on 6/22/04 9:13 PM, M J Stinnett wrote: > I read the report you cited. I also looked at the references. One of the > three primary referents is the 1993 EPA report which was so biased a > federal court awarded damages against the EPA. > > You also brought up the CATO Institute report once again, along with its > critique--but again you failed to note that the critique addressed only the > issue of direct smoking, not secondhand smoke. > > My point, once again, is this: if you consult all the organizations who are > working for smoking bans, they cite two reports as evidence: the (bogus) > 1993 EPA report, and the 1998 WHO report. The former is crap; the latter > found only a slight, not statistically significant, risk. If the "experts" > can't deliver any evidence better than this, why do we listen to them?
A likely story. Let's look at some other sources, Mr. Stinnett - not that you'll believe anything you read because you're not out to see proof, you're out to discredit what everyone else knows is solid proof of the fatal effects of secondhand smoke. But, just in case anyone is reading your blind rejection of anything put in front of you, let's try a few other sources: == The following was put on this list nearly two months ago by Laura Wittstock: Two snips from the EPA site: (Note - tobacco companies attempted to sue EPA over this ruling but failed). http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html#Secondhand%20smoke%20can%20cause%20l ung%20cancer%20in%20nonsmokers. Secondhand Smoke Can Cause Lung Cancer in Nonsmokers * Secondhand smoke has been classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of lung cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). * Passive smoking is estimated by EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year. Secondhand Smoke is a Serious Health Risk to Children * The developing lungs of young children are also affected by exposure to secondhand smoke. * Infants and young children whose parents smoke are among the most seriously affected by exposure to secondhand smoke, being at increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis. EPA estimates that passive smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year. * Children exposed to secondhand smoke are also more likely to have reduced lung function and symptoms of respiratory irritation like cough, excess phlegm, and wheeze. * Passive smoking can lead to buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation. * Asthmatic children are especially at risk. EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in hundreds of thousands of asthmatic children. EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Passive smoking may also cause thousands of non-asthmatic children to develop the condition each year. ----------------------------------- I added this snip because it is a strong personal concern. Children don't go into bars but they sure do go into restaurants. Their small lungs are far more susceptible as this quote shows. Laura Waterman Wittstock MIGIZI Communications, Inc. Then this: I expect most people would want to prevent all smoke related deaths, not set a minimum of acceptable deaths. >From CDC - (The 1995-1999 total) reflects the inclusion of 35,053 secondhand smoking-attributable heart disease deaths and slightly higher smoking-related RRs for cancers, respiratory diseases, and infant conditions. The number of smoking-attributable deaths would have been greater if smoking prevalence among men, women, and pregnant women had not declined since the early 1990s. > To this statement: Smoking bans are an attempt to regulate consensual behavior > on the part of adults. Saying that a smoking ban would protect children is > disingenuous in the absence of more serious sanctions for parents who smoke at > home around children. C. United States Supreme Court Case Law The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the harm to be considered from secondhand smoke includes both present harm and possible future harm. Accordingly, family courts have an unqualified duty to consider the dangers of secondhand smoke to all children within their care, regardless of the condition of their health. In Helling v. McKinney, the high Court ruled that a state prisoner�s complaint stated a justiciable cause of action. The prisoner alleged that the secondhand smoke of other inmates constituted an unreasonable risk to his health, involuntarily subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court held that the prisoner�s claim was properly based upon possible future harm to health as well as present harm. Because children are like prisoners to the extent they are �captive� within the homes of their parents, secondhand smoke is a danger to those http://www.law.arizona.edu/Journals/ALR/ALR2003/vol453/Chinnock.pdf. === Here's another set from the University of Minnesota I posted (will he accept these? I doubt it): Secondhand Smoke Facts Secondhand smoke, also known as passive or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a combination of: * Mainstream smoke: exhaled by smokers * Sidestream smoke: given off by the burning end of a cigarette, cigar, or pipe Between 70% and 90% of non-smokers in the American population, children and adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe. If a person spends more than two hours in a room where someone is smoking, the nonsmoker inhales the equivalent of four cigarettes. Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the EPA as a Class A carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans. Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzipyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia. Secondhand smoke from pipes and cigars is equally as harmful, if not more so (Mayo Clinic release, Aug 97). Over the past two decades, medical research has shown that non-smokers suffer many of the diseases of active smoking when they breathe secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and contributes to the development of heart disease. Never smoking women who live with a smoker have a 91% greater risk of heart disease. They also have twice the risk of dying from lung cancer. Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease. Secondhand smoke increases heart rate and shortens time to exhaustion. Repeated exposure causes thickening of the walls of the carotid arteries (accelerates atherosclerosis) and damages the lining of these arteries. When a pregnant woman is exposed to secondhand smoke, the nicotine she ingests is passed on to her unborn baby. Women who smoke or are exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy: * have a higher rate of miscarriages and stillbirths * have an increased risk of low birth weight infants * have children born with decreased lung function * have children with greater risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to experience increased frequency of: * asthma, colds, bronchitis, pneumonia, and other lung diseases * middle ear infections * sinus infections * caries in deciduous teeth Ventilation systems and designated smoking sections do not protect patrons from ETS. Current estimates of how smoking increases the risk of various diseases are dramatically underestimated because the ill effects of secondhand smoke inhalation are not taken into account. There�s more � a whole list of sites at: <http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/didactic.html> A consolidation of Second-Hand Smoke data: <http://www.no-smoke.org/ets.html> Now, Mr. Stinnett, something for all of you to chew on. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- 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
