New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids

Further, if policy decisions are not based on sound science,
the integrity of both the political and the scientific processes suffers. As
Dr. Feinstein has pointed out --

[t]he "bad guys" *** are not always
right, but if they are denied a fair and
proper scientific hearing, neither society
nor science will benefit. Society is
entitled to make political decisions based
on advocacy. The scientific basis for
those decisions however, should depend not
on political advocacy, but on scholar-
ship -- no matter how it is produced or by
whom (p. 305).

These concerns are not limited to ETS. The suspicion that
too many scientists and government officials are using "scare of the month"
tactics to generate media attention and mobilize public opinion in support of
personal political agendas has fueled widespread public cynicism. At some
point, people simply stop paying attention. As the public television program
"Technopolitics" noted in its June 11, 1991, program on the first draft of
the ETS risk assessment --

[t]he question remains whether the public
health scare now being created through
leaked draft documents and emotional
public appeals is real, or is the anti-
smoking movement merely using bad science
to organize the nonsmoking majority
against the smoking minority?

The record of the EPA is not reassuring.
On one environmental concern after
another, from Alar apples to acid rain to
dioxin, the EPA has first put out alarming
information and then backed off. Critics
charge that the EPA is more interested in
being politically correct than scientifi-
cally accurate.

In essence, EPA has declared war on smokers. Because of
EPA's pursuit of sensational headlines at the expense of objective scientific
evaluation, some smokers have lost their jobs and many employers are
practicing overt discrimination in hiring and promotion based solely on
whether a person smokes. People who think that such interference is unlikely
to go beyond smoking should be warned: a report last year on the television
show "20/20" indicated that moderate social drinking off the job and
participation in employer-defined "dangerous activities" also have become
targets of workplace discrimination policies. Can a government-sponsored
"technical compendium" or "policy guide" on those subjects be far behind?

http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html

That Harvard study is about how bad it is as far as I read.
__________
Boston, MA – Secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) can have harmful effects on children.
__________

Seems like they are painting no rose garden.

Boston, MA – Secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) can have harmful effects on children. Some of the adverse health outcomes include a greater likelihood of ear infections, lower respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome and severity of asthma symptoms. It is estimated that 35% to 45% of children are regularly exposed to SHS from adults using tobacco in homes and cars. To date, there has been little research on SHS in cars.

In the first study to measure SHS in cars in real driving conditions, Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers have shown that smoking in cars can produce unsafe levels of SHS. Even with the driver’s window slightly open, mean respirable suspended particles (RSP) concentrations hit levels rated “hazardous” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the study, concentrations of 272 µg/m3 were measured, with a peak level of 505 µg/m3. In comparison, the EPA’s air quality index rates concentrations of more than 40 µg/m3 as “unhealthy for sensitive groups,” such as children and the elderly, and more than 250 µg/m3 as “hazardous” for the general population. The results showed that smoking a single cigarette for just five minutes could produce potentially harmful RSP levels. Given the levels the researchers observed, SHS in cars poses a potentially serious threat to children’s health.

The authors hope that their findings will encourage renewed efforts to promote smoke-free environments for children both in cars and homes. The study will be published in the November 2006 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine and is available online now at

I read this it has nothing positive for smokers.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releas...

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Non Cas Fan I site the Harvard Study. You can site that study your Tobacco people paid for. It gives you the data you need to harm more children <excerpted>

You are a laugh-a-minute riot!
You think "tobacco people" funded the Rees study, and you post the Rees study to attempt to counter the Rees study???

Should I remind you that YOU were the one to post that in this thread in the FIRST place? Prior to that, I had only been relying on the Ott study.

Or do you think that "tobacco people" funded Ott, too? LOL

Tobacco Kills wrote:

I will give you this epa evidence also.
Children's exposure to secondhand smoke is responsible for:
increases in the number of asthma attacks and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children with asthma;
between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (for children under 18 months of age); and,
respiratory tract infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
The developing lungs of young children are severely affected by exposure to secondhand smoke for several reasons including that children are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. Children receiving high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those with smoking mothers, run the greatest risk of damaging health effects
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
I dont think the Environmental Protection Agency is out to get smokers. They see it as pollution. Only this is one pollution that does not need to be in cars with children in it.

It *is* pollution.
It *is* PM2.5 that neither children, nor non-smokers should be breathing. That is why the windows need to be down, for crying out loud!

How you can sit there and cite the Rees study but ignore that is just too much.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

I dont need a study...

so why do you keep taking the time to find and post them?

Linda... I would rather be wrong and not have people smoke in cars with chldren in them then to be on your side.

I want to err on the side of the child.

Smoke but not in the car. Its not asking much.

Smoke but not in the car with the child in it.

You dont want to be smoking in a car with kids in it.

So dont and tell those you know it does have potential risks. And going off on all the other dangers is a diversion. This is something a smoker can control.

Wait till you get out of the car. Then smoke.

Its not something people will ever be able to take away from you. You will however have to stop smoking in the car with kids since it is on its way to being a nationwide law.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Non Cas Fan
"Do the children's hospitals get any money from the fines for improper child restraints? Why should this be different?"
I added that part in. I see again you dont care about children. Its sad. Cigarettes in cars cause illnesses. Cigarettes cause illnesses.
Children's exposure to secondhand smoke is responsible for:
increases in the number of asthma attacks and severity of symptoms in 200,000 to 1 million children with asthma;
between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (for children under 18 months of age); and,
respiratory tract infections resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year.
The developing lungs of young children are severely affected by exposure to secondhand smoke for several reasons including that children are still developing physically, have higher breathing rates than adults, and have little control over their indoor environments. Children receiving high doses of secondhand smoke, such as those with smoking mothers, run the greatest risk of damaging health effects.
That is from the EPA. If you want to debate them here is their number.
Call:(202) 343+9370 (in Washington, DC)
I think you should call them. I believe what they say. The evidance is overwhelming. And you like me Non Cas Fan shold not be wanting to even create a potential risk for children.
Lets err on the side of childrens health. Not on the side of the smoker. After all I am fine with them smoking everywhere other then in a small confined area such a car with children.

When a car becomes a house, dude.

Look, if we choose to "err on the side of children's health" we'd also not give them cell phones. It's the exact same argument, that we should err on the side of children's health.

Are you in favor of fining parents who give their children cell phones? Or do you think that cell phone use is a lesser threat to a child's health?

See, using the justification of "erring on the side of children's health" opens the door for all manner of restrictions -- some of which may well be more legitimate than the issue of smoking in cars with children, even if the windows are open.

So, I'm asking, in order to not misrepresent you:
Are you also in favor of fining parents who give their kids cell phones?

Gregory Connolly, the RWJF funded assist (ACS) man LOL

Well you just keep on puffing down the cigarettes Non Cas Fan and twist each and every study there is to suit your Tobacco Advocacy.

Sorry bud but its not going to work. Its going to be outlawed. The sooner the better.

Pollution is pollution and cigarettes smoked in a car is pollution. So I dont care what kind of pollution they want to call it. Its a pollution we can control.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

I dont need a study...

Wait... you refuse to even read the very study that you posted TWICE?!
LOL
Are you afraid that you'll see that I'm right?
(Because you will see that.)

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Your a case study of an Enigma.

True, at least on the issue of smoking and tobacco use.

I oppose smoking, but let's not bastardize the science in order to carry-out an anti-tobacco agenda, eh. If there were legitimate grounds to support making it against the law, I'd be in favor of it. Until then, hyperbole and emotionally-charged arguments are all there is, and that is no way to legislate.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Hard to understand why you do. You did provide me in your own conversation the reasons to outlaw it.
Non Cas Fan wrote:"I do not support smoking. If it were up to me, we'd flat-out outlaw tobacco. It should be on the Schedule, though I forget which level it would be.
I've lost too many friends and relatives (two friends just this year) to smoking, and I have an aunt whose lung cancer is currently in remission."
OK so your he or she. I dont care. No matter.
You stated that it kills people you know and its harming them. Now you take that and your own ablility to use logic. Wow you get cigarette smoke in confined small area. You said you know it kills. You concede its harmful.

Don't misrepresent my position. FIRST-HAND smoking is harmful, and for a number of reasons.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

The smoke from the cigarette is in the car there is no doubt as the inhale and exhale. It is going to get into the childs lungs.

Not necessarily in quantity to be a health hazard.
Again, I reiterate: open the windows.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

But unlike you I dont want to ban Tobacco smoking.
I do live in Kentucky. Let them smoke its good for our economy. Just not in cars with children in them.

Tobacco can be grown for pharmaceutical use and still be profitable for Kentucky.
It doesn't have to be smoked.

Non Cas Fan... Yes I see the diversion tactic. Throw it off to cell phones.

Go steart a thread on Cell phones and their hazards.

This is about. We are not talking about Cellphones.

This is about smoking in cars with children and with a man that does know how dangerous cigarettes are. And I must repeat you wrote:

do not support smoking. If it were up to me, we'd flat-out outlaw tobacco. It should be on the Schedule, though I forget which level it would be.
I've lost too many friends and relatives (two friends just this year) to smoking, and I have an aunt whose lung cancer is currently in remission."

So you of all people should by now know there is a reason for concern for parents smoking cigarettes in cars with children. I know you want to play devils advocate but your on the wrong side.

The straw man issue I saw you wrote about it.

Please you did write about using real kids in a real time study.

Could you please explain this? What kind of study would that be again. I am asking you for the details.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

That Harvard study is about how bad it is as far as I read.
__________
Boston, MA – Secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) can have harmful effects on children.
__________
Seems like they are painting no rose garden.
Boston, MA – Secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) can have harmful effects on children. Some of the adverse health outcomes include a greater likelihood of ear infections, lower respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome and severity of asthma symptoms. It is estimated that 35% to 45% of children are regularly exposed to SHS from adults using tobacco in homes and cars. To date, there has been little research on SHS in cars.
In the first study to measure SHS in cars in real driving conditions, Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers have shown that smoking in cars can produce unsafe levels of SHS. Even with the driver’s window slightly open, mean respirable suspended particles (RSP) concentrations hit levels rated “hazardous” by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the study, concentrations of 272 µg/m3 were measured, with a peak level of 505 µg/m3. In comparison, the EPA’s air quality index rates concentrations of more than 40 µg/m3 as “unhealthy for sensitive groups,” such as children and the elderly, and more than 250 µg/m3 as “hazardous” for the general population. The results showed that smoking a single cigarette for just five minutes could produce potentially harmful RSP levels. Given the levels the researchers observed, SHS in cars poses a potentially serious threat to children’s health.
The authors hope that their findings will encourage renewed efforts to promote smoke-free environments for children both in cars and homes. The study will be published in the November 2006 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine and is available online now at
I read this it has nothing positive for smokers.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releas...

Read the actual study, not the press release.

The press release dwells on the most extreme and hyperbolic aspects of the smoke levels -- in other words, the closed-window levels.

They're no better than shills for anti-tobacco groups when they misrepresent the studies like that.

Go back and follow that link you posted, the one that goes to the ACTUAL study. Look at figure 1, and hopefully it will sink in.

Windows down.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Non Cas Fan... Yes I see the diversion tactic. Throw it off to cell phones.
Go steart a thread on Cell phones and their hazards.
This is about. We are not talking about Cellphones.<excerpted>

If you don't want this subject to divert to ALL other things that are unhealthy for children, then use a better argument than "err on the side of children's health".

Because if THAT is the basis for your argument, you open yourself to all other things.

I hope you get my point. I do not wish to divert to cell phones.

I *do* wish for you to provide a better basis for your position.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Linda... I would rather be wrong and not have people smoke in cars with chldren in them then to be on your side.

fine and dandy, thats your own thoughts and choice but keep your dam nose out of other peoples business, you do it your own way and all others will do the same. Just because you think something does not make you right nor does it give you authority.

In other words butt out, people can think for themselves and act accordingly. You are just not smart enough to be the keeper of the worlds family decisions

First off Linda this is not about you. I dont think there is any hope for your kids you just kill them with your smoke. Go on and be happy with yourself. Your children are a lost cause.
Because your their mom.

I will continue to err on the side of children.
All the time. Sorry. Your in the wrong here. We are focusing on this topic. Dont run off on another topic. There are alot of dangers out there that children are exposed to but Non Cas Fan we care concentrating on this.

And as far as Kentucky growing Tobacco. I think there will be plenty of market for people like Linda and your friends Non Cas Fan that like you said are dying from their habit of smoking.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

<excerpted>
The straw man issue I saw you wrote about it.
Please you did write about using real kids in a real time study.
Could you please explain this? What kind of study would that be again. I am asking you for the details.

Again?
Did you not read it the times I've posted it?

Here's from July 11th:
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TNJ...

Here's some from July 9th, right after you created your straw man argument:
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TNJ...

http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TNJ...

http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TNJ...

And the more recent version, where I answered your concern about the kids of smokers being disqualified since they are already exposed:
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TNJ...

And if from reading all this you still don't understand the time frame involved, I will refer you to the Rees study. All that it needs is to follow those same guidelines for exposure times.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

<excerpted>
I will continue to err on the side of children.
All the time. Sorry. Your in the wrong here. We are focusing on this topic. Dont run off on another topic. There are alot of dangers out there that children are exposed to but Non Cas Fan we care concentrating on this.

Then you need a better basis for your argument. The emotional appeal is inadequate, and lends itself to tangential inclusions, such as cell phones.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

And as far as Kentucky growing Tobacco. I think there will be plenty of market for people like Linda and your friends Non Cas Fan that like you said are dying from their habit of smoking.

But I don't WANT them to die from their habit. Nobody should.

And not all of them will, I know this.

But some of them will, the scientific evidence bears this out; and that bothers me.

If the science didn't show that having the windows open would reduce the pollutant levels, then I'd be arguing differently.

Nobody lights their fireplace without first opening the flue. Why is that? To allow the smoke to exit the building, of course. Why? Because breathing smoke is not healthy, especially in the concentrations that you'd get with the flue closed.

It's the same in cars. Open the windows, open the sunroof, let the smoke exit the vehicle.

Tobacco Kills wrote:

I dont think there is any hope for your kids you just kill them with your smoke.

Proof please that I kill them with anything, including smoke...put up or shut up. You made that claim now back it up

Tobacco Kills wrote:

Sorry. Your in the wrong here.

on whose authority

NCF you are a saint for trying the impossible, teaching a too stupid person anything that starts and ends with common sense and reason :-)