Wednesday 22 Oct 2014

Information and opinions presented here do not always represent the views of the American Heart Association.

Experts: Tougher anti-tobacco laws needed

Published: 11:48 am CDT, April 15, 2014

Americans know cigarette smoking kills, but the Surgeon General’s report this year revealed how many different ways both direct as well as secondhand smoking cause harm.

The current report builds on findings first issued 50 years ago when the Surgeon General explored the health hazards of smoking. Experts cite the current report as an additional reason to advance anti-tobacco legislation and reduce the public health burden of primary and secondhand smoking.

Among the 2014 report’s findings:

  • Secondhand smoke exposure can directly cause stroke. Ongoing exposure to secondhand smoke can increase the risk of stroke by 20 to 30 percent.
  • More diseases have been added to the growing number of chronic illnesses directly caused by smoking including rheumatoid arthritis, impaired immunity, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, age-related macular degeneration, erectile dysfunction, and birth defects due to maternal smoking.
  • Between 1965 and 2014, smoking caused 20 million deaths in America, including nearly 7.8 million deaths due to cardiovascular and metabolic disease.
  • Although smoking rates have declined, about 42 million Americans still smoke; many began smoking before they were 18 years old.
  • Today, 3.5 million middle and high school students smoke, and an estimated 5.6 million young Americans will die prematurely due to smoking.

The report’s findings didn’t surprise cardiologists and other physicians, says Michael C. Fiore, MD, MPH, MBA, director of the Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wis.

Instead, he said, the Surgeon General’s report should be used as a guide for policy makers to tighten anti-tobacco legislation, such as raising the age an individual can buy cigarettes from 18 to 21 nationwide.

“The ripple effects from this report go beyond the fact that we now have more diseases that result from smoking,” said Dr. Fiore, “and reaffirms that what we really need to focus on is completely eliminating tobacco use from our society, particularly with regards to the risks of secondhand smoke and with stopping our young people from getting hooked on cigarettes.”

Johnny Lee, MD, president of New York Heart Associates in New York City, said he would like to see if the findings of the current Surgeon General report have any impact on curbing the growing popularity of electronic cigarettes, a nicotine product that is not regulated like tobacco products.

“This is a time for public health partners to push for even stricter anti-tobacco laws, including e-cigarettes, which many teens are now turning to,” Dr. Lee said. “I would love to see e-cigarettes fall under current tobacco laws. Anti-smoking regulations and attitudes differ around the country. We need all 50 states behind this. What this report tells us, as a society, is that we need bolder goals.”

 

 

  • harleyrider1778

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

    OSHA SAFE LEVELS

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  • harleyrider1778

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  • harleyrider1778

    For all uneducated people out there JESSICA LUNTZ
    HEALTH, LEGISLATION, POLITICS, STUDIES, VAPING

    EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children

    APRIL 3, 2014 , 47 matt black

    In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”

    First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.

    I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    Catchy title. I was intrigued.

    This quote caught my eye:

    Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).

    In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.

    Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)

    Continued…

    Method and Rates of Application

    ….

    Air Sanitizer

    Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10′x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)

    A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.

    General Toxicity Observations

    Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

    Carcinogenicity Classification

    A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)

    Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…

    2. FQPA Safety Factor

    The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.

    In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:

    The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.

    An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.

    I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.

  • harleyrider1778

    Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

    Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

    He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn’t one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

    If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer.

    Remember this story from last year:

    B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

    US Bureau of Labor Statistics Shows Zero Deaths From 2nd Hand Smoke
    Where are the deaths?

    If people who work in bars die from secondhand smoke, why does the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last 4 years show ZERO DEATHS from exposure to harmful substances or environments?

    This data is for 2011. (pg38 of 53).

    Notice that 31 people died while working in a “drinking place”(which my bar is classified as).

    27 deaths were by violent injuries by persons or animals(?). 2 died by fires or explosions. I don’t know where the other 2 deaths are listed however, there are 0 deaths from exposure to harmful substances or environments.

    So where are these deaths from SHS?

    Notice 2010 under this below. In 2010, there were 28 total deaths, 25 from violence and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.

    In 2009, 32 deaths of bar workers. 31 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.

    In 2008, 35 deaths of bar workers. 32 were violent deaths and 0 from exposure to harmful substances or environments.

    They aren’t crawling out and dying in the parking lots either. We would have noticed ‘em.”

    stjtelegraphdotorg/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/stjtelegraph-24-30-16_page-5dotpdf
    stjtelegraphdotorg

  • harleyrider1778

    The AHA received many millions from Johnson and Johnsons “foundation” to hire lobbyists for smoking bans. rwjfDOTorg/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2005/01/to-improve-health-and-health-care-volume-viii/the-smokeless-states-programDOThtml

  • harleyrider1778

    JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.

    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  • harleyrider1778

    Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

    It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

    (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
    Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
    2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
    ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
    long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
    said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
    cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
    (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
    arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
    to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
    therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
    lung cancer.

    [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
    Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
    use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
    causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
    cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
    it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
    individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
    (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
    [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
    point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
    case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
    consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
    knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
    individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
    intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
    life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
    [7.181]).

  • harleyrider1778

    NO SAFE LEVEL OF SECONDHAND SMOKE”? THAT’S NOT WHAT OSHA SAYS!

    Los Angeles, October 26, 2010 – One of the most misused statements in the argument over secondhand smoke is a line on page 11 of the 2006 report of the Surgeon General of the United States entitled “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke”:

    The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

    That is because the Surgeon General’s so-called conclusions have already been rejected by the one governmental agency responsible for safety in the workplace: the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). The next time someone tries to ram the Surgeon General’s view of secondhand smoke down your throat, you may wish to ask him or her to consider:
    OSHA lists “permissible exposure limits” (a.k.a. “PEL”) for hundreds of different kinds of pollutants in
    its “Limits for Air Contaminants” table Z-1 (Click here; also at 29 C.F.R. 1910.1000). This table shows “nicotine” at a permissible limit of 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) over an eight-hour day.

    We are talking about tiny amounts here: remember that there are 1,000 milligrams (mg) in 1 gram! The famed Swiss chemist Phillip von Hohenheim established the principle that “All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous” back in the 1530s, making the point that even water can be poisonous if “overconsumed”… as in drowning.

    The studies which measure nicotine in the air do so in micrograms, which are 1/1,000th of a milligram. So, 0.5 mg – the OSHA standard for exposure to nicotine – is 500 micrograms. Keep that figure in mind.

    The Web site Clean Air Quality BLOGSPOT tracks the air-quality studies used by the anti-smoking lobby and compares them against the OSHA standard. Typical findings showed:
    2009: St. Louis, Missouri: A Washington University School of Medicine study trumpeted “high levels” of nicotine in a study of 20 bars, but the report itself noted that “airborne nicotine levels ranged from 0.015 to 25.14 [micrograms per cubic meter].” Even at the smokiest bar, 25 micrograms is way short of OSHA’s permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 500 micrograms!

    2007: Baltimore, Maryland: A Johns Hopkins University report claimed that air nicotine exposure in its study of Baltimore bars ranged from 2.1 to 16.9 micrograms per cubic meter; folks, that’s not close to 500 micrograms…

    2004: The American Cancer Society study of smoking levels in Western New York bars showed air nicotine exposure over eight hours in establishments with no smoking regulations to vary between 539 and 940 nanograms… not really very close to 500,000 nanograms (which equals 500 micrograms)!

    In fact, OSHA Acting Assistant Secretary Greg Watchman stated in a July, 1997 letter that “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELs) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)… It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.”

    The anti-smoking lobby will then posit that secondhand smoke has loads of carcinogenic chemicals such as arsenic (present in seafood), benzene (widely used in industry), cyanide (present in almonds, lima beans, soy, spinach, bamboo shoots and cassava roots), formaldehyde (naturally produced by the human body!) and so on. In fact, all of these chemicals and many more have been evaluated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and its Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has published a list of Minimal Risk Levels for Hazardous Substances, which lists all of these items and assigns an actual level of ingestion which is safe! It’s the dose which makes the poison.

    Finally, you’ll hear that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes fat and blood clots to form in your arteries. Boston University Prof. Michael Siegel, no friend of tobacco and a long-time campaigner against secondhand smoke, rails against such nonsense in his daily Tobacco Analysis Blog Spot column, writing on October 25 that:

    [T]hese statements are outright lies. You don’t get a build up of fat and blood clots in the arteries in just 30 minutes. What happens in 30 minutes is that the cells lining your coronary blood vessels do not function normally, leading to a reduction in coronary flow velocity reserve. This damage to the blood vessel lining is reversible. However, if repeated over and over again and sustained for many years, these effects could contribute to the formation of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). But it is a lie to state that 30 minutes of tobacco smoke exposure results in a build up of fat and blood clots in the arteries that increases the chance of a heart attack or stroke.

    Moreover, he notes that the 2001 study which is given as proof for these assertions says nothing of the kind. In his October 21 post, he notes that the study “found that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure produces endothelial dysfunction in nonsmokers, and reduces their coronary flow velocity reserve to the same level as that in smokers” and points out that “eating a hamburger reduces coronary flow velocity reserve to roughly the same extent as in an active smoker… If you walk into McDonald’s and order a hamburger, you may be at risk of disease, but not from immediately keeling over from a heart attack.”

    Siegel is right when he moans of his hysterical colleagues in anti-tobacco lobby, “Like so many other social movements, it appears that we, too, are lying to the public in ways that exaggerate and distort the actual science.”

    The anti-tobacco haters tell an engaging story, just like many others over the centuries: the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth, bleeding a patient will release the “bad humors” ailing him, the art of “medicine” is actually witchcraft and so on. Add “there is no safe level of secondhand smoke” to the pile.
    ~ Rich Perelman.

  • harleyrider1778

    About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

    4 % is carbon monoxide.

    6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
    (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

    BTW only about 800 actual chemicals have ever been trapped and identified in tobacco smoke and nearly 99.9% is exactly what you find in any smoke from a vegetative burn that the natural atmosphere is made of and what we breathe in each and everyday! Even you VOC’s the chemicals your own breathing creates are the same chemicals found in tobacco smoke! Would you outlaw yourself for using mouth wash as an ingredient my friend!

  • harleyrider1778

    The myth of the smoking ban ‘miracle’

    Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It’s not true.

    spiked-onlineDOTcom/newsite/article/7451#DOTU0hIv-kU9D-

  • harleyrider1778

    If you’re afraid of second-hand smoke, you should also avoid cars, restaurants…and don’t even think of barbecuing.

    here are just some of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke and what else contains them:

    Arsenic, Benzine, Formaldehyde.

    Arsenic- 8 glasses of water = 200 cigarettes worth of arsenic

    Benzine- Grilling of one burger = 250 cigarettes

    Formaldehyde – cooking a vegetarian meal = 100 cigarettes

    When you drink your 8 glasses of tap water (64 ounces) a day, you’re safely drinking up to 18,000 ng of arsenic by government safety standards of 10 nanograms/gram (10 ng/gm = 18,000ng/64oz) for daily consumption.

    Am I “poisoning” you with the arsenic from my cigarette smoke? Actually, with the average cigarette putting out 32 ng of arsenic into the air which is then diluted by normal room ventilation for an individual ex…posure of .032 ng/hour, you would have to hang out in a smoky bar for literally 660,000 hours every day (yeah, a bit hard, right?) to get the same dose of arsenic that the government tells you is safe to drink.

    So you can see why claims that smokers are “poisoning” people are simply silly.

    You can stay at home all day long if you don’t want all those “deadly” chemicals around you, but in fact, those alleged 4000-7000 theorized chemicals in cigarettes are present in many foods, paints etc. in much larger quantities. And as they are present in cigarettes in very small doses, they are harmless. Sorry, no matter how much you like the notion of harmful ETS, it’s a myth.