A number of misconceptions circulating the “Me too” journalism circuit lately involve matters, which simply cry for a glimmer of honesty and understanding. Realizing of course the humor in a gang of journalists who decries it unthinkable a high school student can graduate without learning how to read. The same gang gives light to another more disturbing thought; a graduate of a university (with an association to admittedly lower scholastic field) yet can be graduated as a Journalist, with absolutely no mathematic or comprehension abilities whatsoever, This should raise a few eyebrows nonetheless making the proof of witch hunt logic, truly news worthy. If integrity only existed within the industry such a theory could be adequately researched and reported. Ah but when the pendulum swings who will laugh best? As we promote separation and hatred to groups among our community how expensive a prospect trying to keep windows replaced at news offices around the globe if the truth where to come out. Getting even with the Tobacco industry amounts in reality to punishing the victims for if health were the issue the product would be the target not the smoker. Taxes Tobacco settlements and industry markup to offset lost business are simply passed on to the consumer. Reductions in cost of operations go directly to higher profit margins. A win-win for stakeholders and more financial cost to the consumer.
The 47,000 deaths we seek to cure are in fact by 150 to one ratio smoker’s deaths in reality. How does protecting non-smokers even come into play if heath protection were really the plan? Calling smokers demeaning names and accusing them of killing babies hardly sets the table for reductions in harm. Of coarse responsible and ethical journalism would never have allowed this to happen.
Hundreds of millions in media expenditures seems to have removed all potential ethical barriers. A little earned media and party branding as a thank you gesture seems quite appropriate in kind. Believe me, I quite understand, just business.
From The champion of second hand smoke intelligence globally; the much revered Repace theories at the heart of anti smoker advocacy and supreme intelligence beyond question. Cough Cough {Non smokers cough?} Our own intelligence base at Health Canada, where a man described as head scientist has no training to match his job description.
The fact he is actually a political science graduate could shed a great deal of light on the subject.
Note it may be necessary to verify these figures my suggestion would be to hire a second year high school student who should be well capable of verifying what is presented. Those employed in the media industry are understandably disadvantaged in scientific analysis.
In 1960 54% of the population smoked.
Due to the fact the vast majority of the smokers were men combined with the fact smoking was unrestricted and commonly smoking was everywhere inside hospitals grocery stores movie theatres etc. due to the facts it would be difficult if not impossible to find a group who had not been exposed to second hand smoke this would by the research criteria comparing a group to an unaffected group make the majority of research done in this fashion invalid in any conclusions. Despite the facts the majority of these flawed studies still failed to find a statistically significant proof ETS causes any disease let alone cancers.
Repace has the rare ability to start at an end point and work backwards toward the point most research starts as evident in virtually all of his presentations. His sources of finances are in fact mysteriously absent from most of the quotes referring to his work.
From Repace numbers1;
-The known safe level of PPAH toxins in a smoking or non-smoking environment is 16.3 Pico grams (trillionths of a gram) per cubic meter of oxygen.
-The measured level of PPAH toxins in a non-smoking environment is by measurement 4 Nana grams (Billionths of a gram) only 250 times above the known Repace safe level.
-One cigarette by the side of the package indicates an ability to produce 100 milligrams total emissions
-25 in a pack produces 2500 milligrams half would be inhaled on average amounting to 1250 milligrams (Thousandths of a gram) per day 1,250,000,000 Nanograms
-Inhalations in a smoking environment of ½ litter inhalations (2000per Meter cubed), 4800inhalations per 8 hour day of 163 nana grams per cubic meter gives the following; 2.4 x 163 = 391.2 nana grams total daily inhalation.
-Non-smoking environment 2.4 x 4 = 9.6 nana grams
-Smoker 1250,000,000 nana grams per package, non-smoker 391.2 nanograms, no smoke 9.6-nana grams total daily inhalations
Now from Sir Richard Doll new research2, which proves in over 50 years of Doctors, smoking habits extending over the last hundred years. Conclusions revealed 12 years of smoking after cessation at 30 years of age results in no detrimental effects above the non-smoking population. Proof absolutely of dose response relationships existing in ETS Leaving risk assessment a job for the ministry of the environment, as is the case with monitoring all other toxic substances.
The only factor left to understand is the safe dose, which is also revealed in the Doll research. A known safe level can be calculated as follows; 15,000,000,000 Nana grams /32850 days over a 90 year smoking lifespan = a daily dose of 456,621 Nana grams or 457 micrograms PPAH more than 1000 times higher than what exists in a smoking environment according to Repace and a number of studies he quotes as valid. Suggesting no harm existed to start with in ETS prior to all restrictions in primary smoking.
This would amount to 15,000,000,000 Nana grams in dosages distributed over only 12 years. It would take a non smoker (250 day/years x 45 years) per working lifetime to reach a level of 4,401,000 Nana grams It would take an additional 3803 lifetimes to reach a level Doll considered would have no consequence. Further proof of dose response relationships as valid are verified in a Sept 28 2005 Journal of the American Medical Association JAMA reported study3 and associated studies which showed by significant results cutting the level of intake by half reduced the Cancer risk by half among daily smokers who administer a daily dose thousands of times higher than is possible in a smoking environment.
Can a level increase of 4 to 163 nanograms really constitute a deadly hazard considering the levels above?
A Danger of increased risk according to Repace 10,000 times the known safe level at 1 death per million per working lifetime, and at the same time responsible by his calculations for 255 deaths per million in the States alone 89,250 ETS casualties yet not a single death certificate to verify the massive losses. In fact triple the exaggerated levels which were vacated as junk science by a US supreme court.
Lobby group ganging up on discussions and parroting unsubstantiated facts were revealed in a Scottish court decision demanding factual proof in claims Judge Smith berated the attempt to undermine the authority of the courts with an absolute dismissal.
No safe level and hurricane force winds only become believable when you consider a risk in the almost immeasurable level at 16.3 Pico grams 250 times below the level where no smoke exists. Substantially a vacuum within the room. Is the only known safe level? More suspicious when every ingredient is known in the environment ministry to be safe in most cases in concentrations millions of times higher than Repace logic dictates? No safe level exists as stated, is offset of course by no unsafe level exists either It goes without saying perceived dangers to the public would be greatly reduced from levels of employees who spend much longer periods of time exposed to ETS the norms experienced in the public would be a fraction of exposures overall. Dioxin Body fat accumulations reduce over time after cessation of exposures.
Now it comes down to credibility in who is more believable a paid industry advocate or a lifetime scholar Knighted for his ability and dedication. Even a brain dead Hack should be able to figure that one out. Hey but the not letting the facts get in the way of a great story thing gets thin after you hear the story 3 thousand times. In reality facts to potential for a credible story here sums up the picture of a mosquito the second he hits the windscreen of a Mack truck at highway speeds. Don’t worry the news isn’t all bad, I am certain the public will eventually forgive the efforts to prop up a lying sack PMO. We all understand the need to keep the sales up. I have to wonder though how much future exists in the media as a career. It is quite evident the saleable product is relational to credibility. That seems to indicate the industry’s days are indeed numbered. Enjoy it while it lasts and give those smokers another kick. Fat folks will be the next profit streams you should have a ball with that topic. Is Journalism perhaps one of those lowly professions mentioned by the immigration minister; Canadians are unwilling or unable to do? Makes you wonder.
As Hitler grew weary of the expense and potential opposition threat possible in the press. It seemed a necessary step in nationalizing the press as unavoidable. The WHO will soon realize they cannot avoid that step for much longer. I am certain the opposition parties see the step as crucial to their survival as well if they do rise to power, despite the best efforts of the media groups. Strong regulation will be the minimum they will be able to accept after the efforts of the last 12 years fighting for the simple right to be seen as a credible alternative in a democratic country in which the media give more respect to the separatists.
Best Regards; LMAO
References
[1]http://www.acosh.org/art/critical_evaluation.pdf
[2]http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/short/bmj.38142.554479.AEv1
[3]http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/12/1505
Suggested reading
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/2/148
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/2076DE.htm http://www.swedish.org/16653.cfm
http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2809
Do no harm?http://www.geocities.com/smokersunited/Abuse1.htm
http://jech.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/54/3/162
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Earth_Charter_Ark.htm
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html
The current lead scientist at health Canada BIO
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/branch-dirgen/ocvc-bcgdwc/forest_e.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/reb-cer/rep-rap/2004_e.html
Guiding principles of Consensus Domination. Popularly coined Scientific Opinion
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artproctor.pdf
http://www.who.int/hia/en/
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=ikOc98-li5YC
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html#12
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/20-3/b_e.html
Read Mommy Kills pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment