|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
GEOKARJO 
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Feb. 12 2004,3:49 pm |
|
   |
Fact Sheets Handed out at the Informational meetingFrequently Asked Questions about Secondhand Smoke
Why do we need smoke-free restaurants, workplaces and other public places?
Secondhand smoke is deadly. It is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing 53,000 nonsmokers every year.Ventilation systems can't eliminate the dangerous toxins found in secondhand smoke, so the only way to protect public health is to eliminate exposure to it.
What surprised me was the citation for the 53,000 figure: "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ETS Compendium, l986 data." I knew the "official" EPA number was 3,000, not 53,000, and according to such independent analysts as the Congressional Research Service, even the EPA estimate of 3,000 deaths appeared to be too high, given the available scientific data.
Link
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 12 2004,4:15 pm |
|
 |
The Group Claims Passive Smoking causes Heart Disease: Epidemiology, Physiology, and Biochemisty," Circulation: 1991 Taylor, A, Johnson, D., and Kazemi, H. "Environmental Heart Disease and Cardiovascular Disease," Circulation: 1992).
LINK
Findings Above is part of the EPA report U.S. federal judge, Judge Osteen, has declared the 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report on so-called secondhand smoke "null and void," ruling that the EPA "acted illegally and corrupted science to engage in a campaign of misinformation."
Secondhand smoke causes cancer
(National Cancer Institute, Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, December 1999).
Link
The California Study, Language used in this study is May, Could, May Be, and Unlikely
Secondhand smoke causes heart disease.
Exposure to secondhand smoke causes between 35,000 and 62,000 coronary heart disease deaths each year in the United States (National Cancer Institute 1999).
LINK
Report says That its Findings are inconclusive.
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke on a regular basis develop hardening of the arteries 20 percent faster than people not regularly exposed to secondhand smoke (Journal of the American Medical Association 1998).
LINK
Conclusions Passive smoking is associated with dose-related impairment of endothelium-dependent dilatation in healthy young adults, suggesting early arterial damage .
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke on a regular basis develop hardening of the arteries 20 percent faster than people not regularly exposed to secondhand smoke (Journal of the American Medical Association 1998).
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke regularly have an 82 percent greater chance of suffering from a stroke (Tobacco Control British Medical Journal 1999).
LINK
Findings based on the California Study The California Study Language used in this study is May, Could, May Be, and Unlikely.
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke for just 30 minutes experience hardening of the arteries (Journal of the American Medical Association, 2001).
Above Documents were not available at the JAMIA web site
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
minnow
Group: Members
Posts: 2243
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 12 2004,4:32 pm |
|
|
How can this possibly be different than you posting ant-pot propaganda?
Look, the jury is in on this one. Cigarette smoke is harmful. You have every right to smoke your drugs in private, but when you insist apon exhaling your drugs in public places where it could harm others...well, that's where your rights end and mine begin.
You can't pick and choose your drugs...
Capeesh? 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 12 2004,5:06 pm |
|
|
Recently the University of Minnesota did a study on Passive Smoke using 18 non smoker who spent 4 hours in a casino.January 5th, 2004 -- The ink was not yet dry on the latest piece of misleading science on passive smoke, and a few days ago the mass media had already rushed to spread the disinformation all over the world. We refer to the latest “study” by the University of Minnesota on passive smoking, which is reported like this in the first lines of the ABC News article we are linked to: “Researchers at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, found elevated levels of a cancer-causing agent, NNAL, in the urine of nonsmokers after they spent just four hours in a commercial casino. Researchers also found elevated levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine, in the samples. Both NNAL and cotinine are specific to tobacco and were not found in the nonsmokers' urine before their casino visit.” See this ABC article. (Anderson KE, Kliris J, Murphy L, Carmella SG, Han S, Link C, Bliss RL, Puumala S, Murphy SE, Hecht SS. Metabolites of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen in nonsmoking casino patrons. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003 Dec;12(12):1544-6.)
Let’s see how “public health”, the mass media and the University of Minnesota con you about passive smoke “dangers” once again.
Firstly, no one can state that nicotine-derived nitrosamines (NNK, NNAL-Gloc, NNAL-N-oxide) cause cancer in humans, and specifically lung cancer in smokers. Nicotine-derived nitrosamines have caused cancer in rats and mice at much higher doses than could be possibly experienced by humans. Still, according to the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer and the US National Toxicology Program, there is no data proving that said nitrosamines can cause cancer in humans. However, an evident proof that those nitrosamines do not have a demonstrable effect in humans is that their concentration in those who chew “snuff” is greater than in those who smoke, while there is no increase of lung cancer in snuff chewers. Indeed those chewers may have an elevated chance of cancer of the mouth and pharynx (when compared to nonsmokers) – but less of a chance than those who smoke. Steven Hecht, whose name appears in the Anderson et al. article, is at the head of a pseudo-scientific gang that, for years, has squeezed huge dollars from the nitrosamines issue, presenting it as a terrible scarecrow on the basis of pure conjecture that tobacco-derived nitrosamines may cause cancer in humans.
Indeed, the work of Anderson et al. is certainly no novelty in spite of the media propaganda, because the same academic group had previously published three papers or more on nonsmokers exposed to passive smoke ( 2, 4, 6). That tobacco derived nitrosamines can indeed be found in nonsmokers exposed to passive smoke is obvious, and it cannot certainly be passed as an extraordinary event. But the key question is: at what dosage? And here is where the perception fraud kicks in. May the lay reader forgive the two short following paragraphs of technicalities, but they would suit those who are more specialised in the matter.
The Anderson et al. study gives a dose of 0.18 pM per individual human, which means around a twenty billion times dosage difference between the mouse and the human! One could object that mice are exposed once, while people are exposed repeatedly. But even this objection does not stand a most elementary consideration. There are, in fact, about 25,000 days in the average 70-year life, and let’s say that a person is exposed to passive smoke for 20,000 days of his life. Well, even in that case, in order to “get” a dose equivalent to that of the mouse, the exposed person should live for about one million years! No matter how we turn the terms of this confounded argument in an attempt to justify it, the claims of the paper’s authors are absolutely unverifiable. They wacky comparisons only underline the absurdity of this (and this kind of) study, and of the conclusions reached by the authors.
Analysis - Cotinine
The second issue is cotinine, which is a by-product of nicotine that turns out to be good for memory improvement and for the protection of brain cells. [1] [2] The presence of cotinine in urines, therefore, is nothing negative and simply indicates exposure to passive smoke (our nostrils can sense that without diverting big dollars into the pockets of professional scaremongers); but the exposure in question is to a substance (passive smoke) for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever of harm to human health – in fact, there is not even the demonstrated existence of a risk for human health, as the maximum risk elevation ever concocted with artificial boosting of statistical data is 20%, while epidemiology itself demands a 200-300% statistical risk elevation just to begin thinking that a risk may exist. And even if the accepted epidemiological threshold were reached, risk does not mean something that has happened or will happen: each time we go down the stairs there is the risk that we will stumble, roll down and break our necks. That simply means that the accident is possible, although quite improbable – and at any rate the existence of the risk does not suggest the need to ban stairs. Yet for passive smoke (the risks of which, again, are not even demonstrated to exist) economically and socially devastating bans are proposed, supported, and turned into laws and odious social ostracism relentlessly instigated by a multimillion-dollar world-wide and war-like propaganda.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
GEOKARJO
Google This!!!
Group: Members
Posts: 7799
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 12 2004,6:31 pm |
|
|
I would Like to say one final thing on Smoking in Public Smoking in the bar gives the smoker somewhere to smoke.
Children are not allowed in Bars.
Should the Goverment decide to Ban Smoking lets Ban it only where children who do not have the right to choose whether or not they are exposed.
By keeping the Bar as one last place to smoke. We may be able to keep childrens exposer at home down as well.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
MrTarzan
Group: Members
Posts: 564
Joined: Feb. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 12 2004,6:43 pm |
|
|
Soooooo GEOKARJO,
I take it you think people should be allowed to smoke in bars?
I agree, freedom of association should also apply to smokers, though I can see clearly posting a sign on the door, "Smoking Bar" or Non Smoking Bar. Then let the consumer choose for themselves. 
--------------
Be not simply good, be good for something-Henry David Thoreau
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Feb. 14 2004,2:16 pm |
|
|
Do you remember when the definition of "private property" was changed to "public place" legally? I don't, but in this case it apparently has
Calling a place of business a "public" place is a little trick the anti-smoking people came up with. Businesses aren't "public", they are simply allowing citizens to enter to do business. They have a right to lock people out or require memberships to enter if they wanted. A public place is a government facility or any other government property. Business behavior shouldn't be mandated by government. I shouldn't be allowed to control the behavior of people inside of businesses I don't HAVE to go in. That's where the smoking ban doesn't hold water... it's all about choice.
Here's a good start on the definition of "statistical relevance."
The odds ratio of contracting cancer from chlorinated tap water, for example, has been calculated by the EPA to be 1.5 - not enough to worry about, Yet the EPA used an odds ratio of 1.19 - considerably smaller than that of chlorinated tap water -to classify Second Hand Smoke as a human carcinogen.
EPA refused to concede causality for electromagnetic fields "largely because," they said, "the Relative Risks (rr's) have seldom exceeded 3." -- "Evaluation of Potential Carcinogenicity of EMFs" US EPA Review draft, 11/90
Epidemiology for the ACS, rejected 1.5 as hardly more than a waste of time. "Not so fast," she said briskly to the WSJ, "1.5 is not strong enough to call (something) a risk." --(This particular "something" was induced abortion.) WSJ 1/3/95
When calcium channel blockers were linked (rr 1.6) to an additional risk of heart attack,the findings were cast as being "miniscule" and "weak." And Dr Nanette Wenger, cardioligist at Emery University, made the sweeping generalization that "case control studies in themselves are obviously weak," and quite prone to "hidden biases." -- "Heart Attacks May Have Tie to Drug: Scientist Describes Risk as 'Miniscule'" NYTimes 3/12/95
When a Harvard study to determine whether or not selenium supplements could ward off cancer showed that women who took selenium supplements had a higher (rr 1.8) risk of developing cancer, we were simply told "the data don't support a protective effect." -- "Selenium Study Finds No Anti-Cancer Role" NYTimes 4/18/95
When the famous Nurses Study (122,000 nurses) showed that those who took hormones had a higher risk of breast cancer (rr 1.3 for the under-60's and 1.7 for 60+) women were told, nonchalantly, to "put the risk in perspective" and continue taking their pills. --"New Clues n Balancing Risks of Hormones After Menopause" NYT 6/15/95
When another study found that the rr for connective tissue disease was 1.24 among women with silicone implants, we were told the risk was "modest" and possibly not "real" because "bias is hard to dismiss" when rr's are this "tiny." --"Study Reports Small Risk, if any, From Breast Implants" NYT 2/28/96
According to the National Cancer Institute, " ... relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret ... Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." (NCI press release, 10-26-94)
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that doctors kill 250,000 patients every year...That's not "potential," it's real.
So now we have a bunch of anti-smokers wanting to ban smoking to protect 'workers health', if this was such a concern, then why has this group not taken their case to OSHA? You are welcome to explain why they are not (or rather why OSHA refused to take it on as a health risk which is what actually happened)
Smoker or non-smoker it makes no difference, your feedom is under attack yet again. You might be for this action this time, but the next time it will be a freedom you actually care about.
Wake up, your constitutional rights are being violated, a little piece at a time!
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
