Difference between revisions of "Sound Bites"
From TobaccoControl Tactics
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: | : | ||
=== There is no safe level of exposure for ETS, secondhand smoke is in the same category of carcinogens as asbestos and benzene. === | === There is no safe level of exposure for ETS, secondhand smoke is in the same category of carcinogens as asbestos and benzene. === | ||
| − | : | + | The ''no safe level of exposure for ETS'' sound bite originated with Surgeon General Richard Carmona's statement that he made during the press conference of his 2006 report: '''[http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/report-index.html The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General.]''' but is not included in the report itself. The closest resemblance to this statement is on page 65, which reads: |
| + | :''"The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist, thus implying that any exposure carries some risk. For infants, children, and adults with asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible individuals."'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | This is clearly speculative ("suggests...may") and it only applies to people who are extremely susceptible. Specifically, he seems to be referring to chronic asthmatics but there is no definition of what "very brief exposures" are. Ultimately, 'no safe level' means that no safe level has been detected with accuracy; it does not mean that exposure at any level is dangerous. Although the more accurate phrase that is used by some anti-tobacco lobby groups doesn't necessarily spell that out, it tends to be more honest by at least hinting as much: ''there are no known safe levels of second hand smoke'' 'known' being the operative word here. Much like potatoes, another nightshade plant that contains potentially harmful glycoalkaloids, it would take great effort to determine such levels. In the case of second hand smoke, the ends justify the means anti-tobacco philosophy will never allow such efforts to be undertaken. Similar to the conclusions about harm from potatoes, it's safe to say that common sense, decades of real life experience and epidemiological studies, dictate that there should be no reason for concern. From: [http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v30je19.htm] | ||
| + | |||
| + | :''"The Committee considered that, despite the long history of human consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids, the available epidemiological and experimental data from human and laboratory animal studies did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake. The Committee recognized that the development of empirical data to support such a level would require considerable effort. Nevertheless, it felt that the large body of experience with the consumption of potatoes, frequently on a daily basis, indicated that normal glycoalkaloid levels (20-100 mg/kg) found in properly grown and handled tubers were not of concern."'' | ||
| + | |||
=== 70% of smokers want to quit === | === 70% of smokers want to quit === | ||
: | : | ||
Revision as of 16:11, 11 June 2012
Contents
- 1 Comments on their sound bites
- 1.1 Tobacco is the first avoidable cause of mortality in the world
- 1.2 There is no safe level of exposure for ETS, secondhand smoke is in the same category of carcinogens as asbestos and benzene.
- 1.3 70% of smokers want to quit
- 1.4 The Environmental Protection Agency has identified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen.
- 1.5 Exposure to secondhand smoke increases a child’s risk for asthma attacks, pneumonia, ear infections and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
- 1.6 Studies indicate that secondhand smoke can cause cancer, emphysema, heart attacks and strokes in adult nonsmokers
- 1.7 Secondhand smoke regulations are about respecting the rights of ALL people, smokers and nonsmokers, to breathe smoke-free air.
- 1.8 According to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, “there are no filtration systems that eliminate all of the toxins in secondhand smoke.”[16] There is no system that is “state-of-the-art” as no system can effectively remove the toxins.
- 1.9 No ventilation system can remove all the harmful elements of secondhand smoke—even if the room doesn’t smell like smoke the toxins are still there[17] and are still a threat to the health of the people breathing in that air.
Comments on their sound bites
Tobacco is the first avoidable cause of mortality in the world
There is no safe level of exposure for ETS, secondhand smoke is in the same category of carcinogens as asbestos and benzene.
The no safe level of exposure for ETS sound bite originated with Surgeon General Richard Carmona's statement that he made during the press conference of his 2006 report: The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. but is not included in the report itself. The closest resemblance to this statement is on page 65, which reads:
- "The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist, thus implying that any exposure carries some risk. For infants, children, and adults with asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible individuals."
This is clearly speculative ("suggests...may") and it only applies to people who are extremely susceptible. Specifically, he seems to be referring to chronic asthmatics but there is no definition of what "very brief exposures" are. Ultimately, 'no safe level' means that no safe level has been detected with accuracy; it does not mean that exposure at any level is dangerous. Although the more accurate phrase that is used by some anti-tobacco lobby groups doesn't necessarily spell that out, it tends to be more honest by at least hinting as much: there are no known safe levels of second hand smoke 'known' being the operative word here. Much like potatoes, another nightshade plant that contains potentially harmful glycoalkaloids, it would take great effort to determine such levels. In the case of second hand smoke, the ends justify the means anti-tobacco philosophy will never allow such efforts to be undertaken. Similar to the conclusions about harm from potatoes, it's safe to say that common sense, decades of real life experience and epidemiological studies, dictate that there should be no reason for concern. From: [1]
- "The Committee considered that, despite the long history of human consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids, the available epidemiological and experimental data from human and laboratory animal studies did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake. The Committee recognized that the development of empirical data to support such a level would require considerable effort. Nevertheless, it felt that the large body of experience with the consumption of potatoes, frequently on a daily basis, indicated that normal glycoalkaloid levels (20-100 mg/kg) found in properly grown and handled tubers were not of concern."
