Austin Council plans to ban smoking in city parks (Howe: credit, closing)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Odd. I thought I'd posted the reference to my piece in the British Medical Journal on this. CBach, alcohol is a Class A Carcinogen (i.e known to cause cancer in humans -- the same as about a dozen <the the 40 or 60 always claimed> chemicals in secondhand smoke. The problem is that alcohol is highly volatile and a martini emits roughly one full gram of carcinogen per hour. The dozen carcinogens in smoke only add up to about 1/2,000th of a gram per cigarette.
Do you have any data to show that inhaled ethanol is a carcinogen? Ethanol is specifically listed as a carcinogen in alcoholic beverages, likely because of byproducts of its processing by the liver.
Status:
"Here and there eventually!"
(set 3 days ago)
8,928 posts, read 8,340,670 times
Reputation: 4202
Standing ovation!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden
TexasReb, look back at the history of the antismoking movement. Chris Snowdon's "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: a History of Antismoking" is excellent if you really want to examine it. For the moment though I guess I want to emphasize I have steadily watched over the past 30ish years as the 'pulling our legs' thoughts of one year become the "let's compromise at this" a few years later, and then move to the "obviously that situation is not sufficient" a few years after that. Look around at the big lawsuit oriented antismoking sites and note the space they're devoting to pushing apartment owners, housing associations, and general and elderly subsidized housing into banning smoking. As I noted earlier in the thread, thoughts that were simply too crazy to even be discussed 8 years ago (patio bans) are now not only seriously pursued as basic "necessities" but are being surpassed as Central Park muggers are being protected from secondhand smoke as well as New Year's Eve drunken revelers on Times Square.
In terms of home fires, check around for the studies and statistics on what's happened to them after bans have been put into place. There's loose evidence out there that they've gone up, but absolutely nothing in the way of serious research: no one but tobacco companies would fund it, and most academics nowadays feel it's the kiss of death to their careers if they touch such funding.
Will the park ban during the drought reduce fires? Possibly. It could also increase them because of people sneaking and then hastily and improperly disposing of their butts. Will the park ban during the drought lead to Antismokers screaming that it needs to be made permanent? (Add any of the Geico commercial followups to that last question....)
Just to preface...
I frequently give out rep points to good posts, and "plus one" to exceptionally good ones (IMHO, of course!). But every once in a while I just take it a step further and give a [STANDING OVATION] to a few which just hit every single nail on the head with the accuracy and honing in as a air-hammer nail gun! This is one of them.
You are absolutely correct here, Michael J. McFadden. You summed it up extremely well. Major point being, among others, and as you say, that there is a tendency to ignore/overlook gradual enroachments on "taken for granted" freedoms until it is far too late to do anything about it and/or reverse the trend. Equally, there is the tendency to take the word of those who want to eliminate them as being in good faith and truth. This is manifested -- as you say again -- that what "they" denied was the ultimate goal some (whatever) years ago, somehow has a way of coming back up several years later. The ol' nose of the camel under the tent...
I have seen it in my own hometown. About 15 years ago the "anti-smoking" zealots managed to get an ordinance passed requiring a seperate smoking section for most restaurants in town. Assuring the public, of course, that they *halo over head* NEVER would intend it to "ban smoking." Of course, they had the good propoganda somber bleeding "concerns" about "public health" so it passed.
Ha! Today? The SAME folks are pushing for an outright ban on all smoking in any private business within the city limits. So, like you say, what would have obviously absurd and ludicrous to consider 8 years ago, has a way of becoming something seriously discussed, today. And using the same superficial (if examined) and emotional arguments...
I am always reminded of that great speech by Winston Churchhill after the surrender at Munich. He said something like, in response to Chamberlains claim of "We have peace in our time" with the prophetic reply of (paraphrased):
"We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...and do not suppose this is the end, it is only the beginning..."
OK, Ok, I am not so dramatic as to compare the coming of a world war to a ban on smoking in a public park...but I honestly believe the same sort of "lesson" applies.
To come the full circle...yep, one can bet the cotton-crop -- given several more years -- that the same zealots are going to push for regulation of smoking in private homes (it will probably first start as applied to those who have small children living at home).
Anyway, GREAT post!, MMc!
P.S. BTW -- I quit smoking some 8 years ago, and it was the best thing I ever did, so I am no "smokers rights" person. I just believe in classical notions of freedom and private property rights! And I am putting the book you mentioned on my list of those to order from Amazon!
Do you have any data to show that inhaled ethanol is a carcinogen? Ethanol is specifically listed as a carcinogen in alcoholic beverages, likely because of byproducts of its processing by the liver.
Pulzar, as I make very clear in my piece in the BMJ, no I do not. However, one of the main longstanding pieces of evidence for the carinogenicity of tobacco smoke is its concentration in liquid form, then its mixing with acetone or similar solvent, and then its painting on the skin of mice.
Compare that to the similarity between the effect of liquid alcohol on human mucousal membranes and the effect of evaporated alcohol on human mucousal membanes.
Which piece of science would you feel more comfortable with?
As noted however, I *did* address this question in my original writing.
Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 10-23-2011 at 02:44 PM..
Reason: typo
Pulzar, as I make very clear in my piece in the BMJ, no I do not. However, one of the main longstanding pieces of evidence for the carinogenicity of tobacco smoke is its concentration in liquid form, then its mixing with acetone or similar solvent, and then its painting on the skin of mice.
I apologize for not reading the linked article. Indeed, you do clearly state that you do not have any evidence that inhaled ethanol is carcinogenic.
While your piece is amusing and well written, and it raises a good point about the lack of research into inhaled alcohol, it does not lead to a conclusion that banning smoking in bars and banning alcohol (in those same bars) should be treated on the same level.
Initial testing of carcinogenicity of tobacco was perhaps "bad science" (I'll take your word for the mouse painting experiments), but we've had further, and better, research into the effects of second hand smoke in enclosed spaces, some of which you have referenced yourself. While we can argue about the level of impact and the concentration of carcinogens in air with proper ventilation, some impact has been measured.
On the other hand, no such impact of "second hand drinking" has been measured. Perhaps it's true that if such research was properly funded, it might find something... at this point, though, there isn't such a thing, and equating second hand smoking to second hand drinking at this point is just misleading.
I apologize for not reading the linked article. Indeed, you do clearly state that you do not have any evidence that inhaled ethanol is carcinogenic.
While your piece is amusing and well written, and it raises a good point about the lack of research into inhaled alcohol, it does not lead to a conclusion that banning smoking in bars and banning alcohol (in those same bars) should be treated on the same level.
You are correct. It raises the possibility that if a similar amount of resources were thrown into investigating the question that such an impact, perhaps significantly smaller or larger, might be measured however, and one of the antismoking movement's main dictums in this area has generally been that we should "err on the side of caution" -- thus the "no safe level" thing. Tobacco smoke has not been shown to be harmful at very low levels of exposure (e.g. those that would occur in very well ventilated/filtrated commercial environments today) however the bans go in place on the basis of stronger conclusions stemming from much higher levels of exposure. Otsuka used levels at 400% those found in the middle of smoking sections of closed and pressurized airline cabin smoking sections, and Gianinni used levels at 2,000% of such measurements. Those were in relation to heart disease which makes up 50,000 of the 53,000 ETS deaths that Antismokers like to claim for indoor exposures.
You also said "we've had further, and better, research into the effects of second hand smoke in enclosed spaces, some of which you have referenced yourself. While we can argue about the level of impact and the concentration of carcinogens in air with proper ventilation, some impact has been measured." and "equating second hand smoking to second hand drinking at this point is just misleading."
I do not feel that I represented the two sorts of exposures as having been shown to be equally safe or threatening, but instead raised the possibility that it would be reasonable to think of and treat them as equal pending further evidence. {As for further research, see my summary table at: http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html for the research I've done on that.}
This would of course largely be true for both indoor and outdoor exposures from the health standpoint. In terms of the annoyance or fire arguments as affects a ban in Austin's parks however drinking alcohol or smoking would clearly be quite different (although drinking and grilling could be (and probably is) banned because of the increased fire hazard.
Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 10-23-2011 at 06:14 PM..
Reason: Corrections to quoting arrangement
one of the antismoking movement's main dictums in this area has generally been that we should "err on the side of caution" -- thus the "no safe level" thing. Tobacco smoke has not been shown to be harmful at very low levels of exposure (e.g. those that would occur in very well ventilated/filtrated commercial environments today) however the bans go in place on the basis of stronger conclusions stemming from much higher levels of exposure.
When we're looking at 1 extra cancer for 40,000 worker-years in a bar, then lowering that concentration might give us 1 in 200,000 worker-years, and a study that shows that with any statistical significance would have to look at 2,000,000 worker-years of data. Such a thing is quite unfeasible. On the other hand, it does not mean that it isn't harmful.
Really, "no safe level" is true in some ways. Carcinogens don't work by building up in your body to some magical level where you suddenly get cancer. One molecule of a carcinogen can mutate a cell in your body the wrong way, and off it goes. So, you're just playing the odds -- the more you're exposed to, the more likely something bad will happen.
The discussion here should really center on the concentration of "bad stuff" in second hand smoke that a non-smoker will inhale... And, here, I don't know where you base your numbers on -- you've thrown out some off-hand estimates of better ventilated areas (or even outdoors), but I have a feeling that's not really backed by any data.
On the other hand, one can look at the nuclear fallout exposure data from bomb testing in Nevada... some areas of Montana had higher exposure than even Nevada itself, showing that Iodine-131 can travel very long distances in air and still have strong impact on people's health. With that in mind, being 50 yards away from a bunch of smokers might not mean anything if the wind is blowing the right way.
Indoors, a ventilation system, even a very good one, can create vortices of air that increase concentration of smoke in small pockets of the enclosed space you're in, before sucking it out. I think it's too easy to say that today's ventilation systems are automatically so much better to bring risk to a negligible amount.
As a side note, 1 extra lung cancer in 40,000 worker years (in a 50s bar), is a fairly significant amount, even though you present it lightly ("change jobs every couple of decades, you'll be fine"). How many bars are there in Texas, and how many people work in them? Probably more than 10,000? And, every 4 years, one of them will get lung cancer working in 50s bar environment... so, how much does the improved ventilation have to improve things to make this statistically insignificant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden
I do not feel that I represented the two sorts of exposures as having been shown to be equally safe or threatening, but instead raised the possibility that it would be reasonable to think of and treat them as equal pending further evidence. {As for further research, see my summary table at: Philadelphia for the research I've done on that.}
cBach suggested that banning anything that's carcinogenic is a way to go, and you suggested that we'd have to ban martinis because they emit carcinogens at 2000 times the rate of the cigarette. That was, indeed, a suggestion that alcohol is, in fact, even more dangerous to inhale than cigarette smoke.
Considering that you fully understand that inhaled ethanol is not shown to be carcinogenic at this point, and I'm sure that you also understand that using weights of two completely different substances to indicate their level of "strength" is meaningless, then you have to agree that your post was quite misleading.
So, I guess you can say that I don't agree that it is reasonable to treat them as equal pending further evidence.
Thank you Pulzar. You present one of the most thoughtful analyses of the subject I've run across. I may not fully agree, but I appreciate both the thought and the approach.
I think your two strongest points in the first part of the argument are:
1) That "no safe level" can be reasonable in carcinogenisis; and I would agree that it is (although it is disputed by the "threshold theory" combined with chaos theory). However, if we ignore both of those and go straight with "no safe level" then the same argument used to ban low levels of secondhand smoke in well-ventilated areas could be used to ban daytime patio dining. After all, sunscreen and awnings provide only "partial protection" from that Giant Melanoma Maker In The Sky, so why should young and particularly vulnerable waiters and waitresses be forced to work in a carcinogenic environment simply for the pleasure of Bloated Blister Basters? After all, if a drinker or diner really feels the need to broil their skin they can just pop outside for a few minutes and lie on the sidewalk. No big deal, right?
2) With 10,000 bar workers working for 4 years in a 1950s bar, yes, on average according to the EPA, one would get lung cancer and that might be counted as significant. But we're dealing with a 2010s bar, where you admit the figure is more likely to be one-fifth that due to ventilation, and I would argue that with reasonable ventilation requirements it would be more like one-tenth that. And you're assuming those 10,000 are all nonsmokers while studies of hospitality workers show closer to a 50% smoking rate for bartenders and servers. If we split the difference on our estimates and accept that 50% figure we would then have one extra lung cancer among nonsmoking bar workers every 80 years in a 2010s bar. (4 x 10 x 2) Given medical progress over the next few decades and cancer's lag time of 30ish years, the death figure would from that would likely even be decidedly lower. And finally, given the other risks involved in such a job category then I would say yes, that 1 in 80 years in all of Austin is an insignificant figure for all practical purposes -- particularly when one throws in the balancing figure of the deaths caused by increased poverty when thousands lose their jobs due to bar bans. The bans may actually cause far more many deaths than they prevent: but you never see those figures factored in, do you?
As for your second half, your claim seems neither reasonable nor unreasonable. I do not think I argued that exposure to the inhaled alcohol carcinogen in quantities 2,000 times greater was necessarily representing a greater threat, but it's a reasonable thought. It's possible that inhaled alcohol fumes are not generally as carcinogenic as inhaled ETS, even though the individually carcinogenic components of ETS are present in only 1/2,000th the quantity -- but then I would say the burden of proof would more be up to the person defending the alcohol fumes than the other way around.
HOWEVER... I'd like to apologize to our patient webmeister here for this long digression into scientific minutia and suggest that you might want to take further discussion into direct email. I'm happy to continue here though if you wish and no one objects.
::sigh:: Numbers can be so unforgiving. I think I forgot to follow through on my "split the difference" offer P. If I'm correct then that would be 1 extra lung cancer every 60 years if my too-tired brain is computing rightly. My final judgment on it still holds however.
Thank you Pulzar. You present one of the most thoughtful analyses of the subject I've run across. I may not fully agree, but I appreciate both the thought and the approach.
Why does it seem you are looking for scientific data, and scientific analyses on a forum message board? Are you looking for your research to be peer reviewed here on city data? Obviously you have spent many hours seeking information in regards to your subject matter. You're an activist with an agenda, that is to be expected. Why are you using this audience or platform to serve your cause? Do you think city data posters all have degrees or are intrenched in scientific research regarding the subject matter?
It's just my opinion but to come here on city data forum and take a stand is kinda weird. This is a message forum, not a scientific journal review board. I see you taking apart each and every post with some kind of righteous zeal when most of us are simply everyday folk. We're not researching the subject matter, don't have a book about the subject matter, and I'd be willing to bet most of us are not activists for the smokers rights camp. I had the impression pushing a cause, selling a book, or even mentioning where a fund raiser was for that matter...was against the TOS.
I'm sorry if I missed it but what scientific journals are your findings published in?
Why does it seem you are looking for scientific data, and scientific analyses on a forum message board? Are you looking for your research to be peer reviewed here on city data? Obviously you have spent many hours seeking information in regards to your subject matter. You're an activist with an agenda, that is to be expected. Why are you using this audience or platform to serve your cause? Do you think city data posters all have degrees or are intrenched in scientific research regarding the subject matter?
It's just my opinion but to come here on city data forum and take a stand is kinda weird. This is a message forum, not a scientific journal review board. I see you taking apart each and every post with some kind of righteous zeal when most of us are simply everyday folk. We're not researching the subject matter, don't have a book about the subject matter, and I'd be willing to bet most of us are not activists for the smokers rights camp. I had the impression pushing a cause, selling a book, or even mentioning where a fund raiser was for that matter...was against the TOS.
I'm sorry if I missed it but what scientific journals are your findings published in?
Hello Old Toilets Make Good Flower Pots. I don't write about scientific data unless someone pushing for a smoking ban tries to use scientific data or false health claims to support their position. The reason for posting on Austin's board is pretty clear: there is a "temporary" ban in Austin that is, if the Antismokers there follow their usual handbook methods, going to be turned into a permanent one after the drought is over. The locals against the ban are probably unorganized and have no professional materials or backing to support their feelings, while those pushing the bans have enormous background resources at their disposal. I just try to "level the playing field" and help people a bit. I don't think I "take apart" people's posts generally, but I do try to correct any misinformation I see or defend any statements I make that are attacked. If you read my bio you'll see that I have a rather pronounced background of trying to help the underdog (peace movement / bicyclists / etc)
In terms of "selling a book," I invite you to go back over my 200 postings to City Data and count up the instances where I talk about my book where the subject has not first been brought up (usually in a pejorative way) by those seeking to devalue my input.
I don't know anything about a fund raiser: have no idea at the moment what you're referring to. Can you clarify?
In terms of scientific journals I've had a dozen or so critical analytical responses accepted for publication in the BMJ and I believe I had one or two in JAMA or somesuch (though I've lost track of them over the years.) You might enjoy learning a bit about how the journals and their "peer-review process" works by reading my article at the American Council on Science and Health site. They're generally known for being quite antismoking, but they're also strongly against using lies in the pursuit of smoking bans. See:
btw, if you examine my history here, you will find that I have *never* posted anything about this topic on any board where it was not already debated or was very closely related. Nor have I ever opened a thread on it where a debate thread was not already in existence.
Also: if we're going to be communicating here in the future, do you have a name that you prefer to be called? I was given to understand that you find "Toilet" undesirable, but I don't think you'd want "Old" either (Unless you're angling for the "wisdom" medallion... LOL!)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
