If you don't want to listen to science or belive it, please talk to those of us that prove it by suffering terribly due to the effects of the chemicals in tobacco smoke - even outdoors.

It is sad, but the if it hasn't happened to you it must not be real attitude gets old.

Oh, brother. To mischaracterize Dr. Siegel's critiques of the SG's press release and comments as "completely refut[ing]" the report itself is arrant hogwash--typical of this despicable wave of internet propaganda.

The report has been accepted as solid work by the scientific community--but not, of course, by anonymous internet commenters. I wonder why. . . .

Gene:

If you believe Richard Carmona's 2006 report on secondhand smoke, you are about as a big of a fool as they come. Richard Carmona believed that the non-smoking, non-obese population should ostracize the smoking, obese population on the presumption that they would be more likely to pick up their bad habits.
And by the way, Carmona's 2006 report was completely refuted by anti-tobacco activist Michael Siegel, a professor of public health at Boston University who regularly speaks on behalf of workplace smoking bans.

I see the infamous US spammer "harleyrider" has gone global.

Readers should know this tobacco industry tool (fool) does nothing but post his tobacco-derived junk all over the internet (google him).


BUT he doesn't DARE show up at actual hearings to "enlighten" legislators.


Here's just one example of how tobacco fought against smoking bans and secondhand smoke science:

"Philip Morris Sought Experts to Cloud Issue, Memo Details"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tobacco/stories/second.htm

Of course, that was 20 years ago. Technology has changed. Viral marketing on the internet, for one. Since even Philip Morris acknowledges the science (see their website), maybe some PR firms have chosen to go bottom-feeding, chasing tobacco's last remaining demographic: the poor, the uneducated, the sad fools stupid enough to believe anonymous internet spammers.

No, I'll take my health information from real scientists, with names, educations, honest reputations and the plain ordinary GUTS (listening, "harleyrider?") to publish openly and to stand up in front of legislators and tell the truth.

Unfortunately for "harleyrider" and his tiny team of prolific spammers, the truth is out there, from many respected sources, and it's very easy to find:

The comprehensive 2006 Surgeon General's report is at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tobacco/stories/second.htm/

Mayo Clinic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tobacco/stories/second.htm

National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Research:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tobacco/stories/second.htm

PubMed Central:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tobacco/stories/second.htm/

Gotse said: "Never! We love smoking and it won't work here. Most people smoke."

Yeah, Gotse, we know. That's why all the men look like they fell off a cliff when they hit age 70 and that's why all the women look like barmaids. It's bad enough when men smoke, but women engaging in this filthy, disgusting habit? I will say one thing, I don't know what things are like "vo Makedonija," but in America only the low class, the uneducated and the addicts smoke.

Yes, I agree that second-hand smoke is indeed a joke unless you have prolonged exposure. That said, what about the annoyance factor? What about the fact that a minority of people smoke and that minority soils other people, their clothing, their personal belongings ... makes their cars smell, and makes their homes smell when they come home. Just like you can't put a landfill or play loud music next to a hospital because you ANNOY people, neither should you be allowed to smoke. Take your filthy, dirty, unhealthy, disgusting habit and keep it at home where it belongs.

It's the matter of common comfort. Do you think that for example for kids it's nice to smell that smoke in some restaurant. And to see it's totally acceptable to smoke. Which makes them to smoke easier when they are adults. And nobody can say smoking is healthy.

second hand smoke is scam... if you belieive it. you are brainwashed sheep.


In the US for example, read all the statistics of all the health problems CLAIMED were caused by second hand smoke a decade ago. Fast forward to today where the last few years over 90 percent of second hand smoke has been eliminated (due to draconian public smoking laws)


One would think, that with that kind of a reduction in second hand smoke there would be an enormous effect on health. right? happy healthy people all round.

no, zip, nada, none.

in fact, each and every single health concern blamed on second hand smoke CONTINUED to see increases across the board.

Never! We love smoking and it won't work here. Most people smoke. Maybe they should ban the Macedonian Diaspora from coming home every year?

Norway has always had a law against advertising tobacco products. What are you talking about???

Billions of people around the world have endured second hand smoke and have survived and living healthy lives. Not one expert has been able to name one person to have died from secondhand smoke.

Tobacco smells like horror and that smell stays in your clothes and hair - even if you are not the one who smokes.

SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke...when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor..................thats right water..........you ever burned leaves in the fall...know how the heavy smoke bellows off.......thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made......thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006........after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons.......because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ........they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position.......as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa's is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa's study on shs as junk science......... Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

concludes that "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed." What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers.....



meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:


Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent " The results are consistent with their 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 Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.' " And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)


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. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057/


As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright 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." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978



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.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

"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.


Outdoor bans are even crazier than indoor bans. The chemical make-up of shs is nearly 94% water vapor and A SLIGHT AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE with about 3% being carbon monoxide AND 3% CONTAINING THOSE SUPPOSED KILLER CARCENOGENS.........

n-nitrosomines which you hear so much about is actually arsenic..what they dont tell you is that the measurements they took match the naturally occuring arsenic in the air outside everywhere.
they measured levels at 0-29 picograms....which is totally safe...the amount has to be 5 million times that to be harmful to humans........you see how they switched it. Trying to blame shs for what is actually a natural thing. The levels of other things in shs if they can be measured at all are millions if not billions of times smaller than the amounts needed to harm anyone......just remember this second hand smoke is a joke within nano seconds from the burn it turns into WATER VAPOR.....Even the exhaled smoke is loaded down with water vapor...osha has said nothing in shs/ets is going to harm you or anyone else.....what shs will do is irritate those with weak immune responces.......thats why shs is classified as a class 3 IRRITANT BY OSHA AND THE EPA.....Remember this a prohibition movement must rely on scare tactics and big money in order to succeed to the level of getting legislation....These outdoor regulations are even crazier than the first claims made for indoor bans.......

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright 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." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978


There isn't any need for changes to be made to the Ontario Building Code, or anyone else's for that matter. Air quality testing done by the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Oak Ridge (Tennessee) National Laboratory have found that second-hand smoke levels are well within safe limits. Add to this the fact that there have been a great number of studies that found that there isn't any statistical risk from second-hand smoke in the first place.

It should be obvious to all by now that all this smoker-bashing has absolutely nothing to do with health. Harm from second-hand smoke is essentially a rumour, usually raised by people who simply hate smokers. Causation cannot be shown using statistical science. Smoking bans – of any type – are nothing more than a form of ethnic cleansing and should be regarded as hate crimes.

This comment has been removed by the moderator because it contained foul, abusive or discriminating language.