Surgeon General Carmona Leaves Post (Dancing in the streets alert!)

United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | uly 31, 2006 | KEVIN FREKING

[SheLion]

WASHINGTON -- Quietly leaving his post as surgeon general, Dr. Richard Carmona said he would judge himself successful if he had persuaded one student to make good health choices or one mother to stop smoking.

Carmona's report condemning secondhand smoke was a hallmark of his tenure as the nation's 17th surgeon general.

[Eagle Eye]

I see what you mean.

I wasn't saying that the website didn't say "safer" when it obviously does, I was saying that the numbers don't really mean that and that the website is in error saying '25,000 times safer'.

Sorry for the confusion.

[SheLion]

Awesome. Now let's exile him along with Bloomberg. They can rule statist island together. We'll give them a nice island with lots of rum. They can spend their days lecturing each other about the dangers of drinking.

Oh Lord.  Don't get me started on Mayor BloomingIdiot!  That sawed off jerk!  Little Hitler, "I" call him!

[Gone GF]

"The liar leaves town! Couldn't stand the heat, I would imagine, coming from his filthy lies about second hand smoke killing everyone."

Please link us to where he said second-hand smoke was killing EVERYONE.

[Eagle Eye]

LOL...decibels are logrithmic!

[SheLion]

  He hates smokers but sure loves his POT! heh!

[Eagle Eye]

I think that she lion was paraphrasing.

Do we really have to provide footnotes and citations for everything we say on FR? ;>

[SheLion]

Please link us to where he said second-hand smoke was killing EVERYONE.

YES SIR!!!!!

Surgeon general warns of secondhand smoke
YAHOO NEWS ^ | 27 JUNE 2006 | AP

Posted on 06/27/2006 11:49:35 AM EDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist

Some 126 million nonsmokers are exposed to secondhand smoke, what U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona repeatedly calls "involuntary smoking" that puts people at increased risk of death from lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses.

"Exposure to secondhand smoke remains an alarming public health hazard," Carmona said. "Nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces" — and by smokers voluntarily not puffing around children.

 

These are excerpts.  Click on the link to read the entire article.

[Bigh4u2]

"It seems logical that there is a progressive increase in health risk,"

For a smoker? Absolutely.

Because the risk is a build up of tar on your lungs.

Reducing the amount of tar intake will help your body to rid itself of the excess that would inhibit breathing. So reducing from 3 packs a day to 1 pack would make a difference.
Most doctors that I have talked to go so far as to say that quitting will rid your body of all tar and return your lungs to a healthy state.

BUT. It will depend upon how much smoking you have done over the years, whether or not you may have been susceptible to breathing difficulties based on your family history, and AGE.

Everyones lung capacity is reduced over time and the older you are, the less capacity you have. You can mitigate that by doing breathing exercises or just staying fairly active by jogging or other physical exercise.

COPD is the number one reason for reduced lung capacity, and all people,from around 50 and up, will develop it to some degree. Some will show no real problems with breathing which will allow them to lead a normal life,and others will.

The older you get. The more the tar in smoke will effect you so reducing (or quitting) will definitely help.

[Shethink13]

My parents DID smoke around my brother and me from day one and we DID develop asthma and today at ages 61 and 66 we STILL have breathing problems when we are around 2nd hand smoke.

And you know for a fact that you wouldn't have developed asthma if it hadn't been for your parents' smoking?

[Madame Dufarge]

I recall around 20-30 years ago, the AMA stated that 5 cigarettes a day would have no ill effects on a smoker.

I guess the hand waving and screeching by the Nazis caused that to disappear down the old memory hole.

[Bigh4u2]

"You become allergic to the things you are exposed to"

That's not how an 'allergic' reaction works.

Allergies are not 'things that you are exposed to' but an 'immune' deficiency that you were born with.

Your body reacts to something because it has no dense against it. My wife is allergic to bees and will have a violent reaction to being stung. And she didn't need to be 'exposed' to bees for very long either. One sting is all it takes.

Allergies are not 'acquired' through exposer and actually can come and go depending upon your physical condition.

The only 'acquired' immune deficiency is AIDS and that is just a nasty virus.

When I was young I had and allergy to tomatoes, although mild. Over the years that allergy has reduced to an 'irritant', and not even a consistent one. Sometimes I can eat tomatoes or tomato sauce with no ill effects. Sometimes I have a reaction.

"Had we not grown up in tobacco smoke it is likely that it would not cause us problems today."

Nope. Smoke was not the cause of your breathing problems.

Just a convenient explanation.

[7thson]

Like I said before - you got to be kidding me!

[Gone GF]

"Either you died from smoking or you didn't. There isn't any 'in between'!"

This, of course, is not true. There are many, many people who died from lung cancer or emphysema who would not have gotten it except that they smoked. Officially cigarettes are not the cause of death, but they are the reason that the person got the cause of death.

"My wife and I have smoked around our children since they were born and NEITHER ONE of them has developed Asthma or any other breathing problems.

And the same goes for my brother and sisters whose kid have had no ill effects from 'second hand smoke'."

This is just plain silly. The experience of handful of kids proves nothing. My siblings and I grew up in a smoking households. Two of them had allergies and breathing problems and I didn't. So does that prove that second-hand smoke causes problems in some people and not in others? Of course not.

Here's what I don't understand about folks like you. Let's say there's absolutely no proof that second-hand smoke causes harm. But there's also no proof it doesn't (something that couldn't be proven 100 percent anyway). We DO know that people who actually smoke the cigarettes are harmed in various ways, so WHY IN THE HECK would you take the chance by exposing your children to smoke in the house and car? Back when I smoked I NEVER smoked in the house and not in the car when the kids were there.

[DumpsterDiver]

Carmona's report condemning secondhand smoke was reminiscent of the drug czar's Reefer Madness approach to marijuana and was a hallmark of his tenure as the nation's 17th surgeon general.

[Bigh4u2]

"I was saying that the numbers don't really mean that and that the website is in error saying '25,000 times safer'. "

I agree. Even tho it says 'safer' the accompanying chart really just shows it's lower.

But that's ok. It still has the same meaning in regards to the levels of exposure.
After all, If I smoke 'less', then health wise, I'm 'safer' than I was before.

"Sorry for the confusion."

No problem.

[Gone GF]

"So there you have it! Some people are affected by tobacco smoke and some aren't."

This, of course, is most likely the truth.

[Ditter]

Not at all, that isn't the way it works. I could have developed asthma caused by something else. But had I not lived in tobacco smoke I would most likely not be allergic to it today. I have said this over and over, "you become allergic to the things that you are exposed to" IF you have inherited the allergy gene.

I will give you an example. Years ago I could pull poison ivy down with my hands. Then I got one tiny bump, next time a few more bumps. Finally I became severely allergic to it. My own stupid fault, I can't blame my parents for that.

[Gone GF]

"But to say that 'some people are affected by tobacco' just isn't true. Without proof of causation, which does not exist, then you can't qualify the condition without researching other possible effects through heredity."

Good lord, the rationalization going on here is amazing.

If a person coughs or has trouble breathing or their eyes burn or they get a headache every time they're around smoke, it doesn't matter whether you can prove causation or whether it's something in their genes that causes them to do it. I0t still happens. Period. They don't need scientific studies. They cannot be around smoke.

[Bigh4u2]

"There are many, many people who died from lung cancer or emphysema who would not have gotten it except that they smoked"

Prove it.

My grandfather died from Emphysema and he and my grandmother never smoked a day in their lives.

"Officially cigarettes are not the cause of death, but they are the reason that the person got the cause of death. "

You can't on one hand say 'cigarettes are not the cause of death" and on the other say "but they are the reason that the person got the cause of death" because without "proof",those two statements would be mutually exclusive.

"The experience of handful of kids proves nothing. My siblings and I grew up in a smoking households. Two of them had allergies and breathing problems and I didn't. So does that prove that second-hand smoke causes problems in some people and not in others? Of course not."

That's right. It doesn't 'prove' a thing, good or bad.

"Let's say there's absolutely no proof that second-hand smoke causes harm. But there's also no proof it doesn't (something that couldn't be proven 100 percent anyway)."

Then there is no proof and the rest of your post is nothing more that speculation and unfounded fear over what 'might' happen.

What if I get up tomorrow and get in a car crash and get killed? Should I just stay in bed and avoid it.

You have no argument or proof. Just opinion.

"Back when I smoked I NEVER smoked in the house and not in the car when the kids were there."

Your choice. Nothing more.

[Gamecock]

***Four ribbons/medals. What about the other five rows?***

I'll get back to you in a couple of hours when I get home and can do a Google image search. The posted pic is blurry and I can't find a better one.

Anyway, the answer is USA, USN, USAF, USMC, USCG, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and as already discussed the Public Health Service.

The Air NG and Army Guard fall out under their respective services.

***I do not like to include the USCG because - unless war is declared by Congress - the USCG is now part of Homeland Security and not DoD.***

That is a personal preference, but by law they are uniformed services. Believe it or not, the USPHS has faster promotions than the Army. All of the above get the same pay and benefits as a DoD commissioned officer. That includes retirement at 20 years with PX and commissary privileges.

I am trying to talk my wife into going to go back in as a USPHS officer to finish out her career after I retire from the Army.

Here's a funny story (I think) A buddy of mine was a Navy corpsman during Vietnam. He saw a USPHS officer with longer hair and a bit longer beard than was authorized by the Navy at that time. The guy was in his blues. Anyway, my buddies Chief went up to the guy, saluted and asked, "Sir, are you in our Navy?"