Politics and Secondhand Smoke

[tigerbob]

Trying to turn the anti-smoking witch hunt into a liberal bashing is a bit of a stretch, of course, but the hysteria about second hand smoke morbity and mortality does seem to be a specious.

'specious' ed? Really??

Deadly Deception: The Tobacco Industry's Secondhand Smoke Cover Up

I got interested in this back when new reports on second-hand smoke were coming out NIGHTLY on the news. I remember the one that got me to the library to study it..

The screaming headline was "Smokers are killing their children".. I read the entire report TWICE. In order to make that claim --- the assumption was that a "child" would have to live in a 2 smoker household CONSTANTLY for 24 years to have a statistically important increase in fatal disease. I can believe that. Doesn't exactly warrant a legal stop for smoking in the presence of a child tho --- DOES IT? Not even close to infanticide either.

Second warning that made my bullshit detector go off were the times that judges threw out several meta-studies as being invalid. These meta-studies violated basic principles of experimental set-up and analysis.

Third warning was --- this is the ONLY TIME I've ever noticed the medical community NOT CONCERNED about dosage when measuring risk. Even mild exposure was just as dangerous as being a secondhand smoke lab rat.

This and the mantra that 2nd hand was MORE DANGEROUS to innocent victims than to the smoker themselves were MORE warnings to me that the 2nd Inquisition had started. And as a science type -- I better be more aware of the fraud and misrepresentation when politicians start making shit up to accomplish their goals.

Dammit! You answer was a lot quicker and shorter than mine, but still covered the main points!

 

[flacaltenn]

<TigerBob>

And I appreciate the effort you put into debunking the hysteria about the EPA report.
Somebody's gotta point out how science is constantly getting hijacked lately. And this is where it all seems to have started.

Besides.. All that statistical stuff just gets me jazzed...

 

[tigerbob]

<TigerBob>

And I appreciate the effort you put into debunking the hysteria about the EPA report.
Somebody's gotta point out how science is constantly getting hijacked lately. And this is where it all seems to have started.

Besides.. All that statistical stuff just gets me jazzed...

Yep, and the 1.19 RR seems, to me at least, to suggest that in this particular case the EPA has used it (a la Andrew Lang) like a drunk uses a street light - for support rather than illumination.

 

[tigerbob]

While not wanting to muddy the waters now that we've got to a discreet issue, I did want to add one additional comment regarding PRIMARY smoking.

While I was researching my answers over the last couple of days (not because I needed opinions, but rather because I wanted to get the numbers and attributions exactly right).I came across a website called The FORCES International Liberty News Network

On the homepage, it self describes as a "Liberty News Network. It's only when you dig a bit deeper that it reveals its true hand: FORCES is an acronym for Fight Ordnances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking - a somewhat pompous title IMO. So, despite the "Liberty Network" headline, its main thrust is fighting tobacco control.

This alone doesn't make what it says wrong or right, but does reveal a potential bias.

By following the "Scientific Evidence" link on the homepage, and then the "Active Smoking" link in the right nab, one arrives at a pages that starts with the following introduction.

Is active smoking as deadly as the propaganda tells us? Is it true that there is a unanimous “consensus”? Is smoking actually killing millions of people a year around the world? Smoking has been statistically associated with over 100 diseases, and this section does not cannot report all the studies on all the diseases. Nevertheless, you will find here much material that you probably won’t find anywhere else, for the simple reason that it has been either ignored or suppressed.

There is another link in the right hand nab that says "Dangers of Smoking Cessation" which, when followed, reveals this page.

Almost everything we get anywhere, anytime and anyhow contains the same message: “Quit!” “Don’t start!”. In this portal we are procuring huge documentation that demonstrates – conclusively for any rational person – that those statements are based far more on a quasi-religious ideology than they are on science. The huge benefits of smoking, described in a section of this portal, are completely ignored. When highlighted, the automated response is that the “dangers” of smoking far outweigh the benefits – but no scientific evidence is brought forward: we are supposed to believe authority at face value. However, no one ever tells us about the DANGERS of quitting smoking - and smoking bans - and this is what this section is all about.

Those two points alone should set alarm bells ringing for anyone with an open mind who visits the site.

First the site tells us how there are plenty of papers that warn about the dangers of smoking, but then presents all the papers that is says have been suppressed. It may be that they have indeed been suppressed, but some of them look to me (a cursory look, it must be said) like they are rather slanted.

In the second link, the site makes a point about how the benefits of smoking have been ignored. It may well be that there are "benefits" to smoking (stress relief, aid to concentration, less alcohol consumption), but only a fool would contend that such tangential "benefits" even begin to offset the harm that combusted tobacco does to users. I know several tobacco scientists personally, and not one of them would promote these arguments because they are far too self-serving.

So, in amongst all the other stuff, the FORCES site tries to establish a platform for debate of whether primary smoking is really as harmful as the balance of scientific, media and public opinion would seem to imply.

They may be right. But it's a fatuous argument to even address. Even if the figures are overstated (which they probably are, to a degree) it is an academic discussion only, rather like debating the position "The anti-tobacco lobby says primary smoking will result in chronic disease or death - we disagree. We think it's only very, very likely to result in a chronic disease or death." Whatever the actual numbers, the fact that the health hazards of primary smoking are well founded are beyond dispute.

Which, at length, brings me to my point. Whether you believe the studies or not, there is one 'case study' that has flown largely under the radar in terms of demonstrating a clear link between primary smoking and tobacco related disease, and it comes from Sweden.

In Sweden, a product called 'Snus' has been available for generations. It is moist oral tobacco, sold in a tin, either loose or in little packages rather like tiny tea bags (please, no tea party jokes).

The Snus is placed under the top lip and left there for a period. It gives the user a nicotine hit. How do I know about it? Because I used it when I quit smoking 4 years ago. A few fact about Snus...

It is not combusted, so there is no danger of any of the conditions associated with 'smoking' (because there is no smoke).

It gives a nicotine dose that, while not having the initial "spike" of a cigarette, is longer lasting than a cigarette, and also better at delivering than either patches, gum, or inhalers.

The tobacco used is specially selected (air cured and sun cured) to be low in nitrosamines (except in the US where for some stupid reason they have chosen to include fire-cured), and also goes through a process similar to pasteurization to kill, as far as is possible, any noxious elements.

Unlike the oral tobacco that most people in the US may be familiar with, there is little to no evidence whatsoever that Snus use can result in oral cancer. (That said, this data is based on the Swedish method of production, not the Snus style that the tobacco companies are pushing in the US - if I were still using Snus, I would get mine directly from Sweden).

SIDE POINT: As as side point, it is worth pointing out that outside Sweden - where it got an exemption - Snus sale is banned by the EU because, as we all know "all tobacco causes cancer". A classic example of how a body like the EU will cave in and legislate to ban a tobacco product without a proven case that it causes cancer (and they even insist that it carries a cancer warning on the tin), and of course because the health lobby flew into a fury about the EU lifting tobacco bans when the EU even discussed it. It's rather like saying "Penguins are to be classified as flying, rather than flightless birds. We haven't seen any evidence that they can fly, but they have wings like other birds so we must allow for that possibility."

Anyhow, back to Snus. There is, it should be said, some potential risk of cardiovascular impact. More research is needed to bear this out.

However, the most telling point is this. In Sweden, Snus use is far more common among men than among women (it's a societal thing). Among Swedish men, the rate of lung cancer over the last 30 years has dropped, while for women it has not. In Sweden's near neighbor (Norway) lung cancer patterns are unchanged for both men and woman. The incidence of lung cancer among men in Sweden is significantly lower than in any other comparable country. Incidentally, the same is true for oral cancer. The linked report from the tobacco control section of the BMJ is well worth a read.

Effect of smokeless tobacco (snus) on smoking and public health in Sweden -- Foulds et al. 12 (4): 349 -- Tobacco Control

Anyhow, this all has little or nothing to do with ETS, but I thought it would be useful in view of the fact that earlier in this thread some posters were using statistics and arguments for primary and secondary smoke almost interchangeably. The Swedish experience is an "epidemiological study" which has taken place over decades and has millions in terms of sample size. It is a critical plank in my opinion that primary smoking is extremely dangerous and I thought that it might be interesting for others to read as they may be unfamiliar with it.

OK, I'm done.

 

[Bfgrn]

Figures. I ask you to debate the specifics, you not surprisingly respond with more cut and paste (or copy and paste, very clever, score a point for yourself) info.

This business of quoting long posts makes it difficult to navigate so I've added my responses to your specific questions in red for clarity.



So, there you go. I've answered your comments honestly, directly, and with no agenda, despite how utterly worthless they are in terms of the science.

You've chosen to throw a dozen new hats into the ring. None of them prove or disprove anything, other than demonstrating how much you want to rely on fluff and how much you are prepared to believe what anyone says if it is critical of the tobacco industry and can be used to illustrate why they should not be believed. It may be that everything is true, but "may be" isn't enough for me. It shouldn't be enough for you either, unless you apply "Ahhh, maybe is good enough" to everything you are asked to consider.

You talked earlier about "boiling it down". I gave you a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing. It's a key point. You've chosen not to discuss it. You don't need to be a scientist. All you need is a broad familiarity with statistics and sound research practices. If you've got something of genuine worth to add then please do so. By which I mean why do you think the EPA report is reliable, not "Here's what Camus had to say....".

Like I said earlier, it is at the point of really needing to weight the data that most people cut and run. You know you're sidestepping. Either address it or stop wasting my time. Last chance.

OK tb, let's recap.

So far you have claimed to know a lot, but have said NOTHING, except criticize me for providing evidence that secondhand smoke is a major health risk.

You posted a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing.

HERE is the major conclusions in the report YOU posted.

1.1. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact.

In adults:

• ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers

.
In children:

• ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (LRIs) such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS.

• ETS exposure is causally associated with increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and a small but significant reduction in lung function.

• ETS exposure is causally associated with additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. This report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.

• ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.

So tb, your time is up. You claim to know a lot. Shit or get off the pot.

Charming as ever.

What you've done is to read one of two pages, grab the headline findings and then regurgitate them here. And I really love the way you have capitalized certain words ("HERE is the major conclusions in the report YOU posted."). I know what I posted, so why are you telling me what I posted? Are you, by any chance, doing it because your responses are meant not for me but for others? Just stop it, forget that other people may be reading it and try to think of this as a one on one conversation.

I asked you to say why you supported their findings. As with every other post you have made so far, you have simply reposted what someone else has said, and not given the first thought to answering the question "Why do you believe it". I'm going to give it one last shot at drawing your thoughts rather than someone else's out of you.

OK. To again keep the conversation focused, I'm going to concentrate it, otherwise we'll be here all day. And for consistency, I'll concentrate once again on the first point you have chosen to list.

ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers

That number, 3000, is pretty much the same as the number listed in the link you originally posted from the American Cancer Society. So, after nearly 20 years, the number is the one that the ACS, and other groups and the media, continue to quote. The EPA report is what originally established the link, originally quoted the 3000 figure and classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen.

I have asked you why you think that is reliable. Your response to me is to quote what the report says.

So, once again, you're quoting their position rather than saying why you agree with it, so I'm going to assume you agree with it simply because it is from the EPA and you don't have the knowledge or the inclination to review it and see whether their conclusions hold water.

This seems odd, on the basis that if the tobacco industry released a report you would instantly dismiss it as a bunch of slanted lies, but since this is the EPA you just parrot what they are saying. If you want to be "truly informed" you should question BOTH. You should view BOTH as potentially having an agenda. But since you appear to just accept the EPA report as factual (that would be the implication of your actions), I will now point out to you some things about the EPA report that ought to make you say to yourself "What would I think if a report from the tobacco industry followed this same methodology/process". As a reminder, I an NOT saying that the EPA report is incorrect. What I am saying that just swallowing their conclusions without chewing is just as naive as swallowing a report from a pro-smokers rights group.

So, dividing my concerns up into broad areas.

Area A: Studies used to support the 3000 figure
1. The EPA report is a meta analysis. That means it contains no proprietary research. It is an analysis based on existing reports, all of which use different methodologies. That does not invalidate any of the findings. However, it does make the analysis in all the different studies difficult to aggregate accurately. I'm sure we can agree on this. It's a simple statement of statistical fact.

2. The EPA located a total of 33 reports that were relevant to their study (i.e. that compared ETS to lung cancer rates). Of these, they dismissed 2 and used the remaining 31. Later on a further study was excluded, leaving the total meta analysis at 30 studies.

3. On page 1-9, point 1.3.1.2 Indicates "The best estimate of approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths per year in U.S. nonsmokers age 35 and over attributable to ETS (Chapter 6) is based on data pooled from all 11 U.S. epidemiological studies of never-smoking women married to smoking spouses.

NOTE: So, we're now down to 11 reports. This does not invalidate the findings, but it does make one question the objectivity to a degree. More on this later.

Area B: Confounders, Relative Risk (RR), Confidence Interval (CI)
Confounders are elements that specifically need to be accounted for within results. For instance, if calculating the average number of people who will develop heart disease, it is important to consider ethnicity, because heart disease is significantly higher in some communities than others. Without accounting for this, you will be seriously skewing the results.

Finding out the RR is basically the key goal of any epidemiological study. For instance, if you want to determine the RR of drinking red wine on heart disease (something for which studies have jumped back and forth for decades), you first need to establish a baseline by finding out how many people have heart disease. Let's say 10 people in 1000 have heart disease. That gives us the baseline, and is referred to as a RR of 1.0.

If data shows that 15 out of 1000 red wine drinkers have heart disease, that would be a RR of 1.5. If it's 20 people, that's a RR of 2.0, and so on. These figures would start to imply that there was perhaps some sign of increased RR. If however, the figures showed that only 5 of the 1000 have heart disease, that's a RR of 0.5, and may indicate a beneficial effect. In general, statisticians prefer a RR of at least 2.0 in order for RR to be considered statistically significant.

In addition to this, the CI is used to determine how precise or reliable the stated RR truly is. CI is usually expressed as a range, such as 0.90 to 1.30. A 95% confidence level is normally required

NOTE: So, all these things need to be taken into account when you review the methodology.

Once again, I'll keep it simple for you here since giving a whole host of issues is going to overwhelm you and will mean you just go back to posting generalized links to cover your lack of understanding

So......consider the following and then make up your mind about whether you feel the EPA Report should be universally accepted (as it has been), or whether it is reasonable to consider that perhaps the evidence is not as well founded at one might expect from an institution such as the EPA.

- The report concluded that there is an overall relative risk of 1.19 for developing lung cancer for female non-smokers in the U.S. with a 90 percent confidence interval of (1.04, 1.35). The report also says that this evidence is "statistically significant and conclusive".

Why do I have a concern about this?

Because a RR of 1.19 is, in statistical terms, utterly insignificant. It indicates a 19% increase. 19% is barely worth the paper it's printed on. Ideally, you'd be looking for a RR of 3.0 or higher. 2.0 is really scraping the barrel. This isn't simply my view. Its Epidemiology 101. How the EPA can say 1.19 is "statistically significant" simply beggars belief.

So, the EPA classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen with by
- Setting aside many of the reports
- Accepting a 1.19 RR
- Dropping the CI to 90%

And the question therefore is, would this kind of slack / flawed level of rigor be accepted if the report was about anything other than the tobacco industry? Let's face it. If the tobacco industry produced a report that used similarly flawed parameters they would, quite rightly, be pilloried. But, if the tobacco industry raises issues with the EPA report, those issues are dismissed because they have been raised by the tobacco industry. Bizarrely, if the tobacco industry criticizes the methodology, it actually has the result of making people rally round the EPA to defend it from 'Big Tobacco' irrespective of whether the criticism has merit.

That is about the simplest way I can boil down one of the key findings. There are a number of other potential areas of concern as well, but I've asked you for your views on the overall report more than once and you basically said nothing other to repeat the report. So, now I've focused on one particular but key element. The Relative Risk. If you can't answer directly about this one issue - why you feel a RR of 1.19 should be considered statistically significant - then it is clear that you have no answers other than somebody else's.

If you've got questions about this particular point please feel free to let me know. If you're just going to wander off into something else or throw some more climate science links around please don't even bother - and have a nice day.

Clever post.

From another of your posts: 'While I was researching my answers over the last couple of days (not because I needed opinions, but rather because I wanted to get the numbers and attributions exactly right)'

So, you are clever enough to parrot the false attacks paid for by the tobacco industry without giving credit. Heaven forbid you cut & paste. But that would reveal that your disclaimers are bullshit. BTW, the pseudo- scientists like Enstrom got paid to lie. Did you?

The evidence that ETS is hazardous to human health is OVERWHELMING. While 'researching your answers over the last couple of days' you had to ignore tons of research that comes to the same conclusion.

But let's cut to the chase tb. I have one question:

Do you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth?

Your answer should be fascinating...

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

 

[tigerbob]

OK tb, let's recap.

So far you have claimed to know a lot, but have said NOTHING, except criticize me for providing evidence that secondhand smoke is a major health risk.

You posted a link to the EPA report that is the basis for the Class A carcinogen listing.

HERE is the major conclusions in the report YOU posted.

1.1. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact.

In adults:

• ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers

.
In children:

• ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (LRIs) such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS.

• ETS exposure is causally associated with increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and a small but significant reduction in lung function.

• ETS exposure is causally associated with additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. This report estimates that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.

• ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.

So tb, your time is up. You claim to know a lot. Shit or get off the pot.

Charming as ever.

What you've done is to read one of two pages, grab the headline findings and then regurgitate them here. And I really love the way you have capitalized certain words ("HERE is the major conclusions in the report YOU posted."). I know what I posted, so why are you telling me what I posted? Are you, by any chance, doing it because your responses are meant not for me but for others? Just stop it, forget that other people may be reading it and try to think of this as a one on one conversation.

I asked you to say why you supported their findings. As with every other post you have made so far, you have simply reposted what someone else has said, and not given the first thought to answering the question "Why do you believe it". I'm going to give it one last shot at drawing your thoughts rather than someone else's out of you.

OK. To again keep the conversation focused, I'm going to concentrate it, otherwise we'll be here all day. And for consistency, I'll concentrate once again on the first point you have chosen to list.

ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers

That number, 3000, is pretty much the same as the number listed in the link you originally posted from the American Cancer Society. So, after nearly 20 years, the number is the one that the ACS, and other groups and the media, continue to quote. The EPA report is what originally established the link, originally quoted the 3000 figure and classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen.

I have asked you why you think that is reliable. Your response to me is to quote what the report says.

So, once again, you're quoting their position rather than saying why you agree with it, so I'm going to assume you agree with it simply because it is from the EPA and you don't have the knowledge or the inclination to review it and see whether their conclusions hold water.

This seems odd, on the basis that if the tobacco industry released a report you would instantly dismiss it as a bunch of slanted lies, but since this is the EPA you just parrot what they are saying. If you want to be "truly informed" you should question BOTH. You should view BOTH as potentially having an agenda. But since you appear to just accept the EPA report as factual (that would be the implication of your actions), I will now point out to you some things about the EPA report that ought to make you say to yourself "What would I think if a report from the tobacco industry followed this same methodology/process". As a reminder, I an NOT saying that the EPA report is incorrect. What I am saying that just swallowing their conclusions without chewing is just as naive as swallowing a report from a pro-smokers rights group.

So, dividing my concerns up into broad areas.

Area A: Studies used to support the 3000 figure
1. The EPA report is a meta analysis. That means it contains no proprietary research. It is an analysis based on existing reports, all of which use different methodologies. That does not invalidate any of the findings. However, it does make the analysis in all the different studies difficult to aggregate accurately. I'm sure we can agree on this. It's a simple statement of statistical fact.

2. The EPA located a total of 33 reports that were relevant to their study (i.e. that compared ETS to lung cancer rates). Of these, they dismissed 2 and used the remaining 31. Later on a further study was excluded, leaving the total meta analysis at 30 studies.

3. On page 1-9, point 1.3.1.2 Indicates "The best estimate of approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths per year in U.S. nonsmokers age 35 and over attributable to ETS (Chapter 6) is based on data pooled from all 11 U.S. epidemiological studies of never-smoking women married to smoking spouses.

NOTE: So, we're now down to 11 reports. This does not invalidate the findings, but it does make one question the objectivity to a degree. More on this later.

Area B: Confounders, Relative Risk (RR), Confidence Interval (CI)
Confounders are elements that specifically need to be accounted for within results. For instance, if calculating the average number of people who will develop heart disease, it is important to consider ethnicity, because heart disease is significantly higher in some communities than others. Without accounting for this, you will be seriously skewing the results.

Finding out the RR is basically the key goal of any epidemiological study. For instance, if you want to determine the RR of drinking red wine on heart disease (something for which studies have jumped back and forth for decades), you first need to establish a baseline by finding out how many people have heart disease. Let's say 10 people in 1000 have heart disease. That gives us the baseline, and is referred to as a RR of 1.0.

If data shows that 15 out of 1000 red wine drinkers have heart disease, that would be a RR of 1.5. If it's 20 people, that's a RR of 2.0, and so on. These figures would start to imply that there was perhaps some sign of increased RR. If however, the figures showed that only 5 of the 1000 have heart disease, that's a RR of 0.5, and may indicate a beneficial effect. In general, statisticians prefer a RR of at least 2.0 in order for RR to be considered statistically significant.

In addition to this, the CI is used to determine how precise or reliable the stated RR truly is. CI is usually expressed as a range, such as 0.90 to 1.30. A 95% confidence level is normally required

NOTE: So, all these things need to be taken into account when you review the methodology.

Once again, I'll keep it simple for you here since giving a whole host of issues is going to overwhelm you and will mean you just go back to posting generalized links to cover your lack of understanding

So......consider the following and then make up your mind about whether you feel the EPA Report should be universally accepted (as it has been), or whether it is reasonable to consider that perhaps the evidence is not as well founded at one might expect from an institution such as the EPA.

- The report concluded that there is an overall relative risk of 1.19 for developing lung cancer for female non-smokers in the U.S. with a 90 percent confidence interval of (1.04, 1.35). The report also says that this evidence is "statistically significant and conclusive".

Why do I have a concern about this?

Because a RR of 1.19 is, in statistical terms, utterly insignificant. It indicates a 19% increase. 19% is barely worth the paper it's printed on. Ideally, you'd be looking for a RR of 3.0 or higher. 2.0 is really scraping the barrel. This isn't simply my view. Its Epidemiology 101. How the EPA can say 1.19 is "statistically significant" simply beggars belief.

So, the EPA classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen with by
- Setting aside many of the reports
- Accepting a 1.19 RR
- Dropping the CI to 90%

And the question therefore is, would this kind of slack / flawed level of rigor be accepted if the report was about anything other than the tobacco industry? Let's face it. If the tobacco industry produced a report that used similarly flawed parameters they would, quite rightly, be pilloried. But, if the tobacco industry raises issues with the EPA report, those issues are dismissed because they have been raised by the tobacco industry. Bizarrely, if the tobacco industry criticizes the methodology, it actually has the result of making people rally round the EPA to defend it from 'Big Tobacco' irrespective of whether the criticism has merit.

That is about the simplest way I can boil down one of the key findings. There are a number of other potential areas of concern as well, but I've asked you for your views on the overall report more than once and you basically said nothing other to repeat the report. So, now I've focused on one particular but key element. The Relative Risk. If you can't answer directly about this one issue - why you feel a RR of 1.19 should be considered statistically significant - then it is clear that you have no answers other than somebody else's.

If you've got questions about this particular point please feel free to let me know. If you're just going to wander off into something else or throw some more climate science links around please don't even bother - and have a nice day.

Clever post.

From another of your posts: 'While I was researching my answers over the last couple of days (not because I needed opinions, but rather because I wanted to get the numbers and attributions exactly right)'

So, you are clever enough to parrot the false attacks paid for by the tobacco industry without giving credit. Heaven forbid you cut & paste. But that would reveal that your disclaimers are bullshit. BTW, the pseudo- scientists like Enstrom got paid to lie. Did you?

The evidence that ETS is hazardous to human health is OVERWHELMING. While 'researching your answers over the last couple of days' you had to ignore tons of research that comes to the same conclusion.

But let's cut to the chase tb. I have one question:

Do you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth?

Your answer should be fascinating...

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Clever post.

Not so much clever as well informed, factual and detailed. And on the basis of that you're trying to change the subject, right?



That's your debating style isn't it? "Hmmm, that's a tough question, and I can't find an answer on Google. What the hell am I gonna do? I know, I'll resort to ad hominem, change the subject, ask HIM a question and hope nobody notices that I tried to weasel my way out of it"

Tough shit pal. Everyone notices this. If you ever answer my question, then I'll answer yours. PM me if you do. Until then, Strike 3, you're out.

 

[Bfgrn]

Charming as ever.

What you've done is to read one of two pages, grab the headline findings and then regurgitate them here. And I really love the way you have capitalized certain words ("HERE is the major conclusions in the report YOU posted."). I know what I posted, so why are you telling me what I posted? Are you, by any chance, doing it because your responses are meant not for me but for others? Just stop it, forget that other people may be reading it and try to think of this as a one on one conversation.

I asked you to say why you supported their findings. As with every other post you have made so far, you have simply reposted what someone else has said, and not given the first thought to answering the question "Why do you believe it". I'm going to give it one last shot at drawing your thoughts rather than someone else's out of you.

OK. To again keep the conversation focused, I'm going to concentrate it, otherwise we'll be here all day. And for consistency, I'll concentrate once again on the first point you have chosen to list.



That number, 3000, is pretty much the same as the number listed in the link you originally posted from the American Cancer Society. So, after nearly 20 years, the number is the one that the ACS, and other groups and the media, continue to quote. The EPA report is what originally established the link, originally quoted the 3000 figure and classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen.

I have asked you why you think that is reliable. Your response to me is to quote what the report says.

So, once again, you're quoting their position rather than saying why you agree with it, so I'm going to assume you agree with it simply because it is from the EPA and you don't have the knowledge or the inclination to review it and see whether their conclusions hold water.

This seems odd, on the basis that if the tobacco industry released a report you would instantly dismiss it as a bunch of slanted lies, but since this is the EPA you just parrot what they are saying. If you want to be "truly informed" you should question BOTH. You should view BOTH as potentially having an agenda. But since you appear to just accept the EPA report as factual (that would be the implication of your actions), I will now point out to you some things about the EPA report that ought to make you say to yourself "What would I think if a report from the tobacco industry followed this same methodology/process". As a reminder, I an NOT saying that the EPA report is incorrect. What I am saying that just swallowing their conclusions without chewing is just as naive as swallowing a report from a pro-smokers rights group.

So, dividing my concerns up into broad areas.

Area A: Studies used to support the 3000 figure
1. The EPA report is a meta analysis. That means it contains no proprietary research. It is an analysis based on existing reports, all of which use different methodologies. That does not invalidate any of the findings. However, it does make the analysis in all the different studies difficult to aggregate accurately. I'm sure we can agree on this. It's a simple statement of statistical fact.

2. The EPA located a total of 33 reports that were relevant to their study (i.e. that compared ETS to lung cancer rates). Of these, they dismissed 2 and used the remaining 31. Later on a further study was excluded, leaving the total meta analysis at 30 studies.

3. On page 1-9, point 1.3.1.2 Indicates "The best estimate of approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths per year in U.S. nonsmokers age 35 and over attributable to ETS (Chapter 6) is based on data pooled from all 11 U.S. epidemiological studies of never-smoking women married to smoking spouses.

NOTE: So, we're now down to 11 reports. This does not invalidate the findings, but it does make one question the objectivity to a degree. More on this later.

Area B: Confounders, Relative Risk (RR), Confidence Interval (CI)
Confounders are elements that specifically need to be accounted for within results. For instance, if calculating the average number of people who will develop heart disease, it is important to consider ethnicity, because heart disease is significantly higher in some communities than others. Without accounting for this, you will be seriously skewing the results.

Finding out the RR is basically the key goal of any epidemiological study. For instance, if you want to determine the RR of drinking red wine on heart disease (something for which studies have jumped back and forth for decades), you first need to establish a baseline by finding out how many people have heart disease. Let's say 10 people in 1000 have heart disease. That gives us the baseline, and is referred to as a RR of 1.0.

If data shows that 15 out of 1000 red wine drinkers have heart disease, that would be a RR of 1.5. If it's 20 people, that's a RR of 2.0, and so on. These figures would start to imply that there was perhaps some sign of increased RR. If however, the figures showed that only 5 of the 1000 have heart disease, that's a RR of 0.5, and may indicate a beneficial effect. In general, statisticians prefer a RR of at least 2.0 in order for RR to be considered statistically significant.

In addition to this, the CI is used to determine how precise or reliable the stated RR truly is. CI is usually expressed as a range, such as 0.90 to 1.30. A 95% confidence level is normally required

NOTE: So, all these things need to be taken into account when you review the methodology.

Once again, I'll keep it simple for you here since giving a whole host of issues is going to overwhelm you and will mean you just go back to posting generalized links to cover your lack of understanding

So......consider the following and then make up your mind about whether you feel the EPA Report should be universally accepted (as it has been), or whether it is reasonable to consider that perhaps the evidence is not as well founded at one might expect from an institution such as the EPA.

- The report concluded that there is an overall relative risk of 1.19 for developing lung cancer for female non-smokers in the U.S. with a 90 percent confidence interval of (1.04, 1.35). The report also says that this evidence is "statistically significant and conclusive".

Why do I have a concern about this?

Because a RR of 1.19 is, in statistical terms, utterly insignificant. It indicates a 19% increase. 19% is barely worth the paper it's printed on. Ideally, you'd be looking for a RR of 3.0 or higher. 2.0 is really scraping the barrel. This isn't simply my view. Its Epidemiology 101. How the EPA can say 1.19 is "statistically significant" simply beggars belief.

So, the EPA classified ETS as a Class A carcinogen with by
- Setting aside many of the reports
- Accepting a 1.19 RR
- Dropping the CI to 90%

And the question therefore is, would this kind of slack / flawed level of rigor be accepted if the report was about anything other than the tobacco industry? Let's face it. If the tobacco industry produced a report that used similarly flawed parameters they would, quite rightly, be pilloried. But, if the tobacco industry raises issues with the EPA report, those issues are dismissed because they have been raised by the tobacco industry. Bizarrely, if the tobacco industry criticizes the methodology, it actually has the result of making people rally round the EPA to defend it from 'Big Tobacco' irrespective of whether the criticism has merit.

That is about the simplest way I can boil down one of the key findings. There are a number of other potential areas of concern as well, but I've asked you for your views on the overall report more than once and you basically said nothing other to repeat the report. So, now I've focused on one particular but key element. The Relative Risk. If you can't answer directly about this one issue - why you feel a RR of 1.19 should be considered statistically significant - then it is clear that you have no answers other than somebody else's.

If you've got questions about this particular point please feel free to let me know. If you're just going to wander off into something else or throw some more climate science links around please don't even bother - and have a nice day.

Clever post.

From another of your posts: 'While I was researching my answers over the last couple of days (not because I needed opinions, but rather because I wanted to get the numbers and attributions exactly right)'

So, you are clever enough to parrot the false attacks paid for by the tobacco industry without giving credit. Heaven forbid you cut & paste. But that would reveal that your disclaimers are bullshit. BTW, the pseudo- scientists like Enstrom got paid to lie. Did you?

The evidence that ETS is hazardous to human health is OVERWHELMING. While 'researching your answers over the last couple of days' you had to ignore tons of research that comes to the same conclusion.

But let's cut to the chase tb. I have one question:

Do you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth?

Your answer should be fascinating...

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Clever post.

Not so much clever as well informed, factual and detailed. And on the basis of that you're trying to change the subject, right?



That's your debating style isn't it? "Hmmm, that's a tough question, and I can't find an answer on Google. What the hell am I gonna do? I know, I'll resort to ad hominem, change the subject, ask HIM a question and hope nobody notices that I tried to weasel my way out of it"

Tough shit pal. Everyone notices this. If you ever answer my question, then I'll answer yours. PM me if you do. Until then, Strike 3, you're out.

The right wing 'I'm insecure and ignorant' markers continue to surface...the faux subject change accusation and faux victory dance...

It is absolutely amazing how tobacco's attack on ETS mirrors their attack on active smoking. Only a retard would be fooled again.

And it's absolutely amazing how your attack on ETS follows the tobacco industry script.

I support your right to an opinion, but your attack on my use of solid references in light of your disingenuous hijacking of tobacco's propaganda without any acknowledgement reveals that you are a liar. Your bullshit is exposed, point by point HERE:

Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk

So your default answer is: you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth.

Well Einstein, the tobacco industry's research DID find that ETS is hazardous to human health. They decided to keep that knowledge from the public.

Here is your word for the day: LEGACY

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
Edmund Burke

 

[flacaltenn]

<BfGRn>

The evidence that ETS is hazardous to human health is OVERWHELMING. While 'researching your answers over the last couple of days' you had to ignore tons of research that comes to the same conclusion.

But let's cut to the chase tb. I have one question:

Do you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth?

Your answer should be fascinating...

I'll play -- even tho it's way off-topic and baiting. Would the tobacco companies tell the truth?

They have -----

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | Tobacco Use & Health

Public Health Information
Addressing the issues in an open and objective manner
Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States. Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions. No tobacco product has been shown to be safe and without risks, and quitting tobacco use significantly reduces the risk for serious diseases. The health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products.

Governments, public health officials, tobacco manufacturers and others can play a role in providing adult tobacco consumers with accurate information about the various health risks and comparative risks associated with the use of different tobacco and nicotine products.

So --- back to what you call OVERWHELMING (2nd hand smoke) evidence is simply OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science. Science went into the toilet, the PR folks and lawyers took over, and we got the model for litigating any societal change that itches the liberal britches..

"Your killing your kids" turns out to be --- "Living with 2 smoking parents for 24 years - might be a bad idea" when you actually READ the study... This oft-quoted study never even found a causal case for an ADULT living with a smoking spouse for 30 years.. Yet it was a good enough MANIPULATION to lead the evening news around the entire country...

 

[tigerbob]

Clever post.

From another of your posts: 'While I was researching my answers over the last couple of days (not because I needed opinions, but rather because I wanted to get the numbers and attributions exactly right)'

So, you are clever enough to parrot the false attacks paid for by the tobacco industry without giving credit. Heaven forbid you cut & paste. But that would reveal that your disclaimers are bullshit. BTW, the pseudo- scientists like Enstrom got paid to lie. Did you?

The evidence that ETS is hazardous to human health is OVERWHELMING. While 'researching your answers over the last couple of days' you had to ignore tons of research that comes to the same conclusion.

But let's cut to the chase tb. I have one question:

Do you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth?

Your answer should be fascinating...

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Clever post.

Not so much clever as well informed, factual and detailed. And on the basis of that you're trying to change the subject, right?



That's your debating style isn't it? "Hmmm, that's a tough question, and I can't find an answer on Google. What the hell am I gonna do? I know, I'll resort to ad hominem, change the subject, ask HIM a question and hope nobody notices that I tried to weasel my way out of it"

Tough shit pal. Everyone notices this. If you ever answer my question, then I'll answer yours. PM me if you do. Until then, Strike 3, you're out.

The right wing 'I'm insecure and ignorant' markers continue to surface...the faux subject change accusation and faux victory dance...

It is absolutely amazing how tobacco's attack on ETS mirrors their attack on active smoking. Only a retard would be fooled again.

And it's absolutely amazing how your attack on ETS follows the tobacco industry script.

I support your right to an opinion, but your attack on my use of solid references in light of your disingenuous hijacking of tobacco's propaganda without any acknowledgement reveals that you are a liar. Your bullshit is exposed, point by point HERE:

Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk

So your default answer is: you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth.

Well Einstein, the tobacco industry's research DID find that ETS is hazardous to human health. They decided to keep that knowledge from the public.

Here is your word for the day: LEGACY

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library

It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.
Edmund Burke

I question the validity of the EPA's use of a 1.19 RR, and you "expose my bullshit" by posting a link to the EPA's defense of their own findings? Did you not notice it was the EPA's own defense of their own data? You understand I suppose that people tend to defend their own opinions?

And you post another link saying that the tobacco industry DID find that ETS is hazardous. For "proof" you paste a link to a homepage of a tobacco documents database. Well, that's great. Where in the database? You might as well post a link to the homepage of Google.

One other thing. In the link to the EPA that you posted, it says...

The RJ Reynolds' media campaign cites a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on cigarette taxes to fund health care reform to argue that CRS believes that the epidemiological evidence on secondhand smoke and health effects is weak and uncertain." However, CRS has not taken a position on either EPA's risk assessment or the health effects of passive smoking.

Now, as a reminder, the EPA summarized that there were 3000 deaths a year from lung cancer caused by ETS, and used 11 US reports as the evidence for this, and pronounced that ETS was a class A carcinogen.

Here is a section from the Congressional Research Service report which the EPA refers to, and which you haven't read.

Of the eleven U.S. studies, eight found a positive risk and three found a negative risk, though none was statistically significant.

Despite these inconclusive findings, ETS is now, and has since 1993, been a Class A Carcinogen.

And now I'm done with this. Just so we're clear, I'm not doing a victory dance. I've just had enough of this. You're never going to agree there's a grey area, and you're never going to post your own opinions, only stuff you're pasted / linked from 3rd parties, so there's no point in discussing it further.

Signing off and unsubscribing.

 

[Bfgrn]

<BfGRn>

The evidence that ETS is hazardous to human health is OVERWHELMING. While 'researching your answers over the last couple of days' you had to ignore tons of research that comes to the same conclusion.

But let's cut to the chase tb. I have one question:

Do you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth?

Your answer should be fascinating...

I'll play -- even tho it's way off-topic and baiting. Would the tobacco companies tell the truth?

They have -----

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | Tobacco Use & Health

Public Health Information
Addressing the issues in an open and objective manner
Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States. Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions. No tobacco product has been shown to be safe and without risks, and quitting tobacco use significantly reduces the risk for serious diseases. The health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products.

Governments, public health officials, tobacco manufacturers and others can play a role in providing adult tobacco consumers with accurate information about the various health risks and comparative risks associated with the use of different tobacco and nicotine products.

So --- back to what you call OVERWHELMING (2nd hand smoke) evidence is simply OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science. Science went into the toilet, the PR folks and lawyers took over, and we got the model for litigating any societal change that itches the liberal britches..

"Your killing your kids" turns out to be --- "Living with 2 smoking parents for 24 years - might be a bad idea" when you actually READ the study... This oft-quoted study never even found a causal case for an ADULT living with a smoking spouse for 30 years.. Yet it was a good enough MANIPULATION to lead the evening news around the entire country...

The PR is coming from the tobacco industry that had to be sued to admit what they KNEW for decades. The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is one of the results of those lawsuits. It's ALL in there, internal memos, PR strategy and a whole shit load of FACTS you don't want to hear. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in a separate case that the nation's top tobacco companies violated racketeering laws, misleading the public for years about the health hazards of smoking. These companies were convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act).

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library - wiki

You really need to link up on your OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science.

Want more than just the EPA's report?

Here is page one of 142 pages of studies done on secondhand smoke. Let me know when you are through reading them and I send you the other 141 pages, OK?

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDIES
In Descending Chronological Order
May 24, 2012

Csakanyi, Z.; Czinner, A.; Spangler, J.; Rogers, T.; Katona, G., "Relationship of environmental tobacco smoke to otitis media (OM) in children," International Journal Pediatric
Otorhinolaryngology [Epub ahead of print], April 15, 2012.

This Hungarian study followed children admitted to hospital for recurrent Acute Otitis
Media (AOM). Of the participants, 38 percent of children's parents smoked. Parental
smoking more than doubled the risk for AOM and maternal employment increased the
risk fourfold. The authors cited to findings to call for smokefree policies at the
international level.

Higgins, T.S.; Reh, D.D., "Environmental pollutants and allergic rhinitis," Current Opinion in
Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery [Epub ahead of print], April 6, 2012.

This study found that active smoking and secondhand smoke exposure increase the risk
of chronic rhinitis. Other pollutants, such as ozone, particulate matter, and occupational
irritants, are also associated with the disease. The authors recommended avoidance to
secondhand smoke as the most effective course.

Suzuki, T.; Tomiyama, H.; Higashi, Y., "Vascular dysfunction even after 20 years in children exposed to passive smoking: alarming results and need for awareness," Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 32: 841-842, April 2012.

This editorial in the April 2012 "Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology"
discussed the secondhand smoke exposure research within the issue. The authors
discussed endothelial dysfunction as a biomarker of atherosclerotic progression as a
possible trigger for social and public health change. Juonala et al. found that parental
smoking in childhood is predictive of disrupted endothelial function (endotheliumdependent
vasodilation) later in adulthood.

Johannessen, A.; Bakke, P.S.; Hardie, J.A.; Eagan, T.M.L., "Association of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke in childhood with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
respiratory symptoms in adults," Respirology 17(3): 499–505, April 2012.

This Norwegian study found that children exposed to secondhand smoke had more than
double the risk of developing Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD] than
unexposed children. The prevalence of childhood exposure was 61 percent.

Apostolou, A.; Garcia-Esquinas, E.; Fadrowski, J.J.; McClain, P.; Weaver, V.M.; Navas-
Acien, A., "Secondhand tobacco smoke: a source of lead exposure in US children and
adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 102(4): 714-722, April 2012.

This study found that blood lead levels were 14 percent and 24 percent higher in
children who lived with one or with two or more smokers, respectively, than they were in
children living with nonsmokers. The associations between secondhand smoke
exposure and blood lead levels were similar before and after adjustment for lead dust
concentrations.

Lippert, W.C.; Gustat, J., "Clean Indoor Air Acts reduce the burden of adverse cardiovascular disease," Public Health 126(4): 279-285, April 2012.
This study found that state or territory smokefree laws were effect in reducing adverse
cardiovascular health outcomes in the short term, and called for further research into
any long-term outcomes.

 

[tigerbob]

<BfGRn>

The evidence that ETS is hazardous to human health is OVERWHELMING. While 'researching your answers over the last couple of days' you had to ignore tons of research that comes to the same conclusion.

But let's cut to the chase tb. I have one question:

Do you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth?

Your answer should be fascinating...

I'll play -- even tho it's way off-topic and baiting. Would the tobacco companies tell the truth?

They have -----

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | Tobacco Use & Health

Public Health Information
Addressing the issues in an open and objective manner
Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States. Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions. No tobacco product has been shown to be safe and without risks, and quitting tobacco use significantly reduces the risk for serious diseases. The health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products.

Governments, public health officials, tobacco manufacturers and others can play a role in providing adult tobacco consumers with accurate information about the various health risks and comparative risks associated with the use of different tobacco and nicotine products.

So --- back to what you call OVERWHELMING (2nd hand smoke) evidence is simply OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science. Science went into the toilet, the PR folks and lawyers took over, and we got the model for litigating any societal change that itches the liberal britches..

"Your killing your kids" turns out to be --- "Living with 2 smoking parents for 24 years - might be a bad idea" when you actually READ the study... This oft-quoted study never even found a causal case for an ADULT living with a smoking spouse for 30 years.. Yet it was a good enough MANIPULATION to lead the evening news around the entire country...

Fair points, but I suspect you're flogging a dead horse. If someone is bound and determined to hold one viewpoint only, there's little chance of ever getting them to acknowledge middle ground.

Bon chance!

 

[Bfgrn]

<BfGRn>

The evidence that ETS is hazardous to human health is OVERWHELMING. While 'researching your answers over the last couple of days' you had to ignore tons of research that comes to the same conclusion.

But let's cut to the chase tb. I have one question:

Do you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth?

Your answer should be fascinating...

I'll play -- even tho it's way off-topic and baiting. Would the tobacco companies tell the truth?

They have -----

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | Tobacco Use & Health

Public Health Information
Addressing the issues in an open and objective manner
Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States. Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions. No tobacco product has been shown to be safe and without risks, and quitting tobacco use significantly reduces the risk for serious diseases. The health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products.

Governments, public health officials, tobacco manufacturers and others can play a role in providing adult tobacco consumers with accurate information about the various health risks and comparative risks associated with the use of different tobacco and nicotine products.

So --- back to what you call OVERWHELMING (2nd hand smoke) evidence is simply OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science. Science went into the toilet, the PR folks and lawyers took over, and we got the model for litigating any societal change that itches the liberal britches..

"Your killing your kids" turns out to be --- "Living with 2 smoking parents for 24 years - might be a bad idea" when you actually READ the study... This oft-quoted study never even found a causal case for an ADULT living with a smoking spouse for 30 years.. Yet it was a good enough MANIPULATION to lead the evening news around the entire country...

Fair points, but I suspect you're flogging a dead horse. If someone is bound and determined to hold one viewpoint only, there's little chance of ever getting them to acknowledge middle ground.

Bon chance!

Middle ground? For criminal? Oh, because the tobacco executives who KNEW for decades they were killing people wear suits we need to give them a break. Too bad Charles Manson didn't own a corporation. You retards would be calling for his release.

 

[flacaltenn]

<BfGRn>

The evidence that ETS is hazardous to human health is OVERWHELMING. While 'researching your answers over the last couple of days' you had to ignore tons of research that comes to the same conclusion.

But let's cut to the chase tb. I have one question:

Do you believe if the tobacco industry's research found that their product was hazardous to human health, they would tell the truth?

Your answer should be fascinating...

I'll play -- even tho it's way off-topic and baiting. Would the tobacco companies tell the truth?

They have -----

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | Tobacco Use & Health

Public Health Information
Addressing the issues in an open and objective manner
Cigarette smoking is a leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States. Cigarette smoking significantly increases the risk of developing lung cancer, heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and other serious diseases and adverse health conditions. No tobacco product has been shown to be safe and without risks, and quitting tobacco use significantly reduces the risk for serious diseases. The health risks associated with cigarettes are significantly greater than those associated with the use of smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products.

Governments, public health officials, tobacco manufacturers and others can play a role in providing adult tobacco consumers with accurate information about the various health risks and comparative risks associated with the use of different tobacco and nicotine products.

So --- back to what you call OVERWHELMING (2nd hand smoke) evidence is simply OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science. Science went into the toilet, the PR folks and lawyers took over, and we got the model for litigating any societal change that itches the liberal britches..

"Your killing your kids" turns out to be --- "Living with 2 smoking parents for 24 years - might be a bad idea" when you actually READ the study... This oft-quoted study never even found a causal case for an ADULT living with a smoking spouse for 30 years.. Yet it was a good enough MANIPULATION to lead the evening news around the entire country...

The PR is coming from the tobacco industry that had to be sued to admit what they KNEW for decades. The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is one of the results of those lawsuits. It's ALL in there, internal memos, PR strategy and a whole shit load of FACTS you don't want to hear. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in a separate case that the nation's top tobacco companies violated racketeering laws, misleading the public for years about the health hazards of smoking. These companies were convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act).

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library - wiki

You really need to link up on your OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science.

Want more than just the EPA's report?

Here is page one of 142 pages of studies done on secondhand smoke. Let me know when you are through reading them and I send you the other 141 pages, OK?

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDIES
In Descending Chronological Order
May 24, 2012

Csakanyi, Z.; Czinner, A.; Spangler, J.; Rogers, T.; Katona, G., "Relationship of environmental tobacco smoke to otitis media (OM) in children," International Journal Pediatric
Otorhinolaryngology [Epub ahead of print], April 15, 2012.

This Hungarian study followed children admitted to hospital for recurrent Acute Otitis
Media (AOM). Of the participants, 38 percent of children's parents smoked. Parental
smoking more than doubled the risk for AOM and maternal employment increased the
risk fourfold. The authors cited to findings to call for smokefree policies at the
international level.

Higgins, T.S.; Reh, D.D., "Environmental pollutants and allergic rhinitis," Current Opinion in
Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery [Epub ahead of print], April 6, 2012.

This study found that active smoking and secondhand smoke exposure increase the risk
of chronic rhinitis. Other pollutants, such as ozone, particulate matter, and occupational
irritants, are also associated with the disease. The authors recommended avoidance to
secondhand smoke as the most effective course.

Suzuki, T.; Tomiyama, H.; Higashi, Y., "Vascular dysfunction even after 20 years in children exposed to passive smoking: alarming results and need for awareness," Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 32: 841-842, April 2012.

This editorial in the April 2012 "Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology"
discussed the secondhand smoke exposure research within the issue. The authors
discussed endothelial dysfunction as a biomarker of atherosclerotic progression as a
possible trigger for social and public health change. Juonala et al. found that parental
smoking in childhood is predictive of disrupted endothelial function (endotheliumdependent
vasodilation) later in adulthood.

Johannessen, A.; Bakke, P.S.; Hardie, J.A.; Eagan, T.M.L., "Association of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke in childhood with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
respiratory symptoms in adults," Respirology 17(3): 499&#8211;505, April 2012.

This Norwegian study found that children exposed to secondhand smoke had more than
double the risk of developing Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD] than
unexposed children. The prevalence of childhood exposure was 61 percent.

Apostolou, A.; Garcia-Esquinas, E.; Fadrowski, J.J.; McClain, P.; Weaver, V.M.; Navas-
Acien, A., "Secondhand tobacco smoke: a source of lead exposure in US children and
adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 102(4): 714-722, April 2012.

This study found that blood lead levels were 14 percent and 24 percent higher in
children who lived with one or with two or more smokers, respectively, than they were in
children living with nonsmokers. The associations between secondhand smoke
exposure and blood lead levels were similar before and after adjustment for lead dust
concentrations.

Lippert, W.C.; Gustat, J., "Clean Indoor Air Acts reduce the burden of adverse cardiovascular disease," Public Health 126(4): 279-285, April 2012.
This study found that state or territory smokefree laws were effect in reducing adverse
cardiovascular health outcomes in the short term, and called for further research into
any long-term outcomes.

Boy -- you sure keep a lot of shit around don'tcha? Ever READ it all? Especially with a little critical thinking tossed in? Several caught my eye, but the one below set off my B.S. detector.

Apostolou, A.; Garcia-Esquinas, E.; Fadrowski, J.J.; McClain, P.; Weaver, V.M.; Navas-
Acien, A., "Secondhand tobacco smoke: a source of lead exposure in US children and
adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 102(4): 714-722, April 2012.

This study found that blood lead levels were 14 percent and 24 percent higher in
children who lived with one or with two or more smokers, respectively, than they were in
children living with nonsmokers. The associations between secondhand smoke
exposure and blood lead levels were similar before and after adjustment for lead dust
concentrations.

Why? Because back when I smoked, I also was exposed to HEAVY doses of Lead vapor (i'm a soldering fool as a young Electronics Engineer). I picked up a tremor and went to doc to get diagnosed. At the time -- I was smoking a pack a day for 15 years and handling lead solder for fumes for 10 years. MY bloodtest was low normal for lead.. Thus the bullshit detector ringing and my interest in spending a few minutes on google...

Numbers are important.. Not titles and references. So what are numbers for blood lead in children exposed to ETS?

JSTOR: Epidemiology, Vol. 14, No. 6 (Nov., 2003), pp. 719-727

I paraphrase here because it's a pay site and wasn't gonna jam it for cut & paste.
The blood concentrations of lead for children with low, medium, high exposure to 2nd hand smoke are respectively 1.5, 1.9 and 2.6 uG/dL. The current acceptable level is 10 uG/dL. Your reference screaming about 14% higher for children exposed to ONE smoker means that kids WITHOUT ETS exposure are 1.3 to 1.7uG/dL depending on the definitions of low and medium exposure. Scratch that one off the list of "killers" will ya?

It's a party for the scientifically handicapped. That's what your 141 references are. Especially because you're talking MURDER --- and your references are talking about pediatric asthma and ear infections. BOTH of which are increasing ASTROMONICALLY WITHOUT a commitant rise in ETS exposure.

Don't have to play Sherlock with all those references. But you've helped make my point about the HYSTERIA and recruitment of useful idiots to a political vendetta and a lawyerly feast. If you want to fund my going rate for consulting, I'd be glad to interpret some other valuable references you might have..

Why don't you at least pare down that list to the ones that CLAIM we're killing our kids with ETS as a carcinogen.. Not a source of ear infections or asthma..

 

[Bfgrn]

<BfGRn>



I'll play -- even tho it's way off-topic and baiting. Would the tobacco companies tell the truth?

They have -----

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | Tobacco Use & Health


So --- back to what you call OVERWHELMING (2nd hand smoke) evidence is simply OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science. Science went into the toilet, the PR folks and lawyers took over, and we got the model for litigating any societal change that itches the liberal britches..

"Your killing your kids" turns out to be --- "Living with 2 smoking parents for 24 years - might be a bad idea" when you actually READ the study... This oft-quoted study never even found a causal case for an ADULT living with a smoking spouse for 30 years.. Yet it was a good enough MANIPULATION to lead the evening news around the entire country...

The PR is coming from the tobacco industry that had to be sued to admit what they KNEW for decades. The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is one of the results of those lawsuits. It's ALL in there, internal memos, PR strategy and a whole shit load of FACTS you don't want to hear. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in a separate case that the nation's top tobacco companies violated racketeering laws, misleading the public for years about the health hazards of smoking. These companies were convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act).

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library - wiki

You really need to link up on your OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science.

Want more than just the EPA's report?

Here is page one of 142 pages of studies done on secondhand smoke. Let me know when you are through reading them and I send you the other 141 pages, OK?

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDIES
In Descending Chronological Order
May 24, 2012

Csakanyi, Z.; Czinner, A.; Spangler, J.; Rogers, T.; Katona, G., "Relationship of environmental tobacco smoke to otitis media (OM) in children," International Journal Pediatric
Otorhinolaryngology [Epub ahead of print], April 15, 2012.

This Hungarian study followed children admitted to hospital for recurrent Acute Otitis
Media (AOM). Of the participants, 38 percent of children's parents smoked. Parental
smoking more than doubled the risk for AOM and maternal employment increased the
risk fourfold. The authors cited to findings to call for smokefree policies at the
international level.

Higgins, T.S.; Reh, D.D., "Environmental pollutants and allergic rhinitis," Current Opinion in
Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery [Epub ahead of print], April 6, 2012.

This study found that active smoking and secondhand smoke exposure increase the risk
of chronic rhinitis. Other pollutants, such as ozone, particulate matter, and occupational
irritants, are also associated with the disease. The authors recommended avoidance to
secondhand smoke as the most effective course.

Suzuki, T.; Tomiyama, H.; Higashi, Y., "Vascular dysfunction even after 20 years in children exposed to passive smoking: alarming results and need for awareness," Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 32: 841-842, April 2012.

This editorial in the April 2012 "Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology"
discussed the secondhand smoke exposure research within the issue. The authors
discussed endothelial dysfunction as a biomarker of atherosclerotic progression as a
possible trigger for social and public health change. Juonala et al. found that parental
smoking in childhood is predictive of disrupted endothelial function (endotheliumdependent
vasodilation) later in adulthood.

Johannessen, A.; Bakke, P.S.; Hardie, J.A.; Eagan, T.M.L., "Association of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke in childhood with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
respiratory symptoms in adults," Respirology 17(3): 499–505, April 2012.

This Norwegian study found that children exposed to secondhand smoke had more than
double the risk of developing Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD] than
unexposed children. The prevalence of childhood exposure was 61 percent.

Apostolou, A.; Garcia-Esquinas, E.; Fadrowski, J.J.; McClain, P.; Weaver, V.M.; Navas-
Acien, A., "Secondhand tobacco smoke: a source of lead exposure in US children and
adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 102(4): 714-722, April 2012.

This study found that blood lead levels were 14 percent and 24 percent higher in
children who lived with one or with two or more smokers, respectively, than they were in
children living with nonsmokers. The associations between secondhand smoke
exposure and blood lead levels were similar before and after adjustment for lead dust
concentrations.

Lippert, W.C.; Gustat, J., "Clean Indoor Air Acts reduce the burden of adverse cardiovascular disease," Public Health 126(4): 279-285, April 2012.
This study found that state or territory smokefree laws were effect in reducing adverse
cardiovascular health outcomes in the short term, and called for further research into
any long-term outcomes.

Boy -- you sure keep a lot of shit around don'tcha? Ever READ it all? Especially with a little critical thinking tossed in? Several caught my eye, but the one below set off my B.S. detector.

Apostolou, A.; Garcia-Esquinas, E.; Fadrowski, J.J.; McClain, P.; Weaver, V.M.; Navas-
Acien, A., "Secondhand tobacco smoke: a source of lead exposure in US children and
adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 102(4): 714-722, April 2012.

This study found that blood lead levels were 14 percent and 24 percent higher in
children who lived with one or with two or more smokers, respectively, than they were in
children living with nonsmokers. The associations between secondhand smoke
exposure and blood lead levels were similar before and after adjustment for lead dust
concentrations.

Why? Because back when I smoked, I also was exposed to HEAVY doses of Lead vapor (i'm a soldering fool as a young Electronics Engineer). I picked up a tremor and went to doc to get diagnosed. At the time -- I was smoking a pack a day for 15 years and handling lead solder for fumes for 10 years. MY bloodtest was low normal for lead.. Thus the bullshit detector ringing and my interest in spending a few minutes on google...

Numbers are important.. Not titles and references. So what are numbers for blood lead in children exposed to ETS?

JSTOR: Epidemiology, Vol. 14, No. 6 (Nov., 2003), pp. 719-727

I paraphrase here because it's a pay site and wasn't gonna jam it for cut & paste.
The blood concentrations of lead for children with low, medium, high exposure to 2nd hand smoke are respectively 1.5, 1.9 and 2.6 uG/dL. The current acceptable level is 10 uG/dL. Your reference screaming about 14% higher for children exposed to ONE smoker means that kids WITHOUT ETS exposure are 1.3 to 1.7uG/dL depending on the definitions of low and medium exposure. Scratch that one off the list of "killers" will ya?

It's a party for the scientifically handicapped. That's what your 141 references are. Especially because you're talking MURDER --- and your references are talking about pediatric asthma and ear infections. BOTH of which are increasing ASTROMONICALLY WITHOUT a commitant rise in ETS exposure.

Don't have to play Sherlock with all those references. But you've helped make my point about the HYSTERIA and recruitment of useful idiots to a political vendetta and a lawyerly feast. If you want to fund my going rate for consulting, I'd be glad to interpret some other valuable references you might have..

Why don't you at least pare down that list to the ones that CLAIM we're killing our kids with ETS as a carcinogen.. Not a source of ear infections or asthma..

WOW, you sure have it all figured out eh, Sherlock. You rely on the anecdotal and ignore the mountain of evidence. Everyone in the world is stupid, except YOU.

Only a fucking moron would dismiss asthma in children. WTF is wrong with your brain?

Try this one on for size:

Changing Conclusions on Secondhand Smoke in a Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Review Funded by the Tobacco Industry

Did you know Oscar Wilde personally?

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

 

[flacaltenn]

No BfGrn.. I ALSO gave you Journal of Epidemiology, Gov. Standards on blood lead AND ACTUAL numbers.

The anectdotal evidence in my personal case was pretty strong that the whole LEAD risk from ETS must be a tempest in a teapot... And it is for children exposed to ETS.. Wanna do another one?

We could do the ETS and asthma one. There's probably SOMETHING there I admit. Since asthma sufferers need a better environment and less exposures to Triggers. Heck CockRoaches are an asthma trigger.. http://www.epa.gov/asthma/pests.html

But CAUSING asthma in children? -- you could remove ETS from the globe and probably not see a 5% reduction in childhood asthma which is skyrocketing as we speak.. How DARE you accuse me of being a "fucking moron" for "not caring". Asthma is tightly related to specific allergies. Remove the ALLERGAN (like the cocka-roaches or the ETS) and the asthma can dissappear.. Yes ETS, cockroaches, dandery dogs and pollution are annoying to most and dangerous to a sensitive asthmatic child.. If the parent is too stupid to see a connection between their ETS and the wheezing child, they are probably too stupid to suspect the cockroaches under the fridge as well.


We're talking about ETS here and carcinogens. Stuff that poses a significant life-long danger.

Everytime I check the check the actual numbers and forego the Hype and Media/Legal/Political distortion there is LESS and LESS to get excited about ETS...

 

[Bfgrn]

<BfGRn>



I'll play -- even tho it's way off-topic and baiting. Would the tobacco companies tell the truth?

They have -----

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | Tobacco Use & Health


So --- back to what you call OVERWHELMING (2nd hand smoke) evidence is simply OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science. Science went into the toilet, the PR folks and lawyers took over, and we got the model for litigating any societal change that itches the liberal britches..

"Your killing your kids" turns out to be --- "Living with 2 smoking parents for 24 years - might be a bad idea" when you actually READ the study... This oft-quoted study never even found a causal case for an ADULT living with a smoking spouse for 30 years.. Yet it was a good enough MANIPULATION to lead the evening news around the entire country...

The PR is coming from the tobacco industry that had to be sued to admit what they KNEW for decades. The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is one of the results of those lawsuits. It's ALL in there, internal memos, PR strategy and a whole shit load of FACTS you don't want to hear. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in a separate case that the nation's top tobacco companies violated racketeering laws, misleading the public for years about the health hazards of smoking. These companies were convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act).

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library - wiki

You really need to link up on your OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science.

Want more than just the EPA's report?

Here is page one of 142 pages of studies done on secondhand smoke. Let me know when you are through reading them and I send you the other 141 pages, OK?

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDIES
In Descending Chronological Order
May 24, 2012

Csakanyi, Z.; Czinner, A.; Spangler, J.; Rogers, T.; Katona, G., "Relationship of environmental tobacco smoke to otitis media (OM) in children," International Journal Pediatric
Otorhinolaryngology [Epub ahead of print], April 15, 2012.

This Hungarian study followed children admitted to hospital for recurrent Acute Otitis
Media (AOM). Of the participants, 38 percent of children's parents smoked. Parental
smoking more than doubled the risk for AOM and maternal employment increased the
risk fourfold. The authors cited to findings to call for smokefree policies at the
international level.

Higgins, T.S.; Reh, D.D., "Environmental pollutants and allergic rhinitis," Current Opinion in
Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery [Epub ahead of print], April 6, 2012.

This study found that active smoking and secondhand smoke exposure increase the risk
of chronic rhinitis. Other pollutants, such as ozone, particulate matter, and occupational
irritants, are also associated with the disease. The authors recommended avoidance to
secondhand smoke as the most effective course.

Suzuki, T.; Tomiyama, H.; Higashi, Y., "Vascular dysfunction even after 20 years in children exposed to passive smoking: alarming results and need for awareness," Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 32: 841-842, April 2012.

This editorial in the April 2012 "Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology"
discussed the secondhand smoke exposure research within the issue. The authors
discussed endothelial dysfunction as a biomarker of atherosclerotic progression as a
possible trigger for social and public health change. Juonala et al. found that parental
smoking in childhood is predictive of disrupted endothelial function (endotheliumdependent
vasodilation) later in adulthood.

Johannessen, A.; Bakke, P.S.; Hardie, J.A.; Eagan, T.M.L., "Association of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke in childhood with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
respiratory symptoms in adults," Respirology 17(3): 499–505, April 2012.

This Norwegian study found that children exposed to secondhand smoke had more than
double the risk of developing Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD] than
unexposed children. The prevalence of childhood exposure was 61 percent.

Apostolou, A.; Garcia-Esquinas, E.; Fadrowski, J.J.; McClain, P.; Weaver, V.M.; Navas-
Acien, A., "Secondhand tobacco smoke: a source of lead exposure in US children and
adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 102(4): 714-722, April 2012.

This study found that blood lead levels were 14 percent and 24 percent higher in
children who lived with one or with two or more smokers, respectively, than they were in
children living with nonsmokers. The associations between secondhand smoke
exposure and blood lead levels were similar before and after adjustment for lead dust
concentrations.

Lippert, W.C.; Gustat, J., "Clean Indoor Air Acts reduce the burden of adverse cardiovascular disease," Public Health 126(4): 279-285, April 2012.
This study found that state or territory smokefree laws were effect in reducing adverse
cardiovascular health outcomes in the short term, and called for further research into
any long-term outcomes.

Boy -- you sure keep a lot of shit around don'tcha? Ever READ it all? Especially with a little critical thinking tossed in? Several caught my eye, but the one below set off my B.S. detector.

Apostolou, A.; Garcia-Esquinas, E.; Fadrowski, J.J.; McClain, P.; Weaver, V.M.; Navas-
Acien, A., "Secondhand tobacco smoke: a source of lead exposure in US children and
adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 102(4): 714-722, April 2012.

This study found that blood lead levels were 14 percent and 24 percent higher in
children who lived with one or with two or more smokers, respectively, than they were in
children living with nonsmokers. The associations between secondhand smoke
exposure and blood lead levels were similar before and after adjustment for lead dust
concentrations.

Why? Because back when I smoked, I also was exposed to HEAVY doses of Lead vapor (i'm a soldering fool as a young Electronics Engineer). I picked up a tremor and went to doc to get diagnosed. At the time -- I was smoking a pack a day for 15 years and handling lead solder for fumes for 10 years. MY bloodtest was low normal for lead.. Thus the bullshit detector ringing and my interest in spending a few minutes on google...

Numbers are important.. Not titles and references. So what are numbers for blood lead in children exposed to ETS?

JSTOR: Epidemiology, Vol. 14, No. 6 (Nov., 2003), pp. 719-727

I paraphrase here because it's a pay site and wasn't gonna jam it for cut & paste.
The blood concentrations of lead for children with low, medium, high exposure to 2nd hand smoke are respectively 1.5, 1.9 and 2.6 uG/dL. The current acceptable level is 10 uG/dL. Your reference screaming about 14% higher for children exposed to ONE smoker means that kids WITHOUT ETS exposure are 1.3 to 1.7uG/dL depending on the definitions of low and medium exposure. Scratch that one off the list of "killers" will ya?

It's a party for the scientifically handicapped. That's what your 141 references are. Especially because you're talking MURDER --- and your references are talking about pediatric asthma and ear infections. BOTH of which are increasing ASTROMONICALLY WITHOUT a commitant rise in ETS exposure.

Don't have to play Sherlock with all those references. But you've helped make my point about the HYSTERIA and recruitment of useful idiots to a political vendetta and a lawyerly feast. If you want to fund my going rate for consulting, I'd be glad to interpret some other valuable references you might have..

Why don't you at least pare down that list to the ones that CLAIM we're killing our kids with ETS as a carcinogen.. Not a source of ear infections or asthma..

LOL...you want to replace the study I presented with one that states: The adjusted linear regression model showed that geometric mean blood lead levels were 38% higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25-52%) in children with high cotinine levels compared with children who had low cotinine levels.

You really don't understand what you are reading, do you? Do you know what cotinine levels are?

 

[flacaltenn]

The PR is coming from the tobacco industry that had to be sued to admit what they KNEW for decades. The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library is one of the results of those lawsuits. It's ALL in there, internal memos, PR strategy and a whole shit load of FACTS you don't want to hear. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in a separate case that the nation's top tobacco companies violated racketeering laws, misleading the public for years about the health hazards of smoking. These companies were convicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act).

Legacy Tobacco Documents Library - wiki

You really need to link up on your OVERBLOWN, misquoted, mangled derivations of the science.

Want more than just the EPA's report?

Here is page one of 142 pages of studies done on secondhand smoke. Let me know when you are through reading them and I send you the other 141 pages, OK?

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDHAND SMOKE STUDIES
In Descending Chronological Order
May 24, 2012

Csakanyi, Z.; Czinner, A.; Spangler, J.; Rogers, T.; Katona, G., "Relationship of environmental tobacco smoke to otitis media (OM) in children," International Journal Pediatric
Otorhinolaryngology [Epub ahead of print], April 15, 2012.

This Hungarian study followed children admitted to hospital for recurrent Acute Otitis
Media (AOM). Of the participants, 38 percent of children's parents smoked. Parental
smoking more than doubled the risk for AOM and maternal employment increased the
risk fourfold. The authors cited to findings to call for smokefree policies at the
international level.

Higgins, T.S.; Reh, D.D., "Environmental pollutants and allergic rhinitis," Current Opinion in
Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery [Epub ahead of print], April 6, 2012.

This study found that active smoking and secondhand smoke exposure increase the risk
of chronic rhinitis. Other pollutants, such as ozone, particulate matter, and occupational
irritants, are also associated with the disease. The authors recommended avoidance to
secondhand smoke as the most effective course.

Suzuki, T.; Tomiyama, H.; Higashi, Y., "Vascular dysfunction even after 20 years in children exposed to passive smoking: alarming results and need for awareness," Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 32: 841-842, April 2012.

This editorial in the April 2012 "Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology"
discussed the secondhand smoke exposure research within the issue. The authors
discussed endothelial dysfunction as a biomarker of atherosclerotic progression as a
possible trigger for social and public health change. Juonala et al. found that parental
smoking in childhood is predictive of disrupted endothelial function (endotheliumdependent
vasodilation) later in adulthood.

Johannessen, A.; Bakke, P.S.; Hardie, J.A.; Eagan, T.M.L., "Association of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke in childhood with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and
respiratory symptoms in adults," Respirology 17(3): 499&#8211;505, April 2012.

This Norwegian study found that children exposed to secondhand smoke had more than
double the risk of developing Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD] than
unexposed children. The prevalence of childhood exposure was 61 percent.

Apostolou, A.; Garcia-Esquinas, E.; Fadrowski, J.J.; McClain, P.; Weaver, V.M.; Navas-
Acien, A., "Secondhand tobacco smoke: a source of lead exposure in US children and
adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 102(4): 714-722, April 2012.

This study found that blood lead levels were 14 percent and 24 percent higher in
children who lived with one or with two or more smokers, respectively, than they were in
children living with nonsmokers. The associations between secondhand smoke
exposure and blood lead levels were similar before and after adjustment for lead dust
concentrations.

Lippert, W.C.; Gustat, J., "Clean Indoor Air Acts reduce the burden of adverse cardiovascular disease," Public Health 126(4): 279-285, April 2012.
This study found that state or territory smokefree laws were effect in reducing adverse
cardiovascular health outcomes in the short term, and called for further research into
any long-term outcomes.

Boy -- you sure keep a lot of shit around don'tcha? Ever READ it all? Especially with a little critical thinking tossed in? Several caught my eye, but the one below set off my B.S. detector.

Apostolou, A.; Garcia-Esquinas, E.; Fadrowski, J.J.; McClain, P.; Weaver, V.M.; Navas-
Acien, A., "Secondhand tobacco smoke: a source of lead exposure in US children and
adolescents," American Journal of Public Health 102(4): 714-722, April 2012.

This study found that blood lead levels were 14 percent and 24 percent higher in
children who lived with one or with two or more smokers, respectively, than they were in
children living with nonsmokers. The associations between secondhand smoke
exposure and blood lead levels were similar before and after adjustment for lead dust
concentrations.

Why? Because back when I smoked, I also was exposed to HEAVY doses of Lead vapor (i'm a soldering fool as a young Electronics Engineer). I picked up a tremor and went to doc to get diagnosed. At the time -- I was smoking a pack a day for 15 years and handling lead solder for fumes for 10 years. MY bloodtest was low normal for lead.. Thus the bullshit detector ringing and my interest in spending a few minutes on google...

Numbers are important.. Not titles and references. So what are numbers for blood lead in children exposed to ETS?

JSTOR: Epidemiology, Vol. 14, No. 6 (Nov., 2003), pp. 719-727

I paraphrase here because it's a pay site and wasn't gonna jam it for cut & paste.
The blood concentrations of lead for children with low, medium, high exposure to 2nd hand smoke are respectively 1.5, 1.9 and 2.6 uG/dL. The current acceptable level is 10 uG/dL. Your reference screaming about 14% higher for children exposed to ONE smoker means that kids WITHOUT ETS exposure are 1.3 to 1.7uG/dL depending on the definitions of low and medium exposure. Scratch that one off the list of "killers" will ya?

It's a party for the scientifically handicapped. That's what your 141 references are. Especially because you're talking MURDER --- and your references are talking about pediatric asthma and ear infections. BOTH of which are increasing ASTROMONICALLY WITHOUT a commitant rise in ETS exposure.

Don't have to play Sherlock with all those references. But you've helped make my point about the HYSTERIA and recruitment of useful idiots to a political vendetta and a lawyerly feast. If you want to fund my going rate for consulting, I'd be glad to interpret some other valuable references you might have..

Why don't you at least pare down that list to the ones that CLAIM we're killing our kids with ETS as a carcinogen.. Not a source of ear infections or asthma..

LOL...you want to replace the study I presented with one that states: The adjusted linear regression model showed that geometric mean blood lead levels were 38% higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25-52%) in children with high cotinine levels compared with children who had low cotinine levels.

You really don't understand what you are reading, do you? Do you know what cotinine levels are?

And you're not following along. I went out and got ACTUAL Blood Lead Concentration numbers -- because 38% higher --- has NO scientific meaning until you provide a base number. There is NO discrepancy in the link I cited. In FACT the percentage increase is WAY HIGHER in the link I cited than what you're accusing me of MISUNDERSTANDING. YOU just displayed that you don't know that 2.6 compared to about 1.4 is 85% HIGHER...

Nothing there. Cotinine is NOT a huge toxin, just a long term marker for nicotine exposure. The lead levels are ALL smaller than kids can get snacking on Chinese toys.. In fact, they are WAY below the RECOGNIZED high normal readings in the blood and OVERLAP greatly with children who don''t live in smoky environments...

RE -- your worries on my comprehension -- I have spent a lot of my career in Medical devices and have a degree in BioMedical Engineering. I design stuff for cytology and imaging labs. So I'm not exactly lost discussing elemental biochemistry and science..

Cheers...

 

[Bfgrn]

Boy -- you sure keep a lot of shit around don'tcha? Ever READ it all? Especially with a little critical thinking tossed in? Several caught my eye, but the one below set off my B.S. detector.



Why? Because back when I smoked, I also was exposed to HEAVY doses of Lead vapor (i'm a soldering fool as a young Electronics Engineer). I picked up a tremor and went to doc to get diagnosed. At the time -- I was smoking a pack a day for 15 years and handling lead solder for fumes for 10 years. MY bloodtest was low normal for lead.. Thus the bullshit detector ringing and my interest in spending a few minutes on google...

Numbers are important.. Not titles and references. So what are numbers for blood lead in children exposed to ETS?

JSTOR: Epidemiology, Vol. 14, No. 6 (Nov., 2003), pp. 719-727

I paraphrase here because it's a pay site and wasn't gonna jam it for cut & paste.
The blood concentrations of lead for children with low, medium, high exposure to 2nd hand smoke are respectively 1.5, 1.9 and 2.6 uG/dL. The current acceptable level is 10 uG/dL. Your reference screaming about 14% higher for children exposed to ONE smoker means that kids WITHOUT ETS exposure are 1.3 to 1.7uG/dL depending on the definitions of low and medium exposure. Scratch that one off the list of "killers" will ya?

It's a party for the scientifically handicapped. That's what your 141 references are. Especially because you're talking MURDER --- and your references are talking about pediatric asthma and ear infections. BOTH of which are increasing ASTROMONICALLY WITHOUT a commitant rise in ETS exposure.

Don't have to play Sherlock with all those references. But you've helped make my point about the HYSTERIA and recruitment of useful idiots to a political vendetta and a lawyerly feast. If you want to fund my going rate for consulting, I'd be glad to interpret some other valuable references you might have..

Why don't you at least pare down that list to the ones that CLAIM we're killing our kids with ETS as a carcinogen.. Not a source of ear infections or asthma..

LOL...you want to replace the study I presented with one that states: The adjusted linear regression model showed that geometric mean blood lead levels were 38% higher (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25-52%) in children with high cotinine levels compared with children who had low cotinine levels.

You really don't understand what you are reading, do you? Do you know what cotinine levels are?

And you're not following along. I went out and got ACTUAL Blood Lead Concentration numbers -- because 38% higher --- has NO scientific meaning until you provide a base number. There is NO discrepancy in the link I cited. In FACT the percentage increase is WAY HIGHER in the link I cited than what you're accusing me of MISUNDERSTANDING. YOU just displayed that you don't know that 2.6 compared to about 1.4 is 85% HIGHER...

Nothing there. Cotinine is NOT a huge toxin, just a long term marker for nicotine exposure. The lead levels are ALL smaller than kids can get snacking on Chinese toys.. In fact, they are WAY below the RECOGNIZED high normal readings in the blood and OVERLAP greatly with children who don''t live in smoky environments...

RE -- your worries on my comprehension -- I have spent a lot of my career in Medical devices and have a degree in BioMedical Engineering. I design stuff for cytology and imaging labs. So I'm not exactly lost discussing elemental biochemistry and science..

Cheers...

WOW, you really DON'T comprehend the findings. They are extremely damning for the argument that second hand smoke is harmless and doesn't transmit toxins to non-smokers.

Cotinine levels are used to measure nicotine in the blood. It is mainly used to catch people who apply for life insurance and claim they don't smoke.

Cotinine [COAT-e-neen] is a chemical that is made by the body from nicotine, which is found in cigarette smoke. Since cotinine can be made only from nicotine, and since nicotine enters the body with cigarette smoke, cotinine measurements can show how much cigarette smoke enters your body.

SO, there is a direct correlation between elevated Cotinine levels in non-smoking children and elevated lead levels in those same children.

You have failed miserably. And after beating your chest, you deserve to be called a moron.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not really -- you didn't really show a lead level determined to be harmful -- now did ya? In fact, ALL of those studies (when properly controlled for other exposure to lead), document blood lead levels in the mid to low normal range.. NOTHING a doctor would recommend treatment for...

But you're all proud of yourself for discovering what cotinine is -- although I defined it before you did -- you still GRANDSTAND and impune my knowledge..

Guess what Sherlock? Science isn't a bunch of ammunition that use to vanquish your political opponents.. How about growing up and ceasing to try to wield science like a hand grenade? Calling me a MORON isn't gonna disguise it. Stay on topic..

 

[Bfgrn]

Not really -- you didn't really show a lead level determined to be harmful -- now did ya? In fact, ALL of those studies (when properly controlled for other exposure to lead), document blood lead levels in the mid to low normal range.. NOTHING a doctor would recommend treatment for...

But you're all proud of yourself for discovering what cotinine is -- although I defined it before you did -- you still GRANDSTAND and impune my knowledge..

Guess what Sherlock? Science isn't a bunch of ammunition that use to vanquish your political opponents.. How about growing up and ceasing to try to wield science like a hand grenade? Calling me a MORON isn't gonna disguise it. Stay on topic..

I apologize for calling you a moron. The word is way too mild for the ignorance you exhibit.

The normal level of blood lead is zero, as there is no safe level of lead.

Lead is a common environmental contaminant, and exposure to lead is a preventable risk that exists in all areas of the United States. Lead is associated with negative outcomes in children, including impaired cognitive, motor, behavioral, and physical abilities. In 1991, CDC defined the blood lead level (BLL) that should prompt public health actions as 10 µg/dL. Concurrently, CDC also recognized that a BLL of 10 µg/dL did not define a threshold for the harmful effects of lead. Research conducted since 1991 has strengthened the evidence that children's physical and mental development can be affected at BLLs <10 µg/dL.

The report noted that no safe level for blood lead in children has been identified.

Hey kids, gather around, mom and dad want to have a little talk with you:

"Your mom and I are going to fill our house with more than 250 chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.

It may cause you to be behind your classmates in cognitive, motor, behavioral, and physical abilities. And you will probably have acute lower respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Your little brother might have weaker lungs than other babies, which increases the risk for many health problems, but keep your fingers crossed he doesn't die from SIDS. And your little ears may bleed and you will have some hearing loss...But don't worry...your mom and I may make you sick, but we're not trying to kill you...we love you guys.

And don't forget; mom and dad pay the bills, so we're the bosses. You little rug rats shouldn't expect your mom and I to stand outside and smoke. WE'RE THE ADULTS HERE!