Comment

Comment by Jeff on March 5, 2010 at 9:06pm

Please let me help you with the concept of causation because it's at the heart of every claim you make below, all claims using statistics based on causation.

Sandy, Big Pharma, in the current trial in which they're accused by a woman whose child was born with several heart defects that she claims were caused by her use of Paxil is using "causation" as their defense.

But causation, which you are using in ALL of your statistics doesn't apply at all, ever, in defense of these types of claims because while YOUR child may not have been harmed by your use of Paxil, hers was.

Causation doesn't account for the differences in humans. It's still used as a defense and 100s of studies will be presented to the jury using causation to prove that Paxil is safe. Typically juries don't understand the concept of causation but a good defense attorney will explain it and a proper judgment will be made.

Imagine if you were on the jury in that trial and causation in the form of scientific studies were presented. Based on your argument below you would decided that Paxil is safe.

Do you think it is?

Comment by Jeff on March 5, 2010 at 8:50pm

Sandy, we're talking apples and oranges here.

A Russian was murdered using poison? Great. That same poison at microscopic levels damages humans and depending upon the poison can even cause genetic mutations in humans. It's silly to even use this analogy. I'm not talking about children dropping dead here, I'm talking about long term exposure to even the smallest amounts of poisons being DANGEROUS.

The studies you use simply don't tell the whole story.

We are all DIFFERENT. Some people get deathly ill immediately from consuming even small quantities of Aspartame, some just get headaches, muscle aches and other mild symptoms and some, a very few have died. Do you still believe Aspartame is safe?

Also, you're using fatal dose as it relates to causation, a term (causation) rigidly defined in science as it applies to scientific studies and heatedly debated in courtroom battles with pharmaceutical companies. Causation as at the pinnacle of the current courtroom battle between Big Pharma and the people that have used Paxil.

It is being heatedly debated that Causation proves NOTHING by the defense. That means YOU would be arguing, using causation, for Big Pharma.

You simply don't understand enough about causation, molecular biology and chemical compounds to understand that second hand smoke and the remnants deposited on the surrounding surfaces called third hand smoke are DANGEROUS to humans.

Would you consume Aspartame?

How about Bisphenol-A? This chemical has been proven to cause genetic mutation even in microscopic amounts and in just a few parts per billion. It's what's called an endocrine disruptor. People consuming this chemical may very well live to be 100 but they are causing the human population to genetically mutate in their state of good health.

The evidence that nicotine ingested, even in microscopic amounts can lodge in cellular tissue and cause cellular mutations and the growth of cancerous cells is simply overwhelming whether by second hand smoke or third hand ingestion. No one necessarily dies and they may or they may not live long lives depending entirely on their genetic make-up.

We are all different. Some people can smoke for 100 years and many also die at 40 or 50 directly as the result of smoking.

That's why your overall statistics of life expectancy don't apply here. Causation is involved.

I wish you well. I don't understand why you would argue so strongly in support of second hand smoke and even third hand smoke but you're missing something and obviously accessing the wrong data. I would almost suggest that you work for the tobacco companies but I suspect that's not true and doubt that if you did you'd be here.

Big Pharma is responsible for many unfounded claims. They are a for profit enterprise that profits at the expense of humanity. I agree with you on this 100%. I won't agree that there's some grand conspiracy behind the notion that second and third hand smoke is dangerous because sandy, it is.

I've spent a vast amount of time on this subject because I smoke and because I have Emphysema from smoking and my life, no matter if I stop or not, has been shortened from it. Less if I stop of course but shortened either way. I won't be stopping because I enjoy it.

I do want to thank you for remaining here at this web site though. I am very active here, appreciate every new member because they're worth their weight in gold and you'll find, as time passes and if you spend more time here that I disagree with many people. I also agree with many people here. That's our nature and what makes us human. It's OK to disagree. It's not OK to stifle dialogue.

Comment by sandy on March 5, 2010 at 7:50pm

Jeff, I will get back to you on that study after I research it more.

Comment by sandy on March 5, 2010 at 7:36pm

You say "Tobacco Smoke, second hand or not, lands on the surrounding exposed surfaces - children pick up by putting their hands in their mouths"

Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, has published a study on 3rd hand smoke, described as deadly toxic particles that hang out long after the second hand smoke is gone.The article closes with the statement that Third Hand smoke contains polonium-210, “the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006.” Michael McFadden, author of the book Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains sent me some rough calculations about polonium-210. He writes:

“A 30 cig per day smoker gets 1 picocurie per day.

“A typical nonsmoker living or working with smokers would get at most about 1/100th of that per day, more likely only 1/1,000th with good ventilation and/or a more reasonable amount of indoor smoking, so about one femtocurie.

“A child would have to live with a smoker for roughly three trillion days to absorb the dose that killed the Russian.”

And that is for second hand smoke. Since Third Hand Smoke is a fictional construct, we can only base our calculations on assumptions. (These calculations also come from McFadden.) Assuming that 1% of this deadly stuff has been spread on the 10,000 square feet of surface area in a typical 2,000 sq foot house, and also assuming that your method of cleaning is to having your infant lick the kitchen floor clean once a day, the kid would have to lick the floor for one hundred trillion days to accumulate a fatal dose. That comes out to about 274 billion years. The universe is about 13.8 billion years old. The half life of Polonium-210 is a mere 138 days. So in order to ingest a fatal dose, the not only would the floor licker have to keep at it 20 times longer than our universe has existed, we’d also have to completely rewrite the laws of physics to keep the stuff dangerous long enough to do any damage. That wouldn’t even slow down a nicotine nanny, of course – they have quite a bit of experience rewriting the laws of physics.
So how did the doctor come up with his proof? Did he visit the homes of smokers and carefully measure particulates on every surface? Did he check out the interior of smoker’s vehicles and measure chemicals on their clothes? Hell no. He did a phone survey to see how many people believe this nonsense. That is the entirety of his research. He had someone call a bunch of people and ask them questions (and we can only guess how loaded these questions were) and presented the results as proof that third hand smoke was deadly. A 15/day smoker gets about a half picocurie per day. A typical nonsmoker living or working with smokers might get about 1/100th of that, or about 5 femtocuries/day.

A millicurie is a thousand microcuries, a million nanocuries, a billion picocuries, or a trillion femtocuries.

It would take that nonsmoker a trillion days to absorb the dose that killed the Russian.

Of course that's secondhand smoke. The article referred to "third-hand smoke" absorption by a child from surfaces left over from past smoking. A reasonable estimate for the amount remaining stuck to the 10,000 squarefeet of walls, ceilings, furniture, floors, and draperies in a reasonably ventilated 2,000+ sq. ft home would almost certainly be less than 1%, but let's assume that 1% actually does remain and spreads out over that 10,000 sq. ft. of surface. With 15 cigarettes having been smoked while the child was at school and the house then thoroughly aired out, we'd then have 1% of a half picocurie (i.e. 5 femtocuries) spread over that surface.

Let us suppose you don't watch your child very carefully and further suppose the child deeply loves licking an entire 10 sq. ft. of floor sparkly clean every day during Jeopardy! That child will then have licked 1/1,000th of those 5 femtocuries into his system: 5 "attocuries."

So, how long would it take such a child to get the "killing dose" of the 5 millicurie Russian that the Times article featured?

In 1,000 days our child would have licked up 5 femtocuries.
In one million days, 5 picocuries.
In one billion days, 5 nanocuries.
In one trillion days, 5 microcuries.
It would take one quadrillion days (2.74 trillion years) for that child to absorb 5 millicuries.

Unfortunately the universe is only 10 billion years old, so the child would have to lick floors for 274 cycles of our expanding universe to match our radioactive Russian.

Of course since he'd normally excrete most of that polonium we'd have to refuse to change his diaper until the end of that period... not a very pleasant thought.

And then there's that whole annoying fact that the half life of polonium is only 138 days, so we'd just have to ignore the laws of physics as well in order to justify the story's thesis.

Even if someone wanted to quibble with my estimates, changing 1% to 10%, or 10 sq ft to 100, or 15 cigarettes to 150 cigarettes per day... or even ALL THREE in attacking my argument... we'd STILL be talking three billion years of exposure along with a suspension of the laws of biology and physics.
one study conducted by Otago University, NZ, that has looked into children of smokers vs non smokers. They concluded that children of smokers have a staggering 84% reduction in asthma, eczema, psorisis and other allergic reactions and I quote: "MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy..."the findings are consistent with the hypothesis."

Comment by sandy on March 5, 2010 at 7:21pm

Since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on 2nd hand smoke, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean. (Note that the Relative Risk) (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.

molecular remnants of cigarette smoke - The chemical make-up of shs is nearly 94% water vapor and A SLIGHT AMOUNT OF CARBON DIOXIDE with about 3% being carbon monoxide AND 3% CONTAINING THOSE SUPPOSED KILLER CARCENOGENS.........

n-nitrosomines which you hear so much about is actually inorganic arsenic..what they dont tell you is that the measurements they took match the naturally occuring arsenic in the air outside everywhere, they measured levels at 0-29 picograms, which is totally safe (the same as a glass of water)..the amount has to be 5 million times that to be harmful to humans. Trying to blame shs for what is actually a natural thing. The levels of other things in shs if they can be measured at all are millions if not billions of times smaller than the amounts needed to harm anyone......just remember this second hand smoke is a joke within nano seconds from the burn it turns into WATER VAPOR.....Even the exhaled smoke is loaded down with water vapor...osha has said nothing in shs/ets is going to harm you or anyone else.

It turns out that a high rate of smokers prevalence translates, in many cases, to long life expectancy and low rates of lung cancer. For males, in 1994, the country with the highest life expectancy (76.6 years) was Iceland, where 31% of the men smoked. The next runner-up was Japan, where 59% of the men smoked, and life expectancy was 76.5 years. Other countries with high rates of male smoking and long life expectancies included Israel (45%, 75.9 years); Greece (46%, 75.2 years); Cuba (49.3%, 74.7 years) and Spain (48%, 74.5 years).
The National Cancer Institute published a 1998 report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), linked here, and again here, commissioned by the World Health Organization. The study found that children were less likely to get lung cancer if both parents smoked than if neither smoked.
the British Medical Journal, concluded that: " no significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality" This study was one of the largest study ever done, covering 100,000 people over 38 years and was reported and published in 2003.
(Occupational Safety and Health Agency) . As for second hand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.
Here is an article, by Dr. Michael Siegel, summarizing studies which show that heart attacks actually had smaller declines in States with Smoking Bans than in the rest of the country.
Here is an interesting study done by the National Cancer Institute which shows: A recent meta-analysis based on 4626 cases concluded that the relative risk of lung cancer in lifelong nonsmokers who lived with a smoker was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-1.36) Subsequently, we reported in the Journal the results from a large case-control study of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer based in 12 European centers. This study provided an odds ratio (OR) for lung cancer of 1.14 (95% CI = 0.88-1.47) for spousal and workplace exposure to ETS; In other words, if a lifetime nonsmoker lived with a smoker, their risk of getting cancer from the second hand smoke is between a "12% decrease and a 14% increase". Therefore, there is no statistically significant risk.

Comment by Jeff on March 2, 2010 at 7:05pm

Look into the molecular remnants of cigarette smoke, on a molecular level, and it's reaction with other airborne chemicals called atmospheric oxidents and it's sorbtion, absorption and adsorption by the human body. The following text may help you at about 3/4ths of the way down the page. When I address this subject it's from a scientific perspective and I try to provide the science in laymen's terms. I'm not very good at that so perhaps reading the science yourself would be better. Scroll down to, "Indoor fate and transport of secondhand tobacco smoke," which is in a blue bar. The journal I'm directing you to is not supported by the Tobacco Industry, it's from Arizona State University, where I used to live and work. There's a significant amount of evidence supporting the theory that Tobacco Smoke, second hand or not, lands on the surrounding exposed surfaces, combines with other organic airborne compounds and again called atmospheric oxidents and produces significant carcinogens that children pick up by putting their hands in their mouths. This isn't theory, it's fact. and even at those very small microscopic levels these carcinogens effect brain chemistry once in the blood stream. This has nothing to do with BREATHING second hand smoke and perhaps that's what you don't understand.

The well recognized theory you're quoting is being proven wrong and is not a well recognized scientific theory at all and I'm not certain where this information comes from.

So the idea that something is carcinogenic at high doses but not small coincidentally also stands together with the idea that some things we considered dangerous only at high levels we now know are also sometimes even more dangerous at very low levels. This is true.

We recognize in science, now, that even the smallest dose of depleted uranium, on a molecular level, is far more devastating to the human body then the higher doses we thought were necessary for genetic mutation within the human system. For that reason we've reduced dramatically the dose levels for depleted uranium and the level at which it causes harm. For the longest time we were under the assumption that larger doses of radiation were needed to cause harm but we recognize today that only one molecule of depleted uranium lodged in the lung produces once largely unknown and very dramatic effects.

The same is true for mercury in vaccines. The very same concept. Precisely why the levels of mercury were first reduced before it was largely removed, at least we're told it's been removed.

The same is also true for nicotine ingested orally from surface contamination.

I'm not trying to argue with you sandy and remember, I smoke but I spend a great deal of time reading things most people wouldn't, and don't and I'm not going to remain quiet or subdued if I have an opinion I can support with facts. I also appreciate the dialogue with you and will be interested in reading your response. We need to discuss something in order to learn about it.

Here's the link, 3/4 down the page it says, in blue, "Indoor fate and transport of secondhand tobacco smoke."

Just because big Pharma is behind something doesn't mean the science is false. They are behind what's profitable whether it's true or false. It's difficult for me to understand how you can support a concept that smoking is safe or even that second hand smoke is safe. It causes Emphysema and other lung diseases and that I have Emphysema is proof of that. Big Pharma doesn't look for true or false, they support profit only. They don't care about true or false.

Let me also briefly address the phrase, "the dose makes the poison" and the scientific view behind that phrase. There is more to chemical toxicity than the acute effects caused by short-term exposure to high doses. In recent years, concern has grown about chronic effects of long-term exposure to relatively low doses of contaminants in our water, food, and environment. Because our bodies metabolize different types of chemicals in different ways, small daily doses of some contaminants will create cumulative effects that eventually impair our health, whereas similar exposure to other types of contaminants will cause no harm. Lead is an example of a chemical for which small doses can add up to toxic concentrations over time, resulting in stunted growth and mental retardation in children who drink lead-contaminated water or live in homes with peeling lead paint. Rather than occurring suddenly, chronic effects such as these develop gradually through long-term, low-level exposures.

sandy, Paracelsus was a 16th century Swiss doctor. We've come a long way since he coined that phrase and we know, unequivocally that the dose does not make the poison.

Peace

Click Here

Comment by sandy on March 2, 2010 at 5:14pm

Jeff, yes they all are dangerous I do agree but, A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison.The idea that if something is carcinogenic at high doses it must also be proportionately so at small doses simply does not fit the real world. At least ten elements (including iron and oxygen) are carcinogens at high doses but essential to human life in small doses. And some carcinogens, such as selenium and Vitamin A, are proven anti-carcinogens at low doses.
As for 2nd hand smoke, it's all a farce that was started by the big pharmacuticals! In fact, there would be practically no antismoking "movement" if Big Pharma did not pay for it. It follows that those who support smoking bans implicitly accept and support Big Pharma's interference with - and the running of - public policy. Behind every anti-smoking measure, whether smoking bans, tobacco taxes or anti-smoking propaganda, there is a huge pile of cash provided by the same drug companies that manufacture and sell smoking cessation products. Sometimes the drug companies themselves pass out the cash and sometimes a drug company front group, like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The pharmaceutical industry, which pours hundreds of millions a year into the false propaganda against cigarettes and smokers, supporting both junk science and rabid antismoking activism. Millions of dollars are awarded to an army of "researchers" to produce studies "proving" smoking tobacco leads to death, "proving" secondhand smoke to be hazardous. Each smoking ban passed is a opportunity for drug companies to sell their medicines. The tobacco control lobby is receiving over 880 million dollars every year just from state coffers alone. The truth is out there; it is freely accessible and right in front of anyone willing to take the time to locate and read the studies themselves, under the mountains of propaganda. Antismoking organizations today are well coordinated & extremely well funded. It's very hard to get over brainwashing of 15 years but it is possible. The truth is starting to come out but it's very hard to fight big giants with lot's of money!

Comment by Jeff on March 2, 2010 at 1:07pm

ONE DAY LEFT TO STOP MONSANTO

It's noon here and I'm about to go to sleep but I just sent a letter to the Obama administration that may or may not help stop the genetically engineered Alfalfa that's about to be planted across the US from happening. If this happens ALL crops will be effected and organic foods may no longer even exist.

Anyway, I'm too tired to post this whole article and the links so that YOU TOO can help by typing out, signing and sending a letter to the administration. As frustrated as I am with government I still took the time to do this. Yeah, I did. We have ONE DAY LEFT. The administration is accepting letters until March 3rd, tomorrow.

Please, take a few minutes to do this or you may be eating genetically modified food even if you don't want to. Alfalfa is pollinated by bees and they can carry the pollen to other plants, at least that's how I think it works. Anyway, please use the link below to find out the rest of the story. It's short. It'll take just a few minutes of your time. The life you save might be your own, or your kids, or mine.


Click Here!

Comment by peter b dunn on March 1, 2010 at 3:46pm

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1018971/australians-involved-in...

Australians bought kidneys from an Indian medic accused of running illegal clinics that duped poor labourers into selling their organs, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

Quoting legal sources involved with the case in India, the newspaper reported on Tuesday Australians were among the many foreigners who paid Amit Kumar, known as Dr Horror, for transplants.

The charge sheet against Kumar - accused of peddling organs to wealthy clients - has been prepared by India's top law enforcement agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The bureau claimed he received payments from foreign kidney recipients in foreign bank accounts.

The Herald said it had learnt that a money-laundering case against Mr Kumar, who was arrested in Nepal in 2008 after an international manhunt, was being delayed by the Australian Federal Police, who had yet to respond to a 16-month-old request from Indian investigators.

The federal police refused to discuss the case with the newspaper, saying: "It is not appropriate for us to comment in regard to an investigation conducted by foreign law enforcement agencies."

Comment by Jeff on February 26, 2010 at 8:17pm

sandy, you can argue all you want with junk science and poor analogies. You FAIL to understand. It's that simple.

No one is talking about a deadly dose.

We're talking about Nicotine entering the growing bodies of babies whose brains aren't yet fully developed and there it resides long enough to cause chemical changes on a molecular level. That you don't understand this is obvious. Why you don't is not.

Your words:

"A study of umbilical cord blood from 56 children found "reprogramming" of a gene associated with exposure to compounds in traffic fumes."

That you can't extrapolate these findings to Nicotine is puzzling indeed.

You're trying to say Nicotine is safe and Toluene is dangerous. You're wrong. They're all dangerous.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page