Seitenindex umschalten Seiten: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Thema versendenDrucken
Sehr heißes Thema (mehr als 50 Antworten) Woher kommt die Zahl 3300? (Gelesen: 7.092 mal)
freiraucher
Administrator
*****
Offline


Wir sind der singende
tanzende Abschaum der
Welt

Beiträge: 1.150
Standort: Worms
Mitglied seit: 23.03.07
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #56 - 25.02.08 um 18:57:00
Beitrag drucken  
...oder in Österreich, die Zahl 100?

Dazu die Gesundheitsministerin (soviel Rückgrat wünscht man sich auch von deutschen Politikern):

"Ministerin Kdolsky: Generelles Rauchverbot in Österreichs Lokalen sinnlos

Österreichs Gesundheitsministerin Kdolsky hält ein generelles Rauchverbot in Lokalen für "sinnlos". Wie die ÖVP-Politikerin dem "trend" mitteilte, gebe es keine aktuellen Studien, dass sich durch ein Rauchverbot in Lokalen das Rauchverhalten der Bevölkerung ändere. Als Beispiel für den Misserfolg von generellen Rauchverboten verwies Kdolsky auf Italien: Dort werde "leider nicht weniger geraucht als vorher, nur eben auf der Straße."

Auch zur Gefahr durch Passivrauchen verwies sie auf Studien: Dass Passivrauchen bis zu hundert Tote pro Jahr verursache, werde darin nicht bestätigt."

Quelle: smokersnews, 25.02.08

Das waren doch mal deutliche Worte!
  
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Martella
Senior Member
*****
Offline


Reality.sys is corrupted!
Reboot universe? (y/n)

Beiträge: 1.583
Standort: Wien
Mitglied seit: 08.08.07
Geschlecht: weiblich
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #55 - 25.02.08 um 11:13:00
Beitrag drucken  
shadu schrieb on 25.02.08 um 10:36:19:
Kein Problem es gibt eine Lösung
Edler elektrischer Kamin mit Flammeneffekt!

Sie, Herr, Sie wollen doch nicht sinnlos Strom verschwenden? Wohl gar noch aus einem AKW? Wickeln Sie sich in eine kuschelige selbst gewebte Jutedecke, schließen Sie die Augen und stellen Sie sich einfach ein Feuerchen vor. Das entspannt, wärmt und ist umweltschonend.
  
Zum Seitenanfang
IP gespeichert
 
shadu
Advanced Member
*****
Offline


MaryLong I smoke you

Beiträge: 3.622
Standort: Basel
Mitglied seit: 07.08.07
Geschlecht: männlich
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #54 - 25.02.08 um 10:36:00
Beitrag drucken  
Martella schrieb on 25.02.08 um 10:06:21:
Das soll ja auch verboten werden, wie wir hier lesen können. Laut lachend


Kein Problem es gibt eine Lösung
Edler elektrischer Kamin mit Flammeneffekt! Ohne Rauch, Funkenflug & Asche, eine super Sache
    

Erinnert mich an die elektrische Zigarette  Laut lachend

Leute freut euch es gibt Alternativen  Zunge
  
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Martella
Senior Member
*****
Offline


Reality.sys is corrupted!
Reboot universe? (y/n)

Beiträge: 1.583
Standort: Wien
Mitglied seit: 08.08.07
Geschlecht: weiblich
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #53 - 25.02.08 um 10:06:00
Beitrag drucken  
robin schrieb on 22.02.08 um 10:11:38:
Du vergisst die noch viel schrecklicheren offenen Kamine, das Fondue, das Flambieren!

Das soll ja auch verboten werden, wie wir hier lesen können. Laut lachend
  
Zum Seitenanfang
IP gespeichert
 
Quirinus
God Member
****
Offline


711

Beiträge: 773
Mitglied seit: 05.01.08
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #52 - 24.02.08 um 22:34:00
Beitrag drucken  
Matrix schrieb on 22.02.08 um 18:25:58:
Und wenn mir jemand sagt: Das Rauchen einer Zigarette verkürzt Ihr Leben um 1 Minute. (Ist mir heute in einer Kaffee-Bar passiert!) Dann sage ich darauf: Ein Arbeitstag verkürzt mein Leben um 8 Stunden, und keiner regt sich darüber auf.


Gut. SEHR gut!
  
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Matrix
Advanced Member
*****
Offline


In tyrannos!

Beiträge: 3.572
Standort: 1230 Wien
Mitglied seit: 16.02.08
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #51 - 22.02.08 um 18:25:00
Beitrag drucken  
Felix schrieb on 22.02.08 um 14:48:04:
Erst wenn es kein Leben mehr gibt, dann wird nicht mehr gestorben...


So ist es. Für mich ist nämlich die LEBENSFEINDLICHKEIT der Antis eine ihrer herausragendsten Eigenschaften.
Leben bedeutet nämlich nicht, sich pausenlos um seine Gesundheit (was immer man darunter wieder versteht) Sorgen zu machen.
Leben bedeutet Stress, Anstrengung, Belastung, Risiko, Genuss, Spass, Muße und noch viel mehr. Und zwar in einer Mischung von allem, mit ineinander fließenden Übergängen! Und das alles belastet unsere Gesundheit.
Zigaretten zu rauchen ist ein Teil dieser von mir aufgezählten Dinge, und daher ist der Kampf der Antis für mich ein KAMPF GEGEN DAS LEBEN in all seinen Facetten und hat für mich primär mit dem Rauchen gar nichts zu tun.
Denn das Leben selbst ist nun mal lebensgefährlich!

Und wenn mir jemand sagt: Das Rauchen einer Zigarette verkürzt Ihr Leben um 1 Minute. (Ist mir heute in einer Kaffee-Bar passiert!) Dann sage ich darauf: Ein Arbeitstag verkürzt mein Leben um 8 Stunden, und keiner regt sich darüber auf. (Das sage ich, obwohl ich meine Arbeit mag!)

lg
m
  

Tu felix Austria fume
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Felix
Junior Member
**
Offline


Fumero, ergo sum

Beiträge: 240
Mitglied seit: 04.09.06
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #50 - 22.02.08 um 14:48:00
Beitrag drucken  
Die Null-Toleranz-Theorie für Passivrauch wird ja damit begründet, dass es sich um ein Stoffgemisch mit krebserregenden Stoffen handelt.

Wann wird also der Verzehr von zubereiteten Nahrungsmitteln verboten? Da müsste ebenfalls eine Null-Tolerant gelten!
Ebenso für viele Getränke, Gebrauchsgegenstände welche mit der Haut oder mit Schleimhäuten in Berührung kommen, etc. und sogar eine grosse Zahl von Medikamenten sind Stoffgemische mit teils giftigen oder gar krebserregenden Substanzen - Nicht zu vergessen wäre unsere Atemluft.

Aber nein, das alles gilt ja einzig und alleine für Tabakrauch - Der muss etwas magisches haben, denn der Rauch von ein paar Gramm getrockneter Blätter einr Tabakpflanze soll exclusive einen ganzen Giftcocktail enthalten - Ja sogar radioaktives Plutonium ist da drin...

...Doch, war dieses bereits in Atommeiler, welcher sich im Samen befindet? Oder ist es nicht viel mehr so, dass dieses Plutonium z.B. von Tschernobyl stammt und sich auch im Broccoli-Feld neben den Tabakpflanzen anreichert?

Und das restliche Giftzeugs? Entsteht das nicht auch nahezu bei jeder Zubereitung von Nahrungsmitteln, vorallem, wenn Speisen gebraten werden? Entstehen solche Stoffe nicht auch, wenn statt getrockneten Tabakblättern Scheitweise Brennholz im offenen Kamin verbrannt werden?

...Parazelsius hatte wohl einen schlechten Traum, als er von Dosis-Wirkung schwafelte...

Denn nach Maria Böse-Lügner jedenfalls kommen diese Gifte ja ausschliesslich im Tabakrauch vor und sind in keiner noch so kleinen Konzentration ungefährlich - Deshalb können alle auf ein ewiges Leben hoffen, wenn dieses Teufelszeug endlich von diesem Planeten verbannt wird...

...Hmm, was aber, wenn danach immernoch gestorben wird? Nun, dann könnte man den Alkohol, das Übergewich, die Bewegungsarmut, die Freude am Leben und das Leben selbst verbieten - Erst wenn es kein Leben mehr gibt, dann wird nicht mehr gestorben...
  
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
robin
Senior Member
*****
Offline


robin

Beiträge: 1.742
Mitglied seit: 30.06.06
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #49 - 22.02.08 um 10:11:00
Beitrag drucken  
shadu schrieb on 21.02.08 um 20:28:39:
Was mich jedoch nachdenklich machte waren die Kerzen auf den Nichtrauchertischen

Du vergisst die noch viel schrecklicheren offenen Kamine, das Fondue, das Flambieren!
  
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Quirinus
God Member
****
Offline


711

Beiträge: 773
Mitglied seit: 05.01.08
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #48 - 21.02.08 um 22:16:00
Beitrag drucken  
shadu schrieb on 21.02.08 um 20:28:39:
Wiso kann ein „dkfz“  von 3301 Passivrauchtoten sprechen wenn diese angeblichen Toten auch mit vielen anderen Gefahrenquellen in Berührung kamen. ( unteranderem Kerzen )


Schon darin, daß der Tod von Menschen, die mit Tabakrauch in Berührung gekommen sind, einzig und allein darauf zurückgeführt wird, zeigt sich ja auch, daß es sich nicht um Wissenschaft handelt, sondern um religiöse Propaganda. Um beweisen zu können, daß der Tabak wirklich an allem schuld ist, müßte man nachgewiesenermaßen rundum gesunde, glückliche und garantiert ungestreßte Menschen, die in einer völlig intakten Umwelt ohne jegliche Schadstoffe leben, dem sog. Passivrauch aussetzen und kucken, was passiert. Aber wo ließen sich solche Versuchspersonen und eine solche garantiert unverseuchte Umwelt finden? Nur in der Phantasie der Antis.
  
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
shadu
Advanced Member
*****
Offline


MaryLong I smoke you

Beiträge: 3.622
Standort: Basel
Mitglied seit: 07.08.07
Geschlecht: männlich
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #47 - 21.02.08 um 20:28:00
Beitrag drucken  
Ich war heute abend sizilianisch Essen, hier in Basel

Das Lokal hatte einen Raucher und ein Nichtraucherbereich.

Ausgewogene Verteilung der Gäste, keine Aggressionen ( es geht doch ! )

Was mich jedoch nachdenklich machte waren die Kerzen auf den Nichtrauchertischen

Diese geruchlose unsichtbare Gefahr. Sollte man in den Restaurants nicht ein totales Kerzenverbot einführen. ( massive Feinstaubbelastung ! )

Und dann kam mir schon der nächste Gedankenblitz.

Wiso kann ein „dkfz“  von 3301 Passivrauchtoten sprechen wenn diese angeblichen Toten auch mit vielen anderen Gefahrenquellen in Berührung kamen. ( unteranderem Kerzen )

Die müssten doch eine Mischrechnung machen.

Ich denke jedoch das eine solche Studie fürs „dkfz“ zu kompliziert wäre und den Rahmen der Forschungen sprengen würde. Nur mit Zigarettenrauch zu argumentieren ist viel einfacher

Es lebe das Bundesverdienstkreutzzugabzeichen !
  
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Terrx
Senior Member
*****
Offline


Einheit in Vielfalt war
bis zur FCTC-Konvention

Beiträge: 1.861
Mitglied seit: 26.03.07
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #46 - 11.01.08 um 21:03:00
Beitrag drucken  
Für interessierte Englischkönner von oben nach unten:
Belgian decree about tobacco in the workplace  4 March 2005
Next Rapid Response Top
Christophe De Brouwer,
Full professor
School of public health CP 593. Université Libre de Bruxelles. 808 route de Lennik. 1070 Bruxelles.

Send response to journal:
Re: Belgian decree about tobacco in the workplace



The article of Jamrozik about passive smoking and comments of R Dobson about pregnancy and tobacco (BMJ 2 march 2005) are still necessary for changing our political position. In Belgium we have a new regulation (Royal Decree) about smoking in the workplace (also published on 2 march 2005) based on this principle: �Any worker has the right to have social equipment and workspaces free from tobacco smoke� . This is a consequence of the 2003 WHO convention on tobacco control. The behaviour of the social partners has evolved but an interpretative framework based on the letter of "Philip Morris" in 1993 (about the former Decree) seem to be still quite useful. For "Philip Morris" (TobaccoDocuments.org : 2024764271), �employers are against over-regulations, fear extra costs, one more issue to discuss with the unions�, and unions fear that �smoking could become a criteria for employment�, and �preferred prevention to prohibition�.

During the discussions between social partners before Decree adoption, it was proposed a special protection about maternal smoking during pregnancy at work, but still no protection against tobacco for workers in the hospitality industry. Unfortunately the special protection for pregnancy disappears in the definitive version (a social partners request), and no one social partner proposed an extension of the regulation to the hospitality industry. Thus, it�s better, but the way is still long. We must continue to point out the necessity of a clear and complete regulation on tobacco control in the workplace.

Competing interests: Chairman of the belgium supreme council for prevention and protection at work

#####################################################

Estimated deaths from passive smoking invalid 5 March 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Peter N Lee,
Consultant Statistician
Hamilton House, 17 Cedar Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5DA, UK

Send response to journal:
Re: Estimated deaths from passive smoking invalid

EDITOR - Whereas previous estimates of risk from passive smoking have been limited to nonsmokers, Jamrozik produces much higher estimates of deaths by including deaths in smokers. He notes that the joint effect of active and passive smoking has not been examined epidemiologically and argues, not unreasonably, that an additive model is appropriate. However his calculations, which extrapolate relative risk estimates derived from studies of nonsmokers to the whole population � smokers included � actually involve an implausible multiplicative model. The huge difference this makes can be seen by assuming that, compared to unexposed nonsmokers, passively exposed nonsmokers have a relative risk of lung cancer of 1.24 and unexposed smokers have a relative risk of 20. Under the multiplicative model that Jamrozik actually uses, the relative risk of a smoker exposed to passive smoking would be 20 x 1.24 = 24.8, with 4.8/24.8 = 19.4% of deaths in this group attributed to passive smoking. Under the additive model that he argues for, but does not actually use, the relative risk would be 20.24, the percentage of deaths attributed to passive smoking being much lower, at 0.24/20.24 = 1.2%.

There are other technical problems with Jamrozik's analysis. He assumes that, because 85% of adults aged 20-64 work, 85% of deaths in adults of this age occur in workers, clearly incorrect in view of the well -known "healthy worker effect". He also assumes without any support that at home and at work exposure are independent, again leading to overestimation of the risk. Failure properly to take age into account is also a potential problem. Among adults of working age, is the average age of workers in the hospitality industry really the same as that of the whole population, as implicitly assumed?

The whole calculation is only relevant if the relative risk estimates used for lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke actually represent causal effects of passive smoke exposure. For lung cancer, my colleagues and I1 recently concluded that most, if not all, of the association is an artefact due to various sources of bias, based on a detailed analysis which recent reviews2,3 have considered, but have not refuted. For IHD, there are also problems of interpretation4, with the largest studies showing little or no association.5,6

For stroke, the relative risk estimate is based on only seven studies, and overlooks evidence from as many other studies,7-13 most of which find little or no relationship. Until a full review of the evidence taking proper account of potential sources of bias and confounding has been published, it remains unclear whether any causal effect exists.

Overall, the paper must be regarded as speculative and unscientific, adding nothing to the debate on passive smoking.

Peter Lee Independent Consultant in Epidemiology and Statistics 17 Cedar Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5DA PeterLee@pnlee.demon.co.uk

Competing interests : Long-term consultant to the tobacco industry

References

1. Lee PN, Fry JS, Forey BA. Revisiting the association between environmental tobacco smoke exposure and lung cancer risk. V. Overall conclusions. Indoor Built Environ 2002;11:59-82.

2. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking, Volume 83. Lyon, France: IARC; 2004. (IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans.)

3. Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). Secondhand smoke: Review of evidence since 1998. Update of evidence on health effects of secondhand smoke. London: DH; 2004.

4. Lee PN, Roe FJC. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and heart disease: a critique of the claims of Glantz and Parmley. Hum Ecol Risk Ass 1999;5:171-218.

5. LeVois ME, Layard MW. Publication bias in the environmental tobacco smoke/coronary heart disease epidemiologic literature. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 1995;21:184-91.

6. Enstrom JE, Kabat GC. The Lancet's call to ban smoking in the UK [Letter]. Lancet 2004;363:398-9.

7. Hirayama T. Passive smoking and cancer: an epidemiological review. Gann Monogr Cancer Res 1987;33:127-35.

8. Gillis CR, Hole DJ, Hawthorne VM, Boyle P. The effect of environmental tobacco smoke in two urban communities in the west of Scotland. Eur J Respir Dis 1984;65(suppl 133):121-6.

9. Howard G, Wagenknecht LE, Cai J, Cooper L, Kraut MA, Toole JF. Cigarette smoking and other risk factors for silent cerebral infarction in the general population. Stroke 1998;29:913-7.

10. Sandler DP, Comstock GW, Helsing KJ, Shore DL. Deaths from all causes in non-smokers who lived with smokers. Am J Public Health 1989;79:163-7.

11. Iribarren C, Friedman GD, Klatsky AL, Eisner MD. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: association with personal characteristics and self reported health conditions. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:721 -8.

12. Anderson CS, Feigin V, Bennett D, Lin R-B, Hankey G, Jamrozik K. Active and passive smoking and the risk of subarachnoid hemorrhage - an international population-based case-control study. Stroke 2004;35:633-7.

13. McGhee SM, Ho SY, Schooling M, Ho LM, Thomas GN, Hedley AJ, et al. Mortality associated with passive smoking in Hong Kong. BMJ 2005;330:287-8.

Competing interests: Long-term consultant to the tobacco industry

###################################################

Fatal Assumptions 7 March 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Gio B. Gori,
Principal Scientists, The Health Policy Center
6704 Barr Road, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA

Send response to journal:
Re: Fatal Assumptions



In the enumeration of UK deaths attributable to ETS, Konrad Jamrozik - professor of evidence based healthcare � makes a number of arguable assumptions. (1) Of these, none is more consequential than stipulating that the claimed epidemiologic risks of ETS exposure are based on valid evidence.

A number of critics favorable and unfavorable to ETS risk claims have voiced concern for some 30 years about the uncertainties attending epidemiologic studies of passive smoking, with special reference to the central role of exposure recall. Likely because not much could be done about the latter, the issue remained dormant and was eclipsed by sideline interests in recall bias, smoker misclassification, matching bias, confounders, publication bias, statistical issues, and meta-analysis. Still, some notion of the potential dimensions of recall uncertainties is crucial and long overdue. Recently, I chanced to examine the questionnaire used to interview participants in the largest multi-country IARC/WHO European ETS study of 1998. (2) The editors of BMJ or anyone interested in evidence based findings ought to analyze this document critically, for it is claimed to be among the best if not the best of ETS questionnaires, and is intended to generate the essential input to risk estimates, namely an integral of ETS exposure over the lifetime of each study subject.

What and how many cigarettes, pipes, or cigarillos did mom or dad smoke daily in my presence during my childhood and youth? What about uncle Joe and granddad? What and how many cigarettes, pipes, or cigarillos did my spouse(s) smoke in my presence during a lifetime? How airtight were my homes? How smoky were different workplaces during my lifetime? Can I recall my precise diet of last week? How much better is it than throwing dice?

Even a cursory perusal of the IARC questionnaire reveals that most questions can be leading, and that answers can only be vague guesses open to multifold error. Moreover, risk calculations utilize indexes of exposure that are extruded from a combination of several answers, whereby the error of composite indexes is the amplified sum of the errors of their components, as defined by standard rules. (3)

It is a common sense notion and the fundamental principle of metrology that a measurement is not a measurement unless coupled to an estimate of its uncertainty. (3) Inexplicably however, individual recalls of exposure are written down as precise digits, and are later used in estimates of risk and statistical significance under the delusory assumption that such digits have no margin of uncertainty. In reality, and although unknown and unknowable, the uncertainties of individual ETS exposure recalls jump in the face as obviously real, and their composite weight can easily exceed the claimed 20-50% risk excesses attributed to ETS exposure.

We are facing the ugly prospect that the entire epidemiologic literature on ETS is in fact a gross delusion. Should the flagrant inconsistency of the various results surprise? As gatekeepers and purveyors of evidence based information, the editors of BMJ have an obligation to clarify this conundrum to their readers. It could not be dismissed with the unworthy retort that I might be an industry spokesman, for these are verifiable facts an not opinion. Wisely, the editors have noted that �passive smoking is accepted as a cause of fatal disorders�. Indeed it may be accepted, but is it so? Is BMJ prepared to make a similar allowance for creationism?

1.Jamrozik K. Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis. BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38370.496632.8F, March 2, 2005.

2.http://www.data-yard.net/who_quest/quest_iarc_98.pdf

3.http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/guidelines/TN1297/tn1297s.pdf

Competing interests: I have occasionally consulted with the tobacco industry. I have also been deputy director of the Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention and director of the Smoking and Health Program of the US National Cancer Institute. My interest is truth, or its closest possible approximation.

####################################################

Passive smoking fatalities include children's deaths 8 March 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Ellen C G Grant,
physician and medicacl gynaecologist
Kingston-upon-Thames, KT2 7JU, UK

Send response to journal:
Re: Passive smoking fatalities include children's deaths



Jamrozik�s study finds exposure at work might contribute up to one fifth of all deaths from passive smoking in the general population fatalities but underestimates total deaths by not including deaths in children caused by adult smoking.1 The largest number of deaths caused by parental smoking is probably of their unborn infants. Infertility, miscarriage, prematurity, stillbirth are more likely in smokers.2

The 1980 report of the USA Surgeon General �The Health Consequences of Smoking for Women� reviewed 161 papers and found that smoking is a major cause of abnormal pregnancies and avoidable illnesses, handicap and deformity in children. An update in 2002 reviewed the massive body of evidence on women and smoking - evidence which �compels the Nation to make reducing and preventing smoking one of the highest contemporary priorities for women's health�.3

Passive smoking is a major cause of sudden infant death syndrome. Also, among 61 autistic children there were four times more DNA-adducts found in leucocytes to cadmium than to mercury.4 16 children had DNA- adducts to malondialdehyde, 12 to cadmium, 9 to nickel, 3 to mercury and only one to lead. Children with behaviour and learning problems have significant higher cadmium levels than normal children.5

Mercury is too toxic for dentists to use and tobacco is too toxic for parents to smoke.

1 Jamrozik J. Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis. BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38370.496632.8F (published 1 March 2005)

2 Grant ECG. The harmful effects of common social habits, especially smoking and using oral contraceptives, on pregnancy. Intern J Environ Studies 1981; 17: 57-66.

3 Women and smoking: a report of the Surgeon General. Executive summary.MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002; 51 (RR-12):i-iv; 1-13.

4 Grant ECG. McLaren-Howard J. Re: The effects of toxic metals in autistic children. http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#74117, 13 Sep 2004.

5 Grant ECG. Dental mercury is too toxic. http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#99309, 6 Mar 2005

Competing interests: None declared

#################################################

Re: Estimated deaths from passive smoking invalid 17 March 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Sarah M McGhee,
Associate Professor
Department of Community Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China,
G Neil Thomas, Tai Hing Lam, and Anthony J Hedley

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Estimated deaths from passive smoking invalid



PN Lee (1) incorrectly cites our paper in support of his assertion that most studies find little or no relationship between stroke and passive smoking. The results in our paper (2) clearly show a significant excess risk of 49% for mortality from stroke in passive smokers and a dose -response relation ranging from 34% for those exposed to one smoker up to 108% with exposure to two or more smokers at home. Our attributable risk estimation, using a different method from Jamrozik (3), generated numbers in the same range as his when adjusted for population size, although neither study is complete in terms of included conditions. We estimated that at least 1,324 Hong Kong residents from a population of just under 7 million people died from passive smoking in 1998. This included 239 deaths from lung cancer, 309 from ischaemic heart disease, 473 from stroke and 303 from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and amounted to 19% of all tobacco-related deaths in that year.

1. PN Lee. Estimated deaths from passive smoking invalid. bmj.com, 4 Mar 2005

2. McGhee SM, Ho SY, Schooling M, Ho LM, Thomas GN, Hedley AJ, Mak KH, Peto R, Lam TH. Mortality associated with passive smoking in Hong Kong. British Medical Journal 2005; 330:287-8.

3. K Jamrozik. Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis. BMJ 2005; 0: bmj.38370.496632.8Fv3

Competing interests: THL is current Vice Chairman of the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health

###################################################

Error in Passive Smoking Paper 21 March 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Jonathan Fell,
Tobacco industry analyst
Morgan Stanley, 25 Cabot Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 4QA

Send response to journal:

##########################################

Re: Error in Passive Smoking Paper



EDITOR - In early March you published online a copy of Professor Konrad Jamrozik�s paper �Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis�(1). Professor Jamrozik had earlier presented data from this paper to the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians, and the BMJ trailed this story in a May 2004 article (2). That piece contained several quotes from John Britton, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Nottingham, and Chairman of the Tobacco Advisory Group, who also commented on a draft of Professor Jamrozik�s manuscript.

Professor Jamrozik�s findings attracted quite extensive coverage in the national media, both last May and more recently with the paper�s official publication (3), with many of the stories leading on the number of deaths caused by exposure to passive smoking in the workplace, particularly bars - not surprising given that it has coincided with the debate on whether to ban smoking in public places in the UK.

I am by no means expert enough to comment on the diseases Professor Jamrozik associates with passive smoking for the purposes of his calculations, nor the risk factors used - though from reading the rapid responses to his paper it seems that at least some disagree with the epidemiology he uses.

There is, however, a more basic mathematical error which distorts the paper�s results. Professor Jamrozik says that workers in pubs, bars and nightclubs are 1.1% of the workforce, and that hotel/restaurant workers are 2.8% of the workforce, but wrongly applies these two factors to the general population, rather than the workforce, to estimate deaths in these two occupational groups. Correcting this error would reduce his estimate of annual hospitality deaths by 15%, from 54 to 46. The figure could be reduced further if Professor Jamrozik�s estimate of 20% for the proportion of staff for whom hospitality work represents their chief lifetime occupation is in fact too high.

One might also question the author�s use of a survey commissioned by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in 2002 which suggested that 11% of UK workers are exposed to passive smoking (4). �Smoking-related Behaviour and Attitudes, 2003� (5), published by the Office of National Statistics (and quoted in an ASH press release last September (6)), produces a figure of 8%. If this lower figure were used the number of annual workplace deaths attributable to passive smoking would drop 27% from 652 to 417, using Professor Jamrozik�s methodology.

Those of us in the financial community are required by the nature of our jobs to keep an open mind and listen to all sides of the public health debate. It certainly seems to me that the tobacco industry�s approach has not always been as open as it should be, and many may think that any level of deaths from involuntary exposure to smoke is unacceptable. But sometimes I wonder if health advocates risk overburdening the 'science' in their own attempts to shape public policy, notwithstanding the extent to which creative epidemiology is a valuable tool in helping to educate the public about health issues. As the BMJ editorialised (7) during the furore over the Enstrom and Kabat study on passive smoking (8) in 2003, this debate can sometimes be �more remarkable for its passion than its precision�.

Yours Sincerely,

Jonathan Fell

Tobacco Industry Analyst, Morgan Stanley

jonathan.fell@morganstanley.com

(1) Jamrozik K. Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis. BMJ, doi: 10.1136/bmj.38370.496632.8F, March 2, 2005

(2) Coombes R. One hospitality worker a week dies from passive smoking, study shows. BMJ.2004; 328: 1222

(3) E.g. The Independent, 17 May 2004: One bar worker every week is killed by second-hand smoke, doctors claim; Financial Times, 17 May 2004: Passive smoking link to hospitality trade; Daily Mail, 3 March 2005: How Passive Smoking �Claims 20 Lives a Day�; The Sun, 2 March 2005: Passive smoking kills 11,000 a year

(4) ASH news release. Britain�s workers demand the right to smoke- free workplaces: Government inertia hits two year mark. October 5, 2002. www.ash.org.uk/html/press/021005.html

(5) Office for National Statistics. Smoking-related Behaviour and Attitudes, 2003.http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/08/51/59/04085159.pdf

(6) ASH news release. Two Million People Still Routinely Exposed To Tobacco Smoke at Work. September 3, 2004. www.ash.org.uk/html/press/040903.html

(7) Smith R. Passive smoking: Comment from the editor. BMJ, Aug 2003; 327: 505.

(8) Enstrom JE, Kabat GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98. BMJ 2003;326:1057 (17 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1057

Competing interests: Morgan Stanley does, and seeks to do, business with companies in the tobacco industry, and holds securities in companies in the tobacco industry.

###########################################

Re: Re: Estimated deaths from passive smoking invalid 23 March 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Michael J. McFadden,
Writer/Researcher/Activist
Philadelphia, PA 19104

Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Estimated deaths from passive smoking invalid



The above response by Dr. McGhee singling out Dr. Lee's assertion would itself seem to be incorrect. Dr. Lee said that the original study neglected to take into account the findings of seven other studies, "most" of which support his contention.

I can't speak to the question of whether Dr. Lee's overall statement is correct with regard to the other six studies, but he did indeed quite clearly say "most" rather than "all" in his original statement. If at least four (Well, for propriety's sake I should say five... "four" would be best described as the "majority" rather than as "most.)of those other six support his statement then there was clearly no intent nor act to mislead.

Michael J. McFadden

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

http://cantiloper.tripod.com

Competing interests: I have no financial connections to Big Tobacco or any other major player in this field. I belong to and am active in a number of Free Choice groups and am the author of a book on the subject of secondary smoke and the Antismoking Crusade.
Lies, bloody lies, poor statistics, mathematical models 8 April 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Luc Bonneux,
sr researcher
B-1040 Brussels

Send response to journal:

####################################################

Re: Lies, bloody lies, poor statistics, mathematical models



Dear editor,

The debates on smoking and passive smoking have always been severely hampered by industrial, political and personal interests. First, the tobacco industry tried to obscure the causal relation of smoking and disease by the deliberate and prejudiced misuse of epidemiologic argumentation. Now, increasing numbers of papers �calculate� numbers of deaths attributable to passive smoking. Their aim is true, but are their methods? Prejudiced calculations confounding scientific and political aims - good or bad - confuse the public, and undermine public trust in science and scientists. They are detrimental to both science and politics.

Smoking increases mortality by 100 to 200%. People exposed to passive smoking show tobacco metabolites in their blood at 100 to 1000 times lower concentrations than smokers. In the simplest of linear models, mortality is expected to increase through passive smoking by 1-2 % to 1-2 �. That is (at least in Belgium and the Netherlands) more than accepted thresholds in legislation regulating either occupational or environmental health. Such risks are to be reduced to levels as low as possible. The lowest level possible is easy to identify: apply the law, ban smoking in all public places. This is time honoured decision making in risk management, which is not supported by hard epidemiologic data. Indeed, risk management doesn�t like to wait for the deaths to be counted.

With a computer available to everyone, a tsunami of �mathematical� models crashed on scientific shores. Many of these models serve political purposes, and translate �a priori� arguable assumptions into �a posteriori� policy advice. However, the crucial good to be traded in scientific evaluation is uncertainty. Arguable assumptions taken for granted fact cause poor science, muddy decision making and obscured political choice.

Epidemiologic reasoning examines (among others) the quality and strength of potential measurement error in exposition and confounding. The quantitative relation between passive smoking and lung cancer is linear, consistent with a 100 times lower risk of passive smoking (20 � 30%). Lung cancer is a very rare disease among non-smokers, confounding causes of lung cancer are rare, weak compared to smoking and not likely related to exposure. The crude classification of �passive smokers� and �non passive smokers� may tend to bias towards zero effect (as long as sufficient non- smokers are not ex-smokers). The quantitative positive correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer stands up to scrutiny.

The quantitative relation between (active) smoking and cardiovascular disease is in the order of magnitude of (at most) 100%. The by a linear model predicted excess risk would be in the order of magnitude of 1% - 1�. The estimated risks of passive smoking are between 20% and 45%, or 20 to 500 times higher. The advanced hypothesis is a �non-linear model of causation�, but without any convincing evidence. In all human populations, cardiovascular disease is very frequent and caused by many causes, from lifestyle and diet to socio-economic conditions. Confounding is severe and strongly linked to exposure: partner choice and working conditions are heavily correlated. It is unlikely that such strong but hard to measure factors can be sufficiently accounted for to eliminate residual confounding: a relative risk of 1.2 � 1.45 is small. Therefore, any honest evaluation should include in its lower sensitivity estimate 1% (if not 0%). In observational epidemiology, there is more to uncertainty than statistical error alone. The number of studies is no vaccine against lack of validity: the same processes of confounding hold in near all the world.

The lobbyists fighting for a ban on smoking and I share the same aims. Even if environmental tobacco smoke wouldn�t kill (which it likely does), it stinks, makes my eyes water and makes my nasal mucosa swell. ETS did so for many decades in my life. In the past, poor science and poor politically correct reasoning made smoking in public places accepted. Now, the same poor science and poor politically correct reasoning tries to make smoking in public places unacceptable. We didn�t learn anything. Confounded, as science disguised politically correct manipulations still hinder sound evaluation, competent risk management and transparent political decision making.

Luc Bonneux
Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg (KCE)
Residence Palace 10de verdieping, Wetstraat 155, B-1040 Brussel
luc.bonneux@kenniscentrum.fgov.be
www.kenniscentrum.fgov.be

(note: if wished for, all statements can be referenced and updated to a paper for "education and debate" - although most statements can be found in previous BMJ editorials of Prof George Davey Smith, sadly missed here.)

Competing interests: None declared
Passive smoking: Threat of lawsuit against smokers 13 April 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Daniel K C Lee,
Respiratory Physician
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Ipswich Hospital, Heath Road, Ipswich IP4 5PD, Suffolk, England

Send response to journal:

############################################################

Re: Passive smoking: Threat of lawsuit against smokers



The study by Jamrozik [1] serves to highlight the irresponsibility of smokers who smoke in the presence of others.

Logic dictates that if cigarette smoke is harmful when inhaled into the lungs of smokers then the same smoke when inhaled into the lungs of non-smokers will also be harmful. To argue otherwise would be foolhardy.

Smokers should take heed and avoid smoking in the presence of others, lest harm is done and lawsuit is filed.

References

1. Jamrozik K. Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis. BMJ 2005;330:812-5.

Competing interests: None declared

########################################

Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths... 28 April 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Michael J. McFadden,
Writer/Researcher/Activist
19104

Send response to journal:
Re: Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths...



Two points raised in the Rapid Responses immediately prior to this come together with a question I have written about for several years. USDHHS (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services) has classified Ethyl Alcohol as a carcinogen. To be true, they have only classified it as such when it is "consumed," presumably in liquid form, but alcohol is a very volatile liquid. (1)

A cigarette emits roughly a half milligram of active Class A carcinogens with the most significant in terms of weight being benzene at 3/10ths of a milligram. A standard martini releases roughly one full gram of the Class A carcinogen ethyl alcohol into the air in the space of an hour: an amount equal to 2,000 cigarettes. You can see this for yourself most clearly if you pour a large shot (48 grams) of grain alcohol into a martini glass and set it someplace ventilated and safe for two days. When you come back it will be gone. If the cat didn't drink it the alcohol went into the air and was breathed and ingested by any who wandered through the room during that period.

Some might claim that DHHS specified "consumption" of alcohol in order to rule out any airborne effects, but to say that mucosal cancers from liquid alcohol do not imply mucosal cancers from evaporated alcohol makes an absolute mockery of the old "tar in acetone painted on mouse skin" proofs that medical scientists were so fond of in the 1950s and 60s.

As Dr. Lee, in the Response immediately above this one, points out: "Logic dictates that if cigarette smoke is harmful when inhaled into the lungs of smokers then the same smoke when inhaled into the lungs of non- smokers will also be harmful. To argue otherwise would be foolhardy." People like myself argue that the dilution of that smoke, particularly in modern venues with far better ventilation than generally reflected in epidemiological studies based on exposures stretching back 30 or 40 years, make a huge difference.

Nonsmokers in well designed and ventilated bars and restaurants would normally inhale no more than a few micrograms of active Class A carcinogenic material from cigarettes. In exceptionally well designed and ventilated venues the total amount would probably be measurable only in nano- and picograms. The alcohol case is clearly far stronger: nondrinkers would be likely to inhale milligrams rather than mere micrograms in drinking allowed venues... particularly if smoking is banned and ventilation levels reduced.

Of course there's no massively funded Antialcohol lobby to run huge epidemiological studies on passive drinking and such studies would be very difficult to design. Non-drinking bar workers could be compared to non- drinking pool-hall workers (both groups would be exposed to similar amounts of smoke thereby removing that as a variable) but such population pools aren't very large. However, as Luc Bonneux pointed out above, risk management often involves making decisions "not supported by hard epidemiologic data."

He also points out that risk management principles dictate that "risks are to be reduced to levels as low as possible. The lowest level possible is easy to identify: apply the law, ban smoking in all public places." Following those principles, and following the thinking and reasoning of Dr. Lee, one would have to accept the necessity of banning alcoholic drinks in restaurants and perhaps even in bars.

Sure, it might hurt their businesses a bit. Fancy upscale restaurants would lose their profits on $100 bottles of wine and the clientele frequenting bars would probably suffer an initial dip until people got used to enjoying each others' company over glasses of vegetable juice or soda pop. However, as has been stated consistently by smoking ban proponents, any possible risk to health is first and foremost: nonpartakers should not be forced to partake anything over a zero- tolerance exposure to any potentially harmful chemical, and the removal of drug use from the visual environment of children and teenagers will make them less likely to become addicted themselves.

We should remember that underage drinkers account for nearly 20% of alcohol consumption (2) while underage smokers account for just 3% to 5% of the cigarette market (3). Would removing alcohol from bars, restaurants, TV commercials, movies, and sports events while quintupling its taxes cut underage drinking by 400%? Antismoking advocates feel such measures are effective for tobacco so they should be similarly effective for alcohol, true?

Do I really think alcohol should be banned from bars and restaurants, from movies and TV, from sports events and wedding champagne toasts? Of course not: the risk levels of nondrinkers, if evaluated honestly in studies not funded by pressure groups would be below consideration by any rational person. And anyone who did not want to be exposed to such fantastical wisps of risk could simply avoid establishments where alcohol was allowed.

Exactly the same argument can be made about smoking and smoking bans.

Michael J. McFadden

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

http://cantiloper.tripod.com

References:

(1) National Toxicology Program. DHHS. 11th Report on Carcinogens http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/known.pdf

(2) Foster, S.E., R.D. Vaughn, W.H. Foster and J. A. Califano, Jr. 2003. Alcohol consumption and expenditures for underage drinking and adult excessive drinking. JAMA 289 (8): 989-95

(3) Viscusi, W. Kip. "Smoke and Mirrors...." The Brookings Review, Winter 1998 Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 14-19

I am a member of several Free Choice organizations, and have absolutely no financial interests with Big Tobacco, Big Hospitality, or any other player in this arena other than as a customer and as the author of a book in the field.

Competing interests: I am a member of several Free Choice organizations, and have absolutely no financial interests with Big Tobacco, Big Hospitality, Big Pharma, or any other player in this arena other than as a customer and as the author of a book in the field.

###########################################################

Re: Error in Passive Smoking Paper 17 June 2005
Previous Rapid Response Next Rapid Response Top
Jonathan Fell,
Investment Analyst
Morgan Stanley, 25 Cabot Square, London N1 8NS

Send response to journal:

#################################################

Re: Re: Error in Passive Smoking Paper



Having responded to errors in Professor Jamrozik's paper I should correct the typographical error in my original submission. If a figure of 8% for UK workers exposed to passive smoke at work is used instead of 11%, the number of annual workplace deaths attributable to passive smoking drops 27% from 617 to 452, rather than 652 to 417.

Competing interests: Please see contribution of 21 March 2005

####################################################

Synopsis of Report 16 April 2006
Previous Rapid Response Top
Alastair G Browne,
Civil Servant
EH11 3XD

Send response to journal:
Re: Synopsis of Report



Response to BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38370.496632.8F (published 2 March 2005)

There are several issues with the above report which make it's results and conclusion meaningless.

To start off with, the report does not examine the null hypothesis. To quote from the abstract of the report:-

"Objective: To estimate deaths from passive smoking in employees of the hospitality industry as well as in the general workforce and general population of the United Kingdom."

Here, the assumption is being made that deaths are indeed caused by so-called "passive smoking". By approaching the subject in this manner, it is not possible to conduct an un-biased study.

The whole paper itself seems to be based upon calculations and estimates, not hard facts. Despite this, this paper is supposedly intended to be taken as fact itself. Would the author care to explain how he has managed to turn assumption into so-called fact without having done any scientific tests himself?

During the introduction, the author suggests that with regard to pubs, bars, nightclubs etc. "...the generation of tobacco smoke is not intrinsic to the process of selling food and drink..." There are plenty who will argue against this. For some people, smoking tobacco goes hand in hand with enjoying alcohol in its various forms. Additionally, on completion of a good meal, there are many who may enjoy rounding it off with a good cigar. Therefore, the smoking of tobacco is far from being "not intrinsic" to these kind of establishments. To view things in any other way is biased.

The author then goes on to state that making these kind of establishments smoke-free would protect staff who work there. Is this not a bit premature to suggest this kind of thing in the introduction? Before any research has been carried out? The assumption has been made here that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is harmful to non-smokers. This has been made a-priori and is therefore questionable.

The introduction then goes on to attempt to argue about the economics of the leasure industry vis-a-vis smoking bans. Would the author kindly explain the relevance of this argument in the context of the title of the paper? All this does is set the scene for a biased paper.

Moving on the the method of the experiment, the author talks about percentages of people exposed to ETS. This appears to be justified. However, the author then makes the broad, sweeping statement that smoke exposure in the home provides "...a relatively clear picture of the risks for lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease." Once again, this is pure supposition. Where is the proven link between ETS and the ailments mentioned? Why is the assumption made that lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease can only be caused by tobacco smoke? What stops other factors such as motor vehicle exhausts, airborne benzine from petrol, or anything else for that matter, from causing these diseases? There is no mention of these other substances in the report. Why not?

Of course, the fabled cotinine test is cited. Bearing in mind that cotinine levels may be raised by the subject eating potatoes, what measures were taken to ensure that this was not a confounding factor?

The calculations performed by the author carry on the assumption that ETS is solely responsible for the ailments listed in the results table. To make such an assumption is completely unfounded and produces results that are invalid.

It is basic scientific procedure that to measure cause and effect, one must first establish and isolate the causes that lead to the effects in question. No attempt has been made to do this in this instance. The fact that a percentage of "smoking-related diseases" may in fact be caused by factors other than ETS has not been considered. The author cites previous work as being definitive with regard to ETS. If one reads these reports, one will find that they are far from definitive. Many of them have similar assumptions to those made in this paper. Additionally, many of these papers make suggestions or suppositions within their summaries. Once again, would the author please explain how he managed to turn these into fact without further work?

To summarise, this paper is biased and scientifically invalid. It draws upon material produced from other sources and rather than analysing them, accepts them as hard fact---even though it may not have been the case that the authors of the sources in question intended for their papers to be taken as fact. The act of taking potentially false information, then applying statistical analysis to it, results in a completely meaningless set of figures.

Alastair G Browne MSc BEng(Hons)

Competing interests: None declared


Das ist ein großes Stück der Basis von Rote Reihe Band 5...
  
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Terrx
Senior Member
*****
Offline


Einheit in Vielfalt war
bis zur FCTC-Konvention

Beiträge: 1.861
Mitglied seit: 26.03.07
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #45 - 11.01.08 um 20:30:00
Beitrag drucken  
Wann starben die 3301 Deutschen Bürger eigentlich am Passivrauch?
2005, als die "Rote Reihe Band 5" veröffentlicht wurde?
Oder starben sie vorher?
Die meisten Angaben scheinen von 2003 und früher(und aus GB) zu stammen.
Guckt man auf die Quellen in GB, so basieren diese(Jamrozik K.) wiederum auf Daten aus den USA(von 1980...)
Zudem scheinen mir 3/2005 einige seiner Mitstreiter gar nicht einvertstanden mit Jamrotziks Wahrscheinlichkeitsberechnungen, die ja dann auf D. umgelegt wurden....
Selbst mit meinem Oxford-Englisch kann ich dort einige Beanstandungen lesen.
  
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Werner Paul
Senior Member
*****
Offline


Leben und leben lassen

Beiträge: 1.214
Standort: BW
Mitglied seit: 15.06.06
Geschlecht: männlich
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #44 - 23.12.07 um 22:40:00
Beitrag drucken  
Die mibet-Seiten sind echte Spitzenklasse!
  

Statistiken sind für Politiker wie Laternen für Säufer. Sie dienen mehr der Stütze, als der Erleuchtung.
Zum Seitenanfang
IP gespeichert
 
Dirk
Advanced Member
*****
Offline



Beiträge: 2.673
Standort: Berlin
Mitglied seit: 16.07.06
Geschlecht: männlich
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #43 - 23.12.07 um 20:17:00
Beitrag drucken  
Ja, danke für das LINK – die Seiten sind gut zu lesen und informativ und fast alles könnte ich unterschreiben.

Eventuell aber besser, hier zu starten: http://freenet-homepage.de/mibet/passiv/ ...
  

Dirk
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Gizeh
God Member
****
Offline


be happy

Beiträge: 541
Standort: Marburg
Mitglied seit: 09.08.07
Geschlecht: weiblich
Re: Woher kommt die Zahl 3300?
Antwort #42 - 23.12.07 um 18:15:00
Beitrag drucken  
Ich habe eine tollen Link, der hier (glaube ich) noch nicht eingestellt ist.

...Werden alle Informationen zum Thema geregelt ausgetauscht und überprüft? Werden die Argumente in einer Sprache ausgetauscht, welche die an demokratischer Teilhabe interessierte Öffentlichkeit versteht? Hat jeder Akteur die gleichen Chancen, sich zu jeder Information, die in die öffentliche Diskussion einfließt, zu äußern und neue Informationen selbst einzubringen?

Ich bin zugegebenermaßen mit zunehmender Lektüre zum Thema immer skeptischer geworden. Dies vorweg. Dennoch möchte ich an dieser Stelle ausdrücklich darauf hinweisen, daß ich für ein Rauchverbot in Restaurants volles Verständnis habe. Und nachdem das Thema ja sowieso "durch" ist, stellt sich für mich die Frage:
Wie steht's eigentlich mit einem Rauchverbot in geschlossenen Räumen in Gegenwart von Kindern?
Oder sollen wir Deutsche uns vorwerfen lassen, daß wir unsere Kellner mehr lieben als unsere Kinder???...

Die Seiten sind einfach lesenswert, aber schaut selbst:

http://freenet-homepage.de/mibet/passiv/01.htm
  

Der Kultivierte bedauert nie einen Genuss. Das Unkultivierte weiß überhaupt nicht, was ein Genuss ist. (Oscar Wilde)
Zum Seitenanfang
 
IP gespeichert
 
Seitenindex umschalten Seiten: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
Thema versendenDrucken
 
Durch die Nutzung dieser Website erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass diese Seite Cookies verwendet.    Hier erfahren Sie mehr zum Datenschutz OK