Second hand smoke; Is it all in your mind?

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%]

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/

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.

Here is a fun conversation with the expert in front of TC claims

Here is a sample of his dirty work.

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.

There, but for the grace of God go I, Sound familiar?



New Development Update

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.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/mbsiegel/1677048722626478792/

Bill Godshall;

"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 | "

Related links;

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf

http://www.law.harvard.edu/stude.../ docherty.shtml

http://www.robertfulford.com/PolPot.html

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/rico-cases.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001961----000-.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

A Right to factual information

The product?