Evidence weighted by the science of accumulation

Once again ASH and their merry band of Nazi supporters, are climbing to new heights in mountains out of molehill profiteering this week. Beyond the statements by their Legal adviser adding more evidence, of his more than obvious hatred for anyone, who dares to smoke a cigarette, actually cheer leading a supposed right of employment restrictions and exclusions for anyone who smokes on or off the job;

The right to hire and fire is based in the free market employee having to accept employment standards as depicted by the employer. In complete contradiction to the way they sold smoking bans, by claiming employees were being forced to inhale ETS?

The latest testament to creating the modern day leper, directs even of you smoke outdoors you still carry a health risk to non smokers, including by the ever present emotional blackmail component, gratuitously in defense of those poor defenseless children A risk carried into the home, on a smokers breath no less.

It seems we don’t need to purchase the forty dollar article in order to evaluate its true value. The researcher seems to be a little off, in his assessments of how to measure ETS.

From the article found here;

Page 95

In summary, Nicotine has been used frequently as a marker for ETS because it meets three of the four primary criteria for a good marker. However in individual situations, its direct relationship with other compounds of interest in ETS is certainly not constant, and while it is useful for providing comparisons with previous studies, reliance on it solely is not advised.

Page 98

“Most ETS particulate matter droplets are smaller than those of MS [0.35 – 0.25 um] with a mass median diameter in the range of 0.15 to 0.25 um “

The researcher declaring bad breath a significant children’s health risk, is gratuitously measuring a pretty wide range of particulate, which will no doubt, include in the bulk of measurements; primarily contaminants of sources other than ETS which present a much higher actual health risk.

From the article;

“Each household was monitored for vapor phase nicotine and particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of =10 µm (PM₁₀).”

From page 96 explaining the concept of cigarette equivalents and information from the chart on page 97; it seems highly unlikely nicotine measurements using a smokers lungs after smoking, as the sole source of ETS, nicotine measurements would even be in the measurable range. If any Nicotine were detected at all, it is further beyond the realm of possibility the levels associated to CEQ inhalation could come close to a range they would represent any harm [long or short term] to anyone, including children who have much less lung capacity, and naturally would inhale much less than the figures presented.

FYI;

An adult would inhale approximately 8.8 litres per minute times 60 minutes times 8 hours equals 4224 litres per day or 4.3 cubic meters of air. A child would inhale roughly half of that amount.

One has to assume K Rumchev, the author [who has no letters attached to his name] is a student. The University itself has an entirely suspicious conflict of interest here, which is not mentioned in ASHES news release. A hired gun, creating conflicted research to suit any industrialist agenda.

Hardly the type of research we can trust in matters of public health although we are deluged with so many agenda driven theoretic reports of late, it gets very hard to see any of them as credible anymore. You have to go back in time 20-30 years before the health scare bandwagon got on track, to find any semblance of legitimate science it seems, if it ever did, truly exist.

Consider the source and always follow the money… Curtin University;

“Curtin maintains a high level of involvement with numerous Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs). A CRC is a company formed through a collaboration of businesses and researchers. This includes private sector organisations (both large and small enterprises), universities, industry associations and government research agencies.

Established in 1990, the federally-funded CRC programme aims to turn Australia's scientific innovations into successful new products, services and technologies, making our industries more efficient, productive and competitive. The program has a strong education component with a focus on producing graduates with skills relevant to industry needs.”

I have read in numerous studies the effect of sub micron particles being deposited in the trachea-bronchial region and accumulating due to the lung being unable to dislodge them. Cigarette smoke is often described as a major hazard in a way it is least likely to cause that effect or as follows that increased risk. It appears from this study;

The surface dimensions of cigarette smoke and particularly second hand smoke are in the regions least likely to accumulate within the lungs resulting in long term damage or "smoking related" effects.

The chart at figure 4 on page 5 at three different respiratory levels demonstrates the higher likelihood of micron dimensions above one micron and below .01 microns demonstrating much higher capacity and likelihood of being accumulated in the lung cavities as described in the suspect studies mentioned. Cigarette smoke and second hand smoke reside in the .25 micron range.

Surface dimensions above one Micron or micro-meter ranges would be much more consistent with particulate derived from diesel exhaust industrial emissions and coal burning. The Nano-meter [nm] ranges of Nano-particulate would include viral agents such as bird flu and SARS. From the chart found here;

with cigarette smoke close to the .25 micron range you see once again, the accumulations expected are among the lowest accumulation risk regions, which leave your lungs in the same measures as they entered. Those forming highest risk of accumulations and biological interactions and found most often in our environment, are dominated by particulate much larger and much smaller than that found in tobacco smoke.


It seems the studies depicting cigarette particulate, in measures above the 1 micron range at less than or equal to 2.5 or 10 micrometers, are gratuitously not accurate enough in the definition or measurements of ETS particulate, because the broad limits set in addition to a failure to properly identify surface descriptions, have ETS lumped in with the bulk of materials much more likely, to actually cause an increased long term health risk by accumulation.

What this means for non smokers being duped into supporting smoking bans, you are being deliberately focused [bait and switch] on the lowest risk hazard by developing hatred against anyone who smokes, you are inadvertently, helping to protect the industries actually doing the most damage to your health. And of course increasing that severe risk, of the defenceless children we have to protect at all costs [[wink]]