Posted on 07/17/2002 10:47:58 AM PDT by SheLion
GREEN BAY, Wis., July 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Green Bay Packer Ahman Green's participation in a Wisconsin ad campaign designed to raise awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke was unveiled today. Green will be part of a series of television and radio advertisements that launched early-June and are being broadcast throughout Wisconsin. The new ads use personal stories told by Wisconsin residents who have suffered the effects of secondhand smoke.
Green is not a smoker himself, but he grew up in a household with a smoker and was diagnosed with asthma at age 14. The 25-year-old running back has to pay special attention to avoid smoke-filled environments in order to perform at his best. His personal experience and concerns for his own health and that of others has inspired him to share his story in hopes that it will lead to a smoke-free Wisconsin.
"Because my asthma is aggravated by secondhand smoke, I have to be very careful where I go. My options of which restaurants to eat at or what places I can go to often depend on whether there will be cigarette smoke in the air," says Green. "This can be frustrating and limiting, but staying healthy is important to me and vital to my career."
Green is featured in a television ad that takes place in a cafe. As he enters the smoke-filled cafe, he slips an oxygen mask over his face. The ad conveys the message that secondhand smoke can have serious effects on a nonsmoker. One of the most obvious places where cigarette smoke lingers is in bars and restaurants. Kathie Bundy, pub owner and performer from Manitowoc, WI is featured, along with Ahman Green, in the campaign ads. Bundy opened Stage Door Saloon, one of just a few nonsmoking pubs in Wisconsin. She is featured in a television ad that takes place in a smoke-filled restaurant. Bundy's story is meant to encourage other restaurants and bars to go smoke- free.
"Between concerns about my own health and complaints from nonsmoking customers, I decided that it was the right decision to go smoke-free," Bundy says. "Of course I had concerns about the repercussions this decision would have on my business, but the pub is as busy as ever and customers are happy they have a place to go that isn't filled with smoke."
Restaurant owners who are currently smoke-free or those owners who are considering making their restaurant smoke-free, can advertise their restaurant free of charge on the new Wisconsin Smoke-free Online Dining Guide. Owners simply log onto WWW.HADENOUGHWISCONSIN.COM , enter the Smoke-free Dining Guide section and submit requested information. All restaurant details will be verified and then posted. The new site feature was designed to encourage restaurants to go smoke-free and to support restaurant owners and customers that prefer a smoke-free environment.
The secondhand smoke media campaign is a component of the WTCB's statewide initiative for smoke-free restaurants, work sites, municipal buildings and homes. Each ad contains a tag line that directs viewers to the hadenoughwisconsin.com web site where visitors can share their own stories or seek help in quitting smoking.
The Wisconsin Tobacco Control Board is a Governor-appointed Board charged with developing a strategic plan, allocating funds and evaluating the effectiveness of Wisconsin's tobacco prevention and control efforts. The Board is comprised of state and local leaders representing businesses, education, health care, public health and political leaders from across the state.
You want to refute it, you post them.
There are more than one. I didn't want to clutter the thread too badly so started out with one.
How about yours on SHS. Care to post them?
Yes, the heartburn and aggravation brought on by putting up with One-Note-Charlies like Illbay, lewislynn and you causes cancer in lab rats and humans.
The point I made is that when someone gives info from either what they have read, or know for fact, for someone to say "Well, post the study", etc., is assinine.
I guarantee no amount of medical studies or reports will convince you. The comments I posted that you originally replied to where also taken from a medical (Hospital) site. Not an Abstract, but a quote from a medical professional. It seems if they were to lie, etc., they could be sued. So theres some money, for you.
In the meantime, from the exact samesite you quoted:
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 107, Supplement 6, December 1999
[Citation in PubMed] [Related Articles]
Kenneth G. Brown
Kenneth G. Brown, Inc., Durham, North Carolina USA
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/suppl-6/885-890brown/abstract.html
This article is based on a presentation at the Workshop on Environmental Tobacco Smoke Risk Assessment held 9-10 July 1998 in Baltimore, Maryland.Address correspondence to K.G. Brown, Kenneth G. Brown, Inc., 4917 Erwin Rd., Durham, NC 27707. Telephone: (919) 408-8067. Fax: (919) 408-8138. E-mail: kbinc@mindspring.com
The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful discussion and suggestions of participants of this workshop and the support of the Office of Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor. Special appreciation goes to J. Samet, whose review of an earlier draft of this article substantially contributed to its revision and improvement. Thanks also to J. Wells for his helpful comments and to C. Gerczak for her editorial assistance.
Received 1 March 1999; accepted 25 June 1999.
Last Updated: December 3, 1999
And agains
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 107, Supplement 6, December 1999
[Citation in PubMed] [Related Articles]
Anna H. Wu
Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California USA
http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/suppl-6/873-877wu/abstract.html
This article is based on a presentation at the Workshop on Environmental Tobacco Smoke Risk Assessment held 9-10 July 1998 in Baltimore, Maryland.Address correspondence to A. Wu, University of Southern California, Dept. of Preventive Medicine, 1441 Eastlake Ave., MS#44, Los Angeles, CA 90089. Telephone: (323) 865-0480. Fax: (323) 865-0139. E-mail: annawu@hsc.usc.edu
Received 1 March 1999; accepted 30 June 1999.
Last Updated: December 3, 1999
And again
Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 103, Supplement 8, November 1995
[Citation in PubMed] [ Related Articles ]
Donald R. Shopland
Smoking and Tobacco Control Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
This paper provides an overview of the relationship between tobacco use and early cancer mortality. It presents a retrospective examination of trends in smoking behavior and how these trends affected the national lung cancer mortality pattern during this century. Information on smoking prevalence is presented for black and white men and women for each 5-year birth cohort between 1885 and 1969. The author argues that the lung cancer mortality pattern observed in the United States since 1950 is entirely compatible with changes in smoking behavior among the various birth cohorts examined. The paper also reviews our current scientific knowledge about the etiological relationship between cigarette smoking and site-specific cancer mortality, with particular emphasis on lung cancer. Data on other forms of tobacco use and cancer mortality risks are included as are data on environmental tobacco smoke exposures and nonsmokers' lung cancer risk. Data are presented to demonstrate that cigarette use alone will be responsible for nearly one-third of the U.S. cancer deaths expected in the United States in 1995, or 168,000 premature cancer deaths. Among males, 38% of all cancer deaths are cigarette related, while among women 23% of all cancer deaths are due to cigarettes. These totals, however, include neither the cancer deaths that could reasonably be attributed to pipe, cigar, and smokeless tobacco use among males nor the estimated 3000 to 6000 environmental tobacco smoke-related lung cancer deaths that occur annually in nonsmokers. It is concluded that tobacco use, particularly the practice of cigarette smoking, is the single greatest cause of excess cancer mortality in U.S. populations. -- Environ Health Perspect 103(Suppl 8):00-00 (1995)
Key words: cigarette smoking; tobacco use; tobacco consumption; lung cancer; cessation of smoking; smoking prevalence; pipe and cigar smoking; smokeless tobacco; environmental tobacco smoke; changes in smoking by birth cohort, race, and gender differences in smoking behavior; race and gender differences in lung cancer death rates
This paper was presented at the President's Cancer Panel Conference on Avoidable Causes of Cancer held 7-8 April 1994 in Bethesda, Maryland. Manuscript received: 9 March 1995; manuscript accepted: 24 March 1995.
Address correspondence to Dr. Donald R. Shopland, Smoking and Tobacco Control Program, National Cancer Institute, Executive Plaza North, Room 241, 6130 Executive Blvd., MSC 7337, Bethesda, MD 20892-7337. Telephone: (301) 496-8679. Fax: (301) 496-8675.
Abbreviations used: ACS, American Cancer Society; U.S. EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; ETS, environmental tobacco smoke; IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer; NCI, National Cancer Institute; U.S. PHS, U.S. Public Health Service; RR, relative risk; WHO, World Health Organization.
Last Update: September 7, 1998
Nice website you linked from. Using "ETS tobacco lung cancer" as the search criteria, it returned 4803 hits, only top 500 related were shown.
Lung Cancer and Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Occupational Risk to Nonsmokers
#1 It is not a study, it is a meta study and can very easily be cherrypicked. Leaving that aside,
The pooled results from the five U.S. studies alone are extrapolated to ETS levels in the workplace using measures of serum cotinine and nicotine samples from personal monitors as markers of exposure to ETS
The studies were of women married to smokers NOT occupational workplace ETS risks, (very hard to extrapolate apples from oranges), and cotinine is not an accurate measure of ETS.
Subject to the validity of the assumptions required in this approach, the outcome supports the conclusion that there is a significant excess risk from occupational exposure to ETS.
Notice the word "assumptions"? That would be the equivelant of a SWAG (Scientific Wild A$$ Guess).
Exposure Misclassification Bias in Studies of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer
#2 Hate to tell you but this abstract is saying that there are people out there that classified themselves as "never" smokers that HAD smoked.
Tobacco Use and Its Contribution to Early Cancer Mortality with a Special Emphasis on Cigarette Smoking
nor the estimated 3000 to 6000 environmental tobacco smoke-related lung cancer deaths that occur annually in nonsmokers.
#3 Again, notice the keyword there, "estimated"? In addition this study is also about SMOKING, NOT ETS.
If you can't do any better than this on ETS then you better look some more.
I haven't ever said that smoking doesn't carry risks. There are some health risks documented with smoking. There are NO reliable documented risks with ETS that have not been refuted or overturned.
But, you have made a decision based on ignorance of the truth and facts out there and have decided to not consider any alternative.
Last idea; why not call any National Cancer Institute center (participating Hospital) and ask for their senior Oncologist. Ask him/her. Mine is one of the tops in his field. He confers with other top oncos from around the world and they confirm that ETS causes lung cancer.
Really, I hope no one on here is blind enough to not see through this and would take medical facts over the word of someone who doesn't care.
I don't doubt that an oncologist would say that. I would imagine that another field of specialists would say that something else causes something with no more proof than the oncologist have.
I still do not understand how they can confirm something that has not been proven to be statistically dangerous.
I don't doubt that you beleive what you are posting. I just think that you are beleiving on the basis of inadequate proof.
Remember the days when we all got along?! I long for those days, before the anti's cropped up and were forced out with cookie cutters. ~sigh
The epidemiologic literature reports many risk factors for lung cancer that are independent of cigarette smoking. In other words, they are independent lung cancer risks for smokers and nonsmokers alike. Hence, epidemiologic studies of the association of lung cancer with active smoking or with environmental tobacco smoke must investigate and measure the interference of any and all independent risk factors. These factors carry the appropriate technical designation of confounders, and it is an illegal technical and professional procedure to draw conclusions from a study without a meticulous accounting of such confounders.
Active cigarette smoking. Obviously it is not possible to draw conclusions about the magnitude of cigarette smoking risk for lung cancer without a reasonably accurate account of the possible influence of confounders. Yet, none of the studies of cigarette smoking and lung cancer reported by the U.S. Surgeon General (USSG, 1979) have taken into account any of the confounders here listed. The likely reason is that most of those studies were performed in the ‘50s and ‘60s, when the confounding risk factor here listed had yet to be reported.
Thus, it if it were possible to account for the inevitable interferences of confounders, the magnitude of the relative risk and the numbers of lung cancers now attributed to smoking would have to be corrected downward, and likely substantially so. Sir Richard Doll, the dean of antismoking epidemiologists, aknowledged the discrepancy as he wrote: “...[active] smoking seems to act synergistically with other aetiologic agents such as consumption of alcohol; various aspects of the diet; levels of blood pressure, blood lipids, or other cardiovascular risk factors; or exposure to asbestos, radon, or possibly some infective factors. The quantitative effect of smoking will, therefore, vary with variation in the prevalence of these other factors.” (Doll et al., 1994). Although Doll did not mention all the risk factors here listed, his admission is tantamount to stating that the magnitude of the risk and the number of lung cancer cases that could be attributed to cigarette smoking remain unknown.
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Even if one were to use the illegal statistical and epidemiologic distortions introduced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to dream up a conclusion about the lung cancer risk of ETS (USEPA, 1992), the currently available studies on this topic could not conjure up a relative risk greater than 1.05, namely an incongruous 5% elevation (Gori and Luik, 1999). Assuming for sake of argument that such an assessment were technically correct, it would be 20 to 300 times smaller as compared respectively to the lowest and highest risk factors here listed. It is undeniable, therefore, that even a slight confounding by any or many of the confounders here listed could have a much greater inpact in any study of ETS and lung cancer than the possible impact of ETS itself. Yet, the ETS and lung cancer studies so far published have accounted erratically for no more than a handful of the confounders here listed, thus making absolutely moot any interpretation of the possible association of ETS exposure and lung cancer.
How to read the following table. The first column describes the nature of the risk factors investigated. The second column gives the name of the first author of each study that has reported separately on the risk factor listed on the first column to the left. The complete bibliography of each study can be found alphabetically by author in the list of references. The third column lists the most likely and best estimate of the highest risk reported by each study. The risks are given as relative risks, namely relative to the risk of people not exposed to the risk factor under study. The fourth and last column gives the 95% confidence interval for each risk listed. The interval is a measure of the statistical uncertainty of the risk values listed in the third column, and indicates that the true value of the risk may be anywhere between the low and high figures in the fourth column, with a 1 in 20 probability of error.
You TELL him! He is one of the most disgusting posters in here. Actually,RedBloodedAmerican sounds like a 14-year-old kid.
Your such a putz. Why don't you take off your blinders and get a real life.
AND a putz.
Cheers.
Very nice post. And thanks for the link from Dr. Whelan. It really makes sense. And your right: we AREN'T talking about mustard gas. heh! I like that!
Yes, and not having smoked for 10 yrs, let me say to all non-smokers who think cigarette smoke is any worse than all the garbage that they breathe every day you, are misinformed.
You go girl!!!!
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.