So it wasn’t the floor seats at 1970s rock concerts that hurt my hearing; it was the guy next to me lighting up?
According to a new study in the Archives of Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery,
Anil K. Lalwani, M.D., and colleagues from NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City examined the risk factors for sensorineural hearing loss, including secondhand smoke (SHS), among adolescents, stratified by demographic groups. They included 1,533 individuals from 12 years to 19 years of age who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2005 to 2006. Participants were interviewed about their health status and family medical history, exposure to SHS, and self-recognition of hearing impairment. In addition, they underwent a physical examination, including blood testing for cotinine (a by-product of nicotine exposure), and hearing tests.
Compared with teens who had no SHS exposure, those who were exposed to secondhand smoke exhibited higher rates of low- and high-frequency hearing loss. The rate of hearing loss appeared to be cumulative, increasing with the level of cotinine detected by blood tests. The results also demonstrated that more than 80 percent of participants with hearing loss did not realize they had impairment. [Emphasis added]
Note that the teens apparently weren’t asked about how much loud music they listened to through their headphones. Perhaps Dr. Anil Lawani has never heard of an iPod.
What I’ve noticed about secondhand smoke after all these years is that it seems to turn well-educated people into dopes. Billionaire Ken Langone must be very proud of how NYU and Dr. Lawani are putting his name and money to use.
Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples. “For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published “danger” threshold. “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required. “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. “At the lower end of the scale– in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger. “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour? “Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room — a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we’ve been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible. “It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat.”
ANy questions ?
A standard alcoholic drink, will release into the air, in one hour, as much Class A carcinogen to equal 2,000 cigarettes!
By the pseudo scientific standards of the Passive Smoking hysteria, ALL cooking, food and drink would have to be banned in public places too!
Using the same methodology, drinking a glass of whole milk every day, was found to increase the risk of lung cancer to 3 TIMES that of passive smoking but this was deemed to be too small to be of any significance!
NO fatality from SHS has ever been scientifically proven. After many years of being asked for ‘names and dates’ of just a few of the many ‘thousands’, no health authority
in the world has produced even ONE, that has stood up to scrutiny!
The Passive Smoke lie Rule came from the Other NAZI Hippocrite :ADLOPH Hitler… Ring any Bells ?
dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
Oe distinctions; discernment.
3.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:
* harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;
* retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
* employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and
* denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.
The Smoking Ban is Flat out DISCRIMINATION PERIOD
But there is NO BAN ON ALCOHOL..hmmmmmm that makes no sense to me….
A new study finds that among 44,000 U.S. drivers involved in fatal single-vehicle car crashes between 1998 and 2009, 25% tested positive for drug use. The most common drugs were marijuana, cocaine and amphetamines.
It’s not clear whether drugs caused the accidents. The connection might make sense intuitively, but there isn’t much data on the impact of drug use on traffic deaths, according to the new study in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, which sought to clarify the link.
“The suspicion is there, because when you look at drivers who’ve been in fatal crashes, the percentage using drugs is a good deal higher,” said study co-author Robert B. Voas of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Md., in a statement.
MORE: Driving While Buzzed: No Amount of Alcohol Is Safe Behind the Wheel
Analyzing data from the national Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the researchers found that drivers in a quarter of crashes studied tested positive for drugs and 37% had blood-alcohol levels higher than the legal limit of 0.08. About 58% had no alcohol in their systems.
Now Tell me Passive Smoke does this Too …
From the World Health Organization:
More
I can tell this Comopany who did this SURVEY works fro the SURGEON GENEARL OF NYC MR BLOOMIE
What about the Millions of Gallon of JET FUEL being dumped in the oceans,waterways,Farmlands,People Homes when these FUEL EATING Birds dump it before landing ? No KEROSENE Does not EVAPORATE Like GAS DOES……Ive been on the ocean many times and seen sheens for miles on end,And yes It is JET FUEL
Yes,and I say i’d rather be near a SMOKER than any DRUNK
Wow! It seems to be safer to BE a amoker than to be WITH a smoker!
Rank amateurs. Don’t they know that what the world – well, Al Gore at least – needs right now is a true “researcher” to discover a link between hearing loss and Global Warming(TM)? Afer all, correlation is causality.
Health Organization (WHO) study which concluded “..secondhand smoking doesn’t cause cancer…” found online here.Excerpt:Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-officialBy Victoria Macdonald, Health CorrespondentThe results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: “There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.”And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal……prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 – 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.
Crawling culprit seen in urban kids’ asthma
Researchers have identified cockroaches as a potential explanation for dramatic variations between neighborhoods in asthma rates among New York City children.
In some New York City neighborhoods, 19 percent — nearly 1 in 5 — children have asthma; in others, the rate is as low as 3 percent.
Heavy traffic, industrial incinerators, and other outdoor air pollution sources have been blamed in the past as potential contributors to asthma differences across the city.
Now, researchers at Columbia University have found that children living in neighborhoods with high rates of asthma were twice as likely to carry antibodies against a cockroach protein in their blood, a sign the kids had been exposed to the insects and were likely allergic to them.
In addition, homes in the neighborhoods with high rates of asthma contained more of the allergen produced by cockroaches in household dust.
Hmmmm I thought passive smoke caused ASTHMA ?
Good one Bob…Perfect…ALL these anti smoking experts outta have fun with that one,trying to figure out if you were smoking or Not at the Time or maybe that passive smoke coing out of those 18 inch cannons did it
Maybe that’s why my kids never seemed to hear me, I smoked.
Nice to know that the fact that I smoked and folks around me smoked had more to do with my tinnitus and hearing loss than 26 years in and around Field Artillery units.