Smoking ban leads to big drop in heart attacks

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC/AP

A smoking ban in one Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years, a sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is, government researchers said Wednesday.

The study, the longest-running of its kind, showed the rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent in the three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo, Colo., took effect. There was no such drop in two neighboring areas, and researchers believe it’s a clear sign the ban was responsible.

The study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country, said one of its authors, Terry Pechacek of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At least eight earlier studies have linked smoking bans to decreased heart attacks, but none ran as long as three years. The new study looked at heart attack hospitalizations for three years following the July 1, 2003 enactment of Pueblo’s ban, and found declines as great or greater than those in earlier research.

“This study is very dramatic,” said Dr. Michael Thun, a researcher with the American Cancer Society.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28450513/

---

I still don't understand how some DU'ers think that in bars/restaurants there should be a right to smoke. IMHO all indoor workplaces should have a smoking ban to protect both employees and customers.

[Hannah Bell]

1. the "second-hand smoke" spin is bullshit.

[Tikki]

3. Not from where I'm sitting....

but then...I'm sitting here where there are smoking bans and
they are working out just fine for all concerned.


Tikki

[enough]

4. What is your explanation?

[RobinA]

8. Explanation

Correlation does not equal causation.

I come from a family of heavy smokers and complete non-smokers. Nobody ever died of heart disease before they were in their late 80s or 90s or cancer at all. So from where I sit, looking at correlation, smoking and secondhand smoke will help you outlive your life expectancy. My grandmother, aged 99, lived with smokers most of her life. Smoke on!

[Stellabella]

35. Anecdotal evidence means squat.

It's not scientific or epidemiological evidence.

Lots of smokers die old, with no diseases.

Lots of nonsmokers die young, with no diseases.

Doesn't change the fact that smoking causes cancer and emphysema along with other diseases, or the fact that second-hand smoke has been proven to be deadly to non-smokers.

[RobinA]

160. Kinda Missed

the point, heh?

Do people even read posts before responding?

[pnwmom]

49. And exceptions don't disprove the general rule. n/t

[RhodaGrits]

61. You are blessed with the genes of a family that repairs the

damage from smoke and its carcinogens. It happens, although very rarely. That won't protect the vast majority of people who are not protected by that stroke of genetic luck.

You should volunteer to be part of a genetic study looking at the risk factors for cancer.

My beloved aunt never smoked a day in her life. Her husband chain-smoked and died of lung cancer. She died very painfully 4 yrs later of lung cancer that metastasized to her brain.

I attended an oncology symposium on genes and cancer and the keynote speaker stated "cigarettes are extremely effective cancer delivery systems". I've never forgotten the phrase. And you say "Smoke on!"?

Cancer and heart disease are just flip sides of the damage from chronic inflammation. Smoking is extremely pro-inflammatory and carcinogenic. Inflammation is both the fertile nourishing bed for cancer and the sludge of atherosclerosis building heart disease.

You are very lucky. I hope your luck holds.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

113. and don't forget George Burns

He died in Mar 09, 1996 at 99 years old, and he was old and still puffing!

[superconnected]

120. What now, smoking doesn't cause cancer?

Guess what, some people escaped the world trade center collapse too but that doesn't mean it wasn't deadly.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

177. So science is wrong and we should listen to you?

Whatever you say, President Bush.

[Hannah Bell]

46. Here's my explanation: from the paper:

"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, because no data were available on whether study subjects were nonsmokers or smokers, determining what portion of the observed decrease in hospitalizations was attributable to reduced SHS exposure among nonsmokers and what portion was attributable to increased quitting among smokers was not possible."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm

In other words, the researchers have NO, repeat NO, evidence that the drop in heart attack hospitalizations was due to reduction in second-hand smoke.

There are other problems with the study as well.


Here are some other possible explanations:

1. 5% decline in smoking in the same general area

2. socio-economic differential, i.e. Pueblo getting too expensive for the "riff-raff" (who smoke more, use drugs more, have more heart attacks) & their movement to outlying areas.

Something like this appears to have happened (check the study charts), since while the rate inside Pueblo dropped, the rate in Pueblo County INCREASED (which is out of line with long-standing national trends).

The difference in the other comparison area was much less. Hospitalizations decreased there too. If not for the difference between Pueblo & its suburbs, I doubt the comparison would have been statistically significant.

There's also the question of who's taken to which hospitals, which also wasn't addressed.

3. reduction of smoking in workplaces by SMOKERS, duh. 8 hours less smoking per day. Plus (considering bars) reduction of smoking by clientele.

at any rate, given that the researchers didn't even sort smokers from non-smokers, they have no business trumpeting their study as suggesting *anything* about second-hand smoke.


BOGUS.

[pnwmom]

51. And what is your background in epidemiology? Or even medicine?

Thanks for your opinion, but I think those of the medical researchers from the CDC and the American Cancer Society carry a lot more weight.

[Hannah Bell]

55. MS, RD, university research & hospital.

The paper (which I read, & you didn't) is weak as watered tea.

[pnwmom]

65. So you're a dietician. That's good, but for most of us,

the background of the CDC researcher who carried out the study and the American Cancer Society spokesman who reviewed the study carry more weight.

I'm surprised to see that a dietician would be defending second-hand smoke. Lucky for you, you've got these great genes -- but many of us have asthma and other problems and we don't need second hand smoke to aggravate our problems.

[Hannah Bell]

76. Here's what "science" is: it's not leaping to assumptions like you just did.

1. The fact that I say THIS STUDY contains NO EVIDENCE linking the decline in hospitalizations to reduction of second-hand smoke allows you to draw NO CONCLUSIONS regarding my overall beliefs re second hand smoke. Nor does it have any bearing on your asthma or the rest of the extraneous stuff you threw in your post.

2. Read the study yourself. The researcher has no basis for the statements he made to the paper.

3. You give weight to the CDC researcher's statement because you like the conclusion, not because of the evidence or truth value, which you aren't interested in investigating, because you already "know".

[CreekDog]

169. if you dismiss secondhand smoke as "bullshit", please don't lecture us on "evidence"

:eyes:

[WriteDown]

172. Are you also worried about

third hand smoke?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229105037.htm

[CreekDog]

168. but saying second hand smoke is "bullshit" as you said is not a weak statement?

:crazy:

[Gormy Cuss]

111. Please read the link.

Ignore Hannah Bell's opinion and read what the CDC's own review states as the limitations are spelled out at the CDC link. The study is important because it is longer term than other studies done on the topic and it adds to the body of evidence that public smoking restrictions are related to lower heart attack rates. The study doesn't make a direct correlation between second-hand smoke and heart risk.

Finally, the ecologic nature of this study precludes definite conclusions about the extent to which the observed decline in AMI hospitalizations in the city of Pueblo was attributable to the smoke-free ordinance. To the extent that any unmeasured factors influenced rates, the findings described in this report might overestimate or underestimate the actual effect. AMI hospitalization rates initially were substantially higher in the city of Pueblo than in the two comparison areas, suggesting that these areas might not be fully comparable to the intervention site because of demographic and other differences. However, no significant changes in the manner in which AMI patients were diagnosed, treated, or transported occurred in the three study sites during the study period. Future studies could further expand the evidence base by including information on the smoking status of AMI patients and biomarkers (e.g., cotinine and troponin) for objective measurement of SHS exposure and case ascertainment, as was done in one recent study

The study isn't BS, but it does not support the statement that reduction of second-hand smoke by itself led to a reduction in heart attacks.

[Hannah Bell]

133. i said the second-hand smoking spin in the OP news report was BS.

and it is.

not an *opinion,* but fact.

The study contains no evidence re second-hand smoke in relation to reduced hospital admissions. none.

the research's statements in the op report are spin.

[October]

162. self delete

[snappyturtle]

81. Exactly. Studies where a multiplicity of variables are either

ignored or otherwise not taken into account, are not creditable. This doesn't look like a controlled study.

edit: spelling

[Tunkamerica]

82. that makes much more sense than all of a sudden everyone was

healthier. It's never cut and dry. Even from the excerpt it was obvious that pieces of info. were missing. The biggest was : who was having less heart attacks? smokers? non-smokers? And if the hospital had 40% less people in the ER then saying there were also 40% less heart attacks is really saying nothing.

[snappyturtle]

141. It's too bad that this study was reported as it was. All it did was raise

questions even in the minds of people who only know a little about scientific study. That's a red light. We're all so used to spinning we may not expect to find it in the science world. The results may be true but the study did not 'narrow' contributing factors enough.

[creeksneakers2]

155. Did the ban really change anything?

Few workplaces allow smoking, ban or no ban. If a ban was put in place its unlikely that it changed the policy in a significant number of workplaces.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

142. Smokers smoked less.

:think:

[RamboLiberal]

9. You sound like the RW global warming is BS argument n/t

[superconnected]

33. That's exactly what I was thinking. I nearly asked that person if Global warming was bs too.

[Hannah Bell]

53. You didn't read the paper, did you?

[Hannah Bell]

47. post 46. bogus study, bullshit "science"

[Lorien]

12. Tell that to my grandmother

oh, yeah right, you can't. She's died of a disease caused by second hand smoke. :cry:


Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet

http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.35422/k.7D0B/Secondhand_Smoke_Fact_Sheet.htm

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

*
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2

*
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3

*
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4

*
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5

*
Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7

*
Nineteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Montana and Utah prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants; bars will go smokefree in 2009. New Hampshire prohibits smoking in some public places, including all restaurants and bars. Four states - Florida, Idaho, Louisiana and Nevada - prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants, but exempt stand-alone bars. Fifteen states partially or totally prevent (preempt) local communities from passing smokefree air ordinances stronger than the statewide law. Nebraska and Oregon have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken effect yet.8

*
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9

*
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11

*
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13

*
Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14

*
The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.15

For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).



Sources:
1. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
2. Ibid.
3. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available here. Accessed on 7/7/06.
4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition 2002. National Toxicology Program.
6. Shopland, D. Smoke-Free Workplace Coverage. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2001; 43(8): 680-686.
7. Halpern, M.T.; Shikiar, R.; Rentz, A.M.; Khan, Z.M. Impact of Smoking Status on Workplace Absenteeism and Productivity. Tobacco Control 2001; 10: 233-238.
8. American Lung Association. State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues (SLATI). May 8, 2008. Available at http://slati.lungusa.org/StateLegislateAction.asp. Accessed on June 10, 2008.
9. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Schuster, MA, Franke T, Pham CB. Smoking Patterns of Household Members and Visitors in Homes with Children in United States. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. Vol. 156, 2002: 1094-1100.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses. Second Edition. February 2003.
14. Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M. The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? The Research Philip Morris Did Not Want You to See. Lancet. Vol. 364 No. 9446, 2004.
15. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available here. Accessed on 7/7/06.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.35422/k.7D0B/Secondhand_Smoke_Fact_Sheet.htm

[WriteDown]

23. Not according this study...

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20030515/secondhand-smoke-study-raises-ire

I believe there was also a WHO study which said pretty much the same thing.

[superconnected]

36. Do you know how many studies were funding by the tabacco companies?

Do you know how many repudiated "experts" have been coerced by big dollars.

There will always be studies to say against what all the other professionals say - that are funded by the people who stand to lose money. I wouldn't trust any little study because the tabbaco industry has funded so many. I wouldn't trust the anti-global warming studies either. Too many have paid their professors/doctors/experts out of the oil industries pockets to come up with a very skewed view and bring up half truths and call it proven.

[WriteDown]

40. So the WHO has now been compromised?

Puhlease.

[superconnected]

119. Cite the who study? Just saying it on internet means nothing.

From your spelling of please, I take it I'm dealing with a 17 year-old with the maturity of a 10 year-old.

[Mojorabbit]

144. I have been following

avian flu. Before that I would not have ever said that about the WHO but after years of doing this I will say that the WHO is a political organization as well as a health organization and in many ways(not relating this to smoking) they have been compromised. It was an eye opener to me.

[WriteDown]

173. Must be why they haven't addressed

3rd hand smoke yet :eyes:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229105037.htm

[Stellabella]

37. Yeah, and look who funded that study!

"The study was funded in part by the Center for Indoor Air Research, which the American Cancer Society says is an arm of Philip Morris and other tobacco companies."

WHAT a surprise! Not. Sorry, one or two studies 'showing' secondhand smoke isn't harmful isn't going to outweigh the mountain of evidence proving it's deadly.

[WriteDown]

41. You should check out the WHO study then...

But Phillip Morris is part of the world so maybe we should just throw that one out too.

[frylock]

52. you're kidding, right?

how can a study funded by the tobacco industry be in the least bit objective? i don't care WHO did the research.

[WriteDown]

89. Facepalm!

WHO = World Health Organization.

The study got buried like in any good CYA, but here is an article that talks about it.

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

101. That article was published before the study was

Here's the actual study:

Conclusions: Our results indicate no association
between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship
between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and
workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci%3b90/19/1440.pdf

It's best not to rely on 10 year old interpretations by a right wing newspaper like the Daily Telegraph, which tried to interpret a scientific study before it was published.

[WriteDown]

102. Sounds like the conclusion

Pretty much matches my assertion. Not saying its great to be around, but not the demonic force its been portrayed to be.

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. You were admitting there is a relationship?

Sorry, I must have missed the post you said that in.

[WriteDown]

174. Not saying its as good as being on a mountain top somewhere

but none of us are really safe with the REAL danger out there. And that of course is 3rd hand smoke.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229105037.htm

[Stellabella]

66. Heh.

Heh heh. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[WriteDown]

91. See post # 89. nt.

[Lorien]

71. Show me that WHO study. Then reply to each of the points I posted from

the AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION.

Denial doesn't change a damn thing.

[WriteDown]

90. See post #89 nt.

[ronnie624]

134. From your link:

In fact, researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 that found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems were funded by tobacco companies. In that review, researchers examined 106 studies conducted in those 15 years; two in three indicated secondhand smoke does contribute to lung and heart disease.

"While this study is flawed, there are at least 50 very reputable studies that find a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer and at least 50 others that find an increased risk of heart disease," says Thun.

Among them: Two findings from the newer Cancer Prevention Study II that began in the 1980s -- the follow-up to the study used for Enstrom's research -- that suggest nonsmokers face a 20% increased risk for both heart disease and lung cancer when exposed to secondhand smoke. "The consensus of multiple health committees from around the world, including the surgeon general, is that secondhand smoke is definitely related to lung cancer and heart disease, and may be also be related to chronic lung disease."

[Hannah Bell]

63. I'm not talking about your grandmother, I'm talking about THIS PAPER,

which is spin on the basis of NO EVIDENCE.

They didn't make any attempt at all to look into the second-hand smoke angle. The paper is simple correlation between the workplace ban & a reduction in hospital admissions.

It offers NO evidence that "second-hand smoke" has anything to do with the reduction. That's pure spin.

[Stellabella]

67. ... queen of denial ...

[Hannah Bell]

77. read the paper. oh, right, too much trouble.

much easier to spout snark.

[Stellabella]

124. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

[Hannah Bell]

79. here, i'll dumb it down.

"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, because no data were available on whether study subjects were nonsmokers or smokers, determining what portion of the observed decrease in hospitalizations was attributable to reduced SHS exposure among nonsmokers and what portion was attributable to increased quitting among smokers was not possible."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm

[Stellabella]

123. Wow, I'm amazed you managed to copy and paste.

Doesn't it take opposable thumbs to do that?

[Hannah Bell]

126. what'd i tell you?

nothing but snark.

first sign of folks with no foundation for their claims.

[Lorien]

75. So compassionate. The death of my grandmother was evidence enough for me

but if you want evidence I'll post it again since you ignored it the first time:

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet

http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.35422/k.7D0B/...

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.1

*
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2

*
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3

*
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4

*
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.5

*
Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers.7

*
Nineteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Montana and Utah prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants; bars will go smokefree in 2009. New Hampshire prohibits smoking in some public places, including all restaurants and bars. Four states - Florida, Idaho, Louisiana and Nevada - prohibit smoking in most public places and workplaces, including restaurants, but exempt stand-alone bars. Fifteen states partially or totally prevent (preempt) local communities from passing smokefree air ordinances stronger than the statewide law. Nebraska and Oregon have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken effect yet.8

*
Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.9

*
Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma.11

*
In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis.12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood.13

*
Research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades.14

*
The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack.15

For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website at www.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).



Sources:
1. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
2. Ibid.
3. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available here. Accessed on 7/7/06.
4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition 2002. National Toxicology Program.
6. Shopland, D. Smoke-Free Workplace Coverage. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2001; 43(8): 680-686.
7. Halpern, M.T.; Shikiar, R.; Rentz, A.M.; Khan, Z.M. Impact of Smoking Status on Workplace Absenteeism and Productivity. Tobacco Control 2001; 10: 233-238.
8. American Lung Association. State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues (SLATI). May 8, 2008. Available at http://slati.lungusa.org/StateLegislateAction.asp . Accessed on June 10, 2008.
9. California Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Executive Summary. June 2005.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Schuster, MA, Franke T, Pham CB. Smoking Patterns of Household Members and Visitors in Homes with Children in United States. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine. Vol. 156, 2002: 1094-1100.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. America’s Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses. Second Edition. February 2003.
14. Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M. The Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? The Research Philip Morris Did Not Want You to See. Lancet. Vol. 364 No. 9446, 2004.
15. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report. A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006; Available here. Accessed on 7/7/06.

[Hannah Bell]

78. sorry for your grandma. doesn't mean this paper proves anything re

decreases in second-hand smoke reducing hospitalizations in pueblo.

if you can't see the difference, too bad for you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

150. My grandmother lived with a smoker and she lived to a ripe old age

According to your logic, that proves second hand smoke is harmless. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

14. Same thing happened in Helena MT

I remember reading about it a year or two ago. I think they had to get rid of the smoking ban though, I can't remember if it was local business or a law suit. But they noticed the same thing. With some of these small towns it is more noticeable because everybody goes to one hospital. I think second hand smoke is bullshit in some ways, but the decrease in heart attacks has no other explanation.

[snappyturtle]

83. A decrease in heart attacks could be attributable to other lifestyle

factors too. Epecially in this study not differentiating between non-smokers and smokers. A better diet? More exercise? Weight loss? etc.

[zazen]

104. maybe smokers stayed home, drank less, and ate less fatty pub food

But I haven't read the study, so I'm not taking sides.

And as a child with asthma who grew up with parents who smoked with rolled up car windows while I gasped for air in the backseat, I HATE SECOND HAND SMOKE.

In NC, it's still allowable in almost all restaurants, and I just want to throttle the bastards who light up while I'm eating. It's so damned selfish. What if I doused myself in gasoline and exuded toxic, noxious, choking fumes throughout an enclosed space because I just loved the smell of gasoline (or just an entire bottle of Estee Lauder). Bet I'd be kicked out of a restaurant. But smokers light up with no regard for children or asthmatics whatsoever.

End rant.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

137. You noticed estee lauder perfumes too??

Interesting.

I gag at all Estee Lauder perfumes. Nearly all of them give me an instant headache when I smell them. There are some perfumes that I like and can wear without incident. But they are generally not the cheap or synthetic ones.


And I get quite ill around smokers. If I am around a smoker, for example, at their house, I will get violently ill with a sinus infection/bronchitis and severe vomiting within 48 hours.

My parents smoked when I was little. I did not have any air conditioning, and the house was filthy and dusty and we had a large hairy dog.

As a result, I grew up with constant sinus infections and a runny nose, and now I have scar tissue in my lungs which is visible on an X-ray. This, although I have NEVER SMOKED in my life.

[RobinA]

161. Or Drank Less

I haven't had a drink in years - all because I can't smoke out while having a drink. Since I was a social drinker and don't drink at home, alcohol consumption has been zero since smoking in public became a capital offense. I still do smoke, though.

[rationalcalgarian]

21. I agree

The lack of any published research on this possibility in any medical journal takes away from any credibility this assertion may claim. But, as an urban legend, it is now firmly established in the people's psyche.

It has been postulated by the anti-smoker lobby that bar owners who banned smoking prior to legislation experienced an immediate increase in revenue. This, too, was absolute nonsense. If it were true, bar owners everywhere would have been banning smokers voluntarily since, I would assume, they are in the business of making money and would adopt any policy or "edge" that would keep them competitive. If it were true, a smoking bar down the block from a non-smoking bar would have gone under. Instead, the reverse was true. (In my city, anyway. A new bar opened up in a trendy part of town in the 1990's with non-smoking as its main selling point. It lasted about six months before it went under.) If the assertion were true, there would have been no need for government interference and legislation.

Restaurants are another issue as far as I'm concerned. Even as a smoker, I agree with the non-smoking policy in restaurants. In fact, I prefer it. But bar owners should always have the option open for them. And if, by choosing to be a smoking bar, that bar owner loses his business through lack of clientele, so be it. The same should apply to bar owners who choose non-smoking as their bar policy. (After all, we do not go to bars and pubs for our health!) I, for one, have avoided bars since the ban came into effect. I'm not staging a boycott or trying to make a point, I just don't want to belly up to the bar for a beer only to wander off outside and huddle in the weather for a smoke every thirty minutes. Instead, I pick up a case of beer at the store, go home and have a few friends over. It's cheaper by far, I don't feel like a social pariah and there's no one playing ABBA on the juke box, a definite plus!

Non-smokers of the world, the bars are yours! Knock yourselves out.

[frylock]

54. the smokers also claimed that the ban would cause the bars and restaurants to go belly up..

there's propaganda flying from both sides.

[rationalcalgarian]

106. There is indeed!

Unfortunately both sides have discredited their arguments through exaggerated claims and wild predictions of doom and gloom. (To use internet shorthand: "meh".) My biggest complaint is over government involvement in something that should have, could have, resolved itself naturally. If a business owner hangs on to outdated practices or brings in a new and unworkable practice and, as a result, his/her business, fails then all is right with the world and the market has decided. That's how business works: adapt to new forces or keep on doing what works as long as it works.

If a bar opens with the expressed purpose of being a non-smoking bar and it succeeds, I say more power to 'em. If it starts a trend and more bar owners decide to go non-smoking, then there is no argument. The people have spoken and they want non-smoking bars. And no bar owner is going to pass up an opportunity to increase revenue with a slight change in policy. But this did not happen. Instead, the government created an artificial trend and gave none of the bar owners a choice. In Alberta, where I live, the rallying cry has always been "Let the market decide!" when it comes to health care, minimum wage, food prices, oil prices etc. but when it came to smoking in bars, this cry was never heard.

On the bright side, I have saved myself a hockey bag full of money by staying out of bars, since I am no longer welcome. As far as bars going under because of it, I would be fooling myself to think that my absence actually made a difference. But it did for me!

[superconnected]

32. Except to scientists and the medical industry.

[Hannah Bell]

68. I'm talking about THIS PAPER, which offers NO EVIDENCE for

any connection between "second hand smoke" & the reduction in heart attack hospitalizations. That's the researchers' inference & spin.

Post 46.

[Gormy Cuss]

43. The second-hand smoke assertion certainly does not seem to be supported by the study results.

Haven't seen the full study but even in this article the strongest claim made by the researchers is that is suggests a link between second-hand smoke and heart attacks. All that the study says conclusively is that there was a significant drop in heart attacks after a smoking ban was enacted. As the Harvard prof quoted later on in the article stated, the drop may have been influenced by other related factors like an overall drop in the number of smokers rather than just exposure to second hand smoke.

[askeptic]

48. Right - correlation is not causation

This is hardly a "scientific" study - but it is good enough for those who are after a desired conclusion. Kind of like the ones who are against any kind of drug legalization only citing the conclusions they agree with...

[Diane R]

45. Second-hand smoke spin is bullshit? You don't have a clue; you're clearly a smoker.

[Sal Minella]

57. More likely a paid hireling of Big Tobacco -- blogging/posting for dollars.

[Hannah Bell]

69. Don't give up your day job, you won't make it as a mind-reader.

Did you read the scientific paper?

thought not.

I did, though.

post 46.

[Sal Minella]

86. Nothing in the scientific paper or in post 46 disproves you being a shill for Big Tobacco.

[Hannah Bell]

93. ho-ho. i can see why you don't get science.

nothing proves it, either. or even offers evidence for it.

unless it's your position that any criticism of research means one is in the pay of "big tobacco".

hate to spoil your world view, but "big tobacco" pays both sides.

best way to raise prices.

oh, & skim $$$$ toward "preferred" foundations.

[Mojorabbit]

145. Whether you are on one side or the other

of a subject the scientific method must be used or the results are worthless. You cannot draw conclusions unless the data support them. This is basic stuff. Accusing someone of being a hireling is not helpful.

[Sal Minella]

147. Proper use of language is important. Saying something is "more likely" is not an accusation.

Possibility =/= certainty.

I am always distrustful of anyone who insists the harmful effects of smoking (and secondhand smoke) have not yet been proven.

Scientific method and whole kaboodle included -- cigarettes are the one product advertised and sold in this country that cause sickness and death when used EXACTLY as intended by the manufacturer.

[Hannah Bell]

151. but no one said that, did they? i said THIS PAPER contains NO EVIDENCE

of any connnection between second hand smoke & decreased hospital admissions for heart attacks.

If you read the paper, you might see I'm right.

[Hannah Bell]

64. Did you read the original scientific paper? Didn't think so.

The study offers NO evidence for a connection between reduction in second-hand smoke & the reduction in hospitalizations.

post 46.

[Lucky Luciano]

87. I was initially opposed to smoking bans in bars

because smoking was just a part of the party scene even though I was not a smoker and I did not like to impose on others...but since it went into effect, it was much more pleasant in bars and other such social places, my clothes did not smell disgusting in the hamper the next day (I mean really disgusting - right?), and nobody including the smokers really cared all that much - if anything it makes a more social scene for the smokers who all congregate in a small common area outside where it becomes quite easy to meet people simply by asking for a light and striking up a conversation away from the noise inside! The smoking ban in bars is quite alright and I fully support it 100% - particularly with all the medical evidence that I am only just now mentioning at the end of my post!

[Demeter]

100. If You Pollute Yourself Firsthand, You Have No Basis To Speak About Secondhand

and as one made desperately ill by even a whiff of second-hand, I'm not at all surprised at the findings. The carbon monoxide is one thing, the allergens another, and we haven't even gotten to the carcinogens.

[LynneSin]

105. Wrong

When i use to wait tables a decade ago, working in a smoke free environment was something not heard of in Pennsylvania. I didn't smoke and yet everyone swore I was a smoker simply from my horrible sounding hacking cough. Ten years later that cough has long since been gone.

To be honest, 2nd-hand smoke would barely affect me since I'm around it so infrequently but it is not right to tell someone working in a restaurant that they have no choice to inhale that smoke. Hell I'd be working with women who were pregnant - should they have to suffer thru it?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

179. I agree

I used to work in a pub in the UK. I started work in February of 2007 and the smoking ban was in July of 2007 (for England). I started to notice that I would have a hacking cough in the mornings trying to clear my lungs. The ban went through and my cough was gone.

Smokers would often light up in the bar right in front of me as well and I would have to wash my work clothes often. The smokers that I'm friends with are still pissed off that they have to smoke outside and I've told them what I just said above and they said, "If you don't like it stay home!" to that extent. No use arguing with them about it.

[Divine Discontent]

109. I do politefully disagree - 2nd hand smoke is so nauseating and it's got things that harm lungs.

also, I used to live in the place where this study was done - those people were so unhealthy, and it's a blue collar town, long steeped in "steel", and it's refreshing to hear this medical news!

[WriteDown]

175. They're going to have to tear down all the buildings though

I can't see any other way to get rid of 3rd hand smoke.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229105037.htm

[Tesha]

148. Well with all the facts you included in your reply to support your argument, I'M certainly convinced

(Not)

Tesha

[Xenotime]

158. Where do YOU get off telling people what is ore isn't bullshit?!?!

What make you the smoke expert around ehre?

[CreekDog]

167. are you a doctor or scientist with knowledge in this area?

because I have to weigh your opinion with theirs as well as consider the expertise with which you offer it.

:shrug:

[wings of progression]

2. I doubt it very much

I know I have bias on this issue because I like and enjoy smoking, it relieves stress and boredom, but I think the people should have the right to make their own decisions. I'm sorry but there are other ways to deal with this issue instead of banning. Designated smoking areas would be good enough for me.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. You're certainly entitled to smoke as much as you want...

The problem is, smoke drifts into other people's lungs, and when that happens, there are problems.

Funny how the smoke won't stay in the designated smoking areas.

[WriteDown]

15. You shouldn't drive either then....

Exhaust fumes have a nasty habit of drifting into others people's lungs. Especially those OUTSIDE the car being driven. You also probably shouldn't burn any fire wood either.

[Stellabella]

70. Sorry, nothing compares to directly inhaling more than

4000 chemicals, 43 of which are known carcinogens.

Besides, cars have another purpose, as do wood fires. Cigarettes don't.

And, cigarette smokers inhale FOUR TIMES the CO found in car exhaust.

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:GtQA12t-nvwJ:www.stepupnc.com/qyguide/skillgroupdevelopment/Tobacco-Fact-Sheet.doc+cigarette+deaths+car+exhaust&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us&client=firefox-a

denial, denial, denial....

[Hannah Bell]

94. yeah, yours.

on edit: such a stupid post, i couldn't let it go.

"nothing compares" to cigarettes?

less than 1/4 of adults smoke. a majority of adults drive.

if you smoke a pack a day, you'll go through 20 cartons of cigarettes/year. lain flat, that makes a rectangle 5 ft long, 2 feet wide, 3 inches high.

burn it in your yard & see how much smoke you get.


now burn 1040 gallons of gas, the equivalent of buying 20 gal/wk for one year.


no pollutants & toxins in gas? ho-ho.

[Stellabella]

122. No, yours.

I can't believe the sheer volume of stupidity in your post. What you are babbling about doesn't make a lick of sense.

I didn't say there are NO pollutants or toxins in gas. Why don't you go wrap your mouth around a car exhaust pipe and enjoy that.

Read these facts, if you can get through them without looking up half the words:

"A cigarette, in one puff, can produce around 351 parts per million in particular matter, that is about 7 times more than a car. In a more recent study a 2 liter diesel car was left idling (engine on wheels not turning) for a half hour, it took 3 cigarettes three minutes to achieve the same levels of pollution."

"The pollution emitted from smoking cigarettes is 10 times greater than that produced by a modern diesel car exhaust, researchers have found, further adding to concerns about the health risks of passive smoking."

The letter actually addresses your asinine 'point': http://www.patienthealthinternational.com/conditionarchive/cond4_item2876.aspx

But to an addict such as yourself, facts never penetrate. Buh bye.

[Hannah Bell]

127. depends on which "particulates" they choose to measure.

tell me which you'd rather stand in, a locked garage with the exhaust running for 30 minutes or with 3 cigarettes burning 30 minutes.

Which they wouldn't, if you're artificially making them smoulder, you're not mimicing real conditions & increasing "particulates" with incomplete burn - just like a smoky fire.

additionally, idling a 2-litre turbo diesel doesn't mimic driving. turbo diesel engines conserve fuel until it's needed, i.e. in speeding up. so you're artificially burning less.

the original study (which you didn't read) contains no evidence re passive smoke. none.



You already "know" the truth, so don't think.

[Hannah Bell]

129. the OP is concerned with *second-hand* smoke. Not "smokers".

Cigarette smokers don't "inhale four times the CO2 found in car exhaust".

If they did, they'd be dead.

You have to quantify the comparison to make it valid.

Bet you can't.

[Hannah Bell]

131. but then, you think it's safer to stand in a 20x20 room with a car running

than with someone smoking 3 cigarettes.

So I guess you're beyond help.



http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/343/24/1742

Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in 20 U.S. Cities, 1987–1994

Jonathan M. Samet, M.D., Francesca Dominici, Ph.D., Frank C. Curriero, Ph.D., Ivan Coursac, M.S., and Scott L. Zeger, Ph.D.

Simkhovich, B. Z., Kleinman, M. T., Kloner, R. A. (2008). Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Injury: Epidemiology, Toxicology, and Mechanisms. J Am Coll Cardiol 52: 719-726

Swiston, J. R., Davidson, W., Attridge, S., Li, G. T., Brauer, M., van Eeden, S. F. (2008). Wood smoke exposure induces a pulmonary and systemic inflammatory response in firefighters. Eur Respir J 32: 129-138

Tamagawa, E., Bai, N., Morimoto, K., Gray, C., Mui, T., Yatera, K., Zhang, X., Xing, L., Li, Y., Laher, I., Sin, D. D., Man, S. F. P., van Eeden, S. F. (2008). Particulate matter exposure induces persistent lung inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 295: L79-L85

Yang, I A, Fong, K M, Zimmerman, P V, Holgate, S T, Holloway, J W (2008). Genetic susceptibility to the respiratory effects of air pollution. Thorax 63: 555-563

Peng, R. D., Chang, H. H., Bell, M. L., McDermott, A., Zeger, S. L., Samet, J. M., Dominici, F. (2008). Coarse Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Hospital Admissions for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases Among Medicare Patients. JAMA 299: 2172-2179

Diez Roux, A. V., Auchincloss, A. H., Franklin, T. G., Raghunathan, T., Barr, R. G., Kaufman, J., Astor, B., Keeler, J. (2008). Long-term Exposure to Ambient Particulate Matter and Prevalence of Subclinical Atherosclerosis in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Am J Epidemiol 167: 667-675

Araujo, J. A., Barajas, B., Kleinman, M., Wang, X., Bennett, B. J., Gong, K. W., Navab, M., Harkema, J., Sioutas, C., Lusis, A. J., Nel, A. E. (2008). Ambient Particulate Pollutants in the Ultrafine Range Promote Early Atherosclerosis and Systemic Oxidative Stress. Circ. Res. 102: 589-596

Santos, U P, Terra-Filho, M, Lin, C A, Pereira, L A A, Vieira, T C B, Saldiva, P H N, Braga, A L F (2008). Cardiac arrhythmia emergency room visits and environmental air pollution in Sao Paulo, Brazil. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 62: 267-272

Bakshi, M. S., Zhao, L., Smith, R., Possmayer, F., Petersen, N. O. (2008). Metal Nanoparticle Pollutants Interfere with Pulmonary Surfactant Function In Vitro. Biophys. J 94: 855-868

Evans, D. E., Heitbrink, W. A., Slavin, T. J., Peters, T. M. (2008). Ultrafine and Respirable Particles in an Automotive Grey Iron Foundry. ANN OCCUP HYG 52: 9-21

Briet, M., Collin, C., Laurent, S., Tan, A., Azizi, M., Agharazii, M., Jeunemaitre, X., Alhenc-Gelas, F., Boutouyrie, P. (2007). Endothelial Function and Chronic Exposure to Air Pollution in Normal Male Subjects. Hypertension 50: 970-976

Dominici, F., Peng, R. D., Zeger, S. L., White, R. H., Samet, J. M. (2007). Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in the United States: Did the Risks Change from 1987 to 2000?. Am J Epidemiol 166: 880-888

Mills, N. L., Tornqvist, H., Gonzalez, M. C., Vink, E., Robinson, S. D., Soderberg, S., Boon, N. A., Donaldson, K., Sandstrom, T., Blomberg, A., Newby, D. E. (2007). Ischemic and Thrombotic Effects of Dilute Diesel-Exhaust Inhalation in Men with Coronary Heart Disease. NEJM 357: 1075-1082

Ko, F. W S, Tam, W., Wong, T. W., Chan, D. P S, Tung, A. H, Lai, C. K W, Hui, D. S C (2007). Temporal relationship between air pollutants and hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Hong Kong. Thorax 62: 780-785

Laurent, O., Bard, D., Filleul, L., Segala, C. (2007). Effect of socioeconomic status on the relationship between atmospheric pollution and mortality. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 61: 665-675

Toren, K., Bergdahl, I. A, Nilsson, T., Jarvholm, B. (2007). Occupational exposure to particulate air pollution and mortality due to ischaemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease. Occup. Environ. Med. 64: 515-519

Henrotin, J B, Besancenot, J P, Bejot, Y, Giroud, M (2007). Short-term effects of ozone air pollution on ischaemic stroke occurrence: a case-crossover analysis from a 10-year population-based study in Dijon, France. Occup. Environ. Med. 64: 439-445

Choi, J.-H., Xu, Q.-S., Park, S.-Y., Kim, J.-H., Hwang, S.-S., Lee, K.-H., Lee, H.-J., Hong, Y.-C. (2007). Seasonal variation of effect of air pollution on blood pressure. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 61: 314-318

Nemmar, A., Al-Maskari, S., Ali, B. H., Al-Amri, I. S. (2007). Cardiovascular and lung inflammatory effects induced by systemically administered diesel exhaust particles in rats. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 292: L664-L670

Kettunen, J., Lanki, T., Tiittanen, P., Aalto, P. P., Koskentalo, T., Kulmala, M., Salomaa, V., Pekkanen, J. (2007). Associations of Fine and Ultrafine Particulate Air Pollution With Stroke Mortality in an Area of Low Air Pollution Levels. Stroke 38: 918-922

Courter, L. A., Musafia-Jeknic, T., Fischer, K., Bildfell, R., Giovanini, J., Pereira, C., Baird, W. M. (2007). Urban Dust Particulate Matter Alters PAH-Induced Carcinogenesis by Inhibition of CYP1A1 and CYP1B1. Toxicol Sci 95: 63-73

Ritz, S. A., Wan, J., Diaz-Sanchez, D. (2007). Sulforaphane-stimulated phase II enzyme induction inhibits cytokine production by airway epithelial cells stimulated with diesel extract. Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol. 292: L33-L39

Park, S. K., O'Neill, M. S., Wright, R. O., Hu, H., Vokonas, P. S., Sparrow, D., Suh, H., Schwartz, J. (2006). HFE Genotype, Particulate Air Pollution, and Heart Rate Variability: A Gene-Environment Interaction. Circulation 114: 2798-2805

Lanki, T, Pekkanen, J, Aalto, P, Elosua, R, Berglind, N, D'Ippoliti, D, Kulmala, M, Nyberg, F, Peters, A, Picciotto, S, Salomaa, V, Sunyer, J, Tiittanen, P, von Klot, S, Forastiere, F, for the HEAPSS study group, (2006). Associations of traffic related air pollutants with hospitalisation for first acute myocardial infarction: the HEAPSS study. Occup. Environ. Med. 63: 844-851

Zanobetti, A., Schwartz, J. (2006). Air pollution and emergency admissions in Boston, MA.. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60: 890-895

Maitre, A., Bonneterre, V., Huillard, L., Sabatier, P., de Gaudemaris, R. (2006). Impact of urban atmospheric pollution on coronary disease. Eur Heart J 27: 2275-2284

Sarnat, S E, Suh, H H, Coull, B A, Schwartz, J, Stone, P H, Gold, D R (2006). Ambient particulate air pollution and cardiac arrhythmia in a panel of older adults in Steubenville, Ohio. Occup. Environ. Med. 63: 700-706

Bhatnagar, A. (2006). Environmental Cardiology: Studying Mechanistic Links Between Pollution and Heart Disease. Circ. Res. 99: 692-705

Diez Roux, A. V., Auchincloss, A. H., Astor, B., Barr, R. G., Cushman, M., Dvonch, T., Jacobs, D. R. Jr., Kaufman, J., Lin, X., Samson, P. (2006). Recent Exposure to Particulate Matter and C-reactive

Protein Concentration in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Am J Epidemiol 164: 437-448

Kim, C. S., Hu, S.-C. (2006). Total respiratory tract deposition of fine micrometer-sized particles in healthy adults: empirical equations for sex and breathing pattern. J. Appl. Physiol. 101: 401-412

Andre, E., Stoeger, T., Takenaka, S., Bahnweg, M., Ritter, B., Karg, E., Lentner, B., Reinhard, C., Schulz, H., Wjst, M. (2006). Inhalation of ultrafine carbon particles triggers biphasic pro-inflammatory response in the mouse lung. Eur Respir J 28: 275-285

Cozzi, E., Hazarika, S., Stallings, H. W. III, Cascio, W. E., Devlin, R. B., Lust, R. M., Wingard, C. J., Van Scott, M. R. (2006). Ultrafine particulate matter exposure augments ischemia-reperfusion injury in mice. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 291: H894-H903

Klein-Patel, M. E., Diamond, G., Boniotto, M., Saad, S., Ryan, L. K. (2006). Inhibition of {beta}-Defensin Gene Expression in Airway Epithelial Cells by Low Doses of Residual Oil Fly Ash is Mediated by Vanadium. Toxicol Sci 92: 115-125

Rogers, J. F., Dunlop, A. L. (2006). Air Pollution and Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Target Population?. Pediatrics 118: 156-164

Wong, T W, Tam, W, Tak Sun Yu, I, Wun, Y T, Wong, A H S, Wong, C M (2006). Association between air pollution and general practitioner visits for respiratory diseases in Hong Kong. Thorax 61: 585-591

LeVan, T. D., Koh, W.-P., Lee, H.-P., Koh, D., Yu, M. C., London, S. J. (2006). Vapor, Dust, and Smoke Exposure in Relation to Adult-Onset Asthma and Chronic Respiratory Symptoms: The Singapore Chinese Health Study. Am J Epidemiol 163: 1118-1128

Samoli, E., Aga, E., Touloumi, G., Nisiotis, K., Forsberg, B., Lefranc, A., Pekkanen, J., Wojtyniak, B., Schindler, C., Niciu, E., Brunstein, R., Dodic Fikfak, M., Schwartz, J., Katsouyanni, K. (2006). Short-term effects of nitrogen dioxide on mortality: an analysis within the APHEA project. Eur Respir J 27: 1129-1138

Mutlu, G. M., Snyder, C., Bellmeyer, A., Wang, H., Hawkins, K., Soberanes, S., Welch, L. C., Ghio, A. J., Chandel, N. S., Kamp, D., Sznajder, J. I., Budinger, G. R. S. (2006). Airborne Particulate Matter Inhibits Alveolar Fluid Reabsorption in Mice via Oxidant Generation. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Bio. 34: 670-676

Rabinovitch, N., Strand, M., Gelfand, E. W. (2006). Particulate Levels Are Associated with Early Asthma Worsening in Children with Persistent Disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 173: 1098-1105

Bayram, H., Ito, K., Issa, R., Ito, M., Sukkar, M., Chung, K. F. (2006). Regulation of human lung epithelial cell numbers by diesel exhaust particles. Eur Respir J 27: 705-713

Low, R. B., Bielory, L., Qureshi, A. I., Dunn, V., Stuhlmiller, D. F.E., Dickey, D. A. (2006). The Relation of Stroke Admissions to Recent Weather, Airborne Allergens, Air Pollution, Seasons, Upper Respiratory Infections, and Asthma Incidence, September 11, 2001, and Day of the Week. Stroke 37: 951-957

Medina-Ramon, M., Zanobetti, A., Schwartz, J. (2006). The Effect of Ozone and PM10 on Hospital Admissions for Pneumonia and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A National Multicity Study. Am J Epidemiol 163: 579-588

Dominici, F., Peng, R. D., Bell, M. L., Pham, L., McDermott, A., Zeger, S. L., Samet, J. M. (2006). Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Admission for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases. JAMA 295: 1127-1134

Murakami, Y., Ono, M. (2006). Myocardial infarction deaths after high level exposure to particulate matter.. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60: 262-266

Chen, C., Arjomandi, M., Qin, H., Balmes, J., Tager, I., Holland, N. (2006). Cytogenetic damage in buccal epithelia and peripheral lymphocytes of young healthy individuals exposed to ozone. Mutagenesis 21: 131-137


Behndig, A. F., Mudway, I. S., Brown, J. L., Stenfors, N., Helleday, R., Duggan, S. T., Wilson, S. J., Boman, C., Cassee, F. R., Frew, A. J., Kelly, F. J., Sandstrom, T., Blomberg, A. (2006). Airway antioxidant and inflammatory responses to diesel exhaust exposure in healthy humans. Eur Respir J 27: 359-365

Routledge, H C, Manney, S, Harrison, R M, Ayres, J G, Townend, J N (2006). Effect of inhaled sulphur dioxide and carbon particles on heart rate variability and markers of inflammation and coagulation in human subjects. Heart 92: 220-227

Mills, N. L., Tornqvist, H., Robinson, S. D., Gonzalez, M., Darnley, K., MacNee, W., Boon, N. A., Donaldson, K., Blomberg, A., Sandstrom, T., Newby, D. E. (2005). Diesel Exhaust Inhalation Causes Vascular Dysfunction and Impaired Endogenous Fibrinolysis. Circulation 112: 3930-3936

Schwartz, J., Park, S. K., O'Neill, M. S., Vokonas, P. S., Sparrow, D., Weiss, S., Kelsey, K. (2005). Glutathione-S-Transferase M1, Obesity, Statins, and Autonomic Effects of Particles: Gene-by-Drug-by-Environment Interaction. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 172: 1529-1533

Pelletier, J. D., Cook, J. P. (2005). Deposition of playa windblown dust over geologic time scales. Geology 33: 909-912

Figueiras, A., Roca-Pardinas, J., Cadarso-Suarez, C. (2005). A bootstrap method to avoid the effect of concurvity in generalised additive models in time series studies of air pollution. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 59: 881-884

Fang, G.-C., Wu, Y.-S., Wen, C.-C., Lin, C.-K., Huang, S.-H., Rau, J.-Y., Lin, C.-P. (2005). Concentrations of nano and related ambient air pollutants at a traffic sampling site. Toxicol Ind Health 21: 259-271

Schildcrout, J. S., Heagerty, P. J. (2005). Regression analysis of longitudinal binary data with time-dependent environmental covariates: bias and efficiency. Biostatistics 6: 633-652

Anseth, J. W., Goffin, A. J., Fuller, G. G., Ghio, A. J., Kao, P. N., Upadhyay, D. (2005). Lung Surfactant Gelation Induced by Epithelial Cells Exposed to Air Pollution or Oxidative Stress. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Bio. 33: 161-168

Gilboa, S. M., Mendola, P., Olshan, A. F., Langlois, P. H., Savitz, D. A., Loomis, D., Herring, A. H., Fixler, D. E. (2005). Relation between Ambient Air Quality and Selected Birth Defects, Seven County Study, Texas, 1997-2000. Am J Epidemiol 162: 238-252

Filleul, L, Rondeau, V, Vandentorren, S, Le Moual, N, Cantagrel, A, Annesi-Maesano, I, Charpin, D, Declercq, C, Neukirch, F, Paris, C, Vervloet, D, Brochard, P, Tessier, J-F, Kauffmann, F, Baldi, I (2005). Twenty five year mortality and air pollution: results from the French PAARC survey. Occup. Environ. Med. 62: 453-460

Kunzli, N., Schindler, C. (2005). A call for reporting the relevant exposure term in air pollution case-crossover studies. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 59: 527-530
Sullivan, J H, Schreuder, A B, Trenga, C A, Liu, S L-J, Larson, T V, Koenig, J Q, Kaufman, J D

(2005). Association between short term exposure to fine particulate matter and heart rate variability in older subjects with and without heart disease. Thorax 60: 462-466

Peng, R. D., Dominici, F., Pastor-Barriuso, R., Zeger, S. L., Samet, J. M. (2005). Seasonal Analyses of Air Pollution and Mortality in 100 US Cities. Am J Epidemiol 161: 585-594

Schwartz, J. (2005). How Sensitive Is the Association between Ozone and Daily Deaths to Control for Temperature?. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 171: 627-631

Ruidavets, J.-B., Cournot, M., Cassadou, S., Giroux, M., Meybeck, M., Ferrieres, J. (2005). Ozone Air Pollution Is Associated With Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation 111: 563-569

de Paula Santos, U., Braga, A. L. F., Giorgi, D. M. A., Pereira, L. A. A., Grupi, C. J., Lin, C. A., Bussacos, M. A., Zanetta, D. M. T., do Nascimento Saldiva, P. H., Filho, M. T. (2005). Effects of air pollution on blood pressure and heart rate variability: a panel study of vehicular traffic controllers in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Eur Heart J 26: 193-200
Committee on Environmental Health, (2004). Ambient Air Pollution: Health Hazards to Children. Pediatrics 114: 1699-1707

Bell, M. L., McDermott, A., Zeger, S. L., Samet, J. M., Dominici, F. (2004). Ozone and Short-term Mortality in 95 US Urban Communities, 1987-2000. JAMA 292: 2372-2378

Gryparis, A., Forsberg, B., Katsouyanni, K., Analitis, A., Touloumi, G., Schwartz, J., Samoli, E., Medina, S., Anderson, H. R., Niciu, E. M., Wichmann, H.-E., Kriz, B., Kosnik, M., Skorkovsky, J.,

Vonk, J. M., Dortbudak, Z. (2004). Acute Effects of Ozone on Mortality from the "Air Pollution and Health: A European Approach" Project. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 170: 1080-1087

Peters, A., von Klot, S., Heier, M., Trentinaglia, I., Hormann, A., Wichmann, H. E., Lowel, H., the Cooperative Health Research in the Region of A, (2004). Exposure to Traffic and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction. NEJM 351: 1721-1730

Medina, S, Plasencia, A, Ballester, F, Mucke, H G, Schwartz, J (2004). Apheis: public health impact of PM10 in 19 European cities. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 58: 831-836

Sharman, J.E., Cockcroft, J.R., Coombes, J.S. (2004). Cardiovascular implications of exposure to
traffic air pollution during exercise. QJM 97: 637-643

Gao, F., Barchowsky, A., Nemec, A. A., Fabisiak, J. P. (2004). Microbial Stimulation by Mycoplasma fermentans Synergistically Amplifies IL-6 Release by Human Lung Fibroblasts in Response to Residual Oil Fly Ash (ROFA) and Nickel. Toxicol Sci 81: 467-479

DeMeo, D. L., Zanobetti, A., Litonjua, A. A., Coull, B. A., Schwartz, J., Gold, D. R. (2004). Ambient Air Pollution and Oxygen Saturation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 170: 383-387

Hollingsworth, J. W. II, Cook, D. N., Brass, D. M., Walker, J. K. L., Morgan, D. L., Foster, W. M., Schwartz, D. A. (2004). The Role of Toll-like Receptor 4 in Environmental Airway Injury in Mice. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 170: 126-132

Oyana, T. J., Rogerson, P., Lwebuga-Mukasa, J. S. (2004). Geographic Clustering of Adult Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to Pollution at a United States-Canada Border Crossing. Am. J. Public Health 94: 1250-1257

Brook, R. D., Franklin, B., Cascio, W., Hong, Y., Howard, G., Lipsett, M., Luepker, R., Mittleman, M., Samet, J., Smith, S. C. Jr, Tager, I. (2004). Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Expert Panel on Population and Prevention Science of the American Heart Association. Circulation 109: 2655-2671

Goss, C. H., Newsom, S. A., Schildcrout, J. S., Sheppard, L., Kaufman, J. D. (2004). Effect of Ambient Air Pollution on Pulmonary Exacerbations and Lung Function in Cystic Fibrosis. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 169: 816-821

Bhatnagar, A. (2004). Cardiovascular pathophysiology of environmental pollutants. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 286: H479-H485

Xiao, G. G., Wang, M., Li, N., Loo, J. A., Nel, A. E. (2003). Use of Proteomics to Demonstrate a Hierarchical Oxidative Stress Response to Diesel Exhaust Particle Chemicals in a Macrophage Cell Line. J. Biol. Chem. 278: 50781-50790

Katsouyanni, K. (2003). Ambient air pollution and health. Br Med Bull 68: 143-156

Samoli, E, Touloumi, G, Zanobetti, A, Le Tertre, A, Schindler, C., Atkinson, R, Vonk, J, Rossi, G, Saez, M, Rabczenko, D, Schwartz, J, Katsouyanni, K (2003). Investigating the dose-response relation between air pollution and total mortality in the APHEA-2 multicity project. Occup. Environ. Med. 60: 977-982

Routledge, H C, Ayres, J G, Townend, J N (2003). Why cardiologists should be interested in air pollution. Heart 89: 1383-1388

Nemmar, A., Nemery, B., Hoet, P. H. M., Vermylen, J., Hoylaerts, M. F. (2003). Pulmonary Inflammation and Thrombogenicity Caused by Diesel Particles in Hamsters: Role of Histamine. Am. J.
Respir. Crit. Care Med. 168: 1366-1372

Matanoski, G. M., Tao, X. (2003). Styrene Exposure and Ischemic Heart Disease: A Case-Cohort Study. Am J Epidemiol 158: 988-995

Tankersley, C. G., Shank, J. A., Flanders, S. E., Soutiere, S. E., Rabold, R., Mitzner, W., Wagner, E. M. (2003). Changes in lung permeability and lung mechanics accompany homeostatic instability in senescent mice. J. Appl. Physiol. 95: 1681-1687

Filleul, L, Baldi, I, Dartigues, J-F, Tessier, J-F (2003). Risk factors among elderly for short term deaths related to high levels of air pollution. Occup. Environ. Med. 60: 684-688

[Hannah Bell]

74. yes, this is conveniently overlooked - but more omnipresent than

"second-hand smoke".

[proud progressive]

96. you are opinionated, argumentative, intelligent, and you may be right about this study, but i must

ask you your general feelings about smoking, smokers, and the tobacco companies.

[Hannah Bell]

97. that's what people don't get. my feelings have nothing to do with the

quality of the evidence in this study. nor do anyone's.

There's no evidence for the researcher's public comments in the study.

NONE. ZIP.

& anyone with 1/2 a brain, without an axe to grind, can see it.

[RamboLiberal]

7. People still have to work in those designated areas

I had to work among smokers for 25 years and I was so glad when my employer moved to a new building and finally obeyed the no-smoking in a workplace rule. I think it helped improve my health.

But I wonder how much damage was done to my lungs & heart growing up in an era when smoking was prevalent everywhere.

[hedgehog]

16. I've got your designated smoking area right here:

:evilgrin:

[wings of progression]

30. so much for tolerance

hypocrites

[drm604]

56. Some things shouldn't have to be tolerated.

Not all behavior is equally deserving of tolerance. People also won't tolerate you bringing a radio and playing your own loud music in a restaurant, or burning incense, or you having a loud ongoing conversation with a person on the other side of the room from you.

I guess they're a bunch of intolerant hypocritical bastards. :sarcasm:

[Stellabella]

72. Uh huh.

And I suppose I should 'tolerate' bigots, and hatemongers, and warmongers, and murderers too, huh?

Keep your fucking smoke in your own lungs. Once it gets into the air someone else breathes, your smoke becomes everyone's problem.

[drm604]

42. People making their own decisions.

I think the people should have the right to make their own decisions

So if I make the decision that I don't want your smoke in my lungs then you'll respect that decision?

[SoCalDem]

6. Did the study cross-reference the people who moved away

:evilgrin:

[izquierdista]

10. Apparently, not dramatic enough

To keep tobacco addicts from jumping to their keyboards to defend their favorite weed.

[NRaleighLiberal]

11. Smoking is just a horrendous addiction that hijacks otherwise intelligent people

and gets them to defend it. My dad died of a stroke recently and we discovered a diary he kept...he HATED that he was addicted to smoking, hated what it did to his health, the family's economy, and his marriage to my mom.

There is simply no defense of smoking. None.

[Lorien]

13. ...

:thumbsup:

[WriteDown]

17. Sounds like they should ban alcohol too....

I've met many alcoholics who hate being addicted.

[katandmoon]

20. Plenty of people can drink alochol without becoming addicted. Cigarettes don't work that way.

[WriteDown]

25. Uh, sure it does....

There are plenty of people who only smoke when going to bars. Each person is affected differently.

[sandnsea]

22. Second hand fumes

don't kill people.

[frylock]

59. nobody is banning shit..

you're free to smoke your fucking brains out.

[sandnsea]

19. You just defined addiction

in a nutshell. And yes, that's all smoking is because no sane person would stick their head over a chimney and breathe in the smoke. It's the nicotine addiction and that's it. Every other reason people *think* they smoke is because they've been, as you say, hijacked. That from an ex-smoker.

[WriteDown]

24. I knew a med school student who chose to smoke...

because it took the edge off when cramming for a big exam.

[sandnsea]

26. He could have taken a xanax

he just chose to use the drug nicotine. He's lucky he didn't get addicted.

[WriteDown]

28. And xanax is better?

Xanax is still really popular as a way to feel like you've drank a 12 pack after only having a beer of two. Yuck.

[sandnsea]

29. A drug is a drug

Nicotine is a drug. Xanax is a drug. When you get addicted to a drug, you make any excuse possible to keep using it. That's all there is to it.

[WriteDown]

31. Sounds like you should think about working to ban

caffeine too. (another drug)

[sandnsea]

38. Second hand caffeine fumes

don't kill people.

And I'm not really pro banning smoking. But facts are facts and there's no reason to deny them - except that's what addiction does.

[WriteDown]

39. 2nd hand smoking doesn't either...

See the giant WHO study or this one.
http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20030515/secondha...

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. WHO: "Second-hand tobacco smoke ... causes cancer, heart disease and many other serious diseases"

Second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous to health. It causes cancer, heart disease and many other serious diseases in adults. Almost half of the world's children breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke, which worsens their asthma conditions and causes dangerous diseases. At least 200 000 workers die every year due to exposure to second-hand smoke at work.

http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/tobacco/en/index.html

[WriteDown]

92. Ever here of Janus?

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. No, and I don't know what your link has to do with it

and your link is 10 years old, by the way. Here's something more up to date, apart from what teh WHO says (which you seem to want to ignore, now):

The increased risk to non-smokers of lung cancer from secondhand smoke (SHS)
was estimated at 24% in the overview of 37 studies and 4626 cases commissioned
by SCOTH in 1998. An almost identical increased risk estimate emerged from
the recent overview of 46 studies and 6257 cases carried out by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Both these overviews looked at lung cancer
cases in non-smoking women with partners who smoked. The results from all the
new studies, when pooled together, lead SCOTH to conclude that SHS causes
lung cancer, and to support the degree of risk found in the 1998 report. SCOTH
concludes that there is an estimated overall 24% increased risk of lung cancer in
non-smokers exposed to SHS. This estimate is only marginally reduced when the
negative results of a recent Californian study published in the British Medical
Journal are included.

New studies on SHS exposure and the risk of heart disease have strengthened the
findings of the 1998 SCOTH overview which estimated that the excess risk in non
smokers exposed to SHS compared to those not exposed was 23%. We now have
greater understanding of the ways in which tobacco smoke inhalation damages the
blood vessels. Whereas lung cancer risk increases in a linear fashion with the number
of cigarettes smoked and the duration of smoking, damage to the heart and the
arteries occurs disproportionately at the lower exposures experienced by those
exposed to SHS. SCOTH therefore concludes that SHS causes heart disease and
that the best estimate of increased relative risk of heart disease in non-smokers
exposed to SHS remains at about 25%.

UK Government Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health

[frylock]

60. back away from the straw men..

go out and have a smoke already. jeez.

[Sal Minella]

84. I knew a med school student who committed suicide before final exams.

Calmed him right down.

[katandmoon]

18. Cigarette smoke STINKS. IMO the evidence it causes cancer and heart disease is overwhelming and

Anyone who doubts it is simply in heavy denial. But even if it weren't -- KEEP YOUR FILTHY CIGARETTE SMOKE TO YOURSELF. It STINKS! And so do smokers -- literally.

I had to sit next to a smoker in a waiting room the other day and he positively REEKED. No, he wasn't even smoking at the time but that didn't stop him from actively reeking like a stale ashtray. It was vile and the smell of cigarette smoke is nasty and vile. I don't want it in MY hair, on MY clothes, or in MY nose, eyes, and lungs, thank you very much.

[WriteDown]

27. Sounds like you have a GOLDEN opportunity...

to open a smoke free bar in your area. Sounds like it would be in such demand that there would be lines out the door.

[harmonicon]

62. you're entitled to your opinion, I guess

Just recognise that it's not universal. If I stink so much, why a few weeks ago, when I came inside a bar after stepping out for a cigarette, did the person I was with say "I love that smell" when I sat down? Shit, I hate the smell of almost all perfume and after shave - it makes my nose itch, irritates my eyes, and I find it to be generally offensive, but I don't think people should legally be forced to stop wearing it.

[KillCapitalism]

130. It does stink.

I'd rather someone fart in my face than smoke a cig near me.

[sce56]

34. K&R! I can't belive this thread had only one rec before I saw it? And yes I was a Pack a Day for

over twenty of my years! I decided to quit the habit before it quit me and I have been smoke free since 1995. I can't stand the smell of it now days and especially when I have a cold!

[NashVegas]

44. I Dreamed I Had a Cigarette Last Night

God, it was soooooo good, and such a stress reliever.

Going on 18 months now.

[Sentath]

50. Congratulations on the 18

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/7406844@N06/2565429190/&usg=__YoCj142QnbzlJFMDyCcLfzEWwCo=&h=500&w=460&sz=93&hl=en&start=27&um=1&tbnid=vD_WC9Z22s1nnM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhalf%2Brose%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1C1GGLS_enUS291US304%26sa%3DN

a rose and a half

[NashVegas]

98. Thanks

Pretty pic!

[Lorien]

73. Congrats! I hope that 18 months turns into 18 years

and many, many more...:hi:

[NashVegas]

99. If It Did ...

At some point, on year 19 I'd say 'fuck it.' I'll be that old.

thanks for the thought ;)

[harmonicon]

58. "...bars/restaurants there should be a right to smoke"

I don't think that anyone should have the RIGHT to smoke anywhere they want. I think that businesses should have the right to determine how they want to run their business, customers should have the right to decide where they want to spend their money, and that employees should have the right to decide where they want to work. Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[Mnemosyne]

80. And how much do air pollution and other toxins contribute to heart attacks/lung cancer? I know

smoking is harmful, but I also believe it is used as "smoke and mirrors" to distract from the unseen carnage. Give the people a common visible enemy.

Smoke is visible, many other toxins are not.

People raise holy hell over smoking, but many look no further than what they see.

I worry much more over what we cannot see.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. Less than a tenth as much as tobacco, for lung cancer

In most people, lung cancer is related to cigarette smoking. Although some people who have never smoked get lung cancer, smoking causes 9 out of 10 cases.

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2962

though that doesn't mean than final tenth all comes from 'pollution', of course.

Heart attacks have multiple risk factors, of course, many of which are not airborn at all. Studies show there is some risk, but:

A person’s relative risk due to air pollution is small compared with the impact of established cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking, obesity, or high blood pressure. However, this is a serious public health problem because an enormous number of people are exposed over an entire lifetime.

...The combined long-term effect of studies in several large cities predicts 60,000 deaths each year caused by particulate matter.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4419

Compare that with:

Cigarette smoking is the most important preventable cause of premature death in the United States. It accounts for nearly 440,000 of the more than 2.4 million annual deaths.
...
The link between seconhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke) and disease is well known, and the connection to cardiovascular-related disability and death is also clear. About 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart and blood vessel disease are caused by other people's smoke each year.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4545

So the risk from second-hand smoke is in the same area as the risk from all particulates.

[Hannah Bell]

107. 20% of women dx w/ lung cancer = never smoked.

8% of men.

that's where the statistic comes from.

this doesn't equal "smoking 'causes' 9/10 lung cancers", even if the aha says it does.

the big difference with smoking v. other particulates is you inhale it directly in concentrated doses.

but it's also well-known that factors like poor nutrition, use of alcohol, asbestos exposure increase the likelihood of lung cancer from smoking.

so ditto with other sources of particulates.

it's not always either/or.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. The cancer statistic came from the Cancer Research UK charity, not the AHA

How you know where they got the figure from, I can't tell.

[Hannah Bell]

114. from reading the lit. there's no work that "proves" smoking "causes"

x% of cancers. It's an extrapolation from other data.

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. And that does sound like tobacco industry denial, I'm afraid

Are you really saying that when the British Medical Journal says:

Smoking is by far the most common cause of lung cancer. It's responsible for 9 in 10 deaths from the disease.1 2 Men who smoke are 22 times more likely to die from lung cancer than those who don't smoke. Women who smoke are 12 times more likely to die from lung cancer.

Smoking leads to cancer because cells in the lung are damaged by poisonous chemicals in cigarette smoke. Over time, these cells become cancerous.

http://besthealth.bmj.com/btuk/conditions/7435.html

that they are just 'extrapolating' from 'other data'?

[Hannah Bell]

125. I'm not questioning that smoking causes cancer.

I'm questioning the 9/10 lung cancer stat.

There's no foundation for the claim.

Point me to the original research & I'll eat my words, but I don't think you'll be able to.

Check the UK link you posted & find the contradictions in the same link.

They don't know; it's guesstimation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

139. Calling it 'guessimation' is spin, and rather insulting to the statisticians

No, there are no 'contradictions' there:

"smoking causes 9 out of 10 cases" ~90%
"It (radon) may cause almost 1 in 10 lung cancer cases" ~9%
"as many as 1 in 10 lung cancers might be caused by air pollution in the Swedish capital, Stockholm" (ie one city, where we don't know how many people smoke, or if there's any radon gas, and so the rate there cannot be used for the developed world as a whole)
"Another research paper put the figure at about 1 or 2 lung cancer cases in every 100" 1-2%

total: 100-101%. It's nothing more than a rounding artifact.

[Hannah Bell]

152. So tell me, the *9 in 10* statistic, is that for the UK, or the *developed world as a whole,*

or where, exactly? Who did that *another research paper"? and are there no *other* research papers*? and the list of other factors they mention, those have no causal effects? no synergies between the various possible causal factors?

So is Stockholm a particularly polluted city?

And then there's this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/04/010411083318.htm

"A virus that causes contagious lung cancer in sheep may be instrumental in understanding a similar malignancy in humans that accounts for 25 percent of lung-cancer cases in the United States, according to researchers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the National Cancer Institute."


Fact is, they pulled their 9/10 statistic out of their ass too.

[Hannah Bell]

153. and then there's this: Lack Of Sunlight May Increase Lung Cancer Risk

but oops, these "international databases" show smoking's only responsible for 75-85% of lung cancers. I guess they must be using different *statistics*, eh?


Lack of sunlight may increase the risk of lung cancer, suggests a study of rates of the disease in over 100 countries.

International databases, including those of the World Health Organization, and national health statistics were used.

Smoking was most strongly associated with lung cancer rates, accounting for between 75% and 85% of the cases.

But exposure to sunlight, especially UVB light, the principal source of vitamin D for the body, also seemed to have an impact, the findings showed.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220235735.htm


Fact is, they don't know. The methodology is to take a sample of cases, find out what % smoked, & then *assume* the smoking *caused* the cancer, & publish this as though it were some definitive finding.

But it's not.

[Hannah Bell]

154. Common Food Additive Found To Increase Risk And Speed Spread Of Lung Cancer

ScienceDaily (Dec. 30, 2008) — New research in an animal model suggests that a diet high in inorganic phosphates, which are found in a variety of processed foods including meats, cheeses, beverages, and bakery products, might speed growth of lung cancer tumors and may even contribute to the development of those tumors in individuals predisposed to the disease.

The study also suggests that dietary regulation of inorganic phosphates may play an important role in lung cancer treatment. The research, using a mouse model, was conducted by Myung-Haing Cho, D.V.M., Ph.D., and his colleagues at Seoul National University, appears in the first issue for January of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, published by the American Thoracic Society.

"Our study indicates that increased intake of inorganic phosphates strongly stimulates lung cancer development in mice, and suggests that dietary regulation of inorganic phosphates may be critical for lung cancer treatment as well as prevention," said Dr. Cho.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229080851.htm

Eating More Red And Processed Meats Linked To Greater Risk For Bowel And Lung Cancer, Findings Suggest

ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2007) — New findings provide evidence that people who eat a lot of red and processed meats have greater risk of developing bowel and lung cancer than people who eat small quantities. The research by Amanda Cross and colleagues at the US National Cancer Institute is published in the latest issue of PLoS Medicine.

[Hannah Bell]

156. Living Close To Heavy Industry May Increase Risk Of Lung Cancer

After taking account of smoking and other factors likely to influence the results, the data showed that women who had lived in zone A for more than 25 years were almost twice as likely to develop lung cancer as those who had not lived there

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060927201607.htm



Most Definitive Study Yet Shows Tiny Particles In Air Are Linked To Lung Cancer

The researchers calculated that the number of deaths from lung cancer increases by 8% for every 10 micrograms of fine particulate matter per cubic meter, according to the study. Larger particles and gaseous pollutants were generally not as associated with higher number of deaths.

"The increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease from air pollution was clearly far less than the risks associated with active cigarette smoking," says Arden Pope, Professor of Economics at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, the study's co-leader. "However, we found that the risk of dying from lung cancer as well as heart disease in the most polluted cities was comparable to the risk associated with nonsmokers being exposed to second-hand smoke over a long period of time," says Dr. Pope.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020306073952.htm

Air Pollution's Impact On The Heart Is As Bad As Having Been A Smoker

ScienceDaily (Dec. 16, 2003) — In a follow-up analysis of the most extensive study of its kind on the long-term effects of air pollution on human health, researchers have found that people living in U.S. cities face an increased risk of dying from a heart attack as a result of long-term exposure to air pollution. This increased risk was found to be as large as that associated with being a former smoker. The new analysis is published as a study in the rapid access issue of the journal Circulation, published by the American Heart Association.

"It is clear that long-term exposure to the levels of air pollution that Americans are routinely exposed to is a significant contributor to ischemic heart disease," says George Thurston, Sc.D., Associate Professor of Environmental Medicine at NYU School of Medicine, and one of the new study's authors. "When we looked at the data, we observed that the increased risk of dying from some forms of heart disease among non-smokers living in polluted cities is roughly comparable to the increased risk caused by being a former smoker."

[muriel_volestrangler]

157. That link is about bronchoalveolar carcinoma, from 2001: a later study ties that to smoking

The relationship between cigarette smoking and BAC has long been heavily debated. Data from the 1950s indicate that BAC (and other lung adenocarcinomas) was not related to cigarette smoking at the time. While it is now established that cigarette smoking is strongly related to lung adenocarcinoma, BAC was not separated from other adenocarcinoma subtypes in studies that demonstrated this to be the case. While two case-control studies reported a decade ago did demonstrate a relationship between BAC and cigarette smoking, small sample size and other methodologic problems indicate the need for further studies. Accordingly, we conducted a larger case-control study to evaluate this relationship.
...
We conclude that risk of BAC is now strongly related to a history of ever-smoking cigarettes, and that risk is present in both current and former smokers. While smoking is not the only cause of BAC, our data indicate that approximately 70% of BAC is currently attributable to cigarette smoking.

http://www.asco.org/ASCO/Abstracts+&+Virtual+Meeting/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=23&abstractID=104565

So the "bronchioalveolar carcinoma, a non-smoking related lung cancer of unknown origin" in your news story seems more doubtful, now. I don't know where "a similar malignancy in humans that accounts for 25 percent of lung-cancer cases in the United States" comes from - since bronchioalveolar carcinoma is the only one named, I had to presume it means that, but:

Representing 2 to 6 percent
of primary pulmonary malignancies, the relative rarity
of bronchoalveolar carcinoma has delayed its accurate
description by limiting the extent of clinical experience
within individual institutions.

http://medind.nic.in/laa/t05/i2/laat05i2p60.pdf

BAC in its "pure" form represents only 2% to 3% of all NSCLCs, making it a relatively rare entity, so accruing patients to prospective trials is difficult. However, what we've noticed is that there are many adenocarcinomas that contain pathologic features of BAC, and these tumors, even if they are mostly adenocarcinomas, behave more like BAC. So a working definition for oncologists may be a much broader population than the rigorous definition that BAC would imply. If one uses this clinically driven classification and includes adenocarcinomas with BAC features with the pure BACs, then it can be a rather common entity; some pathologists have estimated that there's some BAC in almost half of the adenocarcinomas in the United States.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/498197

From 2001 (before the larger study I linked to) we have:

Bronchoalveolar carcinoma is one of the subtypes of adenocarcinoma in non-small cell carcinoma of the lung. It represents approximately 10 to 25% of the adenocarcinoma of lung cases. Cigarette smoking does not appear to correlate with this type of cancer.

http://www.oncolink.com/experts/article.cfm?c=3&s=19&ss=50&id=1522

There are two main types of lung cancers: around 20% are small cell lung cancers (SCLC) and the remainder are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

The main types of NSCLC are squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma and large cell carcinoma, which account for approximately 35%, 27% and 10% of all lung cancer cases respectively in the UK6.

While cigarette smoking has been linked to all four types of lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, is the most common type in non-smokers18 and a rise in incidence has been reported in the USA and other countries7-9.

In the USA, adenocarcinoma is now the most common type of lung cancer. In Europe the most common type of lung cancer is still squamous cell carcinoma despite increases in the incidence of adenocarcinoma9. The increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma has been linked to low-tar cigarettes10.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/incidence/

so I suggest the journalist at Science Daily has either taken the figure for all adenocarcinomas, or the occurrence of BAC in adenocarcinomas (and taken the upper limit of that estimate), and incorrectly used that as the proportion of all lung cancer that is BAC. Again, using figures produced by journalists, rather than researchers, is a bad idea.

Fact is, "they" are the major experts on cancer, who look at many studies before producing their figures. If you need yet another example of this:

Smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths
and 87% of lung cancer deaths.8,9

8. Doll R, Peto R. The Causes of Cancer. New York, NY: Oxford
Press; 1981.
9. US Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the
Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of
the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 1989.

Cancer Facts & Figures 2008 - American Cancer Society

These are the leading governmental and medical authorities on the statistics of cancer and tobacco. These figures are not 'from their ass'.

[Hannah Bell]

165. bronchioalveolar carcinoma is one of the forms of LUNG CANCER.

It's not some separate cancer.

"Adenocarcinoma accounts for 29.4% of lung cancers.<16> It usually originates in peripheral lung tissue. Most cases of adenocarcinoma are associated with smoking; however, among people who have never smoked ("never-smokers"), adenocarcinoma is the most common form of lung cancer.<20> A subtype of adenocarcinoma, the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, is more common in female never-smokers, and may have different responses to treatment.<21>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer


& yes, they basically pull the stats out their ass.

They take a statistical sample of cases, check to see if they've ever smoked; if so, it's assumed their cancer was caused by smoking.

Then they generalize the sample to the population.

Then they give you their 9/10 stat, like I told you in the first place.

I know very well how they get their stats because I participated in similar operations for nutrition. I know something about "expertise" from that period, so I don't respect it so much as you apparently do.

For example, you might not be aware that some of the research RDAs are based on come from studies using a handful of subjects.

But whatever, think what you like.

[muriel_volestrangler]

166. Yes, I said it was ONE of the forms in my post

but the figure of it being 25% of the cases of lung cancer, in your link, is just plain wrong. You quoted it as if it meant the "9 out of 10" figure was wrong.

No, the world's best sources give "9 out of 10", after decades of research. Your denial, if you work, or worked, in nutrition, is quite worrying.

[Hannah Bell]

170. So is your fantasy that one study "proves" anything. So is your fantasy

that, after "decades of research," it's now a certainty that "9 out of 10" lung cancers are caused by smoking (& 1 out of 10 by radon, leaving 0 out of 10 for all other possible causes, or synergism between causes).

Except, of course, in Scandinavia, where 1 out of 10 might be caused by air pollution.

Stockholm being, as everyone knows, so much more polluted than the rest of the "developed world".

[Mnemosyne]

112. Thanks for clearing it up, muriel_v. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

115. yes, so opaque it was. fact remains, there's no basis for the definitive-sounding "causes x%"

Most smokers don't get lung cancer.
Most lung cancer deaths occur after 65.

Look at the website. They say 9/10 cases are from smoking, then they say radon may cause 10% of deaths, & air pollution may cause another 10%. Then they list a bunch of other stuff.

Fact is, nobody knows, & the stats are guesstimates.



Other risk factors for lung cancer

Exposure to radon gas
Exposure to certain chemicals
Air pollution
Scarring from previous lung disease, for example tuberculosis (TB)
A family history of lung cancer
Past cancer treatment
Exposure to radon gas

Radon gas is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that can seep out of the soil into buildings. This is more likely in certain parts of the country where there is a lot of granite (for example, the West Country and the Peak District). Radon is the second biggest cause of lung cancer after smoking. It may cause almost 1 in 10 lung cancer cases. The risk from radon increases the risk from smoking. Smokers with high indoor levels of radon have a particularly high risk of getting lung cancer. If you are worried about this, the Health Protection Agency - Radiation Protection Division have information on how to check your house.

Exposure to certain chemicals

A number of substances may cause lung cancer, including asbestos, metal dust and fumes, paints, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, diesel exhaust, herbicides, some types of insecticides and silica. These are rare causes of lung cancer because you would normally only come across these chemicals in large amounts if you worked with them. And not many people do.

Air pollution

Air pollution may cause lung cancer. We know this from studies on people exposed to large amounts of diesel exhaust fumes at work, for many years. This type of long term occupational exposure may increase lung cancer risk by up to 47% (that is the average risk of lung cancer, plus half again). One study has shown that people living in areas with high levels of nitrogen oxides (mainly from cars and other vehicles) have lung cancer risk increased by about a third. Some Swedish researchers estimated that as many as 1 in 10 lung cancers might be caused by air pollution in the Swedish capital, Stockholm. Another research paper put the figure at about 1 or 2 lung cancer cases in every 100 caused by outdoor air pollution.

Scarring from previous lung disease
Having had a disease that caused scarring in the lungs may be a risk factor for a type of lung cancer called adenocarcinoma of the lung. Tuberculosis (TB) can cause scar tissue to form in the lungs. But it's not clear whether this can directly lead to lung cancer.

A family history of lung cancer
Researchers are looking into the impact of family history on lung cancer. It is likely that there is at least one faulty lung cancer gene that can be passed down in families (inherited). If you have a first degree relative with lung cancer, your risk of lung cancer is doubled. It is very hard to sort out the facts here, because of the major role of smoking. Families of smokers will all be exposed to cigarette smoke and so have an increased risk of lung cancer whether they have inherited a faulty gene or not. A study called GELCAPS investigated the possibility of a lung cancer gene. Researchers took a blood sample from diagnosed patients and one from their partner (as long as they hadn't also been diagnosed with lung cancer). This trial has recruited all the people it needs and we are waiting for the results.

Past cancer treatment
There is some evidence that having had cancer treatment in the past might increase your risk of lung cancer. Researchers in Sweden looked at the medical records of 140,000 breast cancer patients. They found that there did seem to be an increased risk of lung cancer between 5 and 20 years after breast cancer treatment. They think this may be due to smoking after having had radiotherapy to the chest. Treatment for other types of cancer has also been linked to a slightly increased risk of lung cancer years later. People who have had treatment for Hodgkin's disease, some types of non Hodgkin's lymphoma or testicular cancer may have an increased risk of lung cancer. Do remember that having any of these cancers is a much greater risk to your health than the slight increase in cancer risk from treatment. It is most important to get the treatment you need at the time.

In some of this research, lung cancer risk seems to be increased even more in smokers. If you have had radiotherapy to your chest it is very important not to smoke because your lungs will be more sensitive.

Diet and lung cancer
Researchers have recently been looking into links between vitamins and lung cancer. Fresh fruit and vegetables are thought to help prevent cancer because they contain chemicals that can prevent cell damage, such as the anti oxidant vitamins A, C and E, flavenoids and other chemicals. But if you smoke, it's no good carrying on smoking and just eating a lot of fruit and veg as well. The most important thing by far is to stop smoking. Changing your diet won't reduce your risk of lung cancer much if you continue to smoke.

Researchers have looked into whether taking extra vitamin E and beta carotene may help stop smokers getting lung cancer. The body uses beta carotene to make vitamin A. Early results suggest that taking vitamin supplements does not help prevent lung cancer and may even have been harmful in smokers or those who have been exposed to asbestos in the past. Another substance, similar to beta carotene, called beta cryptoxanthin is found in fruits such as oranges and mangoes. It may lower lung cancer risk, but we don't yet know how it affects smokers. Having enough selenium in your diet may also help lower lung cancer risk, but the evidence isn't completely clear as researchers have measured selenium levels in different ways in different trials.

So, for now the advice on diet is the same as for preventing cancer generally and other chronic diseases. We should all try to


Eat more fresh fruit and vegetables
Cut down on fat (particularly animal fats)
Eat less salt and sugar
Cut down on alcohol

[Mnemosyne]

117. Hannah, thanks for more info! As to cutting down alcohol,

I only drink once or thrice a year, tonight is one of those times! :hi:

I really enjoy your posts! :hug:

[proud progressive]

128. i still can't see where you put tobacco. is it a leading cause of cancer, heart disease, emphysema?

[Hannah Bell]

132. sure it's a cause. does it cause 9 out of 10 lung cancers?

they don't know.

the absolutist type claims are bull.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

138. Scarring from previous exposure to second hand smoke.

That's what I have.

I see that that's a risk factor. Lovely.

I had a seriously weakened immune system about 20 years ago.
I was under a great deal of stress and collapsed with bacterial pneumonia and bronchitis.
The infection was caused by non pathogenic bacteria.

This went on for about six years -- in and out of the ER, the hospital, the doctor's office.

My doctor had to rinse my lungs out to get the poison out of them so I would not die.
He did this four times in five years. He said my lungs were completely full of pus and my mucosa was bright red all the way up to my larynx.
Sounds thoroughly gross to me. I'm glad I was unconscious when he did this!!

As I said above, I have never smoked but my parents did when I was little.

[sandnsea]

118. I agree with you completely

I think smoking causes 30% of lung cancers, or somewhere in that neighborhood. How much pollution is that covering? I think cars are just as big a cause of cancer as cigarettes are. At least I can do something about the cigarettes, and live in a place where the ocean breeze blows the car fumes somewhere else. Although I may be getting as much damage from sand particles as car fumes, but I don't know that anybody has bothered to study that with all that tobacco tax and lawsuit money.

[muriel_volestrangler]

140. You've pulled that '30%' from your ass

You have absolutely no basis for it whatsoever. The British Medical Journal says it's 90%. Cancer Research UK says it's 90%. I already gave the links.

American Cancer Society: Tobacco smoke causes nearly 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer

[sandnsea]

143. 30% of all cancer deaths

Oops.

[Miss Chybil]

108. Eight years smoke free and I HATE to have to breath other people's

smoke. I feel bad for all the people I made suffer over the years I did smoke - 25 to be exact. Nobody should have to breath anybody else's smoke. Period.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

121. ROFL

"sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is"

:spray:

[Zaidinit]

135. Mission Accomplished

[Kolesar]

146. Yow! ... Happy New Year, and many more! ... eom

[proud2BlibKansan]

149. Correlation does not equal causation

How do they know this was due to smoking? Maybe these people started exercising or changed their diets to reduce their cholesterol.

I think bar owners should be able to decide if they want to allow smoking or not. Let the market decide. As for employees, if they hate smoke that much, they can get a job in a non-smoking bar.

[RobinA]

163. I Tried

pointing this out about 130 posts back. There's a huge contingent on here that doesn't get science and scientific study - on any subject. Good luck shedding light.

[onehandle]

176. So science is wrong and we should listen to you?

Whatever you say, President Bush.

[U4ikLefty]

159. THIS JUST IN: "Smoking ban leads to financial crisis"

Hell why not it shows just as much of a correlation.

[depakid]

164. "it shows just as much of a correlation." errr- No, it doesn't

for the simple reason that in the CDC study, there are comparable control populations.

Two control sites were selected for comparison with the city of Pueblo: 1) the area of Pueblo County outside the city of Pueblo limits and 2) El Paso County, including Colorado Springs, the most populous city in this county. The city of Pueblo and Colorado Springs are located approximately 45 miles apart (Figure 1). Neither of the control sites had smoke-free laws in place before or during the study periods. Based on data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the adult smoking prevalence for Pueblo County (including the city of Pueblo) and El Paso County during 2002--2003 was 25.9% (95% confidence interval = 20.2%--31.6%) and 17.4% (CI = 14.5%--20.2%), respectively. The corresponding prevalences for 2004--2005 were 20.6% (CI = 15.4%--25.8%) and 22.3% (CI = 19.3%--25.4%). Separate smoking prevalence estimates were not available for the city of Pueblo.

Persons with recognized AMIs that occur in the city of Pueblo and Pueblo County receive care at two hospitals, Parkview Medical Center and St. Mary-Corwin Medical Center, both located within the city of Pueblo. Persons with recognized AMIs that occur in El Paso County receive care at two other hospitals, Penrose Hospital and Memorial Hospital, both located in Colorado Springs. Data on AMI hospitalizations were drawn from electronic Colorado Hospital Association administrative data....

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm

[RobinA]

178. Here In Philadelphia

a smoking ban caused an entire mayoral election. Just as the smoking ban went into effect, along comes an election for mayor. It also has caused a significant increase in cop killings.

In the same correlative line, the Phillies winning the World Series seems to have caused a black man to be elected president and the state of CA to ban gay marriage. Amazing stuff.

[onehandle]

171. This is the latest in a long series of studies that Proves this Fact.

How any intelligent human being can continue to smoke is beyond me.

You might as well chew on the barrel of a loaded pistol.