Posted on 08/01/2006 4:15:27 AM PDT by 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.
Now show the chart that proves 2nd hand smoke isn't inconsiderate, disgusting, doesn't make eyes burn, doesn't make you cough, even gag, doesn't make your (non-smoker) clothes stink....
***Alright, after my answer, I googled it and all I have to say is - you've got to be kidding me!***
Wish I'd read this before I'd answered your earlier post.
You cannot prove that.
Once something has insignificant or nil effect, reducing the level of exposure further doesn't help at all. Then it becomes a waste of money to do so.
"My grandfather died from Emphysema and he and my grandmother never smoked a day in their lives."
I never claimed smoking was the sole cause of emphysema. In fact, I don't know of any disease or condition caused by smoking and smoking only.
"What if I get up tomorrow and get in a car crash and get killed? Should I just stay in bed and avoid it?"
Irrational reply. Staying in bed is not an option if you want to have a life. Not smoking around your kids is, at worst, a minor inconvenience. The horrors!!! You might to step outside when it's hot or cold or not smoke for another 20 minutes. On second thought, that would be too much trouble with only a small chance of benefit for your kids.
"Your choice. Nothing more."
The odds that my kid would be abducted by a stranger are exceedingly small but I chose not to let them wander around by themselves. The odds that they would get e coli from undercooked meat are tiny but I cook the meat through. I could go on and on.
I'm assuming from your replies that you're one of those delusional folks who argues that smoking is not harmful in any way. If so, I can't discuss this any further with somebody so irrational. Even SheLion doesn't claim cigarettes are harmless.
Please point out any of those you claim exist if they are on this thread.
She said later, in an interview I saw, that that wasn't true. She said nobody ever had to teach a child how to masturbate.
We will have to agree to disagree. I have been seeing allergist since about 1969 and have had many many discussion with them about allergies. I too developed an allergy to bee stings and took allergy shots for bee sting for 11 years. I was stung on the neck 2 years ago and had no reaction at all. Success!
Corn was a big allergen for me and I did not eat corn in any form for 14 years. Then I made the mistake of eating corn again and discovered my body had 'forgotten' about corn. I went 'hog wild' on corn and guess what? My body remembered after about a year of pigging out on corn. Now corn is in everything you buy and I have to avoid all of it.
Allergy is a complex subject. Hope your tomato allergy doesn't double back on you.
Immune System Cells May Be Cause of Asthma
WEDNESDAY, March 15 (HealthDay News) -- As medical technologies improve, researchers are rooting out more information about possible causes of common diseases, such as asthma.
One new finding, reported in the March 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, is that immune system cells long thought to cause asthma may not be the primary culprit behind the disease.
"We found that asthma is caused not by T-helper 2 cells as has been previously thought, but by a novel class of cells called natural killer T cells," said one of the study's authors, Dr. Dale Umetsu, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital Boston, and a visiting professor at Stanford University in California.
"The majority of T cells in people with asthma aren't what we thought they were," he added.
According to Umetsu, natural killer T cells were only recently discovered because the technology to differentiate these cells from others hasn't been around long.
T cells are a part of the body's immune defenses and normally help rid the body of foreign invaders, such as viruses or bacteria. In asthma, however, the immune cells don't work as they should and instead produce inflammation in the lungs.
More than 20 million Americans have been diagnosed with asthma, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and about 4,200 people die from the disease each year.
Asthma symptoms include wheezing, coughing, breathing difficulties and a feeling of tightness in the chest. While the exact cause of the disease is unknown, doctors do know that asthma can be exacerbated by exposure to certain triggers, such as dust mites, pollen, pets and even exercise or cold air. There is no cure for asthma, only treatments aimed at managing it.
Because studies in mice uncovered the presence of natural killer T cells only in rodents with asthma, the researchers behind the new study compared samples from 14 people with asthma to samples from six healthy "controls" and five people with another inflammatory lung disorder called sarcoidosis, which is unrelated to asthma.
About 60 percent of the T cells in the asthma group were natural killer T cells, not the expected helper T cells. No natural killer T cells were evident in samples from the healthy control group or the people with sarcoidosis.
"These were very surprising findings -- a turn of events that no one suspected in the past," said Umetsu. "Part of the reason they escaped notice is they have many features that are similar to T helper 2 cells. Now, we need to know more about the biology of natural killer T cells to develop more specific therapies for asthma."
"None of the current [asthma] therapies are focused on targeting natural killer T cells. Perhaps as we develop therapies that can eliminate them from the lungs, we could have more effective and possibly curative therapies for asthma," he said.
The first step, however, is to confirm these findings in a larger group of people, and in a more diverse population of people with asthma, because there are different types of asthma. Some people have asthma that's triggered by allergens, while for others exercise or cold air can induce airway spasms.
Also, Umetsu said that researchers have to learn more about how these cells work and what causes them to go to the lungs initially. Natural killer T cells appear to respond to different things than helper T cells.
Any potential therapy would have to specifically target the lungs because natural killer T cells do have some protective effects in the rest of the body, he added.
Dr. Jonathan Field, director of the allergy and asthma clinic at New York University Medical Center/Bellevue in New York City, said, "This may be a new paradigm of how people develop asthma."
But, he cautioned that more needs to be learned about these cells, such as whether they are the actual cause of disease or if they simply appear in response to the disease.
"You have to wonder which [immune cells] actually are causing the most pathology," Field said. "Are natural killer T cells causing the changes? Which cell is the conductor and which is the actual locomotive?"
Not a problem. That was a funny story.
Read my post # 128
"I'm assuming from your replies that you're one of those delusional folks who argues that smoking is not harmful in any way."
If you bothered to read some of my other posts you would know that I didn't say smoking is 'not harmful in anyway'.
I said it's harmful to SMOKERS who have a propensity to lung problems.
But since you don't need 'proof' of your position that 'second hand smoke causes cancer or emphysema', then, you are right about one thing. I don't need to discuss anything more with you.
You had your mind made up before you even read the title of the thread.
Believe what you will.
Once again, I will post this information:
Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE
Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects
I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?" But where does this Taliban-like anti-smoking campaign come from? It can't really be this stuff about second-hand smoke. The famous 1992 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study showing a causal relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer was so roundly debunked as junk science (even by other federal agencies) it was finally declared "null and void" by a federal judge. Sure, second-hand smoke can be annoying, and it can't be healthy, but if you relegate smokers to their own enclosed space _ say a bar or a separate part of a restaurant where people, including staff, only go of their own free will _ who can object?
DON'T LET THE HEADLINES FOOL YOU
Court throws out challenge to EPA findings on secondhand smoke - (December 2002) - The ruling was based on the highly technical grounds that since the EPA didn't actually enact any new regulations (it merely declared ETS to be a carcinogen without actually adopting any new rules), the court had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter. This court ruling on the EPA report is NOT a stamp of approval for that report. Judge Osteen's criticisms of the EPA report are still completely valid and is accompanied by other experts.
Thanks.
Very enlightening!
:)
Sounds like a personal problem to me. We all do not feel the way you do.
To me, there is nothing better then a sweet smelling man with the smell of after shave and a hint of tobacco smoke.
I find it very sexy.
I get tired of posting the same links over and over and over again, but sometimes, it takes a hammer to knock some sense into these people!
But, of course, we never will. They hate smokers and smoking so much they just can't wait to try to counterattack even what the WHO says and even Judge Osteen and the ORNL Lab in TN. When these FReeper anti's can read those reports and still have the nerve to bash us and call us liars, there is something very wrong with their thinking.
I don't write these reports. I just report them. And if they are calling me and other FReepers who smoke liars, then they are also calling our very on DOD liars. Go figure.
"They hate smokers and smoking so much they just can't wait to try to counterattack even what the WHO says and even Judge Osteen and the ORNL Lab in TN. "
Yep. People with agenda's will never be convinced. No matter how much 'proof' you show them.
Just ask anyone over at DU or the 'kos'. Us conservatives are just 'mean' and are trying to kill everyone else because of our 'greed'.
Show me where any of this proves without a doubt that second-hand smoke ISN'T harmful or at least irritating. Given that there's some chance it COULD be harmful to some predisposed people and most certainly is irritating to others, I used to take the time and effort (and some inconvenience) not to smoke around my children.
"But since you don't need 'proof' of your position that 'second hand smoke causes cancer or emphysema',"
Show me where I said I believe second-hand smoke causes lung cancer or emphysema. I said I believe that ACTUAL smoking can cause that, not second-hand smoke.
At this point I don't know for certain whether second-hand smoke can be a danger, but because I know first-hand smoke IS a danger, I thought it foolish to expose my children to second-hand smoke when I could easily avoid doing so. All it cost me was a little inconvenience.
You actually sound proud of the fact that you have tormented your children their whole lives. Unbelievable!!!!!
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.