Town Square

Post a New Topic

County campaigns against secondhand smoke

Original post made on Apr 27, 2011

An estimated 4,000 people each year in California die from secondhand smoke, according to Santa Clara County Department of Public Health officials, who kicked off an ad campaign Tuesday to warn people about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 11:36 AM

Comments (9)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Litsa
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 27, 2011 at 11:51 am

What a sham and waste of resources. I'd like to see where Dr. Marty Fenstersheib got those numbers from. The real campaign should revolve around childhood obesity. People within the last 20 years have grown morbidly obese and continue to put a strain on healthcare system.
Walk by Starbucks and you'll see some smokers and you might catch a whiff of minimal toxins before you pass them by. Now walk into McDonald's and see how many morbidly obese children are eating their Big Macs and see where the real problems are.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Old Ben
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 27, 2011 at 1:55 pm

Where do those numbers come from? The whole "second-hand smoke" issue is bogus. BP murdered the Gulf Of Mexico and put Corexit into our food chain, TEPCO has us all soaking in radioisotopes, PG&E blew up a neighborhood in San Bruno, and I can't light a cigarette in a bar.

This fixation with cigarette smoking is ridiculous. It's time it stopped. One in five adult Americans smoke cigarettes. There has been absolutely no decline in respiratory ailments since this nonsense started back in 1985.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gene
a resident of another community
on Apr 27, 2011 at 7:25 pm

Those wondering "where those numbers come from" should get off their behinds and spend more time learning and less time bloviating. DHHS has a fine site, and the CDC has many entries on secondhand smoke science.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Zb
a resident of Gemello
on Apr 27, 2011 at 8:05 pm

If this was true, then I should of been dead a long time ago, as well as a lot of people I know. Both my parents smoked like chimneys inside the car, apartment and house. I'm 48 and I'm just fine. the problem with these statistics is that they can be manipulated to reflex whatever the person doing it wants.

Here is a site that has real facts.

Web Link

Jeanne Calment, who was listed as the world's oldest human whose birth date could be certified, died at 122. She had begun smoking as a young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said to her doctor: "Once you've lived as long as me, only then can you tell me not to smoke." Good point! [USA Today, "Way to go, champ," 10/18/95].

When Mme. Calment died at 122 in l997, the new longevity champ became 116-year-old Marie-Louise Meilleur, of Canada. Mme. Meilleur had chain-smoked all her adult life (as her grandson said, "She always had a cigarette dangling from her lips as she worked,"--AP, 8/15/97, reported in Miami Herald, p. 2A). She did give up smoking, however, when she was nearly 100.


Dr. Cybersteinb


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Old Ben
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 28, 2011 at 11:55 am

The CDC and DHHS are not in any way reliable sources of information. This entire "second-hand smoke" fraud has been perpetrated by focusing on one factor only in determining the cause of death in cardiopulmonary fatalities: whether the deceased lived with a smoker. Not one of these "studies" examined exposure to other environmental factors, diet, or lifestyle choices unrelated to smoking. The absence of any decline in respiratory illnesses since this charade began in 1985 clearly indicates that ambient cigarette smoke is not the problem.

Big Pharma wants a lock on nicotine delivery systems. It's that simple.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thom
a resident of Jackson Park
on Apr 28, 2011 at 6:11 pm

I agree with those that say this is a waste of time and there is absolutely no way they can prove it beyond any doubts. I say there are more pollutants in the air causing more health issues than second hand smoke. I get tired of their scare tactics and mis-information.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Smokedrift
a resident of another community
on Apr 30, 2011 at 12:37 pm

gene:

Why don't you just give us the referenced government pages that show how these numbers were derived?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gene
a resident of another community
on May 9, 2011 at 11:26 am

"smokedrift" said:

"Gene: Why don't you just give us the referenced government pages that show how these numbers were derived?"

No problem, lazybones. Here you go:

Surgeon General: Web Link

CDC: Web Link

National Institutes of Health: Web Link

PubMed: Web Link

Other sites with plentiful, authoritative info on SHS:

* The World Health Organization
* The U.S. National Cancer Institute
* The United States Environmental Protection Agency
* The California Environmental Protection Agency
* The American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and American Cancer Society
* The American Medical Association
* The American Academy of Pediatrics
* The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council
* The United Kingdom Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health

But then, I have the feeling that someone like you will flat-out reject all information that doesn't fit his agenda anyway. Am I right?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by gene
a resident of another community
on May 9, 2011 at 11:30 am

"old ben" sez,

"This entire "second-hand smoke" fraud has been perpetrated by focusing on one factor only in determining the cause of death in cardiopulmonary fatalities: whether the deceased lived with a smoker. Not one of these "studies" examined exposure to other environmental factors, diet, or lifestyle choices unrelated to smoking."

Utter ignoramus nonsense. Quit copy/pasting out of screwball pro-smoking websites.

As neatly summed up by a Federal Judge after a 6-year lawsuit:

"Evidence of the health risks of passive smoking is derived from many sources. It comes from knowledge of the health risks of active smoking, the carcinogenicity and toxicity of the components in mainstream and sidestream smoke, the evidence that nonsmokers absorb the disease-causing components of tobacco smoke, and epidemiological studies that have assessed the association of passive exposure to tobacco smoke with disease outcomes."


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Cho's, beloved dim sum spot, to reopen in Los Altos
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 5,836 views

Why I Became Active in Palo Alto Forward
By Steve Levy | 12 comments | 2,259 views

Early Decision Blues
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 1,846 views

Death with Dignity
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,038 views

With a Perspective....
By Ms. Jenson | 0 comments | 382 views