKERS at http://www.forces.org/evidence/h...ther/
oldest.htm by Wanda Hamilton.
An excerpt:
(*) When Mme. Calment died at 122 in l997, the new (living?) longevity champ became 116-year-old Marie-Louise Meilleur, of Canada. Mme. Meilleur had chain-smoked all her adult life (as her grandson said, "She always had a cigarette dangling from her lips as she worked,"--AP, 8/15/97, reported in Miami Herald, p. 2A). She did give up smoking, however, when she was nearly 100. NOTE: From what I've read Mme. Calment quit smoking in her teens--her 100+teens--because her eyesight was failing to the point that she could no longer see to light her cigarettes. She died a few years later at 122.
(*) The world's oldest man is (unless he has died since the last report I have, which is l997) Christian Mortensen, ll4 in l997,who has been a cigar smoker for most of his life--and still smokes them. [San Francisco Chronicle, "114 and Still Smoking," Peter Fimrite, 8/5/97, p.A13].
(*) Britain's oldest man, George Cook, died at 108 in his sleep in September, l997. He "smoked heavily for 85 years before giving up tobacco at the age of 97," ("World Briefs," Houston Chronicle, 9/29/97).
(*) The Scottish Daily Record (12/15/97) reported on Ivy Leighton, 100, who smoked 20 cigarettes a day for 84 years, but cut down somewhat after her 100th birthday. April claimed smoking was the key to her long life.
(*) There are two men who claim to be the world's oldest living humans, but their birth dates cannot be certified. One is Ali Mohammed Hussein, who claimed to be 135, of Lebanon. He "smokes like a chimney," but does not drink alcohol [CNN World News, "Born in l862," Brent Sadler, 5/13/l997].
(*) The title is also claimed by Narayan Chaudhari, a Nepalese man who says he is 141. However, his birth date also cannot be certified. He too is a heavy smoker and says the secret of his longevity is "raw tobacco and no alcohol." [Nando net, Agence France-Press, "Nepalese man claims to be 141, which would make him world's oldest", 2/12/98].
DTB,
What? You didn't think I was depressed enough already? 
Geeeeeze..........Just because I never wanted to live to be 100 didn't mean I want to live longer?
*memo to self, make sure you are more specific in the future* LOL 
DTB & Lynda,
Don't even joke about extending this until I'm 140!!! God almightly, maybe I'll stop smoking immediately. 
Sunz,
I'm sooooooo with you on that one. I truly don't want to live THAT long, and the way things are going now, if I die tonight, I'll have NO regrets.
My wife's grandmother lived to 101. She quit smoking in her mid-nineties because she kept forgetting where she had left her cigarette burning. She was afraid she'd eventually burn the house down.
No, she did not have alzheimer's.
Doctor,
Forgive my pun, but I continue to find your stance on "hypocrisy" to be absolutely breathtaking. You write:
"If the health groups were simply calling for an end to all depiction of smoking in movies, I would have a lot more respect for the proposal. I just don't see how you can take such a supposedly principled stand against any depiction of smoking, and then argue that some depiction of smoking is acceptable."
Perhaps it is the same logic that allows for smoking in outdoor venues, but forbids even the slightest whiff of SHS indoors, regardless of concentration or the mitigation efforts put in place.
But this is even more shocking:
"If a single depiction of smoking in a film warrants an R-rating, then certainly we would want to give an R rating to a film that depicts racism, would we not? Or violence against women?"
Yes. Yes. By all means, yes. That is an excellent criticism of this position. But now apply that same logic to your own position:
"If longterm exposure to work hazards like SHS warrant an absolute ban, then certainly we would want to ban other avaidable, non-inherent work risks such as stock-car racing on ovals, and the hand-felling of trees, would we not?"
Heck. Even I am getting tired of these examples. But it seems to me that they just keep applying. If you are going to demand absolute reasonableness and consistency from the TC crowd, be prepared to explain why your position is not equally reasonable and consistent.
After all, I think that the TC crowd could use one of your favorite escape clauses here: Banning smoking in movies is "easy." Which is correct, no? And look how reasonable they are! In historic movies, in which the absence of smoking would strain credulity, and thus artistic merit, they are willing to let Hollywood slide! Just like people who think it's OK to allow smoking in a cigar bar, but not any other kind of bar! See? No zero-tolerance here!
Yes. I realize that the exclamation points come across as pretty flippant. Maybe even caustic. But sheesh. I am just sort of at a loss.
Sorry.
R rated movies eventually make it to television. There's no escaping them.
Or tv shows. No decent parent is going to turn off Power Puff Girls (thanks to my daughter for that one-she used to watch it) because the professor who made them always has a pipe in his mouth or hand.
Dr. Siegel, tell your public health friends that I think they'd be much happier living with the Amish.
James,
I'm not sure the Amish would want them..........the Amish are at least tolerant and forgiving........the anti's aren't..LOL
It just proves that the pursuance of good health is nothing but a minor side issue to bleat when all else fails.Public Health is a joke and it's satellite organisations are calling all of the shots.Let them all sink together because if this is what it is coming to ,then please release every mentally ill patient to make space for those that really do need it.
Sunz...I'm still laughing over Government Anti-Smoking Ads Banned!!
Sorry if I added to many years to anyone's life but, don't forget, we can live longer *and* avoid Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and dementia. See, dementia goes to those who breath/study *secondhand* smoke! Well, they get what they pay for. Then again, I can think of a few nonsmokers that I'd like to keep around for a while, too!
BTW, I'm thinking of creating a new website. Something with good info and humor, but more social than what seems to be currently available.
This post should have been no more than a few sentences.
We live in the USA - founded on the principles of self-determination and liberty.
Should freedom be sacrificed for the pursuit of a "healthier" society?
Clearly not, if one wishes that the USA maintain it's founding principles.
Anon,
TC does not care about out founding principles. They don't care about ANY principles.
TC only cares about their own comfort and convienience, along with power, control and their own damned wallets!
Sunz! Did you use the d-word?! LOL.
....
Ban the antis...*G* still laughin'
They can rate them triple dipped in seventeen Rs and fifteen Ts if they want to.
If kids want to see them they will download them or rent them from Blockbuster who have never refused service to anyone even if you don't have a shirt or shoes.
The idea the problem of cigarette companies advertising is the problem and not the effect is what needs to be revisited. The tools they used 20 years ago and the source of the selling top children dismay is in reality in their use of tools, which are still available today and are used in identical fashion by vendors of any product on the market.
No one seems to notice the ads were not manufactured by the tobacco companies they paid ad agencies to produce them.
The same ad agencies will produce campaigns for anyone with the budget to pay for it.
Banning big tobacco from advertising is avoiding the issue the advertising agencies and the broadcasters are continuing to do a poor job in self-regulation and that has never been addressed,
Regulated tools and ad bans are not required. No regulation and alternative addictive products will continue to be marketed with kids in mind.
As for the movies as long as cigarettes are a reality, to produce realistic movies smoking cannot be avoided. It is a matter of artistic license. I objected recently to a display of bodies coated in plastic being put on display at the science center. Incredibly advertising was targeting children. I believe this display was disgusting and totally crude, in fact to even create the display you would be arrested in most places it was being exhibited. My dislike of the lack of dignity and respect of course is outweighed in artistic license.
Surely seeing a baby's corpse plasticised and put on display is a lot less offensive than seeing someone use a legal cigarette, I might note, exactly as it was meant to be used.
Kevin wrote: alternative addictive products will continue to be marketed with kids in mind
Now there's a thought! Not having kids, it wouldn't occur to me. However, brushing away the cobwebs and recalling my own youth, I do remember kids getting into things that their parents used. Do they see a commercial for a nicotine patch and think it's a cool, grownup thing to do? Do they--esp. tenns--try to get a buzz from dad's NRT stockpile? Should all nicotine products be banned from accessible media--movies, TV, magazines?
I don't know Kevin, you'd be surprised at how many "intelligent" (or so they convince themselves) people will excuse anything in the name of art and yet work themselves into hysteria over a cigarette.
DTB, NRT has been found to be used by teenagers for entertainment alone. Even by kids who probably wouldn't actually smoke. It's an acceptable thing. People see a kid with NRT and assume s/he is doing the right thing by trying to get away from those evil cigarettes, and in fact encourage the kid to continue using them. Not to mention there's no age restriction for who can buy them. Again, it's assumed, then encouraged.
I don't remember what entry that was linked under, but maybe one of the other posters was the linker...
Reading the original HP article, my mind went in the same direction as Sam's, but with a different torque.
I note the Dr. perpetually calls AT "hypocritical" when they're not consistently extreme and offers them suggestions on how to "get right" by broadening their extremism. For instance, he dares them to ban smoking in homes as a way to be consistent with banning it in cars. Or, yes, as Sam notes, to ban drinking, screwing and fighting in films, and hamburgers, cokes and french fries at home.
This misses 3 points.
¶ It's not a question of "if this bit of extremism is right, then so's that," it's a question of THIS one is totally wrong. And if THIS one is wrong, then so's That and That. The call for consistency should be a call to be consistently reasonable and consistently in harmony with basic civil liberties.
¶ Second point missed is the one that's obvious to the rest of us here. They DO want to be consistently extremist. The Dr is challenging them to do exactly what they eventually intend. They WILL go for R's on any and every movie, including the historical, where anybody smokes. Or demand that cigarettes be digitally wiped, as they've done with postage stamps and album covers. They WILL go on to ban smoking in homes (they've already started.) You only believe you're being satirical or building straw men.
¶ Finally, after the tobacco cow's milked, they WILL go on to seek a whole mess of other bans, in movies and in life. Teen age drinking is blipping onto their radar and already the Health Commissioner of NYC is talking about launching a "comprehensive campaign" to reduce drinking and "modeling it after {the city's] anti-tobacco campaign." The anti-tobacco campaigns, with all their ugliness, have also been mentioned as models for anti-food and anti-obesity campaigns. Motto: nothing succeeds like excess.
It's not the tobacco, it's the zeal of the hunt, and the heady power of engineering society and controlling hordes of people. And their success so far has led them to dream larger and to want to keep going to replicate the kick. The goal of power is to amass more power, or, at the very least, to perpetuate itself.
To say you'd respect them more were they consistent, is to say you'd've respected Hitler more if he'd also gassed Protestants.
And then, after that, exactly what Sam said. Where's your own consistency?
:
Small ray of hope and sanity (very small):
http://www.news-gazette.com/
news...ar_club_smoking
The Doc lost me once he referred to outfits like ALF and CTFK as "health groups." They are NOT and have never been health groups and no amount of lying about that fact will change that fact.
They and others like them (ASH and ANR come to mind) are nothing more than self-serving propaganda machines designed to line the pockets of their "mouthpieces" and sycophants (PSYCO-phants actually.)
Harry,
Had to LOL when the Russian stated..
"The smoking ban needs to be aimed at public places and restaurants, instead of places of ill repute, like bars,"
Gee not being a 'bar fly' I guess I'm missing out on quite a time.
.
Jalestra: Not to mention there's no age restriction for who can buy them. Again, it's assumed, then encouraged.
Good Lord!! I wasn't aware of this. I know the patches have been a strange phenomenon. (In one prison where smoking had been banned and prisoners were given patches, they ended-up smoking the patches!) Thanks, Jalestra, I had no idea how destrcutive these things had become.
Harry: That's where I live. I read the article yesterday. The gazette has been greatly biased on the whole matter. The council, IMO, has made a grave error by being wimps about it. They did the partial repeal for bars and private clubs. The last election put replaced council members with two ban opponents--and then they wimp out like this! The most idiotic part of it is that the clubs that have lost the most during the ban are clubs that tend to cater to the younger set, i.e. students. Where do they think students get their disposable income? Many from working in restaurants! The paper continually insists that many bar owners and all restaurants want the ban, but it's a different story when I talk to restaurants--and we've already had closings of long-time establishments with the wait staff going to the neighboring ban-free town to look for work. Personally, this repeal doesn't affect me because I don't go to bars--but I do like to smoke after a meal. Even so, it won't affect me for long because I'll be moving next month. LOL, wimps.
From the article: Dr. Donald Greeley, head of the pulmonary medicine department at Carle Clinic, said data from a U.S. surgeon general's report shows that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work or home increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 percent to 30 percent and increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 percent to 30 percent.
Carle Clinic is big here. I'm tired of hearing that lame statistic--and they try to give it credence by giving some sort of confidence interval? Too bad they didn't ask a statistician.
Sam-
I just don't see any inconsistency in arguing that we need to ban secondhand smoke exposure in workplaces, which is estimated to kill tens of thousands of people each year, but not stock car racing, which kills at most 1 person per year.
If we set our threshold for legislative action at - say - 2 deaths per year - then there is no inconsistency.
Today's News:
On the live longer front: Jerry Falwell died at the ripe old age of 73. (Maybe, if he'd smoked, he could have lived to 122.)
On the Addicted teens:
See Nico-teen on F2C http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/...ewer.php?
id=188 (The article is in The Herald.)
Dr. Siegel states:
"Perhaps most importantly, I find this stand by the health groups to be quite narrow-minded and inconsistent from a broader public health perspective. There are a lot of ways in which movies influence unhealthy behaviors among adolescents: depiction of drunk driving, fast driving, alcohol misuse, illicit drug use, violence, sex, sexual violence, racism, gang violence, firearms, and so forth. For any of these depictions, one could state just as accurately that they are done with with the full knowledge of the harm it will bring to children who watch them."
I could not agree more with these statements more. Because of my agreement, I took a moment out of my day to look at the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual survey sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Just for quick background, there were 68,308 individuals aged 12 and older who completed the survey.
I looked at some of the basic findings for the age group 12-17 (n=22,565) and found that 9.9% of youths aged 12-17 were current illicit drug users, defined as "[a]ny reported use of a specific drug in the past 30 days." There were nine categories of illicit drugs: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants, nonmedical use of prescription pain killers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives.
Youths' aged 12-17 current use of alcohol was 16.5%, 9.9% for binge use (5+ drinks on the same occasion on at least 1 day in the past 30 days), 2.4% for heavy drinking (5+ drinks on the same occasion on each of 5+ days in the past 30 days). Similarly, 8.3% of 16-17 year olds reported driving under the influence in the past year.
For cigarettes, current use was 10.8% for youth aged 12-17. Just a quick look at these data indicate that current use of cigarettes was very similar to use of illicit drugs and alcohol use.
What I find highly ironic is that the survey also found that one in eight youths aged 12-17 reported exposure to some sort of drug, tobacco, or alcohol prevention program. The rates between participants and nonparticipants suggest a lot about our nation's drug policies: no significant difference in current marijuana use (5.8% participants used and 6.9% nonparticipants used) and current cigarette use (10.4% participants used and 10.8% nonparticipants used).
In the context of this blog, I find it incredibly interesting that these youth would engage in activities that are not advertised like cigarettes. If cigarettes are so heavily advertised to youth and if youth are so exposed to them in movies, then I would expect to see a huge disparity between cigarette use and use of other psychoactive substances. Yet the similar rates of use across substances indicate otherwise.
I fail to understand why such negative subjective value has been put into the depiction of smoking in movies while other activities have received little to no attention. This puts an unnecessary emphasis on smoking when cigarette use should be discussed in the same light as illicit drugs, alcohol, and driving under the influence. And these discussions should be between parents and their children anyway.
Ultimately what I think is at work is misrepresentation and misinterpretation of data. I could easily show that in the summer, crime rates increase as ice cream sales go up. Should we therefore hastily dictate the sales of ice cream or should we take a look at the bigger picture? Any basic knowledge of spurious relationships and Z variables would allow one to realize that maybe crime and ice cream sales increase because of temperature increases. Maybe more people go outside thereby increasing the proportion of people who may be apt to commit a crime.
Now, let's apply this same logic to exposure to smoking in movies leading to increased cigarette use among youth. It seems very possible that many variables may mediate and moderate this relationship. Just to come up with a quick list: perceptions of risk, cig/drug availability, peer groups, delinquency, quality of parental relationships, neighborhood deprivation, and psychopathology just to name a few. This offers a much more sophisticated look at the intricate relationships variables can have. Maybe it's plausible that certain types of youth who tend to use and initiate use of substances at higher rates also watch R-rated movies at higher rates. Maybe they also tend to have poorer relationships with their families. The possibilities go on and on, but it ultimately begs researchers to systematically take as many variables as possible into consideration in the design, implementation, and evaluation of research.
Unfortunately, I don't think this sort of integrated approach has been endorsed. I think the underlying reasons why some youth decide to engage in substance (mis)use are being swept under the rug and that dictating movie ratings is like putting a band-aid on a third degree burn. Look at illicit drug use rates. Last I saw, there weren't any corporations directly targeting their advertisement campaigns towards youth so they'll initiate marijuana, cocaine, or pain killer use. Yet the rate of illicit drug use is very similar to cigarette use.
I think it's time to understand cigarettes, alcohol, and illicit drugs in a new light. They are psychoactive substances that make some people feel good and it's that feeling that fuels the process of sustained use. There are so many variables that may explain why some youth are attracted to that and why some youth turn the other cheek. In the end, exposure via movies is just one small piece in a huge puzzle. Time to find the other pieces and connect the puzzle instead of harping on one or two.
Dr. Siegel,
I think the reason you don't Sam's point is because you believe the estimates of tens of thousands of deaths each year. I'm pretty sure that most of the people who post on your blog (save Bill, Cathy, and a couple of others), do not believe those statistics.
You have to admit, Dr. Siegel, it's a debatable issue. The evidence against second-hand smoke is not conclusive...it's almost solely based on epidemiological studies, which are not (in a lot of peoples minds) scientific.
"If we set our threshold for legislative action at - say - 2 deaths per year - then there is no inconsistency."
The threshold is NEVER set at "deaths per year." If it were, you might have to provide some death certificates to prove that your ban is necessary. And you wouldn't want that. So perhaps we should not go that route.
Let's go with things the way they are. Which is that we express dangers in terms of EXPOSURES that workers face. Exposures, in the case of bartenders, that are apparently expressed in terms of forty-hour work weeks over a 40-year span.
Come on doctor. Seriously. There are somewhere between 40 and 100 NASCAR drivers. Who drive 30 something times a year, for three or four hours at a clip.
To express that danger in terms that you apply to bartenders, we would need to multiply the driver deaths by a factor of tens of thousands. Because there are many, many more hospitality workers. You know that. We need to be talking about death RATES instead of deaths.
And then we would have to multiply it by even more, to make sure that we are talking about the same number of hours worked.
I think those "two deaths" would pretty soon morph into something more terrifying.
Or maybe I could do this: I'll open a bar. And I will hire people to tend bar--and churn butter. I bet it will be the only such place in the world.
And clearly, the NUMBER of deaths that we can attributed to people whose job title is "bartender/butter churners" will be no higher than 2 per year.
Come one, doctor. Sample size. It's basic statistics. Really, really basic.
Surely you understand that. Are you trying to be flippant?
Looks like the Doc will get his wish.
Daytime violence to be banned??
http://www.reason.com/news/show/...how/
120210.html
GreatScot
which is estimated to kill tens of thousands of people each year, but not stock car racing, which kills at most 1 person per year.
Doc, do you not see what you wrote here? "which is estimated" meaning there is no actual proof, we are just guessing (and yes, that is how the average person reads "estimated"); and "which kills" meaning provable deaths.
No one has yet to produce a single death certificate that states, without any doubt, that smoking and/or SHS KILLED that person. Not even you doc. No one has even produced proof that someone's lung cancer, or emphysema, or COPD or heart disease was excusively caused by smoking and/or SHS, with NO other possible contributing factor.
And until you do, you will never convince me to believe, what my real life experiences PROVE to me are a lie.
Lynda,
it's only a matter of time until some compliant MD's start listing ETS as cause of death and do you know something it still will not mean a thing.
GreatScot
"Come one, doctor. Sample size. It's basic statistics. Really, really basic.
Surely you understand that. Are you trying to be flippant?"
Not flippant, Sam, the word you are looking for is evasive.
I contend that Doc Siegel knows exactly what you are saying and that his position is seriously untenable. I suspect that he is either too afraid, or otherwise unwilling to challenge the true orthodoxy in his great religious crusade of anti-smoking. He effectively proved this the other day when he fell behind the 'findings' of high priest Repace as apparent proof that the acceptable threshold level for nicotine in indoor air must be set so low that it could (allegedly) never be removed - even though nicotine is harmless.
You are absolutely right of course, it is all a matter of scale. Furthermore, the one death in stock car racing will at least involve a body, a funeral and a burial or cremation. The so-called 'estimated deaths' from passive smoking are a complete misnoma. The real description that should be used is 'estimated statistically risked deaths' because they are only a postulation of "what may happen if ....." (and this is then followed by lots and lots of 'ifs'). But even Doc Siegel has allowed himself at times to use the more egregious term "Second-hand smoke causes X,000 deaths" when it suits the weight of his attempted argument. Yet he knows that such a statement is nothing less than a bare-faced lie.
And, what about this for consistency?
"On the other hand, I seem to have a higher threshold for invoking government legislative intervention. I would like to see a substantial level of risk before I advocate for coercive policies as a public health intervention. I don't believe that we necessarily have to reduce all environmental health risks to zero."
Who said this? Why, the good Doctor, who a couple of days ago said this:
"So in theory, I am not arguing for zero-risk. In practice, the only way to achieve acceptable risk is to have zero risk (i.e., to eliminate the smoking)."
If that's an example off consistency, then I'm a banana!
It is basic statistics, as you say, not body counts but basic (very basic) statistics. And basic statistics and their underlying mathematical principles are clearly beyond the comprehension of doctors and other sundry anti-smoking zealots, which is why they resort to such brazen hyperbole. Ultimately, anti-smokers are all the same - all of them.
.
Great Scot wrote:
"Lynda,
it's only a matter of time until some compliant MD's start listing ETS as cause of death and do you know something it still will not mean a thing."
.................
Great Scot,
It's been here for some time. Some states have death certificates that have a prominent space that asks, in the doctor's opinion, did "exposure" to tobacco use contribute to the death.
The "official" death certificate of the CDC has a prominent section that asks, in the doctor's opinion, did tobacco use "contribute" to the death.
Note that there is no requirement that the person filling out the death certificate have any credible knowledge of the habits and/or environment of the deceased.
Note that there are no prominent spaces for any other source of "contribution." - only tobacco.
From the instructions:
Did Tobacco Use Contribute to Death?
Choose >yes= if, in your opinion, any use of tobacco or tobacco exposure contributed
to the death of the decedent. For example, tobacco use may contribute to deaths
due to emphysema or lung cancer. Tobacco use also may contribute to some heart
disease and cancers of the head or neck. Tobacco use should also be reported in
deaths due to fires due to smoking.
Now you know of a huge source of all those deaths attributed to smoking and/or Second Hand Smoke.
Death Certificates - more
Now that Big Tobacco Control has managed to "prove" that SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)can be caused by the mother smoking, how many Death Certificates of infants will indicate that tobacco exposure contributed to the baby's death?
I'm not trying to be gross or flippant, but this also means that if the mother commits suicide because she has been branded as the cause of her baby's death, her Death Certificate can contain the information that tobacco use contributed to her death.
I want to throw up.
Free expression gets smoked
Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune
May 17, 2007
The 1st Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press, takes the view that the people should dictate to the government, not the other way around. But no one told a group of 32 state attorneys general, who have taken it upon themselves to instruct the film industry on the appropriate content of movies.
This time, the cause is not raunchy sex, foul language or blood-spattering violence. It's cigarettes. Many experts think that when actors puff away, they cause teenagers to do likewise. One study went so far as to say that 38 percent of all kids who acquire the habit do so because of the influence of films. So all these state government officials want filmmakers to stop depicting tobacco use.
They evidently have had an effect. Not long after the attorneys general sent a letter requesting action, the Motion Picture Association of America agreed to use smoking in determining each film's rating. "Depictions that glamorize smoking or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of a historic or other mitigating context" would run afoul of the ratings board. Apparently it would be OK to show an unwashed lowlife taking a drag just before he drops dead of a heart attack.
The MPAA didn't go as far as demanded by some anti-tobacco groups that want to slap an R rating on just about every film in which actors light up. But it accepted the basic principle that public health lobbyists and politicians should have a big role in deciding what people will see, instead of letting the industry merely cater to its audience.
It's hard to fully credit the notion that kids start smoking just because they see Scarlett Johansson doing it. Steven Milloy, who is the publisher of the Web site JunkScience.com, points out that adolescent smoking has declined even as onscreen smoking has increased. If movies exert such a mammoth influence on impressionable youngsters, shouldn't teen tobacco use have risen?
The studies themselves are not as damning as they purport to be. They indicate that kids who watch more movies with smoking are more likely to smoke. But a correlation does not necessarily show a cause: Just because there is lots of beer drinking at baseball games doesn't mean beer drinking causes baseball.
It may be that kids see a star light up and rush out to imitate him. Or it may be that teens who are inclined to smoke anyway are also inclined to see the sort of movies that feature smoking.
Michael Siegel, a physician and professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, believes the studies greatly exaggerate the impact of tobacco in films. "It is simply one of a large number of ways in which youths are exposed to positive images of smoking (which includes advertisements, television movies, television shows, DVDs, Internet, music videos and a variety of other sources)," he told me in an e-mail interview. "To single out smoking in movies as the cause of youth smoking initiation for a large percentage of kids is ridiculous."
Putting an R rating on smoky movies probably wouldn't do much to reduce teenagers' exposure. Some 75 percent of new releases that feature smoking are rated R -- and a lot of them are accessible even to preteens. In one survey of kids in grades 5 through 8, only 16 percent said their parents never let them see R-rated films.
Siegel points out that applying R ratings to films just because they feature full-frontal shots of cigarettes may backfire. Parents anxious about sex and violence may stop paying attention to the rating system once it factors in smoking. So you could end up with more kids seeing films with smoking.
If the MPAA were responding to the clear preferences of parents, this change might be merely dubious. In this case, though, it acted only after getting overt pressure from state governments -- which have no more business determining what appears on movie screens than they do in deciding what goes into Judy Blume's next novel. In the minds of safety zealots, censorship in the name of public health is no vice.
The MPAA's response validates the politicians in their intrusions and beckons them to find new ways to regulate art and other matters that are supposed to be exempt from their control. A shame it didn't give the attorneys general a simpler, better response: Snuff this. ---------- Steve Chapman is on the Tribune's editorial board. E-mail: schapman@ tribune.com
All the decent researchers of SIDS have said they do not want to be associated with those claims. That SIDS hits regardless of health of the mother, smoking/drinking habits, financial stability, etc. That SIDS deaths have resulted even when parents do everything "right". Even the leading center of SIDS research has said they would never make the claim that SHS causes SIDS, especially since they cannot say what causes SIDS. Of course this was 2 weeks before it was announced that they may have found a possible cause of SIDS, and it had nothing to do with SHS, but was a brain issue. I should go find that article again....
When I was a youngster, it was easy to identify the bad guys: They usually wore black hats, were unshaven and/or had mustaches, drank whiskey, were slovenly and used evil face expressions.
The good guys usually wore white hats, were clean shaven (no mustaches), were very neat, drank milk and smiled.
The new main identifier is smoking.
Not: Maiming, killing, fornicating, drinking, drug-dealing (except for cigarettes), speeding, etc. - just smoking.
GreatScot said: "Looks like the Doc will get his wish. Daytime violence to be banned??"
Just to make it clear, I wasn't arguing that violence in movies needs to be banned; only that we should perhaps treat things consistently and not adopt a zero-tolerance policy for smoking while tolerating lots of violence. My actual opinion is that I think the MPAA's announced approach seems reasonable. Consider all of these factors, but not with any absolutes.
Rod -
Thanks for letting readers know about Steve Chapman's very nice column in the Chicago Tribune. I thought he did a really nice job in the piece, and of course I'm glad that he highlighted some of my own arguments.
I think the most interesting point he makes is that 84% of kids see R-rated movies, so requiring an R-rating for movies with smoking might not reduce exposure to smoking substantially anyway.
Doctor Siegel:
"Consider all of these factors, but not with any absolutes."
.........................
Doctor,
Big Tobacco Control is absolute on everything except anything that would ban the manufacture and sale of tobacco products.
Without tobacco products, the billions of dollars that flow only to BTC would disappear and the "control" industry would collapse along with the tens of thousands of employees, etc. that are dependent on controlling those products.
Like any other fanatical group, BTC must have an enemy, a demon or a devil to survive and thrive.
In all of human history, fanatics of any persuasion that gain control, have been responsible for more human misery and death than all the personal vices, epidemics, plagues and natural disasters combined.
Frankly, if I had to choose between the fanatical groups that control public policy on the proclaimed evils/epidemics of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, pornography, etc., I would choose to eliminate the controls and the fanatics.
The "evil" products cause less harm.
Doctor,
Seriously. You are not serious. Are you? About comparing the NUMBER of racing deaths to the NUMBER of hospitality deaths?
Because if so, in the name of public health, and in the name of consistency, you ought be urging everyone named Sam to move to my house. Because that would be much safer for them.
Seriously. Last year, the number of deaths among people named Sam who live at my house was zero percent. Life here was obviously much safer than being a Sam elsewhere in the world. Where hundreds of Sams just up and died.
But wait, you say. There are tens of thousands of Sams elsewhere in the world. And only one at your house. Of course we would expect the number of Sam deaths to be lower at your house than at the population at large. And of course, trying to draw conclusions about SAFETY by comparing such numbers is shoddy analysis, at best.
Yes. I think so, too.
Past Film Censorship in Mexico
Years ago I had read a piece regarding how some "immoral conduct" could be depicted in films (in Mexico) if the conduct portrayed led to an untimely end or punishment. I found some information to confirm my memory on Wikipedia:
In regards to censorship, the Huerta government imposed a moral and political decree of censorship in approximately June 1913. This decree was imposed a few days after convencionista soldiers shot at the screen during a viewing of *El aguila y la serpiente. The decree stated that films that showed the following were prohibited: “views representing crimes, if they do not include punishment of the guilty parties, views which directly or indirectly insult an authority or person, morality or good manners, provoke a crime or offence, or in any way disturb the public order.
(Rod note: I have an old album kept by my mother (who was very star-struck) filled with photos cut from film mags. What was allowed before censorship is quite amazing (nudity, etc.) and belies the notion that the average American was quite prissy in those days. Of course, the guardians of public morality changed that pretty quickly).
*Note: Aguila means "eagle" in Spanish. Serpiente is, of course, serpent/snake.
Actually, choosing public health priorities based on the magnitude of mortality (i.e., total number of deaths) is one of the most basic principles of public health.
Michael Siegel - Actually, choosing public health priorities based on the magnitude of mortality (i.e., total number of deaths) is one of the most basic principles of public health.
....................
Doctor Siegel,
What you state above must be predicated on the accuracy of the data - clear cause and effect.
It's the accuracy of the data that is in question here.
All the research was undertaken with the assumption that SHS was hazardous.
Even with agenda-driven, preconceptual scientists and researchers doing the studies (their methods, results and conclusions being verified by themselves and/or other zealots)they have been unable to find a correlation greater than about 1.5.
Everything we know about epidemiological studies, meta-analyses and confounders screams out that there cannot be a conclusion that SHS is hazardous and should be subject to draconian regulations.
From Junk Food Science
Vitamins and prostate cancer
URL: http://tinyurl.com/3b7dxq
Millions of men came home from work to be greeted by news that the vitamins they’ve been taking, believing to be good for them, could increase their risks for prostate cancer.
For years, we’ve heard that preventing cancer means a healthy diet with lots of fruits and vegetables, and rich in vitamins, anti-oxidants and all that jazz. But a new study reported that men most conscientiously following a healthy lifestyle had higher risks of advanced and fatal prostate cancers. According to Reuters:
Too Many Vitamins Could Raise Prostate Cancer Risk
Men who pop too many vitamins in the hope of improving their health may in fact be raising their risk of the deadliest forms of prostate cancer, especially men with a family history of the disease, researchers said.... The researchers followed 295,344 men over five years to see if there was a link between multivitamin use and prostate cancer.
“We didn't see any relationship with overall prostate cancer," said Dr. Michael Leitzmann, a National Cancer Institute investigator who worked on the study.... In men who took too many multivitamins, the risk of aggressive cancer increased by one third, and the risk of fatal prostate cancer doubled compared to those who took no multivitamins...
The study, led by Karla A. Lawson, Ph.D., at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, MD, looked through the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study database for over 295,000 men who had returned questionnaires that had been mailed to 3.5 million AARP members in 1995-6. The men had answered food-frequency questions, as well as questions on their vitamin usage, family history, demographics and lifestyles. The researchers searched through cancer registries to identify prostate cancers that had been diagnosed five years later. The AARP database was used to look for associations with the men’s diet and vitamin usage. They found no association at all between vitamin usage and total or localized prostate cancers. There was also no association between advanced cancers and vitamins taken up to seven days a week. But one or more extra vitamin a week jumped their risks for advanced cancers by 32% and fatal cancers by 98%.
As we know, these types of data dredges looking for risk factors — associations — that are meant to alarm us, needn’t. The relative risk numbers the researchers found, while they may sound impressive, were also way under what would be considered tenable for these types of studies. This study, in essence, was a nonfinding.
The most valuable message we can take away from epidemiological studies of nonfindings like this one, is what not to concern ourselves about. In this case, vitamins don’t have special abilities to prevent or protect men from prostate cancers. And in fact, the researchers couldn’t find that any single vitamin or supplement made any difference in risks. So much for the magic of vitamin pills.
Other nonfindings in this study refuted other beliefs in the special cancer-fighting powers of certain “healthy” foods and lifestyles. The men taking the most vitamins and minerals (and with the highest risks for advanced and fatal prostate cancers) were those with the “healthiest” lifestyles. They had the lowest consumptions of red meat and the highest of fish and tomatoes, and they had the highest levels of physical activity. There were also fewer smokers among them, compared to the men at the lowest risks. The men with the highest risks for advanced and fatal prostate cancers were also slimmer, with lower body mass indexes than the men at the lowest risk! I wonder why they didn't headline with one of these correlations?
The news quoted one of the NCI investigators saying they didn’t know which particular vitamin was driving cancer but that their findings were “a red flag.”
We know, though, not to let epidemiological studies and their correlations get our goat. Correlations are not causation. Instead of magical beliefs that cancer is something under our control and the punishment for “bad” diets and behaviors, there were more likely explanations suggested in this study’s findings.
Cases of identified prostate cancer were associated with higher family histories for prostate cancer and among men more likely to seek PSA exams and cancer screenings. So, elderly men with family histories for cancers may have been more likely to have screenings and their cancers identified. Such a simple explanation makes more sense than that an extra vitamin pill causes cancer, doesn’t it?
PS. Want another reminder that data dredge epidemiological studies can, and do, pull out all sorts of irrelevant correlations that can even contradict each other depending on what the researchers set out to find? Another study from this very same AARP data base reported in January that “obesity” doubled men’s risks for advanced and fatal prostate cancers. The opposite this study found! The more likely explanation above applies to that study, too.
The next study that comes along will no doubt try to scare us with some new risk to our health. When it hits the news, we’ll just laugh and change the television channel, right guys?
There are lies ,damn lies and statistics,TOBACCO CONTROL AND PUBLIC HEALTH UTILISE ALL 3,YOURSELF INCLUDED.
More on the Vitamin thing...
From the abstract of the study:
Results: No association was observed between multivitamin use and risk of localized prostate cancer. However, we found an increased risk of advanced and fatal prostate cancers (RR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.67 and RR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.07 to 3.66, respectively) among men reporting excessive use of multivitamins (more than seven times per week) when compared with never users. The incidence rates per 100000 person-years for advanced and fatal prostate cancers for those who took a multivitamin more than seven times per week were 143.8 and 18.9, respectively, compared with 113.4 and 11.4 in never users. The positive associations with excessive multivitamin use were strongest in men with a family history of prostate cancer or who took individual micronutrient supplements, including selenium, -carotene, or zinc.
Conclusion: These results suggest that regular multivitamin use is not associated with the risk of early or localized prostate cancer. The possibility that men taking high levels of multivitamins along with other supplements have increased risk of advanced and fatal prostate cancers is of concern and merits further evaluation.
...................
Note that the US EPA declared ETS a Class A carcinogen based on an RR 1.19 with a 90% Confidence Interval.
Oh, in case the readers here didn't know this, Repace and Glantz had a hand in EPA thing. Another is a Dr. Hammond, who is on the California Scientific Review Panel (Glantz is on it, too)that declared ETS as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Repace's measurements of ETS indoors and outdoors were used in their conclusion.
Si - There are lies ,damn lies and statistics,TOBACCO CONTROL AND PUBLIC HEALTH UTILISE ALL 3,YOURSELF INCLUDED.
...........
Si, who is "YOURSELF INCLUDED?"
Apologies Rod,i referred to Dr Siegel.
Sorry Rod,if you thought in any possible way i was directing my vent at yourself,far from it,your comments above are highly accurate .especially those concerning SIDS.All i saw was Dr Siegel,taking the piss out of Sam,and ignoring the point totally,which recently has become the norm.The other thread regarding nicotine and the recent study showing a reduction in nicotine affects platelet aggregation and presumably blood flow rather than showing support for non FDA regulation surely more importantly shows that more studies need to be undertaken to see if nicotine can HELP those suffering from circulation problems.Forces website details some interesting studies that refute smoking being so very bad for your arteries since nicotine actually dilates them.However the same constant drum is being beaten by Dr Siegel,who now appears to ignore the many questions being asked rather than engage in active debate.Anyone else notice that the antis hardly field an antagonist on this site any more.Dr Siegel commented on Calabasas and its ridiculous proposals yet refuses to accept any similarity with his position on this and smoking outdoors on patios.The arguement on air monitoring appears to be saying Dr Siegel is utilising figures from loony Repace but he doesn't get involved with the debate which follows. SHS is firmly set in tablets of stone with only those studies that suit being of value.At the early stages ofthis blog,chronic SHS was the primary concern ,but lately Dr Siegel hid behind his claim of acute SHS exposure.Too many inconsistencies keep appearing without any answers being supplied.The anti movement is out of control,is he merely trying to rescue it so it can return to continue as how he would prefer or is he seeking a genuinely changed organisation which relies more on credible science,but can he define credible when he already picks and chooses which studies he will debate ?Reason only seems to exist in the minds of those who smoke or are pro-choice,nowhere else.
"It's one of the most basic principles of piublic health."
Well, then, doctor, reduce the magnitude to an acceptable level. That is, pick a magnitude that you will accept, and propose ideas that would reduce the body count to that level. Demand a REDUCTION of the number of bars and restaurants that allow smoking. In 50 percent of places. 80 percent. 99 percent.
What percentage would you aim for? I bet I know. I bet it is 100 percent. Why? Because, in truth, you are basing the idea of the ban on RISK. The danger that each individual batender and waitress faces. You think it is entirely unacceptable for each one to see his risk of SHS-related death rise from 1 per 1000 to 1.2 per thousand. Or whatever it is.
Which is fine. Absolutely fine.
BUT IF YOU ARE CLAIMING CONSISTENCY, and of you regularly hammer others for failing to be consistent, then you need to apply that RISK standard to other professions.
Besides, keep in mind what your "consistency" entails, now that "magnitude" is your new standard. Let's say I have a very new, or very small industry. I don't know. Maybe something like production of nan-robots. I bet there are only a hundred people or so onvolved in that. (Not R&D. Actual production.)
And let's say that next year, a full 10 percent of people involved in doing that die. Ten people.
It's a shockingly high percentage. But not nearly high enough in terms of magnitude, to do anything about it. But would a rate that high demand some kind of action? Apparently not, as you seem content to leave NASCAR drivers unprotected.
By the way, I notice that yuo did not address the idea of hand-felling trees.
You seem to be a great admirer of OSHA. Well, OSHA names logging as one of the top two MOST DANGEROUS JOBS IN AMERICA every year. Yet you seem to want to do nothing about hand felling. Which is clearly the most dangerous part of the job:
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/
...g_preamble.html
Of course, regulations do exist. In order to... get this... REDUCE the number of deaths.
So maybe magnitude is part of the game.
So. Is there ANY way to reduce the NUMBER of SHS related deaths? Would ventilation systems do ANYTHING in that regard? Or are you still demanding zero-risk? Zero deaths?
Maybe that's a good thing. But again, consistent it is not.
Look. It wasn't me who explained the terms of deaths per hours worked.
That was OSHA. And the doctor quoted that method. An appeared to approve it.
So which is it? Number of deaths, pr deaths per hours worked over a 40-year period?
Sam M asks...'Or are you still demanding zero-risk? Zero deaths?'
Your forgot to add zero smell.
Guys,
Can we cut the badgering. It should be quite obvious Dr. Siegel believes there are substantial hazard in hospitality venues. You've asked for evidence, and he's made example of such. GreatScot was kind enough to find a corresponding study which appears to support his figure.
Refute the science of that study, and then offer evidence which supports your position, as to where the error is and the magnitude of the error. Provide credible evidence to support your own risk assessment, and why it is a more reliable measurement then the other.
Dave K. did this with his analysis of Helena and how it fails to be upheld in other settings.
BTW, if you take Repace's figures, a bartender would have a lifetime risk of 2 per 100, or 20 per 1000, using his higher exposure figure.
As to Dr. Siegel's argument on priorities, I think he's correct. If you take a profession such as race car drivers, and at best there will only be a very small subset of people at risk. The nature of the profession limits the population at risk. The concept should be to reduce the amount of risk for greatest number of people at most at risk. The measurement is how many lives saved in relation to the entire population. This makes good sense. This is much like triage.
In regards to inconsistencies. To put it this way, what you have done is take what "YOU" believe, and have substituted that in connotation to what Dr. Siegel has written, then you point out the inconsistancies as if he believes the way you do. This is what Cathy Bell was trying to do.
Walt H,
Well said. Badgering will not change the Doc's opinion any more than it changes ours and can only weaken or overshadow the many excellent comments and observations.
I understand that emotions run high and the sense of injustice can be overwhelming at times however may I be so bold to suggest that people should take a little time to chill before responding.
BTW I also mean between the posters.
GreatScot
"The concept should be to reduce the amount of risk for greatest number of people at most at risk."
Well that's an interesting argument. And one that seems quite reasonable. But it also seems like a pretty good defense of the TC positions Dr. Siegel takes to task.
For instance, he says (I am paraphrasing several posts into one paragraph): "Well, if you are going to ban smoking in movies, to be consistent and believable you have to ban smoking in ALL movies. No exceptions for 'historical accuracy' can be allowed. And a failure to call for that level of purity amounts to hypocrisy. And as a matter of fact, why not call for a ban on ALL dangerous things in movies? Where are these people when it comes to sex and drugs and alcohol? A failure to demand a ban on ALL of these things means that the people calling for such bans are hypocrites."
I think that someone who makes such arguments ought to expect people to make similar demands of his own position. For instance, if we are going to protect SOME workers who face real workplace dangers, why not protect ALL workers who face real workplace dangers? If consistency is key, what to make of people who only demand a ban of SOME risks? What does the Doctor make of people who only want MPAA to base ratings on smoking and not drinking?
I agree. Coming at the doctor time and again regarding hypocrisy and consistency can seem like badgering. And I plead guilty. But if what I am doing to him rises to that level, what he is doing to TC does the same.
Or doesn't it?
Sam,
many of your points have merit, however you can only eat an elephant 1 bite at a time.
Public health should target the biggest bang for the buck. That is why they used to focus on the worst and most commutable of disease. Save as many lives as possible. (Which is why I find the DDT episode dispicable, the WHO condemmened millions to death.)
They also specialise. The Doc specialises is tobacco. Whether Tobacco, as a life choice,or indeed any form of social engineering, has anything to do with public health is a whole different question. See my link a thread or 2 up on the self determined, evolving role of the WHO.
GreatScot
May I suggest that there would be no ‘badgering’ of Dr. Siegel if he’d address the questions put to him. Are his evasions and inconsistencies to be completely ignored? Brian, Walt and some of the rest of us don’t believe they should be. Is pointing them out once or twice to be deemed sufficient and then we should all lapse into a polite, gentlemanly silence as though there wasn’t a very large elephant in the room, which is the question of Dr. Siegel’s integrity? Are we talking about serious matters here that affect people deeply or are we talking conversational fluff?
.
Harry,shame on you,you missed me off.
Dr Siegel has often stated he will answer questions,so,if he doesn't,but obviously is aware of them should we just put up and shut up?To those who suggest we should leave Dr Siegel alone,may i ask one question,do you believe the WHO'S study on SHS is flawed ,as Dr Siegel suggests ?Are all those studies which show minimal risk arising from SHS flawed ?
OK being pedantic 2 questions.
I don't question the Doctor's integrity. Just to be clear. But I do think that his arguments are fair game.
Walt H
'Badgering' is what you and I and most of the regular posters on this blog have been and are being subject to as a result of the opinions and beliefs of Dr Siegel and his co-crusaders in the anti-smoking movement. If he takes personal offence at any posting here, (none of which is intended by those on the opposite side of the argument as far as I can see), then he has the absolute right to remove it - and that he doesn't (so far) is a testimony to his personal character.
Having said that I do not accept that we must just keep quiet while enduring the wholesale removal of long-standing civil liberties because of the capricious 'beliefs' of a small number of anti-smoking activists. Too much of the supposed evidence of the dangers of passive smoking is down to personal beliefs and opinions and that just isn't good enough, nor is it fair if the holders of such beliefs have ready access to the ears of high officialdom, something about which you or I could only dream.
So I consider that it is perfectly acceptable to challenge (not 'badger') Dr Siegel on his beliefs - and the underlying reasons for them - especially when these seem often to be predicated on the sort of biased 'research' that posters here (and many others) have rebutted time and time again. And it isn't necessary to try and dissect every single study brought up in the 'debate'. This would be totally impossible without access to the original data anyway, even if one had the time (and didn't start losing the will to live when doing so! ). Yet who's to say that the Doc isn't going to change his 'beliefs', given how far he has (apparently) moved already. Now, if he really does believe in consistency, integrity and evidence-based 'real' science then I would suggest that he must at least be prepared to change his position if the counter evidence is overwhelming (which I believe it already is). After all, it's not a religion is it? (Although I sometimes wonder).
As Harry says, these are serious matters - which threaten our liberties far beyond the issue of smoking (passive or real smoking). Doctor Siegel is a genuine gentleman for allowing us to air our (opposing) views on his blog. He does, however, exhibit a common (to all antismoking activists) tendency to run away from an argument. OK, that's his right, but that shouldn't mean his statements and beliefs must go unchallenged.
So, with all due respect (genuinely), I reject your proposition.
Sorry
.
I take no offense at any of the comments here. Rather, I appreciate the interchange and the fact that those who may disagree so vehemently with me are willing to enter into a civilized discussion. That's more than I'm getting from many of my own colleagues - ironically, many of them don't seem to actually disagree with me but still won't enter into a dialogue!
I also don't see a need to have the last word on every disagreement. Thus, I don't feel a need to respond to every counterpoint that is made to an argument of mine. I am not trying to ignore any posts, but if I don't have a response to address a particular statement, I won't make one just for the sake of making one - only if I feel I have something substantive to add.
As far as the WHO study goes, I pointed out that there was a signficant decreased risk of lung cancer among people exposed to secondhand smoke as children, but that wasn't addressed. Give me some credit- most anti-smoking advocates won't even acknowledge that finding at all. I don't think it means that secondhand smoke protects against lung cancer if you are exposed early in life, but I do think that a finding like that should be specifically addressed.
Sam says "I think that someone who makes such arguments ought to expect people to make similar demands of his own position. For instance, if we are going to protect SOME workers who face real workplace dangers, why not protect ALL workers who face real workplace dangers?"
That is pretty much been Dr Siegels position as to why you must include the hospitality industry in terms of smoking bans, now isn't it? Sorry Sam, I don't see how anyone can call that inconsistent.
So tell me Sam, you seem to believe that there is ONE thing that could be done that would save the world and eliminate all workplace hazard, what pray-tell would that be? Outlaw work? After all, this seems to be what you are asking the doctor for. Something to protect "ALL workers".
The difference between a smoking ban in all workplaces, and the smoking in movies issue, is the smoking in movies has an except clause in it for "historically accurate" (for whatever that means). Further by simply expanding the same concept it could cover sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, or whatever else a group believes is morally objectionable is quite simple if what your goal is to protect children. It's a quite valid question the doctor asks; why not.
What I believe would be hypocritical, is to ask for a ban on smoking, and exempt the places where the workers are most frequently faced with working in a smoking environment. Why should office workers be covered, and not waiters? Why restaurant workers, and not bar workers? Why bar workers and not casino workers? No, his position on this has been quite clear and very consistent... A workplace smoking ban means just that.
What I find inconsistent, to claim "I don't question the Doctor's integrity." but continually insinuating his remarks are inconsistent or hypocritical.
Let me know when you come up with the ultimate solution that will protect all workers from all real dangers, and btw, just what is your definition of a real workplace danger?
What I consider badgering is the constant attempts to change the topic of discussion to what YOU want to talk about namely smoking bans, rather then the topic to which was posted. If you want to discuss smoking bans and how unfair they are, open your own blog, and discuss them there, rather than attempting to subvert a topic on the MPAA movies into your own discussion.
I'd love to have Dr. Siegel discuss smoking bans and the underlying studies, but I think it's a bit rude to attempt to hijack his forum by turning (and with weak argument at that) his own comments around and try and use them against him to force him into that discussion.
Brian,
As you acknowledge Dr. Siegel has been very much a gentleman, I think we owe him as much respect has he has shown to us on this board.
Unlike you, some people haven't been quite so eloquent in their attempts to open up a discussion, and have resorted to challenging his integrity in order to force him into defending it to open the door to what he obviously isn't interested in discussing at the moment.
Walt H. writes: "What I consider badgering is the constant attempts to change the topic of discussion to what YOU want to talk about namely smoking bans, rather then the topic to which was posted."
That's not badgering; that's returning to and addressing, with the utmost seriousness, THE CORE ISSUE upon which everything else on this blog hangs; namely, whether or not ETS is a health hazard, or enough of a health hazard, sufficient to warrant bans and turning a quarter of the population into scum and pariahs. And there isn't a single one of Dr. Siegel's postings that doesn't have that as a basis in one way or another.
Why are you using Godshall's argument that we should never go 'off topic'? Why not? This isn't a bookkeepers workroom; we've got a rich discussion going on here that flows between strings; and if someone reads a juicy newspaper item or has an off-topic point or question he or she doesn't file it away until an appropriate posting from Dr. Siegel warrants an on-topic entry; he or she puts it out; otherwise it might NEVER get out. Are you really maintaining that every one of your postings has been on-topic?
Also, I note that Dr. Siegel has never objected to us going off-topic. And why should he -- why WOULD he? I don't think he would -- he's a teacher, isn't he? That's one of the reasons we appreciate him (of course, through our exasperation).
People are being ostracized, spit on, forbidden to smoke in their own apartments, forbidden to smoke in parks, kicked out into the cold to smoke, made second-class citizens, assaulted, even killed (the list goes on and on), and you worry about sticking to the topic of discussion? With all due respect, etc. etc.
I hope people keep bringing up and posting off-topic topics and questions, and I hope Dr. Siegel continues to allow it. Thanks to him, there are no strait-jackets here.
Si:
I left you out deliberately; not perversely, but with respect and after a little thought. You're our battering ram, so to speak, and I didn't want to draw even more attention to you. Too late now!
.
Dr Siegel,Walt H etc,every day the fervour of the antis and their abject desire to eradicate smoking,and it appears smokers ,brings forth more ridiculous claims and attempts at prohibition.I am basically sick to the back teeth of it all.I have no wish to smoke wherever i choose,however it appears the mere sight of someone like me could ultimately lead to physical abuse given the hype and incitement caused directly by the anti mob.This should surely force a rethink by Public Health,who up to now tread the very same path as the anti movement.Those of us who appear to "badger" do so in the belief that the truth is desperately needed and where we feel points or questions have not been answered or points taken into consideration seek to do so.We make no intentional derogatory remarks nor post insinuous, nasty or personal comments then vacate.A blog is specifically for an exchange of ideas and let's face it nothing is as emotive as smoking.We are all of differing academic levels and sometimes this causes problems if some of us do not comprehend an issue.Those who have experience in taking issue with Government and it's various departments know too well tenacity and perseverance are required,Public Health is no different.We have a part to play in this debate and we will endeavour to be heard.All comments are welcome and people can freely express their views.
Harry,you are too intellectual for this 'ere "battering ram" LOL.
Walt writes:
"So tell me Sam, you seem to believe that there is ONE thing that could be done that would save the world and eliminate all workplace hazard, what pray-tell would that be? Outlaw work? After all, this seems to be what you are asking the doctor for. Something to protect 'ALL workers.'"
Wrong. That's just a bad read of what I have said. And a bad read of my interpretation of the Doctor's writing.
It is more accurate to say that, if consistency is important, all workers should be protected TO THE SAME EXTENT. That is, if we are not singling out smoking, as the Doctor says, and if we are are simply banning activities that go past some kind of "danger threshold," then that threshold should apply in all cases.
For instance, a little algebra allows us to measure how many workers per 1,000 die from various exposures. This is usually expressed in something like "per thousand hours worked," or some such.
The doctor revealed what his threshold for SHS was. Do you know when he did that? After I spent a good deal of time badgering him about it.
See, I think you could make a case that some sort of different standard should apply to bartenders and NASCAR drivers. Maybe it's because NASCAR drivers make a lot of money. The idea that it shouldn't apply to drivers because there are not enough deaths might even fly. But it WON'T fly for people who have spent so much energy blasting TC for not applying its stadards for movie safety in a consistent fashion.
Is calling people "inconsistent" and "hypocritical" equal to questioning someone's integrity? Maybe. But maybe you should go to Sr. Siegel's main site and do a search for those words. How does he use them? How often? Because if those words are fobidden in polite conversation, the Doc ain't polite.
You say that the Doctor should not be held accountable for all these risks. That he doesn't work as an advocatre for NASCAR drivers. So his solutions should not have to save everyone. OK. Fine. But then the people agitating for a ban on smoking in movies deserve that same considration. Why insist that TC agitate equally for a ban on sex and drinking in drugs in movies? They do not concern themselves with sex and drugs and drinking. They deal with tobacco. So again, the would get to use the same argument against the Doctor that you are using against me. That is, if I am guilty, so is the Doctor.
Look. The Doctor has set high standards for TC. In this post and elsewhere, he said that tobacco control advocates were being hypocritical because they were calling for a ban on all smoking in movies despite the fact that there are other dangers they were not seekling to ban. To him, that seemed like proof of some broader, more nefarious campaign.
All I did was point out that if the Doctor applied that same standard to his own arguments, he would be forced to ban any and all job dangers that pose as great a risk as SHS. And in a previous post, he defined "risk" not in terms of total body count, but in terms of deaths per hour worked. Well, it is CLEAR that other jobs ppose greater risks in those terms. Yet he does not porpose banning those risks.
That seems problematic for someone who has based his argument on TC's failure to be sufficiently consistent.
Walt also writes:
"The difference between a smoking ban in all workplaces, and the smoking in movies issue, is the smoking in movies has an except clause in it for 'historically accurate' (for whatever that means). Further by simply expanding the same concept it could cover sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, or whatever else a group believes is morally objectionable is quite simple if what your goal is to protect children."
Yes. And expanding the smoking ban would be equally easy. We could write a law that says, "Any job risk that kills X number of workers per Y hours worked will be banned."
Then we would do the research, and anything that corssed that threshold--be it felling trees, driving racecars or what have you--would be banned. Even if it killed the business is question. Even an entire industry.
Take high iron work. Sure, society might want to make exemptions for people building hospital and bridges. I can see that. But many purists wouldn't.
But let's say we did have that exemption. OK. But should we really expose high-iron workers to the dangers of their job because Hard Rock Cafe wants to put up a 300-foot-tall glowing electric guitar? Surely it would be "easy" to ban such things. And 300-foot electric guitars are clearly not an inherent part of operating a theme restaurant. An dclearly, the workers who build such things are put in grave danger when they build them. (Really. Check with OSHA. High iron work competes with logging for the most dangerous job in America.)
Ridiculous? Demanding too much consistency from Doctor Siegel? Keep in mind that he is the one demanding that TC demand an end to sex and violence in movies, and continues to blast TC for inconsistency for not doing so.
To be clear, I LOVE watching the Doctor hold their feet to the fire in this fashion. I think it is useful. I just so happen to think that turnabout is fair play.
Especially for someone, like the Doctor, who has shown a capacity to recosider his ideas, and who seems to have a real passion for arguments and integrity. And for someone who admits to once being "brainwashed." Maybe, one day, he can kick his ideas around a bit more and come up with a way to allow for smoking in one bar out of five. Or one out of 100. or one out of 1,000. Or one per state.
Or maybe not. Maybe he will convince me of the need for a ban.
You never know.
But it does seem clear that Doctor Siegel usually puts on his big-boy pants when he wakes up, and can handle anything I or anyone else sends his way. he can certainly dish it out.
Which is fine by me.
As a professional in a public arena,all is fair in love and war.After all,everything is being done in the name of the people,WE ARE THE PEOPLE.
As per the Doc: I appreciate the interchange and the fact that those who may disagree so vehemently with me are willing to enter into a civilized discussion. That's more than I'm getting from many of my own colleagues - ironically, many of them don't seem to actually disagree with me but still won't enter into a dialogue!
A local politican commented that the current passion over smoking bans is greater than the fuss over abortions when she ran a few years back. As si said, "let's face it nothing is as emotive as smoking". I hope that civilized discussions will continue to be possible. I wondering, though...Are your colleagues *afraid* to agree with you? Afraid of losing credibility within the larger movement? Maybe even [irrationally] afraid of losing professional credibility by questioning and analyzing for themselves?
As far as the WHO study goes, I pointed out that there was a signficant decreased risk of lung cancer among people exposed to secondhand smoke as children, but that wasn't addressed. Give me some credit- most anti-smoking advocates won't even acknowledge that finding at all. I don't think it means that secondhand smoke protects against lung cancer if you are exposed early in life, but I do think that a finding like that should be specifically addressed.
I've wondered about that funding, too. I've even questioned if it might not be some sort of homeopathic or innoculating effect...almost like some sort of "tolerence build-up". If so, could there be a particular genetic make-up that is conducive to such a defensive reaction? I don't think that it's beyond the realm of possibility that dietary habits play a role in a person's reaction to tobacco exposure. *shrug* Personally, I think that exploring these findings--honestly and upfront--would be very valuable.
I appreciate Walt H.'s defense and his thoughtful sentiments. I also appreciate Sam's and others' attempts to hold me to my own principles of consistency that I demand in the tobacco control movement.
I do have to say that Sam's arguments in particular have been quite provocative and have led me to do a lot of thinking.
I still don't think it is inconsistent to argue that we need to take action about a problem that is estimated to kill tens of thousands of people but not necessarily about a problem that kills maybe one person every few years (I can actually recall only 2 car racing deaths in the past decade or so, but I don't avidly follow the sport). Nevertheless, Sam's point about the high risk per person is well-taken. After thinking more about it, I think one could make a valid argument that these race car drivers deserve protection against such high risks. I am obviously not an expert about race cars, but it has always boggled my mind why they do not put bumpers around the cars and why they do not equip them with air bags. As far as hand-felling of trees, I DO think that these workers deserve every reasonable protection that is available to protect them from injury. I am not of the position that secondhand smoke is the only thing we need to protect workers from. I think all workers do deserve protection from significant job hazards that can be reasonably prevented.
"I DO think that these workers deserve every reasonable protection that is available to protect them from injury."
Well, here we have the rub. "Reasonable." I suggest that to be consistent, we need to calculate the number of deaths per hour worked. And that if the driver/logger deaths exceed the bartender deaths, we need to put measures in place to reduce them accordingly.
And that, to be consistent, we need to actually BAN these risk factors if it is, in fact, impossible to reduce them to the predetermined level.
That is, we should keep lowering the speed of NASCAR, mph by mph, until the risk is reduced. And if that means the mph must be zero? So be it. If it has to be so slow as to make racing unappealing to its fans? Would anyone really watch racing if they were going 35 mph? So be it. After all, we are willing to demand that the level of SHS has to be so low that operating a bar that allows smoking is theoretically impossible, which basically removes the possibility of legally operating a bar that allows smoking.
As for logging, the same question of "reasonableness" applies. I guess one could go in and put scaffolding up around every tree before cutting it down. Of course, that would be enormously expensive. But the fact that something is enormously expensive or theoretically impossible does not deter ban supporters from demanding an EXTREMELY low level of SHS. They say, "Well, we are not zero tolerance. The acceptable level is just so low that we are EFFECTIVELY zero tolerance."
Well, then that ought to apply in all cases if consistency is crucial. And we ought to be just as willing to destroy NASCAR and logging as industries in the name of worker safety. That is, we are not zero-tolerance when it comes to driver safety. It's just that to make it safe enough, the cars have to go so slow no one will watch. Too bad, NASCAR. But it's wrong to force drivers to take that risk. If they really want to drive for a living, they can drive for UPS.
And if they say, again and again, that they are willing to take that risk? If they are willing to sign waivers showing that they do accept the risk?
Too bad. If we don't allow bartenders to sign SHS waivers, we should not allow drivers to sign speed waivers.
Etc.
DancingTigerBait -I've wondered about that funding, too. I've even questioned if it might not be some sort of homeopathic or innoculating effect...almost like some sort of "tolerence build-up". If so, could there be a particular genetic make-up that is conducive to such a defensive reaction? I don't think that it's beyond the realm of possibility that dietary habits play a role in a person's reaction to tobacco exposure. *shrug* Personally, I think that exploring these findings--honestly and upfront--would be very valuable
.................
I wonder, too.
Here is what I have written before:
"Actually, none of us would be here today if our ancestors, reaching back hundreds of thousands of years, had not used wood (later coal, in some areas) as a fuel to keep themselves warm and cook their food. They also purposely set brush fires as a hunting technique. Wood and coal (and yes, charcoal briquettes) contain heavy concentrations of the substances that are labeled carcinogens - many identical to cigarette smoke.
How did the human race ever become the dominant species and fill every corner of the earth if they were so delicate, so sensitive to smoke and many other substances?"
Now, just like puposely smoking and inhaling tobacco constantly over decades is unhealthy for a large percentage of smokers, the same would be true if our ancestors purposely held their faces over smoking wood constantly for decades.
"The poison is in the dose."
Too little or too much of anything can be beneficial, detrimental or no-effect.
We have to be careful about our assumptions when we add or remove anything in the environment(s)in which humans have evolved, adapted and made trade-offs.
Sickle Cell Anemia is prevalent in Blacks whose ancestors came from areas in Africa that Sleeping Sickness from the tse-tse fly was "epidemic." Sickle Cell had a strong protective effect - it was a trade-off.
Milk from cows cannot be digested properly in most of the world's population. They lack the enzymes (not sure if I have the right word)that those whose ancient ancestors came from Europe or Northern Europe have.
There are many, many other examples - both very long term adaption, evolution, symbiotic relationships, etc. and short term "acclimation," so to speak.
Edicts are being issued by self-appointed experts proclaiming epidemics of this or that based on "studies"
The science of Epidemiology (I hesitate to call this a science)is a blunt instrument completely unsuitable for providing the "proof" these experts cite: RR 1.19, RR 1.6, etc.
Why has the incidence of Asthma and other allergies risen so dramatically?
Smoking rates (and thus, ETS) have fallen dramatically, while at the same time over 50% of Americans are taking one or more prescription drugs.
Have Americans switched from one drug (cigarettes) to another drug(s)? No one knows what the long-term effect of that is.
Humans and their environments are not machines and we are not sitting in laboratories. Yet, these new Dictators are quite willing to experiment on us as if we were.
Immoral, unethical and un-American.
And I might point out the last line of the Doctor's latest response:
"I think all workers do deserve protection from significant job hazards that can be reasonably prevented."
Again, the question of reasonableness arises. The doctor admits that the standard he seeks is so low that it basically makes is IMPOSSIBLE to operate a bar that allows smoking. I am not quite sure where that fits in terms of reasonableness.
That is, it seems kind of unreasonable to expect NASCAR to pursue a level of safety that basically destroys the sport. One might argue that one does not destroy the bar by banning smoking. But again, I am not talking about "banning" racing. I am talking about making them go really slow. So I am, in fact, allowing racing to go on. I am just demanding that the people in charge change the way they do business.
So how do we respond when NASCAR calls and says that attendance at the races has plummeted since we made them go slow? If we are consistent, we would respond in the same way we respond to the bar owners who go out of business: Too bad.
That is, does it count as "reasonable" if what you are prososing is so stringent that it is, effectively, zero-tolerance?
And keep in mind that there are other ways to limit the impact. For instance, the doctor expressed his risk acceptable risk in terms molecules per cubic meter per 8-hour work day per 40-year career.
Well, instead decreasing the molecules per cubic meter, why not regulate a shorter work day? Or set a maximum number of years workers can work in the field? This might seem intrusive. But so is banning smoking when the owner sees it as critical to his business. And so many cutomers want it. AND SO FEW PEOPLE WORK EIGHT HOUR SHIFTS, OR 40-YEAR CAREERS in the industry anyway.
Ultimately, Doctor, I hope that you will be able to come down on the side of hypocrisy and inconsistency. Which is what I would like to think of as the reasonable position. Allow me to explain.
I think that it is unreasonable to expect all professions to be equally safe. If only for the fact that they are not. There is no way, I think, to make lion-taming as safe as conducting a flea circus. Unless you ban lion taming.
I guess you could make the case for that. After all, isn't it barbaric of people to go watch someone stand in a cage with man-eating beasts? I suppose. Just like watching men drive around a crowded track at 200 mph is barbaric. But people are people. And we allow people to take a lot of risks. Especially if they are aware of the risks. And we set different standards. Standards for air cleanliness are different in a coal mine than they are for a kindergarten. Acceptable noise levels are different for Madison Square Garden than they are for a day care center. People who are exquisitely sensitive to certain things should choose their jobs accordingly.
The idea, I think, is to allow people to choose their line of work. Yes, I think people expect government to ensure that the jobs are as safe as possible. But we think of these things in context.
NASCAR drivers drive cars. So do delivery boys for Dominoes Pizza. But we clearly do not allow Dominoes to force their drivers to go 200 mph. In fact, I remember years ago when the major pizza chains stepped away from their 30-minute guarantee. In the name of safety.
But we allow for different kinds of driving. Because the businesses are different. And, in fact, we allow NASCAR to be substantially less safe than it could be, by allowing oval tracks and incredibly high speeds, which we could obviously mitigate. But the drivers know the risks. They agree to take them. So we allow it.
I don't see why we can't allow for similar differences in hospitality establishments. I see no reason to expect--or desire--for Chuck E. Cheeses to be the same as Wally's Corner Bar and Package Store. Just as there is no reason to expect Dale Earnhart Junior to be just as safe as Danny the Delivery Boy.
Is allowing smoking beyond the pale? Is it just too barbaric? I would submit that it is not nearly as barbaric as NASCAR, or NFL football, or boxing. Yes. The government allows people to punch each other in the face for a living. It regulates this, to be sure. State by state, there are rules regarding rounds and count-outs. But as far as I know, no state BANS the sport. And clearly, it is more barbaric than forcing someone to work at a smokey Applebees. And tending bar is not nearly as dangerous as working in a coal mine. Or logging. Or high-iron work.
So why not accept that there are different kinds of bartenders working in different kinds of environments? Some will choose to work at Wally's. Some will choose to work at the smoke-free alternative to Wally's. And if there is not alternative? They can work at Chuck E. Cheese's. Or Subway. Or McDonald's. Or the Four Seasons. Or they can do what NASCAR drivers do when they can't find work: They look for another line of work.
So yes. Let's START with the idea that people are barbaric. That being barbaric is legal in many instances. And that some of the barbaric people among us want to frequent places that allow smoking. That certain owners want to serve that market. And that certain workers are willing to work in that environment. From there, let's talk about what it is reasonable to force those owners to do regarding air quality. Just like we force boxing promoters to take reasonable precautions regarding fighters. (Standing eight counts, etc.) No, this will not make boxing as safe as envelope stuffing. But who says it should be?
That is, being "reasonable" entails setting standards that do not, de facto, make operating an entire industry illegal.
So yes. Let's be hypocrites. Let's allow different safety standards for Mike Tyson than we do for Sunday school teachers. Lets allow different safety standards for NASCAR and Dominoes. And let's set different standards for "smoking bars" and "non-smoking bars." Let's set different safety standards for people who operate paddleboat businesses and people who operate whitewater rafting services.
In short, let's let business owners decide which markets they want to serve, then demand that they make serving that market as safe as possible for their employees--knowing full well that different jobs will come with different levels of risk.
"In deciding on a level of acceptable risk associated with the workplace, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) used an approach similar to that of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by not defining “safe” as the equivalent of risk-free, because many activities considered safe by most people entail some risk of accident or health damage. Workplace activities or exposures are not considered unsafe unless a significant risk of harm exists. In addition, because of the benefits accrued from employment (e.g., income), workers are presumed to be willing to accept higher levels of risk than would someone to whom little or no benefit accrues from accepting risk. Some studies have shown that salary is commensurate with the level of risk inherent in an occupation (Starr 1969; Whipple 198." While Sam likes to use NASCAR as an example, I feel makes a very poor comparison, for a number of reasons.
Since 2001, there has not been a single fatality is all 3 of the major national series, Cup, Busch, and Craftsman truck series. Prior to that, in 2001, Earnhart was killed because he refused to wear proper safety restraints. This has since been mandated by the use of the Hans Device. In 2000, Three drivers died including Irwin, and rookie Kyle Petty grandson to Richard Petty who both died due to a faulty accelerator cable, and Craftsman series truck driver Tony Roper. In 1997 another Craftsman series truck driver John Nemechek, brother to Front Row Joe from head injuries. 1994 saw two drivers die in practice at Daytona, Niel Bonnett and a rookie named Rodney Orr. In 1992, Clifford Allision, son of the famed driver Bobby and brother to Davey, was killed in practice at Michigan. And in 1991, driver J.D. McDuffie was killed during the Watkins Glen. A total of eight drivers over the period of 16 years. And 0 in the last 6. I don't believe there has been a single one in the Busch Series. The lifetime occupational career of a driver is approximately fiveteen years in NASCAR top series. Speed has not been such a significant factor, but rather equipment failure or lack of mandated safety equipment. Since Earnhart, there have been a number of safety enhancements including Safer Barriers (soft walls around the track), and the mandating of head and neck restraint. As shown, few of the fatalities have occurred during the race, but rather in practice. Racing 36 weeks a year is pretty much a full time job with approximately 100 drivers competing full time, and another 100 competing part time. Adjusting for part time drivers at half time, this places the career lifetime risk at 8 per 150 or 6 per 100, and currently in less then 2 per 100 and continuing to decrease.
Secondly, most of these people would race even if they didn't get paid for it, provided someone took care of their expenses, and put a good car underneath them. I don't think most waitstaff would bother coming to work without a salary and earning tips.
Third, with regards to NASCAR the potential lives saved are small. Currently OSHA regulates 467 chemicals, and it takes approximately 5 years to arrive at and establish a ruling. As such, they base their attention to having the greatest impact of reducing workplace hazards. Because smoking ban legislation reduced the population at risk, ASH dropped their lawsuit against OSHA. There was also a risk that this might preempt some existing legislation. See Banzhaf's press release on dropping the lawsuit.
And finally, actual job related fatalities and potential carcinogenic hazards are treated differently in terms of thresholds. While in Sam's example case perhaps NASCAR should be regulated, but chemical exposure potentials are held to a higher degree of safety. 70% of all regulated chemicals have a lifetime exposure risk PEL established at < 1 in 1,000,000. Another 29% < 1 in 1,000 with only a handful above that.
I believe a more appropriate way to examine this issue is as follows. It doesn't involved inflated risk assessments or hocus pocus with measuring the immeasurable.
The average career risk of a job related death for companies with 11 or more is 2.9 per 1,000. In high risk jobs such as mining and high steel range between 7.6 and 18.6 per 1,000. In the service industry between 0.9 and 1.8 per 1000. These are based on actuarial data and not estimates. In the Supreme Court Case AFL-CIO vs. American Petroleum, et al. ruled 1 per 100 was a significant hazard in the workplace. Both OSHA and the EPA have used these as a benchmark for occupational hazards. For radiological hazards the EPA uses a career lifetime cancer death risk of 3 per 100 for radiological hazards. OSHA has not regulated below 1 per 100 career lifetime cancer risk. It should be noted, that this is not an estimated risk but an actuarial risk of all carcinogenic sources. As you will note, these are higher than the risk for all professions, but is used as a gauge to define if a career has a significant hazardous exposure to carcinogen or not. Source Appendix B: Review of the Army's Technical Guides on Assessing and Managing Chemical Hazards to Deployed Personnel (2004).
Dr. Siegel (or for that matter anybody else), do you know what the actuarial career cancer risk is for the food service industry? (I haven't found this answer yet.)
If the national average for food service workers was lower than 1 per 100 for actuarial cancer risk, then on this basis, the food service industry should not be singled out for special treatment, without addressing the literally millions of other workers which are deemed not to be at a significant risk under these guidelines.
However, if the actuarial data does prove this segment of the population at a significant risk, then all carcinogenic workplace hazards in the food service industry should be examined.
Walt,
Good points across the board. Two quibbles:
I have a hard time believing that speed had nothing to do with the NASCAR deaths you mention. That is, I have a hard time believing the would have dies had they been going five miles an hour.
Second, you mention:
"Secondly, most of these people would race even if they didn't get paid for it, provided someone took care of their expenses, and put a good car underneath them. I don't think most waitstaff would bother coming to work without a salary and earning tips."
No. They would probably not bother coming to work. But many of them would continue enduring the hazard of tobacco smoke. As people have noted elsewhere, I think, a disproportionate number of people who work in the hospitality industry are smokers themselves. (Someone can correct me if I am wrong.) Moreover, many of them would expose themselves to SHS in other places, such as home and automobiles. last, I wonder if anyone has controlled for "lifetime" exposure. How many people do you know who ever waited tables at one point in their lives? How many do you know who did that for a 40-year career, eight-hours a day?
That is, we would not measure a boxer's lifetime of abuse by calculating how many punches he would take if he fought five times a week, eight hours a shift. That's not how the business works, general speaking. There are exceptions, I guess. But should we aim regulations at a theoretical worker who hardly ever exists?
Sam,
I offer Kenny Schrader, Tony Steward who race at any opertunity in a wide variety of events and it's not for the money. Some people were born to race. You might even throw in Mark Martin. It's fame, and the thrill of winning that motivate most of these people.
Second rebuttal, speeds haven't changed since 2001, yet there have been no fatalities. (While not all but Throttle cables played a key part to several deaths). Restrictor plates were introduced in Daytona, and Talladega to keep the cars from going airbore if they got turned around. Roof flaps were introduced also to keep this down.
If you are going to compare on an hourly basis, you also have to compare the time spent on that career that is not at risk too. For example in the DOT study, they calculated the risks based on time spent in each location. They take the career risk, not a per hour rate.
It's an interesting concept, but I can't say I've seen anybody actually do it that way. I don't think there is an established basis for this.
How this would be corrected for in risk management, they would decide how many hours were spent over the course of a lifetime, and use that figure to compute the career risk.
For a PEL, I think they use 45 years and 40 hours to determine the lifetime risk.
Well it's race time. And I owe you and the other guys a I was wrong. Mia Culpa.
Rod--
I do think those "curious correlations" as Fisher put it are worth questioning and examining, but I see what you mean that we appear to be caught in one big lab experiment. (Actually, I went to a lab school as a kid. We were guinea pigs, but we *knew* we were guinea pigs, LOL!) I also see the trends you mention, such as the dramatic increase in allergies and growing dependence on [legal] drugs. What you say about the dose/poison relationship is pretty well-known. I mentioned in my letter to the IL politicians that tobacco seems to have different effects on different people; but, as I said not too long ago, I'm starting to question that. First, I'm not convinced that real tobacco bears much resemblance to the stuff mass-marketed by big tobacco companies. Second, I'm becoming less convinced that real tobacco is all that harmful--although the poison/dose adage still applies.
==> Stephanie
Sam made the point that just as with banning smoking in bars, "We ought to be just as willing to destroy NASCAR and logging as industries in the name of worker safety."
The problem that I see with this argument is that we have NOT destroyed bars and restaurants as industries in the name of workers safety by banning smoking in these establishments. Here in Massachusetts, smoking in bars has been banned for the past 3 years, and bars are still jam-packed with people. In fact, last Monday night the lines were so far out the door that I couldn't even get into one. And that's a Monday night no less. I can't even imagine how packed these places are on a Saturday night.
If the bar and restaurant industry were being destroyed by smoking bans, you would see me taking an entirely different attitude. But I just don't see that happening. That's not to say that there are not specific establishments that have suffered. There have been, I am quite sure. But on the whole, the industry has not been destroyed.
By the way, stop the presses. This is probably the first time an anti-smoking advocate has acknowledged that there have been some establishments negatively affected by smoking bans. But on the whole, there simply does not appear to be an adverse effect on the industry as a whole.
As usual, Walt H. presents an incredibly well thought-out and well-documented articulation of the issues at hand. In response to his question about estimated mortality risk among bar workers, the estimates I derived in my own research are an average mortality of 4.1 per 100, with a range of 1.0 per 100 to 14.0 per 100. These are risks over a 40-year working lifetime, assuming a 40-hour work week. It would obviously not apply to part-time bartenders, or to those who work in the profession for a smaller number of years.
Just for the record, if banning smoking in bars meant that bars would become extinct because of lack of business, I probably would not be advocating for smoking bans in bars, although it would depend, in part, on the awareness and acceptance of the risks in that situation. In such a case, one could argue that banning smoking is not a REASONABLE measure.
So in not being willing to immediately state that we should outlaw NASCAR, I'm not sure what the inconsistency is. If smoking bans meant that bars could no longer exist, I would be equally hesitant about calling for such bans.
The Doc: Here in Massachusetts, smoking in bars has been banned for the past 3 years, and bars are still jam-packed with people. In fact, last Monday night the lines were so far out the door that I couldn't even get into one. And that's a Monday night no less. I can't even imagine how packed these places are on a Saturday night.
Not to get too far off-topic, but I'd like to know...does Massachusetts have one of those "you are required to stand 50 yards away from the entrance" laws?
"Here in Massachusetts, smoking in bars has been banned for the past 3 years, and bars are still jam-packed with people"
Have you checked the prices in the restaurants and bars lately. I would bet they are charging more to make up for any losses. Also, why is it fine with you the approx 1/4 of the population is 'not welcome' in these venues. A smoker, cannot open a bar or restaurant to serve only smokers, staffed by smokers.
Respectfully Doctor, there is a huge country out here that you don't know about. All of us do not live in jam-packed areas, with jam-packed hospitality venues.
"That's not to say that there are not specific establishments that have suffered. There have been, I am quite sure. But on the whole, the industry has not been destroyed."
Well you can parse this out as much as you'd like. Let's not "ban NASCAR." Let's just ban driving 200 mph at any "entertainment venue." Clearly, certain entertainment venues will suffer. Namely race tracks. But entertainment venues will clearly survive. Movie theaters. Driving ranges. Dance clubs. So see? All of a sudden, the entertainment industry looks fine.
But what has happened? You have clearly singled out racing. And to act like you haven't, and to hide behind the fact that other "entertainment venues" survive does little to help the track owner. Or racing fans. Or people who work in racing.
The thing is, Doctor, a certain KIND of club is going out of business. That is, bars that allow smoking. I suppose you could ban trumpets and claim that you are not destroying any businesses. The owner of the local Jazz club would object that you actually have. And I suppose you would say, "Look. I am not against live music. See that rock and roll bar? What about that hip-hop club? See? The rule is not anti-music. Live music survives!"
As you admit--and I admire you for admitting it--individual establishments have been hit by this. Real people have suffered. Real lives have been completely destroyed.
All because.. what?
Seriously, doctor. To say that 40,000 people a year die because of SHS exposure in bars and restaurants... Do you really believe that? I assume you do. But tell me where I am wrong here...
If your numbers are correct, and 4 out of 100 people who work 8 hours per day in a smokey bar for 40 years die... that would mean that every year... take 40,000 times 25... (4 goes into 100 25 times)
That every year, about a full one million people fitting that career profile retire. That is, that society has a constant stream of one-million people in this professional pipeline. Meaning that over a 40-year career... that right now a full 40 million people are working in smokey bars, work there 40-hours a week... and will continue to do so for their entire careers.
But we also know that the VAST majority of people working in bars do not do so for 40 years. Or for 8 hours per day.
I mean, I don't see how these numbers add up. Forty thousand dead per year.
But only one out of every 25 dies.
Exactly how many people are you assuming work in this industry for as long as you say they must to achieve this level of mortality?
Again, math ain't my strong suit. But it seems that if one out of every 25 of these people dies, you need a LOT of bartenders amd waitresses to get to 40,000 corpses EVERY YEAR.
Seriously, Doctor. How many people do your assumptions say fit this career profile? Namely, working in bars/restaurants 40 hours per week, eight hours per day?
And what do your assumtions tell you abut the "average" hospitality career? What risks does a smokey environment pose to real people who actually work in the industry?
Does you model take into account the fact that most 8-hour shifts in the industry include at least an hour or two of set-up and break down when customers are not present?
Does it assume a constant stream of smoke? How much smoke? A heavy smoke environment? An average one? One modeled on an actual place?
" ... the estimates I derived in my own research are an average mortality of 4.1 per 100, with a range of 1.0 per 100 to 14.0 per 100. These are risks over a 40-year working lifetime, assuming a 40-hour work week. It would obviously not apply to part-time bartenders, or to those who work in the profession for a smaller number of years."
Doctor, could you tell us the name of your study and where we can find it? Is it available? An average mortality of 4.1 per 100 seems rather high, as I believe others here would agree.
I think you'll find Siegel's study here, in the form of a critique of it, along with a review of the underlying studies on which it was based. Provocative reading.
http://www.nycclash.com/
CaseAgai...tml#Restaurants
If the link doesn't work, try knocking off the last #Restaurants.
Just FTR, as the Other Walt on the board, though I have nothing but respect for my nominal alter-ego, I'm with Sam et al on this one.
Allow me to introduce another, perhaps more comparable, occupation for the sake of the argument.
Attendants and jockeys in parking garages. They're exposed to exhaust (which has most of the same constituents that drive people crazy in ETS) plus high RSPs for the full 8 hours of their daily shifts. And they're considered to be acceptably protected by standard ventilation.
Either they're not sufficiently protected, because ventilation short of hurricanes can't protect them, in which case, cars should be banned from garages and there ought to be zero tolerance for exhaust....
or they are sufficiently protected, in which case, bartenders could be similarly protected by the proper ventilation.
True, indoor parking lots would go out of business if cars were to be banned, but not all parking facilities are indoors, and the roads might appear to be as jammed as ever. Any alternative remedies you could think of (short of banning cars) to prevent these garages from going out of business could also be applied to restaurants and bars.
Of course, the anti-exhaust people would next demand banning cars outdoors.
As for those jam packed bars in Boston, maybe they're jammed because there are fewer since the maimed ones folded on account of the ban? Have you looked into how many places folded? In the city as a whole, not just your possibly PC neighborhood? Looked independently-- not relying on "interested" stats? (The list of failures in NY state, with owners directly fingering the bans, looked to be as endless as a Chinese scroll. Saw it a few years ago. IIRC on Dave Hitt's blog.) And 75% of the population (that's minus the 25% of smokers) are enough to fill a bar.
And hey, if you banned Blacks (14%) or Jews (2%) you could similarly boast that the bars were still full.
Then, too, I note another odd inconsistency. If this is all about Health, then why would it matter if the whole hospitality industry went under? Health is health.
This is precisely what i was referring to how long ago ,when i made reference to Steven Milloy and Dr Siegel's studies.Hopefully those who believe Dr Siegel has been unduly "badgered" are able to accept sometimes perseverance must apply.I have asked on numerous occasions if we could have a full debate on this issue ,this would compound concerns regarding how these studies were undertaken and whether in the light of additional studies and some 10 years plus of experience the findings are still appropriate.Isn't it better to put everything on the table now rather than questions being constantly asked.Isn't this how science should work ?
The study which estimates lifetime mortality among various workers is here:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cg...stract/12/3/
333.
Note, however, that only the lung cancer mortality is presented. Heart disease mortality is 10 times higher, so if you want to estimate total mortality, you need to mulitply these estimates by a factor of 11.
The 2004 Massachusetts smoking ban referred to by Doctor Siegel, included exemptions. Nursing homes for one, were exempt, and were allowed to provide smoking areas that were conspicuously located and “adequately” ventilated. I, m not sure if the law has sense been amended.
However, I, am curious as to why this kind of ventilation (not sure of the type) apparently was safe just 3 years ago. Is it still safe today? If not, why not? Are we moving backwards in terms of ventilation? I would like to know just who decided, and how it was decided that ventilation was needed in smoking areas at nursing homes, and just what benefits were afforded in terms of health, and safety by using this ventilation back in 2004? Who paid for the ventilation equipment? Where’s the contract, what type of guarantees were provided in terms of public health, and proper use?
I think I found a flaw in my original premise, as Sam pointed out, the high proportion of smoking waitstaff. My original premise failed to take into account that 39% smoking rate and 10% ex-smoking rate of that industry. In addition I was having a brain fart and for some reason and took 1x10-3 and used 1/100 and not 1/1000.
There are two ways that this could be accounted for. One would be to take a never smoking segment of waiters/waitresses, but I don't know of any available data.
The other would be to adjust the career based lung cancer stats for smoking prevalence by industry.
Going to NOSHI the prevalence of smoking in waitstaff is 39.7% with a 95% CI of 35.8 - 43.6 and an ex-smoking prevalence of 10.1 (7.2 - 13).
Across all job codes is 27.0% with a CI of 26.0 - 28.0. and ex-smoking of prevalence of 21.0% CI of (20.0 - 22.0)
Based on these figures for smoking, I'd expect the lung cancer proportion mortality ratio (PMR) of waitstaff to be 39.7/21.0 or 1.89
For ever smoking waitstaff it would be 49.8/48.0 or 1.04
The actual PMR for waitstaff is 1.43 with a CI of (1.26 - 1.62).
If we were to consider only current smoking status, it could be said that waitstaff exhibited less excess PMR of lung cancer. However because the ex-smoking status is so low for waitstaff, and so high for everyone else, I don't think we can conclude this is a fair assessment either, as the answer lays between these two bounds and have ended up with a null hypothesis. Perhaps comparing the PMR of another job class with little exposure to known lung cancer carcinogens, and a small prevalence of smoking and ets exposure would be another approach.
Below I'm posting a corrected rendition with the changes in bold as there is good info in despite the concept being flawed. I still can't believe I did that.
And finally, actual job related fatalities and potential carcinogenic hazards are treated differently in terms of thresholds. While in Sam's example case perhaps NASCAR should be regulated, but chemical exposure potentials are held to a higher degree of safety. 70% of all regulated chemicals have a lifetime exposure risk PEL established at < 1 in 1,000,000. Another 29% < 1 in 10,000 with only a handful above that.
I believe a more appropriate way to examine this issue is as follows. It doesn't involved inflated risk assessments or hocus pocus with measuring the immeasurable.
The average career risk of a job related death for companies with 11 or more is 2.9 per 1,000. In high risk jobs such as mining and high steel range between 7.6 and 18.6 per 1,000. In the service industry between 0.9 and 1.8 per 1000. These are based on actuarial data and not estimates. In the Supreme Court Case AFL-CIO vs. American Petroleum, et al. ruled 1 per 1,000 was a significant hazard in the workplace. Both OSHA and the EPA have used these as a benchmark for occupational hazards. For radiological hazards the EPA uses a career lifetime cancer death risk of 3 per 1,000 for radiological hazards. OSHA has not regulated below 1 per 1,000 career lifetime cancer risk. It should be noted, that this is not an estimated risk but an actuarial risk of all carcinogenic sources. As you will note, these are higher than the risk for all professions, but is used as a gauge to define if a career has a significant hazardous exposure to carcinogen or not. Source Appendix B: Review of the Army's Technical Guides on Assessing and Managing Chemical Hazards to Deployed Personnel (2004).
Dr. Siegel, do you know what the actuarial career cancer risk is for the food service industry? (I haven't found this answer yet.)
If the national average for food service workers was lower than 1 per 1,000 for excess actuarial cancer risk, then on this basis, the food service industry should not be singled out for special treatment, without addressing the literally millions of other workers which are deemed not to be at a significant risk under these guidelines.
However, if the actuarial data does prove this segment of the population at a significant risk, then all carcinogenic workplace hazards in the food service industry should be examined.
But isn't the problem with prevalence per industry to due with responses being given voluntarily and we all know how much these can vary by.
Walt: Attendants and jockeys in parking garages. They're exposed to exhaust (which has most of the same constituents that drive people crazy in ETS) plus high RSPs for the full 8 hours of their daily shifts. And they're considered to be acceptably protected by standard ventilation.
You know, again, I'm really big on ventilation--without or without a smoking ban. However, I must say that, in this example, another solution comes to mind--specifically, vehicles that expell less exhaust. I don't know about Mopeds--in fact, I read an article in a French newspaper when I was in Paris regarding the problem of polution generated by motorcycles--all while people believed that motorcycles were *better*. However, I'm thinking now that maybe the increasing popularity of hybrids might help--again, in addition to ventilation. Personally, I favor this trend anyway, if not for global warming purposes then to just _get_off_the_oil! It would be such a prudent move. *sigh*
About ventilation...I'm still so mad that I could spit nails. That editor *twisted* what I wrote to suit his own selfish, barbaric agendum. And I don't believe for an instant that it's plural (agenda); these whiny, bratty, antis have one-track minds...and it ain't got squat to do with clean air or health!
Okay..rant's over for now.
Doc: The study which estimates lifetime mortality among various workers is here:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cg......stract/12/3/
333. Note, however, that only the lung cancer mortality is presented. Heart disease mortality is 10 times higher, so if you want to estimate total mortality, you need to mulitply these estimates by a factor of 11.
Thank you, Doc. I see to recall seeing this "5 B's" article previously. However, I only see the abstract. Any chance of getting access to the full paper? Hm, I'm starting a little "Seigel" file..and, no, I'm not putting you in my funnies file.
PS
DC--I'd still like to know whether or not Mass. has a door/window clearance law for smoking outside public establishments..
Walt H,
All these estimated ETS deaths and Repace's figures are based on the original epidemiology studies, and these have been demonstrated to be... lets say debatable.
Therefore I am unsure of the point in jumping through hoops trying to reason for a regulated indoor air quality standard. We are playing their game with their ball to their rules.
Now what would be the nicotine density limit be if ETS is harmless? 0.5mg/m3. What would be the ETS responsible deaths per 1000 or 10000 or 1000000? Zero.
I do accept that some people find ETS irritating and that some people even simply don't like the smell and for these people ventilation or smoking hoods would indeed help.
GreatScot
I still can't find the full article. (I found where it could be purchased, though...at least, I think.) The abstract leaves a few questions.
"...Nicotine concentrations in the 5 B’s were 2.4 to 18.5 times higher than in offices or residences, and 1.5 to 11.7 times higher than in restaurants. At these exposure levels, estimated working lifetime excess lung cancer mortality risk from secondhand smoke exposure for workers in the 5 B’s is between 1.0–4.1/1000, which greatly exceeds the typical de manifestis risk level of 0.3/1000.
Conclusions: Workers in the 5 B’s have high levels of occupational exposure to secondhand smoke and must be included in workplace smoking regulations."
So is nicotine concentration the thing that's used to estimate mortality or not? I got confused on this a while back.
/S
"estimated working lifetime excess lung cancer mortality risk"
And how is this "working lifetime" estimated? Again, you can act like bar workers work 40 hours a week for 40 years.
You can also estimate that they work 7000 hours per week for 250,000 years.
Which measure was used? I am assuming that we are talking about 40/40. But that;s not reality. And if that what was used to estimate 40,000 deaths, it's bunk.
Going back to my favorite example, doctor: If we estimated NASCAR risks by assuming that they drove 40-hours per week for 40 years, the mortality numbers would be completely off the charts.
Does reality matter? At all?
I am not saying that no bartenders work 40-hours a week for 40 years. I know a few who have. But I also know hundreds of people who have tended bar gave it up. Or moved on. Or whatever. (I might note that none of them died prematurely of lung cancer.) But anecdotally speaking, I would say that, oh, 99 percent of the man-hours spent in the hospitality industry are put in by people who do not work 40-hours per week for 40 years.
Does this reality have any impact on the 40,000 estimate?
Dr Siegel says:
"As usual, Walt H. presents an incredibly well thought-out and well-documented articulation of the issues at hand. In response to his question about estimated mortality risk among bar workers, the estimates I derived in my own research are an average mortality of 4.1 per 100, with a range of 1.0 per 100 to 14.0 per 100. These are risks over a 40-year working lifetime, assuming a 40-hour work week. It would obviously not apply to part-time bartenders, or to those who work in the profession for a smaller number of years."
Sorry Dr, Walt's question to you was "do you know what the actuarial career cancer risk is for the food service industry?", which is not thw question you answered.
You must surely know that Actuaries work to a much higher standard of data analysis and measurement than just picking a few favourable studies and pooling sample measurements - which is what you clearly did in the meta-analysis that you carried out (The 5 B's). I would also suggest that your study was rather odd, not to say seriously biased, for two reasons:
i.
Oops.. pressed wrong key. To continue...
Point (i) I am baffled as to why you needed to use 'studies'which measured nicotine presence to estimate how many bar staff contracted lung cancer. Why not just count them? Surely the national mortality data dervied from death certificates in the US records occupation, doesn't it? It does in the UK. And before you highlight the that "Studies were included if they reported a mean concentration of ambient nicotine measured in at least one of the 5 B’s." I put it to you that there wouldn't be any of such establishments which didn't allow smoking at the time of those studies, so there surely wasn't any need to be quite so selective (which is why I suggest bias - or 'cherry-picking').
But ultimately your analysis seems to demonstrate nothing new. I mean you start with the premise that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, and then apply some ratio or other to the nicotine levels to estimate risk of lung cancer. This is all back to front, and horribly biased, I'm afraid, since you must be using the outcome of some other 'study' (Repace again?), which would itself be of dubious validity, to provide the chosen multiplier or ratio. Once again you fail to actually count real cases of lung cancer, so how the devil do you know whether your arrived-at scary number of 1 - 4.1/1000 has any validity whatsoever? Have you done any follow-up research and actually counted how many bar-staff have actually contracted lung cancer and compared these with your estimates. If not, then I can't see this as anything other than playing with numbers to further your crusade. It certainly isn't science.
My second issue with this study is a much more simple one. Why, specifically, did you feel the need to select your 5 B's (bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting establishments, and bingo parlours)? What do they have in common? It's obvious: they are all places where people go for enjoyment. SO what is the agenda here? Throw the smokers out of places where they could be smoking whilst having a good time? We can't have that now, can we?
It reminds me of the debate in the UK parliament (14 February 2006) which led to the wholly-illiberal and unnecessarily stupid ban on smoking in public places which the Labour party's state nannies are imposing on those of us in England on 1st July. One known anti-smoking activist (and socialist) MP (Barry Sheerman) had this to say (and I quote from Hansard):
"Is not this also about changing the culture? That is why it is important to take the clubs out as smoking venues: we want to change the culture of how people perceive their leisure and their fun. It is important to have smoke-free leisure and smoke-free fun."
To "take out" the clubs? "Change the culture"? "Smoke-free fun"? If this isn't proof positive that we are in the throes of one massive piece of social engineering - whose aim is to force millions of people, against their will, to conform to the preferred lifestyle of 'the chosen ones' - then I don't know what is.
Risk? The biggest risk to me at present is that my head is going to explode due to having to cope with second-hand stupidity. 'Risk Analysis' and 'Risk Assessment' are bureaucrats' wet dreams, and have long since gone way over the top in terms of undue interference in peoples' daily activities. Time to bring back a culture of common-sense, and time for the nannies and jobsworths to seek out real jobs, ones where they can make a positive contribution to society.
.
postscript:
In the same debate in the UK parliament, to which I referred above, one memorable quote came from (Conservative) MP, Christopher Chope:
"The tyranny of the intolerant should not be allowed to prevail over the freedoms of the minority."
See, there are still some politicians with a modicum of common sense.
.
Brian Bond: I am baffled as to why you needed to use 'studies'which measured nicotine presence to estimate how many bar staff contracted lung cancer. Why not just count them?
*Good* question!
BTW, we have a politician with a head on his shoulders, too. Tom Neuville,see "Why I Voted Against the Statewide Smoking Ban" at http://tomneuville.com/archives/...ry/smoking-ban/
Manual on how to create an epidemic:
Basic principles:
-- Trash the concept that "the poison is in the dose."
-- Change the definition of "correlation" to cause.
-- Insist that the "cause" is an exception to all known scientific principles.
-- Change the standards of "proof." In other words, move the goal posts.
-- Redefine the criteria:
--- Make a misdemeanor a felony: Instant increase in serious crime.
--- Lower the minimum BMI for obesity: Instant increase in obesity rates.
--- Add another "sign" of child abuse: Instant rise in child abuse rates.
-- Always use children, pregnant women and the elderly as being innocent victims.
-- Insist that bodies are not necessary to prove your case.
And now for the most important part: Ensure that it is very profitable to "cause" epidemics. Without an assured source of funding, the creation of epidemics will fail.
DancingTigerBait said "I'm starting a little "Seigel" file..and, no, I'm not putting you in my funnies file."
Aww - I'm disappointed. What with my post about being called a tobacco stooge (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/01/anti-
smoking-advocate-accuses-rest-of.html), I would have though I'd make the funnies file - at least for that.
GreatScot,
I'm afraid Dr. Siegel misunderstood what I was asking for. However, I did find part of it on the NOSHI website, and to be quite honest I failed to consider the effects of smoking on the population I was interested in.
While I don't trust Replace's numbers, unlike the dogma of the tobacco control where you just dismiss something as coming from someone with a deliberate conflict of interest, and label the source a "xxx shill". I believe you have to "prove" it wrong, before you can dismiss it. Quite honestly, this is more or less to satisfy my own curiosity.
I've heard the propaganda that claimed waitstaff died of lung cancer 50% more frequently per capita then officeworkers. Well the stats if you fail to consider that the prevalence of smoking by waitstaff is 80% higher. But these are just "talking point" propaganda pieces. But this would be just as fallacious in that it doesn't take into account any effect of so many non-waitstaff quitting.
See I don't take as irrefutable what most people say, unless I can verify them myself, and form my own opinion.
Yes, I may be jumping through hoops, but you can learn so much, working through them.
What I consider one of the largest issues we face today in terms of scientific honesty is letting the wolves guard the chicken Koop. Effectively there is nobody to fund and studies which might be contrary to the existing research. Those that do, are blackballed from professional journals. Peer review (it would appear) doesn't seem to find obvious flaws in the methodology provided it supports the TC agenda. For example, How many studies have been published to support TC that used CPSII data, yet when E & K used it, suddenly it's not a good dataset.
Unfortunately, the datasets are often confidential, and aren't typically shared, and as someone pointed out earlier, that the lay person can't validate these studies. Maybe it's my engineering background, but if you can't cross the river because it's too deep, you look at finding another way to get across. I'm just looking at what data is available, and seeing if it supports or rejects the premise stated. You can't just declare it is wrong, or blindly accept it. If you approach something from enough different angles, you should find some consistency. If you repeat a process on a different data set, does it produce what was expected? If it doesn't, then there must be something you didn't consider, and you learn something.
Ok, I'm a born skeptic.
One other comment, Dr Siegel I believe tried to introduce heart disease in his figure. If we were to consider heart disease as a health risk for employment, we would have to very much lower what we consider acceptable risk. I believe there was a study by Kawachi, which showed working (swing?) shifts had a very detrimental impact on heart disease risk. I believe it was something like doubling the risk.
I never heard of heart disease risk being considered in terms of regulator action. If someone has examples of such (actual rulings, or rule base), I'd love to see it.
One last point, with 40% of waitstaff active smokers, I have to wonder how they feel about being protected, and what their employment venue choice would be if they had a choice?
Walt H.
The 50% figure comes from the Siegel study I linked to above- along with how he derived it.
As to the 5B's, Brian again beat me to the first thing that x'd my mind: Why this arcane-- and ultimately unverifiable-- method of deduction-- or rather, prognostication? Cuz it looks good on paper but can't be verified? Pretending to deduce the eventual number of lung cancer corpses from the ambient nicotine is something like reading runes. Meaningless symbols on which to project.... whatever. And in this case, the whatever is the a priori hypothesis. And while I still insist that ambient nicotine per se is a questionable marker (see previous iterations)-- even more so than cotinine-- why deny the measured facts of the Jenkins studies?
Psst, wanna buy some statistics?
“A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 – when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges – the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. That’s not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it? – Michael Fumento, Jun 29, 2006.
“Working a shift in a smoky bar is equivalent to actively smoking nearly a pack of cigarettes per day.” – Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, Journal of the American Medical Association, July 28, 1993, Vol. 270, No. 4.
Time to get in the balloon, Toto!
.
This must surely have been mentioned several times before but shouldn't it always be kept foremost in mind?:
The concentration of ETS components in the air may be measured against the primary smoke, but in practical terms the two aren't arithmetically comparable, and a lot of studies don't seem to take that into account -- or am I wrong? It's this: Smokers inhale the smoke deeply into their lungs; non-smokers only shallowly -- very shallowly, I believe. So that on top of quantity of ETS, there's the depth of inhalation. Does that mean anything or doesn't it? Any thoughts?
Harry
"Smokers inhale the smoke deeply into their lungs; non-smokers only shallowly -- very shallowly, I believe."
... or in some cases not at all. I speak, of course, of those delicate flowers who break out in (faux) coughing fits at the mere suggestion that someone is moking near to them, so they don't have time to inhale anything.
Rather it is then the poor smoker that has to suffer being on the receiving end of the spray of germs, spittle and other assorted crap coming out of the mouth and lungs of the virtuous anti-smoker!
.
Walt,
I have only read the abstract of Dr. Siegel's study. The stats show an 80% higher actuarial rate of lung cancer in this group of people. I didn't adjust this for smoking, as I didn't see this industry listed specifically in the survey.
Also note, that there is a difference between "risk" and claiming people actually die at a given rate.
What we do know is that pool hall workers get lung cancer far more frequently then others. You simply count the bodies.
Is it because of ETS? Well maybe. If the prevalence of never smokers working in pool halls is relatively small -- there's your clue. If they have a significantly higher rate of smokers than other jobs, then it's questionable.
If the PMR for pool hall workers was at or lower then the national average, and the number of smokers was higher or equal to the national average, then we could proclaim -- BULLSHIT! The actuarial data doesn't support your claim, now explain that! (provided they don't work around another known cause of lung cancer, like mining).
I think Siegel was on the right track taking the venues where ETS is more frequently found and studying them. He came up with a risk factors for these, and we simply apply the actuarial rates and see if they are in the ballpark.
Think of it like an algebra problem. When you solve an equation, you go back and try a few known points and see if the points fit the equation.
When they make projections based on risk, then they should hold up in nearly every case. Do they? It's tough when you consider that a smokers risks of lung cancer are literally hundreds to thousands of times greater than that of a never smoker.
But if you are going to dispute something, you need to back up your claim.
Anything else is pure propaganda. There is a wealth of mortality data available. I was just trying to make use of it to see if the numbers jive. This is what I consider part of being objective.
I said: I'm starting a little "Seigel" file..and, no, I'm not putting you in my funnies file.
The Doc replied: Aww - I'm disappointed. What with my post about being called a tobacco stooge (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/01/anti- smoking-advocate-accuses-rest-of.html), I would have though I'd make the funnies file - at least for that.
LOL. I had a bit of trouble with that URL--got an error en francais--but found it at http://
tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....01_archive.html
Actually, there is something in that piece that I find interesting. "...the established wisdom that smoking bans can produce a greater reduction in heart attacks than eliminating all smoking entirely..." ??? I'm curious as to why you think that smoking bans are better than eliminating smoking entirely. My uncle had a heart attack shortly *after* he stopped smoking. I've heard that is not too uncommon, especially in smokers over fifty or so. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here. My guess is that for such people a *sudden* or dramatic change in lifestyle can be dangerous. (My uncle is fine now and well into his seventies. It's "my time" to stop now, but I have no desire to go through the heart attack thing!)
This is something that I want to emphasize on my website..the one that I need to get my duff in gear to create, LOL. I want to dedicate a good bit on stress management, which includes light exersize such as walking, beginner's yoga and such. Now, as it happens, light exercise is known to be one way of stopping the tobacco habit--at least for cigarettes. (In fact, that was one of my "ideas". A carton of smokes should come with an exercise DVD--you know, like Mickey Dee's did with their salads.) If my site gets used in that way, that's fine. However, my personal goal is to eliminate "nervous" smoking and promote conscious relaxation techniques. As a nonsmoker, you probably don't realize how often people smoke to calm down and focus.
So, yes, I think I'll put this in my Seigel file. Let me know if you object to the reference on my forthcoming site. Alas, the jury's still out on whther or not it'll go in the funnies file.
DTB,
That Tom Neuville web address should be sent to all legislators contemplating passing smoking ban laws. He did a wonderful job with all the links to really get the argument out. Thanks for listing it.
.
Harry--
When you send Neuville's "Why I Voted Against the Statewide Smoking Ban" at http://tomneuville.com/archives/...ry/smoking-ban/
to legislators, also send this :
Minnesota jobless rate climbs
May 16, 2007
http://www.startribune.com/535/s...ry/
1185961.html
The story has a very telling break down the job losses/gains by industry:
Overall, Minnesota added 500 jobs in April. Among the state sectors showing job gains were education and health services, up 3,600 (partly because of a measurement change), trade, transportation and utilities, up 1,700, and government, up 1,600.
Losers for the month were construction, down 2,500 jobs, or 1.9 percent; manufacturing, down 2,000 jobs, or 0.6 percent, and leisure and hospitality, down 2,100 jobs, or 0.8 percent. Nationwide, construction and manufacturing were down 0.1 percent in April, and leisure and hospitality was up 0.2 percent.
Walt H.--
This is not a personal argument, but I'm still not convinced. Seems like there's an awful lot of "if's" and assumptions on the path to connecting the A (airborne nicotine) to the Z (dead bodies.)
Nor do I know how or from where the alleged 80% RR was derived. I refer you again to the restaurant study which explains how the 50% was derived. Are you impressed?
What's the source for the stats on pool hall mortality, and pool hall lung cancer-- the ones you refer to. Got a link?
Then too there's this:
If I had to name a group of American workers most likely to smoke or at least to have smoked, pool hall rackers would be real close to the top. I'd also assume they drink at a nice clip and their pill-pop of choice is not One-A-Day. Nor would they be likely to rate very high on the socio-economics. Or a lot more likely than the average bartender to work 40 years @ 40 hrs/week, In fact, I'd say less so.
So actuaries aside (and I'd still like to see the source), the confounders would be many, and the years of "exposure" could well be pretty few.
Finally, the LC risk for smokers isn't literally or figuratively 100s let alone 1000s of times that of the nevers. Most extreme epidemiological estimate I've read is 20, though the range runs from just about 10 up. Annual US mortality from lung cancer of smokers vs nons shows a ratio of anywhere from 5-1 to 6-1 in actual numbers.
:
Walt,
The 100's to 1000's of time basically looking at "cigarette" equivalents, these range from 100's to 1000's (or more).
I believe you are correct on the actual RR's for smoking versus non in terms of Risk Ratios.
As for PMR actuarial data, this is information collected from death certificates which list occupation and primary, and underlaying or secondary cause of death.
These numbers represent real deaths, not projections, not estimate, no "nicotine air samples". They are then grouped by occupation. These are then compared against other jobs and a ratio is calculated. It's called a PMR.
PMR stands for proportial mortality rate. It doesn't look at what might have caused anything, these are actual deaths, counted by occupation.
If ETS was really a significant hazard, then it should show up in the venues with a high percentage of occupational exposure to ETS.
While anti groups like to herald that 50% more waitstaff die from lung cancer then the national average, they fail to take into account the prevalence of smoking and tend to attribute it to ETS exposure.
However the strongest correlation of lung cancer is associated with smoking, to which the actuarial counts do not take into consideration. They don't go into the why's only the listed cause of death.
If one were to look at the proportion of smoking waitstaff to the national average (or office workers) then we should expect the numbers to be a lot higher, but they weren't.
Looking for why, led me to looking at the ex-smoker rates, and only about 10% are ex-smokers in the job class waitstaff, however the national average is much higher. Had the prevalence of ex-smokers been close to the same proportions as the national average, one could conclude that being exposed to ETS doesn't appear to have an impact on the observed lung cancer fatalities in that job catagory.
Conversely, had waitstaff followed the national average for smoking prevalence, then a PMR of 1.44 would suggest that maybe ETS comes into place, because something is causing waitstaff to have 1.44 times the rate.
So what do we walk away with? The hypothesis is ETS contributes significantly to lung cancer in waitstaff. Looking at the actuarial data, and prevalence of smoking and non-smoking by these two groupings, we end up with neither a yes it does, or no it doesn't, only an I don't know.
Someone a while back asked if this is true, where are all the bodies? This is an attempt to answer that question based on occupationally observed lung cancer rates.
As for being able to see the source, I provided links to the occupational lung cancer rates, and the occupational smoking rates in a previous message.
Here is the main page.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/20...1/2003-
111.html
Sorry to have overlooked it if you posted it before, and thanks for taking the trouble to post it again.
I checked 2 sections: "Lung cancer" and "Smoking Prevalence."
These are my problems and I'm perfectly amenable to having you point out that the problems are merely mine (that I'm being grossly dumb). That said:
While the PMR for pool hall workers is given at 1.80, it's only based on a total of... 19 cases. (No clue about the size of the total sample.) Then I note that the PMR for "eating and drinking establishments" (where traditionally there'd always been ETS) is 1.19, based on 907 cases.
This leads me to suspect a very small sample led to a fairly distorted picture.
Especially when the PMR for coal miners -- given at 1.25 for (case) n=327.-- is lower than for pool rackers. And for retail store workers (n=142) is only slightly lower than for guys mining coal (1.20). And finally, when "health record technologists" (n=5) come in at a chart-topping 3.13.
IOW, I tend to doubt the whole enterprise.
Now let's get to "Estimated [sic] Smoking Prevalence." Maybe I missed it, but I found no listing for pool hall workers. Bar and Restaurant workers came in at 39.7, but the charts (there are 4) seem to duplicate occupations and offer different numbers. Q: was each chart based on a different study? Apparently all charts refer to the same year, 2000, so it's not that they represent different time spans.
One reason I ask is that one of the charts, based on a sample of 57, shows miners' smoking rates, given as percentages, are 32.6, while another chart, based on a sample of 9 (count em, 9) shows the miners' smoking rate is 57.4. And further, a sample of 4 (that's four!) guys in the military shows that.. no one in the military smokes; the % of smokers in the service is.... zero.
So unless I'm grossly misreading the whole thing (which remains an embarrassing possibility) it seems that throughout, the size of sample perverts the results, and to such an extent that the "results" are a joke,
Then, too, once again, they're merely attempting to correlate two different sets of data. What x% of x occupation does in general, doesn't meant that 19 specific people did the same thing, let alone at the same rate. Nor do we know how long that specific (but now emblematic) 19 people worked in a pool hall and got exposed to smoke. Or how much smoke they were actually exposed to. And from how many sources.
Therefore, it seems to me the whole thing's a random and unreliable mess, and another lame waste of taxpayer money. In any case, nothing to hang any hats on.
I hope we can keep this discussion rolling. Thanks.
:
Walt,
I agree. I think this was a prosuctive discussion. Or was at least b ecoming one. And now it seems lost, buried beneath the other posts. Then what happens is, someone brings such things up later on but we have to start from scratch. I suppose it is the nature of blogs.
Bollocks.
But thanks again to the doctor for putting up with us. (Me.)
Hi, guys.
Just wanted to comment on Walt's mention of studies of pool hall workers showing high rates of lung cancer (if accurate - as pointed out many studies not worth the paper the assumptions are printed on) but with a potential reason for this which seems to have been overlooked.
Attention is typically (and carefully) focused on smoking to the exclusion of numerous hazards, something which reduces liability for those then no longer concerned.
Chalk often contains asbestos - and, contrary to the asbestos industry claims, any single asbestos fibre ingested can potentially cause cancer which may not appear for decades.
Asbestos (like radon emissions and other radiation) is a 'complete carcinogen' - claims of smoking greatly increasing lung cancer risk (although not that of mesothelioma or asbestosis, which can't be blamed on smoking) reduce and often eliminate liability for both producers and government.
Apart from the excess of heavy chalking possibly blown off, minute amounts of chalk are released into the air from cue tips each time the ball is struck, which can add up over the course of an evening in a bar with only a couple of tables heavily played, never mind in a pool hall.
http://www.911digitalarchive.org....org...objects/
107.pdf (Interesting read - the White House, of course, was revealed as having ordered the cover-up, potentially killing more than originally died. This written by Cate Jenkins of Region 8, a true hero.)
'Soils containing only 0.001% asbestos can lead to hazardous air levels.'
'Urban air usually contains higher levels of asbestos just because of general pollution from brake linings and other sources.'
'A few individual studies cited by the ATSDR show that urban air contains 10 times more asbestos than rural air.'
I seem to recall having seen but can't find right now various more specific studies, but here are a few indications.
http://www.bohs.org/resources/ re...in_Davy_HSE.pdf
Silica can be found in chalk, if usually at low levels, (particles fine enough to be respirable will not be visible) and cause silicosis, lung cancer and COPD.
As long periods typically expire prior to symptoms appearing, and as subjection to such substances is unlikely to be considered without known exposures, diseases resulting from many such exposures are far more likely to be attributed to smoking or ETS than any of myriad potential causes.
http://www.tru.ca/ae/vpa/printm~1.htm
Under 'Hazards': 'b. Rosin dust may cause respiratory allergies including asthma. Talc or French chalk often contain certain amounts of asbestos which may cause lung cancer and other forms of respiratory diseases'
http://www.sclero.org/medical/ca...tal/ silica.html
(Search 'silica exposure')
'Crystalline silica ... can also be found in chalk, limestone and other rock and soil. Products such as concrete and mortar also contain crystalline silica. 2003, Health and Safety Executive.'
'... Silica. At least 1.7 million U.S. workers are exposed to respirable crystalline silica in a variety of industries and occupations, including construction, sandblasting, and mining. Occupational exposures to respirable crystalline silica are associated with the development of silicosis, lung cancer, pulmonary tuberculosis, and airways diseases. These exposures may also be related to the development of autoimmune disorders, chronic renal disease, and other adverse health effects. CDC National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety.
'Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica Occupational exposures to respirable crystalline silica are associated with the development of silicosis, lung cancer, pulmonary tuberculosis, and airways diseases. These exposures may also be related to the development of autoimmune disorders, chronic renal disease, and other adverse health effects. Publication No. 2002-129, April 2002, NIOSH Hazard Review.'
(Pool hall employees aren't high on such lists - but other chalk exposures, such as occur in artists, jewellers, schoolteachers and children, are mentioned elsewhere as having some degree of risk in various studies.)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fajim.20490
'Silicosis is caused by inhaling free crystalline silica. Few case reports have addressed the risk of silicosis in the jewelry trade where chalk molds containing a high percentage of silica are used in casting. We conducted a cross-sectional study involving 100 goldsmiths exposed to silica.
'Methods
'All workers replied to a questionnaire and underwent a clinical examination, pulmonary function tests, a chest X-ray and a high-resolution CT scan.
'Results
'High-resolution CT visualized signs of silicosis in 23 cases, confirmed by standard chest X-rays in 10. In the 23 workers with CT evidence of silicosis Total Lung Capacity, FEV1 and the Lung Diffusing Capacity did not differ from the workers without the disease. Pulmonary function tests did not correlate with silica exposure.
'Conclusion
'In this study we demonstrate that use of chalk molds in casting in jewelry causes silicosis. The composition of the dust could be responsible of the high prevalence observed.'
So we have the liklihood of asbestos/silica exposures added to the hazards of the pool room.
And many hospitality businesses are in high-traffic areas, with diesel and other fossil fuel particulate - remaining air-borne for extended periods - carried indoors where inadequate testing cannot distinguish between such deadly particulate, (like silicate/asbestos fibres capable of remaining in the very cells of the lungs until after death, to potentially produce crippling and/or life-threatening disease) and that produced by vegetable matter.
http://www.blackwell- synergy.com...68.2005.00377.x
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ r...048969704007004
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ r...352231005008113
http://content.karger.com/ Produk...roduktNr=224157
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ie/pdf/LBNL-.../LBNL-.../LBNL-
55586.pdf
The latter shows the direct relation between traffic pollution and asthma in school children (lung cancer due to latency being less rapidly demonstrated) and affected even by wind direction.
While indoor measurements were not taken, it's stated that 'Others have found that indoor concentrations and exposure to soot (PM from diesel exhaust) is highly correlated with outdoor levels.'
'We did not find association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and current asthma...'
'...we found association between traffic-related air pollutants and asthma and bronchitis symptoms in the past 12 months in a highly urbanized region of the United States with good air quality, when the local air pollution is dominated by vehicular sources.'
'...our findings are consistent with investigations in Europe and the United States...' - and underscore the need for specific measurements rather than broad generalizations and estimates drawn from central monitoring stations.
And, I may add, rather than scapegoating attributions which conceal actual causes thereby allowed to continue and worsen rather than searching for individual cause among the the myriad potential factors until now permitted to freely accumulate and increase behind the smokescreen.
But this California study was done at a time when it could be said that there was no financial relationship with a commercial entity having interest - or the current state where multi-million dollar industry partnerships with various universities world-wide have altered results and priorities considerably.
Another point: a lot of people work various temporary jobs, particularly when at school, with even one brief exposure to asbestos noted as capable of producing a signature disease sometimes decades later, but with anything possible to blame on personal choice so attributed; typically, only the last occupation prior to death is listed or considered, and many exposures occur also in 'unexpected' jobs, as with the high rate of asbestos and other toxic exposure in schools, covered in depth on another thread.
Some mention of job hazards and protection levels in articles below may be of interest.
Even cleaning or odd-job positions may place people at risk, as can merely being in the area of renovations, often carried out in the hospitality sector with no shut-down and no awareness of concerns beyond paint-fumes.
http://www.workcover.act.gov.au/ ...bestosGuide.pdf
http:// spewingforth.blogspot.com...th_archive.html
Go down a couple of articles to see an example of the Bush Admin's concern over worker protection - this blog one likely known to many here (with a link provided from this site) as one raising awareness of abuses of inadequately protected workers.
Logically, I don't see why it should be assumed that increased rates of lung cancer or heart disease would be caused by ETS rather than by known exposures to proven causes like asbestos/silica, vehicular and industrial pollution INSIDE as well as out - with numerous artificial chemicals in the mix here unmentioned - but I can see why certain interests would prefer this.
It enables them to get away with slow and cost-saving murder.
Workers are given no choice in the matter of their own personally acceptable types and degrees of risk, on the grounds that they are ignorant and know no better - and are carefully kept that way.
If they did know, they'd be smokin' mad.
Actually, I guess a lot of them already are.
Darn it, I've had this happen before, where my comment disappears and the 'save' I have has the URLs separated; you'd think I'd think to check rather than just getting the blasted thing on before it vanished again...
As if I can't foul up URLs by myself.
Anyway, here they all are - way off by themselves, darn it, but each one checked - again - and working on 'preview'.
http://www.911digitalarchive.org...objects/
107.pdf
http://www.bohs.org/resources/
re...in_Davy_HSE.pdf
http://www.tru.ca/ae/vpa/printm~1.htm
http://www.sclero.org/medical/ca...tal/
silica.html
(Search 'silica exposure')
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fajim.20490
http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com...68.2005.00377.x
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
r...048969704007004
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
r...352231005008113
http://content.karger.com/
Produk...roduktNr=224157
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ie/pdf/LBNL-.../LBNL-
55586.pdf
http://www.workcover.act.gov.au/
...bestosGuide.pdf
http://
spewingforth.blogspot.com...th_archive.html
Commenting by HaloScan
