Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

arm-spin · 09-17-2008, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by ccbig

Are you always going to compare people to Big when you don't like what their opinions are on a given subject?

Maybe it's the "big" in your name

I tend to be in favor of any anti-smoking legislation because smoking is such a harmful habit. Anything that makes it harder to breathe poison into one's lungs, and releasing this poison into the, air, is good by me. (Well maybe not anything, but you get the idea.)

Dart Shark · 09-17-2008, 11:51 AM

Why do we need a second thread? Because the other got into so many tangents, replying to someone almost always meant offending someone else incorrectly.

I don't like talking about Metcalf ad nauseum on the college boards, that doesn't stop people from starting multiple threads about him.

Spider · 09-17-2008, 11:59 AM

Re: "ccbig"

cc is an abbrebviation for "carbon copy"

Okay, I know - NOT RELEVANT.

ccbig · 09-17-2008, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by JensenS

He's already asked, and I've already answered.

You obviously aren't Big, as you say the writing style at minimum would give it away.

Thank you for stopping that nonsense!

ccbig · 09-17-2008, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp

Its difficult to take a blog seriously that provides few direct links to the studies cited but rather cherry picks snippets to support an obvious bias. Most of the references are back to other articles in the blog, or to obviously biased libertarian links.

For example, it cites a Johns Hopkins study to support the hypothesis that second hand smoke is harmless, yet clicking on the link in the blog to the study shows the actual conclusion of the study:

http://www.jhsph.edu/global_tobacco/...ore_bars2.html

Did you read what the Hopkins link said? It measured Nicotine levels.

Here a fact about nicotine for you -

The carcinogenic properties of nicotine in standalone form, separate from tobacco smoke, have not been evaluated by the IARC, and it has not been assigned to an official carcinogen group. The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties.

**Nicotine is the addictive agent in tobacco not a known cancer causing agent.

The graph at the start of this thread dealt specifically with known cancer causing agents.

Nothing I found in the Hopkins study reputed the graph I posted at the bottom of the open statement of this thread.**

WrestlingTerp · 09-17-2008, 01:40 PM

Initial results: As of Feb 22, 2007, the study protocol has been completed for a total of 5 bars and 12 employees. One of the 5 bars was a voluntary smoke-free establishment. In the remaining 4 bars, smoking was allowed. Air nicotine was detected in all the bars where smoking was allowed (range 2.1 to 16.9 µg/m3). In the smoke-free bar, air nicotine concentrations were much lower (range 0.11 to 0.15 µg/m3) and close to the limit of detection. In non-smoking employees working in bars where smoking was allowed, hair nicotine ranged from 0.7 to 6.1 ng/mg, documenting that workers in smoking bars are personally exposed to tobacco smoke by others. In the smoke-free bar, hair nicotine concentrations were below the limit of detection, documenting that smoke-free bars can provide complete protection to employees from exposure to secondhand smoke.

Here is what the JHU study reported about nicotine levels. I highlighted it to make it easier for you. Seems to me you are misreading the chart, or reading it the way you want it to read.

Now compare that to the large body of evidence that proves exposure to second hand smoke is a known health rish and the facts speak for themselves. Thank God Maryland law now mandates smoke-free establishments.

Your "facts" have proven to be pretty meaningless without significant supporting evidence.

ccbig · 09-17-2008, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp

Here is what the JHU study reported about nicotine levels. I highlighted it to make it easier for you. Seems to me you are misreading the chart, or reading it the way you want it to read.

Now compare that to the large body of evidence that proves exposure to second hand smoke is a known health rish and the facts speak for themselves. Thank God Maryland law now mandates smoke-free establishments.

Your "facts" have proven to be pretty meaningless without significant supporting evidence.

That is a erroneous conclusion considering no study has been done that concludes nicotine is a cancer causing agent.

Again, the chart they post does not point to any actual cancer causing agents.

Further, the bottom range of that scale- below a 3.0 is so low that the EPA declined to regulate high-voltage power lines because it said the RRs seldom exceeded 3.0

Ever hear of the New England Journal of Medicine?

"It is no wonder, therefore, that Dr. Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the world’s leading medical journals, says, “As a general rule, we are looking for a relative risk of 3.0 or more.” Dr. Robt. Temple, director of drug evaluation for the FDA, says, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” And the EPA declined to regulate high-voltage power lines because it said the RRs seldom exceeded 3.0."

One of the people linked to the study you quoted is Professor Jonathan Samet. He states "Moving air in and out of buildings doesn't work, and neither do air filters; if someone is smoking somewhere in a building, other people in that building are likely being involuntarily exposed,"

That statement flies in the face of any common sense. How would gas masks work against chemical/biological agents if his statement was true?

There is a agenda at work here. The agenda is the profit that can be made by the drug companies.

Follow the trail outlined earlier in the posts I made.

ccbig · 09-17-2008, 02:01 PM

Wrestling Terp I'll repost this information for you on the study about second hand smoke done at the request of the government.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

WrestlingTerp · 09-17-2008, 02:32 PM

Wow, I posted a lot of links for studies from the past 4 or 5 years. Got anything new, or do you have to rely on one or two old ones that support your premise while the body of evidence that demonsrates the health risks of second hand smoke continues to build?

I love the source of your vaunted chart, the World renowned "nycclash.com" That wouldn't serve as a viable reference for a middle school science paper. Not even an author's name. If that is a good source I have some post office box addresses for diploma mills for ya!

Frankly I don't know if nicotine is the cause, I'm not a pro-smoking zealot like you. I was just looking at the JHU article posted in the blog your love to cite and reported their conclusions. You are the one hung up on the nicotine levels.

As for your NEJM reference, got a link? Not sure if you understand the role of medical and research journals. They print a lot of studies. Here is another from NEJM

"Background Previous studies have suggested a reduction in the total number of hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome after the enactment of legislation banning smoking in public places"

Here is yet another from the United Kingdom, thus debunking your US conspiracy theory:

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk...othnov2004.pdf

"CONCLUSION
The evidence published since 1998 reinforces the conclusions of the SCOTH report published at that time:
• The causal effect of exposure to SHS on risk of lung cancer has been confirmed by further original studies and by the authoritative review conducted by IARC.
The pooled increased relative risk remains in good agreement with that estimated by Hackshaw, Law and Wald at 24%.
• The causal effect of exposure to SHS on risk of ischaemic heart disease has been confirmed and the weight of evidence is stronger now than at the time of the SCOTH report. The increased risk associated with exposure to SHS is in the order of 25%.
• There is a strong link between exposure to SHS and adverse health effects in children. There is no reason to revise SCOTH’s conclusions relating to a number of causal effects."

I'm sure you can find some blog or reference that says the earth is flat. Have at it.

Here you go, you should feel very comfortable here:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm

RYou · 09-17-2008, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by bluestater

Me neither! But we're wrong, Bonnie. OSHA says so.

OSHA is not saying it is "safe", it is saying that when the content is measured, the materials are below the allowable action levels. All the means is that an employer is not obligated to provide any additional control over the exposure. The are acceptable exposure levels for a whole host of carcingens including benzene, asbestos, and even lead. It does not mean there is no risk.

Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

Non Wrestling Talk