The Injury Board Commentary - Toxic Substances - Most Commented

How Deadly is Your Dry Cleaning Part 2 – A Blogger Strikes Back

Camryn Hansen — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:12:44 GMT

After being ignored for several days, a blog I wrote last week on the dangers of the dry cleaning chemical perc caught fire this weekend, inciting comments that were not simply indignant, but personally insulting—accusing me and the Ferrara Law Firm of everything from pseudo-science to fear mongering. One email I received curtly informed me that I suffer from a “lack of education.”

Initially baffled by this (I honestly don’t often get such passionate responses to my Injury Board blogs, which, counter to what some comments suggest, aren’t out to specifically target dry cleaning as the scourge of America, but vary in topic, addressing issues from big tobacco to library legislation), I googled the names of the negative commenters. While I expected some of them to have something to do with dry cleaning, I didn’t expect them all to—but they did. Every one of them owns or runs or works in a dry cleaner.

Before I delve into the meaning of this, I should first make it clear that I am not an attorney; I’m a freelance writer. I don’t get paid to bring in cases against anybody; I don’t get royalties from settlements or jury awards; I don’t get money for anything other than writing blogs, which are just that: blogs. They don’t in any way pretend to scientific authority, and don’t presume to prioritize threats to the wellbeing of Americans. Rather, they are meant to touch on issues of public health and safety with a vigorous skepticism towards products and services that have been shown to pose a level of risk that many people, when informed of such a risk, will not willingly accept.

Such is the case with dry cleaning. For my own part, after getting my clothes dry cleaned a couple of weeks ago (I usually don’t; it was a special occasion) and breaking out in an itchy rash afterward, I decided to research why this might be. Lo and behold, I immediately stumbled on the EPA’s website, which describes the dry cleaning chemical perc (also known as tetrachloroethylene) thus:

Tetrachloroethylene is widely used for dry-cleaning fabrics and metal degreasing operations. The main effects of tetrachloroethylene in humans are neurological, liver, and kidney effects following acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure. Adverse reproductive effects, such as spontaneous abortions, have been reported from occupational exposure to tetrachloroethylene; however, no definite conclusions can be made because of the limitations of the studies. Results from epidemiological studies of dry-cleaners occupationally exposed to tetrachloroethylene suggest increased risks for several types of cancer. Animal studies have reported an increased incidence of liver cancer in mice, via inhalation and gavage (experimentally placing the chemical in the stomach), and kidney and mononuclear cell leukemia in rats. In the mid-1980s, EPA considered the epidemiological and animal evidence on tetrachloroethylene as intermediate between a probable and possible human carcinogen (Group B/C). The Agency is currently reassessing its potential carcinogenicity. -EPA

While a few different comments make fun of the word “probable” in this characterization, as though it’s somehow indicative of scientific and even personal failures on the part of EPA researchers, my feeling as a consumer (not, as I said, a lawyer) is that this established probability is sufficient for me to want to avoid conventional dry cleaning for the rest of my life. Why chance it? The benefits of dry cleaning just aren’t fantastic enough for me to want probably toxic chemicals soaking into my skin—to compound, I might add, rather than exist as an alternative to, the many other environmental and food-based toxins so many commenters propagandistically cite as a lot more dangerous than perc. The probability is undoubtedly sufficient for many Americans to choose alternatives to conventional dry cleaning. Case in point, the state of California has actually banned the chemical perc and plans to phase it out completely by 2023—not to be alarmist, but to benefit public health using the best research currently available.

For those of you who charged me with personally proving that perc causes cancer, you might as well know that I’m not a scientist (nor, in fact, even a pseudo-scientist) and that I can’t prove any of it. All I can do is let consumers know what I, as a non-industry person, didn’t know two weeks ago about the suspected risks of dry cleaning chemicals, but wish someone had told me earlier.

For those of you who argued that perc is relatively safe and doesn’t cause cancer, liver or kidney disease, spontaneous abortions, and/or nervous system depression, what proof do you have? I’d be grateful to see it, for all our sakes. As I’m sure you know, simply saying that it’s safe doesn’t make it safe. It might, however, keep your customers from choosing legitimately safer alternatives—which may be a greater concern to you than the actual health of the public.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen

Salmonella Contamination Confirmed at Peanut Corporation of America Georgia Facility

Jessica Smagacz — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:01:25 GMT

The recent salmonella outbreak has sickened hundreds of people nationwide and killed about six people. Now, the most recent news is that Peanut Corporation of America’s facility in Georgia has been confirmed to have salmonella contamination.

Investigations started after Minnesota health officials found salmonella bacteria in a five pound tub under the label of King Nut, manufactured by the Peanut Corporation of America.

The focus of the investigation was on the Peanut Corporation of America and peanut butter. The Washington Post reports that the investigation is now broader, focusing on peanut butter, baked goods and other products that contain peanuts. Apparently, health officials say about one-third of those who have gotten sick do not recall eating peanut butter. The main focus is on peanut paste (ground peanuts) produced at the Georgia facility owned by the Peanut Corporation of America. The company used paste in dozens of products, ranging from baked goods to cooking sauces. Companies are being urged to test their products or pull them from shelves as Kellogg did.

Companies such as Hy-Vee Inc recalled all products with the peanut butter ingredient used in their baking products. Hy-Vee’s peanut ingredient is from the Peanut Corporation of America. They are doing this as a precautionary measure. Another company is Perry’s Ice Cream who recalled select peanut butter ice cream products.

As discussed in our previous post: Peanut Corporation of America Recalls Peanut Butter produced in its Georgia facility, the Peanut Corporation recalled 21 lots of peanut butter made at the plant since July 1st. But this past Friday, the Peanut Corporation of America expanded the voluntary recall to include all peanut butter produced at the Georgia plant since August 8th and all peanut paste produced since September 26th. The processing of peanut butter at this facility has been suspended for now.

Washington Post reports that the Georgia plant will also be closed immediately for continuing investigation.

Salmonella poisoning can become a dangerous sickness. If you have eaten peanut butter, look out for these symptoms of salmonella: Diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps.

These symptoms can last from 12 to 72 hours after a person is infected. According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the salmonella infection is “usually diagnosed by culture of a stool sample.” The sickness usually lasts four to seven days. Salmonella can also spread from “the intestines to the bloodstream and then to other body sites and cause death unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. In some cases, treatment is necessary. Food injury is not to be taken lightly.

If you or someone close to you has salmonella poisoning, you may want to contact the attorneys at Childers & Schlueter, LLP to see how they can help protect your legal rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jessica Smagacz

Congress: the FDA Will Now Control Cigarettes

Mike Ferrara — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:15:36 GMT

The Senate voted today and the House is expected to vote tomorrow to pass The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, a critical piece of legislation that will allow the FDA to regulate cigarettes and other forms of tobacco.

Currently, a full twenty percent of Americans smoke, and 400,000 die every year from diseases related to smoking.

The new legislation, which President Obama is expected to sign as soon as it reaches his desk (he co-sponsored the bill when he was in the Senate), will allow the FDA to regulate the chemicals in cigarette smoke, ban cigarette flavorings (which are said to entice children and teens into the deadly habit), and look into banning menthol (which has links to higher rates of lung cancer). There are about 60 cancer-causing chemicals and 4000 poisonous chemicals in cigarette smoke: these would all be reduced under the auspices of the FDA.

However, though the FDA may also be able to reduce the amount of addictive nicotine in cigarettes, this legislation expressly forbids the agency to ban it altogether. Researchers have suggested that doing so might force addicts to turn to the black market for their nic fixes.

The law would also further restrict marketing and advertising of tobacco products. Colorful advertising and store displays will be replaced by black-and-white-only text as part of restrictions aimed at reducing the appeal to youth to try smoking. Cigarette makers will be required to stop using terms like “light” and “low tar” by next year and to place large and graphic health warnings on their packages by 2012.

“This long-overdue grant of authority to F.D.A. to regulate tobacco products means that the agency can finally take the actions needed to protect our people from the most deadly of all consumer products,” Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who was chief sponsor of the legislation in the Senate, said in a statement from home, where he is receiving treatment for a brain tumor. -The New York Times

The wholly bipartisan legislation passed in the Senate by a 3:1 ratio; it has equally bipartisan support in the House.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Chinese Drywall Is Not DRAGONBOARD!

Wayne Parsons — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:01:15 GMT

I posted an article on January 2, 2009 about a problem in the Southeastern states involving toxic odors of sulfur from drywall installed in new homes: "Drywall From China Causes Concern Over Sulfur Odor In Homes".

The story generated a lot of Comments and in the process some facts were not reported accurately. The main misunderstanding that I want to clarify here is that the product referred to as "Chinese Drywall" is not also called "DRAGONBOARD®" or other products identified as magnesium oxide board, MgO board or Mag board. There is no similarity between DRAGONBOARD® and the odorous Chinese drywall that has led to homeowner complaints throughout the Southeast states from Louisiana to Florida. I am including below the two Comments that mentioned DRAGONBOARD®.

The Comment by ManateeKnows is not correct that the offending "Chinese Drywall" is possibly DRAGONBOARD® of some magnesium-based product. The Comment by Bill Randy correctly points out that DRAGONBOARD® is a totally different product that doesn't smell, has never caused these types of problems and could not be the smelly "Chinese Drywall".

I have been in touch with Michael Di Raimondo, Director of Sales for DRAGONBOARD®-US in Edison, NJ. Mr. Di Raimondo kindly sent me samples of their product and invidet me to smell it (no odor) and to put it in water (I did - it still doesn't smell and seems impervious to water). DRAGONBOARD is waterproof and has been subjected to 36 months of freeze-thaw testing, it is UL fire rated and is ASTM D-5628 impact resistant. In addition it is silica/asbestos/foraldehyde free and thus a "green" product.. Mr. Di Raimondo describes DRAGONBOARD as the "GREEN" construction panel of the 21st century. It looks like an excellent product.

If the builders in Florida, like Ryland Homes had given their customers a quality product like DRAGONBOARD instead of the Chinese manufactured - and you can bet "cheap" - foreign drywall, the homeowners whose new homes have been ruined would not have this heartache. As we all know, homebuilders put their money in construction into glamorous visible fixtures and take shortcuts on the structure and on materials that the homeowner cannot see. The Chinese Drywall fiasco is such an example. When will homebuilders, some of which a re huge national corporations, stop doing this shoddy construction taking advantage of their customers for a few extra dollars.

Companies like DRAGONBOARD®-US will hopefully get more calls from the homebuilding industry and home buyers will be given a new home with ethical and high quality materials, even the ones they can't see. In Hawaii we do not have the Chinese Drywall problem. Odd since we are much closer to China. But we do have a building industry that uses cheap materials and shoddy construction in places that the home buyer cannot see.

Here are the Comments that led to this clarifying post:

Posted by ManateeKnows
Friday, January 16, 2009 3:06 PM EST

If you call it drywall, it has to be made of gypsum which is an unlikely culprit. Consider that this stuff is NOT drywall/wallboard. It may be Chinese magnesium oxide board, also called Mag Board, MgO Board and Dragon Board. Wet it and it releases magnesium chloride, corrosive to metal. Heat it and it releases magnesium oxide fumes, cough cough cough.

Posted by Bill Randy
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:16 PM EST

To suggest that all boards made in China are bad is like saying all peanuts from the USA contain salmonella. It is an irresponsible approach to the truth.

Knaupf is a legitmate global player and this drywall contains sulfur. They need to honor the claim. It is a legitimate claim but we need to proceed with caution when labeling "chinese drywall...."

One of your respondent says that dragon board and mag board may be suspect as they are made of magnesium oxide and when heated it releases fumes (not true fumes are released in welding metals not baking boards) and when wet it releases magnesium chloride (not true and if it was true its a safe chemical). Magnesium chloride is an important coagulant used in the preparation of tofu from soy milk (safe) and magnesium oxide boards have no mold, no flame, and no smoke.....

As a matter of fact Georgia Pacific, an american company, states in their literature that most us homes have mold growth in them due to paper faced gyspsum drywall. USA fiber cement and cement boards contain silica (causing crystaline silicate problems when breathed).

So again please watch the grouping or else no one will eat Florida tomatoes, california spinach, US hormone rich beef, or georgia peanuts!

Please dispel

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Wayne Parsons

How Deadly is Your Dry Cleaning?

Camryn Hansen — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:39:12 GMT

Don’t let the “clean” in dry cleaning mislead you. Eighty five percent of dry cleaners across the country use a dangerous solvent called perchloroethylene, or “perc” for short, to remove the dirt and grime from your clothes.

Classified by the EPA as a health and environmental hazard, perc is a toxic chemical known to depress the nervous system, causing dizziness, headaches, confusion, nausea, trouble with speaking and walking, and at high concentrations, unconsciousness and even death. In studies on animals, it’s also caused kidney and liver damage. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies perc as a Group 2A carcinogen, meaning that it is probably cancer-causing to humans as well.

When you take your clothes home from the cleaners, the chemical perc outgases and spreads throughout your house. It also enters your body through your skin when you wear dry cleaned clothes. With repeated skin contact, it can start to dissolve the natural oils in your skin, resulting in severe skin irritation.

This is not what we should consider clean. Before you flip out, though, know that alternatives to toxic dry cleaning exist. More and more popular these days are “green” or “organic” dry cleaners, which don’t use perc, but a process called wet cleaning, in which a smart-machine applies a very small amount of water and detergent to your clothes, adapting to the specific needs of each garment. Often, hand washing also works well on even clothes that are labeled “dry clean only”—if you use some special techniques.

California has passed a law to phase out the use of perc completely by 2023. Clearly, the rest of us should follow suit.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Camryn Hansen

Brazilian Blowout - Where Are The Victims? Where Is The Outrage?

Tor Hoerman — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:34:53 GMT

There are likely thousands of stylists and hair care workers suffering quietly as a result of their repeated exposure to Brazilian Blowout, while its manufacturer continues to deceive and continue to make millions. But where are these sick people, and where is the outrage?

Why are the sick not coming forward?

This question has perplexed us for several months, but having spoken to the courageous few that have come forward, we have pinpointed four factors that cumulatively explain the silence - the disease is slow to progress and symptoms are often misdiagnosed; demand for the Brazilian Blowout remains high; Hair Stylists are financially conflicted; and, GIB LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Brazilian Blowout”) the company responsible for the popular salon service, continues to deflect questions and deceive the public.

The Illnesses caused by Exposure Are Slow To Develop

Short-term effects to formaldehyde exposure are well-known – burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin irritation. People don't want to believe they are being harmed by exposure to formaldehyde, so they will explain away the symptoms as bronchitis, a cold, asthma, or some other transient disease that will hopefully heal. But, at what level and at what point does exposure to formaldehyde become dangerous in the long-term and what are the effects?

Research studies of workers exposed to formaldehyde suggest an association between formaldehyde exposure and several cancers, including nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia. These studies did not characterize the specific work practices and exposure levels, but, studies such as these caused OSHA to establish standards for formaldehyde exposure for workers that are well below the numbers found at salons using Brazilian Blowout.

Although the stylists that perform the Brazilian Blowout procedure are obviously experiencing short-term effects, a cancer diagnosis is not as obvious currently.

Demand Remains Very High

Lets face it, formaldehyde, and thus, Brazilian Blowout does in fact take the frizz out of hair and gives the recipient of the procedure more than a month of “wash and wear” hair. Therefore, despite actions taken by OSHA, Congress and the FDA – demand for the “celebrity hair obsession” has not decreased. The danger is not really to the person in the chair getting the treatment, but to the person behind the chair, repeatedly giving the treatment.

Many recipients of Brazilian Blowout suspect that there is something not quite right about a request to keep their eyes closed during an hour-long hair procedure. As they sit in the chair for their procedure, recipients report being troubled by the overwhelming chemical smell. Furthermore, many report they suspect the sniffling/blood shot eyes of the stylist isn’t a normal reaction. However, even those recipeints that suspect something wrong, contemplate a follow up procedure after they have experienced a few months worth of “great hair days.”

Hair-Stylists Financially Conflicted

Nobody wants to quit doing something that is profitable, and we will rationalize our actions when a financial conflict exists. At an average of $300/service, Brazilian Blowout is one of the most expensive services a salon can offer – leaving both salon owners and stylists conflicted about the risk they take in offering these services.

Although stylists and salon owners are the people most likely to experience injuries as a result of repeat exposure to the formaldehyde in this product, most are unwilling to speak out against the procedure.

Just as the stylist wants to believe they are not being injured, these workers who rely on this money to put food on the table want to believe that the product is actually safe.

Brazilian Blowout continues to Mislead

Feeding on this financial conflict, Brazilian Blowout has consistently misled and deceived the public and regulatory bodies about the true chemical make-up of its product.

Even if the stylist, salon owner, or recipient were to do research into the Brazilian Blowout products they would at some point come to a “he said/she said” dead-end to their research. Brazilian Blowout’s "Zero” line of products is being marketed specifically as a “plant-derived 0% formaldehyde treatment” despite OSHA studies and testing clearly finding otherwise.

Of course, this begs the question of whether this company is in essence admitting to formaldehyde in the prior “original” formulation, but, again, Brazilian Blowout continues to offer both versions of their Brazilian Blowout products and maintains that they are 100% confident with regards to the safety and integrity of their products.

Recently the Brazilian Blowout website added a note stating that they are now “working directly with the FDA to help clear up the controversy.” Brazilian Blowout is due to respond to the FDA next Monday, so, we certainly hope that the controversy will be over shortly.

We would love to be wrong about the amount of injuries that have likely occurred as a result of this latest beauty craze, but with the rates and duration of exposure being as high as they are, I fear we are right.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Tor Hoerman

The Culprit to the Salmonella Outbreak--Peanut Corporation of America and King Nut Peanut Butter?

Jessica Smagacz — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:35:54 GMT

Today the Washington Post released an article reporting that an Ohio peanut butter distributor issued a voluntary recall for two brands of peanut butter. This recall was announced after Minnesota health officials found salmonella bacteria in a tub of peanut butter that is given to schools and hospitals to distribute.

Washington Post writer, Steven Reinberg says, “The recall, and the Minnesota report, could be the breakthrough in the search for the source of a salmonella outbreak that has struck in 42 states so far.”

King Nut Companies of Solon, Ohio issued the recall of all peanut butter that is distributed under its label and manufactured by Peanut Corporation of America.

Peanut Corporation of America is based in Georgia, Texas, and Virginia. See our past post on Georgia part of the National Salmonella OUTBREAK. This discovery is possibly the culprit of the salmonella outbreak, especially in Georgia since Peanut Corporation of America is based in Georgia!

The company “said it took the action after salmonella was found in an open five-pound tub of King Nut peanut butter.” Interestingly enough, this recall comes after two years ago when ConAgra issued a recall on Peter Pan brand peanut butter (linked to around 625 salmonella case in 47 states).

There are 2,500 types of salmonella bacteria present in the United States. The salmonella found in the peanut butter is Salmonella Typhimurium, which is the most common of the salmonella bacteria.

The outbreak is continuing and as we said in our past post, it is affecting Georgia. The reports coming in of people who have salmonella poisoning occurred between September 3 and December 29, 2008. Dr. Rajal Mody, a CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service officer said, “Salmonella is typically transmitted through foods that are contaminated with animal feces.”

Most reported cases of salmonella occur in children, but with the current outbreak, ages of victims ranged from less than one year old to 103 years old.

The common symptoms of salmonella poisoning include fever, stomach cramps, and diarrhea—all of these symptoms can last from 12 up to 72 hours after coming into contact with this germ.

People can contract serious infections from salmonella, especially infants, elderly, and people with a weaker immune system.

Salmonella poisoning can lead to serious sickness and even death.

Look over salmonella symptoms, especially if you have eaten peanut butter because it could have been peanut butter from the Peanut Corporation of America based in Georgia.

If you or someone close to you has salmonella poisoning, you may want to contact the attorneys at Childers & Schlueter, LLP to see how they can help protect your legal rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Jessica Smagacz

Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Housing?

Mike Ferrara — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:57:44 GMT

In the state of Maine, it has been illegal since 2008 to smoke in a car carrying passengers less than 16 years of age. The rationale is that children strapped into a smoke-filled car are particularly vulnerable to the dangers of second-hand smoke, which can be 12 to 15 times higher than in a house or apartment, and that the law should protect these children.

In a similar spirit, two lawyers and a pediatrician recently published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine recommending that the Department of Housing and Urban Development place a ban on smoking in the housing facilities it rents to low-income residents. According to the authors, those who smoke it multi-unit buildings put numerous people at risk:

Tobacco smoke can move along air ducts, through cracks in the walls and floors, through elevator shafts, and along plumbing and electrical lines to affect units on other floors. High levels of tobacco toxins can persist in the indoor environment long after the period of active smoking…over a period of days to years. In households in which one or more people smoke, the urine levels of [cancer-causing tobacco toxins] are consistently higher in infants than in nonsmoking adults…

Tobacco-smoke exposure in public housing is particularly troubling because it afflicts disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. In 2008–2009, 32% of households in public housing included elderly persons, 35% included disabled persons, and 41% included children…Adolescents who live in public housing are considered to be at high risk for early experimentation with cigarettes. -NEJM

While this recommendation may infuriate a lot of people, including those living in public housing, it will be difficult to argue legally that smoking in public housing is an inherent right. As the authors point out, various courts have upheld that smoking bans don’t violate the Constitution, and that the government can issue a ban as long as it has a “reasonable basis” for it (e.g. protecting public health). Moreover, the Fair Housing Act does not grant smokers’ rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Ferrara

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning at Hotels Should Never Happen

David Bernstein — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:11:59 GMT

On July 25, 2011, twelve (12) people staying at a Norman, Oklahoma hotel were taken to the hospital after breathing toxic levels of carbon monoxide (CO), which is is an odorless, colorless gas that can cause sudden illness and death.

Firefighters arrived at the Sooner Legends Inn and Suites after a 3-year-old child became ill and was taken to the hospital. The firefighters detected carbon monoxide and evacuated the hotel.

Deputy Fire Chief Jim Bailey says the cause of the carbon monoxide was determined to be from a damaged, leaking ventilation pipe running from the boiler to the roof.

CO is found in combustion fumes, such as those produced by cars and trucks, small gasoline engines, stoves, lanterns, burning charcoal and wood, and gas ranges and heating systems. CO from these sources can build up in enclosed or semi-enclosed spaces. People and animals in these spaces can be poisoned by breathing it.

The most common symptoms of CO poisoning are headache, dizziness, weakness, nausea, vomiting, chest pain, and confusion. High levels of CO inhalation can cause loss of consciousness and death. Unless suspected, CO poisoning can be difficult to diagnose because the symptoms mimic other illnesses. People who are sleeping or intoxicated can die from CO poisoning before ever experiencing symptoms.

It is critical thatall gas appliances must be vented so that CO will not build up. Never patch a vent pipe with tape, gum, or something else. This kind of patch can make CO build up. Horizontal vent pipes to fuel appliances should not be perfectly level. Indoor vent pipes should go up slightly as they go toward outdoors. This helps prevent CO or other gases from leaking if the joints or pipes aren't fitted tightly.

It is unclear at this stage what caused the ventilation pipe to be damaged and whether the hotel knew about the damaged pipe and did nothing to properly repair it prior to the hotel guests being evacuated.

Safety of guests should always be a hotel's first concern. The hotel and its insurer could be liable for large damages if the patrons were seriously injured or die. If it turns out the hotel was aware it had a damaged leaking ventilation pipe and did not take proper steps to look out for the safety of its guests, punitive damages might even be awarded to send a message to hotels around the country that hotels must put the safety of guests first.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Bernstein

Minnesota Looking At Another Smoking Ban

Mike Bryant — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:09:00 GMT

I don't smoke, but my dad did a lot. I remember when he would visit a number of years ago and we would sit in the smoking section of a restaurant and nonsmokers would glare at us. They wanted to eat quicker, but would get mad because they were in the smoking section. I almost wanted to start smoking. A couple of years ago that issue was dealt, with as smoking was barred from restaurants and bars.

I remember the days when the smoking sign would come on in the airplane. I was a kid and the place would light up on most flights I was on. That issue was dealt with through federal regulation.

Now the Minnesota legislator is looking at banning smoking in cars where children are present. I remember with the bar debate, a couple of bar owners asking how long it would be before people were prevented from smoking in their own houses? It looks like we haven't gotten there yet.

I remember reading Ayn Rand's description of smoking being holding fire in your hands. Now it is probably true that she was being paid by tobacco companies to write early commercials, but non the less I still thought it sounded cool. Despite that I had breathed in enough secondhand smoke growing up to know I really didn't have much interest in it. Despite all these it seems to me that adding another driving offense isn't really the way to go. Let's continue to educate the public about this issue and maybe even stop subsidizing the growing of tobacco, but it may be to soon too continue to grow the smoking ban idea.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant