Last Call for 95-Year-Old Bartender

Angelo Cammarata Retires After Bartending for Nearly 77 Years

(CBS)  If 95-year-old Angelo Cammarata is any indication, the secret to long life is a whiskey and Coke every morning, and 77 years of second-hand smoke.

Cammarata has been tending bar for 77 years, as CBS News Correspondent Steve Hartman reports.

Angelo's not the oldest bartender. But he is the longest continuous working bartender.

And to be perfectly accurate, he says it hasn't been 77 years, either. Angelo started tending bar 76 years, 5 months, 11 days, 18 hours and 27 minutes ago.

He remembers the exact moment because it was the end of prohibition. On the eve of April 7, 1933, customers lined up outside his father's grocery store in Pittsburgh. And when the clock struck twelve, Angelo made his first sale.

Angelo said it happened at 12:01. And from that second to this, Angelo stuck to the same career path.

His new bar - and by "new" we mean he moved in 56 years ago - is a neighborhood place that draws young and old alike.

Marlene Schnore met her husband Terry at Cammarata's.

Then 20 years later their daughter Michelle met her husband Dan here.

Up at the bar, John Blackstock sits on the same bar stool his dad kept warm for five decades. "That's just the way this bar is," said Blackstock.

That's also why, for the regulars, the rest of this story is so sad.

It's last call at Cammaratas.

"My customers are my family," said Angelo. "Thank you, every one of you."

Angelo says his wife Mary can't get around on her own any more. And apparently a 71 year marriage trumps a 77 year old career.

Angelo's last night was last Saturday.

After partying 'til the wee hour of 8:30 p.m., the man who ushered out prohibition - finally shuffled off to retirement.

Even at 95, Angelo feels like he still has quite a few good years left - assuming of course the fresh air doesn't kill him.

[stryker54]

I would be more concerned about the pollution in the air than someone smoking. Just liberal crap to make people stop smoking. Since there are other problems in people's health maybe we should regulate all we do, eat, drink. Come on libs, take all our rights away.

[harleyrider1978]

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated

The BMJ published report can be found here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

And concludes:

The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

What makes this study more significant than any other is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers..... meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.

This report was of course silenced in the media; however in light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws.

Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study which concluded "..secondhand smoking doesn't cause cancer..." found online here.

Excerpt:

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

[harleyrider1978]

A cancer epidemiologist, who conducted the largest secondhand smoke study ever done, the UCLA Study, completed "too late" to be included Surgeon General Carmona's 2006 report, wrote a letter, at the request of Keep St. Louis Free, to the St. Louis County Council, that ended with these two paragraphs: While the available evidence does not suggest that average exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is an important cause of heart disease or lung cancer in people who do not smoke, cigarette smoke is irritating, can trigger allergic reactions in some people, and can exacerbate asthma and other chronic respiratory conditions. Yet, since the available evidence suggests that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed, lawmakers may therefore have greater latitude than generally believed to consider the segregation of smokers and nonsmokers and the use of air filtration as adequate and responsible ways to address the health concerns of ETS in workplaces such as bars and restaurants. If it is possible, through segregation of smokers and nonsmokers and the use of air filtration, to reduce all components of environmental tobacco smoke in establishments where smoking is permitted to the level of the air in non-smoking establishments, there is reason to believe that any risk would be undetectable."









THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)



As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

[harleyrider1978]

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated

The BMJ published report can be found here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

And concludes:

The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

What makes this study more significant than any other is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers..... meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.

This report was of course silenced in the media; however in light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws.

Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study which concluded "..secondhand smoking doesn't cause cancer..." found online here.

Excerpt:

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

[harleyrider1978]

SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE.98% WATER VAPOR...........STEAM.......You ever worked in the coal mines or at clairton works.......now theres some nasty air...but all my inlaws lived thru it.....Ask yourself,why do we even need bans or laws that discriminate against the very freedoms we fought to protect. Personal bias and a political agenda of hate against three groups of people are at hand in todays politically correct world.....TOBACCO USERS.....OBESE PEOPLE.....ALCOHOL DRINKERS....

The psuedo-science and manipulated health studies used by the prohibitionist forces to instill fear and hatred against these groups is beyond anyhting seen since the 1920s during alcohol prohibition... To turn peoples hearts and emotions against their own people is tatamount to cultural treason and an even higher treason to the liberties and freedoms from which our fore fathers founded this country on.
Constutional freedom is guaranteed every person in this country from whatever walk of life. Where no one group whether they be the majority or the minority can outlaw those freedoms and liberties guaranteed us as a nation and people.

[smokinbabe]

This gentleman started his career with alcohol prohibition and ended it with tobacco prohibition. Prohibition has never worked, so let's ban it instead!

[firebugmusic]

God bless this man, and God bless CBS news for this story!!! May there be an end to tobacco prohibition and the fraud of junk science. If ETS is so deadly, then why is this man still around? Oh, and why is it that there are less than a handful of studies (out of 75 or more)that report any significance of risk at all? Why is it not told that there were also a handful of studies that showed that exposure to ETS paradoxically had a protective effect against lung cancer? Why is the story not told that the overwhelming majority of ETS studies (70) showed no relative risk (ie..harm) at all?

This story is a good start. Thank you:-)

[harleyrider1978]

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke "health hazard" claims are greatly exaggerated

The BMJ published report can be found here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

And concludes:

The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

What makes this study more significant than any other is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers..... meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.

This report was of course silenced in the media; however in light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws.

Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study which concluded "..secondhand smoking doesn't cause cancer..." found online here.

Excerpt:

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer-official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

[generalsn]

Why is it whenever an article doesn't denormalize smokers, it's called biased. I see no opinionated words, just stating a clearly obvious conclusion, with a humorous twist that people in any bar would understand and repeat.

[bubbadubba]

Yep, booze will sure kill you at an early age all right.
LOL

[stuart-johns]

Anuyway, This guy sounds like a real character. I bet no one sitting at his bar was ever bored. Too bad he has to go...seems like he'd work there till he dropped if he had his druthers.

I wish him and his wife some happy days together.

[Hosheen]

It's a wonderful story. But it is irresponsible of the reporter and CBS News to imply that drinking and second-hand smoke are "good for you".

Not that I am surprised at poor reporting on CBS. Accuracy and honesty along with good grammar and decent use of English are not things that CBS values.

[stuart-johns]

And yet you sit here reading CBS.

[aChangeOfIdeas]

What a great story!