Re: A Book Review for Francis and other anti-smoking zealots
Janet
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7704/
>
> I didn't make it up, Francis.
>
> Mique
Junk science aside, I am very happy that I can now go to a public place such
as a movie theater, airplane, or restaurant and not emerge with clothes and
hair reeking of cigarette smoke and the beginnings of a splitting sinus
headache. The idea of being imprisoned in one's working environment for 8 or
more hours a day with smokers befouling the air is horrifying.
Smokers chose to impose their habit on the rest of us for far too long. I
have no sympathy whatever. They can kill themselves in their own homes and
cars if they like: that's their own business. Now if we could only get them
to stop strewing their cigarette butts all over nature, that would be nice
too.
I deplore the use of junk science to make arguments against smoking: there's
plenty of good science around the ill effects of smoking, and plenty of
other reasons to discourage smoking in public places.
Last week I prepared the reception for the memorial service of a dear friend
who died of lung cancer at the age of 53, leaving many bereft. Smoked
heavily for 15 years.
Francis A. Miniter
> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7704/
>
> I didn't make it up, Francis.
>
> Mique
No. It is questionable. E.g, How do you accurately control
parameters over a 40 year period? Were the attempts to
catalogue effects as well controlled in the early years as
in more recent years? There have been many. many criticisms
of this study. E.g.,
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32297
and /www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32327
Secondhand smoke affect on Peripheral Artery Disease:
http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=518
Affect on children:
http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=365
Affect on Heart Attack Rates:
http://americanheart.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=824
The Surgeon General's Report (2006) on Secondhand Smoke:
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2006/index.htm
Affects on Respiratory System: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive
Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.:
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
1992 [accessed 2006 Oct 23]. Publication No. EPA/600/6-90/006F.
Secondhand Smoke in the Workplace:
http://www.nasdonline.org/document/1194/d001030/environmental-tobacco-smoke-in-the-workplace-lung-cancer.html
The war waged by the tobacco industry:
http://no-smoking.org/dec02/12-04-02-2.html
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Francis A. Miniter
I second this response.
Francis A. Miniter
> Mike Burke wrote:
>> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7704/
>>
>> I didn't make it up, Francis.
>>
>> Mique
>
>
> No. It is questionable. E.g, How do you accurately control parameters
> over a 40 year period? Were the attempts to catalogue effects as well
> controlled in the early years as in more recent years? There have been
> many. many criticisms of this study. E.g.,
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32297
> and /www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32327
>
http:://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32327
Jr@Ease
Over Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, s/he wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
out more enjoyable. And I'm not being sacrcastic. I agree with you.
Now, if someone wants to get up in arms about junk science, and how
people overreact to it, read:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience
John P
Old Beeg
Beeg
On Nov 16, 11:03 am, "Janet" <boxh...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Junk science aside, I am very happy that I can now go to a public place such
> as a movie theater, airplane, or restaurant and not emerge with clothes and
> hair reeking of cigarette smoke and the beginnings of a splitting sinus
> headache. The idea of being imprisoned in one's working environment for 8 or
> more hours a day with smokers befouling the air is horrifying.
>
> Smokers chose to impose their habit on the rest of us for far too long. I
> have no sympathy whatever. They can kill themselves in their own homes and
> cars if they like: that's their own business...
Joan in GB-W
"Jr@Ease" <do.not.s...@this.address> wrote in message
news:jm53g5d8e1bn8ml20...@4ax.com...
After many years working in a public health department, I am a proponent of
immunizations (why do you think smallpox has been eradicated; why are polio,
whooping cough, etc. cases disappearing in this country, and it blows my
mind that there are people out there who oppose immunizing children--or
adults) and quite the proponent of smoking awareness/cessation campaigns. I
also disagree with Mique on the subject of global warming.
Joan
Joan in GB-W
"Mike Burke" <mbu...@pcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:plh3g5hesl0vs20ev...@4ax.com...
>
> Mique
Whew, thank goodness. The feelings are mutual.
Joan
Pogonip
>>
> Precisely. But there are limits, and down here in Oz, at least, we're
> way beyond those reasonable limits now.
>
> The main point is that scientists telling blatant lies - or at the
> very least allowing the media and others to do so unchallenged - has
> damaged the credibility of science and scientists.
>
> On that, don't they teach the fable about the boy who cried wolf
> anymore?
>
> Mique
Forty years ago, the hot issue in biological science was chromosome
damage. It was one of the weapons in the war against drugs -- use
drugs, break your chromosomes, and we all know what that leads to, right?
At that time I was married to a biology professor, and one of his
colleagues was a geneticist, well-regarded with some fame at the time.
He remarked that when you put chromosomes in a test tube and add almost
anything -- even water -- there can be damage. He was highly critical
of "scientific research" that worked back from the desired conclusion.
--
Joanne
stitches @ singerlady.reno.nv.us.earth.milky-way.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bernardschopen/
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7704/
>
>I didn't make it up, Francis.
>
FWIW (and yeah, it's only one person), my Mom, after years of
breathing second-hand smoke from my Dad's smoking, developed
emphysema. Doctors(s) said it was directly related to that smoke.
(true - not lung cancer, but an individual proof that second-hand
smoke is not benign)
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Wes Struebing
I agree, but point out that cigarette butts do biodegrade...(that
said, I hate to clean 'em up in our yard; they're messy...)
Wes Struebing
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:47:05 -0600, "Joan in GB-W" <jjk...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
<snip>
>> I
>>also disagree with Mique on the subject of global warming.
>>
>Yet I still love you. :-)
>
>Mique
You just wanted to stir the pot, didn't you, Mique?
;-)
Mike Burke
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:40:44 +1100, Mike Burke <mbu...@pcug.org.au>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:47:05 -0600, "Joan in GB-W" <jjk...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>> I
>>>also disagree with Mique on the subject of global warming.
>>>
>>Yet I still love you. :-)
>>
>>Mique
>
>You just wanted to stir the pot, didn't you, Mique?
>
>;-)
Not in this instance. I feel very strongly about the abuse of science
by zealots which was the point of the book and its review, and not the
defence of smokers and smoking per se. I gave up smoking more than 16
years ago, so I'm hardly going to defend it. But the cure has become
far worse than the disease as the health Nazis use dodgy science to
force people to do conform with _their_ rules. It's the template for
all other authoritarianism, including the global warming campaign,
that has followed.
It will end in tears.
Mique
Mary
Uh-huh. What are the filters made of? A quick google says they're
made of cellulose acetate, a plastic. Biodegradable, maybe, but not
very quickly.
Mary
Mary
> Forty years ago, the hot issue in biological science was chromosome
> damage. It was one of the weapons in the war against drugs -- use
> drugs, break your chromosomes, and we all know what that leads to, right?
>
> At that time I was married to a biology professor, and one of his
> colleagues was a geneticist, well-regarded with some fame at the time.
> He remarked that when you put chromosomes in a test tube and add almost
> anything -- even water -- there can be damage. He was highly critical
> of "scientific research" that worked back from the desired conclusion.
Dang. And here I've been taking a shower every day.
Mary
Francis A. Miniter
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:26:14 -0500, "Francis A. Miniter"
> <fami...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>> Mike Burke wrote:
>>>> http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7704/
>>>>
>>>> I didn't make it up, Francis.
>>>>
>>>> Mique
>>>
>>> No. It is questionable. E.g, How do you accurately control parameters
>>> over a 40 year period? Were the attempts to catalogue effects as well
>>> controlled in the early years as in more recent years? There have been
>>> many. many criticisms of this study. E.g.,
>>> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32297
>>> and /www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32327
>>>
>> That should have been:
>> http:://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32327
>
>
> Mique
Not if the methodology was wrong as the articles I cited to
you suggest. By author I take you to mean Kabat and
Engstrom, not FitzGerald,
Joyleen E. Seymour
Third!
Pogonip
But not applying scent or deodorant, as the non-smoking zealots in
California would have put into law next?
Bud
>
> Dang. And here I've been taking a shower every day.
>
> Mary
Just don't swallow, Mary.
--
Bud
Bud
>
> But not applying scent or deodorant, as the non-smoking zealots in
> California would have put into law next?
Hey, I'm for that law. Alluring women begone.
--
Bud
Janet
It has been standard operating procedure in choirs and choral groups for
more than 10 years not to wear scent.
Doesn't mean you can't wear deoderant.
Bud
> Bud wrote:
>> Pogonip wrote:
>>>
>>> But not applying scent or deodorant, as the non-smoking zealots in
>>> California would have put into law next?
>>
>> Hey, I'm for that law. Alluring women begone.
>
Doesn't smell? Okay!
--
Bud
Mary
> Mary wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 6:50 pm, Pogonip <nobo...@nowhere.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Forty years ago, the hot issue in biological science was chromosome
>>> damage. It was one of the weapons in the war against drugs -- use
>>> drugs, break your chromosomes, and we all know what that leads to,
>>> right?
>>>
>>> At that time I was married to a biology professor, and one of his
>>> colleagues was a geneticist, well-regarded with some fame at the time.
>>> He remarked that when you put chromosomes in a test tube and add almost
>>> anything -- even water -- there can be damage. He was highly critical
>>> of "scientific research" that worked back from the desired conclusion.
>>
>>
>> Dang. And here I've been taking a shower every day.
>>
>> Mary
>
> But not applying scent or deodorant, as the non-smoking zealots in
> California would have put into law next?
Deodorant, yes. Scent, no - I get headaches from perfumes and that kind
of thing. I don't even like strongly scented laundry detergent.
Mary
Mary
*snort*
OK, Bud, that was a good one.
Mary
Willow
say climate change is not happening (same fellows).
Up here, we have noted a major change in climate.
Willow
BarbNJ
"Willow" <pang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:b6a00b7d-9d5c-4315...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Down here (NJ-outside Phila PA) we have too. In the summer we are often
warmer than Orlando Florida and Houston Tx, always warmer than many places
in Ca. Even in the winter, we are often warmer than Santa Monica Ca. Weather
obsession has become a new hobby for me (I think because I'm often just too
darn hot).
Barb NJ