[mostasteless]

Originally Posted by smoger

heres some key quotes i found about second hand smoke..

"Secondhand smoke IS ESTIMATED TO causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year."

"The American Lung Association reported that 20% of the population is at risk of developing lung disease from second hand smoke."

The data you cite was attained from a study by the EPA and the results have been challenged by the Congressional Research Service for the methods used in attaining the data, here is there repot:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

Some of the problems they address are:
1)their results were announced before the study was completed.
2) The results were attained through meta analysis. My girlfriend ( a bioligy major) explained to me the problem with that. Basically with meta analysis you take the findings of other studies and puts them together, so if any of the studies are inaccurate it will throw off the entire study, also in doing a meta analysis you can pick and choose the studies that will alter your findings to what you want them to be.
3)The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies. As you may know questionaires are one of the most inaccurate wasy to perform a study, and this is multiplied by the fact that many of the questionnaires were filled out by surrogates making the information second hand and even more inaccurate.
4) the largest study they used in their meta analysys was the Fontham study which at the time was still incomplete. When the study was completed it showed a small increase in risk that the CRS referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant."
5)The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level(the standard used in evaluating the results of a study).
6) To meet their already announced statistic of 3000 deaths the EPA had to double their margin of error.
7) The relative risk shown by the EPA's results was 1.19 (thats where the 20% number came from). A relative risk factor of less than 2.0 is usually said to be insignifigant and due to error or bias.

Also
In 1998 Judge William Osteen after reviewing the EPA's report declared it null and void; Judge Osteen record shows he more often than not sides with the government is tobacco cases and in 1997 ruled in favor of the EPA and their right to regulate tobacco. Two of the reasons he declared the study inaccurate are as follows:
1)"The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."
2) he also stated "there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."

the complete ruling can be found here: http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafr...les/osteen.htm

Originally Posted by smoger

"Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS 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."
"Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS 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."

"Only 15% of smoke is inhaled by the smoker. The other 85% goes directly into the air to be inhaled by nonvoluntary nonsmokers."

Did these finding come from the same report? I did not read it (it's something like 600 pages). If not please show me where the data came from.

Originally Posted by smoger

"Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6

Thats a nice fact to know but how does it support your argument, becides saying "see everyone else is doing it"

Originally Posted by smoger

Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers."

What does this prove becides the fact that smokers are harming THEMSELVES by smoking. I am also curious to know if absenteeism in non smokers also decreased

Originally Posted by smoger

its different, because the music is PART OF THE REASON everyone goes to a club or concert or what have you.

And some people go to these places to relax, have a drink, a smoke and listen to music.

Originally Posted by smoger

employees at these types of places, like i said before, wear earplugs more often than not.

The effectiveness of normal ear plugs (not those big ones that cover your entire ear) if I remember correctly is sonething like 10dB drop max, if a band is playing at a bar the noise level is over 100dB; 100-10=90....still in the unsafe range but a big improvement. So explain to me why a big improvement is ok in this case but not when it comes to second hand smoke (see my previous post advocating the stricter regulations on air quality for ALL places of business).

Originally Posted by smoger

and remember,.. the main push of this is to protect employees of these places. tho it is great for everyone

I think I have addressed this enough in this thread and I'm tired of typing.