UK

In the UK in 1954, this is what was determined;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,1147463,00.html - article_continue
“What is already known on this matter is that there has been an increase in deaths from lung cancer in this country which began in 1919 and has continued ever since. That increase is much greater in males than in female in 1931, the number of deaths attributed to lung cancer in England and Wales was1, 358 for males and 522 for females. In 1952, there were 11,981 male and 2,237 female deaths from this cause. The highest mortality from lung cancer in males occurred in the 65-74 age group while in females the highest rate occurred in the 75 and over age group. Comparable increases have been reported in all countries from which reliable statistics are available. Tobacco smoking plays some part in this increase but it is certain that it cannot be the only factor since the disease occurs in non-smokers. All that can be said at present is that there is a presumption that smoking may cause lung cancer. Furthermore, although the risk of contracting the disease appears to increase with the amount smoked, particularly of cigarettes, no reliable estimate can be made of the precise effect of smoking.”
Prior to 1919 UK lung cancer was almost nonexistent by 1931 we saw 880 deaths in the next 20 years deaths increased to 14,218 Smoking certainly existed long before 1919 no significant increase in use occurred after 1919 which could equate the dramatic rise in cancer. So why was there such a dramatic increase between 1931 and 1952 in 20 years such a huge increase certainly should have an identifiable and specific cause. Doll in his research originally investigated asphalt as a possible cause of the Cancer increases, he abandoned this in favor of Tobacco quite a segue considering good science seemed to be on the right track in perusing oil products consistent with the increase in use, they mirrored identically the increase in mortality. Smoking although they announced at the time was a significant contributing cause, something else was going on here. Doll could not know of the interaction in use of asbestos in cigarette filters or the dangers of Dioxins in the increasing use of chlorine in the infancy of the growing cigarette industries. An industry which if responsible for the increases in cancer was well behind the actual mortality growth if you consider the now determined 20-30 year lag between use and onset of disease. The decreases in Tobacco use since 1960 in fact a 2/3 reduction also lacked a resulting decrease in mortality. The first decrease in cancers ever in fact corresponds perfectly with the decrease in environmental Dioxins since 1986 with a 8.7 year half life the reductions right on target showed mirrored reductions in cancers in 2003. Smoking bans therefore are necessary to preserve the lie, as we will see additional reductions in cancers as Dioxin levels continue to decrease.
" Johnny the envelope please"; The hypocrites in New York who supported a smoking ban are well aware a spike in Cancers will occur there soon due to environmental Dioxins caused by the 911 tragedy. When the cancer cluster is seen, it will be explained as surprising or may not be reported at all. The bans will not result in smoking related reductions to the contrary if you watch the timelines those reductions will not occur until 15 years after the tragedy. The ban fans will of course take credit for the reductions and move the dates to suit their means. The fact Dioxins have never been identified as a cause of cancer in smoking tells us a lot. The public believes science has not found a link, with proof in hand smoking could cause cancer why the hesitation in showing the proof? The answer is more dangerous than the question so it suits the stakeholder’s purposes to keep the mystery alive. Simply banning the use of chlorine from cigarettes could have saved the lives of millions. The resistance and cover-up of Agent Orange disease to American troops and how hard those affected had to fight to be compensated says a lot as well. The major effect of Agent Orange was long term Dioxin poisoning. Smokers in a class action could similarly prove with good science how governments have allowed Cancers and smoking related diseases to continue without regulation simply to cover up the bigger lie; the cause of the majority of those so called smoking related diseases more correctly they should have been coined Oil related diseases. At minimum Dioxin related diseases, which are undoubtedly, the major causes of preventable death among those who smoke. This can be shown with sound reproducible science. No estimates of epidemiology studies were ever needed other than to cast doubt on the truth and mire those who really seek to protect health down in tar pits of bureaucracy designed to stop them.
When Doll made the link between smoking and cancers, it has to be questioned why he decided to change direction and the fact the scientific community has abandoned the link to petrochemical products and burning of oil in the 50-year span since. The link to smoking already established although not explained research dollars have been predominantly focused on the tobacco link while funding for the more obvious culprit has been scarce. It took 50 years of battling the medical community in fact for the American EPA to finally list Diesel fuel as a carcinogen although science had proven consistently the huge risk in inhaling fuel and burned fuel fumes. Epidemiology was not necessary to prove consistently in Petrie dish testing, the danger was extreme. Since that listing little public concern has been raised in avoiding a scientifically sound provable danger, primarily because the statistically insignificant proof of ETS has been promoted in fear mongering media purchases. Campaigns designed in order to save government the embarrassment of real proof they were deliberately increasing the death toll. Global warming tripe that seeks to reduce CO2 while ignoring NOX and SOX emissions are consistent with the planned ignorance and refusal to deal with real hazards to community. In an age of information, the facts are getting harder to hide under the rugs of irresponsible politicians who proudly chant the phrase “preventable deaths” while conveniently avoiding legislative measures, which could prevent them. Petrochemical industries still carry the big stick in directing government opinions. The same oil companies as participating NGOs at the World health Organization and through Philanthropy contribute to a lot of medical institutions and Charity medical foundations, have in effect bought themselves a free pass, allowing tremendous death and disease to be excused, in profiting from the media promoted ideals. Public perceptions created of announced goodwill donations and feel good awards ceremonies inventing societal heroes. Heroes such as Sir Doll or Heather Crow who received accolades not for service to society rather service to politicians and industries who are grateful for their efforts. Anti smoker advocates worldwide have in effect protected the Cigarette manufacturers and assured growing profits in lowering operating costs, increased value of the product and allowed no responsibility for health risks associated with sales of products with known unsafe ingredients. Anti smokers, consistently state there is no proof one tobacco could be safer than another despite growing restrictions and flue curing methods reducing the dangers of Tobacco. Additional ingredients are added without restriction or question of those claiming to be driven by the protection of others. Obviously, these lobbies have values that are more important in mind. If Hospitality workers were the targets of protections, how would their numbers compare to the amount of people, who smoke and could be protected significantly, with a few minor ingredient restrictions? With all the anti Tobacco research money, flowing for the past 55 years it is amazing no conclusions on the safety of the product or the manufacture of cigarette products have been discovered aside from “it is all unsafe”. The grouping of “all smoking” as opposed to individual products in a wide brush claim is irresponsible and could lead to embarrassment in legal proceedings with no clear description in what is being called tobacco smoke. Source of tobacco smoke is entirely relevant in deriving a risk. Which brands which ingredient mixtures and percentage of if any tobacco included has never been disclosed? The reality of those products; if made safer could in fact reduce many deaths, which of course would reduce the need for smoking bans or governments funding the chemical industry advocates. Attacking the victim while promoting the product as with smoking is an indefensible position.
Perhaps another look at the facts and the players would explain the discrepancies the fact Rockefeller was convicted of unfair business practices dividing standard oil into 4 companies did not limit the ability of those in the industry to continue with domination principles. The control of American medicine by the Rockefellers could add some understanding to the events. Historically what happened in the 20-year frame, which saw such a dramatic, increase in lung cancers, an increase which has not been explained for the following 50 years? The real cause had to be known yet was allowed to continue; smoking was most likely just a convenient scapegoat. The size and influence of the tobacco industry was after all dwarfed in comparison to the oil and auto industries. The Second World War happened in the 20-year interim. An increase of Industrialization and use of oil which has increased consistently since. Smoking neither in the 20 year time frame or the 20 year or 30 year periods before the increases in cancer saw smoking increases equating the increased disease. The Oil companies in fact with the invention and production of cars starting in the early 1900s and increasing slowly at first before the Second World War and enormously since 1931 combined with war machinery produced to fight the war could be the only scientifically sound explanation for the new cancer phenomenon.
If you ask an oncologist most would tell you exposure to gasoline fumes is the predominant cause of brain tumors yet not one of them would put it in writing for fear of being attacked by the oil companies. The known safe level of Benzene is one part per million in air yet in Gasoline one part per hundred is the norm. Gas storage tanks are vented without restriction in residential neighborhoods throughout North America. The self-serve gas bar has worked well for the oil companies in reducing risk to oil company workers and avoiding scrutiny by adjusting the numbers. Now most of the workers sit inside the building away from constant exposure to the fumes.
Good science can always discredit great propaganda. Some realization of the big picture could show a lot of us the solutions to the current fear and hate campaign of the tyrants in anti smoker advocacy.
FXR

---