non-profit executive, triple-bottom line advocate, vegan, and excited human.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
illegal fats
i applaud the smoking ban legislation that has been an echoing theme across the country in recent years, as it has begun to illustrate tangible benefits. and i must say, this proposal to handcuff trans fats doesn't err my countenance any either.
"The decline in the number of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year and a half after the non-smoking ban that was observed in this study is most likely due to a decrease in the effect of secondhand smoke as a triggering factor for heart attacks," it said.
That seems quite a statement for only a year and a half. Think about the 100s or thousands of factors that go into what happens in our bodies. Granted, I believe there is a decline in the number of heart attacks due to the reduced amount of smoking, but come on, attributing a 30% decrease in that short amount of time?
Maybe it's just a statistical gap in the number of people ripe for heart atacks over that period.
And then not linking to the study or where the study could be found.
the abstract is available for free, but you can pay $20 for the full schtick if you so desire. agreed, 18-months is a short time period. alas, if the findings are sound and accurate would it not be plausable to entrust that this is the limiting factor contributing to premature heart failure? clearly.
5 comments:
while i don't like smoking, i am not sure about this whole banning thing.
the trans fat thing is different. sweet potato fries are tasty.
"The decline in the number of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year and a half after the non-smoking ban that was observed in this study is most likely due to a decrease in the effect of secondhand smoke as a triggering factor for heart attacks," it said.
That seems quite a statement for only a year and a half. Think about the 100s or thousands of factors that go into what happens in our bodies. Granted, I believe there is a decline in the number of heart attacks due to the reduced amount of smoking, but come on, attributing a 30% decrease in that short amount of time?
Maybe it's just a statistical gap in the number of people ripe for heart atacks over that period.
And then not linking to the study or where the study could be found.
whooooosh. here's me blowing smoke in your face.
the abstract is available for free, but you can pay $20 for the full schtick if you so desire. agreed, 18-months is a short time period. alas, if the findings are sound and accurate would it not be plausable to entrust that this is the limiting factor contributing to premature heart failure? clearly.
Handcuffing trans fats. No smoking in restaurants. Next up: No pee sections in public pools.
no pee sections in public pools?~?! WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO!?!? :(:(:(:(:(:(:(:( that would ruin my life!
Post a Comment