Secondhand Smoke Affecting Millions of New Yorkers (exposed on sidewalks, etc)

[The Straight Story]

Secondhand Smoke Affecting Millions of New Yorkers

THURSDAY, April 9 (HealthDay News) -- More than half of New York City residents who do not smoke have elevated levels of the residue of secondhand smoke in their blood, says the city's health department.

And that suggests that nonsmokers in the city -- a number the city estimates at 2.5 million people -- are not adequately protected from cigarette smoke, it says.

....

"The study provides more evidence of the pervasiveness of secondhand smoke," Jennifer Ellis, a former health department epidemiologist and the study's lead author, said in a news release from the city. "It's not clear why New Yorkers experience more exposure, despite the city's relatively low smoking rate. It may be that living and working in close quarters with one another puts us at higher risk."

Despite the city's smoking restrictions, nonsmokers are still exposed to secondhand smoke on sidewalks, including near buildings, at bus stops and at subway entrances.

Also, people who live in apartments and condominiums might also be exposed to secondhand smoke that drifts from one unit to another in a building, according to Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, a professor at Harvard Medical School.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/04/09/hscout625933.html

[Texasgal]

1. Mines poppin' already...

:popcorn:

[onehandle]

2. Only a matter of time before there are citywide bans on smoking in places like NYC.

:nopity:

[Fuzz]

3. Give me second. Let me get some popcorn.

Sheesh. NYC? All those cars, buses, taxis, construction equipment, who the hell knows what else.

I'll just sit back and watch now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Huge "So What?" To That One.

Oooooohhhhh, they have traces of a harmless chemical in their blood. Oh noes!!!

Show me a study saying that half of them are at increased risk of lung cancer or other ailments, and then back it up with proof, and I'll then think about giving a rat's fat ass about it.

[The Straight Story]

11. Just the next step in their battle

Folks predicted this sort of thing years ago. Just smoke outside and we will be ok they said. Suuuuure....

[Occulus]

39. They also lied about smoking in one's own home

Check out CA- no smoking in your own home in some places if the wall shares a wall with another unit.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. Yeah, because the vehicle exhaust fumes are harmless.

:eyes:

[Bandit]

38. Since we are throwing in strawmen lets say how guns are not dangerous either.

The United States of America has officially said through it's US Surgeon General that there is "No risk free exposure to secondhand smoke" I know most here don't care what the United States Government has to say about anything but I doubt such a statement would not only be made but be broadcast daily as advertisment on radio, if there was not sufficient evidence to back it up..Your children and grandchildren are at risk if exposed to secondhand smoke. There are many here that feel if a person steps onto their land they are at risk and have the right to shoot such a person. At what level of perceived risk does self defense kick in?

[Hello_Kitty]

41. WTF?

My comment about vehicle exhaust is not a strawman because the danger of breathing exhaust can be easily substantiated. And if it was then your comment about shooting people would definitely qualify as one too (in addition to being weird and creepy).

"The United States of America has officially said through it's US Surgeon General that there is "No risk free exposure to secondhand smoke" I know most here don't care what the United States Government has to say about anything but I doubt such a statement would not only be made but be broadcast daily as advertisment on radio, if there was not sufficient evidence to back it up."

I'm sure the U.S. Government wouldn't have told us there were WMDs in Iraq without sufficient evidence to back it up. Oh wait.... In the case of secondhand smoke I'm sure it's true that there's "no risk free exposure", but that statement tells you NOTHING about what the actual risk is and how dire it is in comparison to, say, exposure to vehicle exhaust or industrial pollution.



"Your children and grandchildren are at risk if exposed to second hand smoke."

Is that supposed to tug on my emotions? Too bad. I am childfree.

[frazzled]

6. I was in New York the other week

And two young women were walking after work when a driver lost control and rammed up onto the sidewalk, killing one of the young women, who was pregnant.

I don't need to finish this story.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. But was someone on the sidewalk SMOKING near her??!? eom

[panader0]

7. If I was walking down a New York City street

I would worry a lot more about car fumes than tobacco.

[The Straight Story]

12. Next study will show smoking online travels the net and affects people too

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

8. All that, despite the low smoking rate.

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

29. Nicotine is in tomatoes, potatoes, and eggplant. I wonder if they accounted for that.

[MADem]

10. Oh boy, a smoking thread!!!

I would rather run the gauntlet of smokers on the sidewalk than have to deal with the stinking, filthy air caused by vehicle exhausts in NYC. That air would still be full of unhealthy crap, and taking away the smokers is like putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

New York has a distinct "stink" to it, and it doesn't smell like cigarettes.

Who wants popcorn?

[Hannah Bell]

13. Smoking rate has plummeted in New York City

New York City’s smoking rate has plummeted since a comprehensive program against smoking was launched in 2002, according to findings issued today in the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). The 2006 rate was nearly 20% lower than the 2002 rate -- a decline that represents 240,000 fewer smokers. The City’s rate for 2006 is the lowest on record (17.5%), and lower than all but five U.S. states (California, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Connecticut). Over the past year, smoking decreased among men (from 22.5% to 19.9%) and among Hispanics (from 20.2% to 17.1%). These large declines followed a year-long ad campaign aimed at prompting more smokers to quit. The new report is available online at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/.


17.5% & concentrated in lower income groups.

But New Yorkers are "constantly" being "assaulted" by dangerous second-hand smoke.

Right.

Waste of research money.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

25. I would like to travel in the future ( 2109?)

and see what the Secondhand Smoke rate are like... that is if no one in N.Y. smoked.











Of course I'm STILL waiting to see the flying cars.

[Egnever]

34. See the flying cars!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/weekinreview/12vinciguerra.html

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

36. Thanks...First I thought about the Jetsons, then The Fifth Element (1997) came in mind

also








have you noticed how old Bruce Willis looks today?

[Hello_Kitty]

43. Not really. I totally get it now.

Since smoking is now concentrated among lower income groups, these studies are being used to justify punishing poor people. Watch for even more taxes on cigarettes to be implemented. After all, the servants and cooks are assaulting the lungs of the good godly stock traders with their secondhand smoke! :sarcasm:

[nonconformist]

14. Oh good grief...

:eyes:

[rwheeler31]

15. Cya

[Warpy]

16. While it's unpleasant to run a gauntlet of smokers

going down a city street, it is vastly preferable to being exposed in a closed space. The former doesn't set off my asthma. The latter does.

It stinks, but I'm a big girl and since I've been a nurse for 25 years, I've certainly smelled worse.

As long as y'all set fire to those things outside, we'll get along fine.

[walldude]

17. Man this smells like bullshit to me...

"It's not clear why New Yorkers experience more exposure, despite the city's relatively low smoking rate. It may be that living and working in close quarters with one another puts us at higher risk."

Gee, "it's not clear" yeah of course it's not clear, because it's bullshit.

Why don't they just stop fucking around and outlaw cigarettes? I gotta tell you, between all these bullshit reports, the insane tax increase and people telling me where and when I can smoke is not doing anything to make me want to quit. If anything it's doing quite the opposite, bringing out the rebellious teenager in me. I'll quit when I'm good and fucking ready, not when I'm forced to or priced out of it.

[joshcryer]

30. I find it highly unlikely that the nicotine in the systems of these people is all because of smoke.

The nightshade family of plants has a lot of nicotine and it's likely that the stuff is just floating around in the darn air all on its own. It's a natural drug.

[Individualist]

42. Me too

If secondhand smoke were as harmful as the fanatics insist, no one from the 30's, 40's and 50's would still be around.

[doctor jazz]

18. That does it, I'm moving to the fucking moon.

:silly:

[1]

19. yeah, i'd worry about second hand smoke in nyc...

[The Straight Story]

20. Indeed, that pic you posted shows how all that smoke chokes the city

:rofl:

[Politicalboi]

21. With all the Asbestos

In the WTC they are now concerned about second hand smoke? Oh please. NY get your priorities in place and find out why 3 buildings fall due to fire before you go on blaming secondhand smoke for people ailments. What a waste of time. Money is better spent helping the victims of 9/11 who were exposed to Asbestos and the state of NY knows this. Where are the studies of the firemen, EMT's and just people walking through the cloud of Asbestos? Where is the funding for them? Oh we need to do a study of secondhand smoke.

[Liberal In Texas]

22. The anti-smoking Nazis have lots of money for these studies.

It's a movement to make smoking illegal one small step at a time.

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Money they got from smokers.

What I want to know is, when every smoker finally quits, where they are going to get the money to fund all the programs they use cigarette taxes to fund.

[Odin2005]

23. I'm pro-INDOOR smoking bans but this is completely stupid.

I'll bet $100 that car exhaust is more dangerous then outdoor 2nd-hand smoke.

[The Straight Story]

24. I posted a thread with a study about that today (was not in US papers though...)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5436407&mesg_id=5436407

[joshcryer]

26. Personally, I was always a "nice" smoker, always avoided people, and kept to myself.

Unless I was around someone else who was also smoking. Walking down a crowded sidewalk with a cigarette is extremely rude, imo.

[Midwestern Democrat]

35. In most towns/cities I would agree, but having been to NYC, it's very

difficult to find a non-crowded area to light up in many parts of Manhattan.

[Renew Deal]

27. Smokers should be given to the pirates

:hi:

















:evilgrin:

[dem629]

28. Why don't people get addicted to second-hand smoke?

Just askin'.

[The Straight Story]

31. They do, that is why they went to bars that allowed smoking instead of bars that didn't

:rofl:

[Seldona]

32. LOL

Moral crusaders are a hoot, especially with articles as stupid as this. LIVING will kill you. Get over it.

[Political Heretic]

33. I quit smoking but god there are times when I want to start again just to do this:

[NashVegas]

45. You Don't Need to Smoke To Do That

In fact, it's even more fun to tell them where to take it this way.

[Hugin]

37. So, a bunch of people lied on a survey about not doing a socially stigmatizing thing they do...

No surprise.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. Ya think? I basically give very little credence to studies based on voluntary surveys.

People lie on them. Even anonymous ones.

[DainBramaged]

40. Like breathing NYC air isn't bad enough, ya gotta pick on smokers.....

:wtf:

[Joe Fields]

44. and what are their levels of vehicle exhaust, as well as other

carcinogens from living in a big city? Tell me, what all should we ban and where to begin?

Truthfully, there is not one documented case of second hand cigarette smoke being the cause of cancer in anyone. Can the same be said of people that live near nuclear power plants, or coal fired plants? Or chemical factories and other businesses?

This really is a non story.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

46. Why were these people being tested for cotinine?

Was it specifically for the study, or were their test results provided to the agency to use to compile their data? Usually it's a test that's required for health insurance purposes. People often lie about being a smoker when they're applying for insurance since it is a reason for denial or increased premiums.

It's something to consider.