Wisconsin, Michigan -- No Smoking Rooms In Hotels -- Period. Thank Liberals. (program, medical)

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Suzy wrote, "So you only want to use your funds to pay for what will support your views. I see."

Actually, I don't think I've ever spent any money for a study that supports OR opposes my views Suzy. Most studies I’ve wanted to examine in this area oppose my views and I either find them freely available on the internet or sent to me after a polite reprint request to the authors. I think you know how that works.

So, why not request a reprint of the study in question if you wish to read the "whole thing"?

The stated "purpose of the study" as published is often irrelevant Suzy.

I disagree. The author of the study determines its purpose, not the reader.

If you truly want to see what a study is about you're far better off determining if the researchers did the study on their own time and resources (almost unknown in the milk-and-honey funding land of modern antismoking research) or reading the grant proposals that won them the prize money to produce their baby. If you'd like to see a bit more about how that works, you might enjoy reading:

Exemptions and employment revisited

and my commentary following the article. You can see the grant proposal there promising the Minnesota Partnership Acting Against Tobacco (Nice neutral scientific name, eh?) that their research will produce results supporting smoking bans. Nice how they knew that BEFORE doing the research, eh?

How is all this relevant to the current discussion? I believe Katiana is right.

Suzy, I do find it interesting that you observe that the Helena authors "were not trying to prove cause and effect with the study." You'd never know that from reading their statements in the news. How’s this for a nice objective analysis of the work they’d just done:

“It is not alright to murder for profit. It's not right to poison people for profit, and that's their [bar owners’] argument. They have to be allowed to continue poisoning people, even when we've demonstrated an immediate effect of it.”

Somehow that doesn’t sound quite like my ideal of a scientific researcher warning the public that his or her results might have been “due to some unobserved confounding variable or systematic bias." It came from one of the two simple “local doctors,” a Richard Sargent, who had enlisted Stan Glantz, the smoking study grant kingpin from California, to act as co-author.

Sargent went on to brush off that drop from their 60% claim to 40% by the way with the offhand prediction that the true figure would “take four or five more studies to figure that out, and they will have to be done in communities bigger than Helena." It’s actually taken about thirty studies, and the latest analysis, examining bans in over 70 cities around the world has concluded the figure is roughly zero. See:

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Finds that Smoking Bans Have No Short-Term Effect on Heart Attack Admissions and

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Anti-Smoking Researchers Argue that Mathews Study Shows Significant Effect of Smoking Bans on Acute MI; Lack of Scientific Rigor Apparent

From your last link:

"Even if we accept the results of the full analysis of 74 cities (a 3% decline in heart attacks overall in these cities), the only way one could credibly conclude that this 3% decline was due to the smoking bans is to compare this decline to that in communities without smoking bans and show that the heart attack decline in the intervention (i.e., smoking ban) communities was significantly greater."

From the Helena study:

"Main outcome measures: Number of monthly admissions for acute myocardial infarction for people living in and outside Helena

In other words, the Helena study did exactly what your critic says should have been done. I am not going to find and read all the other studies. Apparently Dr. Siegel did not read the Helena study closely enough.

for confirmation of that if you like. You’ll note that the author of the analyses, a medical doctor actually trained in antismoking advocacy by Stanton Glantz himself and who still continues to support workplace bans, did the analysis so I’d be careful about what you might want to say about him. Feel free to blast the blog commenters though: you might find what they had to say of some interest as well.

I thought you feel we should only be reading "full studies", not referencing news or opinion articles. Or is that only true for news and opinion articles that support your view?

And Suzy, I don’t know if you’re being deliberately obtuse or simply trying to avoid addressing other points that I’ve raised when you spend such an enormous amount of time effort into “proving” an absolutely silly point: Of course many of the components of the smoke coming directly off the tip of the burning end of a cigarette are going to be more concentrated than the smoke that comes through the length of the tobacco and the filter. The point that’s relevant has nothing to do with that: what’s relevant is what the nonsmokers are breathing. And what they are breathing is nowhere near as generally toxic in concentration as the smoke the smoker is breathing. I’m sure from your writing that you’re familiar enough with the medical field (Even if you hide behind an anonymous handle – do you btw?) to understand the concept of “The dose makes the poison.”

The measurements of the toxic compounds in second hand smoke say differently. What you are ignoring is that smokers inhale secondhand smoke, too. Unless you believe they do not breathe between puffs?

Suzy, you go on to say, “the group was too small to evaluate the effect of smoking status on the drop in heart attack rates. That was not why the study was done. The study was done to see if the rate dropped.”

Really? Cynthia Hallett, Director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, seemed to think the secondhand smoke aspect was rather important when she commented on the study with a statement that, “The bottom line is simple. Secondhand smoke kills.”

Her opinion has nothing to do with the statistical analysis of smoking status on the results of the Helena study.

And, “I'm not interested in sunshine. it has no bearing on this discussion.” Actually, it has a lot of bearing, but clearly it does not support your position on the need for bans in hotels (this discussion) or elsewhere (other, but related discussions.)

You can keep referring to the analogy you are so fond of. It is still irrelevant.

You also say, “I've already shown you that it is not possible to adequately dilute cigarette smoke by using ventilation systems in bars and restaurants. It cannot be done.” That’s amazing. Ventilation is able to “adequately dilute” the exhaust emissions of a hundred thousand cars a day driving for a mile or so fifty feet below a river along the battery tunnel, but it can’t handle a few cigarettes?

So every restaurant and bar needs to install a system like that used in the tunnel?

Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (I-478)

"Ventilation was to be provided by 53 fans, operated by 104 motors that release 6,152,000 cubic feet of fresh air into the tunnel. It takes approximately 90 minutes to completely change the air in the tunnel."

I was trying to find out how much the system costs, but it was not easily available.

On ventilation systems you further say, “Maintenance is expensive. What business owner is going to want to pay for a system that does not work anyway? “ I don’t know Suzy. If you believe they wouldn’t want to pay for it, then there’s no reason to ban it: just require systems to make the air as generally free of pollutants and toxins as the air in nonsmoking establishments. According to you none of the businesses would opt for that – so why the need for a ban?

And you say, “You deride the heating engineers who say it cannot be done, but why would they say that if it were not true?” Actually I don’t deride the “heating engineers” at all: they were doing just fine until the antismoking lobby focused on them. Would you like me to explore some of the history of the lobbying they did in order to get that reluctant admission that ASHRAE would accede to the judgment of “cognizant authorities” that felt that tobacco smoke was too “magical” to be controlled by the systems that control virtually every other commercially produced air contaminant in the world? Maybe you’d like to talk a bit about the Society’s Environmental Tobacco Smoke Position Document Committee? You could note that it was headed not by an engineer, but by an MD, a Dr. Jonathan Samet, a figure I believe is well known for his strong support of total bans. Or maybe you’d like to talk about Richard Daynard, a lawyer who’s been involved in “tobacco litigation” for decades and who bragged that the ASHRAE statement [i]"culminates a 13-year effort on my part to get the 1989 language...changed. I was a member of the ASHRAE committee that proposed the change."[/b] Or perhaps you could discuss the engineering backgrounds of the other MDs that made up this group of “heating engineers”?

Do you have anything from a heating engineer showing that there is a system commercially available that "will make the air as generally free of pollutants and toxins as the air in nonsmoking establishments"?

And you say, “Unless you assume that scientific news reporters lie or misrepresent the findings of such studies, I do not believe that is true.” I don’t make any assumptions Suzy. I read and analyze the studies, examine how well they’ve corrected for such things as confounders, examined their funding sources and the promises they have made to get that funding if such things are available, and read the statements that the researchers make in the press releases they put out about their work. If you read the mini-analyses I summarize at:

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf

you’ll see that I make very few assumptions without backing them up with research.

Sorry, I have no desire to read your extensive writing on the subject. I will limit my comments to what you say here.

Finally, I said nothing about Glantz’s or Barnoya’s honor. I was asking you if you truly felt confident enough in all of what they produced as evidence in that paper that you’d truly want to stake your position on being able to defend every piece of research they cite.

What has "honor" got to do with the discussion?

As for my agreement with ASHRAE: Yes, I agree that separate rooms with separate ventilation in the same building (such as hotel rooms with proper ventilation) work just fine. Do you agree with ASHRAE on that? I do NOT however agree with ASHRAE that they should have given into a pressure group and published a set of standards that is absolutely unique (as far as I’ve been able to determine) among all the standards they have ever published for any toxin or pollutant in existence. ASHRAE's pre-lobbying standards of many years were just fine.

I have never been in a hotel which allows smoking where you cannot smell smoke, even in non-smoking areas. Some are better than others, especially if they are large enough to put smokers in separate wings, but smoke still filters into hallways and other common areas.

And the doors to hotel rooms are not sealed. How do you think they are able to slip a copy of your bill under your door for express checkout?

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by stillkit

I'm curious about something y'all may want to comment on.

If nothing else, this discussion has revealed that there is a lot unknown about the effects of smoking bans and other regulations and a lot unknown about the specific health risks of tobacco at any level of concentration usually found in our normal environment. The science behind it is, at best, less than objective in a lot of cases. If it were scientifically cut and dried, we wouldn't be having such a long conversation about it, would we? There would be nothing to debate.

My question is this: Given that, would anyone care to comment about what is the motivation behind all this? Yes, I know the publicly stated reason is health, and I won't disagree with that up to a point. However, a LOT of money has been spent to prove the case that tobacco needs to be severely restricted, if not banned outright, and I can't help but wonder who puts up that money and why.

It's easy to understand why tobacco companies fund research. They have profits at stake. But, what's the motivation for those who wish to kill it? And, who are they? Granted, there is a lot of money to be made off taxes and research grants, but if the anti-smoking forces are totally successful, that money dries up. It would seem to be a zero-sum game for them. The more successful they are at advancing their agenda, the less money comes in.

Consequently, there must be some other motivation.

What do you think? Is it simply and truly an altruistic effort to improve public health, or is something else going on?

For the majority of researchers, the underlying motivation is the thrill of the hunt. The grants may seem like large amounts of money, but little of that actually goes into the scientists' salaries. Bringing in grant money brings the researcher more prestige than financial reward.

Those researchers who get in too tight with the sources of their funding get into trouble these days, and every article published now includes a disclaimer of any potential conflicts of interest.

Medical researchers can always go on to the next problem if they manage to solve one. Look at vaccines for example. ( Note to everyone: please do not try to turn this thread into a vaccine thread. I only want to make one brief point here.) When the polio vaccine came out in the 1950s, there was dancing in the streets --- literally. The polio vaccine developers, Salk and later Sabin, became famous, and the politics involved are fascinating.

When he was asked who owned the patent to the polio vaccine, Salk replied: "Who owns my polio vaccine? The people! Could you patent the sun?"

So, yes, I believe there is altruism.

The two vaccines have pretty near put an end to polio, and vaccine researchers moved on to new diseases.

No one will ever be able to "prove" that reducing exposure to second hand smoke reduces lung cancer and cardiovascular disease rates. That is not the way medical science works. But the evidence continues to pile up that SHS is not good, and after a while, the weight of that evidence becomes overwhelming.

As to the controversy, I think you can see just from this thread that for the people doing the science, the evidence is pretty much cut and dried. It is the pro tobacco faction that keeps poking and prodding and nitpicking at the studies trying to find holes in them. There may be holes, but enough of the research has been reproduced that on balance the results hold up.

Medical research has to take into consideration our status as biologic beings with great variability in genetic makeup and physiology. Two separate studies on the same topic done by the same research team with the same methodology might produce slightly different results because of the impossibility of finding two identical groups of people to study. That does not mean either (or both) of the studies is invalid. Even doing the studies using one of a set of identical twins for one study and the other twin for the other study will not work. My internist told me he has a set of identical twins in his practice. One has high cholesterol, the other does not. Identical twins are not as "identical" as you might think.

I truly believe that the people behind the research implicating second hand smoke (and potentially third hand smoke) in serious illnesses are motivated by a desire to improve our health.

If it takes smoking bans to do that, I am all for them. And I do not believe bans are any more intrusive than other regulations business has to deal with.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Suzy, I think this pretty much sums up your efforts in this area: You wrote, "Apparently Dr. Siegel did not read the Helena study closely enough. "

er.. Suzy? Siegel didn't even WRITE about the Helena study in that link. He wrote about, and clearly linked to (for your full reading) the 74 cities study by Mathews. Of course since you didn't even bother to read the Dr's analysis, much less the study itself, you wouldn't know that, now would you?

And I'm quite aware that you have no desire to read my writings on this subject: after all, they disagree with your views, correct? I on the other hand have read the writings of many people, including at least a half dozen or so Surgeon Generals, that disagree with my views, and have thought about, analyzed, and written about them over the years.

My sunshine analogy is quite relevant, and I'm quite content to let City Data readers make their own decision on that and on whether anyone might be dodging a response.

You note the Battery Tunnel seems to be able to handle all those thousands of cars by exchanging its air once every 90 minutes. Before it was taken over by the antismoking lobby 5 - 10 years ago ASHRAE's standard for smoking bars was a complete air change every 3 to 6 minutes. Odd how you feel that was "inadequate" while the Battery Tunnel is just fine, eh?

You ask what "honor" has to do with Glantz and Barnoya. You don't seem to even remember that in your immediately preceding post to me you said, out of the blue, "So you feel Glanz (sic) and Barnoya are dishonorable? Why?"

Regarding the seals under doors that a slip of paper can be slipped through: Yes, I can just visualize those intrepid little smoke monsters squeezing themselves under the door, running down the hallways, slipping under the doors of the fire exits or taking the elevator down to go slithering into another wing of the hotel, where they will search out your room, slither under YOUR door and then attack you.

You might want to check out that "Recovery from ASDS" link Suzy: I didn't write it, and actually at first thought it somewhat tongue in cheek, but I've grown to appreciate that AntiSmoking Dysfunction Syndrome is a very real, and very debilitating, psychological condition that can even slip beyond the merely neurotic into the realm of outright psychosis.

I note you didn't respond to my question as to whether you are simply an anonymous internet poster or have identified yourself and your interests in this area openly.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

How can one analyze something or come to any conclusions without understanding how the author arrived at those conclusions? For example I know of a study that suggests kids in households that use coal or wood for heat are less likely to have asthma. That's not the full story though and the details are not revealed until you get into the meat of it. The households analyzed in the study being heated by coal or wood are more likely to be rural. As duly noted in the study this may be a large factor as the kids are more likely to be outdoors, they don't have to deal with the urban pollution and the homes are more likely to be older and less likely to trap indoor air pollution. One other thing I would not IMO is coal is a coal stove is typically set up in the basement, this mitigates the mold and mildew factor and other things commonly associated with aggravating asthma.

Ideally, I would like to be able to read the entire study. However, many journals protect their subscription base by requiring either a subscription, purchase of a one day pass to read as much as you want, or purchase of the single article, which is usually about $30 a pop.

I do not have access to a library with journal subscriptions, and paying for the articles is out of the question. Most authors will send you a free reprint if you ask for one, but the time that would take makes it impractical for a discussion forum like this one.

Most authors are aware of the limitations of their studies and will discuss them.

Ideally, if the methodology is too questionable, the article will not get past the peer review process and will never be published. But we cannot demand perfection. It is never attainable.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by old_cold

Face it Stillkit.........it smells...it stinks.....old and leftover smoke and ashes smell much worse than that from a lit cigarette.
I was a smoker most of my life and still , at times, got to smell it and it's gross.
If many of the fanatics couldn't detect smoke in the air by the odor, you'd probably see a lot less complaints or.....cough cough...physical discomfort.(yes, yes....I'm sure there are some that do legitimately suffer.....and most probably not from only cigarette smoke)
It can't be admitted that this is a BIG factor, if not the only one, of the objection because there is no scientific basis for "I don't like it"

I will admit that I do not like it. But the reason I do not like it is because it makes me physically ill. I can now fly on an airliner without feeling nauseated.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by stillkit

The health nuts don't think so. They're applying the same strategy of junk science, "public awareness" campaigns, restrictions on availability and proposing higher taxes to change people's behavior, just as they did with smoking.

Obesity is the new smoking, and fat people are the new smokers.

How do you feel about that?

I agree with Katiana. Obesity is a separate issue, and bringing it up adds nothing to the current discussion.

However, the difference is that overeating affects only the person who is overeating.

Smoking affects people who are not smoking.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by stillkit

They may not be identical, but they are analogous in that the same motivation lies behind the smoking and obesity "crises."

The point in relation to this thread is that I don't see how one can support no-smoking hotels without also advocating for no-fat or "healthy" restaurants. If health is really the issue, one must necessarily follow the other.

To claim protection from one un-healthy substance in the name of health while ignoring another is hypocrisy at its finest.

That assumes that some foods are inherently "unhealthy." That is not true.

One person can eat fried chicken in moderation and not gain weight. Another can eat too much "healthy" food and gain weight.

[suzy_q2010]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Suzy, I think this pretty much sums up your efforts in this area: You wrote, "Apparently Dr. Siegel did not read the Helena study closely enough. "

er.. Suzy? Siegel didn't even WRITE about the Helena study in that link. He wrote about, and clearly linked to (for your full reading) the 74 cities study by Mathews. Of course since you didn't even bother to read the Dr's analysis, much less the study itself, you wouldn't know that, now would you?

I believe you are mistaken. The Mathews study included the Helena study, so Siegel was commenting on the Helena study by reference to the Mathews study.

Look at the Mathews study again:

http://my.americanheart.org/idc/grou...ucm_427365.pdf

This is a power point presentation, not a "full study", by the way. Look at the fourth and fifth slides.

Since I did read both, I find your remark uncalled for.

And I'm quite aware that you have no desire to read my writings on this subject: after all, they disagree with your views, correct? I on the other hand have read the writings of many people, including at least a half dozen or so Surgeon Generals, that disagree with my views, and have thought about, analyzed, and written about them over the years.

My sunshine analogy is quite relevant, and I'm quite content to let City Data readers make their own decision on that and on whether anyone might be dodging a response.

I know you have put a lot of effort into this. Unfortunately, the science is not on your side.

Your sunshine analogy is still irrelevant.

You note the Battery Tunnel seems to be able to handle all those thousands of cars by exchanging its air once every 90 minutes. Before it was taken over by the antismoking lobby 5 - 10 years ago ASHRAE's standard for smoking bars was a complete air change every 3 to 6 minutes. Odd how you feel that was "inadequate" while the Battery Tunnel is just fine, eh?

Since I had no idea what the ASHRAE's standard was ten years ago, there is no way I could have an opinion on it one way or another. It appears the standard has changed, whether you like it or not.

You ask what "honor" has to do with Glantz and Barnoya. You don't seem to even remember that in your immediately preceding post to me you said, out of the blue, "So you feel Glanz (sic) and Barnoya are dishonorable? Why?"

You said, "Are you truly willing to hang your hat on a peg that depends upon the accuracy of all those studies? I'm familiar with several of them, and also familiar with the designs used in some others: I can assure you that you'll simply have demonstrated the weakness of your position if you ask me for that analysis. I'd suggest you stick with actual individual studies instead, but since Glantz and Barnoya are two of the best known leading figures in secondhand smoke research perhaps you do indeed want to pin your honor on theirs."

I said, "So you feel Glanz and Barnoya are dishonorable? Why?"

So you were the one who mentioned "honor" first, "out of the blue", not me.

It just seemed like a strange thing to say.

Thanks for pointing out that I misspelled "Glantz." I surely will not do that again. So embarrassing.

Regarding the seals under doors that a slip of paper can be slipped through: Yes, I can just visualize those intrepid little smoke monsters squeezing themselves under the door, running down the hallways, slipping under the doors of the fire exits or taking the elevator down to go slithering into another wing of the hotel, where they will search out your room, slither under YOUR door and then attack you.

Very cute.

You might want to check out that "Recovery from ASDS" link Suzy: I didn't write it, and actually at first thought it somewhat tongue in cheek, but I've grown to appreciate that AntiSmoking Dysfunction Syndrome is a very real, and very debilitating, psychological condition that can even slip beyond the merely neurotic into the realm of outright psychosis.

It seems the discussion is deteriorating from a scientific dialog to name calling. I guess that means you are conceding on the science.

I note you didn't respond to my question as to whether you are simply an anonymous internet poster or have identified yourself and your interests in this area openly.

Feel free to visit my profile. I have no vested interest in this discussion other than my (supported by the science) belief that second hand smoke is a health hazard and government is justified, even obligated to regulate it.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

I agree with Katiana. Obesity is a separate issue, and bringing it up adds nothing to the current discussion.

However, the difference is that overeating affects only the person who is overeating.

Smoking affects people who are not smoking.

True for the most part, but in ANY smoking-related debate, there are people who bring up the rising health costs caused by smoking... and you also have the folks who decry "what about the children?" So at least in those respects, the two issues (unhealthy eating & smoking) are absolutely comparable.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Suzy, you dismissed Siegel's analysis and the Mathews study simply by saying that Siegel had not read the Helena study closely enough, ignoring the fact that the Helena study was only ONE of SEVENTY FOUR data points in the Mathews work. I think my comment was justified.

We disagree on the sunshine analogy and on whose side the science is on. The function of discussions like these is to lay out some thoughtful analyses on the questions about the science and encourage the readers to judge for themselves when considering such things as "No Smoking Rooms In Hotels -- Period."

The fact that you consider the once every 90 minutes exchange of air in the car-choked Battery Tunnel adequate while considering ventilation provisions such as the 20 to 40 times per 90 minutes for tobacco smoke inadequate speaks for itself.

You are correct that I first used the word honor: I had not realized I had done so. Apologies. My fundamental question remains: are you willing to stake your position on their honest presentation of every study included in their paper and on every study included in that paper being in support of the contention that all hotel smoking needs to be banned? If not, then you still have failed to come up with a single study that's fully available for public reading and examination without spending $30 for us to analyze and for you to defend for the readers here.

There was no name-calling: I suggested you read an article that might be of significance for your situation.

I apologize for considering you might be an "anonymous internet poster." I visited your profile as suggested and have learned that you fully and clearly identify yourself as an "old broad" from Georgia who likes to write and has a graduate degree in an unspecified area from an unspecified source. Thank you for sharing.