Michael Siegel and the tobacco taliban
Friday, April 3, 2009 As regular readers know, Michael Siegel is a professor at Boston University School of Public Health. With 20 years' experience in tobacco control, he writes a fascinating blog - The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary - which is essential reading for anyone with an interest in the smoking debate.
In his time Siegel has published research on the harmful effects of passive smoking. He has also testified in support of indoor smoking bans in US cities. You might expect him therefore to be another one-eyed anti-smoker, like so many of his colleagues.
Not so. Demonstrating remarkable integrity, both personal and professional, Siegel has put his career on the line by questioning some of the medical claims about passive smoking, and opposing "next step" policies such as outdoor smoking bans.
For his pains he has been shunned by colleagues and accused of taking money from the tobacco industry. Courageously, Siegel has stuck to his guns and his story is featured in a must-read article in this week's New Scientist. Here's a taste:
Siegel's case is perhaps the most clear-cut example of a disturbing trend in the anti-smoking movement. There are genuine scientific questions over some of the more extreme claims made about the dangers of passive smoking and the best strategies to reduce smoking rates, but a few researchers who have voiced them have seen their reputations smeared and the debate stifled.
Putting aside the question of whether such tactics are ethical, they could ultimately backfire. About half of US states and many parts of Europe do not yet ban smoking even indoors in public places like bars and restaurants, so the anti-smoking movement cannot afford to lose credibility.
On the other hand, in some parts of the US, particularly California, the anti-smoking movement has grown so strong that smoking bans outdoors and in private apartments are in force in a few places, and being considered in more. These measures are at least partly based on disputed medical claims, so it is vital their accuracy be determined. But questioning the orthodoxy seems to be frowned on. "It's censorship," says Siegel. "We're heading towards scientific McCarthyism."
Read the full article HERE.
See also an accompanying editorial, The dangers of inhaling dubious facts.
Reader Comments (126)
Idlex says: “When the confidence interval straddles 1.0, as in 0.8-1.2, it means that it is equally probable that passive smoking has a small protective effect as that it poses a small health risk. It is NOT suggestive of harm.”
Well, that may be right where the confidence interval straddles 1.0 evenly. But in most passive smoking studies they are not - they are heavily loaded above 1. While the results may not be statistically significant for an individual study, they remain suggestive. And so it is no surprise that pooled results should both show a clear increased risk to health from passive smoking, but an increased risk that is statistically significant too.
And you resort to the old "Rollo must be part of ASH" routine. How very droll. I have my own views, forged by my own research. By the way, why are you quoting an email to Michael J McFadden when you have no idea what question(s) he asked????
Pat Nurse: Your latest post betrays the real zealotry of your views.
You complain about “a blanket smoking ban”. What blanket smoking ban? People are still allowed to smoke, just not in enclosed public places.
You talk about people who enjoy mountain climbing, horse riding and motor racing. You then say “There are doctors who still believe smoking has medicinal values, btw.” All this shows is the selfish nature of your attitude as a smoker yourself. You are thinking about the effects of smoking on the smoker’s own health. My argument is not about that. As I have said, I have no problem with a smoker putting their own health at risk. My concern is about the effects of a person smoking on the health of people around them. Tell me - what are the supposed medicinal values about being forced to inhale someone else’s smoke?
The so-called “whims of the health obsessed anti-smoking lobby” as you describe them actually amount to thousands of deaths in the UK each year. Is that really so minor? You have decided that the evidence about the health risks of passive smoking is weak. How do you justify this position? Just how hard have you objectively researched the issue (not just the pro-smoking propaganda) in order to reach a considered viewpoint?
Your point about “other, more harmful pollutants (traffic for example)” is also deeply ironic. Speaking for myself, I drive a car but am careful to ensure that my car emissions are well within legal limits. So I consider my position to be entirely consistent. But, more to the point, how do you know that car pollution is harmful to health? The evidence for that uses the very same epidemiological methods are apply to passive smoking. If you don’t accept that passive smoking is harmful, why are you so quick to conclude that traffic fumes are?
You say “It has never been acceptable to have sex in public, to play unreasonably loud music, or drive cars without due care etc.” I’ll agree with you on that. But it is so ironic that you cannot see that your right to smoke should be exercised with the very same consideration for others as your right to have sex, your right to play music and your right to drive. For too many years the right to smoke has been virtually unique in that it has been given a status whereby it trumps the rights of others who have to endure it. The right to smoke is now on a level playing field with these other rights. You have the right to smoke, just not in enclosed public places where other might suffer from the SHS your cigarettes produce.
West2: You complain that I am putting words in your mouth. I have absolutely no desire to do so. Perhaps in your next comments you might make your point a bit clearer, rather than simply making some vague reference to discussion unknown at time unknown and location unknown.
You are also irked that I commented how you have never explained how bodies as diverse as SCOTH, IARC and the US Surgeon General can still reach such similar conclusions. My point is perfectly valid. You are accusing the SCOTH members of bias, even though you are unable to find criticism on the substance of the SCOTH report. If the SCOTH members were biased, then their results should have materially differed from those of the IARC and USSG. But they did not. And you have no grounds for complaining that the IARC or USSG were biased. So where are your grounds for stating that the SCOTH report was tainted by bias?
SIMON - MY POSTS APPEAR TO HAVE INCURRED THE WRATH OF A FEW PRO-SMOKERS. BUT I DO NOT WANT THE FOCUS OF MY FIRST MESSAGE TO BE LOST.
YOU ARE QUICK TO CITE MICHAEL SIEGEL TO DEMAND THAT THE TOBACCO CONTROL LOBBY OPERATES WITH PROFESSIONALISM, INTEGRITY AND TRUTH. I ABSOLUTELY STAND BEHIND MICHAEL SIEGEL IN THAT MESSAGE.
BUT, SINCE YOU HAVE RAISED THIS ISSUE, DO YOU ALSO HAVE THE COURAGE TO CRITICISE FOREST, FREEDOM 2 CHOOSE, FORCES.ORG AND OTHER PRO-SMOKING GROUPS WHERE THEY ATTEMPT TO DISTORT VALID PROFESSIONAL SCIENCE????
Rollo, I am afraid you have lost the plot mate.
Rollo said "West2: You complain that I am putting words in your mouth. I have absolutely no desire to do so" and then said "
"You are also irked that I commented how you have never explained how bodies as diverse as SCOTH, IARC and the US Surgeon General can still reach such similar conclusions"
Irked? I just said you never asked.
And Rollo also said " You are accusing the SCOTH members of bias, even though you are unable to find criticism on the substance of the SCOTH report"
Where have I accused the SCOTH members of bias?
Rollo you are Lord Faulkener and I claim my £5.
Have your say, discuss the rights and wrongs of the UK smoking ban :
www.uksmokingban.forumotion.com
Why,why, why do the pro freedom people waste so much
time discussing the basics of human freedom with
such pathetic , small minded neurotics like little
Rollo. The poor creature has probably never had a REAL
job or served in the military. Obviously showing
advanced symptons of some deep entrenched parent/child
relationship disorder , this deprived human will tread
through life dismayed at any show of happiness in his
own species.
SCOTH,IARC and the Surgeon General diverse bodies? and I thought all lying,cheating,hate mongering parasitic Nazi scumbags all knew each other. I wonder why.
The richest movement that has ever existed in history is the Anti-Smoking Crusade, and when the money runs out in the not too distant future, Rollo, your precious 'valid professional science' ( should read 'clever professional scam' ) will also begin to disappear as surely as a fart in a colander as the scammers move on to pastures new, although probably not, unfortunately,to prison where they all belong. Shame.
Sit in an enclosed space Rollo, emitting your carefully legal exhaust-gases and see how you feel after an hour. No epidemiology involved!
Rollo Tommasi wrote: While the results may not be statistically significant for an individual study, they remain suggestive. And so it is no surprise that pooled results should both show a clear increased risk to health from passive smoking, but an increased risk that is statistically significant too.
I see. So while individual studies are merely 'suggestive' and not statistically significant, the pooled results show a 'clear risk' which is statistically significant.
That is exactly like saying that if 10 people with inaccurate rulers measure the length of a piece of wood, and get 10 different wrong answers, we should not worry about it overmuch. For all we need to do is to pool their results together, and, Hey Presto, the right answer will drop out. In this manner, through inaccuracy we can find accuracy.
I wish you were right. Science would be so much simpler if we were able to dispose of all the scales and rulers and clocks that we have so laboriously developed, and could simply pool our inaccurate guesses of Mass and Length and Time in order to attain exact measures of them.
But I suspect, when you engage in your 'pooling' process, that you are subtracting the errors rather than multiplying them.
And you resort to the old "Rollo must be part of ASH" routine. How very droll. I have my own views, forged by my own research.
I didn't say you were part of ASH. I do however imagine that you are some sort of player in the well-funded antismoking profession (and it is pretty much a profession these days).
But if you say that you're not, I'm quite happy to take you at your word. I simply wonder what sort of person spends many of his unpaid hours advancing the antismoking cause on various internet forums like you appear to do.
Of course, you could ask the same question of me. "What," you might ask, "Are you you doing here defending the filthy, cancerous habit of smoking if you weren't in the pay of Big Tobacco?"
I could give an answer to that question. But since you haven't asked it, I see no immediate need to do so.
And just exactly how do you 'forge' this research of yours? There are several meanings of the word 'forge', some redolent of hammers industriously beating upon unyielding metal, others suggestive of something quite different and quite utterly corrupt.
By the way, why are you quoting an email to Michael J McFadden when you have no idea what question(s) he asked????
It really doesn't matter what question Michael McFadden asked. He may not have asked any question at all. It's the reply he got, and what it revealed, that mattered.
As a variation on Idlex's point (and sorry if anyone's already made it; haven't read the whole thread) I form my own analogy about the results of a meta-analysis. To wit;
50 people, each without a ruler, take a look at a foot long piece of wood. The first estimates the measurement with 95% confidence as being between 10 and 16 inches; the next estimates 11 to 14' the next, 13 to 15 and so on and so on. Does picking a median and mathematically averaging it give you the "true" answer?
Hey, what do you know? I reckon there have been 8 posts since my last. And in those 8, there was possibly only 1 substantive point made about the issues. Most of the others were personal comments about me – what does that say about the strength of the pro-smokers’ arguments?
Let me deal with the one substantive comment. Idlex says “I see. So while individual studies are merely 'suggestive' and not statistically significant, the pooled results show a 'clear risk' which is statistically significant.” He then makes gives some analogy or other using inaccurate rulers.
The individual studies are NOT inaccurate. The issue is that studies with smaller sample sizes tend to have larger confidence intervals than those with larger sample sizes. The lager the confidence interval, the greater the chance the interval will straddle 1.0. One of the effects of pooling studies is to give more certainty to the results by narrowing the confidence interval within which the true reading lies. To that extent, pooling results does allow greater precision – but the initial studies were already accurate, in terms of being professionally produced.
If Idlex thinks this is odd, he should look at law court verdicts. Sometimes an accused will be convicted because of a single devastating piece of evidence. But more often, (s)he is convicted on the basis of several pieces of evidence. Together they corroborate each other and give a clearer impression of what actually happened. Pooling epidemiological studies provides that same kind of clarity through corroboration. But if judges and juries had to apply the rule deployed by some pro-smokers (where each study has to be statistically significant on its own), they could never find an accused guilty unless a single piece of evidence was sufficient in itself to secure the conviction. What a disaster for the justice system that would be.
And I should add, I was humoured by the comments about me supposedly spending all my time on these boards. I actually don’t – but I’m pleased that my contributions have clearly made such a mark in your memories. Of course, I do often keep going when I do enter a discussion thread. It seems others can’t cope with having their arguments challenged (especially when they don’t know how to respond) and so fly off instead to other threads or to the bosom of the F2C forum where they know they’ll find friends, even if they don’t find truth.
Anyway guys, I'm not going to be interrupting again any time soon today.
Hopefully by the time I next come onto this board, Simon will have responded to my challenge and labelled the same charge of distorting the science upon Forest as he has been so happy to gloat about over what Michael Siegel says about parts of the tobacco control movement. See post 2 for examples of Forest's deceit (from Sat 4 April @ 09.05).
If Simon needs examples of how the likes of forces.org and Freedom2Choose have corrupted the truth, all he has to do is ask.
Does Rollo know who Simon is?
The individual studies are not accurate (because of the amount of guesswork involved in selecting data about smoke exposure).
More to the point, Rollo, they are not scientific analyses, they are statistical, so they don't demonstrate causation. Not only that, they are not statistically signficant by themselves. So when you gather them together it may (by narrowing the confidence interval) render them more statistically significant, but that does not prove that they are any more relevant.
Your consideration of the law courts is interesting as no law court should base a conviction on a statistical correlation. Did you read the news report yesterday about a father of a child with an unexplained blood clot who was told by a social worker that because he was a serviceman who had had an unconventional upbringing (raised by his grandfather) there was a greater risk that he had assaulted his child. No further evidence of abuse could be found but he lost custody of his child for months, on the basis of a statistical association. Even there were any truth in the idea that servicemen who have been orphaned in their youth batter their kids more, it was the wrong kind of 'evidence' to use in this case. Indeed it was a case of guilt by association, rather than innocent till proven guilty: exactly the kind of justice fostered by the anti-smoking movement.
Lots of inappropriate evidence does not make for a better conviction.
Rollo - "My concern is about the effects of a person smoking on the health of people around them. Tell me - what are the supposed medicinal values about being forced to inhale someone else’s smoke?" -
you wouldn't have to breathe anyone else's smoke if we had choice - segregation/ ventilation. Anti-smokers are ths selfish ones. They are completely devoid of tolerance, full of hatred, and anti-social to the point of demanding other human beings are excluded publically
"What blanket smoking ban? People are still allowed to smoke, just not in enclosed public places" -
The blanket smoking ban that means a minority group is socially excluded in public. You know, that thing that was brought in on a whim to satisfy selfish anti-smokers like you who want all places to yourselves. No - smokers can't still smoke in public. I'm sure the anti-smoking lobby will soon be pushing for an outside ban so that you can all have your empty beer gardens etc.. to yourselves as well. Selfish!
"The so-called “whims of the health obsessed anti-smoking lobby” as you describe them actually amount to thousands of deaths in the UK each year. Is that really so minor" -
Rubbish Rollo, and everyone on here knows it except for you because of your unnatural paranoia about this subject. You really should get a life and stop interferring with other people's. How hard have you researched the issue, btw? Not very, obviously, as you come to the propaganda view of the anti-smoking lobby which has been spoon fed to you. I'd like to know how old you are Rollo and whether you are one of the brain-washed children of the last 30 years
" Speaking for myself, I drive a car but am careful to ensure that my car emissions are well within legal limits" - if you drive you are killing people with passive fumes. Don't be such a hypocrite! Legal limits indeed! Funny how you can come up with an excuse to ease your conscience! Traffic fumes are far more harmful than smoking.
"If you don’t accept that passive smoking is harmful, why are you so quick to conclude that traffic fumes are?" _ traffic fumes make me feel sick, make my eyes water and fumes do cause asthma.Smoking rates are goinmg down, but asthma rates are rising. Why? Traffic is increasing. That is why I am very quick to believe traffic fumes harm others. You disgust me that you can drive a car and then come on here and moan because someone else does something that you don't like. Do you even know what live and let live means?
"But it is so ironic that you cannot see that your right to smoke should be exercised with the very same consideration for others as your right to have sex, your right to play music and your right to drive. For too many years the right to smoke has been virtually unique in that it has been given a status whereby it trumps the rights of others who have to endure it." - You wouldn't and others wouldn't if we had choice!
"The right to smoke is now on a level playing field with these other rights. You have the right to smoke, just not in enclosed public places where other might suffer from the SHS your cigarettes produce." - I go back to my question about choice. What is wrong with Choice? How would you or anyone else have to breathe in others smoke if we had choice?
I believe I have to right to smoke away from those who don't like it but that doesn't mean that I have to accept that what I do is anti-social of abnormal. Smoking is centuries old. It is people like you - healh zealots who can't bear others to live the kind of life that you personally don't approve of - who are not normal.
You are all that is wrong with this country today.
So Ash are always right I suppose to the anti-smoking zealots.
Their latest push on third-hand smoke certainly back-fired - that's great scientific evidence isn't it? A telephone poll?
What about the 30-minute exposure that they pushed- they had to publically apologise for that as they got it wrong.
What about the reduction in heart attacks a year since the ban - they had to admit they got that wrong.
What about their huge public humiliation over their stop smoking methods. They're not interested unless you're using their NRT products that they push, regardless of the fact that their are other methods which have better success rates.
What about the fact that there was no way it would cause harm to the hospitality industry - they got that wrong as well.
These are some of their many lies, there's plenty others. I can't understand why people believe anything that they utter. Well I suppose I can as this is one huge industry with plenty of funds floating around.
This has nothing to do with health. It has everything to do with greed. If it were to do with health, then the sensible solution of separate areas with modern ventilation would have been used.
It appears that ASH doesn't want to know about the word 'Truth' and disregards anything they don't like.
Experience has shown that blanket bans cause an increased smoking prevalence (reversing previous downward trends) This is what ASH want so that they can push their products and line their greedy pockets.
Mr Rollo rapidly assures us that his car is "within legal limits" yet he totally ignores that test after test after test has proven that cigarette smoke is up to 25,000 times BELOW the PEL's (Permissible Exposure Limits) set out by OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health in the US).
Startling, and at the same time, unsurprising hypocrisy.
Find another minority to attack.
You aren't very good at attacking this one.
Rollo Tommasi wrote: The individual studies are NOT inaccurate.
Oh? Would you care to explain firstly how any estimate at all can be made of the levels of environmental tobacco smoke that a person experiences at any one place and time, and secondly for how long they may have experienced these levels?
It's bad enough to get a smoker to try to remember how many cigarettes he smokes in a day, even though they can be counted, and come in packs of 20. But for anyone to guess how much tobacco smoke they have been exposed to, and for how long, is beyond the wit of anyone. The most anyone could probably hazard would be something like "None" or "Some" or "Lots", where "some" and "lots" might be interchangeable with one person's "lots" being someone else's "some".
So the raw data on how much ETS anyone may have been exposed to isn't going to be a precise figure, or even a ballpark figure, or maybe even any figure at all.
This is what I meant in my discussion of different people measuring the same thing with inaccurate rulers. In the case of ETS there isn't even a ruler.
So, no, these studies are inherently and inescapably inaccurate. And that is just looking at the levels and durations of exposure. There are all sorts of other inaccuracies as well. For example in the diagnosis of lung cancer.
And when you have a whole set of such fundamentally inaccurate studies, from different places, at different times, asking different questions, and cataloguing their results in different wayss, 'pooling' all these apples and oranges can only produce even more inaccuracies, regardless of whether the numbers of participants can be raised by this means so as to merit the tag, "statistically significant".
From the point of view of science - real science, that is -, the whole business is a joke. And that's why a great many public health practitioners place little or no store in them. Even they aren't so shameless as to use them.
Not quite as shameless as Rollo Tommasi, anyway.
The main point on SHS/ETS studies the misclassification is a major problem. People do tend to mislead as to their smoking habits. Also people who are ill tend the exaggerate their exposure to SHS, while healthy people under estimate their exposure..
Also because these numbers are so low and in the UK we are potentially talking about 25 maximum, more likely 5 cases of lung cancer a year allegedly from SHS there could also be confounding factors which may not of been thought about. One, an Epidemiologist admitted he had not thought about in a letter to me was exposure to vehicle pollution. In a letter to me the European Health Commission was at pains to point out that second hand car exhausts kill 4x as many people as SHS. My feeling is 4 X 0 = 0 but my theory is that as less affluent people tend to smoke they tend to live in large urban conurbations, near main roads and factories. SHS is the least of everyone's problems.
My husband has been too soft with you fools. I have told him time and time again not to bother with you as you are not worth it. You do not understand scientific facts, in fact I doubt if any of you understand anything!
There is but one simple FACT in this argument and that is that smoking kills. It kills the smoker and it kills those around him. So go ahead and smoke, but make sure you are in the company of your fellow idiotic smoker friends.
One last FACT. Last year in China over 6 million babies died from second hand smoke. Justify that if you can.
Aha!
Antis misquoting again!
We KNOW that over 16 billion people died from SHS in January 2009 alone! Furthermore, at least 18 zillion willies simply dropped off due (entirely) to 14th hand smoke. It caused further disruption to the Hairdressing Industry as everyones hair fell out. Although the Dental Industry enjoyed a boost as all normal healthy teeth just rotted and dissolved from all the smoke. A spokeshuman from the Department of Allied False Teeth Incorporated Especially to Synthesize (DAFTIES) said the sudden income justifies all the made up studies.
A guy I know heard from a friend of a friends wife whose cousin heard about a telly programme from a neighbours friends daughters child's uncle that SHS is deadly.
So it must be true.
Mrs Tommasi - it is such random figures as "Last year in China over 6 million babies died from second hand smoke." that makes the whole anti-smoking argument ridiculous. Show me the evidence and then show me how that evidence is worked out - if you can!
I for one will be quite happy if your husband never visits this site again and keeps his prejudicial comments to himself. I am sorry but smoking does not kill any more people, and probably less, than other air polluttants of which you and your husband are quite happy to inflict on others in the car/cars that you drive. Hypocrasy.
.. and yes, smokers would be very happy to congregate socially together and keep away from the likes of you and your anti-smoking husband. Unfortunately because of a discriminatory law that has been based on false science, prejudice, propaganda and lies, we cannot. We are excluded. I expect it makes you so proud to see how successful your type has been at spreading such hatred towards a minority group.
Respect and tolerance for both sides is the progressive and moral way forward. prohibition is going back to the last century. I, for one, do not want to go backwards.
I do not care about respect and tolerance for both sides, why should I? I care only for the right to breath clean air which is what you are against. Your whole smell ridden organisation is based on lies and the progression of death by smoking and you have the audacity to talk to me about morals? You have no morals any of you. It is you who wants to go backwards not us, back to the middle ages when your filthy habit helped cause the black plague and killed millions all over Europe.
Mrs Tommasi (if, indeed, you are genuine), please list the scientific qualifications which you have that enable you to understand the scientific facts which we 'fools' can't.
FACT Miranda, your statement about the babies in China is pure anti-smoking made-up progaganda (guesimates and no evidence) and makes a mockery of true science.
So smoking's responsible for the black plague now is it - that's a first!!!
Any chance you could tell us what it's responsible for next? You're obviously well ahead of the true scientists.
Have your say :
www.uksmokingban.forumotion.com
The black plague, Mrs T? Would you like to direct us to the relevant studies that proved that active (or do you mean passive) smoking was responsible?
Personally I think that might be beyond even the deceit of the anti-smoking movement since tobacco hadn't been discovered in Europe at the time of the Black Plague, but why let a little fact like that get in the way of your deranged prejudice.
MRS T obviously cant direct us- she is a waste oftime to talk to.
You have shown the anti-smokers' true colours, Mrs Tommasi. Full of hate and spite against a minority group.You care not about health, justice and tolerance. You care only for your own selfish views. Clean air? I would love clean air but it is impossible when there are so many other pollutants in the atmosphere. Smoke from cigarettes is minor in comparison. Smoking only becomes a huge problem when people like you with very small minds spread fear and hatred for your own selfish ends.
Smoking caused the black plague? millions of children killed by passive smoking in China? - have you really no idea of how ridiculous this sounds?
In 2008 China’s population was about 1,330,000,000. Birth rate was 13.7 : 1,000.
This amounts to some 18,221,000 babies born in China in 2008.
Infant mortality in 2008 was 21 : 1,000.
So in 2008 about 382,641 Chinese babies died (of all causes).
That’s a lot less than 6 million.
(Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/)
What’s more disturbing though, is the sharp rise in birth defects in Chinese babies. It’s believed to be caused by industrial pollution.
BTW, wasn’t the Black Plague in the 14th century? Tobacco hadn’t reached Europe yet.
The "Miranda Tommasi" character is delivering a rather amusing satire on Mr Tommasi's line....very good!
Adeimantus, you're probably spot on.
But it can be hard to tell with these antis. Some of them are almost exactly this silly.
Anna, funnily enough, just now, as I was indulging by enthusiasm for tobacco, i.e. having a fag break, it did occur to me to add a post-script, but you beat me to it! It is indeed genuinely hard to parody anti-smoking zealotry without actually coming across as a serious contributor!
For example, I heard a couple of years back that Al Gore had said that "cigarette smoking contributes to global warming". Now, he probably didn't - nobody would be that dumb, surely? - but the fact that, to this day, no-one is really sure whether he did or not, speaks volumes.
I can usually spot a wind up but, as Anna says, some antis are actually silly enough to believe what has been satirically written (was it you, Adeimantus?) - hell's teeth, if they believe in third hand smoke, they probably believe in the tooth fairy!
Joyce, just for the record: no I am not Miranda Tommasi (now there's a sentence I did not antipate writing today!).
Will the 'real' Miranda Tommasi please stand up?
Quote: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." (Emphasis mine.)
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
But isn't it admirable of this site that it gives a platform to those who disagree with it? To the zealots it must be an example of tolerance. 'Liberal' thinkers, please notice and inwardly digest.
Nurse! Nurse! Mr.and Mrs. Tommasi are out of their straight jackets.
....probably, Norman, why so few visit here - no fun when people are tolerant enough to argue with you instead of just slinging insults! In Rollo T's defence, at least he does engage in argument even though, as others have admirably demonstrated, you can drive a coach and horses through it. I do wonder, though, at the mentality of someone who claims not to be an anti-smoker yet spends valuable time commenting on every thread that deals with the issue.
At least we've been spared 'David Of New Mills' (often to be found as part of a double act with Rollo!)
Is Miranda Tomassi related to the organic, nature person who commented recently?
just wondering.
Also, can anyone verify that nicotine is the only unique constituent of SHS, every other 'chemical' emitted in SHS is naturaly present in 'fresh clean air'?
Oh, "you know who" ,their anti smokers alright.
It's a religeous crusade for them.
Just keep banging on office doors till you find somebody influencial to fall for it, "or join in".
Then the gravy train leaves the station.
Then the claims become more unbelievable for that mentallity is driven by more and more exajerated claims to fuel that gravy train.
Problem here is the antis foot soldiers are a bit like salesmen in they way they are, "trained", to come out with the, "standard statement".
The whole anti smoking movement is definately "snake oil" in a scientific or tactical sense of the word.
Maybe they should sell double glazing or pyramid selling or something.
So who's your next victim, well the alchohol one's backfired a bit I think, too many drinkers.
No "smart politician's", going to touch that one ,(bit of a hot potato I think)
The obese yes that one might just bring in some cash ,and they are a minority ,(read, "easy target").
As for the "Anti Smoking Religion", "types",(read Social inadequates").
They seem to have a severe personality disorder.
They only mix in their own circles. .
Sorry carrot juice and raw turnips in almond sauce do nothing for me .
Did you know in (the), ASH ,(office).
At 5 o'clock every night the cleaners come in
and throw white sheets over the staff .
The cleaners come in again,(at 6:30 am sharp) !
They then remove the sheets and they all come to and start typing the usuall anti smoking ,"vitreol again".
Sorry doesn't sound like fun to me.
Happy smoking everyone.
I didnt know that Jade Goody smoked.
Cant understand why Nanny kept quiet about it.
Maybe the reason for this is, I read somewhere that she neglected to respond for a recall checkup as she was rushing off to India, or somewhere like that, at the time for a media blitz.
There is a simple reason why passive smoking had to be invented and its danger exaggerated. For 30 or 40 years the graph showed the number of people smoking declining. Then it levelled off at about 30%. The explanation is also simple. Many young people take up smoking, but many give up quite early, for financial reasons or when they become parents. Many of them smoke for only about ten years. So the number of smokers remained constant. Clearly thsi was intolerable. So a new scare had to be raised. Hence the invention of passive smoking.
I should add that I have smoked quite heavily for more than 50 years and have no intention of giving up. But I eat in restaurants less often than I used to and I resent not being able to have a cigarette or cigar with my coffee.
McGraw wrote, "As for the "Anti Smoking Religion", "types",(read Social inadequates"). They seem to have a severe personality disorder."
McGraw, they suffer from ASDS (AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome), an increasingly common and quite debilitating disorder. You can read more about it at:
http://www.stahlheart.com/wispofsmoke/recovery.html
We are hoping to stage an international telethon to raise funds for treatment of these poor folks and are currently engaged in casting calls for a childrens' choir to provide background vocals. MEPs need not apply.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Well, haven’t there been a few more posts since I was last on? Yet, for all the comments, there has been next to NOTHING resembling evidence to back up the pro-smokers’ claims. There’s been one reference to lung cancer deaths (from Dave A) which he hasn’t sourced and I don’t recognise. There’s been the occasional homespun theory which supposedly trumps hard professional evidence (notably Pat Nurse’s comments about asthma). But mostly the comments have been about me. How very charming. Are you pro-smokers incapable of dealing with proper argument?
The only two vaguely relevant comments I could find were from Idlex and Colin G. Idlex thinks any questionnaire about exposure to SHS is bound to be flawed. I disagree. I think I could describe pretty accurately how much I’m exposed to passive smoke at home on a typical day (who smokes, how many they smoke, where they smoke, how much of the day I’m at home). I could also give a pretty accurate description of my exposure to smoke in my workplace, and also when travelling. That really leaves exposure to smoke on other occasions when I’m out. My reading of that might not be so accurate, but I could still give a pretty decent ball-park figure.
Colin G brings up the issue of OSHA’s PEL figures. Interesting how Colin refers to the US health and safety body. Why does he not refer to the UK’s own Health and Safety Executive? Is it perhaps because the HSE has consistently said in guidance that “There is no completely effective way of protecting employees from the effects of SHS, short of a total smoking ban”?
The OSHA’s figures need to be read with caution anyway. For a start, their PELs relate to exposure of individual substances alone. They take no effect of the compound effects of exposure to other substances within tobacco smoke at the same time.
Furthermore, if Colin thinks that OSHA opposes indoor smoking bans, then I’m afraid I’m going to disappoint him. OSHA has actually proposed regulations to ban or curtail smoking in enclosed public places. Don’t believe me? This remarkable quote comes from the 2006 US Surgeon General’s report:
“In 1994, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed regulations that would either prohibit smoking or limit it to separately ventilated areas in all U.S. workplaces but ultimately withdrew the proposed rule in December 2001 (Federal Register 2001). The tobacco industry had orchestrated a concerted and intensive campaign to block it (Bryan-Jones and Bero 2003). In withdrawing the rule, OSHA suggested that the issue of secondhand smoke was being adequately addressed at the local and state levels, noting that “in the years since the proposal was issued, a great many state and local governments and private employers have taken action to curtail smoking in public areas and in workplaces” (Federal Register 2001, p. 64946). Public health groups acquiesced in the decision to withdraw the rule because they were concerned that the rule might turn out to contain weak smoking restrictions and to preempt stronger state and local action (Girion 2001).”
Cue a new load of personal insults directed towards Rollo Tommasi, as is the pro-smokers’ usual way….
Well, Hello Rollo! Haven't seen you for a while, but I see you're still leaning on SCOTH (Which unfortunately I still will honestly confess to not having read.)
I do however have some comments on your last note here to Idlex and Colin. Idlex's observation about smoke exposure was in reference to average, normal sorts of people recalling in the 1980s and 90s their exposures going back to the 1930s and 40s and since. Quite a different kettle of fish than your telling us how much you were exposed to yesterday. And even if we asked you to recall something further back, you are most definitely living in an era where such awareness would be far higher *and* you are most definitely not an "average, normal person" in regard to your perceptions of smoking... what with all the undefined forging and all that you do between reading SCOTH reports and such. :>
As for Colin's point about OSHA, you somehow seem to have failed to note that ASH actually *sued* OSHA to try to force a ruling and then withdrew the suit when OSHA threatened to produce a ruling that would not demand smoking bans. I also found your following juxtaposition odd:
You cite the SGR as stating that OSHA "proposed regulations that would either prohibit smoking or limit it to separately ventilated areas in all U.S. workplaces"
And then further cite the SGR as saying that the reason ASH et al dropped their lawsuit was out of concern "that the rule might turn out to contain weak smoking restrictions."
So which was it? Total prohibition except for totally separate areas or weak smoking restrictions? It appears the SGR tried to say both right within the same paragraph. That's quite similar to the lines of thinking that produce statements about smoking being a worse addiction than heroin or methamphetamine while at the same time insisting it should be "no big deal" for smokers to stop smoking during extended stays in restaurants or hotels or airplanes. Eerily like the current fad of the past year where Antismokers tell the TV cameras that the smoking bans they're pushing are *not* smoking bans... since smokers are still free to smoke in privately owned homes or perhaps out behind a dustbin somewhere.
Good to see you again Rollo.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" (My rather well-defined forging.)
My provenance for lung cancer is SCOTH and Cancer Research UK.
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/