Ratty Test Rationale (from Washington Times)

By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H. Posted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005
EDITORIAL Publication Date: January 12, 2005

This article first appeared in the January 12, 2005 Washington Times:

Rodents are an insidious health threat -- but I am not talking about disease-carrying vermin. I am talking about rodents in our nation's most prestigious research laboratories. These animals, through no fault of their own, have been scaring us to death for 50 years while restricting our pursuit of an improved standard of living and longer, healthier lives.

A thicket of current federal and state laws and regulations (including Superfund, Proposition 65 in California, and Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration regulation of pesticides and food additives) assume a rodent is a little man. Such laws substantially disrupt our nation's economic productivity (including diminishing our food supply) by banning any chemical that at high doses causes cancer in animals. This hasty practice poses a threat not only to our quality of life but also to our very lives and health.

Perhaps you remember some specific examples of government's attempts to ban useful chemicals (like the sweeteners cyclamate and saccharin) because at high dose they cause cancer in rats. Probably you recall the great Alar-apple panic of 1989 when actress-turned-toxicologist Meryl Streep and an activist environmental group (with the EPA's blessing) told us apples presented an "intolerable risk" of cancer in children because they were treated with Alar, which at high doses caused cancer in rodents. More recently, you may remember self-appointed consumer groups argued french fries were a cancer risk because frying high-starch foods produces a chemical called acrylamide, another rodent carcinogen.

But what you might not know is that the rodent-is-a-little-man premise now has spawned unprecedented increases in environmental regulation (purportedly to protect us from cancer) and has contributed substantially to the cost of most goods and services, insurance premiums, legal fees and federal taxes while reducing job opportunities and incentives for innovation. All this without offering any known public health benefit whatsoever.

For example, the so-called Delaney Clause, passed by Congress in 1958, requires the FDA to ban food additives causing cancer at any dose in any lab animal no matter how negligible the risk or what benefits might be lost. The EPA labels useful industrial and agricultural chemicals as "probable human carcinogens" -- subjecting them to regulatory extinction -- on the basis of just one high-dose rodent study. The result: safe and useful pesticides are being banned, depriving farmers of tools to keep our food supply plentiful. Similarly, environmental activists have long pushed to ban chlorine, a critical treatment to ensure water safety, because it is a rodent carcinogen.

What I call "mouse terrorism," the use of high-dose animal tests to justify the banning of industrial chemicals, rests on false premises:

--"To reduce cancer risk we must get rid of all cancer-causing chemicals." This is impossible. Animal carcinogens abound both in nature and man-made products. If we were to apply Delaney Clause standards to natural foods, we would have nothing left to eat.

--"No amount of carcinogens are safe." Not so. It is the dose that makes the poison. Trace levels of natural carcinogens don't harm us, nor does exposure to minuscule amounts of synthetic chemicals — parts per trillion of pesticide residues in food. Sunlight causes cancer, but not at moderate exposures.

--"But you can't reject animal cancer testing. Otherwise, we will just have to wait until cancer occurs in humans." No one is suggesting we abandon animal tests — just knee-jerk interpretations of them. We should evaluate the cancer-causing potential of man-made chemicals, such as pesticides, the way we do naturally occurring chemicals. If a chemical causes cancer in several animal species and has an effect at low and moderate doses as well as high doses, we should be prudent and set tolerance levels of exposure to that chemical — as the government does in wheat and corn for the naturally occurring carcinogen aflatoxin, which causes cancer in a full spectrum of animals. This common-sense approach is vastly different from the harsh regulatory approach taken with synthetic chemicals.

--"If we don't ban chemicals that cause cancer in animals, cancer rates will increase." Actually, just the opposite is true. Public health specialists are becoming increasingly outspoken in arguing that animal cancer tests are ineffective in predicting human cancer risk. Indeed, rat experiments do not even reliably predict cancer risk in mice — much less humans.

Let's end rodent terrorism before it further devastates our economy and way of life.

Elizabeth Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H., is president of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH.org, HealthFactsAndFears.com) and an editor of the new book "America's War on 'Carcinogens': Reassessing the Use of Animal Tests to Predict Human Cancer Risk," to be published later this month.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050111-083925-7283r.htm

Tulsa, OK - Despite falling short in its efforts to prevent passage of a new state tobacco tax hike on election day, Northeastern Oklahoma tobacco retailers have found strength in their new organization, the Tobacco Retailers Alliance (TRA).

The group is at work on drafting bylaws and future activities for a national organization serving all tobacco retailers, said Steve Bruner, a Tulsa smoke shop owner, and investment firm president who serves as the organization's spokesman and chairman of public affairs.

He said there are over 350,000 tobacco retailers in the U.S., most with several employees who are tax-paying good citizens.

"Add these up for a do-good small merchant organization," he says, "and you have a formidable organization giving strength to a unified industry supporting good public causes and giving our industry a voice for those true facts that politicians and others are likely to distort for lesser causes to our detriment."

To have the American Indians in policy-making and leadership positions, where it all began in Oklahoma, would be another plus, he added.

Joe Lane, a rancher and independent smoke shop owner, is president of the public education group, which was formed in August.

Lane and Bruner said the first job of the nonprofit educational group has been to lead a state-wide campaign to stop the continuing regressive taxation of tobacco products.

The alliance has embarked on a "good citizenship program of activities to support worthy state programs on behalf of several hundred members who run smoke shops for tobacco products in Oklahoma and bordering states," says Lane.

Bruner adds that there are much better ways to raise public awareness of the need to discourage smoking and other potentially harmful tobacco uses. He feels that the majority of Oklahomans should say "No" to the use of tobacco and "No" to any new taxes freely without the State of Oklahoma passing a law that raises unneeded taxes.

TRA launched a "modest and truthful, unemotional campaign" to gain support in its effort to defeat State Question 713, but it was passed by voters on election day. It increases tobacco taxes as much as $8.00 on a carton of cigarettes and higher on other tobacco products.

The new group has retained veteran public relations executive and leader Dean Sims, founder and chairman of Tulsa-based Public Relations International, for counsel on association management and marketing communications.

http://www.smokeshopmag.com/1204/signals.htm

By Ed Edelson HealthDay Reporter

FRIDAY, Jan. 28 (HealthDayNews) -- Here's one more study that shows smoking is bad not only for the health of people who light up but also for those around them -- specifically, for children who breathe in their parents' secondhand smoke.

This research comes from Europe, and it finds that children exposed to secondhand smoke on a daily basis have more than triple the risk of lung cancer and an increased risk of other respiratory problems later in life than those who grew up in a smoke-free environment.

The report appears in the Jan. 28 online issue of the British Medical Journal.

While a number of previous studies have shown the same sort of risk, this one is different because "it is one of the few prospective studies in which information about exposure has been collected before information about the outcome," said study author Dr. Paolo Vineis, a professor of environmental epidemiology at Imperial College London.

It also included a large number of people, more than 123,000 in 10 European countries, who provided information on exposure to secondhand smoke and were followed for an average of seven years.

During that time, 97 people in the study had newly diagnosed lung cancer, 20 had cancers of the upper respiratory tract and 14 died of chronic obstructive lung disease or emphysema.

The increased lung cancer risk was the most striking -- 3.6 times greater for those whose parents smoked. That might seem a large number but, Vineis said, "most of these people are nonsmokers, and you have to put together a lot of people to detect a relatively small number of lung cancers."

Overall, the risk of all lung diseases was 30 percent higher for those exposed to secondhand smoke in childhood, the study found. Predictably, the risk was "consistently higher in former smokers than in those who never smoked," the report said.

The finding adds to the damage that secondhand smoke is known to inflict on children. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for 15,000 to 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in children each year, causing 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations. The EPA also blames secondhand smoke for as many as 1 million asthma attacks in children annually.

And secondhand smoke can be more immediately fatal to children. It is blamed for an estimated 1,900 to 2,700 cases of sudden infant death syndrome in the United States each year.

"Most countries are introducing laws about secondhand smoke exposure," Vineis said. Most recently, Italy has banned smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants. New York and other cities in the United States have similar bans.

Smoking at home cannot be banned. But "parents should avoid smoking at all times in the presence of their children," Vineis advised.

Dr. Norman Edelman, a consultant on scientific affairs for the American Lung Association, goes further. "If you must smoke, don't smoke in an indoor area that is shared by anyone else," he said.

One important finding of the new study is that the harmful effect of secondhand smoke is much greater in former smokers than nonsmokers, Edelman said.

"It gives credence to the idea that total exposure to smoke is a major determinant of damage," he said. "Basically, cigarette smoke is bad no matter how you take it in."

More information

The dangers of secondhand smoke are described by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/01/28/hscout523688.html

Reuters version: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7459257

 Abstract
Objective To determine the risk of lung cancer associated with exposure at home to the radioactive disintegration products of naturally occurring radon gas

Design Collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 case-control studies of residential radon and lung cancer.

Setting Nine European countries.

Subjects 7148 cases of lung cancer and 14 208 controls.

Main outcome measures Relative risks of lung cancer and radon gas concentrations in homes inhabited during the previous 5-34 years measured in becquerels (radon disintegrations per second) per cubic metre (Bq/m3) of household air.

Results The mean measured radon concentration in homes of people in the control group was 97 Bq/m3, with 11% measuring > 200 and 4% measuring > 400 Bq/m3. For cases of lung cancer the mean concentration was 104 Bq/m3. The risk of lung cancer increased by 8.4% (95% confidence interval 3.0% to 15.8%) per 100 Bq/m3 increase in measured radon (P = 0.0007). This corresponds to an increase of 16% (5% to 31%) per 100 Bq/m3 increase in usual radon—that is, after correction for the dilution caused by random uncertainties in measuring radon concentrations. The dose-response relation seemed to be linear with no threshold and remained significant (P = 0.04) in analyses limited to individuals from homes with measured radon < 200 Bq/m3. The proportionate excess risk did not differ significantly with study, age, sex, or smoking. In the absence of other causes of death, the absolute risks of lung cancer by age 75 years at usual radon concentrations of 0, 100, and 400 Bq/m3 would be about 0.4%, 0.5%, and 0.7%, respectively, for lifelong non-smokers, and about 25 times greater (10%, 12%, and 16%) for cigarette smokers.

Conclusions Collectively, though not separately, these studies show appreciable hazards from residential radon, particularly for smokers and recent ex-smokers, and indicate that it is responsible for about 2% of all deaths from cancer in Europe.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7485/223?ehom

Geoff Watts, science editor1

1 28 New End Square, London NW3 1LS BMJ geoffATscileg.freeserve.co.uk

The publication of a new collaborative study of the effect of domestic radon on the risk of lung cancer is a reminder that this is a hazard to be taken seriously. 1 Of course, health campaigners will rightly respond that radon gas, the cause of just under a tenth of deaths from lung cancer, is hardly in the same league as tobacco. That said, as a carcinogen worth tackling it does have one great "virtue." Unlike the perilous ingredients in materials that we choose to smoke, the threat posed by radon can be greatly reduced or even eliminated without a painful reliance on willpower or on the exercise of self denial. Unfortunately, the extent to which even the relatively pain-free remedies for dealing with it are actually applied is less then impressive.

The appropriate course of action will depend on the construction of the building and the level of radon to be dispersed. At the lower end of the scale, improving ventilation and sealing cracks in concrete floors may do the trick. With suspended timber floors the aim is to increase the flow of air beneath them—either passively through air bricks or by installing a fan. In houses with a concrete floor and higher radon levels it may be necessary to dig a sump—a small cavity beneath the floor—from which air is extracted, so removing any troublesome gas that might otherwise find its way into house.

Do these arrangements actually work? Passive systems are less effective and, although they have no moving parts to wear out, may still go wrong: airbricks blocked by vegetation, for example. Only a further radon test will reveal if there's been a failure. Active systems are better at removing the gas—but electric extractor fans don't last for ever. The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) has demonstrated their value 2 and also shown that fans reckoned to have a working life of no more five years may actually run for double that. 3 So even householders too negligent to examine their extractor fans more than once a year still have much to gain.

One form of negligence that's harder to overcome is a disinclination to do anything at all. A brief review of domestic radon published three years ago by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology made gloomy reading. 4 It reported estimates by NRPB that the gas significantly affects around 100 000 properties in Britain. Of householders whose radon was above the recommended action level (200 Bq/m3), only about 10% were actually tackling the problem. NRPB says it has no reason to believe that the figure has subsequently improved.

Why the poor showing? The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology identified four factors: a reluctance to do anything if the radon concentration is only slightly above the action level; a tolerance of "natural" radiation as opposed to its equivalent from the nuclear industry; inadequate access to reliable advice; and, of course, simple inertia.

Reflecting on his life's work, a distinguished radiation biologist once regretted that radioactivity was invisible. He'd always wished, he said, that he could paint it blue. Maybe our enthusiasm for home protection would get a boost if the gas percolating up through the floorboards had some equally eye catching colour.

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Darby S, Hill D, Auvinen A, Barros-Dios JM, Baysson H, Bochicchio F, et al. Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies. BMJ 2005;330: 223-6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Naismith SP, Miles JCH, Scivyer C. The influence of house characteristics on the effectiveness of radon remedial measures. Health Physics 1998;75: 410-6.[ISI][Medline]
3. Howarth C. Long term effectiveness of radon remedial actions. Environmental Radon Newsletter 2004;39: 4.
4. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Reducing radon risks in the home. www.parliament.uk/post/pn158.pdf (accessed 29 Nov 2004).

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7485/226?

P Vineis 1 1 Imperial College, London W2 1PG

Objectives To investigate the association between environmental tobacco smoke, plasma cotinine concentration, and respiratory cancer or death.

Design Nested case-control study within the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC).

Participants 303 020 people from the EPIC cohort (total 500 000) who had never smoked or who had stopped smoking for at least 10 years, 123 479 of whom provided information on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Cases were people who developed respiratory cancers or died from respiratory conditions. Controls were matched for sex, age (plus or minus 5 years), smoking status, country of recruitment, and time elapsed since recruitment.

Main outcome measures Newly diagnosed cancer of lung, pharynx, and larynx; deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or emphysema. Plasma cotinine concentration was measured in 1574 people.

Results Over seven years of follow up, 97 people had newly diagnosed lung cancer, 20 had upper respiratory cancers (pharynx, larynx), and 14 died from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or emphysema. In the whole cohort exposure to environmental tobacco smoke was associated with increased risks (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.95, for all respiratory diseases; 1.34, 0.85 to 2.13, for lung cancer alone). Higher results were found in the nested case-control study (odds ratio 1.70, 1.02 to 2.82, for respiratory diseases; 1.76, 0.96 to 3.23, for lung cancer alone). Odds ratios were consistently higher in former smokers than in those who had never smoked; the association was limited to exposure related to work. Cotinine concentration was clearly associated with self reported exposure (3.30, 2.07 to 5.23, for detectable/non-detectable cotinine), but it was not associated with the risk of respiratory diseases or lung cancer. Frequent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke during childhood was associated with lung cancer in adulthood (hazard ratio 3.63, 1.19 to 11.11, for daily exposure for many hours).

Conclusions This large prospective study, in which the smoking status was supported by cotinine measurements, confirms that environmental tobacco smoke is a risk factor for lung cancer and other respiratory diseases, particularly in ex-smokers.

(Accepted 23 November 2004)

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.38327.648472.82v1?

How to achieve consistency between the epidemiological studies and the monetary valuation

This paper examines the nature of the information provided by epidemiological studies of air pollution mortality and discusses how best to use it to value the changes in mortality. The frequently-used assessment of impacts in terms of number of deaths and their valuation using the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) is appropriate for epidemiological studies of the time series type, but they capture only a very small part of the total mortality impact of air pollution. This total impact has been measured in long term cohort studies, which only allow he calculation of the population-average loss of life expectancy (LLE). The paper shows why estimates of the total number of deaths that have been derived from cohort studies are wrong.  To value the total mortality impact of air pollution one needs to measure the willingness-to pay  for a gain in life expectancy. Such studies are only now beginning, in contrast to the numerous VSL studies in the literature.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/cpe/workingpapers/07-04.pdf

The Contra Costa County Tobacco Prevention Coalition decided Thursday to begin lobbying efforts aimed at making the proposed Casino San Pablo development smoke-free.

The Lytton Band of Pomo Indians is currently awaiting the Legislature's approval to begin expanding the casino — which is now a card room — to include 2,500 slot machines and other gaming activities on the current site.

As sovereign nations, American Indian tribes do not have to abide by certain laws, including California's smoke-free workplace law, unless an agreement is struck between the state or local government and tribe.

The San Pablo casino expansion worries health officials who say second-hand smoke already is adversely affecting the casino staff, which could grow by more than 3,000 people if the plans are ratified.

"The truth is, Casino San Pablo employees are being exposed right now," said Denice Dennis, program manager for Contra Costa Health Services Tobacco Prevention Project.

The project staffs the county's coalition, which is comprised of 19 different community groups and agencies.

Although the casino is exempt from the smoke-free law, coalition participants would like to see it be treated like every other workplace, bar or restaurant in the state.

"We feel that everyone who works should be protected and have clean air," said Theresa Boschert of the American Lung Association of the East Bay.

However, the decision on whether to go smoke-free is really up to the tribe, which often takes economics into consideration, said Kathleen Jack of the American Indian Tobacco Education Partnership.

Given that tribal casinos are a big economic resource for American Indians, from the business perspective, it's a scary step to take.

Local officials, though, may weigh in when municipal services agreements are drafted between the Lytton Band and the city of San Pablo and Contra Costa County.

The municipal services agreements will be negotiated once the compact — the tribe's agreement with the state that lays out the percentage of revenue it will receive and other provisions — is ratified by the Legislature.

County Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond, who represents San Pablo, said he intends to address the issue of smoking in the casino during the municipal negotiations.

While he said keeping the casino smoke-free would be the best health solution, Gioia recognizes the tribe may not favor it.

Douglas Elmets, a spokesman for the Lytton Band, said at this time, the casino plans to use a state-of-the-art ventilation system and designate smoke-free areas.

http://www.gamblingmagazine.com/ManageArticle.asp?C=280&A=13528

By JONATHAN BANDLER THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: January 29, 2005)

A 43-year-old homeless veteran fatally stabbed a fellow resident of the Gospel Mission men's shelter because the victim was beating him, the defendant's lawyer said at a bail hearing.

Defense lawyer Russell Seeman told a judge Thursday that a self-defense claim was likely for Neilasan Chung and that his client was anxious to testify before the grand jury that will hear the case. Yonkers police charged Chung with first-degree manslaughter on Dec. 22, the day Joseph Francis was killed.

"Mr. Chung was assaulted. He was not the initiator," Seeman said.

Seeman asked for $10,000 bail, but Westchester County Judge Joseph Alessandro set bail at $75,000 after the prosecutor questioned the defendant's ties to the area and disputed Seeman's account of the fatal altercation.

Chung, who is being held in the Westchester County jail, appeared in court with his left arm heavily bandaged. Seeman said that was a result of surgery he required because Francis had bent his fingers back so far that it fractured bones and tore ligaments in his hand.

Seeman said the fight began in the shelter's smoking area early that morning. He said his client was hit in the face by Francis and left the room a short time later. He said Chung returned with a cigarette and was attacked again by Francis, who grabbed Chung's fingers when he put his hands up to block the blows.

Chung pulled out a knife from his pocket and thrust it into Francis' abdomen as a last resort, Seeman said.

But Assistant District Attorney George Bolen said Francis had defensive wounds on his own hands. He questioned Chung's account in part because there were no other witnesses and because Chung showed a consciousness of guilt by wiping the knife blade and hiding it in a cabinet. Bolen suggested later that Chung might have left the room not to get a cigarette but to get the knife.

Bolen said the trouble between the two may have begun when Francis awoke one morning to find Chung groping him and tickling his feet.

Chung was returned to the county jail after the hearing. Seeman said that his client was not a flight risk, that Chung wanted to remain in the area so he could avail himself of treatment he gets at the VA hospital in Montrose for psychiatric problems he has had since his years in the U.S. Navy.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/012905/b0329shelterstab.html

Study of 30,000 counters claim Idea touted by few offended many

RICK WEISS THE WASHINGTON POST
WASHINGTON—There is no such thing as a "cancer personality," a new study concludes.

The study of nearly 30,000 Swedes counters the claim that people may be more likely to get cancer if they are angry, neurotic or otherwise unstable.

The idea of the "cancer personality" has been promoted by some psychologists and others and can be found in some alternative medical books and on websites.

One website, for example, says "lack of self-esteem, the need to people-please, frustrated self-expression, sexual repression, a conflicted mother-daughter relationship and other traits all are part of the breast cancer personality."

Such assessments have angered some doctors, patients and others because they seem to blame patients for their disease.

The new study looked for links between cancer rates and two commonly measured personality traits: extroversion, which relates to a person's need for interaction with others; and neuroticism, a measure of emotional instability.

Led by Pernille Hansen, of the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, the team reviewed decades-long health histories and personality data collected from 29,595 Swedes born between 1926 and 1958 as part of a twin registry that country maintains.

They tallied 1,898 cases of cancer in the group but found no association between those diagnoses and any pattern of neuroticism or extraversion.

The analysis, to be published in the March 1 issue of the journal Cancer and posted online last weekend, did not even find evidence that those personality traits were linked to risky behaviours, such as smoking, that might themselves increase one's odds of cancer. It also challenges the idea that personality traits are immutable over time.

The results affirm those of a Japanese study of more than 30,000 people, completed in 2003, that also found no link between cancer and personality traits.

That study concluded that the emotional instability sometimes seen in cancer patients is the result, not the cause, of the diagnosis.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_

Type1&c=Article&cid=1106779811542&call_pageid=970599119419

Ordinance Extends To Recreation Centers, Open Spaces

January 25, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO -- San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance Tuesday banning smoking in all city parks.

The simple act of lighting up a cigarette, if it's in a San Francisco park, will soon end up costing you several hundred dollars in fines.

Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier proposed the ban.

It extends to city parks, recreation centers and open spaces.

For one, she says second-hand smoke is dangerous, even outside.

"From the reports we've seen, being outside and near cigarette smoke is just as dangerous as being inside near cigarette smoke," she said.

And then there are the cigarette butts.

"We're clearly not able to clean-up all the garbage," she said. "They're four times as likely as any other kind of litter and they are a toxin to the environment."

But other supervisors felt the legislation was excessive.

"If it's indoors, I get it there are real impacts," said supervisor Aaron Peskin. "If it's outdoors, the affected party can move away, what have you. It's already illegal to litter … This feels pretty excessive."

Many smokers agree and some figure there should be a middle ground somewhere.

"I just think we could compromise a little bit more," said Scott Carpenter, a smoker. "Put ashtrays by park benches or maybe have designated smoking areas at least. We don't have to go too far and just ban everything."

The ordinance does make one exception, golf courses, because the operators of the city's course worried the ban would drive off pro-golf tours that bring in a large amount of money to the city.

  In Canada we don't have enough funding to do research, so we use the US  figures and methods.  This is why the 1992 EPA fraud has become a concern.  In that study they lowered the standard from 90% (gold) to 85% .   If people need an explanation on how these studies work go to the forces site as well.  150% isn't that large if you consider that errors are likely and not thouroughly accounted for by advocates.   I have looked at the explanation they give, and  many other sites as well.  They give the same methods on forces to explain  (what relative risk is, and  what to look for to see the crud in the study) reliabilty of studies, as government sites.

In "approved" survey's every person was considered exposed before 1970's.

http://www.nbc11.com/politics/4129836/detail.html

Do you agree with the ordinance banning smoking in all city parks, including recreation centers and open space? Choice Votes Percentage of 158 Votes Yes 62 39%     No 96 61%   Jan 29/05 7:21 pm est

more California

Jury selection begins in Fresno for murder, sexual-abuse case

San Francisco officials ban smoking from some outdoor spaces in city

State sues to block bill penalizing pro-choice legal stance

State to reap bounty for homeless

forums available

Liz Szabo Usa Today January 26, 2005

California's 15-year anti-smoking campaign has dramatically reduced the burden of disease in that state, health officials said Tuesday.

Californians voted in 1988 to raise cigarette taxes by 25 cents per pack, with 5 cents going toward tobacco education, research and other programs. The law went into full effect in 1990, says Kim Belshe, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency. California banned smoking in most workplaces in 1995, and expanded the ban to include bars in 1998.

State health officials marked the 15th anniversary of the anti-cigarette law by releasing statistics showing the dramatic results of the legislation and campaign:

California's lung and bronchus cancer rates, which were higher than the national average in 1988, have since fallen three times faster than rates in the rest of the country. Incidence rates for five other tobacco-related cancers - esophagus, larynx, bladder, kidney and pancreas - are also lower in California than the rest of the U.S., according to the health agency.

Since 1988, the number of adults who smoke has fallen from 23 percent to 16 percent, one of the country's lowest rates, according to the health agency.

High school smoking rates have fallen from 22 percent in 2000 to 13 percent in 2004, while middle-school smoking rates fell from 7 percent to 4 percent - rates that are far lower than the national average, according to the state health agency. More than 90 percent of California children today live in smoke-free homes.

"These kids represent the first generation of California youth to grow up in a state that is darn-near tobacco-free," Belshe says.

Terry Pechacek, a scientist with the Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says California's record of success should inspire other states.

In March, Rhode Island will become the seventh state to enact comprehensive workplace smoking ban, according to the American Lung Association.

Yet even California has never spent as much on anti-smoking campaigns as the CDC recommends, Pechacek says.

Many states have used money from the 1998 tobacco settlement to help balance budgets, rather than to pay for tobacco-control initiatives. According to a recent lung association report, states are slashing funds for tobacco control. Only five states spend about as much on tobacco control as the CDC recommends.

One of those states, Maine, which once had one of the highest youth smoking rates in the country, saw its middle-school smoking rate drop 59 percent from 1997 to 2003, according to the lung association. Research shows that each 10 percent increase in cigarette prices leads to a 7 percent decrease in youth smoking.

But Belshe notes that states are hard-pressed to keep up with cigarette advertising. California plans to spend $75 million this year on tobacco control. But the tobacco industry spends $35 million on marketing a day, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

Pechacek says states have a strong incentive to curb smoking. On average, each pack of cigarettes sold increases a state's Medicaid costs by $1.30. Tobacco causes 440,000 deaths a year and nearly $160 billion in medical costs a year.

http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050126/NEWS10/501260341/1024

`I could barely believe' knifing

Victim screamed, tried to cover face

Teen says killing took 90 seconds

LESLIE FERENC STAFF REPORTER

The first of the three teens charged with murdering a 12-year-old boy took the stand yesterday, casually recounting a harrowing tale of how Johnathan screamed before desperately trying to protect himself as his brother repeatedly stabbed him with a butcher knife.

"I didn't say or do anything," the pale 16-year-old said yesterday, testifying that from his vantage point at the top of the stairs, he could see Johnathan trying to protect his face and head with his hands as his brother plunged the knife into him over and over.

"I could barely believe what I was seeing," he told the jury yesterday, adding that his other friend was in the living room at the time of the attack. "I was shaking very violently and felt very nervous."

That's when the enraged brother, nostrils still flaring, his hands covered in blood, came back up the stairs with the knife ordering the teen to help him move Johnathan's body.

"I'd just seen (him) kill his little brother and I didn't think he'd think twice about killing me," the youth said when asked why he helped drag the boy's body over broken glass on the basement floor to a crawlspace under the stairs.

He testified he didn't have a part in the killing, didn't encourage his friend to do it, or even know it was going to happen.

And it was all over in about a minute and a half, he said of the killing, telling the jury the last thing he remembered before the attack was Johnathan rebuking the teens for trashing the house, saying he was going to tell his parents because he didn't want to be blamed for it.

The three teens have pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the Nov. 25, 2003 slaying. By law, they can't be identified. The other two youths have also pleaded not guilty to attempted murder for an attack on the stepfather of Johnathan and one of the accused.

After the slaying, the teen testified all he could think about was getting out of the house. On his way he encountered his friend's stepfather, angry that someone had been smoking inside. The teen said he apologized several times, telling him he was sorry and then slipped out the front door and ran away, later getting on a bus for home.

He said the two other teens eventually arrived at the same stop and got on the bus with him, but they didn't converse.

The teen said he didn't tell his father what had happened when he got home because he didn't want him "to freak out." Instead, he called a friend and relayed the gruesome tale. As he was leaving the apartment, the teen was shocked to find "people with shotguns. ... I was a little more than nervous," he told his lawyer David McCaskill yesterday. "I figured out they were police officers when they arrested me," he testified.

During his testimony, the teen said he and his buddies had skipped school that day and, while hanging around with the victim's brother at their home, decided to break beer bottles and otherwise trash the house.

Just before the ransacking began, the teen said he called his girlfriend and made up a story that he and his buddies were planning to kill his friend's families "and I was going to drink their blood," he testified. He said he "made it up" to impress her.

He tried even harder to impress her when she called him on his cellphone later that day. During that conversation, which the girlfriend secretly taped, all three teens bragged about the killing and how they were lying in wait for the family to come home.

In earlier testimony, court heard that the victim's brother admitted he killed Johnathan, but only remembered grabbing a butcher knife, pushing him down the stairs and stabbing him once. Evidence showed the boy had been stabbed 71 times.

The trial continues Monday.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_

Type1&c=Article&cid=1106953821998&call_pageid=970599119419