Are smoking bans seen co-incidentally springing up internationally based in cultural need, health protection or simply a convenient means to avoid medical and ethical responsibilities in healthcare delivery, while adding opportunistic taxes (sin taxes) based on taxing what is described as an addiction more severe than heroin or crack cocaine.
Here is a point, which comes close to Dave Hitt's "name three" In asking “Public health officials” to name three people killed by environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] which always leaves them speechless.
I have asked a question a number of times and in a number of venues asking the "experts" it is always the same; either I am treated to the insolent pup style of ad hominid attack, or simply afforded silence with no answer available. They either change the subject or pretend they did not hear it at all. The little big man complex is pretty well set in the field of public health and any dissenters should beware. The public health industrial complex, are not people you should trifle with, yet they leave themselves so open to criticisms and obvious contradictions it is getting very hard to ignore.
The question is very simple;
"Describe environmental tobacco smoke in a physical way so that we can distinguish it from ambient air."
They can't, because in the way it is described; IT IS AMBIENT AIR!!!
The multiple sources or tobacco products which might produce it and the number of those who may partake in one place compared to another, leaves the recipe absolutely astounding in the number of combinations of ingredients it may contain.So how do you find such confident “irrefutable” numbers, which predict disease and death so precisely? Found internationally with such a wide range of products and such a diversity of lifestyles? The truth is you cannot, so we did the next best thing, we simply estimated how many injuries could possibly be caused by inhalations of any substance, we defined them as “smoking related” and the ad agency tested talking points, flowed like a river into the public domain.
You see the level of tobacco smoke exposure is not a legitimate biomarker of disease genesis, The PM2.5 levels in a room without specific investigation of what is contained could well be a measure simply of a number of non-related substances. A biomarker has to reflect both a level of exposure and a measure of adverse health effect equitably. A PM 2.5 measurement does neither even loosely.Does it make any reasonable sense one substance could generate parallel and predictable levels of a number of diseases in such a consistent manner when the constituents of; tobacco smoke plus ambient air, plus foreign particulate which comprise the feared “environmental tobacco smoke” and the individual’s levels of exposures to the product vary so adversely?
Used loosely as it was, in meticulously examining the possibilities in precision to the trillionths of a degree, to predict cancers or cardiovascular effects, with equally irresponsible statements, made in press releases. The bulk of information provided resulted largely from phrases read to focus groups, in search of the strongest reaction. We now have nothing available in the public realm we can trust, with which to make reasonable considered choices. What we have instead is invention and provocation, which targets individuals, in place of; investigations of the product at hand which could make it safer, no cures, and no treatments. Hardly a positive progression from a scientific standpoint. Although it does serve to invent some excellent old wives tales and seeds the paternalist movements quite well.
Ambient air works splendidly as a promoter of intangible fear; Ventilation as a solution doesn't work any more, because you are only increasing the volume. "There is no safe level" because it can never be diluted by itself. If you declare it a hazard, the hazard still exists outdoors, where there is more of it. It can seep through light sockets into a neighbour’s home. ETS can never be avoided, and most importantly, ETS cannot be eliminated as a legitimate term, which exists in all environments and without boundaries, as long as smoking exists.
The problem comes when we consider what it is, they have been telling us to fear, Breathing!!!
Is 5000 deadly ingredients really an official scientific term?
There are 43,000 unresolved chemicals in use by industry today most of them are also found in ambient air. What are the effects and health risks of breathing them, compared to ETS? There is no increased risk, because as one product the risks are now the same.
If there are numerically the same number of people smoking today, or even if there are less, and smoking kills 450,000 of the 2.3 million who die in the United States every year, disregarding all the medical and environmental improvements over the last 50 years, why did it not also kill 450,000 of the less than one million who died in 1960?
Ripley's believe it or not, needs to resolve the largest hoax in world history; DDT, Ulcers, Freon, ETS or Global warming and indeed the term “Public health”.
Dr. Michael Siegal a long time anti-smoker advocate, recently use a term, which forms the major part of that river of “new study” information, when describing, "Organized complaining". To deliberately create an appearance of public mood, which does not otherwise exist. for the rest of us, it is known as "Astro-Turfing" which is in a real sense is simply a co-ordinated form of self flagellation, which hopes to find support among those believed to be; less educated, more numerous and more likely to join in, with any campaign which legitimizes picking on someone else.
"While activists dedicated to eradicating smoking in children’s movies engage in organised complaining about such closely monitored incidents, it seems improbable that many ordinary citizens would spontaneously rise up in community protest about such minor usage".
When you over act, while pretending something does exist, while everyone else who know better, pities your state of denial and try very hard [out of pity or embarrassment for you] not to see it.
It is effective as a lobby tool, only in a sense; most tend to ignore it, so without opposition, the deliberately dumbed down politicians, are allowed to present a new age reality or theological rule. Remember the term “politically correct”? By who’s politics?
Make anything up you like, and they can sell it as a gang to any co-operating politician who employs them, no one argues with the more deliberate imbeciles, because it is like arguing with a five year old and that lowers you to their level. As a political activity, it seeks to rule and form ideology by those standards and talking points, devised among the imbeciles. It simply makes anything possible, no matter how morally perverse it may sound today.
Have you ever been challenged to explain why 80% [or 90%] of lung cancers are found among those who smoke or those who have ever smoked? depending on the expertise of those making the claim.
The statement 80% of lung cancers are among current and ever smokers is cautiously the closest to reality found in credible [accepted] research, other versions of the phrase, are most predominantly a result of aggressive lobby group misquotes along with outright deceptive statements to gain political advantage.
“So say one, so say them all” is tightly connected to groups such as we witnessed with the anti smoker scandal. Tightly associated partners who have been known to turf their brightest and most convincing members directly into the spoiled identity, denormalization process, along side it’s other victims, simply for speaking critically or out of turn. Although they describe themselves a grassroots movement, nothing could be further from the truth. The structure is solidly top down and is applied as an act utilized against communities, as opposed to an act stemming from the community.
Getting back to the popular phrase in point. If we examine the actual people who have lung cancers one striking physical attribute, can immediately be seen; the vast majority of them are elderly this promotes a large part of the 80% ratio. A ratio which mirrors another ratio; cancers above 65 years of age and cancers below 65 years of age. Remember the phrase current or ever smokers? If we examine the time when smoking was in the majority of the population back in 1958 we saw the ratio expressed as 54% in total population choose to smoke. A number which of course included 25% of the population, who would be much less likely to smoke at the time although the majority would eventually start, because for lack of a better description; they were simply too young to smoke.
The numbers are further lopsided by the fact women used tobacco much less than men, by proportion a pretty substantial confounder which is hidden in the research numbers when evaluations of male only groups are compared to female only, or mixed groups. The moral standards at the time were much more forcefully regulated among teachers and parents, with corporal punishments accepted in the schools. To see a child under the age of 15 who smoked was quite rare. So if we take that perspective into consideration; we have to eliminate the children because it has yet to be determined what their status will be when the choice is available to them. We adjust the ratio to reflect those over the age of 15 and we arrive with a ratio of 54% versus 21% or 61% versus 39% in the over 15 group.
So naturally we would expect to see 61% of cancers among current or ever smokers by their numbers alone without considering any health risks. And we see a good number of them among those who survived and comprise the majority over 80% of those afflicted with cancers today. With an aging population that figure is only more likely to grow.
Now we have to get into knit picking to explain a number of other factors unique to our current cancer patients. The factors are applicable to all in the population however if we take the popular view, the split identifying those who smoke will also produce higher numbers by compounding, similar to how they calculate your mortgage interest, because they represent a larger slice of those being discussed when, assessing each known cause for distribution. For example, those exposed to asbestos in younger years would represent a certain percentage of cancers today, for every 10 of those people regardless of the fact all their cancers were caused by asbestos, because we choose to assign cancers by smoking status the split would be 6 smoking and 4 not, add that to the original percentages of one hundred people and you now have 67.1 ever smokers versus 43.9 never smokers. 65% versus 35% Notice how we now have a compounding factor, which increases the ratio? Continue adding other known causes 10 people at a time and eventually the ratio is notably spread farther apart eventually finding 80% versus 20% when realistically the increased risk, assessed by the “experts” is said to be only 15-20% above the norm.
It is the distribution by preordained status, which assigns a larger number to the total group, as opposed to simply counting heads and making an evaluation of each group separated by known primary cause, in common sense terms. Lung cancers among people who smoke are in the 1-5% range and in total population the incidence numbers have risen six fold above what they were in 1960, which suggests the largest factors are not being clearly explained, in the common belief defined as simply “caused by smoking” The one factor, few in the lobbies like to look at destroys the myth. There were almost a stable number of smokers over the past 50 years span between 55 and 60 million people smoked, although as a percentage of a growing population the numbers appeared to decline according to the funny papers and ad agency spin. We seldom heard the real figures just the “appropriate figures”. They declined in almost exactly the same percentages as the population total increased, allowing the 80% of lung cancers figure to be maintained for decades with the real investigations into growing causes allowed to be stalled, with a lack of public concern. The gentle cooing of the cancer societies shored up by the medical institutions; funds were never deemed to be necessary, to research a forgone conclusion.
Recent studies precariously dance around the numbers, knowing if a research study is to be approved for publication; it must fit with the status quo. Similarly because the funds for research are tightly controlled by a small group of connected industries, the possibility to receive funding is tightly dependent on participation in avoiding the possible risk to the parent organization contributing the funds. In a similar way to what is described by the lobby groups; the tobacco industry can influence a conclusion. It follows all other major industries have the same ability, otherwise the medical institutions would never admit this to be possible, a stance which undermines their own credibility and an admission this is unavoidable, within the confines of what is additive to common cult beliefs.
If we examine the numbers we see that if lung cancers exist among those who do not smoke in the range of 20%, it stands to reason among those who do choose to smoke or have ever smoked, a similar number of non related cancers would also occur within the larger group; 60 versus 40 in smoking status. It is fair to say 20% of the group who do smoke would have to be deducted from the number of those in total, defined as having ever smoked. Reducing further the causative nature of; the original sensationalist, yet quite reasonable and expected 80% figure.
Thus the ratio of 60/40 regardless of health risk can once again be demonstrated as the norm. The only division is therefore gained only by their status of division and provides no evidence smoking is a causative factor in their cancers.
Yes, it is fair to say half of those who smoke will die of smoking related diseases, as long as you agree; so too will everyone else.
The evidence is mounting that the existence of Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS is more a creation of fiction and Cult worship, than anything tangible you could possibly describe and accurately connect with science or observation.
In a recent article the author went so far as to define ETS as a drug.
"I hope the cabinet will take the decision to limit the harmful effects this drug can have on them."
In this article they claim if cigarettes are provided with the words slim they are being advertised as weight loss products or if provided in Pink packages they insult women who have suffered breast cancers, along with a litany of misguided and opportunistic statements with no basis in fact or common sense. The same groups appear to be attacking PM while in fact they are partnered with PM in moving forward legislation PM helped to write.
Please see update section below
Bill Goshall in a thread on Michael Siegal's blog insinuated higher ETS volume could be used to demonstrate increased risk. [ETS particulate measurements of 1000 MG/M3 of air were mentioned???] This of course attacks his alternate claims; smokeless tobacco is harmless or could possibly negate smoking risks if everyone switched. [99%=100%]
According to the NOSH handbook his claims can be proven to be misinformed quite readily in examination of just two of the said to be thousands of toxic ingredients found in tobacco smoke. Benzene [PEL= 1PPM or 3.6 MG/M3] and Toluene[PEL= 1PPM or 3.77 MG/M3] are both flammable liquids and any increased volume measurement of either found in ETS measures, would be largely due to inefficient burning at lowered temperatures, as we would see in second hand smoke, as opposed to primary smoke decreased levels of toxins results from oxygenation increasing the temperature of the tobacco being consumed.
With no burning the original full force of toxins pre-existing in the tobacco, would be the exposure volume and following logic more toxins means more effect. From the exposure routes in the PEL descriptions; we see no differential in exposure methods, indicating more or less risk is associated to any means of exposures [inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact]
While small amounts of both can be identified in ETS the volume would require the burning of thousands of cigarettes at the same time to come close to breaching known safe levels. Whereas in chew tobacco the exposure volume would be incredibly increased [like comparing a log to the ashes] direct exposures reaching unsafe levels, would be considerable more realistic to assume
That along will Bill’s assertion that, ETS causes lung cancers takes us away from the fact both cause other more likely concerns. For Benzene the highest risk is Leukemia and for both toxins the target cancer sites are; Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system, liver, kidneys. Not exactly the number one mentions on the smoking related hit list but concerning all the same.
Both are classed as carcinogens primarily because of their increased ability when certain conditions are met to evolve into mutagens such as when we mix other carbon based elements and sunlight to form Ozone. The hole in the Ozone layer was demonstrated in a similar fear mongered fashion to reduce our use of Freon which can disassemble ozone into more basic components. What they failed to inform us of, was the fact; the holes occur every year, after six month long nights, after which exposure to sunlight fills in the holes as new Ozone is produced.
Ozone at ground level is much more of a concern because it causes lung cancers and would be considerably more voluminous with lowered offsets at ground level as a result of the current ban
There is an excellent article here which slices to ribbons the ideas of TC, that the risk of ETS could ever be explained in the clumsy and unscientific terms they have been riding on for years;
The ban on leaded fuels without the inclusion of catalytic converters in all cars reduced the risk of aerated lead, however it vastly increased the lung cancer risk due to respiratory aerosols and particulates.
This quote is particularly interesting;
“Unfortunately, current PM-detectors register only particle mass. However, studies have hown that particle number is much more relevant than their mass. Thus, standard detection equipment focuses on mass only, thereby detecting only a fraction of the particle inventory. State-of-the-Art equipment (such as ELPI and SMPS) shows that even when ultrafine numbers are high, their mass is practically zero. Hence, PM-inventories recorded by weighing machines such as TEOMs - used by governmental health authorities - go largely undetected.
Diesel fumes are especially problematic as they contain nitro-aromates; a group of chemicals that are used to accelerate the combustion process of diesel fuel. Nitro-aromatic compounds are known for their potentially mutagenic effect within the GIT(gastro-intestinal tract). Initially they cause diarrhoea (fig.3.10).”
Has anyone in TC or the many public health agencies; ever attempted to define the fictitious; element, compound, drug, aerosol, liquid, solid or particulate matter which all of the lobby groups describe as ETS in one campaign or another?
We can apparently define or necessitate fear and mortality rates incredibly in an absolute void of information, a lack of surface description, chemical formation or any unique characteristics which could allow us to understand what it is they are describing, with the term ETS.
With such a wide variety of composition materials there has to be one unique description they all share which is such a motivator of fear. Legislation must be written to protect us from “it” and no one knows what “it” represents or how “it” could possibly harm children although the loose Epi. Claims are to numerous to count. ETS suffers from lack of description beyond the cult knowledge, responsible for driving communities into disarray and mistrust. What are the comparisons of risk; according to atmospheric pressure or relative humidity? What offsets might render it safer or more dangerous?
The one thing they will never do is to provide a PEL or surface description which encompasses the many compounds being described, because to simply say, "there is no safe level" avoids the obligation of defining one. Which proves their campaign is a promotion of ignorance with ignorance as its foundation.
I get a kick out of watching Repace ratchet up the facts in plain sight and none of the so called “experts in Public Health” caught on, nor did they notice his including them in an embrace of ignorance. When we observe a death rate we are observing the momentary result of cumulative lifetime risk, in total population or in an exposed population. Any measure is simply the difference between one level and another, in most cases we assume the difference between zero and the measured level.
In the link [above] Repace takes the lifetime risk among those exposed to tobacco smoke and assumes without explanation ETS killed them all. He then takes the norm at 225 per million and multiplies it by 45 to find a number he claims to be a lifetime risk, at 1 in 1000. This would be a risk level 45 times the total number observed from all factors and no one caught on? He then takes the average level of PM10 particulate [211ug/M3] measured in a smoking environment and placed a respiratory risk, only one ng/M3 above the risk for dioxin onto the particulate, as equal to what he measured, again by his own say so. What did he leave out? The fact ½ of PM10 is PM2.5 and ½ of the PM2.5 is carbon soot not to mention Tobacco smoke particulate resides in the 1 Micron range; above ultra fine particulate he describes and below the vast majority of what he measured.
His summation states according to his figures;
“In fact, Repace (2004) measured an RSP concentration of 205 ug/m3 in the Delaware Park Casino in the U.S., with a corresponding carcinogenic particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PPAH) concentration of 163 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) before a State wide smoking ban, and corresponding RSP and PPAH concentrations after the smoking ban of 9 ug/m3 and 4 ng/m3 respectively. As Table 1 shows, measurements in the Burswood Casino are consistent with these values.”
And this is Tobacco Control’s cannon of proof? "There is no safe level of tobacco smoke"
is a given, because the consensus of medical authorities world wide agree.
Next time you are in a crowd; ask that everyone who does not know what tobacco smoke smells like, to please raise their hands.
I have yet to see anyone raise their hands, so I assume they have all been expossed.
If there is no safe level all have been expossed to the maximum risk.
If increased risk is determined, as all measurements are, between point a and point b, and there is no difference between those two points; We must conclude there can be no increased risk.
Second hand smoke is therefore harmless, just like smokeless tobacco as Bill Godshall concludes in his research.
Autonomy is about personal choice and management over your own body.
Cigarettes are self medication which allows one to avoid many more expensive products including Drugs and food smoking can be used to replace. A human right to choose is exactly described in a choice to use cigarettes and alternative nicotine products. Advertising is one thing coercion fear mongering and any attempts at minimization of autonomy laws, by the same medical profession which made them necessary is inexcusable and quite likely prosecutable.
Non smokers have no right to breathe clean air, because non means nothing and affords no basis to establish a right, for people who don't actually exist. People are just people and any one of them may choose to smoke so, there is no defined category created by a "non" prefix attached to some of them, at least not without legalizing bigotry.
A recent post in Michael Siegal's blog, discussed the hypocrisy of major public health groups denouncing the acts of Philip Morris marketing strategies, to sell the validity of new legislation, arguments supporting co-authored legislation Philip Morris Helped to write. Apparently both long time anti smoker activists; Michael Siegal a doctor and university educator, and Bill Godshall who runs an international anti smoker lobby group, although they constantly disagree on other points; both seem to echo my assessments almost verbatim.
The major medical charities and Public Health agencies are in bed with Big Tobacco and have been running a deceptive good cop bad cop routine on the public for years. The perception of a good versus evil battle to "protect" smokers, bar staff, children and all the defenseless little animals in the great outdoors, is actually more accurately described as a power brokered shift of blame and responsibility; from the product and it's suppliers to the consumers who learned to use the same products, coached [[in plain view of all of the now claiming to be innocent and deceived legislators]] by Fred Flintstone and the Lone Ranger when they were kids. Now those children as adults are being painted as child abusers and mass murderers for simply doing, what to them has always been normal, attacked primarily by their own governments no less?
The Government has always been a paid partner in the Tobacco trade and now they sound entirely unconvincing by the use of our taxes and the taxes stolen out of smoker's pockets to shirk their own responsibility for the blame with numerous and blatantly obvious, misleading advertising campaigns. The divisions in once peaceful communities by deliberate denormalization and propaganda which would make Pol Pot beam with envy, is not a solution we should be ignoring a disease management strategy to deal with the medical costs of an aging population. It is a reprehensible act which should be prosecuted in the courts as a human rights abuse.
"Similar to virtually every other press release issued by CTFK/ACS/AHA/ ALA, Friday's press release also stated:
"This latest attempt to market cigarettes to women and girls demonstrates the need for Congress to pass pending legislation giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate tobacco products."
But in fact, the FDA legislation (that was negotiated and agreed to by Philip Morris and CTFK) does nothing to stop PM from marketing cigarettes to women, does nothing to ban pink colors, and specifically prohibits the FDA from banning cigarette sales to high school seniors.
Besides, the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right of cigarette companies to market their products to adults (including women) as long as it is legal to sell cigarette to adults.
Long ago, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, etc. decided that it is perfectly OK for them to lie about and mislead the public about the FDA tobacco legislation in order to get it enacted into law.
That's because very few health organizations or professionals would support the legislation if CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA told the truth about the legislation. Bill Godshall | 11.05.08 - 3:49 pm | "
Michael Siegal;
"I think Bill's analysis is spot on. The health groups cannot tell the truth about this legislation because very few health organizations would support it if they did.They are deceiving their constituents (and the public) about the legislation specifically because it is the only way to garner the support necessary to pass the legislation.
That they have succeeded is unfortunate. But it does show how much power you can obtain if you are willing to throw out a commitment to honesty and the truth.
Thanks, Bill, for being willing to stand up and tell it like it is with regards to what these groups are doing. Michael Siegel | Homepage | 11.05.08 - 4:34 pm |"
Michael Siegal;
"Kevin wrote: "Isn't the manipulation being proposed human experimentation and as anti smoker organizations who promote hatred and direct slander against an identified group; does this not amount to a human rights abuse, word for word verbatim?"
I agree in principle with Kevin's suggestion that the FDA legislation amounts to human experimentation. The key point is that the experimentation is going to be taking place WITHOUT the informed consent of the smoker. In fact, the average consumer will believe that by virtue of FDA regulation, the product has been made safer, when in fact it has not. While I wouldn't describe this as a human rights abuse, I would describe it as FRAUD, which it is. Michael Siegel | Homepage | 11.06.08 - 9:29 am | "
