|
CANCER
11/21/02 <link>
More
data from CA showing smoking ban did not affect restaurant/bar proceeds
There is now more than enough evidence that the smoking ban in
restaurants that went into place in 1995 has not affected business
adversely - like the tobacco lobby wanted the world to believe. Field
polls also show that an overwhelming majority of restaurant and bar
owners in CA now welcome the smoking ban. Indeed, CDC
studies have also shown how California, where cigarette smoking
has dropped substantially has also seen the largest drop in lung cancer
rates compared to 5 other states and three metropolitan areas. It is
time for intelligent leaders in the rest of the country (like Michael
Bloomberg - see below) to stand up to the
criminals in the tobacco industry and outlaw smoking in enclosed public
places.
In response to the CA study above, here is what a tobacco
lobbyist said according to the Mercury News, "...Some
critics, like Tom Ryan, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, take issue
with California's statistics, however. Ryan said California hotels and
restaurants may be doing well because of factors unrelated to the
tobacco ban, and that some businesses that cater to clientele who smoke
may be struggling. He also said the ban strips business owners of their
personal freedoms...."
Mr. Ryan, here's our response to your B.S.:
(1) You and the tobacco industry are not allowed to keep changing your
story when you have been repeatedly proven wrong (and
evil).
(2) The bottomline is that restaurants and bars are doing well, in spite of
the smoking ban. That proves that the original argument made by people
like you was just PLAIN WRONG. Business WILL NOT plummet if smoking is
banned.
(3) As for personal freedom, you have the full freedom to die of lung
cancer on your own. Don't expect others must share in the death. As we said
before, this is not a
personal freedom issue - if it is, we should allow asbestos in buildings
whenever the builder prefers asbestos, or let polluters dump waste into
our water supply so as to not impact their "personal freedom"
and allow cars and SUVs to dump more pollution in the air to promote
their "personal freedom". Stop the B.S. and get on with your
life.
11/12/02 <link>
A
drink a day may increase breast cancer risk slightly
Risk is not dramatic but women should be aware of it.
10/23/02 <link>
Unusually high breast cancer rates in Marin County women
County near San Francisco has largely white women who are well-off, and they tend to have
higher breast cancer rates generally. Nevertheless, their breast cancer
rate is ~ 40% higher than the national norm, and the reasons are not
well understood.
Overall ~ 40000 women in the U.S. reportedly die of this disease every
year.
10/19/02 <link>
Michael
Bloomberg's anti-smoking push
Bill Keller writes favorably about N. Y. Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to ban smoking
in restaurants and bars in New York city. From our standpoint it is
about time. Keller points out that science and economics are actually in
favor of Bloomberg today. The arguments that bars/restaurants will lose
revenues has been debunked by California, which instituted such a ban
back in 1998. (There is a lot of research out there today showing that
banning smoking does not impact revenues - see this,
and this).
The third aspect Keller talks about is personal "liberty"
being encroached by such public smoking bans. He highlights this
argument with a quote from his friend John Lescroart, "...I
can smell a cigarette at 100 yards now, and I find it offensive. Even
though I would die for your right to smoke it..." Our view
is that the personal liberty argument here is baloney. People who want
to slowly die of cancer are free to do so on their own, but they cannot
possibly expect that exposing others to the high risk of that should be
a fundamental right! This is completely contrary to what rights and
liberties mean. What's next? Bringing back the right to line office
walls with asbestos?
10/02/02 <link>
Breast
self-exams may not always detect breast cancer
However, as stated below, mammograms are still
useful.
10/01/02 <link>
More
on the cell phone-cancer link (or the lack of it?)
This New York Times article quotes Dr. Robert Park of the American
Physical Society: "...'All known
cancer-inducing agents — including radiation, certain chemicals and a
few viruses — act by breaking chemical bonds, producing mutant strands
of DNA,' Dr. Park wrote. 'Not until the ultraviolet region of the
electromagnetic spectrum is reached, beyond visible light, beyond
infrared and far, far beyond microwaves, do photons have sufficient
energy to break chemical bonds. Microwave photons heat tissue, but they
do not come close to the energy needed to break chemical bonds, no
matter how intense the radiation'..."
9/30/02 <link>
Judge
kills analog cell phone-cancer link lawsuit
Cites insufficient evidence. Note that digital phones are expected to
have lesser radiation.
9/29/02 <link>
Cancer
from French fries/potatoes linked to heating of amino acid asparagine
with some substances like glucose
FDA apparently speeding up research on formation of cancer-causing
acrylamide.
9/18/02 <link>
Mammograms
are useful
Just do them right and compare them year over year
9/03/02 <link>
Likely
diesel link to cancer
Glad to see the EPA doing what it's supposed to
do.
Starchy
diet linked to pancreatic cancer
More data showing the deleterious effects of excess starch/carbs.
|
