FORCES Tavern: We welcome you to The Tavern, you are welcome to browse and read, but please register to post.

Air Pollution and The Great London Smog

A scrapbook on Tobacco and related matters

Postby Rose » Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:28 pm

Theres no answer to that :)

Frankly, I find the whole subject fascinating and it is a pleasure to do the research, I have a feeling that time is short, and I always work better on a tight schedule.

But what I gained with a retentive memory and being trained to think in patterns, I lost on the numbers, so please keep translating the statistics into easy words for me!
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:25 am

Premature deaths caused by London pollution 'three times higher than claimed' - 2009
"The government was today challenged on the number of premature deaths caused by poor air quality as new figures suggested it may be three times higher than previously claimed.
The Campaign for Clean Air in London (CCAL) has written to the health secretary, Alan Johnson, to ask for clarification on the "full extent" of the health impact of poor air quality in Greater London.
The group's query comes in the wake of a report by the European Environment Agency, published last month, which says 2,905 premature deaths in Greater London in 2005 were attributable to dangerous airborne particles (PM10s).
The figure is almost treble the premature death rate cited in the London Air Quality Strategy, published under the former mayor Ken Livingstone in 2005."

"He has urged the Department of Health to commit to a "major public information programme" involving the annual release of updated information about the impact of poor air quality.
Birkett said the government's 2007 air quality strategy appeared to have "omitted references to premature deaths and years of life lost".

"The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is due to submit an application to extend its deadline to 2011 to avoid up to £300m in fines which could be incurred if European directives on air quality are not met."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... -pollution

Anti-smoking agenda 'caused air pollution problem to be obscured'
"Governments concealed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution in the wake of the great London smog 50 years ago, and attempted to shift all the blame on to cigarette smoking, a medical historian will allege today.
While gradually there came to be no doubt of the deaths and disease caused by cigarettes, it suited governments for political reasons that the focus should remain firmly on smoking"

"An estimated 12,000 people died from the effects of the smog, but there was a shift in the public health agenda from the 1950s onwards towards the individual taking responsibility for his or her own health"
"It was pointed out that individuals could avoid the dangers of smoking but not those of pollution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/dec ... ing.uknews

The Killer Fog of '52
"Fifty years ago this month, a toxic mix of dense fog and sooty black coal smoke killed thousands of Londoners in four days. It remains the deadliest environmental episode in recorded history."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... yId=873954

Pollution 'causes cancer deaths'
"One in ten deaths from lung cancer in the UK may be linked to air pollution, an expert has said.
The finding adds to growing concerns that the threat to public health posed by air pollution may have been overlooked as many scientists chose to focus on smoking instead"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2557617.stm
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Sat Sep 26, 2009 10:26 am

Dirty Diesel
Michael Abramson: "The lungs of city dwellers are much dirtier than the lungs of rural dwellers. So that if a post mortem examination is performed, you actually see the black deposits on the outside of the lungs of city dwellers and also in the lymph glands in the middle of the chest.
And this is true, even in people who haven’t worked in a coal mine or haven’t smoked. It’s simply the effect of breathing in fine particles over the years of a lifetime"
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/hel ... 838424.htm

Dr. Victor Bubler, Pathologist at St. Joseph
Hospital in Kansas
City:
"I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from examining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.
"I state flatly, unequivocably and emphatically
that cigarette smoke will not turn the lung black".

Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York:
it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker.
Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon
particles into the lung."

"It would thus appear that at best this claim is not scientifically supportable and at worst, that it is another deliberate attempt to frighten people"
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/p ... 007569.pdf
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:59 am

Now Dr Hueper, some people have suggested that cigarette smoking mightbe a cause of lung cancer because they say that there has beena parallel increase in lung cancer and cigarette smoking.- Are you familiar with that contention?

A Yes I am

Q. HoW do you feel about that?

A There is in certain statistics or in studies some degree of parallelism between these two phenomena. That has been demonstrated. However that parallelism has not been consistently found for all our country. Moreover, there is no consistent relation between the degree of cigarette tobacco consumption and the frequency rate of lung cancer for different countries.

Q Actually Dr. when was an increase in lung cancer first noted?

A The pathologists of central Europe, particularly in Germany where autopsies were performed for many years in hospital institutes of pathology, the University institutes of pathology on the majority of patients who died in these hospitals, the percentage rate ran between 90% and 95% of the deaths which occurred, and showed around 1920 that there had been a gradual, and progressive increase in lung cancer deaths observed in autopsies since the turn of the Century.

Q Since about 1900?

A Around 1900

Q And then it gradually started to increase,

A the number of cases increased.

Having in mind that you were living in Central Europe, at that time, was there any increase in smoking during that period of time that parallelled the increase in lung cancer from 1900 to 1920?

A It is pretty well established from statements in the literature that a wide spread and general use of the cigarette among the people of industrialized countries started with the first World War.
That means there was an increase in the lung cancer incidence before the custom of smoking cigarettes became a widespread habit.

Moreover, one has to consider the fact that a latent Period of anywhere from ten to thirty years usually elapses from the start of the first contact with an environmental cancer- producing agent and the appearance of the cancer resulting therefrom.
This is important because for this reason it is not likely that any of the cancers which were observed in autopsy materials in Central Europe around 1920 or, let us say, that any considerable number of these cancers could have been attributable to any alleged cancerogenic agent resulting from smoking oigarettes.

Q, And yet in spite of that fact there was a Very noticeable increase in lung cancer between 1900 and 1920?

A`Well, let us say there was a noticeable increase.

Later on
A That is right, reputable European journals and the possibility of the question was ventilated that smoking of cigarettes might have something to do with lung cancer.

Q How widespread was that?

A There were repeated publications on that subject.

Q Were those publications'available in the major cities of the United States?.

A Yes, if they would read them.

Q In other words, anyone who was a doctor or not could go to any medical library and find it and read such statements?

A, Yes, it was in general medical journals and readily accessable.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/industry_de ... art_page=1


In fact the first observations on an appreciable rise in the frequency of lung cancer were reported from the highly industrialized cities of densely populated Saxony during the first two decades of this century.
Some years later it was found that high lung cancer rates existed for the population of the industrialized territory of the Ruhr valley, while they were below average for the agricultural region of the Main valley.
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/30/2/141


"For nearly 200 years the heart of the German industrial sector has been beating in the Ruhr Basin, with its coal and steel industries. In this area a chemical industry cluster evolved, traditionally with an emphasis on coal chemistry, later evolving to petrochemistry. E.g., the Max-Planck-Institut für Kohlenforschung (coal research) with a history of nearly one hundred years, was directed by "legends in chemistry" like Franz Fischer and Karl Ziegler. Besides the petrochemistry with leading companies like BP, Sabic, Rüttgers and Aral, the cluster is affected by speciality chemistry, e.g. the world-leading Degussa

The second cluster in the Rhine area of Cologne and Düsseldorf features strengths in basic chemistry and plastics (e.g. Lanxess, formerly part of Bayer, and Basell), pharmaceuticals (e.g. Bayer) and detergents (e.g. Henkel). The Rhine area, also known for its quality of life, has been traditionally strongly industrialised because of its access to the North Sea and the world markets via Germany’s largest river.
http://www.ecrn.net/regions/nrw.php
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:03 am

Boston December 30th 1959

Lung Cancer Cause
A man who has devoted his scientific career to a study of the causes of cancer warns that air pollution is a more important factor than cigarette smoking in the increase of lung cancer.
He is Dr, Wilhelm C Hueper, chief of the environmental section of the National Cancer Institute at Bethesda, and he makes the significant observation that the upsurge in lung cancer first was noted between 1900 and 1920, several years before the practice of cigarette smoking was widespread.
Boston, having one of the most serious air pollution in the entire United States, cannot fail to be impressed - and disturbed - by Dr Hueper's findings.

We have always suspected that there was a connection between our contaminated air and the fact that tuberculosis is more prevalent in Boston than in any comparable city, and Bethesda studies support that suspicion.

The next session of the Legislature would do well to pass laws against the needless poisoning of the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks.

Other places, notably Pittsburgh, have proved the wisdom of screening out the fumes and ashes which currently rain down upon Boston and other cities, damaging human respiratory systems and undoubtedly shortening thousands of lives.
Enlightened Massachussetts ought to be able to accomplish at least as much in the public interest.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/d ... d=jsv02a00
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Sun Sep 27, 2009 7:38 am

Asthmatic Girl Used in NY Traffic-Fee Ad
Image of Asthmatic Girl Used to Promote NYC Mayor's Traffic-Fee Plan

"NEW YORK - A sad-looking little girl squeezes an asthma inhaler, with a message imploring lawmakers to approve Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to reduce traffic and pollution by charging motorists who drive into Manhattan.
The tag line: "She cannot hold her breath waiting for Albany to act."
The flier is being mailed this week to 350,000 households throughout the city, urging residents to call lawmakers in Albany. The state Legislature would have to come back for a special session to approve the plan before a July 16 application deadline for federal funding.

The campaign was paid for by the Partnership for New York City, a business group that is a chief supporter of the mayor's plan.
U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, an outspoken critic of the congestion pricing plan, said the image of the asthmatic girl is more of a political tactic than anything based on substance.
"The mayor's car tax is not a cure for asthma what it is is a giant bureaucracy funded by a regressive tax," said Weiner, D-N.Y."
http://www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=48914
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Sun Sep 27, 2009 7:42 am

"The team from Toronto University in Canada carried out a sample of 25 bars with outdoor patios in the city and found that levels of cancer-causing particles in outside smoking areas were potentially enough to cause heart problems" - Sheri


"The findings of a Toronto study published this month in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives confirm her fears. Researchers found that exposure to traffic-related air pollution can cause an increased risk of death overall, and an even higher risk of death due to stroke and heart disease.

"Living in an area of high pollution, you have an increased chance of dying overall," said primary investigator Michael Jerrett, a public health professor at the University of California, Berkeley."
"Surprisingly, over the last five years, researchers have discovered that air pollution causes heart attacks," he said. Air pollution particles deposited in the lungs lead to inflammation and the creation of inflammatory particles that travel by blood to other parts of the body, said Finkelstein.

The particles can cause stickiness in the blood, blood clots, and narrowing of the arteries around the heart, and even change heart rhythm.
This study, partly funded by Health Canada, adds to a growing body of evidence pointing to the detrimental effect of traffic-related pollution on health.

In 2007, Toronto Public Health released a report called the "Air Pollution Burden of Illness from Traffic in Toronto," which estimated that air pollution contributed to 1,700 premature deaths and 6,000 hospitalizations each year. Some long-term initiatives were introduced, but little has been done to address the immediate issue of traffic-related pollution"
http://www.thestar.com/article/579542

AIR POLLUTION BURDEN OF ILLNESS IN TORONTO
http://www.toronto.ca/health/burdenof.pdf
Nice bit of piggybacking.
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:05 pm

The Killer Smog in Donora, 1948

"A murderous villain terrorized the town of Donora during the last week of October 1948. The silent killer took the lives of 20 people and left thousands of others in its wake. The killer came in without warning and vanished in a puff of smoke.
On the western bank of the Monongahela River lies the small town of Donora. In 1948, the town was home to 14,000 residents, 6,500 whom worked for the area’s two mills, the American Steel & Wire Co. and Donora Zinc Works. Unbeknownst to the majority of the residents, the factories that sustained their livelihood would also be the cause for illness in a large majority of the town’s population and even death for some.

On October 27, 1948, thick, opaque smog began to cover the small, flat river town. “You couldn’t see your hand in front of your face,” said resident Bill Schempp in a 1998 Tribune-Review article by Lynne Glover. Schempp described the scene as something “out of this world.” He would recall to David Templeton in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that “if you chewed [the air] hard enough, you could swallow it.”
Within 24-hours of the smog’s arrival, police began to receive an alarming number of calls about residents who were having trouble breathing. As time progressed, the calls got more serious. Soon, those with existing respiratory problems began to die and those who were not sick began to feel the effects of the unusual fog.

The town’s hospitals started to fill up and soon began to overflow with the sick and dying. Both the Monongahela Memorial and Charleroi-Monessen Hospitals became too crowded, and the town had to convert its community center into a morgue.
Those who tried to escape found their attempts futile. Devra Davis, author of When Smoke Ran Like Water and epidemiologist, toxicologist and air pollution expert, said that those who tried to escape could not because they could not see through the smog while driving. This occurred even when the town kept its streetlights on during the day in an effort to combat the problem. The dense fog had the residents trapped in the small town, and they had no choice but to ride it out.

Schempp was a firefighter during the incident. He responded to the calls that were being placed, but said it took him an hour to get to a house five blocks away because visibility was so poor. When Schempp did arrive with his 135-pound oxygen tank, he was unable to give the wheezing all of the oxygen they desired. He had to keep moving in order to help other residents.
Schempp was able to help many, but he could not stop the effects of the killer cloud. The deadly smog took the lives of 20 citizens and left a third of the town’s population ill. Of those who were killed, all were between the ages of 52 and 85 years-old and had a history of health problems. The sickened 6,000 others faced headaches, stomach pains, and vomiting.

Luckily, the smog was stopped from causing any more harm when two things occurred. First, the factory was ordered to shut down. Those on the city council and those who ran the steel mills both initially refused to shut down the mills because they did not believe the mills were responsible for the sudden deaths of many of the residents. Due to much pleading by many of the town’s doctors and residents, the mill gave in. The second reason the smog retreated was due to a storm that rolled into town on Halloween, October 31, 1948. The storm is said to have saved the town because it broke the temperature inversion that had started during the last week in October."

"While the temperature inversion is blamed for being one cause of the Donora disaster, emissions from the city’s mills is said to be another. The exact amounts of toxins in the air during the incident are unknown. In “The Donora Fluoride Fog: A Secret History of America’s Worst Air Pollution Disaster,” Chris Bryson explains that the records containing that information are missing from the U.S. Public Health Service’s archives, and that U.S. Steel is blocking records similar in nature.

To this day, the Public Health Service has concluded that the deaths in Donora were due to a temperature inversion."
http://www.pabook.libraries.psu.edu/pal ... aSmog.html


Fireman, responder to smog disaster dies at 91
"Bill Schempp emerged as a small-town hero and fireman, going door-to-door with oxygen in Donora during the nation's deadliest air pollution disaster.
This week, Schempp, who died Sunday, December 14, 2008, at age 91, is being remembered as a father figure to young firefighters whom he trained over the years.
"He always welcomed us at any time to his home and loved to talk to us about the olden times," said Casey Perrotta, 27, a borough fireman and local code enforcer.

Schempp was just 31 when he answered a call from his fire chief, Charles Cumberland, to take an 18-inch oxygen tank to offer fresh air to people who were gasping for their breaths during the Donora smog of 1948.

It took him nearly an hour to walk up Donora's steep Sixth Street with the tank in one arm and using the other to feel his way through the thick smog linked to stagnant air and pollution from the local steel and zinc mills.
The nation's first clean air laws were spawned from the event that claimed at least 20 lives over that Halloween weekend.
And through the years, reporters from all corners of the United States have called on Schempp to retell his story about the disaster.

On the famous mission, he offered an oxygen mask to the sick to take just two or three breaths before he had to move on. The calls just kept mounting. At some houses, people clung to him or shouted to keep him from leaving.
"There wasn't a damned thing you could do about it," Schempp told a reporter with Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service for a story on the smog's 50th anniversary.

"There were too many calls to help everyone," said Schempp's friend, Paul Brown of Donora. "I worked in that mill. I know how bad it was, so I know what he went through."
www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/12-1 ... hempp-Obit
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:51 am

Pollution is linked to deaths from lung cancer

"Prof Roy Harrison, a member of two Government advisory committees on air pollution, said studies in the United States provided stronger evidence of what had long been suspected, that fine particles emitted by vehicles and industry caused cancer as well as shortening the lives of people with respiratory diseases
His findings come as a conference to commemorate the Great London Smog of 1952, now thought to have killed 12,000 people with respiratory ailments, will today hear evidence that a fear of political embarrassment led governments of the Fifties and Sixties to cover up links between pollution and cancer.

Prof Harrison, head of Environmental Health and Risk Management at Birmingham university, said evidence of a stronger link between lung cancer and air pollution came from an extension of a study by the American Cancer Society.
The study found that mortality rates increased six per cent for every additional 10 microgrammes of fine particles in a cubic metre of air.

Prof Harrison said that according to highly provisional estimates of the potential role of air pollution in causing lung cancer in Britain, based on the American study, fine particles could cause 3,910 lung cancer deaths each year."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... ancer.html


Here's where it gets even more interesting -


Experts prove link between pollution and damage to lungs
"URBAN smog damages the lungs of children and could cause asthma, says the first study to confirm a widely suspected, but never proven link between pollution and breathing problems.
Researchers at the University of California, Davis, found that breathing ozone, a key component of urban smog, for five months increased sensitivity to dust mites, a component of household dust that is a common trigger of asthma attacks.

Charles Plopper, the leader of the research team, said rhesus monkeys that had been breathing ozone for five months developed symptoms similar to those of a child with borderline asthma. Their lung capacity was reduced and they wheezed when briefly exposed to the dust mite allergen, said Prof Plopper.

Monkeys that had continually breathed ozone and the allergen had even more severe reactions, similar to full-blown asthma attacks, with rapid, shallow breathing and decreased oxygen levels in their blood.

Ira Tager, of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, said that because lung development was similar in monkeys and humans, the research might help to explain why children who grew up in smoggy cities tended to have more respiratory problems. He said: "It fits well with what's known in humans about developmental effects."

Ozone exposure is especially damaging early in life, when the lungs are still developing. Prof Plopper's team previously found that ozone did not cause the same degree of lung damage in adult monkeys. The Davis team carried out a series of experiments with young rhesus monkeys, featured in New Scientist today.

The lungs of these monkeys also made more mucus than usual, clogging the airways, and the monkeys had unusually low levels of glutathione, a chemical that protects the lungs from free radicals.

Prof Plopper said: "That puts them at risk for other types of lung injury."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/13131 ... lungs.html


Fire Safe Cigarettes
"Harvard School of Health reported that when comparing fire-safe and regular cigarettes, the new cigarettes produced 13.9 percent more Naphthalene and 11.4 percent more carbon monoxide."


Glutathione Depletion Is a Major Determinant of Inhaled Naphthalene Respiratory Toxicity and Naphthalene Metabolism in Mice
Results
"Glutathione Levels after NA Inhalation
Naphthalene vapor at 15 ppm for 4 h caused a rapid and substantial decrease in GSH levels throughout the respiratory tract but did not significantly alter hepatic GSH levels"
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co ... l/82/1/268


Glutathione is the Master Antioxidant
"Glutathione is your body's master antioxidant and one of the most important cleansing and healing agents. Glutathione blocks free radical damage and helps to recycle Vitamins E and C, therefore plays a key role in their function. Because Glutathione exists within the cells, it is in a prime position to neutralize free radicals. The highest concentration of glutathione is found in the liver which is the principal organ involved in the detoxification and elimination of toxic materials.

Glutathione may also help with detoxification by binding to toxins such as heavy metals, solvents and pesticides, allowing them to be excreted in urine or bile."
http://www.frequencyrising.com/glutathione.htm


Now that really is a trap for the unwary.

By accident or design?
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:50 am

6,000 heart attacks a year from car fumes

"Air pollution caused mainly by road traffic is triggering 6,000 heart attacks in Britain each year, according to medical researchers. Since roughly half of all heart attacks are fatal, the new finding supports the views of a growing number of doctors and scientists that pollution kills several thousand Britons each year.

A team led by Dr Jan Poloniecki at St George's Hospital Medical School in London concluded that one in 50 heart attack victims arriving at London hospitals is there as a result of poor air quality outdoors. Their research is published in the latest issue of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

He analysed seven years of data from the late 1980s and early 1990s covering nearly 400,000 hospital admissions and levels of five key air pollutants, all produced mainly by traffic in the capital's busy roads and motorways.

The researchers were looking for a link between air quality on any one day and the number of people being rushed to hospital with heart and circulatory problems the next day. They used complex techniques of statistical analysis to probe for any connections.

They found that heart attacks, in which some of heart's muscles are killed by a lack of blood supply, rose in line with the previous day's levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and particulates, microscopic sooty specks.

But these linkages between air pollution and health were found only in the colder months, from October to March, and not during the warmer April to September period. The worst pollution episodes are generally during particularly cold, still periods in winter when freezing air becomes trapped over cities and the concentration of fumes builds up over several days."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/6000- ... 43814.html
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:39 am

Discovering environmental cancer: Wilhelm Hueper, post-World War II epidemiology, and the vanishing clinician's eye.

"To understand why Hueper pressed his attack so insistently, we need to look beyond methods to what he saw as the broader implications of the new epidemiology."

"He suspected that pressures from corporations and a state-run nuclear industry reached into the NCI itself, especially when Director Heller shut down Hueper's epidemiological initiatives entirely in 1952.
NCI epidemiologists continued to pursue field studies of certain industries, but Hueper inferred similar influences on his colleagues.

Although he stimulated some interest among state public officials, Hueper worried about who else would pursue the epidemiology of individual industries, which was demanded if claims about occupational cancer were to become anything more than suggestive.
Studies like Hueper's of chromate workers, as well as his animal experiments, continued to suggest additional industrial carcinogens.
But given the limited numbers of public health and clinical scientists, the ubiquity of a lifestyle habit such as smoking, and the overwhelming evidence that was becoming possible against it, Hueper feared his researcher colleagues would accept the surgeon general's declaration that "the lung cancer problem is solved"

Confidence in the new modes of knowledge and the difficulties associated with comparable industrial studies would deter them from investigating workplace causes.
"Scientific pursuit of the cigarette theory" he later put it," interfered with a sober and realistic study of the actual [sic] much larger and complex etologic background of respiratory cancers"

Just as fundamentally, Hueper's resistance reflected his concerns about how the new epidemiology would become translated into clinical and medicolegal decision making.
If physicians came to agree that smoking was such a universal and important cause of lung cancer, even in their work-patients, then liability and compensation suits by workers in the industries that did cause lung cancer in workers, such as coke, chromate, or asbestos production stood in dire jeopardy.

If a worker happened also to be a smoker - which most blue collar workers tended to be - then companies would argue that he brought it on himself.
Epidemiologists themselves did not argue that the new smoking evidence distinguished the influence of workplace exposures from that of smoking in any individual case.
Yet Hueper knew how defence attorneys and their medical witnesses would seize upon a plaintiff's smoking to provide a "convenient escape for the guilty industrial part to pay compensation to the victim or to his widow and orphans."

Hueper thus articulated concerns about how the new risk factor epidemiology, as it opened new possibilities for a preventive focus on individual lifestyle choices, fore-closed state-based and collectively oriented interventions, in this case through the workers' compensation system.
He realized that by persuading and empowering practicing clinicians to act against smoking, the new epidemiology discouraged them fom reaching their own conclusions on questions of environmental etiology.

Hueper pointed out how "keen analytic minds and sound medical judgement" had elucidated most previous discoveries of occupational cancers;he asserted that in many instances, clinical and pathological data from individual patients still provided adequate proof of cause.
Arsenic cancers of the lung caused by insecticide manufacture, for instance, could be recognized by the typical skin leesions of arsenic on the victim; those skin and lung cancers caused by tar fumes or mineral oil mists were indicated by accompanying dermatoses and warts."

At the heart of his later initiatives, however lay Hueper's abiding concern about the new chronic disease epidemiology and the smoking hypothesis on clinicians.
He was concerned that, in failing to ask about their patients occupations, in not pursuing any leads of this kind of information on lung and other cancers, and in abandoning anycuriosity and enquiry of their own, clinicians would forsake their historical role."

Even after accepting the merits of the new epidemiology, he railed until his death against the complacency toward industrial carcinogens generated by the "simple, unitarian" smoking hypothesis."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 66/?page=8

And that's exactly what happened saving millions in compensation.

But I am sure he could have never imagined that it would get as bad as blaming dilute ETS for diseases in non-smokers.
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:36 am

Britain. A breath of foul air

"The UK faces £300m in fines after failing to meet EU pollution targets, but Britons also pay the price with heart disease, asthma and cancer.

More than 50,000 people are dying prematurely in the UK every year, and thousands more suffer serious illness because of man-made air pollution, according to a parliamentary report published tomorrow. The UK now faces the threat of £300m in fines after it failed to meet legally binding EU targets to reduce pollution to safe levels.

Air pollution is cutting life expectancy by as many as nine years in the worst-affected city areas. On average, Britons die eight months too soon because of dirty air. Pollutants from cars, factories, houses and agriculture cause childhood health problems such as premature births, asthma and poor lung development. They play a major role in the development of chronic and life-shortening adult diseases affecting the heart and lungs, which can lead to repeated hospital admissions. Treating victims of Britain's poor air quality costs the country up to £20bn each year.

Nearly 5.5 million people receive NHS treatment for asthma, and more than 90,000 people were admitted to hospital as a result of the disease in England in 2008/09. US research has found that the lungs of children who live in highly polluted areas fail to develop fully."

"Professor Kelly said: "Instead of tightening up our policies, they have been dismantled instead."

Environmental Protection UK, an influential campaign group, condemned what it called the Government's "wait and see" approach to air quality, which has meant pinning too much hope on the impact of European standards for cleaner vehicles.

Ed Dearnley, the group's policy officer, said yesterday:
"Resources dedicated to air quality have been tiny in comparison to other areas of public health work such as obesity and passive smoking."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24790.html


Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air
pollution and lung cancer

"Delegates attending an international conference in London today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, will hear how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead"
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html


Secondhand Smoke & Mirrors
"In 1975, British delegate Sir George Godber informed the World Health Organization how to get smokers to quit:
foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air"
http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/200 ... roupId=669


Passive smoking 'killing workers'

"The study found that around 900 office workers, 165 bar workers and 145 manufacturing workers die each year as a direct result of breathing in other people's tobacco smoke at work.
Study was carried out by James Repace, who has previously conducted research into passive smoking for the California Department of Health"

"More people died in 2002 from passive smoking at work in the UK than were killed by the Great London smog of 1952" - James Repace
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2925633.stm
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Sun Mar 28, 2010 5:44 pm

Smoking and the sea change in public health, 1945-2007

"Today's alliance between doctors and the government to influence individual lifestyles is a relatively recent phenomenon.
First, it required the medical profession to abandon its culture of secrecy, based on patient confidentiality: this began with the use of television in the late 1950s.

Second, it required the introduction into public policy of studies linking lifestyles and health risks: this began with a change in leadership at the Royal College of Physicians in the early 1960s.
Third, it required a shift in the nature of public health from local information giving to central publicity campaigning: this began with the Cohen Report on health education in 1964, advocating a rethinking of the profession of health educators as persuaders, even salesmen."
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/ ... er-59.html


"The new School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine was opened in its present building in Keppel Street, a gift from the Rockefeller Foundation.
At that time, the term 'hygiene' was not restricted to its current meaning of 'cleanliness' or 'sanitary science', but was used in the wider sense of the establishment and maintenance of health - now more usually described as 'public health'"
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/prospectus/intro/

1945-1946
Rockefeller Foundation offers fellowships for training "hand-picked" students in Public Health Department.
Introduction of lectures on sociology and social medicine.
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/chronology.html


Medical Research Council
Rockefeller Medical Fellowships
1932
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... D0032a.pdf


"The first British Labour government which came to power in 1945, the Medical Research Council, which had been created before the war, set up a toxicology research unit.
Its aims was to monitor the growing use of chemicals, including insecticides, fungicides, and organic solvents, and their effects on human health.

In the early fifties, the MRC Toxicology Unit did indeed research pesticides, and especially the effect of organophosphate insecticides on human health.
By the mid-fifties, however, the unit was moving slowly away from its original brief, pushing chemicals to one side and liberally extending the research to cover more esoteric subjects.
Significantly, in 1956, one of the Unit's nine research subjects was the "toxic properties of certain plants used as herbal remedies in primitive societies."
The accent was already on natural rather than man-made poisons."
http://www.familiesagainstcancer.org/?id=129


"The MRC agreed to initiate a large-scale statistical study of the past smoking habits of those with cancer of the lung, and of two control groups. This was the origin of the work carried out in the Statistical Research Unit at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) by Professor Austin Bradford Hill and Dr. Richard Doll."

"Second, it disposed of the air-pollution connection. Although the Comitia of the Royal College had wanted a report that combined discussion of both issues, the committee decided not to produce this:
It was agreed that the evidence would be of an entirely different quality and nature.

It was pointed out that individuals could avoid the dangers of smoking but not those of pollution.

It was also thought that a section on atmospheric pollution within the main report might detract from the main arguments on smoking and lung cancer"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894742/


"One would have expected the results of such definitive experiments to have been published by 1957 or 1958, or by 1960 at the very latest.
Instead, publication of papers on the subject suddenly ceased; funds for research on the effects of diesel smoke were withdrawn; lawyers issued instructions on how to confuse a court should an action for damages be initiated; and articles on diesel fuel tended to have the unsupported statement "diesel smoke is harmless" as a frequent non sequitor.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/d ... 99&page=17


"An estimated 12,000 people died from the effects of the smog, but there was a shift in the public health agenda from the 1950s onwards towards the individual taking responsibility for his or her own health"
"What was happening in this committee was a shift away from a concept of health and wellbeing related to an individual's environment, occupation, class or work, towards one focused strongly on that individual's responsibility for his or her health"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/dec ... ing.uknews


"The cost of sloth, gluttony, alcoholic intemperance, reckless driving, sexual frenzy, and smoking have now become a national, not an individual, responsibility, all justified as individual freedom," asserts Dr. John Knowles, the influential president of the Rockefeller Foundation"
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03sov/0303 ... brown5.htm
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:28 pm

1953
"Bessy Braddock, Labour MP for Liverpool Exchange, favoured an environmental explanation, and
therefore found the urban–rural divide a barrier to acceptance of the smoking–lung cancer connection.
‘In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the country, it is folly to say that it is the
main cause of lung cancer.’

"The text of a TV broadcast on the subject in 1953 after publication of the Doll–Hill research on smoking and lung cancer in 1950 gives a sense of the focus on both individual and environment.
Introduced by Charles Fletcher, later famous for his pioneering Your Life in Their Hands, the programme was called Matters of Medicine.

Dr Guy Scadding, taking part, expressed the views clearly:smoking cannot be called the cause of lung cancer, since non-smokers also get the disease, and moreover the increase in cigarette smoking is not likely to be the only cause of the increase in the lung cancer death rate.
"The effect of smoking cannot explain the difference in mortality between town and country
dwellers.
Perhaps the effect of air pollution is another factor. If the effects of smoking and general pollution of the air are … if they reinforce each other, Ithink that most of the known facts about the incidence of lung cancer can be explained."




"This committee was operating just after the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1956, which had come about in part in response to the ‘great smog’ of 1952.

The government’s legislation had been delayed until after the general election of 1955 because of fears of how the public might react to restrictions on long-standing habits of open fire domestic heating; and the resultant legislation had also been criticized for dealing only with those habits and not with air pollution from industry.

The MRC, so it was reported to the Cabinet committee, had for the first time come to the conclusion that the smoking of tobacco had a direct causal relationship to lung cancer and therefore there was no alternative but to publicize their conclusions.

It was the proposed inclusion in the MRC statement that up to 30% of lung cancer might be caused by air pollution which caused the greatest political alarm.

This would give air pollution, the minutes record, ‘unwarranted prominence’.
The committee thought that Professor Bradford Hill and Dr Doll had failed to show any substantial difference in risk among non-smokers in greater London and in rural areas.

So the politicians asked the MRC to re-examine their statement.
Both statements, so it was commented, had obvious political implications.

On 31 May 1957, Lord Home, the Lord President of the Council (responsible for the MRC), reported back on the changes made in the statement.

The MRC had re-examined their draft and proposed to modify the references to atmospheric pollution which implied that it might be responsible for up to 30% of such deaths.
The section would read instead, ‘on balance it seems likely that atmospheric pollution plays some part in causing the disease, but a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking.’

A further section was modified to read, ‘A proportion of cases, the exact content of which cannot yet be defined, may be due to atmospheric pollution.’
The pollution issue was effectively headed off.

This episode showed that, although government was wary about the smoking and lung cancer case as a policy issue, it was infinitely preferable to air pollution.
That was the issue which government did not want reopened.

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926030-3.pdf
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

Postby Rose » Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:47 pm

Oh how very bizarre!

I have just been puzzling over why from the 20's to the50's, as the air pollution got worse and worse, nearly everyone took up smoking.
With their lungs full of smoke already, to deliberately inhale even more smoke would seem quite peculiar.


Like cures like

"It is the stable system of medicine in the world. Homeopathy is the branch of Medicine based on Nature's Law called 'Law of Similars'. (Similia similibus curentur - a Latin maxim which means
'Let likes be treated by likes.'), Hippocrates - the father of medicine, knew this law. According to the 'Law of Similars', a drug (or medicine) that produce a set of symptoms in a healthy person will cure a diseased person suffering from similar symptoms.

For example, onion, eaten raw or when peeled produces watering from the nose and eyes with burning, (symptoms similar to common cold). Hence onion (Allium cepa) is one of the most effective homoeopathic medicines that cures common colds.
http://www.medindia.net/AlternativeMedi ... opathy.htm

Excellent choice considering the plant chemicals, and while the bodies defences are dealing with the medicinal smoke, the toxic harmful smoke from air pollution is also being dealt with.

No amount of clever advertising could achieve such widespread practice, but a common problem could.
Rose
 
Posts: 912
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 6:51 am

PreviousNext

Return to Rose's Garden

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron