Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Second Hand Smoke Scam
Fox News ^ | October 17, 2003 | Steven Milloy

Posted on 10/17/2003 9:51:26 AM PDT by CSM

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city’s heart attack rate by 58 percent in six months.

A prominent op-ed in this week’s Oct. 15 New York Times hailed the Miracle of Helena (search) and urged readers to give it more credit than it deserves.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: falsification; mediafraud; medialies; newyorktimes; nyt; nytschadenfreude; pufflist; schadenfreude; secondhandsmoke; smoking; thenewyorktimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-341 next last
Good read.
1 posted on 10/17/2003 9:51:26 AM PDT by CSM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SheLion; Gabz; Flurry; Just another Joe
Bump
2 posted on 10/17/2003 9:53:47 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I recently learned that Nazi Germany was the first government to ban smoking in public places.
3 posted on 10/17/2003 9:54:48 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?
4 posted on 10/17/2003 9:56:17 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I think, at this point, there's very little smoking-rights advocates can really do. I think we'll see smoking become pretty much illegal in the next decade or so.
5 posted on 10/17/2003 9:56:46 AM PDT by Modernman ("In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women."-Homer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Well, Mr. Milloy seems to be telling us (without evidence) that second-hand tobacco smoke has no ill effects, which is nearly as dishonest as the claim he's addressing here.

It would be very interesting to see a study on health insurance claims and/or absences in workplaces, before and after the building went smoke-free.

If the general trend is anything like it was in the building where I was working when it happened, there should be a dramatic difference.

(As for me personally, once the building was smoke-free I no longer had to use my inhalers at work).

6 posted on 10/17/2003 9:56:54 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
No, but the level of exposure is the key. If we tried to eliminate all toxin and carcinogen exposure then we would have to ban candlelight dinners, and the dinner.
7 posted on 10/17/2003 9:57:53 AM PDT by CSM (Congrats to Flurry and LE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CSM
BTTT
8 posted on 10/17/2003 9:58:06 AM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; ...
PUFF!!!

I have to go grocery shopping. I will be back in a bit.

Second Hand Smoke Frauds

9 posted on 10/17/2003 9:59:10 AM PDT by SheLion (Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Great links. Hey, pick me up a big T-Bone for the grill tonight. Thanks.
10 posted on 10/17/2003 10:02:09 AM PDT by CSM (Congrats to Flurry and LE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CSM
the level of exposure is the key.

Might it be analogous to the more meteorites bombarding the earth in a given time, the more likely someone will be hit?

Reducing the number of metorites, still does not mean metorites are safe.

11 posted on 10/17/2003 10:05:35 AM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Smoking will probably become illegal sometine in the future,I agree,but be prepared to pay higher taxes in your state to adjust for the loss of cigarette taxes. In Mass avery pack of cigs has $1.51 excise tax added to it and then they tax the excise tax with a sales tax.

When smoking becomes illegal it will still be done but criminals will be raking in the profits.Is that what the antis want?Doesn't anyone remeber the lessons of prohibition?
12 posted on 10/17/2003 10:07:00 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?

No "mysterious filtering process" is required. It is obvious that some filtering takes place, perhaps quite a bit, or there would be no effect on smokers. It is also clear that people breathing "second hand smoke" are subjected to far lower concentrations of smoke {and presumably carcinogens) simply because the primary source of the smoke is directed directly to the smokers lungs, not to other people.

If you just consider the amount of air that "second hand smoke" is mixed with in comparison with the direct exposure to the smokers lungs, it is obvious that the effects on non smokers must be much, much lower than on smokers. Add to this the limited effects of smoke on smokers, and it is easy to see why no significant effects of second hand smoke on mortality have been found in serious studies on the subject, dispite the numerous junk science efforts to imply that they exist.

13 posted on 10/17/2003 10:07:51 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
Well, Mr. Milloy seems to be telling us (without evidence) that second-hand tobacco smoke has no ill effects, which is nearly as dishonest as the claim he's addressing here.

It doesn't seem like he's saying that at all. It seems like he is following the normal scientific method of not proclaiming theories to be valid unless they have been tested and proven.

14 posted on 10/17/2003 10:09:27 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Good point, but you wouldn't be able to drive the restaurant either; and, if you were to walk there, you would be required to postpone breathing so that you do not exhale all those germs in the street. Come to think of it, the public would be better off if none of us were even born: no danger of anything in that case.
15 posted on 10/17/2003 10:10:16 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I would disagree with the article. I guess mainly from the fact I had a family member die at OHSU of cancer and the cause was second hand smoke. If so many people are saying that second hand smoke has no effect, then why don't they call (for example) the oncology department at OHSU and ask them, or call any oncology dept that specializes in lung cancer?

I know my reply may not be the popular one, but this has been my experience.
16 posted on 10/17/2003 10:10:44 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
No. The earth doesn't have the ability to rid itself of the meteorites. The meteorites would become part of the earth. In addition, if someone is hit by the meteorite, they can not recover.

However, we breath all types of toxins that our body has learned to filter and to eventually expell. Sitting next to a smoker in a bar/restaurant won't cause anyone without a pre-existing condition to keel over dead, however breathing car exhaust could cause exactly that.

We accept much more dangerous elements into our lungs than SHS and no one bats an eye. I guess if the demonization is complete then we can move forward.
17 posted on 10/17/2003 10:11:17 AM PDT by CSM (Congrats to Flurry and LE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Might it be analogous to the more meteorites bombarding the earth in a given time, the more likely someone will be hit? Reducing the number of metorites, still does not mean metorites are safe.

No, its not analagous to that. There is a fundamental misconception that things that are bad for the body at a level proportional to the amount that the body is exposed to. In reality, your body is a highly evolved machine that is capable of dealing with all sorts of nasty things at a certain level. For most harmful substances, there is a level at which your body is capable of dealing with them 100% with no harmful effects. I am not saying that second hand smoke is below this level, just that something that is bad in large doses in not neccessarily proportionally bad at smaller doses.

18 posted on 10/17/2003 10:13:35 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
I would disagree with the article. I guess mainly from the fact I had a family member die at OHSU of cancer and the cause was second hand smoke

What do you mean that you disagree with the article? Does the fact that you know someone who died of lung cancer mean that this study in Helena is valid (or even exists)? Does that fact that you know someone who died of lung cancer link second hand smoke to heart disease?

19 posted on 10/17/2003 10:16:04 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
"I would disagree with the article. I guess mainly from the fact I had a family member die at OHSU of cancer and the cause was second hand smoke."

First off, I am sorry for your loss.

Now, how do you know the cause was from SHS? Just because some doctor says it was so? Do you beleive a doctor when he/she says you should remove your guns from you house if you have children? Did your family member ever cook, ever been around anyone cooking, ever BBQ, ever stand next to a car with the engine running, ever heat their homes, ever sit next to a fire place, and on and on and on?

The air we breath is filled with toxins, any one or a combination of may cause lung cancer. Of course, you would have to predisposed to getting cancer.
20 posted on 10/17/2003 10:16:22 AM PDT by CSM (Congrats to Flurry and LE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
People that smoke are jusat as likely to die as people that don't.

One uncle died from liver problems. One died from a stroke after a fall. One died from leukemia. One died from a bleeding ulcer. They all smoked and these are the old Camel smokers. But basically, they ALL died from old age because they were 78 and up!!

21 posted on 10/17/2003 10:17:07 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
So, by extrapolation of your reasoning, if even one person smokes a cigarette somewhere in the world, you are in danger.

You have a lot of work cut out for you if you are going to ban all smoking world-wide.

You better log-off and get to work....

22 posted on 10/17/2003 10:18:04 AM PDT by been_lurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
If so many people are saying that second hand smoke has no effect, then why don't they call (for example) the oncology department at OHSU and ask them, or call any oncology dept that specializes in lung cancer?

I am no saying that second hand smoke is not harmful. I hate the stuff. But in answer to your question, one cannot just call the oncology department at a hospital because that would not be a valid way to study the problem. The oncology department at the hospital only sees sick people. Their sample is biased. They don't see the millions and millions of people who have had no ill effects. To simply call the people who only see sick people would be the same as doing a poll on whether or not welfare is worthwhile and only polling welfare recipients.

23 posted on 10/17/2003 10:19:17 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
smoke is purified

Of course the second hand smoke is cleaner. Can you envision a better filter than a lung?

24 posted on 10/17/2003 10:24:01 AM PDT by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I've been through Helena a few times, and I can assure you that this study is a lot of crap.

The damage to one's health from smoking 100 packs of cigarettes a day in Helena pales in comparison to the damage to one's health from breathing the air in that city -- the place is wall-to-wall oil and gas refineries.

Eliminating smoking in public places in Helena is about as effective at improving public health as drinking a Diet Coke instead of regular Coke with two dozen slices of pizza.

25 posted on 10/17/2003 10:25:11 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("To freedom, Alberta, horses . . . and women!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Maybe this little known article might clear up the idea of second hand smoke.

This article was published in the Sunday Telegraph in the U.K.

The article has since been pulled and seemingly purged from their archives.



"UK Sunday Telegraph...

Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official


Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.





The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.





The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."





Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."


26 posted on 10/17/2003 10:25:32 AM PDT by Bigh4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
LMAO---Sounds like my family!!!!!
27 posted on 10/17/2003 10:25:50 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
There is a very strong link between diabetes and death by heart failure with abundant etiological evidence; there is a strong statistical link between heart attacks and active smoking with weak etiological evidence; there is virtually no strong link between ETS and heart attacks or heart failure (despite the noise) and no etiological evidence at all.

Further, heart attacks are seasonal: extremes in temperature bring on bodily stress such as heat waves and poor body-temperature regulation in summer and cold weather and snow (which leads to over-exertion) in winter.

The best advice is to not smoke and stay away from those who do.

It is absurd to think that a six-month slowdown in the exposure to ETS would result in a statistically significant reduction in hospital admissions.

The ban only applied to public places and could have had no direct effect on residential exposure which is assumedly higher than that found publically; therefor, if the "study" was not adjusted for relatives and guests of smokers in their homes the results are meaningless unless we were to assume that the already-weakened victims more regularly frequented establishments where smoking was allowed prior to the ban.

28 posted on 10/17/2003 10:27:48 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Dr. Stan Glantz (search) (more on him later) -- as if some statistical mumbo-jumbo would credibly explain why the 1998 dip in heart attack rates was just an anomaly but the 2002 dip was definitely due to the smoking ban.

Shouldn't this be Dr. Stan Glans? He really does sound like one.
29 posted on 10/17/2003 10:29:07 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I am inclined to believe that the inhalation of microsocopic shards created by the combustion of tobacco is not a good idea and a constant inhalation of these particles is going to cause irrevocable damage.

However, I would also be inclined to give smokers a little leeway if they would STOP FLICKING THEIR BUTTS ON THE GROUND!!! When you are at a stoplight or stopsign later today, look out your driver's window and look at the curb - There is no excuse for that kind of behavior.

Clean it up, smokers!
30 posted on 10/17/2003 10:29:50 AM PDT by UseYourHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Neal Boortz fell for this Helena garbage ... big time.
31 posted on 10/17/2003 10:30:22 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
There is little to be gained by accepting a posture of a "smoking-rights advocate"; I prefer to call myself a smoking-ban opponent.

This is an issue of government rights versus inenumerated rights.

32 posted on 10/17/2003 10:31:29 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Post a scan of the death certificate that explicitly states, Cause of Death: Second Hand Smoke.
33 posted on 10/17/2003 10:33:38 AM PDT by metesky (Belligerence is a state of mind - mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
Great article,but you say it has gone from the archives.

Are they trying to "protect" the people? Unbelievable!Do they have a Freedom of Information type law in the UK?Isn't this censorship?

It never ceases to amaze me that not one mainstream newspaper in the US has ever tried to prevent this ETS scam from getting so out of control.
34 posted on 10/17/2003 10:33:46 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Even though I am not a resident of Montana, much less Helena, I did not suffer a heart attack during those six months. Nor did anyone else I know suffer a heart attack.

And the article says it was junk science!

< /sarcasm >

35 posted on 10/17/2003 10:34:59 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Be a glow worm, a glow worm's never glum, cuz how can you be grumpy when the sun shines out your bum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
It is safe to say that you could not work as a groundskeeper in spring in Nashville, but that doesn't mean that the government can present false evidence to bolster its shaky basis for usurpation of private freedom; in your workplace a reasonable accomodation could easily been made had you requested one through a Congressionally-mandated Act - the ADA; did you ever approach your employer along these lines prior to the smoking ban being put in place at your workplace?
36 posted on 10/17/2003 10:36:20 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CSM
I’m almost surprised that anyone is still trying to link secondhand smoke (search) with heart disease. The University of Chicago’s Dr. John Bailar -- no friend of the tobacco industry-- published in the March 25, 1999, New England Journal of Medicine his quite devastating analysis of the alleged link between secondhand smoke and heart disease.

University of Chicago BUMP!
37 posted on 10/17/2003 10:37:14 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UseYourHead
"Clean it up,smokers"

Give me a break. There are slob smokers and there are slob non-smokers.Don't put all smokers into the slob category,please.

You only see the ones that toss their cigarettes,you don't see the ones that properly dispose of them and they are in the majority.


38 posted on 10/17/2003 10:38:13 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mears
It's no so much a position of 'protecting the public' but more of one to 'protect thier postion' that SHS is bad and a health threat to everyone.

If you consider the amount of money that is involved here concerning taxation and lawsuits, the incentive to keep this information quiet is quite strong.

There recently was another article that I had read concerning this very same study, but, unfortunately, I didn't save it.

39 posted on 10/17/2003 10:38:28 AM PDT by Bigh4u2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Why would you try to use logic on "a man of reason?"
40 posted on 10/17/2003 10:39:05 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CSM
It just might clear up the smoke they’re blowing in our eyes.

I don't think that's where they've been blowing the smoke. For another good read and some fascinating history of anti-tobacco zealotry, see Jacob Sullum's For your own good : the anti-smoking crusade and the tyranny of public health.
41 posted on 10/17/2003 10:41:00 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"It is also clear that people breathing "second hand smoke" are subjected to far lower concentrations of smoke {and presumably carcinogens) simply because the primary source of the smoke is directed directly to the smokers lungs, not to other people."

So, like, what's filtering the smoke that comes out of the lit end of the cigarette that's spends half its time in someone's hand or in the ashtray?
42 posted on 10/17/2003 10:41:53 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Well I would agree.

But I think that's where the differences are at. People who smoke choose to do so. And, not all who smoke contract ailments that smoking can cause, such as emphysema or lung cancer.
On the other hand, those who choose not to smoke are subjected to the same ailments as those who choose to do so, though not all second-hand smokers do not contract the ailments smoking causes. Why should they be? It is this group that I think the law is trying to protect. If restricting the locations where second hand smoke can cause damage without stopping the smoker from smoking altogether, then would it not be a win-win situation?
If not, then I would suggest it is not the non-smoker, but the smoker who is imploring the Nazi tactics of enforcing the harmful choices they make onto the lives of others. (No offense intended).

I doubt seriously anyone who opposes laws restricting second hand smoke has ever been thru chemo.
43 posted on 10/17/2003 10:42:48 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: metesky
Can't, sorry.
44 posted on 10/17/2003 10:43:28 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
did you ever approach your employer along these lines prior to the smoking ban being put in place at your workplace?

Nope -- didn't have to, as it turned out. And people were better off for it.

At any rate, that's not at all my point. Milloy's article appears to go beyond this one flawed study, to imply that there is no harm from second-hand smoke.

My anecdotal example suggests that it is at least possible that smoke-free buildings are "healthier" than ones where smoking is permitted. I suggested a study that would provide evidence one way or the other -- for all I know, it's even been done by one insurance company or other.

Perhaps Milloy has covered it elsewhere, but I find it rather telling that did not see fit to even consider the question of whether second-hand smoke causes health issues.

45 posted on 10/17/2003 10:43:47 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Woops.

"though not all second-hand smokers do not contract the ailments smoking causes" should read

"though not all second-hand smokers contract the ailments smoking causes"
46 posted on 10/17/2003 10:44:46 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
When I got life insurance, they asked me if I or anyone in my house smoked. Why?
47 posted on 10/17/2003 10:45:57 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
r9etb said: "Well, Mr. Milloy seems to be telling us (without evidence) that second-hand tobacco smoke has no ill effects, which is nearly as dishonest as the claim he's addressing here. "

Really?

Could you point out where that claim is made?

I don't see it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The author is pointing out that there is an absence of evidence that reduction of SHS in Helena caused a reduction in heart disease. Pointing out that science has not been done does not constitute science in and of itself. The burden is squarely on those who claim to have proven a connection.

48 posted on 10/17/2003 10:47:37 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
They asked you if anyone smoked because they have bought the whole ETS thing. They never asked that 20 years ago and with all their resources and actuarial charts they would have seen a relationship to illness and ETS at that time.
49 posted on 10/17/2003 10:49:19 AM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Age of Reason
Thought it might be interesting to actully post the article that is being referenced.
Not that it will matter to some.

The Secondhand Smoking Gun

October 15, 2003
By ROSEMARY ELLIS





Six months into New York City's smoke-free ordinance, there has been a spate of criticism about the wisdom of sticking
by such a ban. The most notable came in a roundabout swipe
from none other than former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who declared during a trip to Ireland last month that Irish
citizens should have the choice to smoke in public places.
(Mr. Giuliani later tried to distance himself from his
comments.)

But if New York - as well as other cities and
municipalities - is ever tempted to rescind its smoking
ban, it should look at the goings-on in Helena, Mont. The
citizens of Helena voted in June 2002 to ban smoking in all
public buildings - including restaurants, bars and casinos.
Soon after, doctors at the local hospital noticed that
heart-attack admissions were dropping. So they, in
conjunction with the University of California, San
Francisco, did a study to measure the potential short-term
effects of a smoking ban.

Helena is a perfect place for such a study: relatively
isolated, with enough people in the region (66,000) for a
meaningful population sample, and only one cardiac-care
hospital within a 60-mile radius. So it was easy to control
the study sample and methodology: if you get a heart attack
in Helena, there's only one place to go for treatment.

The study showed two trends. First, there was no change in
heart attack rates for patients who lived outside city
limits. But for city residents, the rates plummeted by 58
percent in only six months.

"We know from longer-term studies that the effects of
secondhand smoke occur within minutes, and that long-term
exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with a 30
percent increased risk in heart attack rates," says Stanton
Glantz, a professor of medicine who conducted the study's
statistical analysis. "But it was quite stunning to
document this large an effect so quickly."

It was also stunning to witness what happened next. The
Montana State Legislature, under pressure from the Montana
Tavern Association and tobacco lobbyists, rescinded the ban
in December. The result: heart-attack rates bounced back up
almost as quickly as they dropped.

The bottom line of Helena's plummeting, then soaring, heart
attack rate is painfully obvious: secondhand smoke kills.
Only 30 minutes of exposure to it causes platelets in the
bloodstream to become stickier. When that happens, blood
clots form more easily, which can block arteries and cause
heart attacks.

Dr. Richard Sargent, one of the study's authors, points out
that eight hours of working in a smoky bar is equivalent to
smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. In such an environment,
other studies have shown, workers more than double their
chances of developing cancer and asthma, and pregnant
workers put themselves at risk for miscarriage and
premature delivery.

clip . . . .

rest of article at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/opinion/15ELLI.html?ex=1067214074&ei=1&en=e01a598f2c9a097b
50 posted on 10/17/2003 10:50:22 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Crom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-341 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson