 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spectator
Yea but even so, smoking is stupid period. Smokers are paying to die sooner and non smokers should not be imposed second hand smoke.
Maybe the studies aren't accurate but we know one thing for sure: Cigarettes causes harm and harm only anyway you look at it. The law is really based on this.
Spec. |
I won't argue that smoking isn't stupid, because I believe it is. But that's not what the debate is about.
The government doesn't have the right to arbitrarily prohibit certain legal behavior within private busineses. Eating Bic Macs are certainly more unhealthy, as far as we know, than being exposed to second-hand smoke. Under this rationale, we should then be prohibiting their sale.
The bottom line is that people in this country are free to partake in legal activities, whatever their health consequences, to their heart's content. I can't see any valid rationale, except my own, for the ban, as it is an obvious infringement on the rights of someone to set the rules for his own private property. And if they are going to cite health risks, they should at LEAST be ones that are proven, not the, pardon the pun, smoke and mirrors of the EPA study.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that second-hand smoke is a health risk. Citations of such a risk invariably go back to the EPA's study in the early 1990s, which is horribly flawed and contradicted by numerous other independent studies. In 1998 a U.S. judge vacated most of the report, saying that they had arrived at a conclusion and then made up a study to support it. So the study carries no official weight at all, yet laws come out still based on it... brilliant! |
There has been more than the EPA study...
In 1986 the US surgeon general released a report detailing second-hand smoke hazards. There was also one by the "Expert Committee on Passive Smoking", National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NAS/NRC).
Both of which concluded that:
It can cause lung cancer in healthy adult nonsmokers;
Children of parents who smoke have more respiratory symptoms and acute lower respiratory tract infections, as well as evidence of reduced lung function, than do children of nonsmoking parents; and
Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce but does not eliminate a nonsmoker's exposure to second-hand smoke
There were also many studies in the 1970s:
quote:
ETS [Environmental Tobacco Smoke] Exposure in Infants and Children
Studies dating from the early 1970s have consistently shown that children and infants exposed to ETS in the home have significantly elevated rates of respiratory symptoms and respiratory tract infections. More than 50 recently published studies confirm these previous conclusions:
ETS exposure due to parental smoking, especially the mother's, contributes to 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually of lower respiratory tract infection (pneumonia, bronchitis, and other infections) in infants and children under 18 months of age; 7,500 to 15,000 of these cases require hospitalization.
ETS exposure is associated with increased respiratory irritation (cough, phlegm production, and wheezing) and middle ear infections, as well as upper respiratory tract symptoms (sore throats and colds) in infants and children.
ETS exposure increases the number of episodes and the severity of asthma in children who already have the disease. The EPA report estimates that ETS worsens the condition in 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children. Moreover, ETS exposure increases the number of new cases of asthma in children who have not previously exhibited symptoms.
ETS exposure in utero and in infancy can alter lung function and structure and create other changes that are known to predispose children to long-term pulmonary risks.
In the United States, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the major cause of death in infants between the ages of 1 month and 1 year, and the linkage with maternal smoking is well established. Current evidence strongly suggests that infants whose mothers smoke are at an increased risk of dying of SIDS. This risk is independent of other known risk factors for SIDS, including low birth weight and low gestational age, both of which are specifically associated with active smoking during pregnancy. Additional studies are needed to determine whether the increased risk is related to in utero or postnatal exposure to tobacco smoke, or to both. |
Source: http://quitsmoking.about.com/librar...ly/aa092799.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Peter Triggs
|
|
Gone Fishin, Canada
Jan 2000
time: 05:27
|
|
Ming,
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Should we make fast food illegal?
|
Nahhh... the fat people will just sue the fast food restaurants for selling them the food they ask for...
|
I expect you know this, but it was in the news recently (sorry, no link) that they tried and failed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
As for the poor besieged physicians who's malpractice insurance is sky-high. Tough ****! I recognize there's a problem with the current system but we have to have some way to make physicians accountable for there actions. The MD creeps who whine the loudest over this issue are also the ones who refuse to allow anyone other than MD's from judging their transgressions. People talk about the police 'wall of silence' but thats nothing compared to the MD's. Until that bunch of bullshit ends I say sue their fat money-grubbing asses off when they ****-up. |
My mother was a physician for many years, and was never sued once. In fact she was an expert witness in many lawsuits, as is a friend of mine from college. Her malpractice insurance accounted for 25% of the gross income from her practice. That's before she paid any of her employees, or the rent on her offices etc., and Internal Medicine isn't one of the riskier (for lawsuits) types of practices.
This whole thing has been driven by two special interest groups, namely the Trial Lawyers and Insurance Companies. They both profit hugely from it. If you are wondering how insurance companies could possibly profit from this, consider that insurance is a percentage business. They keep a percentage of what is paid out in premiums for their profit, the rest is ostensibly used to pay out claims. There are two ways to increase the revenues (and thus the profits) in this sort of business. Firstly you can increase the number of customers that you serve, and secondly is to increase the amount of money you get from your existing customers. Thus the insurance companies play a lot of little games.
One popular game they play is to roll over and settle out of court in cases which are likely fraudulent, and in any case weak. This of course ruins the name of their client, and makes him almost uninsurable, but it cuts their exposure to financial risk and raises the risk of similar suits, which raises the premiums for their clients. Nice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
There has been more than the EPA study...
In 1986 the US surgeon general released a report detailing second-hand smoke hazards. |
Ah yes, C. Everett Koop...hardly a bastion of unbiased thinking in this matter. The focus of that report was on firsthand smoking, and it devoted only 3 pages (out of over 300) to second-hand smoke. It's findings were far from conclusive:
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/ip/sigs/...oc/canstudy.txt
"We found however that the evidence in support of this opinion is far from conclusive.
Concerning lung cancer among spouses, the 1986 review of the US Surgeon General is largely an examination of three prospective and ten retrospective studies. Highlights of these findings, provided in his tables 7, 8 and 9, can be found in our table 2.
In our judgement, Table 2 does not support the Surgeon General's thesis, since two thirds of the studies tabled --9 out of 13-- do not provide relative risk coefficients statistically different from one. Of the four studies which would support the Surgeon General's thesis that smoking is dangerous for non-smokers, the findings two are highly tenuous. With reference to the study by Trichopoulos, the Surgeon General (USDHHS, 1986) observes that some biases may have arisen in the selection and interview process. As well, 'the diagnosis of cancer was not confirmed for 35 per cent of the cases'. In the study by Correa et al. the sample was limited to 30 cases overall."
And let's look at some specific statements of Koop's:
quote:
"None of the studies with data on parental smoking had sufficient numbers to examine the effects of parental smoking on non-smokers."
"The workplace, an important source of tobacco smoke exposure, was not considered in the early studies on involuntary smoking. Later case-control studies provided some information on tobacco exposure at work, but the data were limited and inconclusive."
"There are, at present, insufficient data to adequately evaluate the role of involuntary smoking in adult cancers other than primary carcinoma of the lung." |
All studies conducted in those times were inherently flawed due to very small sample sizes.
In 1998, the World Health Organization conducted the most comprehensive study ever done on second-hand smoke:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
"The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years. The participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects. Patients with smoking related diseases were excluded from the control group. None of the subjects in either group had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime."
What were WHOs findings?
quote:
The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.
The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means
• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.
• The 1.16 number is not statistically significant.
The real RR can be any number within the CI. The CI includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the number 1.16 is not statistically significant.
The study found no Dose/Response relationship for spousal ETS exposure.
The RR for workplace ETS was 1.17 with a CI of .94 - 1.45, well below the preferred 2.0 - 3.0, and with another CI that straddled 1.0.
The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14, with a CI of .88 - 1.47.
The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a CI of .64 - .96. This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the CI. |
WHO didn't like these results and tried to bury them, but British press smoked them out.
An article from the European Wall Street Journal:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:27
|
|
Smoking is banned for no other reason so as to stop people from holding governments responsible through legal action. Whether or not smoking is bad for you or not is irrelevant.
In this case, it's quite ironic that the city is being sued for banning smoking  If i was the victim, i would expect my family to seek justice, NOT profiteer from my demise 
Suing whoever has the most money because they have the most money is completely immoral, which defies the whole purpose of suing in the first place.
You bloody Yanks have started the curse here in Australia. Recently, we have had scumbags sue for losing fights they started in school, crims injuring themselves while escaping from prison, idiots sue councils for diving head first into beach water, and a complete arsehole who sued a restaurant for slipping on liquid spilled by their own child who they refused to control! For chrissake, imagine being able to walk into a shop, throw water on the floor, hurl yourself onto the ground and pocket millions! 
I suspect that these are the same people who would loot hospitals and museums if ever they had the chance 
As for doctors "being made accountable", nothing of the sort is happening. Doctors simply get insurance and pass the costs onto patients.
This is the fault of lawyers, who, in Australia at least, go under the guise of the "Law Reform Commission", which is basically a bunch of greedy lawyers conspiring to find new ways to make truckloads of money
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:27
|
|
Theres so much here,
Ming:
quote:
We are talking about no longer being able to afford the insurance they need to do their jobs... I don't call that being a Chicken ****, I call it just a sad commentary on the current tort system. |
The reason physicians leave their field of medicine (its not like they stop being physicians) is not because they cant afford malpractice insurance it's because paying the premiums cuts into their high salaries. So its not like these Albert Sweitzers are being forced to give up their lifes work and live in the streets.
quote:
I would like to see a screening panel put in place for all medical malpractice suits. Made up of a few lawyers, a few doctors, and the majority made up of just real people. And let them decide whether a case should go forward. |
Except that the group who opposes these types of suggestions is the AMA. They want to keep their star-chamber powers, and it's abundantly clear that the boys-club members stick together. They don’t accept that anyone else (beside a judge) should be able to regulate the activities of their members. Why is it that I can go onto ebay and see how many complaints have been filed against someone who is going to sell me a cpu but I cant find out how many operations a surgeon has bungled who will do eye surgery on me?
Boris:
I agree with your position, just a small point
quote:
Pissing on people is a definite health risk, |
Only a small one, urine from healthy individuals is virtually sterile, especially from males. Saliva is a bigger risk.
Sikander:
quote:
My mother was a physician for many years, and was never sued once. In fact she was an expert witness in many lawsuits, as is a friend of mine from college. Her malpractice insurance accounted for 25% of the gross income from her practice. That's before she paid any of her employees, or the rent on her offices etc., and Internal Medicine isn't one of the riskier (for lawsuits) types of practices. |
Lots of businesses have lots of high costs associated with them. Whether a physician spends 25% or 75% of their gross income on malprctice costs is irrelevant. Show me a starving physician on food stamps and we'll talk. I have no sympathy for these guys whining about malpractice costs while driving the latest mercedes.
quote:
This whole thing has been driven by two special interest groups, namely the Trial Lawyers and Insurance Companies. They both profit hugely from it. If you are wondering how insurance companies could possibly profit from this, consider that insurance is a percentage business. They keep a percentage of what is paid out in premiums for their profit, the rest is ostensibly used to pay out claims. There are two ways to increase the revenues (and thus the profits) in this sort of business. Firstly you can increase the number of customers that you serve, and secondly is to increase the amount of money you get from your existing customers. Thus the insurance companies play a lot of little games.
One popular game they play is to roll over and settle out of court in cases which are likely fraudulent, and in any case weak. This of course ruins the name of their client, and makes him almost uninsurable, but it cuts their exposure to financial risk and raises the risk of similar suits, which raises the premiums for their clients. Nice. |
I have no sympathy for the Insurance companies.
Everyone wants to blame the lawyers but lets not forget that a jury of peers decides these cases and sets the awards. You want someone to blame for the rising costs of malpractice insurance that cuts into physicians profits? Blame the juries who give the awards. Blame yourself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
In 1998, the World Health Organization conducted the most comprehensive study ever done on second-hand smoke:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
"The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years. The participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects. Patients with smoking related diseases were excluded from the control group. None of the subjects in either group had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime."
What were WHOs findings?
WHO didn't like these results and tried to bury them, but British press smoked them out. |
I am dismayed that you rely on such hack sites as sources fo information, instead of established medical journals such as The Lancet.
I direct your attention to an article in volume 335, number 9211 (2000/04/08) of The Lancet with the title "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study." (The website requires registration but the article is free.)
quote:
Scientific reports on second-hand smoke have stimulated legislation on clean indoor air in the USA, but less so in Europe. Recently, the largest European study, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), demonstrated a 16% increase in the point estimate of risk in lung cancer for nonsmokers, a result consistent with earlier studies. However, the study was described by newspapers and the tobacco industry as demonstrating no increase in risk. |
quote:
The Philip Morris tobacco company feared that the study (and a possible IARC monograph on second-hand smoke) would lead to increased restrictions in Europe so they spearheaded an inter-industry, three-prong strategy to subvert IARC's work. |
[emphasis theirs]
Read the article - it is very revealing.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-04-2003 02:51
Exposure to smoke takes time to have a health risk.
|