If/when tobacco tax revenues decline over time for SCHIP (or any other programs), Congress can simply increase the tax rate further and/or fund the program(s) with other sources of tax revenue.
And if Congress truly desires to sharply reduce smoking, it can approve a $.61/pack tax hike to fund SCHIP, and approve Senator Enzi's amendment to the FDA legislation to increase the cigarette tax by an additional $.31/pack to fund Medicare, Medidaid and tobacco control programs.
I posted that quite awhile ago here, Doctor. Glad to see you read it.
.
Gee, I wonder how Bill would like to see a 61 cent tax per gallon on the gas he needs in his car (and you do need gas in it) or on the oil to heat his home in the winter, to fund OTHER people's healthcare............and that would be the same healthcare they are threatening to deny to the very smokers paying for said healthcare.
Bill, you really need to remove your blinders and see the whole picture. Before someone comes along and pokes your sight out......and believe me, there IS someone out there who will truly hate something you do and work as hard as you work against us, to banish it.
Remember.....be careful what you ask for, as you may actually get it, and then some.
Boy Bill, real quick to spend OTHER people's money aren't you?
Fortunately, President Bush has said that he will veto it. That should send his approval ratings soaring! All I know is there are 2 things that is a guarantee with me. Raise the tax again and I will smoke them wherever I am. Especially in front of kids. Hey, I am paying for their healthcare, I might as well make them sick, right? We know that is one of the frauds in all this so I have no guilty conscience there. Not going to make them or anyone sick. Second, there are so many things going on in the world and especially right here in America that can hurt everyone of us. You have heard how terrorist have reentered the States and plan to attack again. When that happens, I will also be smoking wherever I want. If we all spent as much time worrying about them rather then if and where I am smoking a cigarette, this might be a much safer place to live and who knows, I might even beable to leave my house unlocked again someday.
Bill,
In yesterdays post, you said that you do not recieve any payment for what you do and it is all volunteer work. Am I to assume that you are very wealthy, retired or are you doing all this on your bosses dime and losing productivity for his business?
Diane, the terrorist claim has been raised so many times since 9/11 I've relegated it to the same bin as anti-tobacco propaganda. Usually it means the government is fixing to do something really unpopular and is trying to distract us, or use it as a reason to do whatever it is. There are so many absurd claims flying around, what to believe and what not? Why bother believing any of it?
Doc - the most toxic consumer product on the market
And even if true by eradicating tobacco something else becomes the most toxic.
Bill - Congress can simply increase the tax rate further
punishing the poor with more regressive taxes, and the Doc calls us callous!!
GreatScot
Jalestra,
I believe it because we are retired military and we know how the Government works. We all should be very afraid at all times. But once it happens, Bill and others should be very afraid of me, as I said that I will be smoking anywhere I want.
I'll hold the lighter for you, Diane. 
Bill is right that Congress could always increase the tax rate in the future or find other sources of revenue. But that's exactly my point - a solid mechanism to fund something as important as children's health insurance would be one that is sustainable. It should not require recruiting millions of new smokers, nor should it require a perpetual and frantic search for new sources of revenue, which may be harder and harder to come by. I do, however, agree with Bill that Senator Enzi's proposal makes sense, because there - the revenues would be used specifically for programs that are directly related to the amount of smoking taking place.
Doc - "the most toxic consumer product on the market"
Um, mebbee I'm uninformed, but really? In PPM? Most toxic?
Hey doc, I'll suck back these toxic cigs whilst you directly inhale, oh, lets stroll down the grocery aisle here, ah, bleach! Yep, for the same duration that I smoke this here cigarette.
Most toxic? (shakes head)
I agree to disagree Doctor. As nobel as it sounds and I wish it would be, we all know that the increase in tax would never pay for healthcare for the uninsured children. Our Politicians are to addicted to our money to let it happen. For example, they might have a pet project for their home State, but to get it approved, they have to tie it to another bill and find funding for it. When all else fails, they will dip into that reserve for healthcare for children and the money will be spent elsewhere. Just as the MSA money has gone to building roads and schools in most States. New York got a new golf course out of us smokers. The only way to insure healthcare for everyone is to lower the cost of healthcare, bring back some of the manufacturing jobs and encourage welfare people to work and pay for it. By reducing welfare and how about those illegal aliens living amongst us whose healthcare we also provide, there would already be enough monies to pay for everyones health. No one seems to want to fix the problems that got us to where we are today, but instead would rather throw good money after bad. Hopefully our next generation of Politicians will wake up and do something right. By the way, isn't it funny that the same Politcians who wants to raise taxes are the same ones who has guaranteed that they and their families will always have free healthcare, not to mention leave office with the same amount of money they are making while in office? I hear the alarm clock, it is time for you to wake up!
Xylog-
Fair point. Well-taken. I should have said, "the consumer product which causes the most deaths." You're right - there are products that are more toxic on a per dose basis. But they do not kill as many people because the exposure is much lower.
Much better. We are in a war of words, and one must be careful how one speaks. 
But they do not kill as many people
NOTHING kills more people than........BEING BORN.
Think about it. You are born, grow older, die. EVERYONE.
Ready to ban births yet Doc?
Let's face it Dr Siegel,you've spent most of your time slagging off TFK and the original suggestion,that you either come off he fence and state the whole idea stinks in taxing the poor even more,in essence forcing the majority of black smokers to subsidise healthcare to middle class white children whose parents probably don't smoke.Inverse Robin Hood eh ? Now tell me that this won't happen given the existing circumstances.So you go along with Enzi,who whilst being round the bendzi is also a pharma puppet and who seeks to eradicate the consumption of tobacco eventually.Good choice Dr Siegel,for the good of the few,you plan to f*** up the many.New age Public Health ?
Lynda F. inquired:
"Gee, I wonder how Bill would like to see a 61 cent tax per gallon on the gas he needs in his car"
I've been advocating a $1 - $2 per gallon increase in the gasoline tax, as that would reduce America's dependance on foreign oil, increase milage for automobiles, reduce air pollution and reduce the burning of fossil fuel.
I also support increasing beer and liquor taxes to offset some of the social costs imposed by binge drinking and alcholism, as well as taxing pornography.
Furthermore, I support legalizing, regulating and taxating marijuana,
prostitution, and other types of gambling.
If all those things were taxed at levels to cover the social problems caused by those products and activities, income and property tax rates could be sharply reduced.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"I should have said, "the consumer product which causes the most deaths."
You forget you're not the only game in town. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine said 1.3 million Americans die each year from eating meat. Cancer, heart disease, etc.
Consumer product that causes the most deaths? Really? 1.2 million people die a year from car accidents alone in the world. 50 million injured. That's not including those that suicide using their car, or those that aren't even IN cars but get hit by them. JUST from two cars colliding. And that's definitely FROM CARS. There's no other maybe that caused it. Unlike heart disease and cancer which has many attributable factors, some which cannot possibly involve cigarette smoke at all, this is DEFINITE.
Then they say that over the next 20 years, it may increase 65%.
Try again.
Ah, Bill believes in SIN tax...that doesn't speak well. There's no reason to tax pornography. It doesn't "hurt society". You wanna tax hookers based on this "logic", ok, I don't agree, but ok. But pornography? Who gets hurt when someone reads a dirty magazine?
I got an idea, Bill, it would cost society a lot less if you would put your efforts in lowering the ridiculous price gouging going on by the medical industry. Do I really need to pull out the $126 box of Kleenex and $56 toothbrush? That would really help. Then people can go back to affording their own medical bills. Of course, I don't think you REALLY want to help, you just want to boss people around.
This is Bill's agenda?
" Furthermore, I support legalizing, regulating and taxating marijuana,
prostitution, and other types of gambling."
Really Bill couldn't you try joining a singles club. I am sure if you clean up your act and lost a few pounds you could get a real date.
The last thread had the secret with no further expansion of organized crime. Simply shut down the UN and all the leaching bureaucracies that feast off of it.
The Nanny nation is simply too expensive to maintain, and it will get a lot more expensive if it is not shut down soon.
Strengthen the regulations on lobbies and control charity donations through a national charity foundation which checks the legitimacy of funding prior to handing it over to the charities make them do charity and research or get off the pot.
Stronger media rules need to be put in place to identify a press release and it's source as a paid advertisement so no one will be fooled thinking the research reports produced by the gross lately are anything but advertising to promote a sale.
New hate promotion legislation would be just the ticket, so anyone attacked by a media campaign could bring charges and be compensated for the abuse in an expedited process, without having to spend years and thousands of dollars in the traditional court system.
The level of media purchases micro managing the lives of others has gotten out of control, time we put things right and start shutting down the lobbies and their ability to coerce our elected officials.
We could start with some reaction to the organized threat and intimidation coalitions, by laying criminal conspiracy charges for a change, instead of knuckling under.
The politician who puts forward a package as described will save trillions take control back for the people, and likely win a Nobel peace prize in the bargain.
So much more profitable than all the health scare strategies combined, and no cash outlay, the perfect political storm.
If all those things were taxed at levels to cover the social problems caused by those products and activities, income and property tax rates could be sharply reduced.
The bottom line being that YOUR taxes don't go up and hopefully will go down, because YOU don't want to pay for anything. Yet you expect US to pay for your old age (diapers, drooling, nursing home).
You are so generous Bill, my fragile heart just can't handle it.
Bill Godshall "send you a plague of frogs" writes:
I also support increasing beer and liquor taxes to offset some of the social costs imposed by binge drinking and alcholism, as well as taxing pornography.
I can sincerely say Thank You Bill. Not that I'm in favor of your proposal. I happen to like beer and beautiful naked women. But at least you are being consistent. And honest, I will add.
Good for you. At least you are not a hypocrite. You have earned some respect.
Dr. Siegel, you are a star.
There are now over 94,000,000 blogs on the internet according to Technorati. That is a 7,000% increase from 2003.
I don't post on more than 2 but I do read a lot of them...I have NEVER seen one that gets 238 replies.
Usually it is 0 or 2 responses from the bloggers mother and sister.
Does anyone here know of a blog that gets more attention than Dr. Siegels'? (That doesn't deal with Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton?)
Since comments at the bottom of older threads tend to get ignored, I brought these forward from the last thread.
One very simple question, since you pose your question based on an IF doc.
Where is YOUR proof that SHS IS a severe health threat.
Assuming that you DON'T have this at hand, then where does your IF question fit into a model whereby you actively seek to make changes based on an assumption?
You and your bretheren in BTC are DEMANDING these laws be put into place based on this "severe health threat", yet you have been asked numerous times to provide ANY evidence that PROVES your theory that SHS is extremely dangerous to those exposed, (which is pretty far fetched, since your assumption is based on workers being exposed for 40/40 when in reality there are an extremely small percentage of bar staff who would be exposed at this rate for this duration, you have argued yourself that passive exposure that is not chronic for 40/40 is NOT a "severe health risk", IE: outdoor bans), yet in the last two months, we have honestly asked you for your research, for what evidence you can provide to prove this supposition, and at every turn our pleas of "educate us" have fallen on ears that I swear would belong to Bill, who absolutely refuses to hear any part of a sentence that doesn't fit his agenda, why does it do the same for yours?
You want us to respect you? simple, answer our questions, honestly, and without equivocations, a simple straight forward presentation of your raw data and the methods you used to make your conclusions would suffice, are these available for our "peer" review process anywhere? Anywhere?
You are the one who can't have it both ways Doc, either you have the proof we ask you for, or you are supporting reductions in the freedom to choose, economic impact on industries other than those that employ you, and a general raising of the Nanny state to fit your belief's, based on just that, your assumption that because YOU carried out the research in question, it must be correct, and using that assumption to force others to comply with your wishes. That is unethical and corrupt as hell doc, you want our respect? Then earn, the old fashioned way, provide the proof, or at least your sources for it, your personal raw data, and methods used to calculate this "severe Hazard". We have read, collectively, if not all the literature and studies available on this subject, and have drawn the conclusion that IF there is a RISK at all, it is a statisically insignificant one, and the researxh seems to bear OUR opinion on this out, so prove us wrong oh great educator, and provide your proof, or admit that you are NO BETTER than any other tobacco control group and could care less about the truth and science unless it fits YOUR agenda.
Jerry Thomas | 07.31.07 - 11:58 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
sorry about that "We have read, collectively, if not all the literature...",
Should have read
"We have read, collectively, most, if not all the literature...".
I still say, you are losing the respect of MOST of your readers here Doc, and not because you believe differently than us, but because when asked, you pull the same old Antismoking playbook chapter out, that apparently you wrote, "don't discuss the science", and it is frustrating to say the least to watch you resort to these tactics after flying the flag of ethics and truth so high, If you have none yourself, you have no basis to criticize others for their lack either.
Jerry Thomas | 08.01.07 - 12:03 am |
The leading consumer cause of death?
righhtt!!!!
Meanwhile
snip ~ "Among all medical misadventures, between 53% and 58% are attributable to mistakes.
Therefore, 1 out of every 500 people admitted to a hospital in the U.S. is killed by
a mistake.".
1 out of every 500 is killed, proven, not supposition, not SAMMEC, not calculated, proven, your turn Doc.
Oops, forgot the source link, here it is:
http://www.county.allegheny.pa.u...s/me/
mmff03.pdf
I ran across this on a site listing the "scientific evidence" that the earth is 6,000 years old, and it sounded awfully familiar. This is the essence of all Dr. Siegel's arguments against education vs. legislation.:
"The Bible is not a science book, but because the Bible contains all truth, all true science will be in agreement with the Bible."
Striking, isn't it?
Since, as just mentioned, Things Get Lost at the end of long threads, I'll also reproduce this one from the 238-er since I'd like the Q's A-ed:
Let's not get distracted by all of the different rabbits popping out of the different hats.
Even IF the 40/40 were a plausible reflection of reality for all [how many thousands of] MA bartenders, which clearly it isn't, the 220 would still be pure bull. Because the next question to ask-- which I clearly remember asking-- is: from what was the number derived? It had to be based on a mathematical formula that in turn had to be based on a mathematical formula extruded in some manner from epidemiology--either a single study or a meta-analysis.
But all of those studies got their numbers from never smokers. That, after all, is the basis of all the stats, which presumably stand for Risks, which are Risks and not Deaths. So the first question to ask would be, how were the RRs for a passel of never-smokers "adjusted" to account for the high number of smokers among MA bartenders? How did you do it? Again mathematically? Or else, not at all?
Now some of those purely statistical expirations would have had to have been from lung cancer. Was your mathematical formula based on the EPA's 1.19 @ only 90% confidence? And exactly how many of the 220 died a lung cancer death? Must've been pretty few. The bulk of the other deaths must have then been from heart attacks. So whose studies offered you your mathematical grid? The implausible reckonings of A Judson Wells (adjective courtesy Congressional Research Service)? Or the rigged meta-analyses of Glantz, Law and He (editorially dismissed by the journals in which they were published)? Or... please provide basis. And exact number of deaths based on mathematical risks.
#
As for badly informed scientists, to Gori and Whelan may we add Enstrom and kabat? Kabat had previously also worked with Wynder whose creditials are unimpeachable. But Wynder himself had been a skeptic on ETS. And so had Lawrence Garfinkle, Was it Doll or was it Peto who said he wasn't concerned about "dangers" from ETS? Hirayama wasn't either, tho he personally drew a circle that ended at 3 feet. Was Hirayama a bloody fool then for not being terrified of smoke on a restaurant patio, let alone in a ballpark? What about Morton Lippmann, the head of the EPA risk assessment panel who'd assured a clutch of reporters they'd exposed themselves to greater risk driving through traffic in downtown DC to get to the press conference than they'd ever get from any exposure to ETS? Or the other government scientist--name slips my mind-- who also assured reporters that the cancer risk from showering in chlorinated water was higher than the relative risk from ETS?
Are they all badly informed?
Finally, Doc, you reveal the depth of your bias when you question global warming based on the counter-evidence (evidence posed by critics who've been slandered, silenced and fired) but seek to silence the similar critics who "deny" ETS.
And further reveal your bias when you argue, as you've done, that the "kids" being recruited to promote the PM cum FDA regs weren't given "all the facts" and left to come to their own conclusions, but see nothing at all wrong with denying "all the facts" to adults working in bars.
It's occured to me that smokers would finally be able to turn the tables if the SCHIP proposal goes through as is.
You know how we constantly hear "Our taxes pay for all you selfish smokers who harm yourself because of your addiction"? Which, to them, is their justification for bullying us in all possible ways.
Well, imagine standing among a bunch of anti-smoking brainwashed kids who are ill-mannered and will turn to you and make some vicious comment about you smoking near them (or smoking at all). Now we can turn to them and their parents and say, "You can just shut up because I'm paying for your healthcare."
Hey Bill! You love the courts so much. You think the activist judges are the last word on everything. So here's one for you from a judge that just ruled against a plaintiff in a tobacco case. Seems he doesn't see things your twisted way. I'd swear he was talking to you and saying, "cut it out, I know what you're doing and what you really mean." (It also assists in putting our opinion into perspective for Dr. Siegel about the discussion circling around here about the FDA, what they can/can't do, what it would mean, etc.):
Judge Finds Tobacco Settlement Bars Claims for Punitive Damages
Daniel Wise
New York Law Journal - 07-31-2007
http://www.law.com/jsp/
article.j...d=1185820706561
DEFECTIVE DESIGN CLAIM
Brieant rejected the defective-design claim, finding that there was no feasible alternative to Marlboros because the other safer alternatives that had been offered by the Mulhollands' expert had been rejected by the marketplace.
The "reduced carcinogen" and "nonaddictive" cigarettes cited as safer alternatives by the Mulhollands' expert were "indisputably rejected by consumers," Brieant wrote.
"A state law requirement that allows only cigarettes with no tar or no nicotine to be sold is a virtual ban on cigarettes," the judge wrote, "just as a requirement that allows only 'alcohol-free' liquor to be sold would be a ban on whiskey."
In other words, you can zig and zag Bill but it still amounts to PROHIBITION. Judge Brieant's busted you.
When the doctor cries foul on 'personal attacks' it leaves me wondering why he would defend the aggresor here.
It is his he and his good buddies who are in fact engaging in personal attacks.
It perfectly acceptable for them to use the government to intrude into the personal and business interest of the citizens. I Don't know of an attack more personal that that.
This is not new in history either. But again we (I) have been warned that to draw any comparisons to that history is unacceptable.
One dangerous son of a gun you are, doctor.
You keep right on defending the 'respectablity' of the aggresor here----I have come to expect nothing more from you.
You are a fraud, a game player extraordinnaire. Stringing good people here along for a ride. All they want is an answer to their questions. You are a sick person--a very educated well spoken menace.
Personal enough?
Hit delete.
You know how----you delete our freedoms at will.
The delete button will not fight back.
.
I brought this forward as well in case Michael missed it;
Doc's 2 question analysis is based on his own failure to interpret the data presented in a clear construct not based in entirely flawed logic.
The Gallop poll interpreted the response of those asked if ETS is dangerous. They never asked Bartenders exclusively. Therefore pointing at the poll of the public [who are living in fear of the smoke apparently for no good reason] and asserting Bartenders are uninformed about a completely different risk is quite confused. I would think Michael would be more analytical and realized his huge error.
They never asked about bartenders lifetime risk they asked regarding public "casual" exposure risk. Michael has argued himself the two are far from the same. The casual exposures are not a substantial risk however the public has been led to believe the lifetime risk to bartenders also applies to them. Apparently the public is over informed to the point of panic while no one talks about bartenders risk at all.
Leaving the bartenders virtually unprotected in also having the same information the public receives, they could never know the risk assessment targets them alone, and make informed decisions accordingly. If they look at how ridiculous it sounds; someone could be harmed by a little bit of smoke? they will not take precautions regarding personal increased exposures which are much higher than the public. Ergo the public information campaign is detrimental to the target audience it was designed to protect. While carelessly instilling fears in the public which were never necessary.
If Michael wishes to precede with any form of realistic discussion based on mutual respect he needs to
#1 tell us he believes the casual risk to the general public is the same risk of bartenders. Which of course we have no published proof to substantiate his belief. He would need to say the public has not been mislead far enough and his 90% should be achieved based on his belief the casual exposures defined in the polls are an extreme health risk and the public needs to be told even more to get the point out regardless of it's inspiration.
Alternately
#2 Admit in agreement with many of his previous statements the risk to the public is much lower than generally believed, by examining the Gallop poll this would seem to indicate a large percentage of the population is poorly informed and agree ETS to be a severe risk in reference to casual exposures when in fact no such evidence exists to substantiate such fears.
Unfortunately the majority of the medical and scientific community see no need to set things right in fact Michael seems to promote the fact the misdirection needs to be expanded to the point 90% of the public is misdirected by rhetoric and exaggerated fears prior to a point he would support a ban being abandoned.
Wowee Sunz,i couldn't agree more,you've hit it right on the nose.Yes Dr Siegel,your arguements are getting more obtuse as you run out of excuses and ploys.If you aren't willing to answer genuine questions that arise from your meanderings then you should at least have the professionalism to tell us.As it stands you really need to write an article on your own behaviour in much the same light as you do for TFK.I just cannot appreciate your logic which allows you to state categorically that you know the fact of the matter ,when EVERYONE ELSE doesn't,yet REFRAIN from using YOUR blog to educate them,including answering our questions.Any other group would feature most strongly in one of your articles.Do you harbour a secret desire to be the new Stanton Glans demi God of the anti movement,BUT HAVE NO WISH TO DIVULGE ANYTHING THAT MAY HARM YOUR AMBITION ?
In regards to this thread.
Don't worry Michael your fears are groundless.
If the recent Gallop poll results are accurate and the prevalence figure of 20% is confirmed, the number of smokers is now up to 60 million, which year over year providing TC continues with their current campaign of fears and propaganda. A promotion which looses credibility with every retooling of exaggerations. At the current rate of expotential increases, the 22 million new smokers will be achieved in plenty of time.
The iddy biddy children will be protected...
Right-o Si---"I just cannot appreciate your logic which allows you to state categorically that you know the fact of the matter ,when EVERYONE ELSE doesn't,yet REFRAIN from using YOUR blog to educate them,including answering our questions'
And he begins many of his commentaries include the phrase..."As an educator..."
.
.
A question from Jerry's link above has to be asked.
Michael;
Considering the following quote would you consider medical misadventure a severe health risk to patients attending US hospitals?
" The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies reports that studies
have estimated that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 individuals
each year in U.S. hospitals. For comparison, more people die from therapeutic
misadventures than from highway accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS."
This is important in relation to ETS severe health risks to the general public, from average and casual exposures as they are today. Risk or extreme risk as descriptors are subjective and entirely controversial, we need to have a gauge with which to interpret specifically, your personal opinions.
'therapeutic misadventures'
What an curious phrase.
I guess this would be no different that the psychological misadventure we are engaged in here.
Kevin, as the list therapeutic misadventures have no smell I don't think this is as devastating as the SHS. IOW the gauge you seek is smell. Not there no problem.
.
.
Sunz;
I disagree when we look at what is being promoted without explanation or logic applied.
Something here definitely stinks
Yes Kevin I was being entirely sarcastic.
.
Kevin,
Yes - I do consider medical errors to be a major cause of death. The numbers are certainly in the thousands, perhaps the tens of thousands. That probably should be considered a major cause of death; however, since physicians are the primary ones writing these articles and making these determinations, I don't think we'll see that any time soon.
Eric-
Thanks for that! Believe me, I've been trying to find a way to work Paris Hilton into a post in order to drive up readership, but so far haven't figured out a way. I toyed with the idea that smoking wasn't allowed in her jail cell, but it looks like she had other things to worry about. If you can think of anything, let me know.
'That probably should be considered a major cause of death; however, since physicians are the primary ones writing these articles and making these determinations, I don't think we'll see that any time soon.'
So worried this public health professional is, pfft----off the another subject.
And you claim to be the cheif nanny for 220 (or whatever the number stands at now) hospitality workers.
When a hospital patient does not choose to be put in the hospital---they are there on doctors orders.
No on forces a hospitality worker to work in a smoking environment.
Your response is no surprise to me.
.
Thanks Michael;
Would you care to elaborate on the prior post as well?
In the definition of "Severe health risk" are we to believe the same risk as defined in "no safe level" is equal risk referencing a bar tender's risk as opposed to a patron's risk?
Both classified apparently as severe risk in your earlier direct comparison in reference to relevance of the Gallop poll numbers.
We are being told by health institutions to tape up keyholes in our homes to avoid the extreme risk of ETS is that realistic?
JustTheFacts wrote:
"Well, imagine standing among a bunch of anti-smoking brainwashed kids...Now we can turn to them and their parents and say, "You can just shut up because I'm paying for your healthcare."
Smoking bans (by reducing consumption and causing some to quit) are harmful to children. Ergo, Dr. Siegel and Bill Godshall hate children.
Child abusers!
Michael;
A good deal of the anger here in the last few days can be directly linked to confusion in your statements.
We can not distinguish between your interpretations and use of language.
The 1 or 2 as you defined the situation only seemed to add to the confusion. As I indicated earlier the shared confusion in the general public as to what the message really is, can be seen as detrimental to the well being of the very bartenders you state are the basis for the bans.
How if they remain confused by the many public statements originating from public health will they ever be able to make informed decisions.
If the risk derives from exposure levels, how would that be referenced when they are being told essentially their risk is no higher than the risk of the general public.
Is this "extreme risk" elevated by volume [Linear]or is it simply an extreme risk at any level of exposure[non linear] which would contradict entirely your arguments against bans in cars a while back.
I believe you could help us all out here and calm the waters significantly by clearly defining your opinion here.
Did your colleagues get better at NOT killing patients, Doctor Siegel, or did they just get better at burying the evidence.....
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/...icles/
11856.php
Just curious.
From Colins post:
"If the Center for Disease Control's annual list of leading causes of death included medical errors, it would show up as number six, ahead of diabetes, pneumonia, Alzheimer's disease and renal disease," continued Dr. Collier. "Hospitals need to act on this, and consumers need to arm themselves with enough information to make quality-oriented health care choices when selecting a hospital."
Shhhhh, Colin----- we should not be questioning public health officials about such nonsense. They are currently occupied in creating a health police state. That way we will all be captives and mere statistics they can have vapid debates about.
.
.
The point I am making which should be obvious to all, on both sides of the debate.
If we look at the 220 bartenders believed to die in on state alone and extrapolate the numbers against the entire population of the United States we quickly realize the vast majority of not the entire sum of the 40,000 ETS deaths believed to be caused by ETS are those very hospitality workers or in fact anyone exposed to the 40/40 levels.
Now if we are largely discussing that group and the risk is real, we endanger their lives by presenting a belief they are no more at risk than the general public who would have extremely lower exposures by comparison.
If the risk is the volume and duration [which by the way was consistent with all smoking research of primary smoking] Their elevation of risk has never been disclosed in a manner which would allow them to make decisions about their health of which that information would benefit.
The no safe level is detrimental to the health of a large proportion of the community and if the risk is real it should not be diminished for political gain.
In essence the 220 bartenders or the majority of them did not die from the effects of ETS, but from the effects of false and misleading advertising that is of course if the extreme risk of ETS has any foundation at all.
It appears when you look at the total package medical errors are far more responsible for preventable death than smoking ever was.
" Another class of misadventures is Medication Errors (ME), giving a patient
the wrong medication, the wrong dose, or the inappropriate combination of
medications. It has been estimated that medication errors both inside and outside
hospitals killed 7,391 individuals in the U.S. in 1993. Between 1983 and 1993, hospital
patient deaths due to medication errors increased 2.4-fold, while deaths from
medication errors among outpatients increased 8–fold. In 1983 ME caused 1 out 539
outpatients deaths, versus 1 out of 1,622 inpatient deaths resulting in a risk ratio of 3.0.
By 1993, this risk ratio increased to 6.5, or 1 out of 131 out patients deaths, versus 1
out of 854 inpatient deaths. Some have suggested that the increase can be linked to
current shifts in medical care, primarily the shift to outpatient treatment.
The death rate from medical errors of 1 in 500 reflects only in-hospital deaths.
Little if any research has focused on errors or adverse events occurring outside of
hospital settings, such as ambulatory care centers, clinics, surgi-centers, office
practices, home health, or care administered by patients, their family and friends. The
death rate from therapeutic misadventure in nursing homes or in residential settings
have not been reported."
Colin,
Glad to see you are back. We missed you. Can you report on how the law suit is going yet? I understand that there are points better left unsaid at this time as you never know who is reading, but if all is going smoothly, a wink will give us a clue.
Sorry Kevin. Call me harsh if you must, but I really need to see those 220 headstones in an actual graveyard before I believe that these mythical 220 bartenders died.
In 2005 (in the UK), 37 people were admitted to Accident & Emergency rooms as a result of injuries caused by tea cosies.
Tea cosies!
And as bizarre as that is, I believe it. 37 real human beings have suffered real trauma because they grew careless around their (obviously vicious) tea cosies. Now, under the Docs rules, they are victims. Why? Because they werent informed that tea cosies are actually harmful.
I think we should ban tea cosies (especially in the UK) where carelessness has led to some very frightening, and very real injuries, to very real people.
Lets be quite clear on this: no-one dies as a result of being exposed to ETS. I have searched high, and I have searched low, and all the places in between. No-one can show me bodies. All I see are estimates, extrapolations, statistics, guesses, and fairy tales. I have asked them all: ASH, British Heart Foundation, BMA, Health & Safety Executive, Cancer Research, Dept of Health, the Scottish Executive, Her Majestys Government, and the WHO. They cant provide proof. None of them. In the lead-up to the English ban, ASH hurt innocent bystanders in their rush to get on the telly and inform us all that "SHS kills 624 people in the UK. EVERY YEAR!", within days that changed to "SHS kills 13,000 people in the UK. EVERY YEAR!". I wrote to them and said "Name six 'victims', please". I am still waiting.
After a two year search, I am convinced. ETS kills no-one. For this (tired) investigator, the debate really is over.
Hi Diane,
Good to be back. I was in Holland. Acting normally, smoking in bars and restaurants. It really is refreshing to relive the experience. Hey, guess what? Not a single death! And I smoked like a fifty year old Ford.
The court case is proceeding well. We have a meeting scheduled tomorrow with a multi-millionaire who is also fighting the ban, so I will update you on events. Its looking gooooood!
Great news Colin. Don't give up the fight.
.
Kevin-
You make an excellent point about the exposure level and duration of exposure being very significant factors in the communication of risk.
I reject the "no safe level of exposure" mantra, not because it is technically false, but because it is very misleading, and because it obscures the very real relationship between dose and effect.
It suggests to people that there is no value in cutting down on their exposure levels or amounts because since any amount is risky, what's the point?
In fact, I believe the Surgeon General said that even a brief exposure to secondhand smoke "sets the cancer process in motion." This could easily be interpreted as meaning that if you are exposed briefly to secondhand smoke, you are on the road to cancer. So what then is the point of avoiding further exposure if you've already been exposed and the process is underway?
I do think that in any communication of risk, the exposure level and duration both need to be emphasized. But this also makes it much more difficult to communicate risk, and this is why I find it difficult to use a simple risk warning as our sole method of addressing a public health hazard.
I think it is exceedingly difficult to communicate risk accurately to the public (for precisely the reasons you mention), and so at some point, it is more reasonable to regulate the risk rather than to try to explain the intracacies to people when there is a good chance it could be misinterpreted
(or sometimes, an accurate interpretation of the risk can foul up people's risk perception - aka, the Surgeon General's statements).
NANNY SIEGEL KNOWS BEST ! WE MUST HAVE BANS !!!!!!!!
Re Michael's last paragraph...
So rather than taking on the Surgeon General for deliberately misleading the public, as you have so many times accused other TC organizations, you accuse the public of being too stupid to understand the *intracacies*.
That's an interesting argument. Well, we know where we stand.
The funny thing is I've been around smokers all my life and have never seen anyone die as a result of SHS or primary smoking. I've seen one man die, for sure, of medical screwups, several severely harmed (my grandfather just lost his left leg), and one almost die (I'm proud of that one, *I* caught it). That's not even starting to address cases I saw where someone screwed up and it just wasn't fatal or cases where I just didn't know enough to see it. Then you have cases of doctors pushing unnecessary procedures for money.
Yet, you're told to "see your doctor", "trust the medical community". I don't believe that anymore than I believe SHS kills.
That's what we mean, Doctor. You can tell people whatever you want, but those of us that see it everyday KNOW better. Unless a study lines up with what we see all the time, we don't believe you. When I first saw the study that finally admitted that medical staff are one of the leading causes of preventable death, all I could think was "DUH". (I hate to single out doctors, though they are part of the problem, I've seen equal damage done by nurses)
GDF ,i think Dr Siegel prefers to bash TFK rather than tackle the real problem of the Surgeon General,he will,nevertheless state he did on his blog.Why he can educate readers on the erroneous statements made by Carcinoma,but cannot/refuses to do so concerning the perils of SHS is open to debate.
OK, Doc I'll work on a Lohan/Paris Hilton piece that incorporates smoking into the story.
SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: Just double check the bandwidth on your server. A combination of Lohan + Hilton + smoking = 19,642 replies and a crashed server.
Si -- we know why. Because only "he" and not "people" can understand intracacies.
Actually, I can't understand the intracacies any better than anyone else. I have no idea what the risks of global warming are, for example. I have no idea whether switching over to saturated fats from trans fats is going to improve health, hurt health, or keep it the same, I don't have a clue as to what all the hazards are of chemicals that I have worked with in my laboratory career, and
I don't know how serious the effects of wood stove fumes might be if they escaped into my house.
I can't possibly be an expert on everything, and so I've come to rely on the government and on authorities to research these things and make appropriate decisions and policies.
So, for example, while I don't have a clue about the risks of global warming, I am hoping that our government is talking to the experts and figuring it out and doing the right thing to help prevent it if it is a real threat.
While I don't know the effects of switching from trans fats to saturated fats, I hope that our government is consulting the experts and making policies based on the best scientific evidence, something I can't do because I'm not an expert on this issue.
While I didn't understand the effects of all the various chemicals I worked with in the lab, I trusted that government regulations and inspections that made sure that I was handling these chemicals properly would protect me.
And while I don't know enough about the effects of wood stove fumes to make an informed decision about whether to accept the long-term risks, I instead put my trust in government regulations which dictate the exhaust requirements such that I am not significantly exposed to such fumes, regardless of my level of understanding of the potential risks.
Frankly, I don't want to have to make every decision in my life based on my own assessment of the risks. That's why we have experts. And that's why we have policy makers.
The Great Protector of all proclaims "Frankly, I don't want to have to make every decision in my life based on my own assessment of the risks. That's why we have experts. And that's why we have policy makers."
See he doesn't 'feel' competent enough to run his own life or protect himself---how in god's name can anyone be trusted with this task.
So you are perfectly willing to turn your decision over the the 'gubmint'
Well, three cheers for Michael.
Well frankly, I don't want that decision made for me by you the government or policy makers (whatever they are)
Who says you get to make that decision for anyone but yourself.
You stated that trying to get through to TFK was like running you head into a concrete wall.
Your head is constructed of that same material.
You may continue to turn your life over to the 'forces that be' (experts of every stripe)---Knock yourself out.
Leave me out of it. Just aims the guns of the government at your life and leave the rest of humanity alone.
One wonders how humanity ever survived before you were born.
.
.
.
"If the Center for Disease Control's annual list of leading causes of death included medical errors, it would show up as number six"
By taxing smokers so kids can have health insurance and see a doctor, smokers will finally, without a doubt, be responsible for some of their deaths.
I wonder if these deaths will be counted as from primary smoking?
Dr Siegel:.."And while I don't know enough about the effects of wood stove fumes to make an informed decision about whether to accept the long-term risks, I instead put my trust in government regulations which dictate the exhaust requirements such that I am not significantly exposed to such fumes, regardless of my level of understanding of the potential risks.""
BUSTED!!!
Smoke is Smoke
You can't make an informed decision about whether to accept the long term risks??? Really???
Smoke is Smoke
You will trust gov't regulations to dictate exhaust requirements but yet you will not trust any TRUE study on ventilation in an establishment and new technology??
Smoke is Smoke
You might as well rip out your fireplace now, and don't bother buying a new BBQ...They will soon be banned - because of these tobacco smoking regulations.
It's already starting with OWB.
Bans without ANY studies AT ALL.
People don't like the SMELL and it irritates some people. And "oh, look - smoke- I don't like it - I think I'll make my town ban it"
Congratulations /s
Michael Siegel wrote:
"Frankly, I don't want to have to make every decision in my life based on my own assessment of the risks. That's why we have experts. And that's why we have policy makers."
They could still leave the choice up to you, couldn't they? You could follow their assessments or ignore them (some or all of the time).
That's not too difficult, is it?
Btw, do you have sunscreen on today? LOL
Dr. Siegel-- "I think it is exceedingly difficult to communicate risk accurately to the public (for precisely the reasons you mention), and so at some point, it is more reasonable to regulate the risk rather than to try to explain the intracacies to people when there is a good chance it could be misinterpreted
(or sometimes, an accurate interpretation of the risk can foul up people's risk perception - aka, the Surgeon General's statements)."
Perhaps. But, do you realize how many things would need to be banned if your SHS risk threshold were applied across the board? Half of what we do and most of what we eat and drink would require banning if the standard you use to define SHS as "a serious health risk" were applied uniformly to everything else.
Dr. Siegel again-- "Actually, I can't understand the intracacies any better than anyone else.... That's why we have experts. And that's why we have policy makers."
Well, at least on this point you're making yourself abundantly clear. And that's why we have spellcheck.
.
Doctor, I hate to say this, but this trust in the government without any attempt to understand those things is, well, bad for the country. It's this kind of thinking that causes problems. Policy makers and scientists are no more protected from greed and lies than any other man. That's why the country is run by the PEOPLE (well, supposed to anyhow) and not run by the government. It's exactly this kind of thinking that's turning our country into such a problem. Well, the doctors know more than me about THIS, and the scientists about THAT, and the government is hopefully being smart enough to listen to who knows best. Sorry to say, but each of those people are human beings, and just as guilty as any other human being of being a liar, stupid, or greedy. I don't know why people think that just because they are government or had a good education they are less human than the rest of us and above petty human failings.
We are all capable of understand as much as we choose to, we might require more explanation given in different ways, but we are all capable.
Michael - that just brings us back around in a circle. You aren't challenging those restrictions you described. Fine. But we, the public as represented here, are challenging smoking bans. So the experts and policymakers are answerable to... us. So the compelling case can't be, "because the experts and policymakers said so".
Or am I missing something?
GDF---You aren't mission a thing.
Remember as a kid you'd see an older kid do magic tricks? He would place a pea on a table and have three paper cups (one over the pea) and two other in a line. he would scramble the cups and as a little kid I was always amazed how someone could pick the right cup with the pea under. Until I was a little older and understood the game, and was much more observant, an gawd darn if I couldn't find the pea----everytime!!!!
He is dealing with adults here, not studentsor children in a magic show.
And you know that pea we keep finding under the cup-----it's shriveled up now and the doctor is in panic mode because his game is up.
As Sam stated on the other thread---
Chirp
Chirp
Chrip.
OOps mission = missing
Sunz - I'm grateful there are so many eyes watching that pea.
So, for example, while I don't have a clue about the risks of global warming, I am hoping that our government is talking to the experts and figuring it out and doing the right thing to help prevent it if it is a real threat.
While I don't know the effects of switching from trans fats to saturated fats, I hope that our government is consulting the experts and making policies based on the best scientific evidence, something I can't do because I'm not an expert on this issue.
While I didn't understand the effects of all the various chemicals I worked with in the lab, I trusted that government regulations and inspections that made sure that I was handling these chemicals properly would protect me.
You had better hope that those "experts" are more qualified and more honest that the ones running the TC show. Otherwise, you are up the creek without a paddle..........right along with all us smokers.
Not for nothing Doc, but people like you make it really easy for people like you to take control.
I am hoping that our government is talking to the experts
You mean experts like Kennedy or Enzi? Or maybe Stanton Glantz and James Repace? Good luck.
Not for nothing Doc, but people like you make it really easy for people like you to take control.
Lynda F | 08.01.07 - 5:13 pm | #
Lynda! Spot On!!!
or sometimes, an accurate interpretation of the risk can foul up people's risk perception - aka, the Surgeon General's statements
Does that mean you made a fool of the Surgeon General when you criticized his claim of "even a short exposure...". Are you saying that he was right in his risk assessment but that he shouldn't have said it? So much for the "well informed public" ...
And when those "experts" continually refuse to show cause for their actions, what then Doctor?
When those "experts" applie standards of "risk" to only one product in use and no others', one product which vastly affects only 1/3 to 1/2 of the population, and collaterally damages entire industries? Does its most damage to the poorer population, and the small business owner, and still not ONE SINGLE body, and no proof of CAUSAL conditions?
Really doctor, when you take the same risk assessment and place it on say, the crowds who enjoy watching racing events, or air shows, or Monster truck shows, and then tell us that this one product alone is the one that MUST be banned from private establishments to protect the public, and still offer NO REASON other than YOUR belief, you are sounding like a spoiled child who wants their way, NOW!
IF you trust this RISK ASSESSMENT, why in gods name are you NOT trying to have tobacco removed immediately? If this RISK is so high that mere exposure, even chronic, is a deadly enough threat to have this product banned from certain public venues (indoors and some outdoors), why is it NOT deadly enough to have it recalled and prohibited immediately?
What is the difference here? SMoker's are capable of assessing the risks for themselves and therefore should be left to decide for themselves? What? How do you sleep trying to protect the innocents, but not the addicts? How can you say we have a choice at all if you believe the "experts" who tell us tobacco is so much more addictive than even some of the worst drugs on the planet, and NOT try to have this deadly product removed entirely? How can you allow these addicts to expose their children in cars and homes based on private autonomy, but their fellow citizens aren't bright enough to read a sign that says smoking is allowed on the premises? You are a true hypocrite and brainwashed Anti, in every sense of the words Doc, and you just lost the last modicum of respect I had for you, you are either a liar, or a total idiot, which is it?
We are in agreement on one thing: the concept of "no safe level" is ridiculous.
If that is true, then there must be a safe level, right?
We already have experts on air quality and the chemicals contained in tobacco smoke, Doctor.
We already have an organization dedicated to workplace safety, OSHA, who already determined that the chemicals in smoky air are well below permissable exposure levels.
A number of other experts have determined that the number of cigarettes needed to reach those levels of any chemical is on the order of thousands to millions, all burning simultaneously, in an unventilated room.
Safe levels have already been determined by those very experts in whom you place your confidence.
Those very studies have been posted here over and over.
Yet, you reject their judgement, and substitute your own, but you don't know what it is?
You're saying to all of us that there is a safe level, but since you personally don't know what it is, despite all available information, smoking should be banned.
You can ignore all evidence of safety, and force a ban. Yet, if we look at the same evidence, we are uninformed.
Only your judgement counts?
So Dr Siegel you trust other people to make decisions that affect your existence ?You have no queries,you just accept every recommendation as gospel ?So Gori and Wheelan are nobodies ,you are "the specialist",you dictate bans are required and people MUST ACCEPT THIS.Science progresses and quite often things are turned on their head eg trans fats butter v margarine BUT THERE IS NO WAY YOUR STUDIES FROM THE EARLY NINETIES NEED RECONSIDERING .HOW DOES YOUR EGO FIT INTO A MOTOR VEHICLE ?
I can't possibly be an expert on everything, and so I've come to rely on the government and on authorities to research these things and make appropriate decisions and policies.---Dr. Siegel
You trust Gubmint to be omnipotent, honest and beyond reproach Doc? What is Government, besides our neighbors with power and an agenda?
I'll do something that pains me in order to explain it in a language that you understand. WMD. Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. You posted something last year which gave me a clue as to where you stand on this issue.
I could bombard you with the 1993 decision by Judge Osteen which laughed the EPA report on SHS out of court but I would be out of my element.
(I won't turn this into a political discussion, but before anyone tries they might want to go back and listen to Al Gore, Hillary Clinton et al talk about the issue in the time machine).
I think I've made my point. We can find millions of examples of why we shouldn't trust Gubmint.
I agree that there is some pretty untrustworthy stuff going on. This is one reason why I am so outspoken in demanding scientific integrity from our public scientists and policy makers - like the Surgeon General. This is why it is so very critical that the anti-smoking and health groups present accurate information and do not mislead the public. This is also the reason that we must strive to keep politics out of regulation - another reason I oppose the FDA tobacco legislation.
Way to ignore the facts about OSHA, Doc. Why is OSHA untrustworthy? Why do you deliberately ignore their air quality standards?
OSHA says smoky air is well within permissable levels for the chemicals you fear so much.
Why do you demand your own judgement be legislated over theirs?
But they don't, they haven't, and they won't be honest, above reproach. WE know that, and if we aren't going to listen to them without some proof we can verify, why on earth would we do that with anyone else?
"This is one reason why I am so outspoken in demanding scientific integrity from our public scientists and policy makers - like the Surgeon General"
Oh really----forgive me for collapsing on my keyboard in hysterical laughter. Do you read your words? Do you consider YOUR behavior and arrogance toward the posters here in NEVER answering to like demands of YOU.
This is sad----you are dangerous for more than one reason.
Gooooood God Almighty!!!!!!!!! Jesus, Mary & Jospeh or as Harry used to say Gloriosky!! I think the third clown is accounted for. The circus is underway.
.
.
The public would probably consider the Surgeon General the ultimate "Government Expert" yet you admit that he's full of it-- or at the least greatly misleading. The public also considered a Repace- (and later a Glantz-) ridden EPA to be a "Government Expert," even tho the ultimate EPA report broke every marker of science.
One can only assume the same kind of agenda-driven rent seekers are manning similar posts in most if not all government agencies as well as using networks of similar-minded peers and cherry picked factoids.
Trust (if you insist) but never never never fail to Verify too.
:
"This is one reason why I am so outspoken in demanding scientific integrity from our public scientists and policy makers - like the Surgeon General"
When we demand it from you, it's a different story, eh, doc?
Michael, [to be fair] and I were discussing semantics, I do not agree ETS is extremely harmful and Michael does at least in high proportions and with extended exposure durations.
I have no intention of changing his mind for him and he has every right to believe based on his experience and expertise to believe what he likes as long as I am shown the same courtesy.
What was discussed was an examination of both positions and to his credit [BTW thanks Michael]He was frank and honest in his response, and entirely consistent with his advocacy.
Just as many of us oppose smoking bans and the numerous other insults we are forced to bear just because we smoke. Michael has always stated he is in favor of the bans and he has every right to lobby for what he believes is right as we do. I understand in order to protect the gains made in his stated goals he will not be careless with his language and cause his campaign harm.
I can live with that because if integrity is built by those who can agree to disagree it is to the benefit of all of us that integrity is promoted.
When discussing what is being done by TC of late and the increasing level of deceit and exaggeration, at least one person we know attempts to protect a modicum of decency and as our host perhaps a more inclusive promotion is needed to enhance both sides of the debate.
I stated earlier and I believe from his answer Michael agrees the promotions of TC has confused the public to the point no solid marker exists anymore with which to compare risk. The gallop poll demonstrated proof.
This is not entirely a bad thing for those opposing the bans it is actually devastating for the promoters who in their enthusiasm have traveled into a realm where it can now be proven they are creating harm. They painted themselves into a corner.
The hospitality workers as Michael stated could not be adequately informed and I agree of the [figuratively speaking]"Extreme Risk"
If such a risk exists it is extreme to those who are most exposed who now believe because of the "no safe level" their risk could not be higher than anyone else's which again " If" a risk exists, TC is making it impossible to detect, above or separately from the lower levels of average exposures in the general public.
Work on that and you will find it makes a lot of sense in a discussion of semantics.
TC can be seen to this extent without arguing risk existence [by arguing from their perspective] they are causing deliberate harm to hospitality workers in continued use of careless language.
First a thanks to James Austin for finding my line of thinking appealing enough to expand on it. I think it'll be more useful for our defense (at the right openings) than others are appreciating.
Dr. Siegel, this is all very sad:
I have no idea what the risks of global warming are, for example.
If it's important enough to you you'd research it. Like we do.
I have no idea whether switching over to saturated fats from trans fats is going to improve health, hurt health, or keep it the same
If it's important enough to you you'd research it. Like we do.
I don't have a clue as to what all the hazards are of chemicals that I have worked with in my laboratory career, and I don't know how serious the effects of wood stove fumes might be if they escaped into my house.
If it's important enough to you you'd research it. Like we do.
I can't possibly be an expert on everything, and so I've come to rely on the government and on authorities to research these things and make appropriate decisions and policies.
Who told you, or where did you get the idea, that to form an educated opinion you have to be certified in the area -- an expert? Educated people, of which I was under the impression you were, can teach themselves enough (and more if they want) -- especially with the Internet now! -- to understand any of these things from all sides in order to come to their own conclusion.
Personally, all of those things are of importance to me because of the way it will impact MY life and the world I live in (what it means in societal terms). Research on ETS is at the top of the list. Many of us have been at it for a decade, give or take. How much more reading and studying do you think we need? And we don't just read the ETS studies or opinion pieces on them, we research things WITHIN them. For instance, epidemiology is a separate course.
If you feel you can only say the one thing you ARE an expert in is risk assessment then how can you say for sure you know filtration doesn't work? How can you agree so strongly with Repace? Are you a filtration expert? (I don't think he is either, btw). Maybe Jenkins could be right according to your criteria for knowing things.
How on earth do you choose who to vote for? Even better, how can you or any one of us ever be said to learn anything and given a diploma just by studying and doing homework? If studying and homework doesn't teach anyone enough then how is it possible anyone can earn a degree? What? Some person who has been put "in charge" has to officially crown you?
There's home schooling. There's the ability to earn a degree from a university over the computer!
It's really really a sad thing to hear you take that position -- whether it's a defensive tactic or you actually believe it: "I'll leave it up to the government and hope they're getting it right."
We have a term for that mentality: Sheeple.
And I can't believe that came out of your mouth no matter what inspired it. It says more about you than I could have believed after having gotten to "know" you.
JTF
If you look at the trans fat issue alone, the hysteria this time around is brough by the very same group that brought us trans fat as THE WAY TO GO about 20 years ago.
So much for the experts.
This time around, with sensible limitations, i'll trust the cows!
Mooooo.
.
I understand in order to protect the gains made in his stated goals he will not be careless with his language and cause his campaign harm.
I do see the Doc being careless with his language. Just his use of the word “cause” is careless on his part as he has already stated that HE (and I believe he stated the scientific community too) equates “cause” to ‘increased risk’. The general public equates “cause” to ‘absolute’, and I’m sure the Doc and the rest of the scientific community know this. So why change the meaning of the word? Why NOT just claim “increases risk” instead of claiming SHS “CAUSES” all these things as IF there were no other explanations?
I consider it careless to use a word one way when you know the general population takes it another way.
I can live with that because if integrity is built by those who can agree to disagree it is to the benefit of all of us that integrity is promoted.
So can I. However, the Doc has already stated that he cannot agree to disagree until at least 90% of the population agrees with his stand that SHS is a “serious health hazard”. He has stated emphatically, that until such time, he will continue to push for bans….rather than find reasonable compromise that doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s liberty.
In other words, until nearly all the people agree with his conclusion, he won’t budge one iota on his stand. I can respect his standing his ground, but cannot respect him, when he’s demanding near complete agreement with HIS belief.
Integrity to me is having respect for the other person’s right to NOT agree with me. And while the Doc tries to present that idea, he has clearly stated that unless the majority agrees with him, he doesn’t think they are capable of making their own decisions. He will continue to force his belief on us any way he can until the majority concedes. I don’t see that as respecting our right to disagree with him.
I also can’t find his integrity when he himself does not put things into real world context. His stand that SHS is a serious health threat does not apply to the majority of the population, yet he espouses that belief.
We have a term for that mentality: Sheeple.
That's why I said yesterday that people like him make it really easy for people like him to control others.
Hi, guys.
Widespread hazards affecting public health tend to show up in direct relation to exposure.
Whereas population smoking and disease levels have never consistently matched, and often show opposite results to those of cause and effect, many other common exposures do produce evident (if not necessarily immediate, where longer latent periods, such as those of lung cancer, are concerned) results which fluctuate in tandem with each other.
http://www.environmentaldefence....glish%
20Web.pdf (If you don't have time to read much of this important paper, go to what registers as pg. 7 [pg. 3, I believe, re the paper itself,] and read though past the section on respiratory health.)
Regarding this one facet of epidemic ill health and dysfunction affecting even wildlife unconvicted of smoking, ETS exposure, lack of exercise or grazing on fast foods to the detriment of their own health, note especially the references to lung cancer and other 'smoking-related' diseases.
'Public health officials should take note of the correlation between increased use of toxic chemicals and increases in the occurance of disease and illnessess.'
'Although smoking cigarettes is a major cause of lung cancer and smoking rates are at the lowest level in Canadian history, the prevalence of lung cancer continues to increase.
'Air pollution, and smog specifically, is well known to be a significant cause of respiratory diseases and related deaths.'
'In addition to outdoor and industrial air pollutants, the Canadian Lung Association highlights residential pesticides and indoor chemical pollutants found in many common household products as causes and triggers of respiratory illnessess.'
(Note the graph which follows, showing some major public and environmental health issues resulting from industrial causes.
And, as an aside, DDT was banned for standard use in multiple countries, and held in reserve for strategic use in high-malaria areas, to limit the propagation of resistant insects acting as disease vectors, something which invariably occurs with wide-range use in chemical pest control.
Such chemicals, however, have the opposite effect on other species [including us] unintended as targets, in accordance with Murphy's Law.
The chemical industry is, however, having a heyday with a documented PR strategy, this one [of several options listed] suggesting a claim that vast numbers of people have died of malaria because of DDT bans, designed by an agency to turn public opinion against the notion of giant industry testing toxic chemicals prior to subjecting people and the environment to unknown effects.
Important - Environmental Defence states that estimates were of 22,000 Canadians diagnosed and 19,000 dying of lung cancer in 2005.
A recent Canadian press release stated that, in view of belated official recognition of radiation's low-dose hazards, 16,000 Canadians were expected to suffer lung cancer from residential radon gas exposures, something I posted a while back.
On review, it turned out that I'd produced a truly classic typo, with the number given as 60,000, [don't ask me how I managed that - if I knew, it wouldn't have happened in the first place] and [naturally] only discovered after mass intervening posts had piled up between.
I can only hope that such an enormous error [outnumbering victims!] would be self-correcting, [that and make note of it here,] although we've all seen too many examples of outrageous claims seriously and repeatedly presented as truth - and accepted by some - for such an assumption to be entirely safe.
Some [if not most] of us are pretty stressed out and sleep-deprived, and it seems others have also (albeit rarely) posted where they intended to preview, missed errors despite rereading, or rushed through unfinished posts because of loss concerns, whether due to computer or storm/power-loss or other ('gotta run') issues, although some of us lately seem to be doing this more often than others.
Is there any way of editing errors on LastHalo that doesn't require computer skills, money, or a computer with much capacity - or somebody fully awake with the ability to see straight?
Accuracy is, of course, essential - as is the urgent need for complete and accurate official public information and the affirmed preservation of the public's right to determine personally acceptable risks, currently in the process of being abrogated by powerful commercial industry in the name of 'public health'. For those of us who are definitely very human rather than Devine [in drag or not] the ability to rectify posted error is to be valued above White-Out at whatever price per pound.)
http://www.popcenter.umd.edu/eve...apers/
dembe.pdf
Apparently one is not supposed to reproduce this without permission from the author, so I can't quote, but do read this.
It's hardly surprising if the cost of workplace injuries and disease approaches that of cancer and heart disease, but this paper is highly pertinant and of considerable interest from a number of angles, although much evidently a mystery to officialdom may seem painfully obvious to anyone on the wrong side of the workplace injury/illness debate.
For obvious reasons, those denied compensation - which typically includes those who have ever smoked and are exposed at work to substances known to produce disease, such as lung cancer, which may be attributed to smoking - are not considered, although a very high rate of such exclusion exists, considerably lowering not only the assessed hazards of various jobs and lucrative substances, but the amount workplace exposures and injuries are estimated to cost.
Industry externalizes much of such costs (environmental and all) onto individuals and society in general, and smokers have been increasingly bearing the brunt in, it seems, all possible - and expanding - ways which could be devised by constant effort and expenditure.
The smoking ban precedents established also include a means of eliminating human advance, especially regarding workers, in areas ranging from mandated coffee-breaks to autonomy, and establishing industry as the complete ruler of the bottom 80 or 90% of humanity in all (in)conceivable ways.
Another major public health issue has to do with mercury accumulations and associated health issues.
Mercury amalgams form a large portion of the problem, affecting millions in each of numerous countries, and in some areas nearly all of the (adult) population.
The following doesn't contain the happiest phrasing, but the general message is one long since established: i.e., mercury in body very, very bad.
http://www.wicfs-me.org/
mercury_...y_cause_cfs.htm
'The World Health Organisation in recent years, after studies, announced that we receive between 3 and 17mcg of daily intake of mercury from our fillings.*² Dr Freiberg, who was involved in the study, was reported as saying that 'there is no safe level of mercury'. In fact, the Toxicity Centre in Tennessee classes mercury as 1600 and plutonium as 1900, which is the most deadly. This places mercury as one of the most deadly poisons known to man.
'Numerous studies show that mercury gets released as you chew and particularly when you consume foods which are hot or acidic. Although some studies concerning mercury toxicity have been carried out on animals, which, of course, prove nothing about humans, there have also been studies on humans via autopsies, etc. In fact, the toxicity of mercury is revealed by the fact that autopsies on dentists have shown that they have higher than normal concentrations of mercury in their pituitary gland and have double the number of brain tumours. Also, female dentists and personnel are three times more likely to have sterility, stillbirth and miscarriage and all dentist employees have a higher than normal concentration of mercury in their CNS, kidneys, and endocrine system according to McTaggart. *³
'Signs of mercury poisoning are varied and there are possible links with Multiple Sclerosis and ME, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer’s Disease, Auto-Immune disease, pregnancy complications, hair loss, cancer, mental disorders, especially manic depression, allergies, infertility, leukaemia and gut problems. In one study in Sweden, the mercury levels of MS patients were on average 7.5 times higher than the control group. Dr Kingsley and Hal Huggins (a dentist and researcher) found that they almost always find evidence of mercury toxicity when treating MS and cancer patients.
'When the fillings are ground, as happens when chewing, some mercury does escape as vapour, and this can enter the saliva and be swallowed, and can be converted to methyl mercury, by the action of bacteria in the mouth and in the gut. Methyl mercury is much more toxic than elemental mercury. As there is more than one metal in the mouth and there is saliva, a small but measurable electric current is continually generated in the mouth. This is something which gradually corrodes the amalgam.
(To be continued)
Frankly, I don't want to have to make every decision in my life based on my own assessment of the risks. That's why we have experts. And that's why we have policy makers.
For this reason, we need to raise Cain when so-called expertes fall-down on the job. That is what we're doing. You fell down on the SHS science and excused yourself from it by declaring that you have simply ACCEPTed the supposed dangers of ETS, and people have called you on it. We shouldn't *need* to become experts to avoid needless public health scares and vilification.
When I started this, the discussion was regarding smoking being a major health issue, so I figured I'd make a change from my usual outrage over asbestos and diesel and dig up some articles on a few of the other many common major health issues which actually do adversely affect the health and happiness of many and which aren't beneficial to those involved as is smoking.
I hope this information, while not as apt as it might have been earlier, will be useful.
(con't)
'Dr McIntyre and many other researchers suggest that mercury toxicity may contribute to damage to the immune system and increase susceptibility to immune system dysfunctions. Frequently, mercury poisoning causes unexplained chronic fatigue (ME symptoms). Huggins argues that 90% of his 2,000 patients had ME-like symptoms which improved when the fillings were removed. He argues that mercury interferes with the oxygen-carrying capacity of the red blood cells. In fact, he states that in tests this oxygen-carrying ability was reduced to half what it should be. This explains why some patients are so chronically tired. In fact, a researcher from Stockholm, Stortebecker, has also revealed that mercury travels through the nasal passages and gets into the brain. The brain seems to have an affinity to mercury.
'Joel Berger argues that there is no such thing as a stable mercury filling. Each one will leak mercury in every direction. This can be in to the body of the tooth, the gums, the nose and brain, into the saliva and the bloodstream, etc. Mercury can also migrate through the tooth itself (not just through the vapour). "We are dealing with a known and proven poison" he says.'
http://plfo.org/advocate/volume_...3_issue_4/coal/
'Of Kentucky’s 22 coal-fired power plants, nine (41 percent) are located in the Owensboro-Daviess County area'
'Health implications
'Although estimates vary, researchers conclude that each year coal-fired power plant pollution shortens the lives of hundreds of Kentuckians, causes many people to miss work, induces asthma attacks, increases cancer risk, and is consistently linked with heart attacks, lung disease, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and other health problems.
'Compared with other states, Kentuckians have the second highest risk of dying from power plant pollution. Those who live within 30 miles of coal-fired power plants have the greatest exposure. In Kentucky, this represents 3.3 million people, 812,000 children and 44,000 people with asthma. In Daviess County, per 100,000 population, 84 people die from lung cancer compared to 55 nationwide (attributed to smoking and other factors).'
(The INCREASE in widespread exposure to coal burning emissions increases lung cancer more than half again, indicating that a high proportion of the BASE is likely due to such [fossil fuel/industrial emission] exposures.)
'In our country, coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury, emitting 41 percent of the mercury that is released into the air and water annually. Half of mercury pollution comes from eight states, including Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois. In 2003, Kentucky coal plants emitted 3,486 pounds of mercury, the eighth highest level of any state. Some comparisons rank Kentucky in the top three of mercury polluters.
'One hundred percent of Kentucky waterways are under a mercury fish advisory – a recommendation that the public not eat more than one meal per week of freshwater fish pulled from Kentucky lakes, streams and rivers. Twenty other states are under a similar advisory.'
'Pneumoconiosis (or “black lung” disease) is caused by continuous exposure to coal mine dust. The disease kills an estimated 1,500 miners per year nationwide. In Kentucky, less than one in 20 applications for black lung Workers Compensation benefits is approved.'
(Much occupational disease is not officially recognised as such, as it's often possible for industry management to disown liability by claiming 'personal choice' blame despite high rates of disease appearing specifically within their workers and/or others sickening/dying through environmental or product exposures.)
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/centers...2News/
news7.htm
'The latest findings come as the Bush administration is considering proposals for scaling back tough government legal action against dozens of aging coal-fired power plants and refineries that violated the law by expanding without installing state of the art anti-pollution equipment. Power plants built before 1980 generate about half the nation's electricity but nearly all of the utility industry's unhealthy sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and soot, experts said. Environmental groups seized on the new findings as support for their position that tough enforcement was still needed.
'Air pollution levels have declined significantly during the past 20 years because of stepped-up enforcement of clean air laws, yet levels of fine particle emissions in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington are at or exceed limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency.
'Fine particles are compounds and pollutants produced through combustion in power plants, refineries, diesel trucks and buses. They are so tiny smaller than 2.5 microns or a fraction of the thickness of a human hair that they evade the human lung's natural defenses and are inhaled deeply.
'Previous research by Harvard University and the American Cancer Society strongly linked these fine particles to high mortality rates from cardiopulmonary diseases such as heart attacks, strokes and asthma. Until now, however, scientists lacked sufficient statistical evidence to directly link those emissions to elevated lung cancer death rates.
'By gathering air pollution data and 16 years of personal health records of 500,000 of the people who had participated in the earlier American Cancer Society study, scientists amassed the "statistical fire power" to finally make that connection, said Bringham Young University epidemiologist Arden Pope, a chief author of the study.
'Allen Dearry, a scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which partly funded the study, called it "the best epidemiologic evidence that we have so far that that type of exposure is associated with lung cancer death."
'Environmentalists, public health advocates and citizens groups contend that power plant emissions are among the worst contributors to the lung and heart disease problems highlighted by the new study. Brian P. Urbaszewski, director of environmental health programs for the American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago, said the study "is another nail in the coffin for these old coal-fired power plants." '
'However, industry officials contend that the link between power plant emissions and the elevated mortality rates is not all that clear, and that there are limits to how much utilities can spend on anti-pollution measures and remain competitive.
' "We as an industry have dramatically reduced emissions, and more reductions will be made because they are required under existing regulations," said Jayne Brady, a spokesperson for the Edison Electric Institute, a utility group. Brady added that the new cancer study is just "one of many studies."
'An EPA spokesman said the agency was "interested" in the new findings but that officials have not fully assessed it yet.
'The scientific and legal controversy over the health effects of fine particle emissions has raged for years, culminating in the EPA's decision in 1997 to issue tough new standards limiting the annual average level of fine particles in the air to 15 micrograms per cubic meter. The Supreme Court upheld the standards in February 2001, but then remanded them to a lower court for further consideration.
'The landmark studies published by Harvard researchers in 1993 and the American Cancer Society in 1995 documented a high incidence of premature deaths among people chronically exposed to fine particle emissions.'
(Please note the date - 1993 - think EPA study (due to pressure and political appointments within the agency) produced to 'prove' second-hand smoke produced these effects, while information was withheld from a public disinformed to think that the term 'hazardous particulates' applied not to fossil fuel and industrial emissions but to tobacco, wood smoke and lit candles, thereby avoiding adequate restrictions on toxic industry emissions and instead restricting the public's defenses - while they are turned against each other by manipulative tactics.)
'Nationwide, as many as 30,100 deaths a year are related to power plant emissions, according to a study by Abt Associates, a private research organization that does work for the EPA. By comparison, 16,000 Americans are killed each year in drunken driving accidents, and more than 17,000 are victims of homicides.
'Industry officials and some scientists have disputed these findings and argued that the past research failed to account for many variables, such as regional disparities and an individual's occupation and diet.
'The newly released study conducted by Pope, George Thurston, professor of environmental medicine at New York University's School of Medicine, and Daniel Krewski of the University of Ottawa sought to address the criticism in doing follow-up studies of a half-million people living in 100 cities throughout the country.
'The researchers first took into account other risk factors for heart and lung disease such as cigarettes, diet, weight and occupation.'
(to be [more] continued)
(Some of the causes hidden behind tobacco blame, con't)
'Lung cancer death rates were compared with average pollution levels, as measured in micrograms per cubic meter of air. The researchers found that the number of lung cancer deaths increased 8 percent for every increase of 10 micrograms. Other heart- and lung-related causes of death increased 6 percent for every 10 microgram increase.
'At the study's inception in 1982, the most polluted cities had fine particulate pollution levels about 20 micrograms per cubic meter higher than the least polluted cities. As a result, residents in the most polluted cities had an approximately 16 percent excess risk of dying from lung cancer due to fine particulate air pollution, the study shows. By the end of the study in 1998, the air had become somewhat cleaner, reducing that risk, but it remained 12 percent higher in the worst polluted areas, the authors found.'
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/...04-09-01-
03.asp
'But it is the Obiliq/Kastriot area that suffers most acutely from Kosovo’s ailing power stations. There, families with members with lung cancer or other respiratory diseases are far more numerous than anyone would have a right to expect in a non-urban area.'
'Vela stressed that the level of pollution from the KEK plants had already reached dire proportions. “The latest health control conducted by KEK’s Institute for Health and Safety at Work concluded that every employee working in the power plants suffered from some respiratory tract disease,” he said. '
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia...om-thailand-
and
'Maliwan Nakwirot, leader of the Patients Rights for Environmental Network Against Pollutants, says more than 10,000 Mae Moh residents in 17 villages within a 20-kilometer radius from the power plant and mine complex suffer from severe respiratory ailments.
'Over the past four years, more than 200 have died, many of them in the manner described above, mostly from black lung disease, an illness associated with breathing air laden with too much coal dust. Many others suffer lung cancer, asthma and a host of other respiratory ailments.'
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/co...cts-of-
coal.pdf -
'...The largest share of particulate emissions comes not from direct emissions, but from the conversion of SO2and NOXinto fine particle sulphate and nitrate in the atmosphere.'
'Coal contains numerous persistent, bioaccumulative trace elements that are released during combustion and end up in the atmosphere and water bodies. These include mercury, dioxins, arsenic, radionucleotides, cadmium and lead.'
'effects of selected coal-fired power plant pollutants xvii Human Toxicity Substance Acute (short-term) effects Chronic (long-term) effects Comments Sulphur dioxide Lung irritant, triggers asthma, low birth weight in infants. Reduces lung function, associated with premature death. Also contributes to acid rain and poor visibility.Nitrogen oxides Changes lung function, increases respiratory illness in children. Increases susceptibility to respiratory illnesses and causes permanent alteration of lung. Forms ozone smog and acid rain. Ozone is associated with asthma, reduced lung function,adverse birth outcomes and allergen sensitisation. Particulate matter Asthma attacks, heart rate variability, heart attacks. Cardiovascular disease, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, premature death. Fine particle pollution from power plants is estimated to cut short the lives of 30,000 Americans each year. Hydrogen chloride Inhalation causes coughing, hoarseness, chest pain and inflammation of respiratory tract.Chronic occupational exposure isassociated with gastritis, chronic bronchitis, dermatitis and photosensitisation in workers. Hydrogen fluoride Inhalation causes severe respiratory damage, severe irritation and pulmonary edema (build up of fluid in the lungs) Liver and kidney damage.Very high exposures through drinking water or air can cause skeletal fluorosis. Arsenic Ingestion and inhalation:affects the gastrointestinal system and central nervous system. Known human carcinogen of high potency. Inhalation causes lung cancer; ingestion causes lung, skin, bladder and liver cancer. Cadmium Inhalation exposure causes bronchial and pulmonary irritation. A single acute exposure to high levels of cadmium can result in long-lasting impairment of lung function. Probable human carcinogen of medium potency. The kidney is the major target organ in humans following chronic inhalation and oral exposure. Other effects noted from chronic inhalation exposure are bronchiolitis and emphysema.Chromium High exposure to chromium VI may result in renal toxicity and internal haemorrhage. Known human carcinogen of high potency. Chronic effects from exposure are inflammation of the respiratory tract, effects on the kidneys, liver and gastrointestinal tract Mercury Inhalation exposure to elemental mercury results in central nervous system effects and effects on gastrointestinal tract and respiratory system. Methyl mercury ingestion causes developmental effects. Infants born to women who ingested methyl mercury may perform poorly in neurobehavioral tests.The major effect from long-term exposure to inorganic mercury is kidney damage.Dioxin Inhalation and absorption through the skin results in central nervous system effects, impairment of the immune system, the developing nervous system, the endocrine system and reproductive functions. Known human carcinogen of high potency and has been linked to diabetes. Chronicoccupational exposure has been linked to lung cancer, non-hodgkins lymphoma, stomach and liver cancer, soft and connective tissue cancers. Short term effects from exposure are skin lesions, such as chloracne and patchy darkening of the skin, and altered liver function. Can interfere with normal development of a foetus or child. (i) Mercury Coal-fired power and heat production are the largest single source of atmospheric mercury emissions. xviii According to the UNEP, mercury and its compounds pose a ‘global environmental threat to humans and wildlife.’ xix Mercury is toxic to the developing brain, and exposure in the womb can cause learning disabilities, developmental delays, and other serious health problems in children. The US EPA estimates that one in six U.S. women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her blood to put her child at risk. xx Eating contaminated fish is the primary way people are exposed to mercury. xxi Mercury released into the air by power plants gets into waterways and is converted into highly toxic methyl mercury by bacteria. The methyl mercury bioaccumulates in fish which are then consumed by humans. xxii No technologies are available to eliminate mercury emissions from power plants.'
'4(ii) Dioxins Known human carcinogens and some of the most toxic compounds known to science, dioxins can also be formed when coal is burned, since most coal contains chlorine. xxiv For details of the health impacts of other trace elements see Table 1. Coal Combustion Waste (CCW) CCW such as fly and bottom ash, and ‘captured’ pollutants (pollution that has been removed during the coal burning), is normally disposed of in landfill sites or sold for industrial use. For example, Huntly power station sells some of its waste for use in cement. Regardless of how CCW is disposed of, there is a risk of toxic metals leaching into nearby surface and ground water. People who drink, over a period of years, an average amount of water contaminated with CCW have a higher risk of cancer.'
http://www.nrdc.org/news/newsDet...ls.asp?
nID=1399
'AUSTIN, Texas _ Air pollution from coal-fired power plants cause about 24,000 premature deaths a year nationwide, a new study indicates.
'The study, prepared by Abt Associates, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's consultant on air pollution impacts, found that 22,000 of those deaths, along with many nonfatal heart attacks and tens of hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, could be prevented by requiring power plants to install currently available pollution control technology. However, revisions to federal pollution control rules favored by the Bush administration would reduce deaths far less _ by about 10,000 per year in 2020 _ than the limits a bipartisan group of senators proposed in 1999, the study concluded. Abt, based in Cambridge, Mass., released a similar study in 2000 before multiple medical studies linked power plant pollutants with increased risk of cancer and heart attacks.'
(Says 'done but with errors on page, although none seem evident...?)
'The evidence, from groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, is growing that pollution from power plants can be a significant cause of health problems, such as cancer and heart attacks, in addition to asthma attacks," said Doggett, daughter of U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D). "Between 10 and 20 percent of my patients (at the People's Community Clinic) suffer from asthma or a respiratory disease."
'Statewide, the pollution from coal-fired power plants causes 144 lung cancer deaths, 1,791 nonfatal heart attacks and nearly 34,000 asthma attacks each year, the study found. Texas ranks sixth in the nation in total deaths, but did not make the top 15 in deaths per capita.
'The Dallas-Fort Worth area had the biggest health impacts of Texas metro areas, with 290 early deaths, 476 nonfatal heart attacks and 10,263 asthma attacks annually. Houston was close behind, with San Antonio and Austin lagging significantly in deaths, though not so dramatically for asthma attacks.
'Travis County sees about 29 premature deaths annually from power plant pollutants, 53 additional heart attacks and about 1,327 asthma attacks, the study estimated.
'The relatively limited death toll in Central Texas is in great part because the most significant contributor to premature deaths _ soot, also known as fine particle pollution _ tends to cause the most health damage very close to the power plants that emit it. In Texas, unlike many Midwest and East Coast states, power plants are concentrated in rural areas where fewer people breath the pollutants.
'However, the power plant pollutant that is key to the formation of lung-damaging ozone pollution _ nitrogen oxides _ can, like ozone itself, travel hundreds of miles by wind and impact ozone levels in Central Texas.'
I think the myriad points here must be evident.
And I've got a million of 'em.
You never cease to amaze me Ellen,but one thing never to be underestimated is the little old virus and the chronic damage it can do your immune system and the cancer risk it also carries.It is a crime against humanity that the risks you highlight today and previously, are ignored in preference to a crusade which pays big bucks.Public Health is mismanaged,over financed and politically inspired.DTB sums things up.Dr Siegel is dabbling in politics and knows where he wishes to go with his blog.I have severe reservations that the Public will benefit when he finally arrives.If we are ever lucky to encounter THE REST OF THE REST OF THE STORY we may find out,but Dr Siegel will fight to keep his secrets secret.
9 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
