Who is killing whom?

Safer cigarettes unearthed;
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 As you will soon see the risk factors are misleading, Inaccurate and well out of date.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

Abstract from Pub med

“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 ), one set of criticisms pointed out that the relative risk estimates used, obtained from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS II), were adjusted for age but not for possible confounding factors such as alcohol consumption or dietary factors (11–13). When smoking relative risk estimates were adjusted for potential confounding, the effects on total SAM were found to range from a 26 percent decrease (11) to a 1 percent decrease (12) to a 2.5 percent increase (13). Another set of criticisms remarked that the CPS II relative risk estimates were not generalizable to the entire population (11, 13>). Using an alternate set of relative risk estimates from a more nationally representative US survey yielded SAM estimates 39.5 percent and 16.2 percent lower than those in the Surgeon General's 1989 report (11, 13). Other issues relating to AF_p estimation that have been examined include interpretation of multiple competing risks (14), the extrapolation of AF_p findings to new populations (18-, 19), the theoretical effect of nondifferential exposure and outcome misclassification on the attributable fraction (20),and the use of broad definitions of exposure"

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.

Rights as a two tier system majority vs minority

Year 2010; A Designated Smoking Area



The SG and his report can be seen to be deliberately misleading possibly to the point of criminality, this can be demonstrated if you understand the principles of Case study.

The most recognized definition of case would be as we know in environmental controls. What quantity of exposure would be considered dangerous defined as known safe levels. All elements including air and water are toxic at some level we determine safe levels according to linear measures and historical or exposure levels known in actual incidence to result in adverse health effects.

In epidemiology the calculation begins with a base where no harm exists or an acceptable level we live with, to enable the use of toxic substances in everyday life. Ammonia as an example can cause enormous harm if not used properly. Controls allow it’s use in a variety of ways despite the mortality which still occurs from exposures. The level of acceptable risk or baseline for calculations is one in 10,000 or as a ratio 100 per million at risk. 3000 smoking related cancers although they sound terrible is a calculated risk no actual bodies are involved which in reality is within acceptable limits. 3000 in a 320 million population is below 10 per million or .001 per 10,000. A calculated risk well below acceptable levels, the toxin risk can at the same time be touted as the most toxic substance known to man, eliciting a no safe level exists announcement? How would we rate other toxins in this perspective?

We hear of 30% increased risk in the news daily not knowing a 30% increased population risk would be seen in epidemiology study results as 3000 in 10,000 at risk not the paltry .3 being represented to mean the same thing, in ad agency spin being delivered deceptively as legitimate news.

The lack of credibility in the heart research speaks for itself if exposure results in immediate harm and this harm is irreversible why not fold up the debate and go home? We are all doomed smoking causes all the damage we are almost all exposed already, in a real sense none of us can be harmed any further.

It is well known an advocate or politician will tend to express the extremes as a norm in order to solidify support. How extreme the declaration is entirely relevant to education and respect of ethical principles and of those educated how far they will allow personal ethics to be stretched. Credibility can be destroyed when more convincing evidence is discovered. The more educated can weigh the risks or speak from an ethical perspective in a precautionary principle covering his ass just in case. Currently the public mood is aligned with little caution required which could result in reputation harm. Industry no longer relies on reputation they can simply purchase it in Ad agency spin. The personal financial and prominence gained, allays a lot of fears in reputation losses, with so many so called professionals on board the chances of personal effect are now slim. Unfortunately the more rigidly ethical are not often put in front of TV cameras so we hear little of their views in the public. The more ethical perspectives can be found in books and professional papers we hear little about, the boring crowd. Difficult for the media to sensationalize or for lobby groups to enlist.

Simplistically linearity can be seen as a + b =c or 1+1=2
This can be seen as a plotted graph as multiples of two perspectives or factors
x=number or factor expressing those exposed above a certain level [acceptable risk]
y= mortality outcomes during a time as a horizontal base
The intersection of the two co-ordinates multiple times draws a line which indicates prevalence of growth or decline during a stated time. Epidemiology in case control simply stated; calculates the theoretical numbers by comparing one affected group to a non affected group in an effort to define the outcome positive or negative.

Think of an oscilloscope displaying an AC sine wave the picture on the screen represents a voltage level through a period of time. X is the voltage level at a given instant and Y is the time. The fluctuating voltage is displayed through a complete cycle of time or the given period. What you don’t see is; the picture represents multiple samples added and averaged. The higher the quality of the equipment used the more accurate the displayed image and in turn the confidence of the result. The higher the amount of samples will improve the accuracy of the picture on the screen in respect to what is actually happening.

A screen of a spectrum analyzer may a third dimension which could indicate phase or the time the sample starts as compared to other samples which if a multiple phase shift existed would result in a thickening of the line. Or it could demonstrate power losses in decibel readings across a measured length of wire, a light wave could be analyzed to describe color or contrast which are dependant on more than two factors. the z component.

This would describe in a real life scenario how accuracy is made more focused in the population size being studied If a single x and y co ordinate were the only factors to consider the answers could be simplified. acuracy is increased in the number of samples taken If you do not consider all factors in a proper perspective your conclusions will hold little credibility in comparison to those who follow the process to a more rigid degree. Non linear scale adds additional dimensions the z component represents only a third we could be evaluating hundreds of dimensions which is increasingly much more difficult for most to visualize as each new dimension is added. In linear principles algorithms are defined to flatten the additional dimensions or confounders in order to make a simplistic two dimensional calculation possible, as shown above in x the number of people exposed above a certain level which we know would cause harm. [cause and effect] The EPA is avoiding the z component accuracy problem at the moment in defense of previous statements and shrinking credibility. All the ETS research to date, has to come to terms with new emerging physical research such as the six cities study presented to the EPA this year which was basically ignorred, observational research which proved, the confounding effect of environmental pollution and particulate matter was previously grossly under stated. If you recalculated the effects of the confounding effect on past ETS research, the same research the SG is attempting to use to validify his report [The large body of evidence], The numbers will change significantly in respect to prevalence in community and mortality outcomes. If proper weight were now to be used, the existence of second hand smoke risk could well be eliminated. Thus the “no safe level” statement as a defense in absence of a definitive proof any risk exists at all.

His preference for smaller studies can be seen as proof of this deceptive attitude larger case and control groups would improve the accuracy. Accuracy apparently is not his primary concern.

There is another method to define case in the perspective, we all carry a certain amount of toxins in our bodies and at what point would the accumulation result in harm. Not a definitive; “this toxin will always cause harm”, but how much do we have as an indicator of risk. The 20-30 year reaction to exposure is reliant on accumulated risk within the body. The surgeon general has, as with a lot of TC advocates tended to mix the two case definitions, which obviously confuses the public in not fully understanding the relevance.

The WHO and the EPA are deeply divided on Linear and non linear assessments as an indicator of risk, however both groups and their stakeholders happily mix the results of both types of contradictory research as long as it promotes fear and hate in the public. The methods or their credibility are unimportant as long as both groups continue to sing in harmony in front of the cameras. If a non linear association were valid; case and control studies which define the difference between those affected and not affected would be seen to be much more conclusive obviously the results are anything but conclusive, so the defenders of the status quo fall back to linear studies to defend a weak position. If no safe level exists it comes down to disease tracking to find those exposed who will certainly have effects so definitive other confounders would have little bearing on the subject.

The oil and metal refineries would be elated with a standard so narrow as to eliminate them from suspicion. ETS can not be studied in the absence of confounders and it is common knowledge few would not be exposed, as a non linear case definition, results of the research would create more questions than they could ever answer. This would satisfy polluting industries protections indefinitely in lack of evidence they could do us any harm. Review the discussions of Diesel fuel exhaust, in over 45 years of discussions they always end with more research is required, as they always will in assessing the dangers now existing in the public. Like captains on ships the logic used to be dump the waste, there is so much water it will have little consequence. Factories used to be built on the sides of rivers with the same “the problem will flow elsewhere” mind set. With the volume of air it would be previously unfathomable a single smokestack could raise the levels of the desolate air contaminants above levels which could be detected or cause harm. Now we know those levels are exceeded and are becoming more toxic every day. Smoking is simply a smoke screen to hide larger confounders being given little consideration. As legitimate as the term “smoking related disease” camouflaging other confounders in political rhetoric.

In reviewing the Stakeholder process both at the EPA and the WHO they attempt to produce science to advance objectives, Both groups before the research proceeds [as it is defined] brag how the new body of evidence will be used to advance a cause. The WHO in its HIA health interventions teaches how to define any activity as health related, How to form alliances with like minded groups from around the world to “dominate discussions and eventually dominate decisions”.
Would you consider this a community effort? If the research results were known prior to completion of the studies how credible is the research? Are any of the numbers being parroted more than political estimates with use of scholarly letters of scientific whores? The letters are rented to intentionally sell invented science? Research grants are the rent payments. Those grants are determined largely in public statements which meet advocacy objectives. A real scientific research paper does not include a stated biased objective. Real research is designed to allow the chips to fall where they may. Designed as a follow up to epidemiology theories which should have no evidentiary power beyond the use to track a mono-factorials. Smoking is multi faceted and epidemiology is poorly designed to encompass all the variables due to the human intervention in which the results are highly dependant

The bulk of the SGs report is defined in what he chose to include and a number of larger more definitive reports and evidence he chose to ignore. The EPA would be the first to assign Tobacco smoke a non linear case characteristic in some exposure can be harmless to a certain level without incidence. For example a 5 cigarette a day smoker can be as healthy as a non smoker as seen in a multitude of research including most prominently the Doll 50 year doctors who smoke research. Yet they do not disclose a safe amount of toxins within a body above which harm could occur. More curiously they do not even disclose what toxins they are concerned with, only describing the smoke as a consistent compound, despite the huge variation of contents and quantities possible. At the Phillip Morris site they define if memory serves 400 additives which may or may not be used in formulations. In some countries like Canada no additives are allowed. New mandated fire safe cigarette paper was introduced recently without human testing which adds a new dimension to the mix, are the new additives curative or hazardous” Can we consider use of the product, as human experimentation? Human experimentation devoid of free will choice? Now that TC has successfully defined smokers as a detestable sub class, who will take a human rights complaint seriously? How many years before we know the effects, with such a disorganized array of test methods and principles at play in political consensus defining credible science. Canada has no ability to complete the physical science so they depend on outside sources predominantly the EPA for guidance. They follow a track as arrogant dictators in punishing the victim and blaming the manufacturers for a hazard they first ignored, and now bumble along attempting to apply a professional face on corruption in huge taxation derived of their decipt.

All given credibility by the political puppet representing medicine dressed up in a military uniform? The vision should be considered a perspective in itself, in weighing credibility. The general represents power which reigns as the director of what is acceptable science. Irregardless of observations to the contrary, a purely political promotion. We have all heard only 50% of smokers will die of smoking related diseases. Of the other 50% close to 90% die beyond the age of 70, proof there has to exist, whether in speaking of linear or non linear association, a level of safety, whether immunities or genetics play a large roll or not, this has never been discussed in fact avoided at all costs.

No safe level demonstrates an arrogant attitude. An attitude as a mother speaking to a child who can not explain why she decided to forbid an activity, instead stating “because I say so” as the only explanation required in a superiority belief requiring no more respect be displayed. No safe level demonstrates ignorance of the advocate, in defeat of their own credibility in training or leadership abilities. The expression of non linearity in cause and effect is confused when they define their position using case and control studies which depend on those very linear principles. The DSR not being safe relies on a no safe level proclamation despite the fact even in non linear association some toxic level can be defined as safe while existing in the body. Without a stated level in association with the non linear case, we fall to the idea, since most in the population know what ETS smells like, almost all have been exposed and we will all have adverse reactions regardless of any action. The 50% of smokers who do not die of smoking related disease would therefore be seen as a miracle of divine intervention, for lack of a clear explanation. If we smoke or not or simply smell it, calculations state clearly with a growing body of evidence smoking will kill us all. This eliminates a risk factor as we can not demonstrate any risk increase exists, if you already know how it smells. The fear in the public depends on as they call it a body of evidence that evidence is based in cause and effect research or linearity, they also deny linearity is applicable to smoke research. Opportunistic use to define a position promoting fears and deny its application when it suits their need to develop other fears.

Getting to the bottom of what you are being told is complicated however it depends always on the definition of “case” and “methods” to define case.

There is an excellent explanation of Epidemiology at the BMJ as public access it would do you well to read this report and try to understand the process in so doing understand the numbers being bandied about carelessly by many who don’t understand their significance beyond the ability to scare others into submission.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/collections/epidem/epid.shtml

I would pay special attention to section two in the regard to assessing the SGs report and understand through that, why I would accuse him and others in TC of international rights violations in the use of Coercion to mislead the public in matters of health information.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/collections/epidem/epid.2.shtml#pgfId=1003279

You can read about you rights in that regard here.

http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii3?ijkey=51532084409cd1fe36c22cbb2fb51ee231739f0c

A terror from within

In response to the recent claims of our health ministries and the tax trough paid legion of health care professionals;

In reviewing the statements recently expressing the ideas we are at risk of terrorists from within our population. How would we possibly connect the two? By definition, how do you describe a terrorist? We could see a terrorist as an individual or as a group, who support a justification of imposition, forcing their values on others which do not reflect those of community, by means of supplanted fear and intimidation. We know this in the term Denormalization as described and moralised at Health Canada.

Terrorist; One who promotes extremist fears or terror.

Basir speaks her values in terms of epidemics and pandemics despite no contagions are present to support such fears. Is she simply uneducated enough to believe her advisors that such a danger truly exists? or does she speak in political terms maximizing the effects of a 30 second sound bite, her assault on the psyche of those who would listen. She and her comrades in arms claimed a huge victory in the war on tobacco smoke recently with the imposed ban of smoking in newly acquired public spaces. Jim Watson claims the effects are already seen but we must go further in attacking the new Tobacco. The increasing threat in a fat pandemic which could, if left unchecked, erase the great gains in healthcare already achieved. Despite the growing lineups at hospital emergency rooms this is a terror which deserves 10s of millions in expenditures and increased taxes as a byproduct. In so doing destroying our shrinking personal economies which are irrefutably known to be the largest determinants in health and longevity. The polls of course say we support higher taxes??? No one could take issue with saving the precious children, or in Governments protecting us from ourselves. Prevention of using what is allowed to remain of a dollar earned, on anything which may increase personal harm, or is proven to be wrong headed can not be tolerated in our new civil society. The only thing absent, is a list of what will be permitted, which is a matter under constant negotiation.

In mussing, one could imagine Basir or Watson had they been born in Afghanistan or Iraq would they now be walking around with a bomb strapped to their bodies looking for a potential target? The similarity has it’s obvious detractors, however the similarities are too obvious to ignore. Terrorists seek to change what is normal they seek to disrupt our daily routines. Goals of such lobbies may be based in moral or for self serving objectives, in many cases it is hard to decide which is the case. Industries who sell competing products set their sights on revising Government policies in similar ways. Robert Wood Johnson went to great pains to first hold seminaries instructing the loyal to use children as a weapon in the war to gain support and sympathy. At the same time they financed the creation of SAMMEC research alterations to include the devastating effects on children for gaining public support. Unfortunately the one detractor in gaining that support was the science which could not support it. The calculations in Canada reporting 100 child mortalities and even giving exact numbers of gender could never be proven using standard methods of epidemiology which could never estimate a number so precise in a 32 million population. The list of those mortalities includes SIDS which as the name clearly states is a syndrome; that which can not be explained otherwise the term syndrome would not apply.

Already this week It is only Wednesday; CSPI a radical American lobby group declared war on fried chicken and coffee. Research on chlorene in swimming pools may be causing asthma. A review of a 20/20 report which shows Johnson and Johnson "The Family Company" is advising parents in commercials to wash childrens play areas and toys with toxic and carcinogenic products. A call to declare being tired at the wheel a crininal offense equivalent to drunk driving. Numerous declarations praising those at the battlefront figting the war on deadly cigarette second hand smoke. A deadly toxin which used to be thought to be killing 1000 Canadians every year, now known to cause the preventable deaths of one quarter of all mortality in Canada every year. Deadly with all exposures no matter at what level, sure to kill us all if action is not taken immediately to continue the fight until all traces of cigarette smoke is eliminated. The commons continues to debate the notion of taking all cars and trucks off the road to meet Kyoto objectives as the mega tons of polutants at Sarnia and Sudbury are incoinsequential and can not meet the obvious potential of personal responsibility, as demonstrated in the one ton challenge our only hope of survival. This morning a City TV upcoming report on the growing epidemic of table salt? Reflecting how many times I have observed the deadly salt placed next to water coolers, thought to replenish a body after excessive sweat. Or remembering my own mother who suffered from a goiter she was prescribed salt tablets to control the condition. Now I must be convinced salt which is a vital component in our bodies is now a deadly epidemic? The extremes these groups will go to in creation of fears is taking it’s toll in cry wolf terms. Smog days in Feb. Last year was taken as a non issue, despite the real fear and reaction it should have provoked. Instead the terrorists used the issue to promote industry protections in the Kyoto protocol plan protecting the benefactors who continue to profit while the rest of us choke. Inhaling the byproducts of their goods for sale. In Kyoto they have actually found a way to make us pay for those byproducts or what was formerly believed to be their waste.

We are taught to fear by our own government officials too young for the most part to remember a flaming speech by one of the most eloquent in our history Sir Winston Churchill, who once stated “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”. Now a terrorist government seeks through media presentations to denormalize us all with exaggerated fears and intimidations of those who will not yield. Child abuse accusations for parents who’s children are gleefully instructed in schools to question their smoking parents “why would you want me dead?” Yes, there is no doubt. If Basir or Watson allowed themselves the luxury of self examination when observing an Iraq militant with an RPG shouldered, celebrating the assault on his fellows. Or when reading the news reports, of the recently arrested home grown terrorists facing charges in our courts. The thought should come to them both loud and clear as it should to all who support Heath care advocacy in the supplanting of fears. There but the grace of God go I.

Of course being non moral eugenicists and politicians first, neither could accept a higher power, than that they have taken for their own.

It is surreal to live in a society which in training hand to hand combat or martial arts the first lesson deals with morals and ethics in use of your learned power. In contrast an education system with no such requirements which teaches moral and ethical leaders are found as a byproduct of success in a chosen field. The cream has finally risen to the top the successful get there because they have learned to ignore weakness of character now known as old school ethics or the values of dinosaurs.

You no longer have to travel to hidden training camps to learn the values of terror, there are many online resources available The Federal Government has a course on Social marketing at Health Canada found here

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html

At the United Nations a similar course sure to raise the power of fear and intimidation to new heights.

Complete with a science tout jour smorgasbord. A resource of science creation to aid all campaigns.

http://www.who.int/hia/evidence/en/

From profiting industry stakeholders fine tuning the terrorist handbook

http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/BMSG_AccelerationReport.pdf

In a nation dedicated to peace why are we continually at war with ourselves. Perhaps some of those fine Liberal values of live and let live have somehow gotten lost along the way, in creating our perfect civil society. The globalist dream creating a cashless society moralizing total populations of slaves to industry. All taught to be clones of puritanic yet politically correct immortals.

Damn the individualist army of wrong headed dinosaurs and insurgents crying for civil rights.

Most of us would support the value of observational science.

If this is the primary defence against healthcare terrorists.

How long before we will hear the call in stylised media announcements, to let the book burnings begin?

New age terrorists

Cause and effect is a term to be considered in political reality, if it moves tax it to death. Literally to death, the increase in violence resulting in higher mortality and depreciated standard of living throughout the free world can be seen in large part to poor management principles. Lobbies grow favor with Governments by presenting justifications for increased taxes. Politicians with a bigger purse can purchase votes with grandiose election promises never revealing the source of their new found wealth, always described as trimming the fat or reductions of government waste. Reductions will always be out of their grasp in maintaining a growing bureaucracy.

The Canadian leadership convention is abuzz with the debate over carbon taxes. What would be the effect of a huge carbon tax on industries who pollute? It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand in the same way Tobacco settlements were added to the cost of operations used as a tax deduction and passed on to the consumer along with the cost of any lost trade due to the process. The amounts paid to the government first would spend a lot of time in the industry coffers creating more wealth prior to payments. The consumer suffers increased cost lowered standard of living and poverty and through poverty grows violence. Industry profits rise net result even industry would support the carbon tax or any other such tax which would result increased cash flow and profitability while passing responsibility to the victims.

What would be gained as far as reducing carbon emissions? Their actually would be motivation to increase carbon emissions due to the profitable nature of increased product value. From an economic standpoint no motivation would be found in reducing anything. Mortality figures would increase making a carbon or any other tax a deadly solution from a community stand point. Legislation has other options including criminality which could apply however in protections of industry their paid lobbies would never allow such a move to become popular. Personal responsibility seems to be the solution which would limit the profit if we could just take the credibility away from the terrorists paid by industry to lobby.

Terrorist seems like an odd description here but in fact it is closer to the truth than anyone realizes. When you break down terrorism how would we describe it? Through fear they motivate others to make changes in lifestyle or routine, to be noticed by changing what is normal, Denormalization if you will. Fear of gas attacks in subways or bombs on aircraft scare people into seeking other means of transportation. Suicide bombers restrict movement in busy streets affecting commerce. Anti war sentiments give them power through the discussions in the media they increase notoriety and because they are noticed making them successful in their strategies. Drawing attention through daily presentations in the world press motivates many young people to join them as a protest against intolerable living conditions.

Hate is easy to produce if you target the right demographic. Smoking was just such a target many people have seen family members die due to a coined term created to eliminate other suspects “smoking related disease” how hard would it be to gain support among those who could be easily convinced cigarettes were to blame regardless of what actually was? Many in the population who don’t smoke simply don’t like the smell so anything could be accepted which would allow them to avoid a smell. Anything includes accepting ridiculous claims as long as those claims are not seen to affect their life or routine. Fear will gain the support of many more, 47,000 preventable deaths creates this fear 100 senseless child mortalities, Pictures on cigarette packages and TV commercials depicting cancer patients provides a suitable arsenal of anti tank missiles RPGs and suicide bomb belts to disrupt society and routines to the point their can be no resistance. The power of fear when the nation’s media and politicians voice those fears they become much more of a motivator to react.

The British have been a constant target of fear campaigns for many years in recent history with the bombings during the war they learned to stand in determination to never give in to fears. Encouraged by the voice of Winston Churchill defiance in the face of violence created by acts of terror. Later with IRA bombings the public although much more guarded still remained defiant in the face of those who sought to make them fear. Now with the Alkaida terrorists again that resolve is tested throughout the community to never give in to the imposition of fears.

North America could do well in taking a lesson from the Brits. In judging charity campaigns of self serving charity foundations. In assessing government actions parroted by lobby groups in the media and in look at what fears are being taught in our schools displayed on cigarette packages or pronounced by snake oil salespeople claiming to be health care professionals. A hate campaign in Ontario tests the limits of civility A website named stupid. A propaganda ministry [Health information] and threats from a Government official quit or be punished.

We used to respect punishment was for the courts now Government seeks to bypass trials and the courts. To affect punishment directly in assuming all citizens are criminals, guilty until proven innocent. The dictatorial mould of imposed fines which require action on the part of the victim to prove innocence as opposed to being proven guilty prior to punishment, could pose an interesting constitutional challenge in judging the legitimacy of the word of law.

With a total lack in statistical, Biological or timeline observations the only available tool left to eliminate smoking was fear. Altering of public spaces property rights was a required ingredient slipped in with little public knowledge, necessity or consent. Negotiations including the other side in a peaceful resolution were never considered, as we are dealing with mean spirited oppressors determined to impose their power on an identified group. A group they deem to never have deserved civil rights or a place in community, regardless of accomplishments or contributions. A wide brushing of all those who are different and deserve to be punished for failure to comply. Smokers are the invisible enemy with no voice a larger group can not silence. Obese people will be the next untouchables to present a threat, requiring vilification and fears to be distributed to the masses as a pandemic which needs to be cured. Fear mongering needs to be the target to end tax oppressions and Violence in the streets. Power is being afforded to those who never deserved it operating outside community while stealing it’s voice to propagate more hate and fear. Tobacco control is terrorism in every definition of the word. We need to drag them into the light so community can judge those who terrorize our communities and destroy our quality of life.

Voodoo and Gypsies are highly under rated

With respect to ballooning costs of healthcare, perhaps it is time we looked at viable and economical alternatives from a purely ethical perspective. Hope may yet be found in obtaining valuable health information in reassessing credibility at source. We are at a crossroad with an aging population. The costs of healthcare on it’s current track will assure many will die of premature deaths directly related to a highly flawed and unethical medical community. The process of discovery producing timely and relevant health advice can be seen as a huge expensive albatross not able to find the pocket, let alone their car keys. We need to do away with the epidemiology model and replace it with something more reliable. The expansive knowledge necessary to form opinions based on extremely complicated calculations based in memories of the respondents as a base of knowledge with which to do comparative estimates with another group similarly disadvantaged in the level of memory skills available. So dependent are people’s lives on the correct placement of a decimal point and the energy remaining in a calculator battery. It is not hard to imagine the system requires repair. I would suggest an implementation into the medical process of determinants with more conclusive results not requiring interpretive logic skills, colossal paper trails with excuses for inexplicable inaccuracies in logic not consistent with historical experiences or wasting the effort involved by allowing credibility to be dismissed based on the party paying the bill.

I believe from a logical perspective we could find much more integrity of process in the implementation of Tarot cards or a simple dartboard to decide without doubt or bias the unknowns in medical research as it is now directed. The simplicity and savings realized to obtain relevant information that is more reliable, in an improved stable process could not be dismissed fool hardily, as we continue on our current path of certain destruction. The public already has a lot more confidence in the new methodology and the cost savings certainly would make for some huge political popularity points.

When you consider the latest headlines outlining how our research dollars are being used in fraudulent and unethical ways, it should be made clear to all, your rights to autonomy requires anyone relaying health relevant information if that information is false or inaccurate they take themselves beyond just perspectives of unethical behavior or quacks. They can in reality be seen as criminals for knowingly relaying health information which has the potential to cause harm to others. We set standards of integrity to protect the public from acts of unethical behavior. For years now those rules have been ignored universally in the scientific community wishing to please their masters.

There are many discussions in the realm of scientific integrity and the discarded values of ethical behavior in the pursuit of a smoker-free world. Ignorant to the crimes they commit on others, they plod on. Inexperienced mathematicians calling themselves researchers, breach the rules daily as they produce immense piles of scientific garbage in what we understand is valid evidence discovered repeatedly; ETS is a carcinogen and an extreme health hazard. The Borg infected researchers with their comatose like ignorance, attempt to employ the mathematical calculations of disease tracking to create facts relating to cigarette smoke which fly in the face of real scientific discovery, and historical observations of the so called smoking pandemic related diseases. In front of TV cameras, they chant in tongues their theoretic announcements and how closely to everyone’s amazement and shock, research fits the pattern being purchased by their benefactors. All the researchers and politicians are now as loyal slaves to industry bought and paid for, with the interest and investment returns earned on trillions of dollars promised to charity no less, while the fools in community pay taxes allowing the creation of these massive war chests.

There can be little doubt the rekindling of Hitler’s campaign against smokers which he later aimed at ethnic groups he disapproved of, has once again in his model been quite successful in turning peaceful communities upon themselves. The enormous expenditures purchasing public acceptance and silence of those who would speak against the assault dictating what is decided for you is acceptable. The resources which would be normally funding infrastructure and feeding the poor are now diverted into grandiose schemes to build enormous healthcare bureaucracies to protect the people from themselves. Who needs a Taliban guard posted on every corner? We have cameras and neighbors trained to report on each other for the protection of the public good. An adjustment to a public space definition, a tweak on the hate crimes rules and off you go into a controlled environment automated and dictated on the 6 o’clock news.

But how did this happen?

The problem starts here. We take tobacco smoke, which can be produced in a number of different ways, primarily burning a vast array of ingredients making what one would think a number of different products. Again, those who control the rules of the game are allowed to define all of these products as one with only one possible description regardless if smoke is produced or not. Bring on the mathematician who, although they know well the single product scenario, is dishonest at best. Driven by hopes of gold coins and their 15 minutes of fame they press forward with the rationale; the government wants this and everyone else is doing it. So it begins, the voyage of discovery, similar to discovering the 7-11 on the corner down the block. The same place he gets his slurpies every time he is due for a break.

Vast impeccably stated calculations, bar charts, graphs and pictures if diseased organs, defining the smoke as a single dimensional vector ignoring as many potential confounders as the peer review will allow. The puzzling thing no matter how many twists and contortions of the results are made we cannot avoid the ever present possible confounders, might, may, should, could, if and a variety of other carefully injected descriptors to explain why significant proof is missing.

Ethical malaise is started by accepting smoke as a disease, which it clearly is not.

Smoke is produced in a number of different mixtures resulting in a number of different smoke creations.

Smoking habits vary by the individual.

They cannot be defined beyond grouping of similar habits which, even with the aid of the best of memory, research values could vary significantly from the gathered evidence.

With the smoking lifespan of the individual, too many variables are evident. Stress increases smoking, being over tired or impaired in addition to many other lifetime factors affect the research.

Additionally, where smoking is done in the pristine (if you discount the air quality} wilderness or a smoke filled steelmill, too many variables to simply afford a single dimensional vector to any individual let alone a group.

Regardless of the reality which exists, the researcher can accept a wide berth of interpretation in defining a single product he allows as a single dimensional disease vector. A vector designed for him by others to fit the mold of his discovery process in pursuit of a predetermined outcome. The outcome announced in the title of his stated theory. In conclusions it can be determined, however; no room for variance will be afforded. There is a non-linear dose response relationship due to the unpredictability of the resulting relationship to the selected disease. A shocking discovery to some, affording the no safe level announcement by the modern day tambourine brigade in anti-smoker advocacy.

Benefactors coincidentally, we are assured, who help fund the research facts by design. It can be nothing more than coincidence the same industry charity foundations funding both parties also would find financial gains determined in what was discovered. Charity truly has its rewards; for the rich, benefits can be collected right here on earth no need to visit Heaven, if indeed they could ever find it.

In a purely ethical perspective, the researchers hold no value in personal integrity or ethical behavior the fear and smear gang in kind, knowing the quality of the facts created validify the deceit. Selling their own and others’ professional integrity in the process.

Criminals, every one of them, robbing us all of the protection of credible science and information concerning our health which is our right above the right of others to spew political truths with no valid basis.

The two most significant effects of smoker-ban crimes against humanity; would be the elevated levels of violent crime in a community set upon itself, and the loss of public confidence in governments and the scientific community at large. They are all as stakeholders able to illicit payments for their efforts today however, who will stand and declare integrity in the days ahead?

Surely, no one employed in a professional career should wish to be looked upon as a clown.

Perhaps in the end, the pricing for medical services could be reduced to the level of gypsy ladies telling fortunes in the circus, who it appears at the moment the public finds much more credible.

FXR

Be Careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint

Mark Twain {1835-1910}

Fighting back

If anyone is serious about turning the tide of anti smoker advocacy back against it's suporters, here is a sample of a complaint I registered with the Canadian Federal Broadcast Regulators. I await the results, a reply is promissed within 10 days. If more complaints of this variety started to happen internationally UN agencies and Public health agencies would have a lot of damage control to deal with, in order to save face in Government. Guess who will be blamed in damage control? Those who presented incomplete and misleading information which inspired the bans that's WHO. International criminals.

Hello,

I am writing to request an official complaint be investigated with respect to CTV News net. I found it highly insulting and repulsive for a major news broadcast to indicate because I smoke I could be referred to as a non-Human species. The headline Smokers an endangered species, is only the tip of the years long campaign of hate and segregation being logged against those who choose to use a legal product.

I demand CTV retract this offensive editorial and apologize to 6 million Canadians they have insulted on numerous occasions directly and through distribution of hate filled content in what they dispense.

Law abiding friends and neighbors are being taught by this and other media groups to hate and distance themselves from others with no crime or damage as the motive. I would propose those broadcasters dispensing medical advice should at minimal have credentials checked to validate their legal right to do so.

The Ontario Government teaches children through a website appropriately named stupid, their own parents harm others smell like dog crap and kill defenseless babies. The Health Canada website reiterates the claim smokers are in fact killing babies. There is absolutely no credible science to substantiate such claims in fact targeted research done by the World Health organization contradicts what we hear in the popular media every day.

I have included a link clearly demonstrating the hate being promoted and the damage the media groups do to community in fear mongering campaigns. This vigilante justice consistent and repetitive fears and smears campaign has gone beyond the limits of advocacy but approaches international crimes of autonomy reminiscent of 1930s Germany. I would like to refer your organization to a paper published in the British medical Journal if individual rights violations are in doubt the article describes clearly what those rights entail. The ad agency fear mongering being presented as news by an agency with a duty to clear and credible presentations, in regard to the trust the public affords them, is a matter of serious concern.

There should be clear regulations in place to make these groups clearly identify the source and if the article is news worthy, a paid ad or worthy of credibility with the evidence offered to substantiate claims being presented in an unbiased presentation. Media groups who are placed in a position of trust and are able to guide public opinion reflecting in our abilities to make important choices. Autonomy rights are among those I speak of. Political branding could well be investigated as well as it is no secret the major media groups demonstrate clear political biases proven in the long list of controversial news items glossed over or never reported at all. We hear instead new studies and research presented daily of questionable origin. The fact word for word study reports are seen presented on numerous networks simultaneously, a concern is exasperated as to the source of this information.

The law is clear we have the right to the best available information concerning our health the news groups need to cease in the presentation of such information unless they are prepared to accept full responsibility if the information is found to be false or damaging to others.

The groups are reporting information easily mistaken for news without conscience or shame, it appears they have never investigated most of the materials presented with any substantial or credible effort otherwise competent and responsible journalists would never be presenting such hateful demeaning reports.

In evaluation of many of the anti smoker strategies which in fact support the cigarette and Nicotine delivery industries as evident in quarterly profit reports. Punishing the victim while protecting the product is the flavor of the day. How many smokers can compare the ingredients on the side of the package to make clear decisions with respect to what they are using? Is a bag of potato chips more dangerous than a package of cigarettes? It appears the lack of regulation in product ingredients could be responsible for increased smoking deaths, popularly called “preventable” in the News. If as the news reports indicate they are “preventable” why is the public being led to believe the protection of non-smokers will aid in that prevention. Alternatively, a government position; the victims of an unsafe unregulated addictive product are responsible for medical costs as an indefensible excuse for convenient and excessive taxation.

There is indisputable evidence Chlorine mixed with organic materials creates Dioxins the media groups in campaigns designed to protect manufacturers may have allowed the thousands of preventable cancer deaths to go unchallenged when a simple regulation banning the use of chlorine decades ago could have been highly beneficial.

In contrast, perspective real science dealing with the product in place of taxation and abuse of the victims would result in an inclusive solution respectful to all. There is an excellent article in BMJ, which gives good reason why deception in seek of the common good is a huge mistake, which no doubt is already seeing dangerous repercussions. Anti smoker advocacy is being seen for what it really is manipulative and deceptive violating international rights of the individual to the best quality information available. CTV and others could well be involved an a criminal act if they are knowingly supplying false or deceptive information I have on numerous occasions attempted to contact the media groups to comment on stories presented although many others like myself have supplied them with information contradicting what they present apparently there is a selection process in respect to opinions which can be made public.

I believe my rights have been violated long enough. If the Canadian broadcast media is to be involved in propaganda campaigns, originating in a socialist government campaign which clearly advocates for the profits of corporations to the detriment of the individuals I would like to challenge their right to a license as a credible news channel they do not reflect Canadian Culture or values or respect my rights as a citizen or guarantees to the person described in the constitution.

I am a human being deserving of equal respect, contrary to their presentations.

I am far from extinct contrary to the advice of their clients.

I do not believe any company describing themselves as a media group presenting “news” has a right to a broadcast license to do so if the quality of material is less than total honesty, to inform the public in an unbiased way, as opposed to attempts to lead the public in what we will decide is the public mood. The quality of news on this network would more adequately be described as parroted views of advertisements to reflect the views if the sales department devoid of respect for the audience they report to.

There are serious health concerns in this country which are not being aided by lobbying efforts of media groups attacking weak government officials to achieve paid advocacy roles to promote little more than control of market share. The broadcast news in this country has failed to take out the trash, as we trusted them to do. Regulation is the only avenue left to dissuade the undermining of broadcast media through large purchasing power of stakeholder partnerships in Government, industry and institutionalized permanent charity groups to fulfill their own monetary objectives. The disease and poverty, which could have been avoided through responsible investment, of the funds in question, could have benefited us all.

Best Regards;

Referenced materials

Rights of the individual

Research by the World health Organization

Result of the hate campaigns indefensible in any perspective.

“When you give a lesson in meanness to a critter or a person,
don't be surprised if they learn their lesson."
- Will Rogers

Dioxin arguments.

What if they have been barking up the wrong tree?

Warning; Those easily insulted by non-politically correct views; please save your immortal soul, protect your offspring avoid other global calamities ending in the destruction of the universe and read no further.

Lets get radical for a bit. I am saying way out there in left field among the kooks and deranged individuals. Away from government, sensibilities decreeing the product needs no scrutiny, it is the victim that needs to be blamed. Taking the product off the shelf, until it could be proven safe for consumption solved tainted tuna. Dealing with the product missed a huge opportunity in taxing the hospital patients for costs to health care. How do we in our wisdom, define a cigarette? Medicinal benefits would define it as a drug requiring a drug classification. Environmental issues would require monitoring by the ministry of the environment. Cigarettes are believed to be, by the federal Government and the World Health Organization, best suited as a political issue now regulated by the political consensus driven Ministry Of Health in an apparent vacuum well insulated from the knowledge of other departments.. A ministry whose head scientist is limited by lack of training it appears his background has been dedicated to political study. He is not well equipped to handle the issues of public safety at hand outside of the political implications, which promote through slander and segregation special taxation in direct contravention of the Canada health act. Ad agency spin in “Social Marketing” describes through the ministry website directives; attempts to direct what Canadians think as opposed to understanding what we actually do think. Gomery touched on that line of thinking and the dangers to integrity of Government process through political party branding. The 47,000 preventable deaths of smokers are currently, and we believe wisely, being cured by protecting non-smokers from inhaling less than 1/100,000 the concentration inhaled by smokers. This would indicate the powers that be find those smokers deaths inevitable and acceptable. Further to use those deaths as an abstract for political expediency is also an acceptable act. Deaths of 1/2 of the current 6 million smokers are actually seen to be inconsequential The fact the figure describes smoker deaths not non-smokers deaths can also easily be dismissed in kind, as long as the product produces profit, taxation levels will be maintained, which serves quite well the majority of community. The arguments of science and common sensibilities would have us actually punishing the manufacturers. Contrary to public belief that has not yet happened. In fact tobacco settlements removing manufacturers from further future liability in the United States were marked up and passed on to consumers, as were all the special billing for universal health care in Canada known as tobacco taxes. Stated to be cost to healthcare yet amounts are consistent with WHO recommendations price increases as “5% above the inflation rate for the next 5 years” Elimination of advertising and sponsoring of public events goes straight to the manufacturers bottom line. Not much wonder the Federal government was investing pension funds in big tobacco; profits have never been higher and cost of production never lower. Allowing unrestricted cheaper imported products to flow into Canada to compete with domestic regulated products again increased the share equity position.
Leading us to the obvious question; who are the real “paid stooges to big Tobacco”?
Soon similar taxation of the Pan Canadian strategy will expand the plan into the grocery stores. Hardly an attempt to hold manufacturers responsible, if indeed they are creating a health risk, efforts are aimed at passing liability again to the victims. The proposed 75% taxation of hamburger and 300% rebates to healthy food advertisers will suit a public need for increased taxation and party branding among media groups profiting from the promotion. It can be assumed the damage to the cattle industry will be temporary as were the detrimental effects to the hospitality industry through the imposition of smoking bans.
If truth were known the only one, of all the 5000 ingredients in Tobacco smoke all with safe levels measured in milligrams per cubic meter of air is of course dioxin. Dioxin requires 3 ingredients Ammonia, Organic material and a low temperature flame. Recent research in Japan showed no Dioxin in the paper or the Tobacco however, Dioxin did exist in the smoke. At the world trade center Dioxin levels monitored at levels below .16 Nana grams per cubic meter of air were considered safe. Co-incidentally the same safe level referred to by James Repace as his known safe level in air water and food he states according to the US government. It could be suspected the no safe level is actually predicated on this level of harm as are predictions of 42% of the public will get cancer at some point. This percentage is very close to the known risk of persons with maximum accumulated state levels of Dioxin stored in their body fat. Even without smoking, we will all likely reach the maximum saturation or state level due to other sources.
Fat really is the new tobacco.
This would say the medical charities and the health departments have been a little short of entire honesty in what they know is likely the most predominant cancer risk in smoking. This would allow us a new radical thought lets say a government 40 years ago banned the use of chlorine in cigarettes how many of the 47,000 preventable deaths would have actually been prevented. By rough calculation 2/3 the same level smoking has been reduced in that time frame. In the same period smoking related diseases increased by the same 2/3 level. A simple examination of dioxin poisoning and medical outcomes in fact will show clearly a Dioxin parallel to everything they say about smoking and the related diseases. If in fact you take their numbers as gospel you will by examining the side of a cigarette package and a few calculations quickly see; The levels of dioxin produced by a single package are in excess of 2 milligrams 1 milligram of Dioxin inhaled by a smoker every day will ultimately lead to the punishment the Ontario health department spoke of in “quit or be punished”. We shut down an incinerator in Toronto with dioxin levels a million times lower. Yet the government in efforts of protecting 6 million smokers fails to announce the full harm or do anything to reduce it. One can only conclude the death penalty is alive and well and living in Ontario. Industry health and safety controls are in fact a fictional political euphemism.

Note; the diesel trucks hauling the Toronto garbage are producing Dioxins thousands of times higher than the original incinerator. Simply increasing the temperature of burning by as little as 300 degrees could, have eliminated the dioxin in the original incinerator. But hey that’s just the radical view. Your doctor does know best. Huge sums being paid in the trucking deals are simply a matter of public demand among a public who were largely unaware a problem existed, prior to ad agency media campaigns of yet unknown origin.

The Evidence File

Risk
“3.17 Potential effects. Some industrial chemicals and pesticides in the environment have been linked to lung diseases, reproductive problems and birth defects, developmental disorders, allergic reactions, lowered resistance to disease in humans and cancer. In wildlife, eggshell thinning, deformities, reproductive dysfunction, tumors, embryo and adult mortality have been linked to toxic substances.
3.18 Toxicity and risk. Generally, toxicity refers to the capability of a substance to injure humans and ecosystems. In this sense, all substances - both natural and synthetic - are potentially toxic. But it is the dose that makes the poison: even highly toxic substances will not cause harm unless people or wildlife are exposed to them in air, water, soil or food.
3.19 The concept of risk is central to federal decision-making on toxic substances and, by extension, was central to this audit. In simple terms, risk refers to the probability of experiencing harm combined with the extent of that harm. It is a function of the hazard presented by a substance and of our exposure to it. Estimating risk is not simple, and risk assessment is almost a scientific discipline unto itself. In theory, scientific calculations of the risk posed by some industrial chemicals and pesticides can be compared with levels considered to be acceptable and with the risk posed by other activities or conditions. The relative priority of the substances can then be established, and the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of reducing the associated risk can be evaluated.
3.20 We live in a world full of risk. Driving a car, taking medication, smoking, and sunbathing are all activities that have a risk associated with them. Some risks result from personal choices; others are imposed on us. The extent to which toxic substances in the environment pose significant risks to human health and ecosystems is not a matter of scientific consensus. Some believe that the risks posed are insignificant - or at least acceptable - especially compared with other risks encountered and tolerated every day. Others disagree.
3.21 We are often faced with choices involving trade-offs between risks and benefits. Modern chemicals provide important economic, health and social benefits. Therefore, actions to reduce risks by eliminating exposure can have significant economic and social implications. For this reason, stakeholders often debate whether the costs of reducing the risks, including lost uses of the substance, are worth the benefits.
3.22 The use of chlorine to disinfect drinking water is an example of the complexity of risk as it pertains to toxic substances. The use of chlorine has been heralded as one of the most successful public health initiatives ever and is believed to prevent thousands of potentially fatal infections each year. Recently, however, chlorination by-products in drinking water have been linked to cases of bladder cancer, illustrating that there are benefits and risks associated with the same activity.”

Environmental smoke types have never been clearly defined and are actually the products of burning many quite different substances some obviously much more harmful than others.
http://monographs.iarc.fr/htdocs/monographs/vol38/tobaccosmoke.html
Sales-weighted average tar and nicotine contents (as measured by standard laboratory methods) have declined significantly since the 1950s in some parts of the world. The chemical composition of smoke depends on (a) the type of tobacco; (b) cigarette design, including filtration, blend selection (e.g., reconstituted sheet, expanded tobacco), ventilation, paper and additives; and (c) the smoking pattern.

2). The following site-specific sections are for those sites for which we now believe there to be sufficient evidence, since the 1986 monograph (3), to conclude that smoking is a cause of cancer. (Note: although much of the evidence is based on cigarette smoking, many of the papers also contained information on other forms of tobacco smoking. Consequently, we use the generic term "tobacco" to include all forms of smoking. In addition, the term "non-smokers" as used by the authors, usually means the more appropriate term "never smokers.")

Surprisingly there was another side to the debate although the public was not allowed to hear it
http://www.junkscience.com/news2/zion.htm
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/317/7154/348#resp1

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/317/7154/348#resp1

Perhaps more surprising are press reports that Neil Collingshaw, the acting chief of the World Health Organisation's tobacco and health unit in Geneva, apparently did not know that such a study was being undertaken.3

The hot air on passive smoking

Experts who evaluated studies seem not to have had relevant experience

Opinions depend on what sort of evidence is thought most convincing

BAT has not tried to discredit data on passive smoking

Perhaps more surprising are press reports that Neil Collingshaw, the acting chief of the World Health Organisation's tobacco and health unit in Geneva, apparently did not know that such a study was being undertaken.3 Also surprising are comments from Sir Richard Doll that the full study had been submitted to two journals and rejected by both (BBC News 24, 1998 Mar 15). I assume that we will never know whether the BMJ considered and rejected the study and, if it did, for what reason.
All scientists interested in this area of research await the full report, although Action on Smoking and Health's website carries what it describes as the "formal abstract of the WHO paper (unpublished)" (http://www.ash.org.uk/). This abstract reconfirms that the overall findings of the study are of a small positive association for spousal and workplace exposure, neither association being significant. This finding is consistent with results of previous research on spousal exposure, which in general show small positive associations that are not significant, and data on workplace exposure, which provide little or no indication of an increase in risk.
The "formal abstract" also reports: "Childhood exposure to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] and exposure in vehicles and in public settings were not associated with lung cancer risk." The IARC's biennial report also suggests that there is little or no increase in the overall risk of adenocarcinoma.
The interpretation of low risk epidemiology is a matter of serious debate. If large studies, whatever they are considering, fail to find significant increases in risk then one must question whether there is a real increase in risk and, if there is, if that risk is quantifiable. To lower the standard of scientific debate simply because it concerns tobacco is unjustified.
MP's Report Canada's Charities: A Need for Reform
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/bryden1.htm
What follows in this paper is one backbench Member of Parliament's attempt to identify some of the problems that have accumulated in Canada's not-for-profit sector. This has been done mainly by studying the annual financial information forms (T3010) of about 600 charities. As the information on these forms is often of very poor quality, the analysis is certainly not definitive.

World Health Organization ETS research; No significant harm in ETS

http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/9/606?ijkey=b9027c1933f6d2ffbd83693ef0fc3ffd51e21887&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
Cause specific mortality and cancer incidence among employees exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD after a 1953 reactor accident
RESULTS: The estimated dose of TCDD for 135 men was > or = 0.1 microgram/kg body weight and for 69 men > or = 1 microgram/kg body weight. Increased cancer risk ratios were found with higher doses of TCDD and longer interval since first exposure for all sites combined and digestive and respiratory cancers in particular. Within the high dose group (> or = 1 microgram/kg body weight), total cancer mortality was increased > or = 20 years after first exposure (13 cases, standardised mortality ratio (SMR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.05-3.36) as was respiratory cancer (six cases, SMR 3.06; 95% CI 1.12-6.66). Among current cigarette smokers, 12 cancer deaths occurred in the high dose group (SMR 3.42, 95% CI 1.77-5.97) compared with seven deaths at lower doses of TCDD (SMR 1.29, 95% CI 0.52-2.66). Regression analyses based on the Cox's proportional hazards model provided further evidence of a relation between cumulative dose of TCDD and occurrence of both overall and digestive cancer. No evidence of an effect of TCDD on overall mortality or deaths due to circulatory disease was found and no cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or soft tissue sarcoma have been found to date. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are consistent with a carcinogenic effect induced by TCDD at doses > or = 1 microgram/kg body weight. With such a small cohort, the risk estimates are not very stable and could be affected by selection and confounding.

Dioxin effects explained
Apart from new epidemiologic data since 1997, there are also new experimental studies (some of them used in the recent WHO risk assessments) and advances in the understanding of mechanisms of action of dioxins, particularly concerning the AhR. The AhR is a nuclear receptor and transcription factor. In the presence of TCDD, it forms an active heterodimer with the aromatic hydrocarbon nuclear translocator (ARNT/HIF-1β) and induces (or suppresses) the transcription of numerous genes, including P4501A1 (CYP1A1) (Whitlock 1999). In the last few years, additional components of the AhR complex have been identified, including the AhR repressor, AhR-interacting protein (also known as XAP2), Rb protein, receptor-interacting protein 140, SRC-1, p23, and the RelA NF-κB subunit (Carlson and Perdew 2002; Kumar and Perdew 1999; Mimura et al. 1999; Petrulis and Perdew 2002). Molecular mechanisms occurring downstream of AhR and possibly associated with cancer development, such as changes in cytosolic signaling proteins, calcium mobilization, tumor suppressor proteins, growth factors, oncogenes, and cell cycle proteins, have been characterized (Carlson and Perdew 2002; Enan et al. 1998; Matsumura 2003).
Recently, molecular epidemiology investigations have been conducted on random samples of the Seveso population highly exposed to TCDD (zones A and B) and from the reference noncontaminated area (non-ABR) to evaluate how TCDD exposure affects the AhR pathway in human subjects in vivo
(Baccarelli et al. 2004; Landi et al. 2003). Because of the extremely long biologic half-life of TCDD, plasma TCDD levels were still substantially elevated in the exposed subjects, particularly in females and older subjects (Landi et al. 1997). Experimental studies indicate that, after a transient increase, cellular levels of AhR decrease following TCDD binding (Pollenz 2002). Nearly 20 years after the Seveso accident, the levels of AhR transcripts (measured in uncultured peripheral blood lymphocytes) were decreased in the exposed subjects and negatively correlated with current plasma TCDD levels (Landi et al. 2003). These results show that TCDD exposure causes a persistent alteration of the AhR pathway in human subjects and are consistent with down-regulation of this receptor, comparable with that observed in several other receptor-mediated systems (Pollenz 2002). The impact on the health of exposed individuals of the persistent decrease of AhR transcripts, which in turn may affect any AhR-regulated biologic function, is to be clarified. Down-regulation tends to decrease the amount of receptor available for ligand binding and to attenuate the resulting biologic responses. Thus, the AhR, like most receptor systems, may have high initial sensitivity to the ligand, whereas in the presence of high amounts of TCDD, down-regulation would buffer against excessive ligand-induced responses. High initial levels of exposure, rather than low persisting exposures, may be associated with the highest effects. In the industrial cohorts, cumulative exposure predicts cancer excess. However, it is likely that cumulative and peak exposures are highly correlated among industrial workers. The new evidence from animal studies and on the AhR should be used to refine quantitative risk assessment of TCDD and could modify estimates on tolerable intake in humans. This evidence put together, supports the approach taken by IARC to consider the animal and mechanistic data in the evaluation of carcinogenicity of these compounds in humans.
Health Effects of Dioxins
“Everyone in industrialized countries has a potent mixture of dioxins, furans, co-planar PCBs, PCNs and other similar compounds stored and accumulated in their bodyfat. This chemical concoction of compounds in our bodies is likely to add together, making up a total dioxin-like toxicity: dioxins plus PCBs is equivalent to more dioxins.”
“ 2,3,7,8-TCDD (often known simply as TCDD) is known for its lethal effects at very low concentrations: a millionth of a gram will kill a guinea pig. However, the reasons for its potency are very subtle, and connected with its structural similarity to potent natural hormones. The power of hormones lies in their ability to act in trace amounts as chemical messengers controlling vital processes in the body. Thus, an accidentally produced contaminant, i.e. TCDD, from the chemical industry can act as a wrong key in the subtle system of trace chemical messengers in the body by mimicking the action of a hormone”.

Linear effects would substantiate dose response and establishing safe levels of exposure, which could be monitored. Non-linear effects would support no safe levels exist. The same arguments if applied to ETS would result in easily attainable safe levels in ventilation not possible under current inconsistent delegations.
Non Linear vs. Linear

Cancer, Heart Disease, and Diabetes in Workers
Exposed to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Cox regression, using an internal comparison group with low exposure, found a statistically significant positive trend between all cancers (after a 15-year lag time) and cumulative exposure. Similar trends were present both for smoking-related cancers and non-smoking-related cancers, suggesting that the cancer findings were not limited to an interaction between TCDD and smoking. The finding of stronger trends with the logarithm of cumulative exposure rather than cumulative exposure itself indicates that the exposure-response trend is sublinear at very high doses, which in our data was probably a reflection of the extreme skewness of the exposure data.
The finding that the best lag time was 15 years (marginally better than a 10-year lag time) is consistent with current views that TCDD acts as both an initiator and promoter (25). Were TCDD to act as an initiator only, one might expect a longer lag of 20 years or more before the development of most tumors. Were TCDD to act as a promoter only, one might expect little or no lag. Because 1) there is still uncertainty about the basic biology of TCDD carcinogenesis, 2) our epidemiologic estimates of exposure are crude approximations of biologically relevant dose, and 3) statistical evidence is weak for favoring one lag time over another, we suggest that not too much interpretative weight be given to a finding that one particular lag period versus another provides a slightly better model.
For ischemic heart disease, there was only a modest trend of increasing SMRs with increasing exposure; the SMR for the highest category was 1.28 (95% CI = 0.92-1.72). However, internal analyses using Cox regression found statistically significant exposure-response trends. No lag time for heart disease was indicated in the Cox regression analysis, suggesting that any possible mechanism (e.g., an alteration of lipid profiles) occurred simultaneously with exposure. Because TCDD persists for a long time in the tissues [half-life, 8.7 years (26)], TCDD would be present for many years after exposure ceased, possibly resulting in a long-term effect.
Four industrial cohorts that served as a basis for IARC (1997) TCDD determination.
Study originally available to IARC in 1997a
Cancer SMR (95% CI) and definition of subcohort
No. of cancer deaths
Estimated TCDD at end of exposureb
Exposure–response data for TCDD
Fingerhut et al. 1991
1.5 (1.2–1.8), > 1 year exposure, 20 years of latency (59% of cohort)
114
Mean 418 ppt (n = 119)
Positive significant trend (p < p =" 0.003)" href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1247514#b33-ehp0112-001265" target="mainwindow">Steenland et al. (1999, 2001),c based on JEM and serum levels
Becher et al. 1996
1.3 (1.0–1.5), workers in two plants with documented chloracne and high serum TCDD levels
105
Plant 1: mean, 141 ppt (n = 190). Plant 2: mean, 402 ppt (n = 20)
Positive significant trend (p < href="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1247514#b14-ehp0112-001265" target="mainwindow">Flesch-Janys et al. (1995), in Flesch-Janys et al. (1998; p = 0.01),c and in Becher et al. (1998; p = 0.03),c based on JEM and serum levels
Hooiveld et al. 1996
1.5 (1.3–1.9), workers in the most highly exposed plant (n = 549)
51
Geometric mean, 286 ppt (n = 48)
Medium- and high-exposure groups elevated (RRs = 4.7 and 4.1) versus low (Hooiveld et al. 1998),c based on work history and serum levels
Ott and Zober 1996
1.9 (1.1–3.0), chloracne and ≥20 years’ latency (n = 113)
18
Geometric mean, 400 ppt (n = 138)
Positive significant trend (p = 0.05) in original 1996 publication, based on body burden
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; NIOSH, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; SMR, standardized mortality ratio.
aIARC (1997; Table 38).
bIARC (1997; Table 22).
cPost-1997 findings.
Environ Health Perspect. 2004 September; 112(13): 1265–1268.
Published online 2004 June 10. doi: 10.1289/ehp.7219.
Copyright This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI.


Effects of Primary smoking 50 year study spanning over 100 years
Indications were the product became much more harmful over the years.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/short/bmj.38142.554479.AEv1
Participants 34 439 male British doctors. Information about their smoking habits was obtained in 1951, and periodically thereafter; cause specific mortality was monitored for 50 years.
Main outcome measures Overall mortality by smoking habit, considering separately men born in different periods.
Results The excess mortality associated with smoking chiefly involved vascular, neoplastic, and respiratory diseases that can be caused by smoking. Men born in 1900-1930 who smoked only cigarettes and continued smoking died on average about 10 years younger than lifelong non-smokers. Cessation at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 years gained, respectively, about 3, 6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancy. The excess mortality associated with cigarette smoking was less for men born in the 19th century and was greatest for men born in the 1920s. The cigarette smoker versus non-smoker probabilities of dying in middle age (35-69) were 42% v 24% (a twofold death rate ratio) for those born in 1900-1909, but were 43% v 15% (a threefold death rate ratio) for those born in the 1920s. At older ages, the cigarette smoker versus non-smoker probabilities of surviving from age 70 to 90 were 10% v 12% at the death rates of the 1950s (that is, among men born around the 1870s) but were 7% v 33% (again a threefold death rate ratio) at the death rates of the 1990s (that is, among men born around the 1910s).
Conclusion A substantial progressive decrease in the mortality rates among non-smokers over the past half-century (due to prevention and improved treatment of disease) has been wholly outweighed, among cigarette smokers, by a progressive increase in the smoker v non-smoker death rate ratio due to earlier and more intensive use of cigarettes. Among the men born around 1920, prolonged cigarette smoking from early adult life tripled age specific mortality rates, but cessation at age 50 halved the hazard, and cessation at age 30 avoided almost all of it.
James Repace’s political assessment of ETS harm
http://www.acosh.org/art/critical_evaluation.pdf
the combined lung cancer and heart disease mortality risk for office workers in a typical
smoking-permitted office as: ETSHI = 225 deaths per million exposed workers per year.
Assuming a 45-year working lifetime, this risk corresponds to a working lifetime risk of
(45)(225 deaths/million) = 10 deaths per 1000 persons at risk. Repace (2005) estimated
that the predicted respirable smoke particulate (RSP) concentration during work hours
corresponding to this risk is 211 Mg/m3. In fact, Repace (2004) measured an RSP
concentration of 205 Mg/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 Statewide smoking
ban, and corresponding RSP and PPAH concentrations
**after the smoking ban of 9Mg/m3 and 4 ng/m3 respectively.
*Note
In a non-smoking environment, the measured levels of air would be 250 times the known safe level according to the USEPA.
Perhaps hurricane force winds in all enclosed public spaces could be the only solution short of massive evacuations.
at 80 Mg/m3, the risk would be (80/211)(10 per 1000) =
~ 4 per 1000 (rounded). Thus the estimated range in risk is between 4 and 15 per 1000,
with the most likely value, based on measured data in Table 1 above, about 10 combined
deaths from heart disease and lung cancer per 1000 workers per working lifetime of 45
years. This risk range is (10 per 1000)/(1 per 1,000,000) = 10,000 times the de minimis
or “acceptable” risk level. Therefore I find the LS proposal to be without merit

Compare the one in a million acceptable level of risk Repace references, a risk of; TCDD Dioxin or Radiation
http://www.gascape.org/index%20/Health%20effects%20of%20Dioxins.html
In limit has remained at 0.006-pg/kg bw/day until the present. It was based on the assumption that dioxin caused cancer in the same way as radioactivity: i.e. just one molecule on the DNA could have an effect, leaving no safe level, only a level which can be predicted to cause a certain risk of cancer. The US EPA has a standard risk, deemed tolerable, of one in a million over a 70 year lifetime, and this was used to set the limit. Since most people take in far more than 0.006 pg/kg bw/day, enforcement of this limit would have huge implications for the industries producing dioxins. So, scientists have been employed to produce arguments against the EPA. A committee re-examined the Kociba slides and reclassified some of the tumours as benign. Millions of dollars were poured into investigations into the mechanism of dioxin. These have increased our knowledge but they have not established definitely whether or not dioxin causes severe health problems in human beings.the USA, a very low minimum risk intake was set for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, on the basis of cancer incidence in a large experiment on rats (Kociba, 1978).

Are TCDD results reflective of confounding, or simply increased accumulation from alternate sources?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1247514
The IARC classification of TCDD as a group 1 carcinogen (IARC 1997) has stirred some controversy. For example, Cole et al. (2003) argue that the original IARC classification of epidemiologic evidence for TCDD as “limited” (IARC 1997) was incorrect, claiming that “inadequate” would have been more appropriate (i.e., a causal interpretation was not “credible”). However, these authors ignored the original IARC focus on high-exposure subcohorts, ignored the positive exposure–response analyses, and raised the issue of possible confounding by smoking and other chemical carcinogens without any serious consideration of whether such possible confounding is likely, or whether it could account for the observed elevation of all-cancer mortality in those with higher TCDD exposure.
With normal levels beyond the levels of maximum harm risk, can ETS or other minor sources of Dioxins be seriously considered potential hazards in an environment where major Dioxin hazards cannot be avoided?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1247514#b19-ehp0112-001265
In our view, the epidemiologic and toxicologic evidence since the IARC (1997) classification of TCDD as a human carcinogen has strengthened the case for IARC’s decision. Furthermore, the dose–response assessments for TCDD and cancer indicate that TCDD exposure levels close to those in the general population may be carcinogenic and argue for caution in setting the upper ranges of long-term permissible exposure to dioxins.
Real physical testing for Dioxins in primary smoking.
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Dioxins-Cigarette-Smoke.htm
Dioxins in cigarettes, smoke, and ash were determined using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. The total concentration of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) in cigarette smoke was approximately 5.0 µ/m3 at the maximum level, whereas various cogeners from tetra-octa-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (-CDD) were detected. Particularly, the total concentration of hepta-CDD cogeners was the highest among these cogeners. Mass fragmentograms of various PCDD cogeners were similar to those in flue gas samples collected from a municipal waste incinerator. The PCDD cogeners that were not present in the cigarettes were found in the smoke samples. The 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD toxic equivalent value---an index for effects on humans—for total PCDDs in smoke was 1.81 nng/m3 using the toxic factor of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Daily intake of PCDDs by smoking 20 cigarettes was estimated to be approximately 4.3 pg. kg body/weight/day. This value was close to that of the ADIs: 1-5 pg. kg body/weight/day reported in several countries. A heretofore-unrecognized health risk was represented by the presence of PCDDs in cigarette smoke.

Actual measured levels in Cigarette smoke; Dioxins were found in the smoke although not in the cigarettes. Dioxins are produced by mixing Chlorine with organic materials and burning at low temperatures. This would indicate Dioxins are a significant harm in smoking. The 8.7-year half-life of Dioxins corresponds to the risk elevations with use, and identical timeframe predictable reductions in risk after cessation, of both products.

The Dioxin risk is not necessary as no Dioxins would be present if chlorine additives were prohibited.
Every smoking related disease is also significantly related to Dioxin poisoning.
Governments have somehow assessed the added mortality is an acceptable risk factor in allowing the Dioxin poisonings to continue. Quite hypocritical in relation to ETS being described, as no safe level exists citing 47,000 preventable deaths yet none of the 47,000 preventable deaths will be prevented with smoking bans. Primary smoke consumed in thousands of times higher concentrations is ignored. Convenient political positions allowing punishments and taxing of consumers and designed ignorance in respect to a harmful product, preventable deaths and deliberate failures in regulating product safety. This gives a new meaning to the term right honorable in respect to politicians and sheds a new light on the institutions who advise them and dole out the awards.

British Columbia Provincial Ministry of Health ”Radon is a naturally occurring, radioactive gas, which is given off by traces of uranium in soil and rock. It is found at varying levels all over the world…. The Ministry of Health estimates that about 100 people a year die of radon induced lung cancer in the Province of British Columbia. Radon likely causes more lung cancers than second hand tobacco smoke.”

ETS lung Cancer risk is shown here to be below 100 in BC total population at levels averaging 163 NG/M3 air PPAH or 205 MG/m3 air RSP. 2/3 of Lung cancer patients are stated to be smokers. The risk is understandably much higher among smokers.
The smoke produced by the product can be banned for health reasons, yet the product is protected and remains on the shelf.

Calculations
Repace calculations are purely political and have absolutely no merit as demonstrated herein. Repace is either deliberately deceptive in his presentations or completely ignorant in assessing a multitude of proven information. The volumes of Dioxin like content in tobacco smoke is not sustainable in comparison to actual amounts found in real scientific testing nothing short of 100,000 chain smokers in an unventilated smoking area could produce the levels he contends.

The proportions of PPAH assumed to be equal or more dangerous than dioxins risk can be calculated by ratio et al Repace submissions
[Brook v. Burswood Casino (1999); Badillo v. American Tobacco et al. (1998); Avallone v. American Tobacco et al. (1998); Mullen et al. v. Treasure Chest (1999); Dunn v. Napoleon’s Casino (2003)]
The existence of 163 Nanograms per cubic meter of air would exceed the known safe level in air water and food by 10,000 times this would establish the known safe level at or below 16.3 Pico grams per cubic meter of air. 1/10 the safe level of Dioxins established as safe et al The WTC monitoring. 160NG/M3 air quality was allowed flexibility in acceptable air standards as exposures would be as stated be one year in duration. Dioxin risk drops with cessation of exposure. We can therefore equate the risk of PPAH to the risk of Dioxins as shown to be Repaces intent. The Parroting of his assessments at the WHO and many Health departments around the planet confirms the consensus view is in total agreement with his submissions. No safe level exists and Designated smoking rooms can afford no protection. The existence of 4 NG/M3 of air as found in non-smoking environments should indicate a need to evacuate those buildings until a safe level can be established.

An average of RSP 205 MG/M3 contains PPAH 163 NG/M3 By calculation .08%
A single package of 25 cigarettes each producing 100 Mg RSP can produce 2500 MG total RSPs This would indicate by .08% calculation each package produces 2500 x .0008 = 2 milligrams PPAH with a risk to human health greater or equal to Dioxin with a known safe level not exceeding .16 NG/M3 determined from monitoring of the World Trade Center monitoring program in New York. The level of acceptable risk inhaling smoke produced by a single package of cigarettes; in PPAH, exposure is shown to be exceeded by 123 million times 2x 10-3 vs. .0163 x 10-12
Conclusions Assuming a smoker inhales 1/3 to 1/2 of total 2 Milligrams Dioxin like toxins produced this would establish an extreme health risk exists in the use of this product, which should prove fatal for all users. Regardless of the fact this has not been seen to be the case the established risk of second hand smoke, as the basis for smoking bans should remain consistent where a much larger harm is seen to exist Neil Coleslaw in his book exhibits a willingness to participate in efforts to in effect kill more smokers as the Industry is nationalized while destroying the industry from within. This of course would allow a new opportunity in new startup companies and illegal black market trade, which will grow market share as the national brands decline. Others in Anti ETS advocacy claim there is no proof Canadian Tobacco is any safer than other tobacco. We always had good reason to believe the control of additives Flue curing and regulated growing conditions would result in a safer product. Michael Hurley publicly stated recently there is absolutely no evidence to prove Canadian tobacco is any safer than products produced elsewhere. Good science is dismissed as are smokeless tobacco products known to reduce respiratory health risks enormously. Nicotine delivery products much more expensive in smoking patches are allowed advertising are promoted by government ministries despite potentially harmful side effects making them not an option for many. The product is protected and the victims are attacked decided by consensus view as best practices, pleasing all stakeholders, in, for all intents and purposes; a gold rush mentality constructing a huge health regime. Cigarettes should be immediately banned from use until such time as harmful ingredients can be removed in the interest of public safety. Monetary concerns have to remain secondary when public safety and the imminent deaths of millions of Canadian citizens hang in the balance. To err on the side of safety should be the dominant principle in a caring and just society. Not just a term recited when convenient for highroad positioning.
As we already know from multiple research findings of DSR technologies and if those findings are valid, it is indisputable “no safe level exists”. If in fact, dioxin is the predominant risk, as research would indicate. The banning of chlorine in cigarettes is a minimal action which could reduce the risk and eliminate virtually all substantial risk in second hand smoke {ETS} this of course would lower greatly the perceived necessity to impose smoking bans or smoking restrictions when scientific product safety evaluations could allay all fears in the public. This strategy of course would necessitate a re-evaluation of healthcare costs and smoker’s ultimate liability for those costs. Government; which through failure to remain consistent with environmental process and other lapses in good judgment, would have to shoulder a great deal of the blame and misdirected expense liability. Tobacco taxes collected should be returned to those who paid them unnecessarily in contravention of the Canada health act as special fees for health care.
Tobacco companies although largely responsible for distributing an unsafe product, did act to within a tightly monitored regulatory environment and were not directed to change operational standards in the absence of restrictions of the ingredients of their products. The Government and stakeholders in anti environmental tobacco smoke advocacy by ignoring the larger harm which is shown here to exist, are potential defendants in future class actions or as individual actions seeking damages will no doubt show; The presentations have consistently stated ETS is potentially more dangerous than primary smoke this is totally without merit. They knew of a higher risk to smokers yet took no action in the public interest to regulate ingredients or to remove the products from the shelf as has been the case in other products seen to be much less dangerous. Public trust in the largest charity and government organizations were deliberately franchised in false and misleading promotions decrying smoking directly as safer than the smoke produced. Prohibiting the sale and distribution of smokeless tobacco products has compounded the problem, this would give a false sense of security to the users believing anti side stream smoke campaigns to be purely political in nature benefiting those who do not like the smell. Convenient lack of knowledge of the stakeholders would be little defense considering the impact of those decisions. Perhaps in an effort to maintain credibility and expenditures of public money in exchange for best value a more balanced approach in assessing the validity of industry lobbies and media spin should be considered prior to future international embarrassments and poor managerial decisions. If excess funds are available within the charity organizations to finance the huge media promotions we have seen in Canada perhaps it is time to scrutinize those organizations and direct where goodwill donations actually go in organizations accepting funds stating funds will be used to find cures. If an organization promotes political mood it should be law they advertise purpose before accepting funds obviously intended to go elsewhere.
All participating stakeholders have deliberately been deceptive in descriptions of tobacco smoke and mortality outcomes. The proof can be found at Health Canada in Sammec research, which demonstrates a timeline dose response relationship not corresponding to smoking habits 20-30 years previously nearly as predominant as the exposures to environmental dioxins. The smoking patterns in 1976 were reduced significantly while dioxin levels were on the rise corresponding with the increases of mortality more obviously mirroring dioxin poisoning. The increases of many other related diseases more significantly attributed to dioxins have been increasing as smoking decreases. The existence of trace amounts of dioxins in cigarettes is ignored when assessing smokers exposed; painting a picture smoking has a more significant unrelated danger than dioxins although significant associations are evident consistently.
By reducing dioxin potentials in cigarettes we cannot help but reduce mortality in smoking, apparently not much interest is seen in reducing potential harm, more so collection of taxes and protecting industry positions is more predominant in stakeholders concerns. 47,000 preventable deaths are largely being ignored for self-important motivating factors in absence of civic responsibility, which could limit the mortality figures significantly with simplistic regulation removing chlorine and chlorine derivatives from tobacco products. Additionally Import regulations need to be significantly adjusted to conform to domestic growing and curing guidelines. Allowing the advertising and sale of smokeless tobacco products will significantly reduce disease and mortality of respiratory tract risks. If 47,000 preventable deaths are to be reduced, the focus should shift to the product and away from punishing the consumers.
Here is another laughable time waster, see if you can spot just the first 50 flaws in the long list of spin-doctored foolishness.
This one was cited around the planet if you can believe it. Right up there with global warming hype, claiming Polar Bears are dropping like flies from hypothermia no less.
http://www.acosh.org/art/critical_evaluation.pdf

---