PRINT ADS

" Surgeon General wrote, "I think ickiness is a good enough reason to ban smoking."

SG, if there's ever a case where antismokers are trying to pass a law banning smoking purely on "ickiness" I promise I will stay out of the fight.

I only come in when I see them lying about the science and economics. "Ickiness" is neither.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" "

" I think ickiness is a good enough reason to ban smoking. That's the reason why nudity is banned. I mean, there's no health reason why a nude person couldn't go into a bar, so it's completely aesthetic. Why shouldn't the ick factor be enough in itself to ban public smoking? There's no disputing smoking icky (although I think there's more of an argument that nudity is not icky, but it's icky to enough people that you don't see nekkid people in public).

I rest my case. "

" Surgeon General sez ...
wrote on Sep 2, 2008 8:20 PM:

" So something besides secondhand smoke is killing kids with asthma? I'll buy that. I don't see why we shouldn't still ban public smoking. It's icky! "
..............
"It's icky and I don't like it" is all that anti-smokers really have to say.

Enuffalready,
I have a wife that tells me what to do, your help is not needed. :) "

" To: Surgeongeneralsez and Gary K.:

Seriously guys. You two have to get a life. Get out find some hobbies. Do something, ANYTHING. :>) "

" SGsez wrote to Gary, " So, Dr. K, pray tell what your supposed facts are supposed to say about secondhand smoke. You give a couple numbers about arsenic levels, but I hardly think arsenic is the only toxic component of tobacco smoke."


SG, every single component of tobacco smoke that has ever been investigated has been found to be present in levels FAR below toxicity in any normally encountered situation. See the table near the bottom of

http://www.antibrains.com/shs.html

for evidence.

There simply is no real "threat to health" from the levels of secondary smoke that would normally be encountered in any decently ventilated modern business venue.


Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" "

" So something besides secondhand smoke is killing kids with asthma? I'll buy that. I don't see why we shouldn't still ban public smoking. It's icky! "

" Surgeon General sez ...
wrote on Sep 2, 2008 10:24 AM:

Did you expect that getting the smoke out of the air for a few years would erase the years of harm it did? If exposure to secondhand smoke instantly caused cancer, then your logic might hold true, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

What else you got? "
..............
I will try to keep this very simple so that you can understand.
It does not take decades of exposure to cause childhood asthma.

SG's 2006 Report says:
7. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and ever having asthma among children of school age.(NOTE: the SG does not say just how important this relationship is!-Gary K)

EPA says:
The percentage of children with asthma has nearly doubled in 20 years, rising from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 8.7 percent, or 6.3 million children, by 2001, according to EPAs second report on environmental threats to childrens health. (See www.epa.gov/envirohealth/children/ace_2003.pdf.)
The death rate for children under 19 years old has increased by nearly 80% percent since 1980.

2005
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, this states that childhood exposure to SHS has decreased by 68% since the early 1990's.

Less SHS exposure(68%) = twice as much asthma and asthma deaths.

The SG does not mention this. "

" See, now you're starting to make a little more sense, Dr. K. All it took was a little nagging to get you to get past your inability to communicate.

Unfortunately, now I'm going to have to go read that report and see if you're right. I'll get back to you. "

" Surgeon General sez ...
wrote on Sep 2, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Dr. K, I just consider your use of facts as gibberish. Why don't you look at the conclusions of the report
..........
Ah, you mean the part that says SHS exposure does not cause strokes or cause morbidity or mortality for asthma and COPD.

How about reading the part that says that the predominate source of childhood exposure is in the home.(smoking bans in bars and restaurants will not have much effect on children)

How about reading the studies and finding out that all of the cancer and heart disease risk is from studies done on spousal exposure, not from exposure that customers would have in bars and restaurants.

How about reading the part that states that all of the diseases mentioned in the report have causes other than SHS exposure(they are multifactorial).

Bans in bars and restaurants will not reduce the exposure to these other factors! "

" To Gary wrote on Sep 2, 2008 7:53 AM:

Is your basic contention that second hand smoke is not in any way harmful? If it is you are really being foolish.
...............
The toxic chemicals in SHS are present in the food we eat,the water we drink,and the air we breathe.

The FDA,the EPA, and OSHA have shown there to be permissible exposure levels for these same chemicals.

Would you be so kind as to enumerate which chemicals are present in SHS at levels which exceed government standards and are harmful? "

" Dr. K, I just consider your use of facts as gibberish. Why don't you look at the conclusions of the report instead of pulling out some numbers that are meaningless out of context.

It seems like what you're trying to say is that because cotinine levels have decreased during the period when smoking bans went into effect but cancer and death rates did not that decrease that secondhand smoke is off the hook as a bad guy and that smoking bans are not effective.

Did you expect that getting the smoke out of the air for a few years would erase the years of harm it did? If exposure to secondhand smoke instantly caused cancer, then your logic might hold true, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

What else you got? "

" Surgeon General sez ... wrote on Sep 1, 2008 8:10 PM:

" You didn't answer the question, Dr. K. What do your supposed facts on cotinine levels have to do with the merits of a smoking ban?Oh, and I did present my facts. If you'll just scroll down, there's a whole series of them that make a whole lot more sense than some gibberish about cotinine levels. "
.............
Many of your 'facts' are taken from the 2006 SG's Report and presented as totally accurate.

The 'supposed facts on cotinine levels' and ' some gibberish about cotinine levels' are from that same 2006 SG's Report.
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke(SG's 2006 Report)
Table 10.1, page 575
2005
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, which documents that cotinine levels decreased 68 percent for children, 69 percent for adolescents, and 75 percent for adults from the early 1990s to 2002. "

If you consider the SG's Report to be 'supposed facts and gibberish', much of what you have presented also has to be considered to be 'supposed facts and gibberish'!

If cotinine levels are a measure of SHS exposure and over the last 20 years smoking bans have caused a 70-75% decrease in SHS exposure,you would expect diseases associated with SHS exposure to have decreased as much.

Yet, lung cancer deaths have not decreased, emphysema deaths have increased quite a bit, and asthma rates have gone up by a huge margin.

SHS exposure can not have been a factor in these diseases.

You could say that more smoking bans cause there to be more of these diseases and thus; increased numbers of smoking bans are directly related to increased numbers of these diseases and the obvious way to lower the rates of these diseases is to lower the number of smoking bans. "

" Is your basic contention that second hand smoke is not in any way harmful? If it is you are really being foolish. Anyone who has ever worked in a smoking environment knows that to be false. "

" While it may be true that death ates for certain kinds of cancers have gone up, that in and of itself proves nothing. Smoking and its effects are not acute, they are chronic. It should come as no surprise that death rates continue to rise because the effects are long term. In several years those rates will begin to decline and continue to do so for many years after until they reach a "baseline" level. "

" You didn't answer the question, Dr. K. What do your supposed facts on cotinine levels have to do with the merits of a smoking ban? Cotinine isn't deadly is it? Isn't cotinine, in fact, believed to improve memory and brain function? Oh, and I did present my facts. If you'll just scroll down, there's a whole series of them that make a whole lot more sense than some gibberish about cotinine levels. "

" Dear "Surgeon General sez ..."

You must think that the citizens of Onalaska are pretty stupid. You have suddenly gone from peer reviewed studies to cotinine with absolutely no comment on the facts presented, nor any facts to show that I am not correct.

When the Sur.Gen's Report agrees with your agenda it it 'GOSPEL', when it does not agree, it is 'Pro-Tobacco Propaganda".

When your revered govt sources show you to be wrong, they are 'Pro-Tabacco Propaganda".

You can not have it both ways and the folks of Onalaska can see what a fraud that you are!!!!

Absent any attempt at facts, you and your posts are a very good reasom to doubt the pro-ban anti-smokers attempts to have a smoking ban law passed!!!

Unlike you, I do not think the folks of Onalaska are 'STUPID"!!! "

" Dr. K, you got me there with your cotinine, which a basic search tells me that cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine and is an indicator of exposure to tobacco smoke. So I have to take back what I said about your typing skills.

What exactly, though, are you trying to prove with your cotinine level numbers anyway? "

" So, Dr. K, pray tell what your supposed facts are supposed to say about secondhand smoke. You give a couple numbers about arsenic levels, but I hardly think arsenic is the only toxic component of tobacco smoke.

And then you give some figures that are something to do with "cotinine" levels." What is that. Is that a typo? Is that supposed to be nicotine? For one thing, nicotine as not the deadly component in tobacco smoke. For another thing, who's to say you didn't have a "typo" with any of your other supposed "facts." You are not fooling me with your long posts full of phony page references.

I have to say, Dr. K, the more you try to present your case, the less I trust you. I will stand by the facts and stats I presented earlier and still maintain that secondhand smoke is an environmental hazard, an AVOIDABLE environmental hazard, caused by people, THOUGHTLESS people, probably people like yourself.

And in the interest of brevity, it would be more than OK if you didn't paste in what I just said into your posts. I'm sure it makes it harder for the other pea-brained crackpots to figure out which part is you talking. "

" Surgeon General sez ...
wrote on Sep 1, 2008 4:29 PM:
" One more thing, Mr. K. By "peer-reviewed" I mean reviewed by scientists, not crackpots. "
Surgeon General sez ...
wrote on Sep 1, 2008 4:27 PM:
" You quoted none of the conclusions of those esteemed agencies, Mr. K. You cherry picked "facts" and then did your own "science." When I see a study under your name in a peer-reviewed journal, then I might believe you. Until then, I will be forced to think of you as Gary Krackpot. "
..........................

OSHA has established a permissible exposure limit (PEL), 8-hour time-weighted average, of 10 g/m3 for airborne arsenic in various workplaces.
(NOTE:This is not a study,to be peer reviewed, this is the scientific legal standard!!)

COPD Age Adjusted Death Rates Population, 1979-2002
Age-Adjusted Death Rate per 100,000 Persons

1990 = 35.1

2002 = 42.0

Source: Age Standardization of Death Rates: Implementation of the Year 2000 Standard. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47 No. 3.
Additional Calculations Performed by the American Lung Association, Epidemiology and Statistics Unit. "
(NOTE: This is not a study to be peer reviewed, these are facts as published by 'The American Lung Association')

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke(SG's 2006 Report)
Table 10.1, page 575
2005
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, which documents that cotinine levels decreased 68 percent for children, 69 percent for adolescents, and 75 percent for adults from the early 1990s to 2002. "
(NOTE: This is not a study to be peer reviewed, these are facts as presented by the CDC.)

Perhaps, you would be so kind as to show 'FACTS' showing how these are not correct?

Attacking me may be ego satisfaction for you and make you feel superior; however, this does not change or alter the validity of what I have presented!! "

" One more thing, Mr. K. By "peer-reviewed" I mean reviewed by scientists, not crackpots. "

" You quoted none of the conclusions of those esteemed agencies, Mr. K. You cherry picked "facts" and then did your own "science." When I see a study under your name in a peer-reviewed journal, then I might believe you. Until then, I will be forced to think of you as Gary Krackpot. "

" Surgeon General sez ...
wrote on Sep 1, 2008 1:39 PM:

" I find the federal government and the mainstream medical community infinitely more credible than some anonymous poster on the Internet who could, for all I know, be ensconced in an office at Phillip Morris. I think you'll find, Mr. K, that there is a deep and widespread distrust of any pro-smoking propaganda, thanks to the track record of Big Tobacco. I don't believe you and I'm not going to take the time to investigate your crackpot allegations. "
...............
"there is a deep and widespread distrust of any pro-smoking propaganda "
.....................

Hmmm, I quoted the SG's 2006 Report, THE EPA-THE FDA-The CDC and OSHA.

These organizations are definitely known for their "pro-smoking propaganda and crackpot allegations"!!!
.................

"I don't believe you and I'm not going to take the time to investigate "
..........
Sorry to burst your bubble; but, I do not care about you, these posts are for those that are intellectually honest enough to seek the truth and do not swallow(without question) everything that they are told! "

" I find the federal government and the mainstream medical community infinitely more credible than some anonymous poster on the Internet who could, for all I know, be ensconced in an office at Phillip Morris. I think you'll find, Mr. K, that there is a deep and widespread distrust of any pro-smoking propaganda, thanks to the track record of Big Tobacco. I don't believe you and I'm not going to take the time to investigate your crackpot allegations. "

" Surgeon General sez ...
wrote on Aug 31, 2008 3:42 PM:

" I will get a life when you get a clue."
.....................

This is from someone that accepts,with out question,every statement made by someone in the Federal government and expects the rest of us to follow blindly along!! "

" I will get a life when you get a clue. "

" To Surgeon General Says:

You gotta get a life!! "

" http://www.eoearth.org/article/Public_Health_Statement_for_Arsenic

Finally, OSHA has established a permissible exposure limit (PEL), 8-hour time-weighted average, of 10 g/m3 for airborne arsenic in various workplaces.
............................................

This is the PEL (permissible exposure limit), below which the chemical is considered safe.

And OSHA is being very conservative. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, no symptoms are evident below about 100 ug.

1 ug is one microgram= 1 millionth of a gram, 1 ng is one nanogram = 1 billionth of a gram.

1 ug = 1,000 ng.

10 ug =10,000 ng.

The average cigarette has 32ng of arsenic in all of it's smoke(mainstream and side stream).

10 ug per cubic meter is all of the smoke from 312.5 cigarettes per cubic meter ,on average,continuously for an 8 hour work shift .

Consider a bar that 30 feet by 60 feet with a 12 foot ceiling, this is about 10 meters by 20 meters by 4 meters, this equals about 800 cubic meters.

That bar would have to have 800 x 312.5 cigarettes burning all the time.

This is 250,000 cigarettes burning all of the time.

Remember; according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, no symptoms are evident below about 100 ug.

That means you would have to have about 2,500,000 smokers smoking continuously for 8 hours to reach the minimum harm level in our little bar!!

Which is why OSHA has stated that it's well-nigh impossible to find any actual workplace where its PELs for secondhand smoke or any constituent thereof would be met, let alone exceeded.

The point I'm trying to make is that while "Arsenic" is a 'poison' and even a 'carcinogen' it's neither at these doses. And further, people's normal exposure from other sources is greater by great amounts.

The same kind of calculations can be made for every "poison" and "toxin" in SHS !! "

" " It's quite easy to ask smokers to take their smoke outdoors. It's done most places these days, and considerate smokers don't mind complying with these reasonable rules. "
Wrong, we do mind.It sux when the whole bar is outside in the rain, including the bartender,just in case some wimp might come in and complain. "

" Surgeon General sez ...
wrote on Aug 29, 2008 8:22 PM:

" Of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer. These chemicals include:
* arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
..............
Arsenic can also be present in the food you eat and the water you drink.

This is allowed by the EPA and the FDA.
The 'Dose makes the Poison'.

Arsenic is a 'known human carcinogen'.

Three slices of bacon(normal breakfast portion) would be 30 grams.

The FDA allows there to be 500 nanograms of Arsenic(that deadly cancer causing poison) in each gram of bacon and still be safe.

3 slices of bacon could have 15,000 nanograms of Arsenic and still be FDA safe.

There are about 32 nanograms of Arsenic in ALL of the smoke(mainstream and sidestream) from the average cigarette.

You would have to inhale ALL of the smoke from 469 cigarettes(23.44 packs/2.33 cartons) to equal the FDA safe amount of Arsenic in those 3 slices of bacon.

The FDA allows as 'safe' the same 500 nanograms per gram of arsenic to be in eggs.

A large egg weighs about 2 ounces or 57 grams, two eggs(a normal portion) would weigh 114 grams and could have 57,000 nanograms of arsenic(that deadly cancer causing poison) and still be considered FDA 'safe'.

That amount of arsenic is equal to the arsenic in all of the smoke from 1,781 cigarettes(89 packs/8.9 cartons).

Your 2 eggs and 3 slices of bacon FDA SAFE breakfast could contain the amount of arsenic equal to ALL all of the smoke from 2,250 cigarettes/112.5 packs/11.25 cartons and still be considered FDA SAFE.

Of course, you will always come back for more, the potatoes that you get with your bacon and eggs have that terribly addictive Nicotine in them.

Oooh,you say that you had a 6 oz juice and a 6 oz cup of coffee with your breakfast!

The EPA says that the safe level for arsenic in water is 10 nanograms per gram.

That 12 oz of liquid(mostly water) could have 3,408 nanograms of arsenic and still be EPA SAFE.

That is the amount of arsenic in all of the smoke from 106.5 cigarettes.

Thus, your breakfast could be FDA and EPA safe even if it contained the amount of arsenic in all of the smoke from 2,356.5(11.78 cartons) cigarettes!!

Note: The maximum safe level is always several times(perhaps as much as 10) lower than the minum level for harm.

Yet, we all know that there is NO SAFE LEVELOF EXPOSURE to the toxins in SHS.

We are told that we need smoking bans to protect the servers in smoky places,especially bars.

The antismokers tell us that a bartender in a smoky bar can be exposed to enough SHS to equal smoking 16 cigarettes per shift.

Using the 2,356 cigarettes worth of arsenic for an EPA/FDA safe breakfast, we see that the bartender would have to work 8 hours per day/5 days per week for 29.45 weeks to equal the amount of EPA/FDA
safe arsenic in ONE BREAKFAST!!!!

A patron in a smoky restaurant might dine out twice a week and spend one hour per meal in that restaurant.

Their exposure(2 hours) would be 1/20th that of the bartender and they would have to dine out for 589 weeks(11.33 years) to equal the amount of arsenic from that one FDA/EPA safe breakfast!!

That was for dining in a section where smoking is allowed. In a nonsmoking section of a restaurant, their exposure might be at least 1/10th that of the bartender and thus, they would have to be exposed to said SHS for 113.3 YEARS to equal that one EPA/FDA safe breakfast's worth of arsenic!!!

The Dose makes the Poison!!
However;you say, THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE to SHS. "

" There is less SHS exposure and more Asthma;clearly,SHS has very little to do with asthma.
Gary K.

The Sur Gen's Report states that since 1990 SHS exposure has decreased greatly(68%-kids,69%-teens, and 75% adults).

The Center For Disease Control(CDC) states that since 1980 Asthma rates have increased greatly, 150%.

The Sur Gen's report states that the vast majority of kids' exposure to SHS occurs in the home.Since we are talking about bans in bars and restaurants the kids' health problems are not connected to the issue.

http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8⊂=42#_ftn17

Nearly half (44%) of all asthma hospitalizations are for children. [10]
Asthma is the third-ranking cause of hospitalization children. [11]
The death rate for children under 19 years old has increased by nearly 80% percent since 1980.
......
"...Between 1980 and l995, the number of people reporting asthma in the U.S. more than doubled (from 6.7 million to 13.7 million) [3], a 75% increase in the rate per 100,000 population. [4] And, after a sharp increase beginning in the early l990s, the rate is still climbing. The Centers for Disease Control estimates the l998 rate at 17.3 million, a 150% increase since 1980. [5]

..................
Since 1990 SHS exposure has gone down rather steeply, children 68% and adults by 75%.

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke(SG's 2006 Report)
Table 10.1, page 575
2005
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issues the Third National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, which documents that cotinine levels decreased 68 percent for children, 69 percent for adolescents, and 75 percent for adults from the early 1990s to 2002. "

" The U.S. Surgeon General recently appeared in a TV interview on PBS's News Hour on the day his new report on secondhand smoke was released. He stated repeatedly and emphatically that there was no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. (This is the no threshold theory.) But the very report he was talking about doesn't support what he was saying. It draws no such conclusion, nor does it provide any data to support such a conclusion. The SG was simply not being honest.

The no threshold theory about cancer has never been shown to be true for ANY chemical, much less secondhand smoke. The theory that if something is carcinogenic at high doses it must also be proportionately so at small doses simply does not fit the real world. At least ten elements (including iron and oxygen) are carcinogens at high doses but essential to human life in small doses. And some carcinogens, such as selenium and Vitamin A, are proven anti-carcinogens at low doses. These facts contradict the no-threshold theory. Thresholds are a law of nature; the mere title of one treatise says it all: Environmental CarcinogenesisThe Threshold Principle: A Law of Nature." The authors, Claus and Bolander, state that the no-threshold theory about any dose being dangerous ignores all the fundamental principles of cell biology.

Dr. Elizabeth Miller, former president of the American Association for Research on Cancer, has stated: Chemical carcinogenesis is a strongly dose-dependent phenomenon. This is opposite to the claim by smoking ban advocatesincluding the surgeon generalthat it is not dose dependent, that any dose is a health hazard (no threshold.)

The no-threshold theory, when applied to secondhand smoke, incorporates unsound assumptions that are not valid, says an article by Drs. Huber (pulmonary specialist), Brockie (cardiologist), and Mahajan (a hospital director of internal medicine and professor of medicine.)

Furthermore, thresholds are known to exist for mainstream tobacco smoke in total as well as for each of the individual carcinogens known to exist in it. It is preposterous to claim, as the SG does, that secondhand smokewhich is more than 100,000 times more dilute than mainstream smokehas no threshold, even though mainstream smoke does. This turns the dose-response principle of epidemiology on its head and means secondhand smoke can be more dangerous than actual smoking! Ridiculous! "

" Junk Science and Courtrooms
Understanding Carmona's report requires familiarity with a different report--the Federal Judicial Center's 2000 "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition," the official guide for judges to understand and rule on science introduced in courtrooms.
According to the manual, nearly all the studies cited in Carmona's report wouldn't pass muster in a court of law because they are observational studies, the sample sizes are too small, or the effects they show are too negligible to be reliable.
For example, the Reference Manual states, "the threshold for concluding that an agent was more likely than not the cause of an individual's disease is a relative risk greater than 2.0." Few of the studies Carmona cites found relative risks this large, and most found risks in a range that included 1.0, which means exposure to secondhand smoke had no effect on the incidence of disease. In the world of real science, that's a knockout blow.
Most of the research Carmona cites was rejected by a federal judge in 1993, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherry-picked studies to support its position, misrepresented the most important findings, and failed to honor scientific standards. Carmona's report relies on the same studies and makes the same claims EPA did a decade ago.

Missing Study
Did Carmona and coauthors cherry-pick the data? Absolutely. They ignore the largest and most credible study ever conducted on spouses of smokers, by Enstrom and Kabat, published in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. The authors found:
"The results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Carmona mentions the Enstrom study just once, in an appendix listing studies too recent to include in the report. But Enstrom's study was published four years ago, and Carmona cites more recent studies. In fact, Carmona's principal "findings" were taken from a 2005 report--not a scientific study, merely another report--from California's Clean Air Resources Board, mostly citing the very studies the federal judge rejected in 1993. "

" Hey Surgeon General sez ...

The Surgeon general used the same activist scientist that got caught faking the EPA report. Including the chief scientific editor.

Jonathan M. Samet, M.D., and the 1992 EPA Report
One might wonder how omissions, distortions, and exaggerations like those pointed out above could occur in a document as important as a Surgeon General's Report on ETS. To better understand this phenomena one must realize that Samet has dealt with the ETS issue in this manner for many years. In particular, he played a major role in the epidemiologic analysis for the December 1992 report on Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders: The Report of the United States Environmental Protection Agency [120]. This EPA report classified ETS as a Group A human carcinogen, which causes about 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the U.S. The findings from this report were used in the Broin v. Philip Morris litigation described above.

The epidemiologic methodology and conclusions of the EPA report have been severely criticized. One of the harshest critiques is the 92-page Decision issued by Federal Judge William L. Osteen on July 17, 1998, which overturned the report in the U.S. District Court [121]. For instance, in his conclusion Judge Osteen wrote: "In conducting the Assessment, EPA deemed it biologically plausible that ETS was a carcinogen. EPA's theory was premised on the similarities between MS [mainstream smoke], SS [sidestream smoke], and ETS. In other chapters, the Agency used MS and ETS dissimilarities to justify methodology. Recognizing problems, EPA attempted to confirm the theory with epidemiologic studies. After choosing a portion of the studies, EPA did not find a statistically significant association. EPA then claimed the bioplausibility theory, renominated the a priori hypothesis, justified a more lenient methodology. With a new methodology, EPA demonstrated from the 88 selected studies a very low relative risk for lung cancer based on ETS exposure. Based on its original theory and the weak evidence of association, EPA concluded the evidence showed a causal relationship between cancer and ETS. The administrative record contains glaring deficiencies...." From Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko pseudoscience linked later. "

" The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmokers chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. "

" There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure. "

" Of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer. These chemicals include:
* arsenic (a heavy metal toxin)
* benzene (a chemical found in gasoline)
* beryllium (a toxic metal)
* cadmium (a metal used in batteries)
* chromium (a metallic element)
* ethylene oxide (a chemical used to sterilize medical devices)
* nickel (a metallic element)
* polonium210 (a chemical element that gives off radiation)
* vinyl chloride (a toxic substance used in plastics manufacture)

Many factors affect which chemicals are found in secondhand smoke, including the type of tobacco, the chemicals added to the tobacco, the way the product is smoked, and the paper in which the tobacco is wrapped. "

" Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). "

" Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. "

" Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year. "

" Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces. "

" Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers. "

" Eighteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Montana and Utah prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants; bars will go smokefree in 2009. New Hampshire prohibits smoking in some public places, including all restaurants and bars. Four states - Florida, Idaho, Louisiana and Nevada - prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants, but exempt stand-alone bars. Fifteen states partially or totally prevent (preempt) local communities from passing smokefree air ordinances stronger than the statewide law. Iowa, Nebraska and Oregon have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken effect yet. "

" Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year. Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma. "

" Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades. "

" The current Surgeon Generals Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack. "

" Get.A.Life

Google persistent free radicals and educate yourself. Depending on the air quality in your area you could be inhaling the equivalent of 300 cigarettes a day. "

" Get. A. Life. - "justify it anyway you like; just keep it away from the rest of us. "

That's exactly what a sign on the Business is designed to accomplish. "Smoking Permitted",...or "No Smoking"
The Choice is then up to the individual.

It doesn't get any easier than that. "

" Smoking a pack a day for three months gives the same carcinogens as grilling hot dogs. OHHHH KAYYY. keep on puffing baby and please remove yourself from the gene pool before you reproduce. The rest of you can argue allyou want about SHS. The fact is smoking is a disgusting, smelly, obnoxious habit. You are weak foolish slaves to burning a weed below your nose... justify it anyway you like; just keep it away from the rest of us. "

" I'd like to know which anti-smoking organization "Heather" works for. She has all the worn out, disproved talking points in her obviously well rehearsed and practiced rant. "

" Sorry Pete, I am a considerate smoker and I do mind complying with a law that makes me a second class citizen. You are mistaken that there are dozens of hazardous chemicals in tobacco smoke and it does not cause even mild illness much less death. That is just more of the propoganda you have injested. The entire Surgeon General's report by Carmona has been ruled null and void by the U.S. Supreme Court, but there is no one to stop the spread of the lies contained in it, and the world it seems has fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. A SMOKER smoking a pack a day for 3 months gets the equivalent of the carcinogens from grilling hot dogs on a charcoal grill for 30 minutes and no more than that. Hey, lets ban grilling hot dogs! But we all know that won't happen. Wake up world! "

" The stated reason for smoking bans is that SHS exposure KILLS non-smokers and smoking bans are needed to change that!!

In the early 1990s anti smoking groups claimed that 53,000 non-smokers died from exposure to SHS.

In the early 1990s there were about 140,625,000 non-smokers,53,000 deaths means that there was 1 death per 2,653 non-smokers.

In the current era, pro ban groups claim that SHS exposure causes about 65,00 non-smokers to die per year.

There are about 165,000,000 non-smokers these days, 65,000 deaths is 1 death per 2,538 non-smokers.

Sooo,the antis are saying that after a 75% decrease in SHS exposure and literally thousands of smoking bans of one sort or another, THE DEATH RATE HAS STAYED THE SAME,AND THUS, SMOKING BANS DO NOT PREVENT NON-SMOKERS DEATHS!!!


SMOKING BANS HAVE NOT DECREASED THE NUMBER OF ADULT OR HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH SMOKERS!
Since about 1990 we have seen thousands of federal,state, and local smoking bans passed. Due to increased excise taxes and MSA costs,the price of cigarettes has gone up tremendously. Billions of OUR money have been spent trying to force smokers to quit.
The result?
In 1990 about 43.125 million adults smoked cigarettes, in 2007 about 45 million adults smoked cigarettes!!

That is a 4.16% increase in the number of adult cigarette smokers!!

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/trendchart_c.asp?state_c=US&state=IL&qkey=10000&SUBMIT1=Go
1990 the population was 250 million, 75% were adults = 187.5 million, 23% smoked is 187.5 x 23% = 43.125 million.

2007 population was 300 million, 75% were adults = 225 million, 20% smoked = 45 million cigarette smokers.

These numbers do not show cigar and pipe smokers for a total smoker number.

The same numbers hold true for high school youth cigarette smoking.

In 1991(27.45% of 6% of the population) about 4.11 million high school kids smoked.
In 2005(23% of 6% of the population) about 4.14 million high school kids smoked. "

" I might point out that a lower adult smoking rate(50%) and a greatly reduced SHS exposure rate(87%) over the last 40 years have led to a 121% increase in lung cancer deaths, a 20% increase in COPD deaths since 1990, and since 1980 a 50% increase in asthma deaths.

Whatever is causing more and more of our children and adults to contract and die from asthma, lung cancer, and COPD -it's not tobacco smoke and smoking bans will do nothing to stop the slaughter.
Gary K.

Health,United States,2006
Page 229
Table 39 (page 1 of 3). Death rates for malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus, and lung, by age: United States, selected years 19502004
Lung Cancer deaths (age adjusted) were:
1960
24.1 per 100,000
2004
53.2 per 100,000
This is a 121% increase.

http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8⊂=42

The prevalence of asthma has been increasing since the early 1980s across all age, sex and racial groups.

Mortality:
Since 1980 asthma death rates overall have increased more than 50% among all genders, age groups and ethnic groups.

COPD Age Adjusted Death Rates Population, 1979-2002
Age-Adjusted Death Rate per 100,000 Persons

1990 = 35.1

2002 = 42.0

Source: Age Standardization of Death Rates: Implementation of the Year 2000 Standard. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47 No. 3.
Additional Calculations Performed by the American Lung Association, Epidemiology and Statistics Unit. "

" Heather wrote "So the next time I hear a local citizen whether in Madison or a small town in Wisconsin take up the anti-smoking ban cause, the first thing that will come to mind is ignorant citizen. "

I must say Heather, that an ignorant citizen is one who will not make a responsible choice about where to go or work that is suitable for them. An ignorant citizen is one that requires the state to step in and make that decision for them. This is not a one size fits all world. "

" Democracy works best when the lawful rights of the minority are enforced with the same vigor
as those of the majority "

" I can see the headlines now: all white foods are banned as they are bad for diabetics, no more boiled shrimp either. Or milk or tortillas. Hey, lets ban them lest they cause a diabetic attack on someone. Let's protect them from themselves. Of course it doesn't harm anyone else nearby, other that someone having to watch a diabetic attack, but hey, there's a thought. But neither does second hand smoke, which HAS been proven as nothing more than water vapor and CANNOT harm anyone nearby, other than of course, those who have been so brainwashed as to actually have an episode of not being able to breath just seeing a lit cigarette, such as the young boy who suddenly couldn't breath seeing someone with a cigarette in hand nearby. It turned out that the cigarette was nothing more than a PEN! Just another example of psychosomatic illness brought on by smokers, it's non-existant! And these smoking bans are brought forth from the years of propoganda spewed by the big pharmas and people stupid enough to believe their lies! Just think, eating swiss chard protect someone from harm from second hand smoke. I just heard that on a morning news show. I have never eaten it, don't know anyone who has, but of course I have NEVER know anyone who has even had a day's illness from it, much less died from it, and I've been around awhile. I will never apologize for calling anyone stupid, that's the way it is, the proof IS out there, and NOT in cherry picked data that predetermines a paid for result. Civil War can't be far away with all of this "

" "The majority of the people in our great state are nonsmokers. And since nonsmokers are the majority of the population, it is up to the elected officials to stand up to do whats right for the majority of the state they work for."

I'm an African-American smoker, and this baby is implying the state works for nonsmokers only....they don't care about smokers.

The majority of the US are W people. But the last time I checked, govt officials work for people of ALL races. And yes, we Blacks AND we smokers DO make a difference in America by voting.

My point is this baby is making a HUGE mistake by implying that the govt only listens to the majority. If that's the real case, then I shouldn't vote in November since I come from a minority race.

And smokers SHOULD be allowed to vote on smoking ban proposals for that matter.

http://chicagosmoker-jay.blogspot.com/ "

" When the government decides what you eat, how to dress, what color curtains you can have in your home, we will see who starts yelling about the government sticking their nose into something they know nothing about. They don't know a thing about MY PRIVATELY owned business and they sure as hell don't have the right to tell me what's best for MY business. Cigarettes have the same ingredients as your stinky perfume, cleaners, and other products out there. I hope you don't eat some vegetables. Holy cow you might die because of the nicotine in some of them.
If people don't like the smoke in the bars, stay the hell out. If you can't stand blood and guts you aren't going to become a nurse or doctor are you??? If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. "

" The first thing I think of when I here anyone take up the cause of Anti-smoking is "uninformed socialist",...or "useful idiot"

Nonsmoking patrons and employees enter a private establishment as a privilege extended by the owner, not as a constitutional right. This does not automatically confer any entitlement to a special consideration of their individual preferences for a smoke-free environment if it is not in the business owners interest to provide this environment while acting only as their host. The private business owners right to allow his patrons and/or employees to engage in a legal activity supersedes the intolerance of that activity by those who would patronize, or accept employment in the establishment by that privilege. Property owner preferences are paramount in maintaining a choice for the minority that would readily accept the invitation due specifically to the type of environment available, as opposed to the majority who may or may not decline it.
The "majority" has, and has always had a choice, but it is clear that the proponents of smoking bans believe that the minority should have no choice whatsoever.

Business and Property owners, patrons, and employees have the right to contract and associate freely. Anyone that accepts an open invitation to enter a property where the express consent to smoke is made known through appropriate signage, including employees, or persons that seek employment, does so with the universal knowledge and common law understanding that they do not own the property and that the terms of that invitation or employment are established by the owner of that property.
There is no obligation to enter, patronize, and accept or continue being employed..EVER.

Using the solicited force of law to enact restraints of private property rights under a banner of We know better than you because majority rules without regard for minority rights is in fact, Tyranny by Majority.
By making criminals of those that disagree with this myopic new morality and of those who decline to join the cult by abandoning their personal freedom of choice, the very definition of Utopian Socialism is realized.

Increasing restraints on private property rights continues to shift the balance of power from the personal attributes and aspirations of the owner toward behavior that political authorities, and commercially motivated paternalist organizations approve. That is not a fundamental purpose of having a system of strong private property rights. Eliminating the choice by property owners in providing accommodation to smokers is a clear and prejudicial violation of the property owners right to quiet enjoyment, exclusive use, and all other enumerated benefits of ownership.

Ignoring the available weight of evidence that directly contradicts the quasi science behind Smoking Bans in order to promote the illusion of a level playing field and eliminating any choice of venue available to smokers is in direct opposition to the great diversity of personal preferences and abundant options available to meet those preferences that are the basic building blocks of what a Free Market Economy is designed to offer and excel at in providing.
Artificially created Level Playing Fields are a failed economic fantasy and have no place in a Free Market Economy. "

" One thing Heather is forgetting is that we ARE protected from second-hand smoke. The vast majority of businesses ARE smoke free. By FORCING small businesses to be smoke-free, the only thing that accomplishes is to alienate the majority of their customers (we must assume that if a business allows smoking it is because they wish to accommodate a MAJORITY of their customers). This will result in many small business owners losing their businesses. If you support liberty, then you must stand strong against any government mandated smoking bans.

If you believe that second-hand smoke causes cancer, and then you work at, or patronize one of these businesses and develop cancer, then I have about as much sympathy for you as someone who stands on the railroad tracks and gets hit by a train. "

" Of course, there is no rationale that I can think of for the government to be involved in saving people from themselves. Should the government be patting itself on its back for a reduction in the number of smokers out there? No eff'n way.

I consider myself to be an amateur constitutional scholar with great interest in original intent. Interestingly, I see no mention of the government's role in stopping people from smoking. In fact, I would consider that to be an interference that the Constitution specifically forbids - not that anybody seems to care these days since "public health and welfare" seems to trump all and gives the government the authority to rule our lives and spend our tax dollars on silly pursuits like the war on drugs and the war on smokers.

As I see it, when everything else is perfect and our country is one, big happy place and everybody is living comfortably and crime is at a standstill, then maybe funneling money into a black hole like drugs and tobacco might be justified. But until we hit that utopia, our elected officials need to stop trying to compensate for their overt failures by hitching their wagons to "sure things" like tobacco. "

" Heather is correct in pointing out that the majority do not smoke. It is also true that the majority of businesses do not allow smoking. As distasteful as some people find smoking it is still a legal product. Businesses are private property. When you put those two things together to deny the owner of a business to use a legal product or to allow their guests to use a legal product goes against every principle this country was founded on. The founding fathers thought property rights were so important that they mentioned property rights in three of the ten amendments known as the bill of rights.
Pete's comment on considerate smokers is nothing but a ploy to paint smokers who don't want a ban in a negative light. The opposite is equally true. A considerate non-smoker don't try to force their will on businesses through force of law. Once you allow the government to allow the owner of a property from using a legal product on their property there is no limit as to what they can control on private property. People have to remember we do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. This from WIKI

"Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to diminish the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals and minority groups from the tyranny of the majority by placing theoretical checks on the power of the majority of the population."

Like I said bans go against every principals the founding fathers stood for. "

" I agree very strongly with Heather Betsinger's opinion. Politicians should be protecting the health of the 80 percent who don't smoke from secondhand smoke. There are dozens of hazardous chemicals in tobacco smoke that can cause serious illness and even death. It's quite easy to ask smokers to take their smoke outdoors. It's done most places these days, and considerate smokers don't mind complying with these reasonable rules. "