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.
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.
Sounds like somebody needs to get a library card... they are free in most cities, and basically ALL public libraries today have online journal subscriptions (accessible to any cardholder).
Sounds like somebody needs to get a library card... they are free in most cities, and basically ALL public libraries today have online journal subscriptions (accessible to any cardholder).
Signed,
A public librarian
My library card is well worn, thank you! You just reminded me to check my account. I have a stack of books on hold ready to be picked up!
My community has a gorgeous, well run library with a wonderful staff. However, it does not have subscriptions to medical journals such as JAMA and Lancet. Neither do the colleges in town.
There is a statewide system called GALILEO that expands the offerings, but still no go on the medical journals.
I can get PubMed and MedLine without going through GALILEO. Neither way gets around the paid sites for full text.
I could go to a medical school library, but the nearest is several hours from my home. That is not very helpful for a discussion like this one.
The local hospitals do not have medical libraries any more. They used to, but the docs just subscribe to what they want --- mostly online --- so no one has back issues of paper journals any more.
You see, I have checked out the local resources. I have sometimes asked a friend to get an article for me, but I hate to do that too often.
Sadly, the library here is cutting back its hours beginning this month.
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.
So Siegel can criticize the Mathews study without reading all seventy four articles?
I was responding specifically to his point that the studies should be done using a comparison community in which a ban was not in place. The Helena study specifically did exactly what Siegel said should be done. That makes it look as if he was not familiar with the Helena study.
Your unjustified comment was that I had not read either the Siegel artcle or the Mathews study in the link. Since I had read both of them, your comment that I had obviously not done so was uncalled for.
Quote:
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 straining in your comparisons. The risk of skin cancer related to exposure to UV light is in no way comparable to the illnesses associated with environmental tobacco smoke. Bars are not tunnels. The people who study ventilation systems for a living say they are inadequate for dealing with tobacco smoke. Deal with it. Your position on ventilation does not have a leg to stand on.
Quote:
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.
I have no reason to doubt the honesty of Glantz and Barnoya.
You are the one that wants the full article. I do not need it. You pay for it.
Quote:
There was no name-calling: I suggested you read an article that might be of significance for your situation.
You said, "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."
You mentioned my name, so there can be no doubt who the neurotic, psychotic person you were referring to could be.
Quote:
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.
Yep, that's me, and that's all I'm sharing with CD.
My library card is well worn, thank you! You just reminded me to check my account. I have a stack of books on hold ready to be picked up!
My community has a gorgeous, well run library with a wonderful staff. However, it does not have subscriptions to medical journals such as JAMA and Lancet. Neither do the colleges in town.
There is a statewide system called GALILEO that expands the offerings, but still no go on the medical journals.
I can get PubMed and MedLine without going through GALILEO. Neither way gets around the paid sites for full text.
I could go to a medical school library, but the nearest is several hours from my home. That is not very helpful for a discussion like this one.
The local hospitals do not have medical libraries any more. They used to, but the docs just subscribe to what they want --- mostly online --- so no one has back issues of paper journals any more.
You see, I have checked out the local resources. I have sometimes asked a friend to get an article for me, but I hate to do that too often.
Sadly, the library here is cutting back its hours beginning this month.
Suzy Q
Who lives in a house full of books
No need to do all that for the sake of this discussion, but glad to hear your library card is well loved!
I guess some public libraries have limited scientific journals, and I'm probably spoiled because of where I've lived... the library where I work is in a small town (with limited funding), but I've resided in big cities & held their library cards for years. San Jose Public is particularly fabulous, as they're a joint institution with San Jose State University - which happens to have the only LIS program in northern CA, and which also happens to be my alma mater. So they have ALL the good journals, full text and everything.
Here's a tip, if you aren't finding what you need (in terms of electronic resources) at your local library... next time you're visiting a city with better library subscriptions, go in and get a card. Some libraries these days are charging for non-resident cardholders, but most do not. I have cards from cities I've only visited once or twice, and never plan to visit again! Eventually they will expire, but in the meantime it gives you access to their databases.
Start another thread about fast food if you want. I'm not aware of any legislation. What is it?
You tell me to start another thread and then ask what is it?
There is various proposals up to and including tax on junk food like soda, limitations on salt in prepared food, limiting the amount of fast food restaurants in a given area etc. I forget which but it was either proposal or a law in one city in California that required convenient stores to sell fresh produce whether they sold it or not. These are all done under the guise of the public good and are meant to shape your habits by either directly controlling what you can do or taxing it into oblivion.
While some of the things *may* be sensible, I'm using that term loosely, just as with the smoking laws where does it end? Just as with the smoking bans these types of proposals are just another stake in the heart of freedoms and liberties we enjoy.
Ideally, I would like to be able to read the entire study.
You're citing something for reference and admittedly have not read it and suggested Mr. McFadden purchase it to refute the claims your referencing. Let me ask you this, suppose Mr. McFadden purchases said study and begins discussing it. How are you supposed to defend your position then?
I think my point is it's a bit out of line to request someone to do something you have not done yourself.
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.
Actually your argument points out the slippery slope does it not? We've gone from banning an activity that *may* have potential to effect others to an activity that only effects the individual participating both under the guise of "the public good".
You may suggest some of these modest proposals are really irrelvant but I would beg to differ, if 30 years ago I suggested to someone that smoking would be banned in private establishments and even some homes they would have laughed at me.
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.
Just as some people can smoke and live to be 100, while others die in their 40's. The same can be said of those who are exposed to SHS. In short, there is no way to accurately tell who will suffer from what or when. There are only the odds.
The point is that even with smoking, it's difficult, if not impossible, to make generalizations because every person is different. Yet, we're willing to base public policy on generalizations.
Y'alls discussion involving the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel brings a question to mind.
For those of you who believe there is no safe level of exposure to SHS, and who advocate for outright bans to prevent breathing it: Would you drive through the Battery Tunnel, or any tunnel for that matter, knowing fully well that within the last air exchange cycle, someone has driven through there smoking a cigarette with the window down? Probably multiple someone's.
There will be some trace amounts of tobacco smoke mixed in with all the hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Would you take the tunnel and breath it, or take an alternate route to avoid doing so?
Since smoking destroys fabric and carpets, not to mention walls and paint. Leaving a room forever smelling like a bar ash tray,
If the smokers renting the room don't mind, what business is it of anybody else?
Quote:
I would think it would lead to cheaper rooms because they will not have to be remodeled as often, and if your fat ass can not step outside to Fup your lungs then your the crap head idiot.
Thank you for your crude, prejudicial comments. They add a lot to the discussion.
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.
