Hehe! That's my chuckle for today. Thanks so much!!!! 
Must be all that hot sun they have to endure. :)
Posted on 01/30/2006 2:50:37 PM PST by SheLion
A new report from California's EPA ("Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant.") which sensationally alleges that secondhand smoke is a "cause" of breast cancer and a "toxic contaminent " of outdoor air, has been scathingly criticized by top researchers in all the relevant fields.
The American Cancer Society stated unequivocally, in a written comment, that it did not agree with Cal-EPA's conclusion that secondhand smoke was a cause of breast cancer, and that published evidence did not support the requisite criteria for causation.
Other written charges leveled by top scientists agreed on the following points:
·¶ The California EPA excluded or misinterpreted the published peer-reviewed evidence that countered its own a priori conclusions.
¶ Used faulty or entirely inappropriate methodology;
·¶ Its cherry-picked selections, and jumped-to conclusions, were "advocative" in tone and very seriously biased;
Roger A. Jenkins, senior air quality researcher for the U.S. government 's Oak Ridge National Labs, also accused the report of excluding important studies and of thus reaching conclusions "incongruent with the latest scientific evidence."
Maurice E. LeVois, himself the author of many published studies in the field of ETS, adds to this litany that "objective methods and criteria were not used," that the methods that were used were "improper" and "not warranted" and were evaluated by "vague and subjective" criteria.
"Such exercises," he writes, "are result-driven and don't conform to even the most basic standards." Noting the "consistent effort [of this report] to emphasize data that support its own conclusions. and criticize and ignore [or even "misrepresent"] the data that undermine" them, he adds that these conclusions are simply "not supported by the previously published research or the more recent studies."
Sanford H. Barsky, Professor of Pathology at UCLA and a practicing oncologist, takes specific and well-documented exception to the Report's conclusions about breast cancer, which not only fly in the face of other (extensively cited) studies but lack any "credible biological mechanism."
Other accredited scientists to similarly comment include Peter N. Lee (author of many published studies in the field), J. Daniel Heck, Patricia Martin, and Carr J. Smith, all PhD, DABT.
NYC C.L.A.S.H. URGES THE MEDIA TO TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT
In fairness to both your readers and your profession, we urge you to dig beyond the press release propaganda, and to investigate and report on the well-considered critiques of these major scientists. Their comments are recorded in the Report's Appendix C or can be found here, and we'd hope interested journalists would read their critiques and get in touch with the authors for supplementary interviews.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYC C.L.A.S.H. is a grassroots smokers' rights organization that is well-established with the media. Among other efforts, C.L.A.S.H. sued NY State and City in Federal Court over the smoking bans and are part of the court record as a complainant in the currently pending federal court case of U.S. vs. Philip Morris, et al.
We don't care if it's Bogus Science. This is California. We do not make laws and decisions based on FACT or LOGIC!!! What do you think? We make LAW based on emotions only. If it feels good, we make it a law. We don't need no stinkin' science!!
Hehe! That's my chuckle for today. Thanks so much!!!!
Must be all that hot sun they have to endure. :)
I'll be damned !
Anybody have a link to this?
I remember the time that a report came out that said that it had been discovered that secondhand smoke was more dangerous to non-smokers than to smokers. My first reaction was to immediately take up smoking to solve that problem. They really think that we are ignorant out here. I just roll my eyes whenever a new scientific pronouncement comes out along these lines.
How kind of them.........yet the antis continue to push the bogus crapola that SHS causes SIDS even though the SIDS organizations have repeatedly requested they stop.
Nice, huh?
After all the glorious comments about California doing their own research, I just couldn't let this go. I wanted everyone to see this!
Click on "here" shown below.
In fairness to both your readers and your profession, we urge you to dig beyond the press release propaganda, and to investigate and report on the well-considered critiques of these major scientists. Their comments are recorded in the Report's Appendix C or can be found here, and we'd hope interested journalists would read their critiques and get in touch with the authors for supplementary interviews.
California has NEVER done their own research on SHS/ETS. Cal-EPA used the cooked crapola fromt he US-EPA.
When their direct way on the smokers didn't work, they then started yelling that smokers second hand smoke is KILLING everyone. Well.............guess what...............a lot of research has been proven that this is not the case!
I know it. They got their teeth sunk into it, and like a pack of wild dogs, they refuse to let go. Hoping the general public will keep on believing them.
*snicker*
They wouldn't be housed in Berkley would they?
...And God Created California!
In the Beginning
God was missing for six days. Eventually, Michael the archangel found him, resting on the seventh day. He inquired of God. "Where have you been?"
God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look, Michael. Look what I've made."
Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?"
"It's a planet," replied God, "and I've put Life on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance."
"Balance?" Inquired Michael, still confused.
God explained, pointing to different parts of earth. "For example, northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth while southern Europe is going to be poor. Over there I've placed a continent of white people and over there is a continent of black people," God continued pointing to different countries. "This one will be extremely hot and while this one will be very cold and covered in ice."
The Archangel, impressed by God's work, then pointed to a land mass and said "What's that one?"
"Ah," said God. "That's California the most glorious place on earth. There are beautiful beaches, deserts, streams, hills, and forests. The people from California are going to be handsome, modest, intelligent and humorous and they are going to be found traveling the world. They will be extremely sociable, hardworking and high achieving, and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace."
Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then proclaimed, "What about balance, God? You said there would be balance!!!"
God replied wisely, "Wait until you see the idiots I put in Sacramento."
OMG I ALMOST FELL OFF MY CHAIR!
LOL!!!!!!!!!! GOOD one! hehe!
Calif has an ad on the radio here"4700 non smokers die here (calif) every year from second hand smoke." Are you telling me that my state govt would LIE to me? I'm heartbroken
And me! I would like to see the proof of this. Names, death certificates? I will never ever again take their word at face value.
That's the problem with everyone. They know we have been sheeple out here in the past and they believe that they can lie and tell us anything and we, as sheeple, will believe them.
NO MORE!
The problem is they have the money and media attention to keep putting this crap out, and so the general public does believe it.
I heard today that Ted Kennedy is yammering that asthma deaths in children have doubled in the past 5 years..........I would like to know how this can be, based on the claims that maternal pre-natal smoking and exposure to SHS are major causes of asthma even though those numbers have been dropping at record rates.
Listen closely...I'll bet the words are more along the lines of, "...die from the second-hand effects of smoking."
I caught an anti-campaign on this in Louisiana. Their numbers included deaths from fires *believed* to have been started by cigarettes.
Thanks, but I'm looking for the statement from a site linked with the American Cancer Society.
That way the nico-nazis can't deny my sources.
Feelings are far more important than facts or logic.
Air Panel to Act on Cancer Studies
January 26, 2006 -- Melanie Marty, chief of air toxicology and epidemiology for the [CA] state office. "The pattern that emerged from the data was that the link is there between exposure to secondhand smoke and breast cancer in younger women." The report also found stronger links between secondhand smoke and sudden infant death syndrome, premature births, and other cancers and respiratory diseases.Dr. Michael Thun, vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research for the American Cancer Society, said that although he commended Cal/EPA for its "very thorough update" on harmful secondhand smoke, "at this point there is not broad scientific consensus. There is solid evidence that there are carcinogens in tobacco smoke that cause breast cancer in animals. This is an active area of research, and it is certainly possible that environmental tobacco smoke does increase breast cancer risk in humans."
Medical researchers have disagreed about whether secondhand smoke causes breast cancer. A 2004 analysis of data by the International Agency for Research did not find a link. Jonathan Samet, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University who helped write that report and who is senior scientific editor of the upcoming surgeon general's report, said, " 'Cause' is a big word. That's why there is a spectrum of opinion."
He said that although studies quickly and overwhelmingly identified a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, the evidence of a connection with breast cancer was "more ambiguous and more difficult to interpret."
Samet said continued research was needed because "breast cancer is extraordinarily important, and people desperately want to know its causes."
snip
I have seen a statistic, more than once, that 90% of people that die of lung cancer NEVER SMOKED!
The ACS comments were part of the Public Comments submitted to CARB. They used to have a nice format
where you could read each individual's comment one at a time. Since then they've turned it into a massive 500 plus page document found here:
ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/regact/ets2006/app3part%20c.pdf
Even with high speed connections it takes several minutes to download. Then you'd search for the person representing the ACS. But also note that the first part of this document is where CARB shows their responses to some of
what was written by commentators. You need to scroll way way down to find the original comments posted in their original format.
That way the nico-nazis can't deny my sources.
Check out my post #28
Also the following link will help as well.
Excerpts:
A comprehensive review by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the branch of WHO that evaluates cancer hazards, did not find the evidence linking secondhand smoke to breast cancer to be conclusive in 2002. A Surgeon General Report on secondhand smoke is currently reexamining the evidence.
The new report, by the California Air Resources Board, is sure to fuel debate about tobacco regulation and clean indoor air laws. It was prepared as part of a state effort to determine how big a health risk secondhand smoke actually is. That information will then be used to decide whether additional steps need to be taken in California to limit exposure to secondhand smoke.
"The issue of whether secondhand smoke causes breast cancer, as well as numerous other diseases, is difficult to study," says Dr. Michael Thun, vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research at ACS.
Active smoking is not proven to increase breast cancer risk, he said, so explaining why much lower doses of smoke would do so is very complicated. Furthermore, in Western countries, most women in the age range where breast cancer becomes common have been exposed to substantial amounts of secondhand smoke, so it is difficult to find an unexposed comparison group.
I'm just getting over Pleurisy. Now everyone I know has had this damn flu and they've had Bronchitis, Pneumonia and it has hung on for weeks. Everyone implies that the only reason I'm sick is cuz I smoke. I'm sick of it! I wonder why anyone else GETS sick. I mean, do they have any excuse if they don't smoke? Do you suppose they're all faking it because none of the people I know who are terribly sick smoke.
Well God forbid you get a hang nail. They will blame smoking for that too. It's ridiculous!
Hope you are feeling better!!
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for posting it, SheLion.
Premier Supermatic is working fine. Thanks for the suggestion.
Don't forget, the State of Delaware specifies that ZITS are scientifically linked to smoking.
I truly felt sorry for my poor brother when we were teenagers. He had a horrendous problem with acne, whereas I got 1 or 2 pimples a month at the same time every month. I can't imagine what things would have been like for my brother if he smoked.
If you want out-of-date technology promoted by second-rate scientists turned bureaucrats seeking to use government power to establish and maintain their own fiefdom, look no farther than the EPA.
Mine's fine, too, but I was curious-what's the first part on those to wear out?
So glad to hear it!
But it takes quite a while for it to go.
I wonder if the usual suspects will be conspicuously absent here.
Or will they show up with some "argument" based on comically tortured logic?
Like a few years? One year? Six months? Roughly, of course. Just wanted to know when I should start thinking about buying a backup & throwing it in the closet.
Good post SheLion. Thanks.
I'd say at least a year.
Good enough, thanks. I'll probably get a backup late this year, then. Just bought this one a few weeks ago.
Opps, think of all the money it will cost to change the warning labels on cig packs?
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
do you have access to that report that was up on rush limbaughs site a few years ago?It was a w.h.o.study that proved second hand smoke not only wasnt harmful but was actually benificial to some people then w.h.o. had the report buried.It was on his site in 2002 or 2003.I had it saved on an old computer that died a year and a half ago and I havent been able to find the report anywhere since I got my new computer
do you have access to that report that was up on rush limbaughs site a few years ago?It was a w.h.o.study that proved second hand smoke not only wasnt harmful but was actually benificial to some people then w.h.o. had the report buried.It was on his site in 2002 or 2003.I had it saved on an old computer that died a year and a half ago and I havent been able to find the report anywhere since I got my new computer.
Just this one at the moment:
Here's the abstract to the WHO study
Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.
BACKGROUND: An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven European countries.
METHODS: A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
"Weak Evidence" I'd say, 1.16 & 1.17 is not a significant risk, especially considering at the low range of the CI (0.93 & 0.94) it's actually offering a protective effect
(If you don't know what these numbers mean see here for an intro)
Now compare SHS to Milk
Milk drinking, other beverage habits, and lung cancer risk.
The reported beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 control patients admitted to Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) were studied, 355 male cases and 214 female cases being matched to controls within strata of age and residence. Smoking history and an index of vitamin A from vegetables had significant, dose-response associations with risk. Animal fat intake as measured by an index of animal fats from meats showed elevated risks which were not significant. Three vegetables rich in vitamin A and 3 meats contributing to the animal fat index were, individually, associated with lung cancer risk. Frequency of consumption of milk, coffee, tea, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages was studied in multiple logistic regression analyses which controlled for smoking history, intake of vitamin A from vegetables and education level. Subjects reporting consumption of whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk compared to those who reported never drinking whole milk (RR = 2.14). The same frequency of intake of reduced-fat milk was associated with a significant protective effect (RR = .54). Significant risk variations were observed for other beverages but, with the exception of frequencies of reported diet cola and decaffeinated coffee intake, dose-response patterns were not evident.
Risk from whole milk 214%
Risk from SHS 17%
So MILK is 12.6 TIMES DEADLIER THAN Second Hand Smoke
What change is that?
You are welcome!
The author alerted us yesterday and I couldn't wait to get the information over here on Free Republic.
We can't even believe the "big wigs" anymore. The all lie through their teeth about smoking.
Sure, it's not a habit for everyone, but it IS a habit for a lot of us. :)
Or will they show up with some "argument" based on comically tortured logic?
Did you read the joke at post #18? I almost fell off my chair. How true. LOL
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.