I suspect that Thunder Bay, Ont. is a targeted city for these
anti-smokers(child abuse etc.)

Please respond to this anti-smoker letters@chroniclejournal.com

In response to Cynthia Callard regarding Children and Second-Hand Smoke
(SHS)

It is difficult to characterize a web-site that provides estimated
information for Canada based on "estimated information" from the U.S as
accurate and meaningful.

The note at the bottom of the table outlining the effect of SHS on kids says
" the number of Canadian cases is extrapolated from U.S. estimates provided
by Joseph diFranza and Robert Lew, in "Morbidity and Mortality in Children
Associated with the Use of Tobacco Products by Other People," Paediatrics,
1996, 91:560-568"

http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-Hand-Smoke/health_kids.htm

Exactly when did estimates based on estimates become acceptable science?

I need look no further than the statistics provided for the effect of
maternal smoking / SHS on the incidence of SIDS which "estimates" somewhere
between 180 - 270 Canadian babies are predicted to die of SIDS "caused" by
maternal smoking / SHS smoke exposure.

Your website provides information related to the prevalence of smoking in
Canada from 1965 - 2005 at this link
http://www.smoke-free.ca/factsheets/pdf/prevalence.pdf

It states that 1990 to 2000, the prevalence of smoking in Canada for all
fertile woman between the ages of 15 to 44, showed no appreciable change
from 29.6 % in 1990 to 29.3 % in 2000.

At the same time, the actual SIDS rate dropped from 382 to 88 children in
2000. That is a drop in 73 % with no appreciable change in the smoking
prevelance of fertile woman. This astounding success is actually credited
to the "Back to Sleep" campaign that started in 1990 and continues to this
day.

The last available information shows that only 62 babies out of
approximately 330,000 live births, died with a diagnosis of SIDS in 2003.

Please explain why asthma, allergy and autism rates have all increased
exponentially for the last generation of Canadian children? Or how sterile
smoke can "causes" diseases known to be caused by viruses and bacteria?


Michelle Gervais
Director- Media Relations
Citizens for Civil Liberties



Letter to the Editor..Dec.19/06 The Chronicle Journal
letters@chroniclejournal.com

TRY THESE SOURCES

Re: "Children can be harmed by more than second-hand smoke"--letter, Dec.
15

I was sorry to read that Thomas Laprade finds the material on our website
(www.smoke-free.ca) to be "hysterical and full of "exaggerated claims" with
respect to the harms of exposing children to second-hand smoke.

Perhaps the information will be more credible to him if it comes from
government websites.
The Health Canada website
(www.gosmokefree.ca) warns [1] that:
* Babies who breathe in second-hand smoke have a higher risk of dying
from
sudden infant death syndrome(SIDS) or crib death.
* Babies and children exposed to second-hand smoke have more frequent
lower
respiratory tract problems, such as coughs, pneumonia, bronchitis and croup.
* Children who are exposed to second-hand smoke are more likely to
develop asthma and they will suffer more from it than children of
non-smokers who have asthma.
* Second-hand smoke increases the number of ear infections in children.
* Many parents don't realize that second-hand smoke may harm their
child's
behaviour and ability to think things through (cognition). Recently studies
have shown that children who were exposed to tobacco smoke scored lower on
tests than children who were not.

The most recent estimates provided by Health Canada [2[ concluded that in
1998 there were 1,870 deaths that were caused by second-hand smoke, of which
151 were to children under one year of age.
Happily we can expect that this number is now much lower. Since those
calculations were made, Canadians have increasingly made their homes
smoke-free, and more and more parents are non-smokers. As a result, we
expect that future studies will show a much lower number of children harmed
in this way.

It is very unfortunate that Mr. Laprade does not accept the direct
connection between
"increased risk" and harm. This link is well accepted in many aspects of
our lives.

For example, driving drunk increases the risk of having a car accident
(although not all drunk drivers have accidents), and is so "harmful' that it
is a criminal offence.
Allowing disease-causing organisms in drinking water increases the risk of
disease (although not all people who drink the water will become sick), and
is considered so harmful that governments or individuals who fail to protect
the water supply are considered negligent.

Similarly, exposing children to second-hand smoke increases the risk of
children having asthma, ear infections, respiratory problems and other
health challenges, (even though not all children who inhale second-hand
smoke will be made sick by it). Smoke free homes are considered an essential
part of good parenting.

Cynthia Callard
Executive Director
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada

[1]
http://www.hc-sc.gc/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/second-guide/effects-effets-e.html

[2] Mortality attributable to Tobacco Use in Canada and its regions, 1996".
Makomaski Illing EM, Kaiserman M.J. Can J Public Health. 2004
Jan.Feb:95(1):38.44.

Isn't that something how none of the lung groups say smoking or SHS is a cause of asthma, but every little anti-tobacco goon implies it.

There will always be something that "increases risk" by 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 200%.

In a world where government ensues to prevent these risks, they'll simply still exist, even to a greater degree.

As long as people have children, there will always be some hypothetical child being thrown in front of some hypothetical harm.

These marginal risks are inevitable. If you took every 50% percent risk that has already been recognized, and just froze things there somehow, and eliminated all of them, other 50% risks would simply appear, ad infinitum. This is in the face of the human lifespand being longer than it has ever been. The consideration that people of earlier times died earlier and couldn't have cared less are never considered. If we all had a government appointed "guardian angel" to modify all "destructive behavior" 24/7, the same risks would exist.

The problem with this argument of marginal risk is that it doesn't go away.

The greater problem is that it contributes to a psychologically unhealthy trend; the lack of understanding of, and the increasing fear of, death.

There's no way around it; we're gonna die. Whatever force put us here or whatever force punched us out into this thing called life demanded that these are the terms of being here in the first place. Death is natural. It's not the worst thing.

Fear, on the other hand, sucks. One is inevitable. The other is not and allows for things that marginalize that fear, whether they be music, enjoying a smoke, making love, writing a poem, or howling at the moon, if that's your thing.

I choose life on my terms. It's my life, so I understand them better than anyone else can. I'm not particularly concerned how great someone else felt doing differently.

Snowbird, let's face it, we're screwed. Cigarettes? Who gives a crap. It's like saying a great society ended on the issue of peanut butter. It's a force created by people, but now outside people and running strong by itself, that we're trying to fight.

Anti-smokers think that the whole issue is the relevancy of the peanut butter. They think the detriment caused by the peanut butter is undeniable and that is the whole issue. People trying to fight this issue are accused of commiting the crime of liking peanut butter too much. It's just so dumb in the face of the greater consequences.

It's late, I'm tired and I'm rambling . Here anti-smokers; if you're so upset about the cigarettes, please just fucking take them. I don't care. How, though, do I get you stop serving this beast you're serving? What do you want?

Anti-smokers are asswipes. No, that's not right. People who devote their life to the cause of human worry are asswipes. Get a pet or something.