Sensationalized medical stories like the Helena study are a dime a dozen. Smoking (and secondhand smoke) is bad. Really bad. Everyone knew that already. Does this story really add much to the debate? Note that estimated deaths from secondhand smoke are lower than car crashes (about 50k/year and rising). We could save a lot of lives if we instituted a national 35 mph speed limit, but for some reason there is no outcry for this.
I think this data is a out of date and the resulting conclusion off the mark.
First, let's look at the Helena study. Some media may have sensationalized the story about the Helena study, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the British Medical Journal are not sensationalists. Although some media outlets may sensationalize many medical stories, this study is unusual in that it is the best real-world information to date on indoor second hand smoke and heart problems. There are similar studies on-going and proposed, but there are no results from them yet.
Next, where are the numbers for estimated deaths from second hand smoke? The article states:
"The CDC has estimated that secondhand smoke causes 35,000 *HEART DISEASE*
deaths a year in the United States, but Pechacek said that estimate is likely to be revised upward." [emphasis added]
How many other deaths, not from heart disease, might be attributed to secondhand smoke? The articles does not say, and we don't know. Further, given the Helena study and other such studies in progress, there is a good chance the number for heart disease alone will be revised upward.
This is *new* information. Arguments made on old, dated assumptions that secondhand smoke caused fewer deaths than car crashes are likely to become instantly completely wrong once we know how many people are really dying from secondhand smoke.
Moreover, the number of people who died in motor vehicles accidents was 43,000 in 2000. Further, the number people killed in car crashes per million miles driven has been steadily going down for many decades. The raw number also declined for decades until the early 1990s, since when it has remained relatively flat. Meanwhile, the number of miles driven and the resultant exposure have continued upward every year. So "about 50,000 a year and rising" is wrong and misleading.
It's hard to claim smoking brings any societal benefit at all, while it is obvious that motor vehicles and roads bring us many benefits. We might save some lives in car crashes with speed limits of 35mph, but not all of them. The resultant costs to society might well kill more people from effects resulting from poor transportation and greater highway congestion. This argument is practically a non-sequitor.
Lastly, of the actual causes of death in 2000, tobacco was the leader at 18.1% of all deaths, compared to motor vehicles at 1.8%, ten times fewer. This is first-hand smoke, granted, but anything that bad firsthand can't be good secondhand.
Mike also wrote about putting risks into perspective. I think it's obvious that the risks from secondhand smoke are higher than previously thought. There's also the question of ability to choose one's level of risk. It's harder to choose to avoid secondhand smoke if one's place of employment is filled with smokers who are not forbidden from smoking, than it is to choose to be a more attentive and safer driver, or to live a healthier lifestyle.
Given that information, I think it's pretty fair to ask for clean air laws and banning indoor smoking in places of employment, including bars and restaurants, in Minneapolis. I am not interested in a nanny state, and I chafe at excessive government intrusion into our lives. But people trying to earn a living ought to be able to do so without risking their lives.
Chris Johnson Fulton
*My data from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration web sites.
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
