Thursday
May242012
Environmental health officers redefine petty officialdom
Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 7:30 Do you remember being told that the smoking ban was to "protect" the health of non-smokers, bar staff in particular?
Well, following a "swoop" on a local casino, environmental health officers in Dundee have banned customers from lighting up on an outside balcony.
Full story, including picture of said balcony, here: Smoking swoop leaves Dundee casino customers facing long walk for a puff.
Reader Comments (14)
Lepers, eh? A particularly spittle-soaked eruption that. Into the loony catalogue it goes. ;)
Yep, denying his children access to their grandparents because of a psychosomatic reaction. Yep, parent of the year, right there. I'm not sure what should happen first - this guy seeking psychiatric attention, or social services investigating his children's well-being. Remember, this is his unbalanced reaction to one issue! Imagine what he is like when it comes to additives in foods, pollution, global warming etc! His children may end up as screwed up as he is. 25% of the population, including his own parents (!) are "addicts" and "lepers"? Typical, well balanced, tolerant, not-at-all insane anti-smoker. Just concerned that he actually has kids, though.
Perhaps he and his ilk should be investigated for child abuse on the basis that uncorrupt science has proven that smoking around children can be beneficial!
In April Dave Atherton posted (can't remember whether that was here or another blog) "An open letter to Professor Terence Stephenson and Professor Dame Sally Davies". All of this was very interesting, but in this case, particularly this one:
On asthma Professor Dame Sally Davies joins you in the junk science hall of infamy. On this I am can really write with impunity; – asthma and atopy are diseases in which smokers and those exposed to SHS have statistically reduced incidence.
Firstly in this paper published in the British Thoracic Society in 2004 it bemoans;- “Trends in asthma indicators from population surveys (prevalence) and routine statistics (primary care, prescriptions, hospital admissions and mortality) in the UK were reviewed from 1955 to 2004. The prevalence of asthma increased in children by 2 to 3-fold…” (7)
In 1955 adult smoking rates were over 60% of the adult population with few restrictions where and when you could smoke. Most children would be exposed daily if not hourly to SHS. Adult smoking rates in 2004 were 28% of the population yet asthma increased “2-3 fold.?”
Additionally the 2008 Mishra Paper, published in the American Journal of Immunology in 2008 found that; – “The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE.” (8)
Nicotine stops asthma and atopy developing and reduces the symptoms in others, to trigger an asthma attack you need a protein and tobacco smoke contains no traces of protein. Any reaction to SHS is psychosomatic, some scientists believe asthma may be a psychosomatic illness in the first place!
The Swedish Hjern paper from 2001 was a three generational study of children exposed to SHS. (9)
“Methods: A cross-sectional study of present and former smoking habits in relation to atopic disorders from data on 6909 young and middle-aged adults (16-49 years) and their 4472 children (3-15 years) from the Swedish Survey of Living Conditions in 1996-97.
Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
This New Zealand study confirms further. (10)
“MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand.
Writing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Robert Hancox (University of Otago, Dunedin) and colleagues explain that “the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the immune-suppressant effects of cigarette smoke protect against atopy. The team found that the children of atopic parents were less likely to have positive SPTs at 13 years if either parent smoked (odds ratio [OR]= 0.55), although the significance of the association was lost after adjusting for confounders.
Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.
The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens. ”These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”
They conclude: “The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it. Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
On childhood exposure to SHS and lung cancer (LC), thirty-six studies have been conducted. Four suggest a non significant raised risk, 11 say a non significant protection and 21 the null hypothesis. The most (in)famous being the 1998 World Health Organization (WHO) Boffetta paper which was statistically significant in finding that children had a 22% reduction in LC. (12)
“ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). ”
Just to underline the hard of SHS here is a list of over 80 studies into SHS and LC and 85% are protective or the null hypotheis. The author Oxford University educated Statistician Peter Lee concludes: ” Taken as a whole, the epidemiology does not support the claim that ETS causes lung cancer in non-smokers.” (13)
Sorry this is so long, Simon, but hope you might permit it as a one off?
Tell him that his Smokerphobia is harming his state of mind and his mental health condition harms others around him.
Extremists like that should be kept away from decent people.
I am so glad my non smoking children grew up to be tolerant, caring, compassionate, non judgmental and well balanced towards those in my family and beyond it who smoke.
Causing such divisions between smokerphobic obsessives and their families is one of the Tobacco Control's greatest achievements.
Odd isn't it how they are so proud of the hatred they cause. That industry disgusts me. It's not about health but useful morons as above who carry the bigotry like a torch of honour.
Creeps. A well deserved place in your psycho spot DP
You just couldn't make this up. Again, this is the "nanny state" this smoking area was doing no harm, the only people who went onto the balcony were smokers. The rank group needs to fight this one, or say we'll close the Casino down then that would lead to more people losing there jobs.
I hope the voters of this area will take note how their council tax is being spent.
If I was the casino I would appeal the council's judgement. The law about enclosed spaces is how enclosed it is at the point of ignition. While a smoker's body is inside the lit bit is >50% and not breaking the law.
BTW Lyn thanks for quoting me.
A personality only a mother could love. Or perhaps mother purposely stinks the house out to discourage visits.
The voters might take note, Mark, but I'm fairly sure the Council will would smugly say they are just doing their job!
That e-mail is so ridiculous, I'm tempted to believe it's a spoof, some ASH astroturfer. The worst I've heard of was my youngest son had a couple of friends round. When one arrived home afterwards, his parents (both physically small people) said they could smell smoke on him, immediately threw him in the bath and his clothes in the machine. Even the lad thought it was daft and laughed about it and it didn't stop him coming round no matter what his parents thought.
As I ranted recently on VGIF blog (sorry Chris) , I see no point in voting or necessarily complying with government legislation as both politics and the law seem to have become the exclusive property of people I cannot feel any respect for. Can the Westminster club not see that supporting every whim of the public health industry is simply encouraging social division as epitomized by the email you kindly reproduce whilst achieving nothing?
That balcony would be perfectly legal if the floor were not flush to the side walls. A millimetre on one side would do it.
I'd also like to say that people like Mr/Mrs Mental of Dundee are precisely the type of person who have made me lose my national identity. Nobody in this f**king country apparently feel any sense of national responsibility. So, come on dickhead, where's the tax money that smoking generates coming from if it's banned? You'd get upset if it was from income tax, wouldn't you? They don't even consider the idea that their kids could end up eating out of bins like the Greeks. Blame the bankers and politicians if you like but the truth is it'll be because of your own arrogance and stupidity.
Hope you didn't mind DA? Many thanks to your for providing such ammunition, especially to those of us who are not scientifically minded and find it hard to retain much of the info.
Have also sent that article to my MP who sent me the usual, stock in trade response regarding smoking.
relevant para from email to Mrs Harriet Baldwin:
I am attaching a document, one of many, that gives some information and proof that the push for smoking bans has nothing to do with health. It would be very refreshing for an MP to actually read this and perhaps look into other genuine scientific research regarding smoking and other things on the 'should we ban' list and take the information on board instead of blindly following the 'party line'.
... and all of those "poisons" are on a DoH approved list which dictates what and how much of it should be in tobacco. I have it on a pdf but don't know how to link to it but ask and I'll email it over.
All of the natural chemicals like formeldhyde can be found in many fruit and veg - yes and the "radiation" chemicals too as they are in the earth.
Rose once explained here how the chemical con-trick was done.
Smokerphobics are mentally ill people with small minds and Govt should not be pandering to their paranoid fears.
I'd really like to see some funding and research into this new socially created neurotic condition and its rise with the social exclusion of smokers.