posted April 03, 2006 05:53 PM              

April 1, 1999
Web posted at: 10:20 p.m. EST (0320 GMT)

MIAMI (CNN) -- Smoking by teens in Florida has dropped significantly since the state began an aggressive anti-smoking campaign last year, according to a new federal report.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the number of middle school students who say they smoke dropped from 18.5 percent to 15 percent. The number of high school smokers declined from 27.4 percent to 25.2 percent during the same period, the CDC found.

The figures were based on a survey of nearly 21,000 middle and high school students.

"While there have been other programs throughout the country, notably in states like California and Massachusetts, this is the first time we've seen a significant reduction in teen smoking in nearly 20 years," said Michael Eriksen, director of the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health.

posted April 03, 2006 05:54 PM              

Teen anti-smoking campaign falls victim to Florida finances

June 14, 1999
Web posted at: 7:54 p.m. EDT (2354 GMT)

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) -- Teen-agers responsible for gritty anti-smoking ads have found themselves in the midst of a political battle between state Democrats and Republicans.

Students Working Against Tobacco, or (SWAT) -- financed by money received from Florida's settlement with cigarette makers -- was given $70 million in its maiden year to produce teen anti-smoking ads for TV and movie theaters.

Proponents of the campaign point to glowing results.

A recent survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that over the last year, smoking among Florida middle school students has dropped 18 percent, 9 percent among high school students.

Republicans not convinced

Despite those results, some of the teens who worked on the project for $6 an hour found themselves out of a job last month after the campaign's budget was slashed by the state's Republican majority.

"We want to know whether the ads are hitting the target audience. We want to know that there has been behavior modification," said Republican State Rep. Debby Sanderson.

Although the state Department of Health and Republican Gov. Jeb Bush requested $61 million for the project, the GOP-dominated Legislature earmarked roughly $32 million for the project.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/14/project.truth/

posted April 03, 2006 06:46 PM              

For the first four years after the Frank Statement, the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) was a chief source of industry denials of harm. The Tobacco Institute (TI), established in 1958, continued this campaign of disinformation. A 1959 press release asserted that the case against tobacco was nothing new, but rather based on "constantly rehashed statistical theories."39 A 1962 press release claimed that "the causes of lung cancer are not now known to science" and that cigarettes should be looked upon as "goodwill ambassadors around the world."40 A 1968 TI document denied that smoking had ever been shown to cause premature death, lung cancer, or any other ill effect, and proposed instead that smokers may just be "a different breed of cat."41 A 1978 Tobacco Institute booklet reasserted that "years of scientific research" had "failed to provide conclusive evidence that smoking causes disease." 42

The industry also sought to mislead physicians by establishing a widely circulated quarterly publication, Tobacco and Health Research (1958-1969), published by the Tobacco Institute and mailed free of charge (first class) to some 340,000 U.S. doctors, scientists, dentists and medical schools. The total print run of the newsletter in 1967 was 475,000, with the additional copies going to "communications media, selected opinion leaders, brokers and analysts, members of tobacco farm groups, tobacco industry suppliers and others with an interest in the industry."

A privately expressed goal of the newsletter was to draw attention to "doubts about the smoking theory."77 Non-tobacco causes of cancer were a major focus, meaning (for example) genetic or psychological predispositions, mining gases, misdiagnoses, metastases from other parts of the body, infections of various sorts, atmospheric pollution--and even one's date of birth.78 Typical articles included the following:

"Rare Fungus Infection Mimics Lung Cancer" (Nov.-Dec. 1963)
"Viral Infections Blamed in Bronchitis Outbreaks" (March-April 1964)
"English Surgeon Links Urbanization to Lung Cancer" (Winter 1964-65)
"Nicotine Effect is Like Exercise" (March-April 1964)
"Lung Cancer Rare in Bald Men" (March-April 1964)
"28 Reasons for Doubting Cigarette-Cancer Link" (July-August 1963)
"No One Yet Knows the Answers" (July-August 1963)

Private editorial communications make it clear that the goal was to steer attention away from anything that might support the cancer link: an October 18, 1968, memo from Hill & Knowlton to the Tobacco Institute's head of public relations states that "The most important type of story is that which casts doubt on the cause and effect theory of disease and smoking." Eye-grabbing headlines were supposed to "strongly call out the point--Controversy! Contradiction! Other factors! Unknowns!"79 Thompson listed the following examples of suitable topics:

-- a report in which the statistics of a smoking-associated disease are questioned.
-- one in which death certificates or classifications of such a disease are questioned.
-- one showing that many lung cancers may be metastatic from some other organ.
-- one indicating that a virus may cause human cancer, whether or not that cancer is associated with smoking.
-- one on research with animals, indicating that some other factor maybe involved with carcinogenesis or ciliostasis.80

The publication was essentially a propaganda sheet to spread misinformation about the reality of tobacco hazards. Newspapers often picked up and published stories from the newsletter: the October, 1962, issue alone, for example, resulted in at least four separate news stories.81
http://www.psljournal.com/archives/papers/tobacco2.cfm

posted April 03, 2006 07:23 PM            

Nice try but attempts to change the subject don't work with me.

posted April 07, 2006 11:00 AM            

Scientists blame sun for global warming

The Sun is more active than it has ever been in the last 300 years
Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.

And individual cycles can be more or less active.

The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.

The researchers point out that much of the half-a-degree rise in global temperature over the last 120 years occurred before 1940 - earlier than the biggest rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Ancient trees reveal most warm spells are caused by the sun. Using ancient tree rings, they show that 17 out of 19 warm spells in the last 10,000 years coincided with peaks in solar activity.

They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.

The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

posted April 07, 2006 07:13 PM            

Maryland joins states breaking with Bush on CO2
Fri Apr 7, 1:33 PM ET

Maryland has become the eighth state to join a pact seeking mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions, the governor's office said on Friday.

President George W. Bush opposes forcing emitters to limit production of the gases that most scientists believe cause global warming. He favors voluntary methods of reducing them.

Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican, signed an act on Thursday that requires the state to join the pact, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

Seven states agreed to the pact late last year: New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire and Delaware. It aims to cap carbon dioxide emissions from power plants at 1990 levels beginning in 2009, and cut emissions 10 percent below that level by 2018.

Of the eight RGGI states, Maryland had the second-highest level of CO2 emissions per person in 2000, behind Delaware, according to Environment Northeast. It also had the second-highest CO2 emissions, behind New York.

Maryland's move came as a surprise to many who have worked on the RGGI for years.

"The fact that a governor who had never done much about global warming signed this bill is a sign this is becoming an important political issue for many states," said a source at a nongovernmental organization who advises the RGGI.

Business groups have said the RGGI could push up electricity prices. However, the states in the pact say it could eventually push bills lower, after initially adding a few dollars a year to them, through efficiency gains at utilities.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, withdrew from the pact shortly before the seven states signed the agreement last year, saying it would boost power prices.

But Democratic politicians in the state have said they are confident they can overrule that decision.

The RGGI aims to put out in July a final draft of the plan, which will then be sent to the individual states to approve it.
--------------------------------------------

posted April 07, 2006 07:22 PM            

The state HAS to do something because they haven't regulated much (with the exception of the EPA nit-picking on other issues with small businesses) while they leave some of the larger UNION run facilities ALONE.

What will end up happening is that these UNION run facilities will have to pay more to upgrade their factories / energy plants, the costs will result in layoffs, the Union workers will get p1ssed and we'll see a bunch of court cases.

The other problem in Maryland? All the damn piece o crap cars that filter in from New Jersey and DC (where the regulation of emmission is just a fraction of other states). In Maryland you only need your car smog checked every other year and it 90% of the cars under 3 years of age would pass California strict emissions guidelines. IN FACT, in MD we only had to drive up to DEQ have them do a quicky hook up and we're done.. Take maybe 10 minutes versus the extensive tests in California.

What was the hold up? Hmmm... the crooked democrat assembly. Ever see who paves the roads in Maryland? Does the name CONTI ring any bells? Let's just say that various groups associated with cement shoes continuously win the bids for the roads. The works is shoddy, the roads fall apart and for 6 months the place is full of thick black smoke and crap from the road teams.

Sooooooo..... it was time that a Pubbie finally got into office to start with the clean up. Had the wonderdummies stayed in office (like Spendening.. who did NOTHING for the state) the CO2 matter would still be sitting on the wayside.

posted April 07, 2006 07:53 PM            

Md. Governor Signs Air Pollution Bill

By KRISTEN WYATT
The Associated Press
Friday, April 7, 2006; 4:51 AM

ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Gov. Robert Ehrlich unexpectedly signed into law a bill requiring cleanups at power plants, after saying last year that Maryland did not need such a law.

The bill signed into law Thursday requires coal-fired power plants in parts of Maryland to dramatically reduce emissions of four pollutants, including mercury. It also calls for Maryland to join seven northeastern states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 10 percent by 2019.

Ehrlich signed the measure without telling Democratic lawmakers who worked on the bill, which they perceived as a snub. The governor had been scheduled to sign a different bill making Maryland one of four states that fund embryonic stem cell research, but the pollution signing was not publicized.

"Guess what, governor _ none of my members were invited," an upset Democratic Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said after the signing. "These are not happy times in the state Capitol."

Ehrlich last year recommended a policy change that would accomplish some of the cleanups without a new law. His version did not call for a cut in carbon dioxide emissions, however, which scientists believe contribute to global warming.

"The issue is the carbon," Ehrlich said in brief remarks to explain why he was signing the measure. He said the technology to reduce carbon dioxide "does not currently exist, but we believe it will" by 2019.

The new law allows Maryland to back out of the regional initiative starting in 2009 if power companies show that cleanups would threaten electricity supply.

The law will affect coal-fired power plants in metropolitan Baltimore and Washington, which power suppliers had warned may drive up prices just as rate caps are to expire across Maryland.

© 2006 The Associated Press

Ehrlich Signs Air Pollution, Stem Cell Bills: Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich made 16 bills into laws yesterday, reports the Post. The most notable: a funding proposal that would provide state grants for stem cell research; and the Healthy Air Act, which will tighten pollution restrictions on the state's dirtiest coal-fired power plants. The latter signing came as something of a surprise, given Ehrlich's statements of opposition to an earlier version of the bill. http://www.dcist.com/archives/2006/04/07/morning_roundup_357.php
--------------------------------------------

posted April 07, 2006 08:28 PM            

Maybe Ehrlich realized the impact that all the factories were having on the environment. Maybe he realized that the jetstream also contributes to the pollution of the state as MD is the filter for all the crap that funnels through the west coast, mid west and then out through the Eastern shore.

I actually voted for Mr. Ehrlich and I don't think his signing this bill has anything to do with outright endorsing the argument FOR global warming.

I'd like to know if it was piggy backed to the stem cell research. You know what I mean? If you don't vote for the CO2 portion then you can kiss stem cell research goodbye?

posted April 07, 2006 09:02 PM            

The biggest cause of warming temperatures is the increased radiation output of the sun. Period.

The second biggest cause of warming is increased water vapor in the atmosphere caused by evaporation from the ocean surfaces because the additional solar radiation heats the oceans. Water vapor in the atmosphere is far more effective at trapping heat than CO2

The third biggest cause of warming is release of CO2 from the oceans...particularly from the colder waters in the Arctic and Antarctic regions because these colder waters act as gigantic CO2 sinks, absorbing CO2 when the waters are colder and releasing CO2 when they warm...as they are now warming. There is an additional aspect to these warming waters and that's volcanic activity under the northern seas and oceans which is helping to warm them.

The fourth biggest cause of warming is release of methane which is being released on the far northern hemisphere from thawing of the permafrost which has covered and trapped methane from decaying vegetation which is now gassing off into the atmosphere.

There is not a damned thing humans can do about any of these causes of warming. The earth has been through endless cycles of warming and cooling without humans lifting a single finger to cause either cycle.

Personally, I think everything which can be done to reduce air pollution should be done...but not at the cost of shutting down the energy and manufacturing sectors of the economy.

PS: CO2 is not an air pollutant. It's a naturally occurring substance in the atmosphere. It's also the lifeblood of plant life without which plants would die...rather quickly I might add.

posted April 07, 2006 09:21 PM            

Reading through this thread/string it seems that pidaua and jwhop believe that global warming is not really happening ... or that if it is, it is in no way related to the output of pollutants by humanity. Meanwhile, the others posting believe that humans do have something to do with global warming and believe that it is actually happening or could possibly be happening.

Is that correct? If it is not correct, then please ignore the following.

It is true that the earth has heated up and cooled down on its own over the course of its existence. Natural causes, yada yada, the earth's temperature adjusts accordingly. Here is my question ... is it not at all possible that what humans have been adding in the way of pollutants to the earth's environment is in any way, however small, contributing to the already natural causes for the earth to warm or cool?

For a very bad example, we have Joe. Joe is unfortunately genetically predisposed to being overweight. Everyone in his family, as far as anyone can remember, has been overweight. So poor Joe is really rather screwed from birth if he wants to not be overweight. Joe is already overweight and has been so his entire life. However, isn't there a single chance that perhaps Joe's eating habits and exercise routine (or lack there of) is contributing, even in a small way, to his weight problem? As in, he already has a problem with weight and is just adding to it by what he himself is putting into and doing with his body?
Certainly, one can say that no matter what Joe does, he will always be overweight. But how does Joe really know if he doesn't make the effort to lose weight ... assuming, of course, that Joe wants to lose weight in the first place.

So, very bad example over ...

pidaua recently stated that Republicans do care about the environment. Assuming that is true (not saying it isn't but one person can't really speak for all Republicans so we're just going to assume it's true for this discussion), it suggests that we can all agree somewhat that part of what we as humans are doing is, to some extent, not absolutely unharmful to the environment. I say this because the discussion recently turned to the pollution problem in Maryland. Ie, there is a problem with pollution, at least in Maryland. The state also needs to do something to address this problem. So, pollution, we can see, is a problem. But just how big a problem is it?
Is it a problem just because it is unsightly?
Is it a problem because it is affecting the quality of health for the people in that state?
Is it a problem because it can be affecting the environment in that state?
Is it a problem because it is not the only place in the world where that same problem exists?
Is it a problem because too many places thus polluted pose a threat to the health of people?
Is it a threat to the people living near it or can it be argued that it is a threat to all of us?
If it is a threat to people who live near it, isn't there even a teeny tiny chance that it can be a threat to the animals and plants that also live near it?
Is it possible that the many different types of pollution that exist currently in the world can be working together to contribute to a greater problem that can possibly affect the different people, animals, plants and ecosystems around the world?
Is it possible that the problem of pollution is affecting our world?
If it is affecting our world, how exactly is it affecting it?
Is pollution really a manmade problem and are we sure we know exactly and unequivocally where it comes from and how it affects all life on our planet?

These are serious questions. I'm not trying to lead anyone one way or another. I'm really asking and would like your input and, if possible, your reasons, personal or professional, for your views.

posted April 07, 2006 09:50 PM              

Thank you for your eloquent and diplomatic post.

Thank you for your thought provoking questions and your example of exactly what the problem is.

Can we in all certainty say that Human Beings activities since the Industrial Revolution have had NOTHING to do with the warming/cooling pattern of this fabulous place we all call home? Or could it be possible that we have contributed to this pattern? If so, don't we have an obligation to clean up after ourselves? Not only this country, all countries are responsible.

posted April 08, 2006 01:10 AM              

If we don't heal MOther Earth..well..the universal laws will see that she takes care of herSelf..
where will that leave us?

Sending EveryOne Lots of Love. ...