not looking for "a POLITICIAN told me that...." nor bogus "fact sheets"
note to the naive: politicians LIE, corporations LIE... find a SCIENTIFIC REPORT !!!! SCIENTIFIC REPORTS look like the following SCIENTIFIC REPORT - that PROVES that aspartame (diet coke) causes cancer, grand mal seizures, and death - BASED ON A CONTROLLED PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT. http://www.dorway.com/raoreport.pdf On Mar 14, 10:10 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet > Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a > mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe > or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is > involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after > cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide > range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory > infections, and asthma.1 > > •The current Surgeon General’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.2 > > •Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection > Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). > 3 > > •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.4 > > •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.5 > > •Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk > for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants > and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with > smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces.6 > > •Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased > among former smokers compared with current smokers.7 > > •Twenty-three states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, > Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, > Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, > Rhode Island, Washington, Utah, and Vermont – as well as the District > of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed laws prohibiting smoking in > almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and > bars.8 > > •Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand > smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory > tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, > resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and > causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United > States annually.9 > > •Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle > ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year.10 > Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 > children with asthma.11 > > •In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in > homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis. > 12 Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have > detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in > the blood.13 > > •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.14 > > For more information on secondhand smoke, please review the Tobacco > Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report as well as our Lung Disease Data > publication in the Data and Statistics section of our website > atwww.lungusa.org, or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG- > USA (1-800-586-4872). > > On Mar 14, 10:08 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-... > > > On Mar 13, 11:30 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Individuals do have the right to smoke in public, and there is absolutely > > > no proof that their smoking can in any way affect your health. > > > > Tobacco is a legal commodity here in the United States, and taxed > > > unmercifully. Personally, I smoked enough cigarettes to build the > > > interstate system that you drive upon to go to work, and the school that > > > your children attend!! (I smoke no longer by the way) > > > > It is socialists and far left extremists who wish to "regulate" something > > > that they have no business being involved in, which is to dictate to > > > private > > > business what legal products they can allow to be utilized in their places > > > of business. By example, you can buy cigarettes in a restaurant/bar that > > > I > > > frequent, but you can no longer smoke those cigarettes that you buy within > > > the establishment. Asinine, to say the least. > > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I admit that people have the right to smoke, but they don't have the > > > > right to do it in a public place where they can affect other people's > > > > health. If someone wants to ruin their health, I say go for it, but > > > > they're not taking me down with them. > > > > > On Mar 12, 6:10 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Now that is just wrong and a lie. Most smokers are conscious of their > > > > > environment. If I am at a table in a restaurant smoking and you CHOOSE > > > > > to sit there instead of a different table (whether there is one or > > > > > not) or a different restaurant that is YOUR choice. You choose instaed > > > > > to impose your belief on me by outlawing my harmless vice. Again and > > > > > again and again, there IS NO PROOF that second hand smoke does ANY > > > > > harm. Your personal likes and dislikes are YOUR, NOT my, problem. > > > > > > Other side of the coin if I enter and see no ashtray at your table I > > > > > politely ask if you mind... if you do I either don't smoke or I change > > > > > my locale. > > > > > > It works. > > > > > > If I go into a bar with smokers it is my problem, not that of the > > > > > smokers. Same with anywhere else that permits smoking. > > > > > > The BIG problem with these laws is they do not allow establishments to > > > > > choose their status... smoking or not, it does infringe on my and the > > > > > establishments to choose.. > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2:48 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The difference between smoking and those other vices, is that when > > > > > > you > > > > > > choose to smoke, you also choose that I smoke is well. When you > > > > > > choose > > > > > > to harm your health, you also choose to harm my health, when you > > > > > > choose to stink like a dead carcass, you also choose that I stink > > > > > > like > > > > > > a dead carcass.... > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 3:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > My 87 year old, three pack, a day father just died of "natural > > > > > > > causes'. His 97 year old Mother died of the same cause... 2+ > > > > > > > packs a > > > > > > > day. They are not the exception. Your are or are not pre disposed > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > cancer, it is that simple. > > > > > > > > as for the rest I agree with Keith entirely.... There is NO proven > > > > > > > link between cancer and second hand smoke and a LOT of money has > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > spent and a lot of rats, pigs, dogs and cats have died trying to > > > > prove > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 1:22 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > By the way, my wife's non-smoking 90-year old great-grandmother > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > still with us. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My wife just watched her 63-year old mother waste away and > > > > > > > > > die of > > > > lung > > > > > > > > > cancer after smoking most of her adult life. I then went to > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > funeral of a 47-year old smoking coworker who died of lung > > > > cancer. > > > > > > > > > Don't tell me that smoking is not harmful. > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 1:56 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The tobacco companies were so profitable it is no wonder the > > > > > > > > > > government and insurance companies went after them. It might > > > > happen to > > > > > > > > > > liquor, as well// I am from a very healthy generation and > > > > > > > > > > all > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > parents smoked and so did we. The rise in autism and breast > > > > cancer can > > > > > > > > > > be traced to children abandoned to childcare by working > > > > > > > > > > mothers > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > the "pill".//You fail to address lung cancer in non-smokers- > > > > from > > > > > > > > > > various industries, sealed air in offices and homes, other > > > > exposures- > > > > > > > > > > or 90 year olds who continue to smoke. > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 12:23 pm, Philobealo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > from my local paper > > > > > > > > > > > > With regard to the recent letters about smoking bans at > > > > restaurants > > > > > > > > > > > and other public accommodation venues, I would prefer to > > > > think of it > > > > > > > > > > > not as an issue of freedom of economic choice for the > > > > restaurant > > > > > > > > > > > owner. I prefer to think of it as an issue of workplace > > > > health and > > > > > > > > > > > safety. > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as leading health experts not funded by tobacco > > > > companies are > > > > > > > > > > > in agreement that smoking and second-hand smoke are indeed > > > > injurious > > > > > > > > > > > to the health of those affected by both, it would behoove > > > > government > > > > > > > > > > > to set the health and > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
