Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/09/2006 9:22:14 PM PDT by LouAvul
Eliminating the threat of secondhand smoke would prevent more than 228,000 new cases of heart disease and 119,000 heart-related deaths over the next 25 years, according to a new study.
Using a model to estimate the impact of eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke on heart disease, researchers found stopping secondhand smoke would quickly reduce the number of heart-related deaths. This effect would increase over time, adding up to hundreds of thousands of preventable heart attacks and other problems.
National surveys suggest that 4 percent to 17 percent of the nonsmoking population (depending on age and sex) are exposed to secondhand smoke at home, work, or at play.
Estimating the Impact of Secondhand Smoke
Researchers say current estimates show that average daily exposure to secondhand smoke among exposed individuals is equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day; that conveys about one-third of the additional risk of heart disease associated with smoking a pack a day.
Based on those estimates, researchers calculated the effects of eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke in 2005 over the next 25 years in the U.S.
Their results show that:
--New cases of heart disease would be reduced by 9,300 in the first year, adding up to 228,300 cases prevented by 2030.
--The number of heart attacks reported would be reduced by 8,100 in the first year and increase to 13,500 per year by 2030, resulting in a total reduction of 292,500 heart attacks over the 25-year period.
--Total heart disease-related deaths would drop by 2,200 in the first year after eliminating secondhand smoke and rise to 6,400 prevented deaths per year by 2030.
The results of the study were presented this week at an American Heart Association meeting in Washington, D.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Nannyfornia would have been much funnier.
When they get rid of cigarette smokers and fat people, will they ever get rid of stinky, dope ridden hippies?
"When they get rid of cigarette smokers and fat people, will they ever get rid of stinky, dope ridden hippies?"
I'm sure they're on the list!
My view of this is that they think they can be as fat as they want, but like to display that they are driniking Diet Coke to say that they're really trying to lose weight. We all see through this ruse though.
If you want to play battle of the government agencies I think I would win.
Why Is It a Problem?But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion...democrat....The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, which means that there is sufficient evidence that it causes cancer in humans. Environmental tobacco smoke has also been classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the US National Toxicology Program.
Secondhand tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemical compounds. More than 60 of these are known or suspected to cause cancer.
Secondhand smoke can be harmful in many ways. In the United States alone, each year it is responsible for:
* An estimated 35,000 to 40,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are not current smokersThe 1986 US Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of involuntary smoking reached 3 important conclusions about secondhand smoke:* About 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmoking adults
* Other respiratory problems in nonsmokers, including coughing, phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function
* 150,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (such as pneumonia and bronchitis) in children younger than 18 months of age, which result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations
* Increases in the number and severity of asthma attacks in about 200,000 to 1 million asthmatic children
* Involuntary smoking causes disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.Where Is It a Problem?* When compared with the children of nonsmoking parents, children of parents who smoke have more frequent respiratory infections, more respiratory symptoms, and slower development of lung function as the lung matures.
* Separating smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.
There are 3 locations where you should be especially concerned about exposure to secondhand smoke:
Your workplace: Secondhand smoke meets the criteria to be classified as a potential cancer-causing agent by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for health and safety regulations in the workplace. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), another federal agency, also recommends that secondhand smoke be considered a potential occupational carcinogen. Because there are no known safe levels, they recommend that exposures to secondhand smoke be reduced to the lowest possible levels.
Aside from protecting nonsmokers, workplace smoking restrictions may also encourage smokers who wish to quit or reduce their consumption of tobacco products.
Public places: Everyone is vulnerable to secondhand smoke exposure in public places, such as restaurants, shopping centers, public transportation, schools and daycare centers. Although some businesses are reluctant to ban smoking, there is no credible evidence that going smoke-free is bad for business. Public places where children go are a special area of concern.
Your home: Making your home smoke-free is perhaps one of the most important things you can do. Any family member can develop health problems related to secondhand smoke. Think about it: we spend more time at home than anywhere else. A smoke-free home protects your family, your guests, and even your pets.
Why don't you just call me a nazi like the other tobacco addicts? Calling me a democrat -- that's low.
Who's "they"?
And not eating will reduce your risk of fatty arterial deposits. . .cutting out alcohol will safeguard your liver. . .avoiding the ocean will prevent you from being eaten by a shark. . .
It's all very simple. Just say "no" -- or, better yet, have the government ban it.
>>Eliminating the threat of secondhand smoke would prevent more than 228,000 new cases of heart disease and 119,000 heart-related deaths over the next 25 years, according to a new study.<<
Well steps have already been taken to reduce 2nd hand smoke so heart disease should already show those results.
I'm with you. I refuse to recycle (aside from the fact that it is all junk science anyway) because the nanny state stops at my door. Now if the police come into my kitchen to check for my three waste cans, then I will have to make a decision. But until the day when the nosy nannies poke their way in, I have one trash can in my small kitchen.
Thank you!
"Can't you come up with anything better than that?"
"Considering the angry responses I got I'd say it hit the bullseye. "
3."Protect freedom of choice."
"You know which activist group you sound like with that."
You recieved no anger here.
You didn't come up with anything much better than before.
Gee, thanks for comparing me to the cannabis advocates. Thanks for the imaginative response.
So, now you're calling for rule by the supreme court? Ain't how it's supposed to be. They are not allowed to introduce legislation, and what you suggest is called judicial tyranny, instigated by activist judges.
My point is, you have a choice to go to a non-smoking establishment. (There are more than enough)
But, in your mind, I have no such choice.
So, tell me what kind of group you're comparable to?
"Those of us that are self reliant understand freedom and individual liberty."
My good friend, they are not getting that message.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Don't forget the millions of cigarette butts that get snuffed out on sidewalks, in front of office buildings, in parks, etc. that the rest of us end up cleaning up for all of those courteous smokers out there. It's no different than throwing trash in the street.
Most of the trash in my yard consists of beer bottles, followed by fast food cups and wrappers, so the trash message isn't cutting it.
"It's not about control -- it's about common courtesy towards others. Most people wouldn't have a problem with smokers if they were more polite with their habit -- as in not blowing smoke into others faces, lighting up around children, and dumping cigarettes butts all over the place."
Sigh..... the trash message again? I'm dissapointed in you.
I cannot recall the last time I saw someone blow smoke in someone's face.
You have the choice to go to non-smoking establishments. Where is my choice?
If it's not about control, then please enlighten me to the true reason.
He was right to do so.
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.