Slashdot Mirror

. Most of the people who die due to coal related illness die in the northeastern US. Which makes sense because that's where the power plants are. It's better than it used to be. 20 years ago coal was killing twice that many. 40 years ago it was more than four times as many.

no, I'm asking for a citation for your crazy claim that nothing but CO2 escapes from a coal power plant.
no amount of googling tells me anything except that vast quantities of poisonous metals and compounds come out along with the CO2.

You seem to have this idea that in 1st world countries coal has been clean for 25 years.

yet all I find is a report from this month about the government bringing in regulations to try to make coal power plants stop emitting heavy metals into the air:

http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/california/for-the-media/alacinthenews/epa-proposes-limits-on-coal.html

"Jackson said mercury and other emissions covered by the rule damage the nervous systems of fetuses and children, exacerbate asthma and cause lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of Americans."

try reading this:
Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

What you have been told on the telephone is simply not true. ALA is one of the driving forces behind pending legislation about to ban e-cigarettes in Illinois ( http://www.iafp.com/legislative/SB3174e-cigarettes.pdf ) and New York ( http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/publicpolicy/assets/memo9529.pdf ). 'The Lung Association has called for the removal of all e-cigarettes from the marketplace until they have been determined to be safe.' ALA is pushing for a blanket ban. And by the way, there‘s no need to vape anything unknown. It’s up to you to buy from companies which do provide an ingredients list and quality control.

They want the FDA to do the study.

We agree with the initial FDA determination that these products should be regulated as drugdelivery devices and as such, should not be sold until the FDA has determined their safety and efficacy. The Lung Association has called for the removal of all ecigarettes from the marketplace until they have been determined to be safe.

source

They themselves have in a press release asked for an absolute BAN

http://www.lungusa.org/press-room/press-releases/e-cigarettes-action.html

"Our organizations thank Senator Lautenberg for his leadership in urging the FDA to remove these products from the market and echo his call that the FDA move quickly to remove these products from the marketplace. "

No study has ever found a statistically significant risk of cancer due to 2nd hand smoke exposure.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

"The current Surgeon Generalâ(TM)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."

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

"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."

"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."

And so forth. This isn't rocket-science people!

And even if we assume that there is no risk when exposed to second hand smoke, what rights do smokers have to expose others to smoke that smells like shit, makes clothes smell like shit, makes other cough and generally feel bad etc. etc.? By that logic I should have the right to carry exposed septic-tanks in subway. Sure, it might smell bad, but there's no harm, right? Therefore others have no right to tell me what to do.

Smoking just kills yourself

That's just plain WRONG.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 "Secondhand smoke causes almost 50,000 deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year, including approximately 3,400 from lung cancer and 22,700-69,600 from heart disease."

In the days before smoking was banned in hospitals I made the transition from the vistor in the waiting room to the patient in the ER - acute asthmatic attack.

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General [July 2006]

You better read more.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39871
It does mention the FAILURE of carding for selling tobacco as a major problem. And it shows a drop in tobacco use since stronger restrictions on tobacco advertising kicked in the mid 90s. Of course it would be interesting to see what the tobacco use was when there was unrestricted advertising.
"What can I say, I understand my rights. If that makes me predictable, then I'll take it over the fascist you are."
No you are being a mindless drone.
I am not saying that adults should be restricted from access to violent media so I am not taking away any adults rights. If it is proven scientifically that it is harmful then I don't have problems with stronger controls on violent media. Hardly a fascist stance. No more fascist than requiring that children get there parents permission to go on a field trip, get a tattoo, or surgery. And no different that restrictions on minors buying firearms, ammunition, alcohol, or tobacco.

As far as being a fascist well I would say that you don't know what fascist is.

Funny it seems that it works pretty well for Tobacco

Hook, line, and sinker.. And the drones do exactly as expected...

The hybrids (Prius at least from what I checked) are easy to beat by a lot of european diesel cars - VW Polo 62mpg just an example

Well, I don't suppose you would trust the U.S. Surgeon General that secondhand smoke causes asthma in children.

And I suppose the International Journal of Epidemiology is in on the Vast Conspiracy about secondhand smoke: Non-smoker lung cancer deaths attributable to exposure to spouse's environmental tobacco smoke

Not to mention the American Lung Association. "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." (Source)

Or any of the other 74 citations on Wikipedia.

Seriously, arguing about the negative effects of secondhand smoke is like arguing about evolution. The fact there is even an argument is solely due to misinformation spread by huge enterprises that have a lot to lose.

I really hate hearing that term. The anti-smoking industry (yes, it is a huge money grubbing industry) has convinced the public that smoking is killing X number of people by making up this term 'Smoking related illeness'. For example Lung Cancer. If you die of lung cancer, you are immediatly added to the total number of people that died of 'smoking related illness' This is irrelevent to whether you would run 10 miles every day out in the desert, and consistently inhailed sand particles that were blown up in the air, and scratched the hell out of your lungs every day for 30 years. It must have been the evil second hand smoke!!!

I cannot believe for one second that inhailing the crap spewing out of the back of cars does not lead to 'Smoking related illness'.

Some of my favorite commercials that have come from the anti-smoking industry were, one where a half dozen early 20'ers are driving around in a beat up old van with nasty chemicals spewing from the tailpipe, while screaming over a megaphone at the houses of tabaco executives.

The one where they tell you that someone living with a smoke is more likely to die because the second hand smoke in so much more dangerous than the directly inhaled smoke. Completely ignoring the fact that the smoker will be breathing significantly more second hand smoke than anyone they live with.

And the one where they the tabaco industry MUST be advertising to kids, because 34 years ago one of their market researchers noticed that kids like sweets. Of course its a good thing that we got those secret documents, because we would have never know that kids like sweet otherwise, and after all, no adults like sweets.

The biggest here is that once an idea gets to a certain point, the proponents of that idea can just start out right lying. Then anyone that calls them on their lies gets villinized. After all, think of the children.

It's real simple. Smoking is bad for you. Anything that you inhail into your lungs that is not air (with a few medical exceptions) is bad for you. Smoking is NOT as bad as the smoking industry wants to make it out to be. If it was, 20% of our population would be dead within the next few year, and our society would be in freefall.

If you want a perfect example, look at the American Lung Association's website. If you can't see any questionable 'fact' in there, you have already drank the cool-aid.

The problem that the 'environmentalists' have is that their side of the global warming debate has been playing the same game as the anti-smoking industry. They have made many outragous claims, and frequently request or demand that people change their lives based on questionable data at best. Does that mean that we shouldn't work for cleaner air? No. Does it mean that global warming isn't happening? Who knows! What it does mean is that the issue IS in question, and when the global warming zeleots start claiming that the proof is undeniable, they are just adding to the distrust.

Ok, rant over....

So your premise is that lung cancer happens to 10 people per million. So right now in the US there are 280*10 = 2,800 people with lung cancer. [In a later post, you say it is 100 per million.]

Dodge these stats...(source)

(1) An estimated 173,700 new cases of lung cancer and an estimated 160,440 deaths from lung cancer will occur in the United States during 2004.

(2) Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in both men and women.

(3) 87% of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking.

(4) Smoking cigars or pipes also increases the risk of lung cancer.

My comments:
(1) translates to 573 dying per million (notice how I am skipping right over those who just get lung cancer). Assuming only 25% are smokers, who represent 90% of those who get lung cancer, then that is about 2,000 smokers per million smokers who die every YEAR (at least 20 times more than your 10 per million, or 100 per million, figures). So lets say the average smoker smokes for 40 years (probably optimistic) then a smoker's chance of dying of lung cancer in their lifetime is about 1 in 1.

(2) "the leading cancer killer" + 90% of the people with it are smokers translates to smoking being the worst cancer creating thing of all -- pretty hard to minimize the connection between smoking and killer cancer now.

(3) corresponds with your previous citation

(4) your pipe is doing you no favors

Uh ... I'm not necessarily agreeing with the GP, but I think if you want to make claims like that, you're going to have to back them up.

I've lived in a lot of small towns, and have universally found them to be decidedly more pleasant places to live than in the major* city I live in now -- which is significantly more polluted and has higher crime than where I used to live. The only reason I'm here, along with quite a few other people, are because it's where the jobs are. I haven't lived in any small town that had anywhere near the type of social, environmental, and criminal problems that this place does. Granted, they were all very low-population-density, high-income towns, but that's part of the reason people want to live there.

That said, I have run into people who honestly do enjoy urban living, and respect that it does have some advantages (public transportation chief among them I think, followed by social and cultural events, nightlife, etc.).

* = City in this case is Washington, DC, which despite not being a "major" city in terms of population, does manage to be the 2003 murder capitol, member of the top-20 most polluted cities, and city with the third-worst traffic in the nation.

Here's are the seriously inflated CDC statistics. They're claim 36,000/year
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/keyfacts.htm

Here are the actual numbers as reported by the American Lung Association (see page 9)
http://www.lungusa.org/atf/cf/%7B7A8D42C2-FCCA-460 4-8ADE-7F5D5E762256%7D/PI1.PDF

The whole poverty thing was in response to your volunteering to going down to your local library and getting case studies.

Like I said later on, you implied it. By saying that there was blame to be put on parents, you are saying that there is blame to begin with, i.e. that violent games for kids is wrong, at least in part.

There is a difference between "It shuts up the social conservatives who can then shift the blame onto..." and "It shuts up the social conservatives, shifting the blame onto...". The former implies that the social conservatives shift the blame, while the latter implies you're shifting the blame.

But here's a better idea. Instead of shifting blame, real or fake, perhaps discourse and debate with proof that games don't cause violence is more in order. Getting social conservatives to shift their focus doesn't solve anything.

As for the second-hand smoke, the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the Canadian Cancer Society, amongst others, agree with me. I may not have any education in science, so I can't tell you what carcinogens and what chemicals are involved, but I can tell you what makes sense.

Large parts of what you said were conditionals, to which there is no reply. So I skimmed over those parts. And which party line did I toe again?

i dont know where you get such crap, less the mods who mod such ignorance up

In June 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first new drug for pulmonary tuberculosis in 25 years. The drug, rifapentine (Priftin), is approved for use with other drugs to fight TB. One potential advantage of rifapentine is that it can be taken less often in the final four months of treatment -- once a week compared with twice a week for the standard regimen.

more here

As an Oregonian who has lived in several places across the state, I will have to propose amendments to your pieces of advice:

* Visit a McMennamin's hotel for lunch or dinner...

But don't expect good service or clean silverware.

* Fareless Square.

Get a concealed carry permit first.

* Don't swim in any river that Intel has named a chip for. Seriously. It's not their fault, but I mean it.

There's nothing wrong with the Deschutes. But then again, most of you Portlanders can't see past the top of Mt. Hood, so I don't expect you to know anything about Oregon's high desert.

Now, to add on to your advice:

* Visit one of the fine sushi places in Portland. Sushi Town in Hillsboro is good. Not the best, but good.
* Visit Bend and go to the Deschutes Brewery if you want *truly good* beer. And good service.
* If your a Finn, go to Junction City (that's just northwest of Eugene) during the Scandinavian Festival's Finland Day.
* Don't take your kids to the Rose Festival carnival area. The ride operators deal drugs.
* Avoid downtown Portland (and downtown Eugene) whenever the WTO is meeting in this hemisphere, when a major timber sale is scheduled to happen, when war breaks out, when the President is in the Pacific Northwest, or any other time when it is reasonable to forecast traffic-slowing protests.
* Check out Ashland at least once.
* Get a Shedrain umbrella.
* The air sucks in Eugene.

Well, that's about all I can think of.

No kidding. Even people need daily patches now.

According to the American Lung Association, smoking rates have declined since 1991. In 1991, in the US, 25.7% of adults smoked. In 2001, in the US, 22.8% of adults smoked.

However, in the 18-24 age group, that trend is reversed; 22.9% in 1991, 26.9% in 2001. Cigarette companies have been targeting youth with their advertising.

Actually, the article you mention suggests that they do a pretty good job - it is ozone generators that are recommended against. It does warn that "ozone generators, negative ion generators, and certain other electronic air cleaners that are not listed by the FDA, or cannot otherwise prove that their ozone emission levels are lower than 0.05 ppm, may produce levels of ozone recognized as unsafe for humans and are not recommended for use in occupied spaces because of the risk of generation of ozone"; however, that depends on the air cleaner and is probably much smaller with devices not intended to produce ozone. (Anyone know if there are any results from such tests? Consumer Reports, maybe?)

S. aureus is scarey, sure, but really only if you are already sick or immunocompromised. The really scarey bug, one that was almost under control until relatively recently is Tuberculosis .

There are a number of MDR Tuberculosis strains (many originating in the former USSR, but also in the drug ghettos of New York).

The difference between S. aureus and Tuberculosis from the point of view of community health is that to get consumption (from an epidemiological point of view), all you need is to live in high density housing in an area where Tuberculosis is present. The advent of MDR strains makes the likelihood of an infected individual being nearby higher and the possibility of treatment less (already difficult with 6 month courses of antibiotics being the norm for standard strains - the main cause of MDR appearance seems to be drug users going off courses and poor hospitals in old Soviet backwaters).

There's just so much to look forward to!

How about giving:

• A car (get a tax reduction in return!)
• Blood
• An entire organ
• Or, my favorite, an ovum

It's not biased, it's untrue.

Seems to only want to talk about carcinogens (of which tobacco smokes contains more than 100), and neglects childhood and adult-onset asthma completely.

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/quit_be n.html

Secondhand smoke comes from two places: smoke breathed out by the person who smokes, and smoke from the end of a burning cigarette. Secondhand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma. Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other health problems. The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 37,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year. Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year. Secondhand smoke is harmful to children with asthma. The EPA estimates that for between 200,000 and one million asthmatic children, exposure to secondhand smoke worsens their condition. Secondhand smoke can make healthy children less than 18 months of age sick; it can cause pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, coughing, wheezing and increased mucus production. According to the EPA, secondhand smoke can lead to the buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation. Individuals can take several steps to reduce their exposure to secondhand smoke, including: If you smoke, quit! Keep smoke away from you and your family by asking people not to smoke in your home. Make sure your child's day care site and school are smoke-free. Use no-smoking signs, buttons and stickers at home, at work, and in your car. Eat in smoke-free environments. Seek a smoke-free worksite. Support clean air laws that protect you from secondhand smoke. For more information call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872), or visit our web site at http://www.lungusa.org.

http://www.lungusa.org/tob acco/secondkids_factsheet.html

It's not biased, it's untrue.

Seems to only want to talk about carcinogens (of which tobacco smokes contains more than 100), and neglects childhood and adult-onset asthma completely.

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/quit_be n.html

Secondhand smoke comes from two places: smoke breathed out by the person who smokes, and smoke from the end of a burning cigarette. Secondhand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma. Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other health problems. The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 37,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year. Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year. Secondhand smoke is harmful to children with asthma. The EPA estimates that for between 200,000 and one million asthmatic children, exposure to secondhand smoke worsens their condition. Secondhand smoke can make healthy children less than 18 months of age sick; it can cause pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, coughing, wheezing and increased mucus production. According to the EPA, secondhand smoke can lead to the buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation. Individuals can take several steps to reduce their exposure to secondhand smoke, including: If you smoke, quit! Keep smoke away from you and your family by asking people not to smoke in your home. Make sure your child's day care site and school are smoke-free. Use no-smoking signs, buttons and stickers at home, at work, and in your car. Eat in smoke-free environments. Seek a smoke-free worksite. Support clean air laws that protect you from secondhand smoke. For more information call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872), or visit our web site at http://www.lungusa.org.

http://www.lungusa.org/tob acco/secondkids_factsheet.html

It's not biased, it's untrue.

Seems to only want to talk about carcinogens (of which tobacco smokes contains more than 100), and neglects childhood and adult-onset asthma completely.

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/quit_be n.html

Secondhand smoke comes from two places: smoke breathed out by the person who smokes, and smoke from the end of a burning cigarette. Secondhand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma. Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other health problems. The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 37,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year. Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year. Secondhand smoke is harmful to children with asthma. The EPA estimates that for between 200,000 and one million asthmatic children, exposure to secondhand smoke worsens their condition. Secondhand smoke can make healthy children less than 18 months of age sick; it can cause pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, coughing, wheezing and increased mucus production. According to the EPA, secondhand smoke can lead to the buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation. Individuals can take several steps to reduce their exposure to secondhand smoke, including: If you smoke, quit! Keep smoke away from you and your family by asking people not to smoke in your home. Make sure your child's day care site and school are smoke-free. Use no-smoking signs, buttons and stickers at home, at work, and in your car. Eat in smoke-free environments. Seek a smoke-free worksite. Support clean air laws that protect you from secondhand smoke. For more information call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872), or visit our web site at http://www.lungusa.org.

http://www.lungusa.org/tob acco/secondkids_factsheet.html

It's not biased, it's untrue.

Seems to only want to talk about carcinogens (of which tobacco smokes contains more than 100), and neglects childhood and adult-onset asthma completely.

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/quit_be n.html

Secondhand smoke comes from two places: smoke breathed out by the person who smokes, and smoke from the end of a burning cigarette. Secondhand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma. Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other health problems. The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 37,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year. Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year. Secondhand smoke is harmful to children with asthma. The EPA estimates that for between 200,000 and one million asthmatic children, exposure to secondhand smoke worsens their condition. Secondhand smoke can make healthy children less than 18 months of age sick; it can cause pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, coughing, wheezing and increased mucus production. According to the EPA, secondhand smoke can lead to the buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation. Individuals can take several steps to reduce their exposure to secondhand smoke, including: If you smoke, quit! Keep smoke away from you and your family by asking people not to smoke in your home. Make sure your child's day care site and school are smoke-free. Use no-smoking signs, buttons and stickers at home, at work, and in your car. Eat in smoke-free environments. Seek a smoke-free worksite. Support clean air laws that protect you from secondhand smoke. For more information call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872), or visit our web site at http://www.lungusa.org.

http://www.lungusa.org/tob acco/secondkids_factsheet.html