shepd's Journal: Updates on Passive Smoking

Just posting this to let you know I've fixed some errors in my Passive Smoking journal entry.

Also, if the discussion in that journal entry gets closed up, feel free to post here instead.

Have asthma? Please read this before you bullshit me. I don't even see the word smoke in the entire article. Some studies show that second hand smoke is not a leading cause of asthma attacks. But hey, don't take my word for it, take a judge's:

In addition, the prosecution introduced as part of their evidence the January '93 EPA report on lung cancer and ETS. About this report the judge had these words: "I would have thought that these reports would be those which supported the prosecution case most strongly, but they appear not to. One of these reports is the American EPA report... Chapter 7.9 of the report covers passive smoking and respiratory symptoms and lung function in adults. Table 7.11 tabulates 6 studies and their results, which really show the contrary to what the prosecution witnesses say." The decision, handed down in Perth on September 17, 1993, concluded: "Whilst ETS is annoying and of discomfort to non smokers it has not been proved at the required standard, or at all, that it is a risk to the health of the employees at the Casino."

For your enjoyment, I dug up the study and that exact page. In summary, it is a table of various reports on ETS and the results found. Let me summarize them for you, as the report itself is readily availble on the EPA site if you'd like it:

Svendsen Study (1987): No Dose Response Effect
Kalandidi Study (1987): No Dose Response Effect
Masi Study (1988): Strongest effect in Men for exposure before age 17 yr.
Kauffmann Study (1989): Increased risks for respiratory symptoms did not reach statistical significance
Hole Study (1989): No significant increase in risk of symptoms
Schwartz and Zeger (1990): Over-reporting by exposed subjects may bias results

Now you know why the judge was confused. Aren't you? This is the report that's hearalded as the proof that second hand smoke causes cancer. Why would anybody think that with data with such results quoted in that very report?

So who is left for us to protect? Oh, that's right, your comfort is at risk from second hand smoke.

I think it's more than a little self-centered to put your own comfort on a higher level than everyone's freedom. Don't you?

And if you still think you'll die from second hand smoke, how many studies will it take to convince you? I think we've spent enough money beating this dead horse. Let's move on and repeal anti-smoking laws already.

yop

[Gropo]

The restaurant patron should be the one to ultimately decide wether or not they dine at a restaurant with tobbacco smoke in the air. As follows, the restaurant employee should decide wether or not they are to work in that environment (as was the argument for New York's recent smoking ban). Crazy how Republicans here in the Northeast act like Democrats when it comes to issues like this.

Now, if only I could pass an apartment-wide law that prevents my girlfriend from polluting our bedroom air with ciggie sm