Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Not the topic of the thread. I don't know if it's been determined that there is no safe level of sun or alcohol. I never heard of people snorting alcohol, either, though anything is possible.
I've also never seen a single study showing that there is "no safe level" of sun, alcohol, or secondhand smoke. And neither have you -- or you would have posted one by now.
I don't know how many toxicology textbooks you may have read over the years, but you might enjoy this passage from Fundamental Toxicology Edited by John H. Duffus and Howard G J Worth and published by the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2006:
"Since all chemicals can produce injury or death under some exposure conditions, there is no such thing as a "safe" chemical in the sense that it will be free of injurious effects under all circumstances of exposure. However, it is also true that there is no chemical that cannot be used safely by limiting the dose or exposure. Thus, reference should not be made to toxic or non-toxic substances or compounds, but rather to a toxic or non-toxic dose." {Emphasis mine.}
Wisconsin, Michigan -- No Smoking Rooms In Hotels -- Period. Thank Liberals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat
Michigan and Wisconsin have banned smoking in hotels. This happened last year. Jennifer Granholm is an anti-freedom slob and a left wing zealot. It's no wonder that Michigan elected a Republican this time for Governor.
My wife and I recently went on vacation down south. Coming back north we discovered that we couldn't get a smoking room at any hotel in WI or MI.
Why would these states discourage tourism? Tourism is one of Michigan's biggest industries. It's stupid.
If someone smokes in a hotel room -- IT WILL NOT KILL THE FAMILY IN THE NEXT ROOM. Get it Democrats?
Why is it that whenever LIBERALS are in charge ..... AMERICANS lose their FREEDOM?
Reality check...
Please find out which party controls both the governor's mansion and legislature in those two states.
Then come back and tell me about evil "liberals."
Oh, and feel free to light up. Just step outside first.
Every study eh? How about: Rodu's "Acute Myocardial Infarction Mortality Before and After State-wide Smoking Bans" in the Journal of Community Health about six months ago?
That study covered six entire states and found "little or no immediate measurable effect on AMI mortality."
Let's see. This Brad Rodu, who is a dentist, by the way.
My Credentials
Brad Rodu
I am a Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville, I hold an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research, and I am a member of the James Graham Brown Cancer Center at U of L.
For the past 15 years I have been involved in research and policy development regarding tobacco harm reduction (THR). THR advocates acknowledge that there are millions of smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit with conventional cessation methods involving tobacco and nicotine abstinence, and we encourage them to use cigarette substitutes that are far safer.
My research has appeared in a broad range of medical and scientific journals. I have authored commentaries in the general press and I wrote the book, For Smokers Only: How Smokeless Tobacco Can Save Your Life. In 2003 I served as an expert witness at a Congressional hearing on tobacco harm reduction, and I have spoken at numerous international forums, including one held in London at the British Houses of Parliament.
My research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.
No conflict of interest there, huh?
Quote:
Or how about the very large study by researchers from NBER, RAND, and Stanford by Shetty, DeLeire et al covering almost 400 hospitals (as opposed to the earthshattering "Helena Study" that covered.. 1 hospital)
which found "no statistically significant reduction in admissions due to AMI among working‐age adults (‐4.2%, 95% CI: ‐10.2 to 1.7%, p=0.165) or among the elderly (2.0%, 95% CI: ‐3.7 to 7.7%, p =0.48) following the enactment of a workplace smoking restriction .... We similarly find no evidence of reduction in admissions for other diseases in any age group, though smoking restrictions of all sorts are associated with statistically insignificant increases in asthma (11.4%, 95% CI: ‐2.4 to 25.3%, p=0.11) and total admissions (3.7, 95%CI: ‐2.1 to 9.5%, p = 0.21) among children"
This study uses sampling from hospital discharge databases, including the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Not all hospitals participate in contributing to the data set. It is based on hospital charges, and if you have ever received a bill from a hospital, you know how error prone those are. It does not include review of actual patient charts to confirm diagnoses. It does not capture out of hospital events at all. And I do not see where they actually determined whether the people whose charges were included in the study actually lived in an area with a ban. Did the study control for admissions of people from areas that do not have bans?
"The 2009 NIS contains all discharge data from 1,050 hospitals located in 44 States, approximating a 20-percent stratified sample of U.S. community hospitals."
That is the 2009 data set. Only a 20% "sample". Not actual medical records.
In contrast, the Mayo clinic study used a defined population. The researchers were able to access actual records, inpatient and outpatient, of just about everyone in Olmsted county, MN. And they showed a reduction in out of hospital deaths, too.
In contrast to Dr. Radu, the Mayo researchers (who do have ties to pharmaceutical companies that make drugs to help smokers quit) advocate quitting use of tobacco.
Quote:
Or perhaps you might enjoy the Mathews study covering bans across 74 different cities with populations of over 50,000?
The Mathews study *could* be argued to have shown a nonsignificant drop of 3%, but when the stronger subset of the most radical changes in bans were looked at in 43 of those cities the drop was reduced to similarly nonsignificant 1% -- and figures like that are just silliness in epidemiologic work.
That study used only Medicare patients. Almost half of all heart attack victims are under 65 and not on Medicare. The authors point out that that may affect the results of the study.
Quote:
EDIT: OH! Gee.... I almost forgot! There was also a study of similar size to the above large scale studies that showed the same sort of thing. That particular study was done 7 years ago, back in 2005, and concluded that the "instant heart attack reduction" effect of bans was total nonsense. The BMJ declined to publish it since that conclusion hadn't "added enough, for general readers, to what is already known." The authors were that dynamic duo, Kuneman and McFadden, and the full original paper, in its pre-peer-reviewed form, can be accessed at:
And we get to your "study". The first thing I notice is that it appears to use raw numbers, not adjusted for population and age. As mentioned above, the HCUP data is based on hospital bills, not review of medical records, and it does not determine whether the records included in the data set are those of people living in areas with bans. For example, the states bordering CA did not pass comprehensive bans until the late 2000s (Oregon 2009, Nevada 2006, Arizona 2007). Some residents from those states may have been included in CA HCUP data. HCUP does not pick up any out of hospital events at all, and many people die from MIs before they get to the hospital. It does not include all hospitals in the state, so it it does not include all patients having MIs. In fact, it does not include long term care facilities --- nursing homes --- and federal hospitals, 14% of facilities. See slide 27 here:
"The methods used to analyze vital statistics data are important. Analyzing only the number of deaths has its disadvantages and can be misleading because the population at risk is not taken into consideration. Crude death rates show the actual rate of dying in a given population, but because of the differing age compositions of various populations, they do not provide a statistically valid method for comparing geographic areas and/or multiple reporting periods. Age-specific death rates are the number of deaths per 100,000 population in a specific age group and are used along with standard population proportions to develop a weighted average rate. This rate is referred to as an age adjusted death rate and removes the effect of different age structures of the populations whose rates are being compared. Age-adjusted death rates therefore provide the preferred method for comparisons of different race/ethnic groups, sexes, and geographic areas, and for measuring death rates over time. The year 2000 United States population
is used as the basis for age-adjustments in this report."
This method takes into consideration changes in population in certain age groups, such as increasing numbers of us baby boomers.
The method for the Helena study was chosen specifically to try to identify populations that would not be affected by patients leaking over from areas without bans.
Yes, studies with larger numbers of people are generally better. But you still have to make sure you are comparing apples and apples. Once you start "sampling" large, heterogeneous populations you run into problems, not the least of which is that different communities can have vastly different baseline heart disease rates.
I suspect that your article was turned down because of the methodology used.
Let's see. This Brad Rodu, who is a dentist, by the way.
My Credentials
Brad Rodu
I am a Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville, I hold an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research, and I am a member of the James Graham Brown Cancer Center at U of L.
A dentist? Well, at least that's a bit better than Stanton Glantz and his doctorate in mechanical engineering.
Poster, you then go on to ask if Rodu might have a "conflict of interest." Actually, the answer is YES ... but his conflict would have prompted him to produce research SUPPORTING smoking bans: he's against smoking you realize? Or maybe that part flew by you.
As for his research being supported by "unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers" I'd say that certainly sounds a bit better than some of the research from the Antismokers we've examined here where the granting organizations specifically look only for research supporting their smoking ban goals. Think if I had my Ph.D. and applied to Tobacco Free Kids for an "unrestricted grant" to do some research today I'd stand a chance in hell? LOL!
Quote:
In contrast to Dr. Radu, the Mayo researchers (who do have ties to pharmaceutical companies that make drugs to help smokers quit) advocate quitting use of tobacco.
So, we have Dr. Rodu, who would like smokers to stop smoking and use chewing tobacco producing research against the bans that would help in his goal. And we have the Mayo researchers "who do have ties to pharmaceutical companies that make <<a lot of money off of selling>> drugs to help smokers quit" advocating bans that will help those companies make more money if they're implemented.
I'd say your question about "conflict of interest" seems quite appropriate actually. ... In the reverse of the way you imply however.
Your technical observations about subject pools and such things in the various other studies are reasonable, although you seem to have missed reading what the editors of the BMJ actually said about the Kuneman/McFadden study when rejecting it. As for subject pools in California being significantly contaminated by people flooding in there from Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona to have their heart attacks I would agree the records do not hold such data. On the other hand I'd say that the chances of such cross-contamination being significant in skewing the study results are somewhat less than the chances that the tooth fairy will leave a MegaMillions winning lottery ticket under my pillow this evening.
I note you make no mention of the "lazy grad students" that produced egregiously misleading results in one of the major ban-supporting studies claiming a 17% heart attack decline, nor do you have the grace to admit that your claim of "EVERY STUDY" reporting heart attack declines was somewhat erroneous: if you go back over this thread I believe you'll find at least one, and I believe several instances where, by contrast, I made errors and corrected them with apologies before they were even pointed out.
You are correct in pointing out that the Kuneman/McFadden study might have benefited from more detailed microanalysis and statistical adjustment, but such a thing was, alas, beyond our means: somehow the Tobacco Freek Kids never sent us a million dollar grant and our lazy grad students went on strike. We used the 86% of the data that was easily publicly available and verifiable and analyzed it using methods that would be understandable to those without graduate level statistical training. Our bad, eh?
Last edited by Michael J. McFadden; 01-21-2012 at 12:08 AM..
Reason: Removed an extraneous "the"
Poster, you then go on to ask if Rodu might have a "conflict of interest." Actually, the answer is YES ... but his conflict would have prompted him to produce research SUPPORTING smoking bans: he's against smoking you realize? Or maybe that part flew by you.
Actually, he's claiming that smokeless tobacco is a safe alternative to smoking. It's not.
Quote:
So, we have Dr. Rodu, who would like smokers to stop smoking and use chewing tobacco producing research against the bans that would help in his goal. And we have the Mayo researchers "who do have ties to pharmaceutical companies that make <<a lot of money off of selling>> drugs to help smokers quit" advocating bans that will help those companies make more money if they're implemented.
Yes, but the object of the people who make Chantix is to put themselves out of business of making Chantix.
Since the tobacco industry keeps creating new nicotine addicts, it's the tobacco industry that is fueling Chantix sales.
Quote:
As for subject pools in California being significantly contaminated by people flooding in there from Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona to have their heart attacks I would agree the records do not hold such data. On the other hand I'd say that the chances of such cross-contamination being significant in skewing the study results are somewhat less than the chances that the tooth fairy will leave a MegaMillions winning lottery ticket under my pillow this evening.
I live in a community which is on a state line. The catchment area for our local hospitals includes a significant number of people from a nearby state. That is not an insignificant consideration.
Quote:
You are correct in pointing out that the Kuneman/McFadden study might have benefited from more detailed microanalysis and statistical adjustment, but such a thing was, alas, beyond our means: somehow the Tobacco Freek Kids never sent us a million dollar grant and our lazy grad students went on strike. We used the 86% of the data that was easily publicly available and verifiable and analyzed it using methods that would be understandable to those without graduate level statistical training. Our bad, eh?
No smoking statisticians willing to donate their time? Not even buddies from Wharton?
Actually, he's claiming that smokeless tobacco is a safe alternative to smoking. It's not.
He said that it is a safer alternative to smoking. Considering the lower rates of lung cancer and other diseases that are the primary risk factors for smokers, that is not that absurd considering a significant portion of the population will continue to use tobacco anyways. It's just a simple matter of harm reduction.
Yes, but the object of the people who make Chantix is to put themselves out of business of making Chantix.
Actually, a lot of smoking cessation are statistically less successful than quitting cold turkey or slowly decreasing the amount you smoke until you stop altogether. Actually, cold turkey is the most successful method of smoking with more people quitting successfully and fewer relapses. Of course, you'd never think that considering the way virtually every anti-smoking recommends "consult[ing] your physician for advice on quitting" when statistically speaking willpower is beats out a guy in a white coat more often than not.
Yet, all those anti-smoking groups from some strange reason support Nicotine Replacement Therapy and drugs like Chantix. It probably doesn't have anything to do with the literally tens of millions of dollars drug companies have poured into the anti-smoking organizations every year nor the fact that so many studies regarding secondhand smoke are funded by drug companies and I am absolutely positive it has nothing to do with the fact that so many of the doctors and scientists who carry out the studies are directly employed by drug companies. I am also sure that it plays no role in the opposition to E-Cigarettes by anti-smoking groups either.
My text is in bold.He said that it is a safer alternative to smoking. Considering the lower rates of lung cancer and other diseases that are the primary risk factors for smokers, that is not that absurd considering a significant portion of the population will continue to use tobacco anyways. It's just a simple matter of harm reduction.
Trading one form of cancer for another. A really great idea, not!
Oral cancer also has a higher survival rate than lung cancer and the increase in risk is also smaller. Hence the term "harm reduction", not "harm elimination".
Oral cancer also has a higher survival rate than lung cancer and the increase in risk is also smaller. Hence the term "harm reduction", not "harm elimination".
That's a great gamble to take, not!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
Wisconsin, Michigan -- No Smoking Rooms In Hotels -- Period. Thank Liberals.
