Evaluating “no safe level”

“No safe level” is not sufficient; this term provides no information, we have a right to know more.

They say; second hand smoke exhibits a health risk


I would argue the following;

"It should never be as simplistic as declaring "no safe level exists" to which every opponent with half an ounce of common sense will counter "there is no unsafe level" either. Predictably Health Departments and Globalist politicians, who front for the lobby groups they hire, use this term all the time. They attempt to hoodwink us with framework or sustainable development, never clearly explaining what they are constructing, making their point with a lack of evidence, or understanding, which parallels cult belief, much more than their claims to legitimate science.

Epidemiology after all measures what people recall which is heavily influenced by what they believe so in fact what is measured is not risk but belief. They admit to ignorance themselves, in using the “no safe level” terminology. The large Whitehall studies both confirmed stress is the largest risk factor with obesity, smoking and all other major factors combined you can only account for a 40% offset, compared to a 60% factor presented by increased chronic stress. Stress such as that provided in the so called “public health” messages. A tremendously larger danger is invented by these bandwagon and profit bearing messages, than ever existed in the smell of a little cigarette smoke. In simplistic terms if you can not afford to live the high life demonstrated in beer commercials, you will die much sooner than those who can. The stress you apply to achieving that life while the cards are stacked significantly against you will kill you 3 times as often as smoking [Whitehall]. And at worst case 30,000 times as often, as the faint risk your demise would be caused by second hand smoke. Follow along and I will prove it.

The epidemiological research they use to package the fears implies you can define a risk and simply assume all the other risk factors, which make this risk believable, are in place and universal in total population. Meaning everyone is fat and lazy everyone has high blood pressure and afflicted by the list of thousands of other factors, which allow the risk to be a risk at all, a condition which describes everyone at all times. They then apportion offsets or confounders, and declare their identified risk is what remains to elevate our fears.

Otherwise if they studied only those at risk, of actually dying from ETS exposures; their risk factor would be so small even if you legitimately applied it to the population at risk or as they do the population as a whole, you couldn't find a single body, by calculation or prognosis. In the real world they haven’t found one yet.

By embellishing the dangers of "no safe ETS" you increase the general population’s health risk, among both the smokers, being forced to quit, but with a much larger potential for disaster, by a larger degree of stress invented among the general public, as the targets of these ads, people who don't smoke. People who might be exposed at one time or another, who are being forced to live with un-necessary fears and elevated levels of stress, not supported by the science. By this fear we have divided communities and declared some people are more important than others, by healthiest caste designations. Smokers cost “x” fat people cost “y” alcoholics cost “z”, pretty much any personal choice or activity when observed as excess, can rate your cost and net worth to governments, allowing advertisements with your own tax money to invigorate the levels of societal rage against you. Once they told us they sought the “cures” today it is all about laying the blame, to mask failure.
We need to do the work and find out if this ETS stuff is safe or not.

The lobbies should be told to do the work first, and demonstrate a reason to fear, in place of resting on ignorance, providing irresponsible promotions, inciting rage and hatred, as the only foundation for all of their arguments. You could then point out "no safe" nonsense, [which is an unknown in scientific perspectives], creates an accumulation of 4000 or 400,000 pages of ignorance delivered to decision makers by the so called “charity groups” as the political arguments they will be presenting in their defense of anti autonomy principles which delineate our most basic rights. [Increasing stress once again]


Whitehall;


From WIKI;


No safe?


“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognized in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognized component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law.”



Related data for consideration;

Socialized theory and advocacy; A lack of information [fear of the unknown] resides as the best case for any healthism proposal, to adjust either social order or individual behaviors.


Mitigation of risk for smokers to a level no risk, is apparent after cessation; leading to the truth, the risk is mitigated over time and time dependent. Epidemiology is limited in its scope to provide useful evidence for policy making, because it can only produce a measure which demonstrates an instant in time. This denotes a rule being ignored by the lobbies, which demands a test of time line before a theory can be considered significant or relevant. By the massive reductions of both second hand smoke and smoking prevalence, but not the true number of smokers which has remained stable over the past fifty years. Observing the six fold increase of virtually every so called smoking related disease, we have to view all presentations by this process of estimations, with extreme caution.


The maximum risk in worse case scenarios; for maximum levels at a maximum continuous duration of second hand smoke, demonstrates a non significant health risk which remains controversial if a risk is evident at all [1.19] . By regressive modeling of all the selected research which indicated increased risk; the chart indicates a level 1000 times below the level of risk for active smoking of 25 cigarettes a day. For an exposure to second hand smoke at worst case the risk resides below 10% of even that risk well below 10,000 times that of active smoking, which is well below the 5% level accepted for tolerance or error in the calculations hence “no safe” and “no unsafe” level of risk. By the knowledge demonstrated in the research that time mitigates all risk of smoking, we can say with confidence any exposure risk to second hand smoke, would be sufficiently mitigated long before the next exposure occurs, therefore to the general public there is no demonstrable level of increased risk and “no safe level” remains non informative.

From the same study the risk of worst case at 1.16, bias is increased by elimination of ETS exposure bias, for the comparative group, without an identical elimination which should be warranted for the study group; creating a false impression, the maximum “risk” resides by accumulation of all statistical evidence in the 1.24 range. Even by accepting these formulations, the risk of casual exposures is reduced by 10% at minimum, seen to be at 1.024 or one half the allowance for error with a 95% confidence interval [1.05] and as we can see less than 10,000 times below the lifetime risks of active smoking. If as Doll predicted and no one has disputed; the risks of smoking can be successfully mitigated ten years after cessation to a level equal to that seen in the general population. The risk by a factor 10,000 times lower should be mitigated in a time frame 10,000 times as efficiently. By calculation 1000 times a year or .365 days [roughly 8 hours] which coincides with the mitigation of all suspected toxins found in the smoke and measures of blood quantities over time, regardless of bio marker utilized to gauge the levels of toxins by exposures among non smokers.


By comparison the “clean air” demanded by lobbies who seek smoker free spaces by advertisements claiming elimination of cigarette smoke would produce clean air. The inescapable risk of that clean air is much more deadly than any semblance of increased risk, which exists in ETS exposure which could be measured by credible scientific methods. The advocacy for smoker free fear promotions, works as a placebo treatment for an imagined disease, this increases the real risk, of all other pollution risks which are minimized seriously by lobby and political promotions, taking our focus away from what really does us harm.


The Oil companies and their conflicted statisticians don’t like the numbers, but there they are, and by rough calculation if you apply the risk to those actually at risk for direct comparison, the six cities studies might well have proved, primary smoking is far from the largest cause of lung cancers, heart and cardiovascular disease. While we are so absolutely focused on second hand and soon third hand smoke?

“In their recent article, Laden and colleagues have added 8 more years of follow-up to the Harvard Six Cities study of air pollution and mortality (1). They suggested that total mortality, as well as mortality for cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, were associated with ambient fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5), and that the results were consistent with other cohort studies.”

“The overall effect estimate of 1.16 for the total follow-up is based on a linear model. The model is incorrect and overestimates risk since the relationship is not linear, as observed when the data are plotted”

Sounds like tobacco industry execs are not the only execs; living in denial while selling us poison.

“Conflict of Interest Statement: J.F.G. is retired from full-time employment with ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. M.J.N. is currently employed full time by ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.”