Our Oceans are Under Attack

I have no idea if the last chance, desperation treatment of the already terminally ill, was counted as death by doctor error.
Unjust if it is.

My point was a bit tongue in cheek.
I accept the minor health risk of smoking, since I already so GREATLY reduced my risk, by abstaining from dangerous alcohol and doctors.

If I become really seriously ill, permanently invalided, I'd rather just pass on.
Bury me with a fork in my hand.
My grandma always advised me to keep my fork, while the dishes were being cleared from the table. "Something GOOD is coming after!" she promised.

 

"And I've smoked for more than 50 years! Still do."



Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 deaths, or one of every five deaths, each year.
More than 16 million Americans suffer from a disease caused by smoking

Secondhand smoke causes diseases and death

Research is still being done, but women should be told that this possible link to breast cancer is yet another reason to avoid being around SHS.

Secondhand smoke (SHS) can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it’s responsible for:
• An estimated 42,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers
• About 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
• Worse asthma and asthma-related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children
• Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (lung and bronchus) in children under 18 months of age, with 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year
• Making children much more likely to be put into intensive care when they have the flu; they stay in the hospital longer, and they’re more likely to need breathing tubes than kids who aren’t exposed to SHS

In the United States, the costs of extra medical care, illness, and death caused by SHS are over $10 billion per year

Surgeon General’s reports: Findings on smoking, secondhand smoke, and health

Since 1964, 34 separate US Surgeon General’s reports have been written to make the public aware of the health issues linked to tobacco and SHS. The ongoing research used in these reports still supports the fact that tobacco and SHS are linked to serious health problems that could be prevented. The reports have highlighted many important findings on SHS, such as:
• SHS kills children and adults who don’t smoke.
• SHS causes disease in children and in adults who don’t smoke.
• Exposure to SHS while pregnant increases the chance that a woman will have a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), stillborn birth, low birth-weight baby, and other pregnancy and delivery problems.
• Babies and children exposed to SHS are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), upper respiratory and lung infections, ear infections, and more severe and frequent asthma attacks.
• Smoking by parents can cause wheezing, coughing, bronchitis, and pneumonia, and slow lung growth in their children.
• SHS immediately affects the heart, blood vessels, and blood circulation in a harmful way. Over time it can cause heart disease, strokes, and heart attacks.
• SHS causes lung cancer in people who have never smoked. Even brief exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion. The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases the chance of getting lung cancer by 20% to 30%.
• Chemicals in tobacco smoke damage sperm which might reduce fertility and harm fetal development. SHS is known to damage sperm in animals, but more studies are needed to find out its effects in humans.
• There is no safe level of exposure to SHS. Any exposure is harmful.
• Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to SHS in their homes and workplaces despite a great deal of progress in tobacco control. In fact, almost half of non-smokers and more that 60% of children in the US continue to be exposed.
• On average, children are exposed to more SHS than non-smoking adults.
• The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS indoors is to prevent all smoking in that indoor space or building. Separating smokers from non-smokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot keep non-smokers from being exposed to SHS.

 

Can you post any experiment results showing tobacco in any form caused cancer?
Opinions are only opinions, and statistics are often misinterpreted. Any PROOFs of your allegation? Tell a lie often enough, some people will believe it, those that WANT to believe it.

"THE LIE: Cigarette smoke and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
or Second Hand Smoke (SHS) Causes cancer.


THE Truth: Simply stated there is no known cause for any type of cancer. With all the testing that has been done with every type of chemical, gas, inert matter, and substances that have been altered through exposure to heat or chemical reaction, nothing has been proven to cause cancer. NOTHING! In some instances specific substances, in massive quantities, have been administered to laboratory rats. In these cases many of the animals might have developed a cancer. These sorts of tests may be considered Junk Science in that they have no relationship to a real life scenario.

The World Health Organization ran one of the most exhaustive tests on SHS ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showed no measurable relationship of SHS to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke. The W.H. O attempted to hid these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public.



THE LIE: The desire for smoking bans is a grass roots movement.


THE TRUTH: Smoking bans have almost exclusively been started by organizations such as The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, A.S.H., the Heart, Cancer, and Lung Organizations and major pharmaceutical corporations. Over one billion dollars, from the Master Tobacco Settlement has funded the activities of many of these organizations for the past 5 years. Promoting smoking bans is big business for these organizations, especially the drug companies who are reaping huge profits on their almost worthless smoking cessation products.



When all sources of money are added together, nearly $1,500,000,000.00 have been squandered in bring about smoking bans in about 155 municipalities across the nation. The average money spent on each of these municipalities equates to about $9,675,000.00 per location. In simpler terms it will take Jerry Lewis's Muscular Dystrophy Telethon 30 years to collect the same sum of money at the rate of $50,000,000.00 per Telethon. When a properly informed public is given the opportunity to vote on a smoking ban issue, they invariably will vote the ban down. This has already happened on numerous occasions and it is expected to occur in New York City by 2005.


THE LIE: Second Hand Smoke is a public health issue.


THE TRUTH: It is impossible for SHS to be a public health issue for the simple reason there is NO proof that SHS has hurt anyone. In fact, according the W.H.O. (see above), SHS may have some beneficial effect on children. The smoke haters like to point out that the Health Departments have a right to control smoking issues for the same reason they have the right to check on health conditions in restaurants and bars.


This is a specious argument primarily because true health issues in food service establishments relate primarily to microbes and organisms that have an absolute direct effect on heath and sanitation. It is the Health Departments' sole responsibility to see to it that health standards are maintained. If individuals are concerned about SHS a simple notice stating that smoking is allowed is all that is needed for the public to make a decision about patronizing and establishment. This concept is called, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!


THE LIE: Smoking bans are good for business.


THE TRUTH: Of all the nonsense put forth by the smoke haters this concept is nearly the most ridiculous. There was no basis in fact for this idea when originally stated. Now that the financial results of the bans are being felt in many different cities it is becoming painfully obvious that many businesses are being irreparably harmed. Many of the smoke haters who not only are experts on SHS would also have you believe they are experts in the field of accounting. They will site tax records and other data to prove the business of bars and restaurants are up since the bans were imposed. Their numbers however are egregiously manipulated and include figures from establishments that normally wouldn't be part of such a survey.



The fact of the matter is the anecdotal evidence is far more realistic. There is a hardly a restaurant or bar that hasn't been adversely affected by these bans. Business has dropped off from between 20% and 50%. Many businesses have been forced to close. Jobs have been lost, a life time of work in building a business has been lost, and city tax revenues have been adversely affected.


THE LIE: Restaurants and bars are public businesses.


THE TRUTH: All restaurants, bars, and any other businesses that have been set up by an individual or group of individuals are PRIVATE ENTERPRISES! There is no getting around this fact. It is carved in granite. Our Constitution mandates the rights of private property as one of the most important rights we have! The fact that anyone should think they have the right to abrogate the very tenets of our Constitution demonstrates a colossal arrogance that we can not afford to have in this country.



When a small group of people attempt to force their own jaundiced views on the citizenry it is called an Oligarchy. Our elected officials are our SERVANTS! They are in office for only one purpose and that is to see to the needs of all the people Henry David Thoreau said in the 19th century, "the government that governs best, governs least". He was right then---he is right today!


THE LIE: Technology does not work


THE TRUTH: Dr. James Repace, the self appointed expert on second hand smoke, once stated to the effect that a 300 mile per hour hurricane couldn't clear out the danger of SHS in an enclosed space. In Atlanta, Georgia there is an organization that deals with some of the most dangerous infectious germs and bacteria in the World. Out of very obvious necessity, the filtration system they use must be 100% effective, 100% of the time. The system they use (which does contain several built in redundancies) is not out of "Buck Rogers" but one that is very similar to the type of commercial systems most restaurants or bars use.



Several St. Louis Park food service establishments had their air tested by an independent organization. The results of these tests showed favorable results and the overall effectiveness of properly maintained filtrations systems. If Atlanta, Georgia can have an organization that deals with Anthrax, Small Pox, Bubonic Plague and other organisms that could kill people by the 100's of thousands with no fear of exposure, common sense dictates that similar filtrations systems should work on the relatively benign particulates of SHS.


THE LIE: 3000 lives a year are lost due to SHS.


THE TRUTH: Originally the number that was first generated by the E.P.A. was 53,000 deaths per year. They published this number before even running their "test". The "test" is in fact not a test, but rather what is called a META survey. This survey took 31 different reports and compiled all the data to come up with a figure of only 3,000 deaths that were attributed other undefined causes. The first number E.P.A. published was a piece of hypothetical misinformation. The second number of 3,000 they put forth was a deliberate lie. A Federal Judge by the name of Osteen ruled the 3,000 deaths attributed to SHS by the E.P.A. was a deliberate lie foisted on an unsuspecting public. Judge Osteen determined the number of 3,000 deaths was not attributable to SHS and that the E.P.A. told this lie in the expectation to harm the legitimate business pursuits of the tobacco industry. Judge Osteen completely vacated the findings of the E.P.A. So that there is no misunderstanding as to this decision, it should be noted that another court partially overturned Judge's Osteen decision for purely judicial reasons. THEY DID NOT, in any way, repudiate Judge Osteen's basic premise concerning his comments about the E.P.A. or their motives.



THE LIE: Most people approve and support smoking bans.


THE TRUTH: most people who do not smoke really don't care one way or the other about the smoking issue. It is only a very small but well funded group of smoke haters who want to see these ban invoked. When these bans are ultimately passed and the true effect of them is fully realized, then people start to speak out against them. In New York a poll was taken to see how the people felt about the ban. 86% of those polled stated the ban went way too far. At this point in time there is reason to expect the New York may be rescinded in part or in full sometime in 2005.


Canada, one of the most strident nations in attempting to enforce a smoking ban nationwide, is currently facing wide spread rebellion against their Draconian measures. The reports of businesses being financially ruined run rampant. Politicians who supported the bans are being voted out of office. Cigarettes, which are now literally worth their weight in sterling silver, are being stolen with increasing regularity and then sold on the black market. These very same actions will and indeed are occurring in the United States as well. If the bans were truly supported would such occurrences happen?


THE LIE: Smokers and smoking impose a heavy cost on society.


THE TRUTH: Of all the lies told by the anti smoke haters this one has to be the most ludicrous. For example, if smoking kills people well before their time, the saving of Social Security and Medicare benefits would be significant. The extra medical costs to the "State" are more than exceeded by the outrageous taxes currently paid by smokers. Contrary to reports that smokers miss more work time than non-smokers is a completely unsubstantiated number. Indeed, there are so many variables as to why people miss work, it would be impossible to determine whether smoking was a significant cause or not.


Furthermore, it has been a policy of long standing that insurance companies assess smokers a higher rate for insurance premiums. This has been done in spite of a lack of any definitive proof that smokers, because of smoking, contribute to higher medical costs. It is astounding that an otherwise healthy person who watches his weight, exercises, eats a healthy diet, and drinks only in moderation if at all, has to pay a higher insurance premium than an obese person who eats and drinks to excess and doesn't know the meaning of the word exercise, but does not smoke.


THE LIE: Smoking statistics do not lie.


THE TRUTH: In this World there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Never has an argument been won based on statistic alone. They can serve only as a point of departure. In a free and open society people must be allowed to operate as free agents without the fetters of the doomsayers. Life is a risk, but it is that risk which gives it zest. When we allow ourselves to sacrifice our freedoms for the sake of safety, we deserve neither safety nor freedom. Accepting statistics at face value will lead us down that garden path. There are many statistics that can be cited that make the danger of smoking seem mild by comparison.


For example, the use of cell phones, hair dryers, and electric blankets have higher risks that SHS. About half of the smoking population has quit over the past 30 years, yet there has been no comparable increase in life expectancy. The smoke haters will quickly tell you this is because of the effects of second hand smoke. The fallacy of their argument is that if there has been smoking there has also been second hand smoke. In spite of the decline of smoking, childhood illnesses such as asthma, ear infections and A.D.D are rapidly increasing. Cigarettes and/or smoke have about 4,000 identifiable chemicals. Your daily diet has about 10,000 such chemicals. Arsenic which is considered a leading cause of lung cancer is found in significantly larger quantities in a glass of water than in a cigarette.



(c) Copyright 2005 The Smoker's Club. Please repost with link back to this original article.

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=518

 

Statistics from counting cancer patients who smoke and who don't smoke.

"Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers."
http://www.lung.org/lung-disease/lung-cancer/resources/facts-figures/lung-cancer-fact-sheet.html#1
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/index.htm

 

Opinions? or experimental results?
"The surgeon general has determined" means he is pontificating. Like the Pope. It is because he SAYS it is! BS!
And shame on him, each of them, for unscientific arrogance.

As to the statistics. Those cancer patients who smoked, how many chewed Juicy fruit Gum? How many drank to excess? How many lived in major cities with tap water problems from ancient underground plumbing?

Statistics prove nothing, ever, because you cannot isolate the cause in statistics. Inference from statistics? An interpretation based on a biased POV.
Conclusions from earlier surgeon general Reports? Attempting to build on previous lies and misrepresentations? Classic definition of pseudo-science.

Where are the experimental proofs tobacco caused a single instance of cancer?
That should be simple and easy.
For more than 50 years, they have been trying to give lab animals cancer with tobacco products and extracts.
Did they succeed? At least ONCE?
Pretty hard to condemn second hand smoke, if you can't even PROVE the smoker is at risk?



" Surgeon Generals Report Contents.
The Health Consequences of Smoking?
Chapter 1. Introduction and Approach to Causal Inference? 1
Introduction
3?
Smoking: Issues in Statistical and Causal Inference
10?
Major Conclusions
25?
Chapter Conclusions
25?
References
31?
Chapter 2. Cancer
35?
Introduction
39?
Lung Cancer
42?
Laryngeal Cancer
62?
Oral Cavity and Pharyngeal Cancers
63?
Esophageal Cancer
116?
Pancreatic Cancer
136?
Bladder and Kidney Cancers
166?
Cervical Cancer
167?
Ovarian Cancer
171?
Endometrial Cancer
172?
Stomach Cancer
178?
Colorectal Cancer
208?
Prostate Cancer
250?
Acute Leukemia
252?
Liver Cancer
296?
Adult Brain Cancer
302?
Breast Cancer
303?
Summary
324?
Conclusions
324?
References
326?
Chapter 3. Cardiovascular Diseases
361?
Introduction
363?
Conclusions of Previous Surgeon General’s Reports
363?
Biologic Basis
364?
Smoking and Subclinical Atherosclerosis
371?
Smoking, Coronary Heart Disease, and Sudden Death
384?
Smoking and Cerebrovascular Disease
393?
Smoking and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
396?
Summary
397?
Conclusions
407?
References
408?
Chapter 4. Respiratory Diseases
421?
Introduction
423?
Acute Respiratory Illnesses
423?
Chronic Respiratory Diseases
463?
xiii

 

You want to see the evidence against smoking? Here it is!
9
Surgeon General’s Report
Smoking: Issues in Statistical and Causal Inference
The U.S. Surgeon General’s reports on the health effects of smoking have long had a central role in the translation of scientific evidence into policies for tobacco control.
A critical and essential aspect of this role has been the judgment that smoking is a cause of specific diseases or health conditions.
The statement that an exposure “causes” a disease in humans represents a serious claim, but one that carries with it the possibility of prevention. Causal determinations may also carry substantial economic implications for society and for those who might be held responsible for the exposure or for achieving its prevention.
The qualitative judgment that an exposure causes a particular disease signifies that in the absence of exposure some fraction of cases or deaths would not occur or would occur at a later age (USDHEW 1964; Rothman and Greenland 1998).
Given these implications, the grounds for making the causal designation must be well founded and clear.
The need for guidelines for causal determination was recognized by the committee that authored the first Surgeon General’s report, and by the scientists whose work served as the foundation for that report (Cornfield et al. 1959).
The difficulty of attempting to both adjudicate causal relationships and choose the language to describe them was apparent then (USDHEW 1964).
In a section titled “Criteria for Judgment” in the 1964 report, the committee wrote that after “vigorous discussions,” they could neither precisely define nor replace the word “cause,” a reflection of the same problem that philosophers have confronted over the centuries.
The main approach is summarized below:
When a relationship or an association between smoking. . .and some condition in the host was noted, the significance of the association was
assessed.
The characterization of the assessment called for a specific term. . . .The word cause is the one in general usage in connection with matters considered in this study, and it is capable of conveying the notion of a significant, effectual relationship between an agent and an associated disorder or disease in the host.
No member was so naïve as to insist upon mono-etiology in pathological processes or in vital phenomena. (SEE NOTE BELOW)
All were thoroughly aware. . . that the end results are the net effect of many actions and counteractions.
Granted that these complexities were recognized, it is to be noted clearly that the Committee’s considered decision to use the words “a cause,” or “a major cause,” or “a significant cause,” or “a causal association” in certain conclusions about smoking and health affirms their conviction (USDHEW 1964, p. 21).
The key descriptors in the above passage include “effectual,” “significant,” and “major.”
Reading these phrases now, it is unclear whether the committee intended to describe the underlying causal relationship itself, the size of an estimated effect, the degree of statistical evidence for that estimated effect, the strength of the causal claim, or some combination of these elements of the evidence. "

Oh, so the evidence that smoking causes cancer is the conviction and judgement (prejudice) of the committee writing the SURGEON GENERAL's Report!

Appears the surgeon general's arrogant committee's the ones that should be tarred and feathered!
ARROGANT LIARS!
Enforcing their "PHILOSOPHY" on the rest of us!
I HATE agenda driven "pseudo-science"!

NOTE: Mono-etiology not NAIVELY insisted upon? Single CAUSE not insisted upon?
That is EXACTLY what they intended. Blame smoking as THE mono-etiology, THE SOLE CAUSE of cancer in smokers! Not naïvely though, cause they know the fraud they are performing.
"Etiology” and “pathology” are very similar terms that deal with the study of a disease. However, they have one major difference. Mistakenly using one term for the other can lead to a botched scientific process and a failed research paper.

When a disease is being studied, the etiology is tackled first before the pathology. “Etiology” deals with the direct causes of the disease as well as significant risk factors. This may include foreign organisms such as bacteria and genetic predispositions to the disease.

After the etiology of the disease is laid on the table, the discussion shifts to the pathology. This part describes in detail the progression of the disease beginning with how the risk factors trigger the disease up to its complete manifestation."
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/differences-between-etiology-and-pathology/

 

This sums it up for me:

"a significant, effectual relationship between an agent and an associated disorder or disease in the host. No member was so naïve as to insist upon mono-etiology in pathological processes or in vital phenomena. All were thoroughly aware. . . that the end results are the net effect of many actions and counteractions."

There are many factors and as you say patients also might chew juicy fruit or drink city water from old pipes. A controlled human experiment that eliminates all other factors and exposes a cross section of subjects to a lifetime of smoking would be extremely difficult. How would you propose to do this? The degree of correlation between smokers and lung cancer leads me to think the surgeon general is wise to recommend against it. Show me a reliable stat that 80% of pro athletes are smokers and I might consider taking it up for my health

 

Let's get back to one (of many) of the other pseudo-sciences based on unfounded prejudice, like human produced CO2 causes climate change.

 

I NEVER suggested anybody start smoking.
I was reluctant even to argue the topic, but felt compelled to point out the lies.
Tobacco is an expensive habit, and addictive, and MAY have significant health risks.
But no PROOF it causes cancer in 50 years of experiments INTENDED, BIASED to give cancer. No success!
Mexico has diplomatic relations with Cuba, the USA doesn't. I buy and smoke expensive Cuban cigars unavailable in the US for 50 years.
I'm not giving them up as long as I can afford them.
In the USA I buy Santo Domingo cigars, made by Cuban cigar makers that fled Cuba 50 years ago. Almost as good.
Doesn't it bother you, that "scientists", doctors, impose their OWN philosophy, without laboratory experimental evidence, upon society, and at enormous economical consequences?

You don't have to test "carcinogens" on human subjects.
Lab animals work in other experiments and tests.
They've been trying to give cancer to dogs and rats for years with all sorts of chemical concoctions.
They aren't immune to cancer.
But don't get cancer from the experiments.
Can you explain THAT?

 

Is your mental health ok ?

Smokers lungs and none smokers lungs test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yskYG-EVlBY

 

Better than yours, I suspect!

 

""a significant, effectual relationship between an agent and an associated disorder or disease in the host."
How did they determine this? Not by experiment. Not by science.
By EDICT!
They were DETERMINED there was a relationship based on their philosophy.
They don't smoke, don't like smoke, don't want to be around those that smoke, so their philosophy is nobody should smoke.

All they have to do is stop BREATHING, which I could argue would benefit society better than their proclamations!

 

Most of life is governed by making the best decision on the information we have.

I don't have laboratory experiment PROOF that drinking 1/4 cup of 10W40 motor oil a day would be bad for me. I'm going to use my best judgement and avoid doing it all the same.

You dismissed medical statistics correlating smoking with lung cancer because of possible other factors. With animal tests, you have far more factors. Different species. Different test duration, months instead of 40 or 50 years of exposure. And all other factors that are different in a dog or rats life than the human smoker's life.

 

Thankyou. Thankyou for making the most salient argument against agended pseudo-sciences.

If you can't demonstrate your hypothesis in the laboratory, or the field, it's not science!
Other scientists must be able to duplicate and observe the same phenomenon, or falsify it, which science requires.
Science requires there be experimental conditions where the phenomenon doesn't manifest, or it simply doesn't qualify as science.
If you can't do the experiment, that doesn't excuse or relieve you of the necessity.

In a free society, we are suppose to be free to judge for ourselves, not subject to the whims of others. What EVER their qualifications, they are NOT qualified to enforce their whims.

it is NEVER a valid argument, "I can't PROVE this, but OBEY me regarding this, anyway!" That is abuse of position.

All the smoking bans? Abusive.
CO2 regulations and taxes? Abusive
Seatbelt laws? Abusive.
I can go on, but you get my drift.

Regarding MY life, and my familiy's, MY judgment is superior to all others!
And if I have to PROVE that, it won't be tobacco smoke we're smelling!
Pray it doesn't come to that.
Let's practice some live and let live.
We called that respect. Used to, anyway.
In short supply in this modern world.

 

It's a combination of observation and common sense

Doctors observe a significant statistical correlation in patients who have cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, and other health problems and who smoke.

And doctors know smoking is one thing that is directly exposing the lungs and airways to something different than nonsmokers.