Sometimes you have to dig through some pretty smelly stuff to get at the truth, in the wake of unethical politicians. We elect who we think would make the best leaders, yet most often they turn out to be followers basking in the favors provided, in the sharing of the public trough.
Public Health advocates who state there is no safe cigarette intentionally deceive the public, a public who are lead to believe there are no safer cigarettes. Biological measurements moving away from statistics proves the promoted "unavoidable" carcinogenic dangers in cigarette smoke can be reduced significantly by as much as 98% in simply regulating the selection of the tobacco being used. The American CDC and EPA falsely classified cigarette smoke as a single product when in fact the term encompassed thousands of possible product offerings of highly variable levels of risk. This observation is stated as reality of course; if you can believe what you see with your eyes as proof, above the proof of calculations of biased, chemical industry financed, anti smoker advocates, described often as “a growing body of evidence”. More often than not, calculated with risk factors described in the 1986 CPS11 research. As you will soon see the risk factors are misleading, Inaccurate and well out of date. Regardless of reality, the risk factors are used extensively in advocacy, to exaggerate the mortality numbers and give themselves credibility in misguided and dangerous promotions. Promotions which can be proven to be dangerous to public health, for smokers and non smokers alike, because as they say poison is indeed in the dose.
The Canadian Federal Government in allowing unregulated cheap imports of tobacco products to compete with much safer products grown in Ontario. Products produced under strict growing conditions were being replaced with a Federal government blessing. Products which are now including stems and roots. Products grown in areas defined as ecological disasters do not set the plate as ideals in growing conditions for any ingested product especially dangerous in a product ending up inside human lungs. The Federal Government increased the mortality risks significantly while at the same time increasing tax revenues based on a higher risk they in fact created.
The federal government handed Allan Rock 450 Million dollars described in the legislature as funds to denormalize an industry. Rock who had been rejected by the electorate likely because of grossly mismanaging Gun registry funds was given a second chance at mismanagement. and true to form proceeded to denormalize not industry but the people who used their products, largely ignoring the industry who’s profits continued to grow. The promotion of smoking bans were no less than personal attacks, wide brushing smokers as deserving of a less than humane abuse. Both financially and in driving them from hospitality events Health Canada provided promotions of staring at smokers with looks of disdain.
The most prominent of anti smoker advocates promote restriction of access to employment, Housing and even access to their own children despite the lack of calculated risk of children in the presence of smoking parents. The Physicians for smoke free Canada exemplifies the hypocritical nature of this government sponsored farce. Robert Coleslaw oversaw the research at the WHO, which failed in his stated goal to prove any risk in fact existed, despite this fact he speaks regularly distributing facts he knows to be untrue. His partner in crime; Cynthia Collard will tell you adamantly Tobacco smoke contains 5000 deadly ingredients, however quoting from a recent email exchange, she can not tell you what those contents would be, or even the source of the 5000 claim. You would think a group claiming the tittle "physicians" would be more educated in the principles of spectral analysis obviously a technology they would like to avoid for much more than obvious reasons.
"The fifty that are listed on our web-site are the 50 for which there are federal government regulations requiring measurement.
I don't know of a list of the 4,000 - 5,000 chemicals. As I understand it, the quantity of chemicals was determined (many years ago) using a scientific measurement tool that gave a separate frequency for each chemical identified. Because there were 4000+ frequencies determined, they then established that there were 4000 chemicals present.
I don't know exactly what you need this information for, but if it is of a scientific nature, then I would suggest that you search tobacco industry document web-sites. Most of the scientific work done on cigarette smoke has been done by these companies. One site to try is: www.pmdocs.com; another is www.bat.library.ucsf.edu. Another very reliable source of scientific information on tobacco issues is the Surgeon General's reports from teh United States. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports.htm
If you have another requirement, please let me know. Perhaps I can find some information"
Cynthia Callard; Executive Director
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
1226A Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 3A1
SAMMEC increased the claims of cost for political use, by actually estimating lost income of the smokers themselves and claiming those amounts which went 20 years past normal retirement age as a cost to society and not as a cost if any, of the smokers themselves. Claiming smokers lost wages for deemed premature death as a cost to society being assessed against smokers. If you don’t earn it how can you owe it? Why do smokers owe their own wages to society is a point avoided, yet the news broadcasts continue to repeat a ridiculous claim of cost being taxed against the victims of Government use of convenient logic assessments. The second hand smoke and primary smoke risks are exaggerated with such research as SAMMEC which purposefully targets older populations who smoked prior to the time lowered tar content regulations came into effect in the 60s.
The use of the CPS11 risk factors is deliberate use of statistical numbers created in assessing risk prior to the reductions of tar and implementation of growing conditions. By applying risk factors to the current population they are avoiding any mortality reductions which may have resulted from previous efforts to make the product safer. They destroy the credibility of those researchers who produced the science which was used to promote the original restrictions. In so doing the mortality risk has increased while the government pays these advocates hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to in effect murder thousands of smokers, in a planned deception of the public. They increase the risk in scary stories to the public as proven in alternate assessments of SAMMEC research and the CPS11 risk calculations by as much as 39%. Smokers became the target while abandoning good science which would reduce total mortality of those smokers significantly.
In Ontario the Provincial government in a move to avoid paying their share of Flue curing processes which removed 90% of harmful Histamines, similarly created and promoted a situation in anti smoking advocacy which has put many of the producers who they cheated out of business. Alternate crops were announced to be the saving grace, until the federal government again intervened to destroy farmers who switched, by lowering trade restrictions devaluing the crops many had switched to in moving away from tobacco. Politicians proudly announced smoking bans as a measure to reduce 47,000 preventable deaths irrespective of the fact the bans do not address the issue. Bans are a protection of non smokers who would be much better served by easily obtained reductions of carcinogenic contents of the tobacco they were being taught to fear. The recent surgeon Generals report takes the gloves off depicting smokers as a detestable subclass who should be avoided at all costs. In Canada despite denials this flies in the face of constitutional protections named in sections 12,15 and 52 in protections of personal rights. If smokers can be identified internationally by a single word description they do form a class which is guaranteed protection in the rule of law.
Here is the reality in who is killing who;
There are a number of studies which demonstrate higher NNK and N-nitrosamines (TSNA) are directly linked to the type of tobacco tested. The burning of tobacco alone does not correlate directly to the levels of cancer causing agents in the smoke produced, however the selection of Tobacco is significantly related to the carcinogenic risks present in the smoke. Tests were done in 1990 of 170 brands in Europe and the USA the results demonstrated clearly although we hear about the cancerous agents in the smoke, we do not see an advocacy driven to protect lives by reducing the levels of tar content or by controlling the type of tobacco being used. The definition of Tobacco smoke is misleading and dangerous in not defining the large variety of tobacco being discussed. There are, despite the denials, significant levels of risk variance depending entirely upon the type of tobacco in the cigarette being smoked. The second hand smoke debate relies entirely upon a risk factor which can be reduced enormously perhaps to a point of no measurable risk by simply restricting tobacco products sold
“More than 170 types of commercial cigarettes from several European countries and the USA were analyzed for tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) in tobacco and mainstream smoke as well as for nitrate in tobacco. The cigarettes included filter and nonfilter cigarettes with different tar and nicotine yields. The observed range for N'-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) was from 4 to 1353 ng/cigarette in mainstream smoke and from 45 to 12454 ng/cigarette in tobacco. For 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) the values were between not detected (less than 4 ng/cigarette) and 1749 ng/cigarette in mainstream smoke and between not detected (less than 50 ng/cigarette) and 10745 ng/cigarette in tobacco. Nitrate levels ranged from 0.6 to 19.4 mg/cigarette. The TSNA levels for the cigarettes from the different countries investigated were in a similar range with the exception of few individual brands. The results demonstrated that there is no correlation between TSNA and tar deliveries in mainstream smoke. The TSNA deliveries in mainstream smoke depend on the amount or preformed TSNA in the actual tobacco composition, which is influenced by the nitrate level of the tobacco and the tobacco type. According to these results the tar delivery, although crucial, is not a sufficient index for the biological activity and the carcinogenic potential of cigarette smoke. Reduction of TSNA exposure can be achieved by selecting tobaccos with low levels of preformed TSNA in tobacco, which means a low nitrate content and reduction of the amount of Burley tobaccos and stems in blended cigarettes.”
Related articles 270 articles which could be classified as a more substantial “Growing body of evidence” to demonstrate government incompetence is directly responsible for as many as 98% of the 47,000 preventable deaths we hear about in Canada alone, and if 3000 ETS deaths do occur, all can be directly related to the types of unregulated tobacco in use which increased the risk of carcinogenic content tremendously. Smoking bans were never necessary if not for replacing science with consensus and the elevation of radicals to prominent positions stealing the proxy of the real public. Now the politicians battle cry fat is the new tobacco will degrade more of our neighbors promoting the next step in tax revenue increases by design.
Victim bashing by advocates can be seen as criminal coercion resulting in the deaths of thousands, in distributing fears which demote real science for self important promotional activities. The economic costs of those advocates and the damage they cost society would be seen in the Billions of dollars lost in hospitality industries, The increased crime and violence and the incalculable cost of family tensions promoted. Politics being promoted in sending children home from school firmly believing their own parents wished to do them harm. We used to abhor politics in the class room. Teachers used to respect a code of professional ethics restricting such activities. Today children are used regularly to promote political cause.
As quoted in the London Times article “Smoking ban is based on bad science” the following excerpt reveals a lot in motivations for denormalizing smokers and the true agenda no one seems to want to discuss the public secret legitimizing ban technology;
The committee heard that the “main risk” over passive smoking concerned children who are exposed to cigarette smoke in the home — which the Bill was not designed to address. The report said: “It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective it should have been clearly stated.”
Advocates who claim to be concerned with the welfare of others yet avoid the obvious in real mortality reductions predicated in scientific technology, are reprehensible Liars who should themselves be classified as “the new tobacco” maintaining 47,000 preventable deaths for fame and fortune. Anti smoker advocates need to be the next targets of denormalization strategies in a poetic justice campaign.
Here is the adjustment for SAMMEC supported in the Callishaw and Lehey report which is mentioned in the 2000 SAMMEC report.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/8/787
"Evaluation of SAM estimates has typically been limited to criticism regarding the estimates of relative risks used. For example, following the 1989 Surgeon General's report (4
As for “no safe cigarette” the moral foundation for such a statement is again seen to be deliberate deception;
“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognised in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognised component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law.”
Another questionable advocacy delusion;
Such proposals "push the envelope" of tobacco control into areas where questions need to be asked to ensure tobacco control policies are firmly anchored to scientific evidence and especially concern those who value the freedom of individuals to do what they please to the extent that this does not harm others.2 They invite consideration of whether zero tolerance of public exposure to toxic agents is a reasonable policy for civil societies and whether the loudly proclaimed exquisite sensitivities of a small minority should drive public policy.
Here is the real crime; scientific research Presented by The American Lung Foundation to the EPA 2006. Research information proved without doubt particulate matter in the air to be much more dangerous than properly managed cigarette products. Yet incredibly; to protect political reputations the research was dismissed, despite the reality; they were downplaying physical evidence in favor of consensus rhetoric of fanatical lobbies with little credibility as this document should show. How many will die this year to protect the reputations of criminals?
It will certainly dwarf the numbers associated statistically to smoking.
No comments:
Post a Comment