Dangers of smoking rolled out in Alamosa

Dangers of smoking rolled out in Alamosa

There are 17 comments on the Pueblo Chieftain story from Feb 24, 2006, titled Dangers of smoking rolled out in Alamosa. In it, Pueblo Chieftain reports that:

ALAMOSA - Being around secondhand smoke for 8 hours essentially turns a nonsmoker into a pack-a-day smoker, a Montana doctor claims.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Pueblo Chieftain.

Bill Hannegan

Salisbury, MD

#1 Feb 24, 2006
Antismoking lies are getting more extreme every day! Being around ETS for a day equals smoking one tenth of a cigarette. Nothing to worry about.

Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Coronary Heart Disease Mortality in the
United States—A Meta-Analysis and Critique

James E. Enstrom A1 and Geoffrey C. Kabat A2
A1 Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los
Angeles, California, USA
A2 New Rochelle, New York, USA

Abstract:
Several major meta-analyses have concluded that exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS) increases the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) by about
25% among never smokers. However, these reviews have excluded a large portion
of the epidemiologic evidence on questionable grounds and have been
inconsistent in the selection of the results that are included. We conducted an
updated
meta-analysis and critique of the evidence on ETS exposure and its relationship
to death from CHD among never smokers. Our focus is on the U.S. cohort
studies, which provide the vast majority of the available evidence. ETS exposure is
assessed in terms of spousal smoking, self-reported estimates, and personal
monitoring. The epidemiologic results are summarized by means of overall
relative risks and dose-response relationships. The methodological issues of
publication bias, exposure misclassification, and confounding are discussed. Several
large studies indicate that spousal smoking history is a valid measure of
relative exposure to ETS, particularly for females. Personal monitoring of
nonsmokers indicates that their average ETS exposure from a smoking spouse is
equivalent in terms of nicotine exposure to smoking less than 0.1 cigarettes per day.
When all relevant studies are included in the meta-analysis and results are
appropriately combined, current or ever exposure to ETS, as approximated by
spousal smoking, is associated with roughly a 5% increased risk of death from CHD
in never smokers. Furthermore, there is no dose-response relationship and no
elevated risk associated with the highest level of ETS exposure in males or
females. An objective assessment of the available epidemiologic evidence
indicates that the association of ETS with CHD death in U.S. never smokers is very
weak. Previous assessments appear to have overestimated the strength of the
association.





Bill Hannegan

Salisbury, MD

#2 Feb 24, 2006
December 5, 2005

Antismokers claim that studies have shown that bans bring about an immediate and drastic decrease in heart attacks among nonsmokers exposed to smoke at work.

This claim was never true to begin with - the cited studies never separated and analyzed nonsmokers as a separate group - and it has now been pointed out in the pages of the BMJ that even the claim of saving lives among the combined population of smokers and nonsmokers might be worthless.

While many making that claim may have believed their information to be accurate, it is now obvious that its basis has been thrown strongly into question. As Jacob Sullum noted in a December 1st reaction to the announcement, "An effect this dramatic (i.e. an immediate and pronounced drop of hospital admissions for heart attacks) should have been noticed all over the country..."

Just a week before the Chicago Aldermen were due to vote on a citywide smoking ban, two independent researchers working together, David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden, unveiled a new study covering a population base roughly 1,000 times as large as the previous town-based studies. The new study indicates strongly that rather than a 30% decrease in heart attacks, statewide smoking bans seem to have literally NO EFFECT AT ALL on heart attack rates. Incredibly the data even indicates that California's statewide heart attack rate went UP by 6% in the first full year of their total smoking ban!

The data for the study and the basis of its design have been backed up and expanded by well-known antismoking researcher Michael Siegel who has come out in support of the researchers' approach as providing "compelling evidence that brings into question the conclusion that smoking bans have an immediate and drastic effect on heart attack incidence." His observation is echoed by researcher Kuneman who asks, "Ever wonder why you didn't hear about post ban heart attack declines in New York City? Or in Minneapolis or Los Angeles? Now you know!"

On December 4th the British Medical Journal entered the fray with the online publication of a Rapid Response by Mr. McFadden outlining the new research and posing sharp criticisms of the earlier studies and of the refusal of the authors of those studies to respond to previous criticisms and questions. McFadden points out that the data in the Kuneman/McFadden study are fully open for public examination and far less selective than the data in the earlier studies and notes with pride that he and his co-researcher have been quick to respond to all queries posted about their methodology on Dr. Siegel's web blog.

He also poses the wider ranging question of whether studies commissioned by the "Antismoking Industry" should begin to receive the same cautious reception accorded those commissioned by "Big Tobacco." The current study, as well as an earlier one by the duo, were unfunded and neither researcher receives grants for their work from either interest group. Kuneman sharply asks the question, "Why the difference between the studies? For one thing we weren't dependent on antismoking-targeted grants!"

At this point there appears to be very little, if any, real scientific support for the claim that protecting nonsmokers from normal levels of exposure to secondary smoke prevents any heart attacks. And it is this claim that has always provided the impressive numbers upon which ban advocates have pressed legislators to pass smoking bans.
Quixxxie

Switzerland

#3 Mar 1, 2006
I'd like to think of myself as an open minded individual. However the thing about these smoking bans that get me ( even make me sick to an extent) is the double standards of Society. How come no one talks about the cars we drive, and the fumes we emit. It's the very same people who are so terribly determined to get smokers to quit ( which in my view is a kind of control habit ) are the ones who drive the huge jeeps, and gas guzzlers, which actually are not just bad for our health, but are destroying the only inhabitable planet for human (today).
just candid

AOL

#4 Dec 2, 2007
It's not that much to ask for smokers to step outside if they have to smoke. My guess is they get up and go someplace other than the bar to take a leak.If they don't you must be hanging out in one dump of a bar,maybe one that a weasel owns.
Socrates

AOL

#5 Dec 2, 2007
Quixxxie wrote:
I'd like to think of myself as an open minded individual. However the thing about these smoking bans that get me ( even make me sick to an extent) is the double standards of Society. How come no one talks about the cars we drive, and the fumes we emit. It's the very same people who are so terribly determined to get smokers to quit ( which in my view is a kind of control habit ) are the ones who drive the huge jeeps, and gas guzzlers, which actually are not just bad for our health, but are destroying the only inhabitable planet for human (today).
Look at the news. There are going to be new fuel standards for cars. Look at the number of places that have mandatory emissions testing for cars. Look at the new standards for diesel vehicles in this country. Look at the uproar over coal smoke and pollution. Somehow you do not seem to understand that smoking is a part of a much larger picture that is looking at the health of people and the planet. Obviously you must have heard some of the uproar over greenhouse gasses. Many cities have much cleaner air than they did 40 years ago. Look at the new types of AC we have in cars. look at the spray cans we now have. We are reducing our use of CFS worldwide.

As far as water goes, look at Lake Erie. it is now a lot cleaner than it was. We have restricted what people can pour into the water.

Most of us who are in favor of smoking bans do not see that as the ONLY remedy to our air quality problems. We are asking the government to take steps to make the world a cleaner place. By the way, I have seen more than a few smokers driving very large vehicles. I have also seen smokers driving OLD vehicles that smoke and leak oil. IF they quit smoking they could afford something that did not pollute.
SassyVarmit

United States

#6 Dec 2, 2007
Quixxxie wrote:
I'd like to think of myself as an open minded individual. However the thing about these smoking bans that get me ( even make me sick to an extent) is the double standards of Society. How come no one talks about the cars we drive, and the fumes we emit. It's the very same people who are so terribly determined to get smokers to quit ( which in my view is a kind of control habit ) are the ones who drive the huge jeeps, and gas guzzlers, which actually are not just bad for our health, but are destroying the only inhabitable planet for human (today).
This is really an easy answer... as, long as the gov't can keep the focus on smoking, keep pulling in all the tax dollars from it, keep the sheeple thinking what a good job the gov't is doing protecting them from deadly SHS, the gov't does not have to focus on the REAL problems... vehicle exhaust, factory pollution, etc.

Hey, the gov't is happy... it doesn't have to deal with problems that are going to upset a lot of people... and, they get paid for it!!
Socrates

AOL

#7 Dec 2, 2007
SassyVarmit wrote:
<quoted text>
This is really an easy answer... as, long as the gov't can keep the focus on smoking, keep pulling in all the tax dollars from it, keep the sheeple thinking what a good job the gov't is doing protecting them from deadly SHS, the gov't does not have to focus on the REAL problems... vehicle exhaust, factory pollution, etc.
Hey, the gov't is happy... it doesn't have to deal with problems that are going to upset a lot of people... and, they get paid for it!!
Read my response above.
SassyVarmit

United States

#8 Dec 2, 2007
Socrates wrote:
<quoted text>
Read my response above.
IF, all the money used for bogus studies were used to look for cancer cures, or, to help the enviornment, the money would be well spent. As, it is, it is worthless, as, the "studies" are not completed scientific studies, they are nothing other than junk science.
Socrates

AOL

#9 Dec 2, 2007
SassyVarmit wrote:
<quoted text>
IF, all the money used for bogus studies were used to look for cancer cures, or, to help the enviornment, the money would be well spent. As, it is, it is worthless, as, the "studies" are not completed scientific studies, they are nothing other than junk science.
Sorry, but the studies are telling us how to AVOID cancer. If you do not get cancer you do not need a cure. Kind of simple.

Now, for your enlightenment, there is lots of money being spent on cancer research. Many types of cancer ARE treatable that just a few years ago had a poor prognosis. We still have a long way to go, but while waiting for the cure for cancer we need to also do what we can on a personal level to avoid cancer.
Tired Uvit

Louisville, KY

#10 Dec 2, 2007
Can the good doctor explain why the nonsmokers that smoke "a pack a day" have not become smokers? Tobacco is the most addictive thing on the face of the earth is it not?
Kent

Flintstone, MD

#11 Dec 2, 2007
Socrates wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at the news. There are going to be new fuel standards for cars. Look at the number of places that have mandatory emissions testing for cars. Look at the new standards for diesel vehicles in this country. Look at the uproar over coal smoke and pollution. Somehow you do not seem to understand that smoking is a part of a much larger picture that is looking at the health of people and the planet. Obviously you must have heard some of the uproar over greenhouse gasses. Many cities have much cleaner air than they did 40 years ago. Look at the new types of AC we have in cars. look at the spray cans we now have. We are reducing our use of CFS worldwide.
As far as water goes, look at Lake Erie. it is now a lot cleaner than it was. We have restricted what people can pour into the water.
Most of us who are in favor of smoking bans do not see that as the ONLY remedy to our air quality problems. We are asking the government to take steps to make the world a cleaner place. By the way, I have seen more than a few smokers driving very large vehicles. I have also seen smokers driving OLD vehicles that smoke and leak oil. IF they quit smoking they could afford something that did not pollute.
Blah, blah, whine, you're running on empty as usual.
Anonymouse

Kitchener, Canada

#12 Dec 2, 2007
Tired Uvit wrote:
Can the good doctor explain why the nonsmokers that smoke "a pack a day" have not become smokers? Tobacco is the most addictive thing on the face of the earth is it not?
I've never heard of anyone smoking a pack a day who didn't consider themselves a smoker. That's far more than trying a casual cigarette once in a while.

“Just Say No to Smoking Bans”

Since: Jul 07

Location hidden

#13 Dec 2, 2007
Socrates wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the studies are telling us how to AVOID cancer. If you do not get cancer you do not need a cure. Kind of simple.
Now, for your enlightenment, there is lots of money being spent on cancer research. Many types of cancer ARE treatable that just a few years ago had a poor prognosis. We still have a long way to go, but while waiting for the cure for cancer we need to also do what we can on a personal level to avoid cancer.
You are funny, little man. In the past two months, two friends of ours were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. They could have been poster boys for your campaign. One was 62, a non-smoker, health nut, with a phobia for germs and disease. He died two weeks ago. The other guy is 51, and you could have used him in your campaign too. He is still alive. My grandmother, the original church lady, also died of pancreatic cancer at age 55. My father, a non-smoker, non-drinker, etc. died of colon cancer at age 64. Think you can avoid it...you are in for one nasty surprise.
SassyVarmit

United States

#14 Dec 2, 2007
Socrates wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the studies are telling us how to AVOID cancer. If you do not get cancer you do not need a cure. Kind of simple.
Now, for your enlightenment, there is lots of money being spent on cancer research. Many types of cancer ARE treatable that just a few years ago had a poor prognosis. We still have a long way to go, but while waiting for the cure for cancer we need to also do what we can on a personal level to avoid cancer.
"If you do not get cancer you do not need a cure."

That has to be the most ignorant, simplictic statement I have ever heard!!!

IF, smoking was the ONLY reason for lung cancer, there may not be a reason to use the money for research... but, too many non smokers, that have not lived with smokers develope lung cancer...so, of course in your little phobe mind, these people do not need research done, as, they don't fit into your mind set....... How closed minded you are!!
SassyVarmit

United States

#15 Dec 2, 2007
Anonymouse wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never heard of anyone smoking a pack a day who didn't consider themselves a smoker. That's far more than trying a casual cigarette once in a while.
She is referring to the statement that breathing SHS in consintration equals smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.........
Socrates

AOL

#16 Dec 2, 2007
Kent wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah, blah, whine, you're running on empty as usual.
FEAR is what motivates your retorts that DO NOT address any of the issues. As a matter of fact, you have NEVER addressed any of the issues. The mere idea of an issue causes you to be so in FEAR that it locks up your brain.
Kent

Flintstone, MD

#17 Dec 2, 2007
Socrates wrote:
<quoted text>
FEAR is what motivates your retorts that DO NOT address any of the issues. As a matter of fact, you have NEVER addressed any of the issues. The mere idea of an issue causes you to be so in FEAR that it locks up your brain.
Have a tissue for your issue. Actually for your pathetic second hand opinions some toilet paper would be more appropriate.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alamosa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Officer arrested on sex charges (Apr '06) Mar '17 Roy martinez 36
Grass Roots Government--by All for All. (Aug '16) Dec '16 modelearth 3
Let Us Do Something About the Future Now! Not A... (Nov '16) Nov '16 hearthstone 1
RMS Septic (Jul '14) Nov '16 William 3
subs (Oct '16) Oct '16 needAsub 1
Amendment 69 (Sep '16) Sep '16 happles 1
Pete Kampfer? (May '14) Aug '16 tex 4

Alamosa Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Alamosa Mortgages