I've said it before and I'll say it again... Bring it on.
In weighing the pros and cons of FDA regulation I find the pros slightly overshadow the cons. The greatest being that FDA oversight will effectively kill off most anti-smoking groups -- rendered impotent because they've reached the end of their purpose. The ultimate act of "tobacco control" having changed hands. Nothing left to ask for that keeps them in business.
Meanwhile, the inherent bureaucracy of all govt. institutions will keep the new "Tobacco Control" at status quo for a long time to come if not forever. All with the new perception that tobacco can't be THAT bad since it's now "run" by government.
I almost (not really but close) don't mind paying the extra amount that'd be tacked on to the price of cigarettes as part of this deal just to have that be the case.
From my observations the arm of the FDA that will run tobacco will be hired from the radical TC ranks. Tobacco regs will be set up as extreme attacks on tobacco users. Maybe additional consumer taxes or tobacco user IDs. Congress seems to have shrugged off there duties of real lawmaking to an extremist group. We will see a future where a 19 year old does a mandatory 5 years for selling a 17 year old cigarettes from the corner store.
The World health Organization did the research which somehow has been forgotten by the ban wagon cult. "Epidemiology the way it should be done" according to Neil Collishaw who oversaw the research. The results showed a slight .17 above a one in ten thousand risk, a starting point with confounders eliminated, a point were it was believed was equivalent to no increased risk, .17. The result was widely reported as a lifetime increased risk for those expossed "every day" all day, for forty years or longer, both at work and at home to second hand smoke. For those who understand these things, the difference between association and proportion would never be a point of confusion and the true value of what was found would find it's place and fade away while looking elsewhere for something of meaning. For others this was thought to be ammunition for advocacy, despite the ignorance in it's deceitful employ.
What was not widely reported was the fact they saw in the same research a larger .22 decreased risk for children [known as a curative effect] who lived with smoking parents. One would have to presume those children were expossed in the car as well as in the home and appeared to find benefit. Anyone who now dismisses the findings and claims a child casually expossed in a car to second hand smoke faces an extreme health risk, has to acknowledge they are also denying the other finding in the same study which if we give any credibility to larger studies having more significance, was the essential basis for smoking bans to protect bartenders.
The acts of compounded exaggerations now bring us to the new conclusions, with no large studies to verify a child could be harmed due to casual exposures, this suggests the proof and the emphasis amounts to nothing more than a political healthism driving once proud and independent people to the confines of paternalism and a belief governments need to act, not as employees of the people, but as a mothering scold.
You get the kind of government you deserve. Anyone promoting this ridiculous stance that there is a significant health risk in second hand smoke in comparison to the thousands of potentially much more dangerous exposures you will see in your life, is either in the camp of shills to big pharma hoping to pay the rent with the proceeds, or simply small minded people hoping to promote hatred with a government seal of approval attached to what can only be seen as bigotry.
If smoking is finally outlawed and every person on the planet quits smoking. Where will you go next to quench your thirst? and who will be the next victim? Any volunteers? This kind of power base is never satisfied and the last time the public was drunk with personal protections, we saw the victims of the holocaust as the final product, which, had anyone seen the horrors of what man can do to man in search of "safety", was a sobering reality.
The promotion of fear and smear quickly looses its impact, so it constantly needs to be replaced with something a little harsher, until we see proposals to physically harm others, in order to force compliance. For our protection against imagined fears as a result of seeds planted in your mind, by those who wish to profit from your conditioning.
Yes, just like the tobacco companies and their advertising, seeds which came from the same agencies and the same minds.
We are already seeing those hateful wishes expressed openly in the increasing level of violence and intolerance, which not so long ago would never have been tolerated in a civilized society. Groups like ASH are shamelessly promoting discrimination in the workplace the hospitals and in communities, with few realizing, aside from smoking these people who have been branded "not normal" are exactly the same as everyone else, a point forgotten long ago apparently.
Not one of the promoters would be willing to be treated as a smoker, or there would be hell to pay. These are not caring and compassionate or empathetic people, hoping to improve the lot of anyone, or are they hoping to protect anyone. They are profiteers, vigilantes and criminals who should be convicted under hate crime legislation, for the damage they have wrought on all of us.
Well, let's see.....
Doc, you already admit antismoking groups are outright corrupt liars when they claim bans cause immediate and substantial drops in heart attack rates.
They lie about you, and they lie about me, and our motives...you KNOW that.
They lie when they tell lawmakers that smoking outdoors is a threat to kids and nonsmokers.
You seem to be on the cusp of admitting they are liars ( and corrupt) when they claim FDA regulation will be beneficial in fighting the War on Smoking.
You are, as of yet unwilling to admit they are lying when they claim bans don't harm business, despite overwhelming evidence from our state's study, and other truly independant economic studys. AND just plain common sense that free markets work best, which made our country the strongest economic powerhouse the world has ever known, and you grew up in this country, and witnessed that, yet still fall short of admitting it yourself.
Last, but not least... THEY LIE ABOUT THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF SECONDHAND SMOKE TOO.
Doc, you really need to drag yourself out of that hole you dug yourself into....
Doctor Siegel, -
"Philip Morris supports the bill specifically because it will stop nobody from smoking.".........
And your point here is what?
It's an industry that creates and markets a product. So,...in addition to not understanding the concept of civil liberty, you don't understand the fundamentals of capitalism either?
"Why anti-smoking groups would support a bill that is being championed by the nation's leading tobacco company is beyond me."
REALLY?...I doubt that.
Do you not fully understand where the operating costs of these terrorists groups actually, ultimately is derived from?
Of course you do.
"In other words, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is so determined to"..........."sell out the public's health to protect tobacco company profits."
Nobody could possibly be so naive.
This is not about the massive psychotic collective ego of CFTFK or any other anti-smoking terrorist org.
This has always been about one thing.
MONEY,. not just about, and not even primarily about maintaining the profit margin of BigT, but specifically about maintaining the cash flow to the Anti-tobacco terrorist organizations themselves by "allowing" BigT to exist at all.
Killing the Golden goose is not the solution.
If Enzi were the advocate he purports himself to be, then a call for immediate total prohibition is really the only solution, ....why do you suppose thats not likely to happen?
Without BigT, the Anti-Tobacco terrorist would have to switch gears and begin the campaign in earnest to start regulating the daily caloric intake of the entire population, ...and their just not quite ready for that..... yet.
Doctor Siegel, considering what you wrote twice:
"especially without the consent and involvement of the rest of the tobacco control community"
"willing to exclude the rest of the tobacco control community from the process"
I would like to know your opinion about the exclusion of smokers, who are directly affected by everything the tobacco control community does. Should they be part of the process and if not, why not?
Thank you.
Senator Enzi: “Trying to make cigarettes safer through a billion-dollar bureaucracy is a waste of time and money,” Enzi said. “The right approach is to get people to stop smoking, or better yet, never to start. Big Tobacco supports this bill because it will not stop anyone from smoking”.
Interesting. I thought the purpose of the legislation was to provide some sort of regulatory control over tobacco and tobacco products, not stop people from smoking. As a Canadian, the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,” won’t affect me one way or another. But, I suspect Lightning Boy may be right. If the FDA legislation were approved, the anti-smoker brigade would lose both prestige and a lot of funding.
And, from the sound of it, there is likely to be no support from Senator Enzi on the development of a ‘safer’ cigarette.
Dr. Siegel: “It is simply inappropriate for the Campaign to have negotiated with Philip Morris, especially without the consent and involvement of the rest of the tobacco control community”.
Everybody stand for a few verses of ‘Solidarity Forever’. Then, hit the streets and find a few smokers to stomp on. (Just don’t stomp on any seniors wearing black cowboy hats and smoking Putter's Light. It might just be me.)
Off Topic
I’ve been reading an article from health Canada which claims that secondhand smoke contains 4-aminobiphenyl, “a substance so toxic that it has been banned for over 30 years in the workplace”. I found a Material Safety Data Sheet which, under the heading ‘personal protection’, says simply: Use of this material is banned in many countries. Find an alternative.
The article also claims that SHS contains hydrogen cyanide “in proportions that are 160 times higher than what is considered dangerous”.
Does anyone have information on the Threshold Limit Values on these chemicals and the relative amounts in cigarettes? Could they, in fact, exceed existing TLVs?
Why don't all sides get together and smoke a menthol fag,no harsh tobacco taste,even kids enjoy them supposedly.Then hammer out a deal where every vested interest gets a cut of the profits,who really CARES about health,its MONEY !Backhanded at that.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"In my view, Senator Enzi's analysis is right on the mark. This is pro-tobacco legislation and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and its partners are acting as pro-tobacco groups in promoting its passage."
Enzi is so full of ****, that makes you.......wrong.
"He charged the anti-smoking groups with becoming so desperate to do something that they have fallen for 'this wolf in sheep's clothing.'"
It was politicians who voted for this, not anti-smoking groups. Why is he blaming them?
"Calling the bill a "peace treaty" with Philip Morris which maintains the status quo and protects tobacco company profits rather than create real change which would reduce tobacco use, Enzi vowed to object to the bill..."
Is that what the FDA is for, to reduce smoking? I don't think so. Here's their mission statement:
"The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health."
"According to the press release: "U.S. Senator Mike Enzi...“coddles Big Tobacco while protecting the industry’s best tools to recruit and addict your children to tobacco.”
And, of course, he's talking about menthol, which the majority of smokers, young and old, don't smoke. He's full of ****, doesn't know what he's talking about, and is too stupid to know it.
“Big Tobacco supports this bill because it will not stop anyone from smoking."
Big Tobacco does NOT support this bill. PM does.
“Tobacco is one of the biggest contributors to our nation’s growing health care crisis."
Tobacco's been around long enough that this "crisis" would've been seen decades ago.
And naturally, no mention of of the Social Security crisis that will only worsen if you asswipes get your way.
"I want real change, so I’m going to fight this bill and its Big Tobacco backers by objecting to it in the Senate.”
Stopping this bill will not change one thing. It'll only stay the same.
“Poison peddlers shouldn't get to decide how we fight the war against their deadly products."
Pretty slow poison is you ask me.
"I urge my friends in the public health community not to become so desperate to do something about the tobacco problem in this country that they fall for this wolf in sheep’s clothing,”
And once again, it's not they who vote(d) for it. It's this dipshit and his colleagues fault for ever listening to them though.
"This bill is nothing more than a ‘Marlboro Protection Act,’ written to keep Philip Morris at the top of the tobacco market.”
I guess when it suits him there's a difference between PM and the Tobacco Industry.
Dr. Siegel:
"It is simply inappropriate for the Campaign to have negotiated with Philip Morris, especially without the consent and involvement of the rest of the tobacco control community."
Do yourself a favor and have your wife go out and buy a large needle and pop that big head of yours. Nobody elected you to negotiate rules. You have less reason to be there than BT and its customers.
James Austin, that was great! Should be an eye opener, but unfortunately will only sail right over the Doctor's head.
My question though is, Who is really lying here? Is it the CFTFK's, Phillip Morris, Enzi or Kennedy and Waxman? I distinctly remember seeing Waxman on tv touting this bill and saying "Finally this will be the year that we control tobacco". He gave Kennedy a great round of applause for all the work he had done in "writing" it.
Now you say that PM wrote it. Sounds like everyone was responsible for it in some little way. Everyone except the ones who should really matter, the smoker or the banker. Decide which to call them, as they will be the ones footing the cost.
Dr. Siegel--
Do you doubt the bill will become law this term? With the White House opposing, and at least a couple sentors treatening a filibuster, not to mention the tight schedule for 2008, I'm not convinced this will even get to a vote. Harry Reid demurs every time he's asked about it.
And even if it is made into law, legal challenges over the ad restrictions, the trade issues with Indonesia over banning clove cigarettes and the generally slow movement of government will keep much from changing anytime soon.
Don't you agree?
Senator is an anagram of treason.
Interesting that Enzi believes the bill should "stop people smoking" why doesn't he just pen an amendment that legalises shooting smokers caught in the act?
Sure sounds like a lot of your politicians (just like ours) have no qualms about selling out freedom, free market and the rights and traditions of the people.
GreatScot
Gee, I don't see anything in the FDA mission statement which indicates they should control tobacco anyway.
If this were really about non-smokers health, this bill would be about full blown prohibition.
If this bill were really about getting people to stop smoking,....it would be calling for, yep,... prohibition.
If this bill were really about concern for the children, it would be SCREAMING for prohibition.
If this bill were really about "leveling the playing field" it would detail how to dismantle the tobacco industry, sell off the assets, and send rebate checks to everyone,....you guessed it,...prohibition.
This bill is about none of those things.
There have been liars and cheats associated with TC for a number of years now and deals between TC and PM are not news.
Look at this bit of treachery as a reward for PM compliance. What caught my eye was the name at the bottom of the page.
I never [wink] would have believed such an ethical soul as Bill G could be guilty of reneging on an agreement negotiated with the same PM, the CTFK group are partnering with today.
Those backroom deals in the absence of smokers and in fact the majority of non smokers as well, are in fact nothing new just the rules as they apply to smokers who have no voice have changed.
http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/ms...aign/
truth.html
And yes I agree, it was always just about the money.
Here is a FORCES' article on Enzi with links to support their article:
Stooge of Big Pharma proposes alternative bill
http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...ewer.php?
id=152
It should be pretty obvious to anyone, the propensity of engaging deceptive marketing practices, is lead and supported by other similar borderline criminal elements who utilize the same spin doctors to deceive the public with their lies and political deceptions, targeted the defenseless and uninformed.
This woman epitomizes the dark side she was obviously born into evil and promotion of the dark side elements who work to harm us all, just for money? A woman with no conscience a person who will promote anything for a buck. Look at the list of other crooks she helped to popularize.
http://www.jackielapinmediarelat...ns.com/
bio.html
Reefer madness?
http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/is...tion/
index.html
You really can't read this with a straight face. The author should write for Letterman.
Off Topic
Matt said, "I’ve been reading an article from health Canada which claims that secondhand smoke contains 4-aminobiphenyl"
I couldn't find anything on threshold limits but I did find this.
http://books.google.com/books?
id...esult#PPA619,M1
It has been found in cooking oil. It is probably produced anytime you heat up any hydrocarbon based life form.
If you can't stand the 4-aminobiphenyl stay out of the kitchen.
On Topic. Ditto the posters above who say the game would be over if the FDA was allowed to referee. If there are any lingering fears about the legislation ending the game, or not ending the game, legislation is always amendable after it has been passed.
But, this legislation will probably not pass and if it is passed it will be vetoed. So why are we treated to this endless harangue? Is it something personal about Matt Myers?
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Matt, here is some information I have on hydrogen cyanide:
Chemical constituents, cigarettes & cigarette smoke: March 2000
http://www.ndp.govt.nz/moh.nsf/
p...spriorities.pdf
(μg/cigarette) mainstream 118.4 c
(μg/cigarette) sidestream 106 c
(I have no idea what the c stands for next to the number)
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/
healthg...ecognition.html
EXPOSURE LIMITS
* OSHA PEL
The current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for hydrogen cyanide is 10 ppm (11 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m(3))) as an 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration. The OSHA PEL also bears a "Skin" notation, which indicates that the cutaneous route of exposure (including mucous membranes and eyes) contributes to overall exposure [29 CFR 1910.1000, Table Z-1].
* NIOSH REL
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has established a recommended exposure limit (REL) for hydrogen cyanide of 4.7 ppm (5 mg/m(3)) as a STEL. NIOSH also assigns a "Skin" notation to hydrogen cyanide [NIOSH 1992].
* ACGIH TLV
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has assigned hydrogen cyanide a ceiling limit value of 4.7 ppm (5 mg/m(3)), which should not be exceeded during any part of the working exposure. The ACGIH also assigns a "Skin" notation to hydrogen cyanide [ACGIH 1994, p. 23].
* Rationale for Limits
The NIOSH limit is based on the risk of thyroid, blood, and respiratory effects [NIOSH 1992].
The ACGIH limit is based on the risk of acute poisoning [ACGIH 1991, p. 776].
and on 4-Aminobiphenyl
Chemical constituents, cigarettes & cigarette smoke: March 2000
http://www.ndp.govt.nz/moh.nsf/ p...spriorities.pdf
(μg/cigarette) mainstream 0.0012 c
(μg/cigarette) sidestream 0.01 c
http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/met...093/
org093.html
2-Naphthylamine and 4-aminobiphenyl are categorized as A1-Confirmed Human Carcinogens, without a TLV by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), whereas it is recommended that workers should be properly equipped to eliminate to the fullest extent possible all exposures to these two amines. (Ref. 5.11.)
M-
I agree that the chances of passage are slim, given that this is an election year, time is running out, and the president has threatened a veto and it's unclear whether there are 67 Senate votes to overturn his veto. The promise of an embarrassment from a floor amendment to take out the menthol exemption also isn't helping.
Ann W. - Yes, I do think that smokers should be consulted for their opinions in the development of this legislation.
James - Not sure we need the needle. I was never suggesting that I be asked to sit down and work on the bill. I don't actually support the idea of FDA regulation in the first place, so there'd be no reason for me to be at the table.
The man who smokes, thinks like a sage and acts like a Samaritan!!
Edward G. Lytton Bulwer-Lytton, Night and Morning
Michael Siegel wrote:
"James...I was never suggesting that I be asked to sit down and work on the bill. I don't actually support the idea of FDA regulation in the first place, so there'd be no reason for me to be at the table."
I know you don't support it, but you're upset that you (and the rest of the gang) weren't asked to participate.
I had a friend who said if he caught a guy in bed with his wife he'd kill him. I told him he was killing the wrong person. It was his wife who was the one cheating on him. And then I asked if he would also kill the next guy, and the guy after that and the guy after that.
CTFK has as much right to sneak around and talk to PM as everybody else.
Your anger (or whatever you want to call it) should be at the politicians who listened to and followed Matt Myers BS.
Huh
Ah yes the truth is finally surfacing an editorial at a time;
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/
t...icle4487742.ece
"It was one o'clock in the morning. John Lutz had just left the Grand Palace Stadium cinema complex in the wealthy LA suburb of Calabasas and was standing next to his Mini, smoking a cigarette. As he did so, a massive SUV - the kind that does 10mpg - pulled up alongside him. The driver opened his window, leant out, and said: “Hey, buddy, you can't smoke here.” John, a staff writer for a popular American TV show, was unaware that an hour earlier, at midnight, the Calabasas Comprehensive Secondhand Smoke Control Ordinance - the most restrictive anti-smoking policy anywhere in the world-had gone into effect.
“You don't read the news?” chided the SUV driver, wagging his finger. “You can't smoke outdoors anymore. Put it out.” John paused for a second, unable to believe that his decision to smoke a Camel Light in an empty car park in the wee hours of the morning was of so much interest to a complete stranger. He exhaled slowly. He balled his fists. And then he told the driver - using language not suitable for publication in this newspaper, that no, actually, he wouldn't put it out.
Welcome everyone, to Nannyfornia: Birthplace of the Ban, Capital of the Clampdown, Mecca of the Moratorium. Or you could just call it the new Mild, Mild West.
The outdoor smoking ban of which John Lutz ran foul is just one example of a frenzy of puritanical edicts from California's politicians that in the past few weeks has outlawed trans fat in all restaurant food, prevented LA supermarkets from handing out plastic bags, and put a halt to fast-food joints opening in the suburb formerly known as South Central. Other recent bans -and attempted bans - have challenged such monumental threats to human wellbeing as helium balloons, camp fires, circuses, swearing, texting while stopped at traffic lights, anything made from a dead kangaroo, dogs sitting on drivers' laps, homeschooling, rodeos, unordered tapwater in diners, spanking, nude beaches, and (this is true) the use of sexually-discriminating terms such as “Mom” and “Dad” in school classrooms."
More truth revealed?
"What environmentalists almost never mention is that the pesticide residues routinely found on produce are found in quantities that are a tiny fraction of what would be required for them to do harm. A very tiny fraction. Typically, pesticide residues are measured in the parts per trillion.
It's hard to fathom just how small a part per trillion really is. "It's one second in 32,000 years," Schwarcz says. Or, in another of Schwarcz's typically elegant illustrations, it's a single grain of sand on a football field covered in six metres of sand.
The discovery of chemicals in such infinitesimal quantities "is a testimonial to the talents of analytical chemists," Schwarcz says, but it rarely has any significance beyond that.
Quantities matter. Or as Paracelsus said in the 16th century, "the poison is in the dose."
Most of us love the smell of a hot cup of coffee. Well, guess what's in it? "If you sample coffee aroma," Schwarcz says, "you will find over 300 compounds. They are probably present in greater amounts than these pesticide residues. And some of those compounds are known animal carcinogens. So do we worry about smelling coffee? I don't think so."
There is an inevitable response to this and I put it to Schwarcz: The chemicals floating over my cup of coffee are all-natural. Natural is safe. Surely, it's the synthetic stuff we have to worry about.
"One of the biggest myths is the equation between synthetic being dangerous and natural being safe," he says. "There is no such equation. The only thing that determines whether something is safe or not is its molecular structure and the only way to know if it is safe or not is by testing. You cannot tell by its ancestry. Some of the most dangerous substances in the world are natural."
It's also a mistake to focus solely on the risk chemicals may pose to our health, Schwarcz says. "We live in a world that is full of risks. We spend our life evaluating risks, whether consciously or sub-consciously. And everything comes down to a risk-benefit analysis. When we get in a car, we're taking a risk. When we cross the street, we're taking a risk."
We accept these risks because the benefit of driving or crossing the street outweighs the danger. In the same way, we have to consider not only what chemicals might do to us, but also what they do for us.
"Look at something like food dye. We shouldn't put up with any risk from food dye, even if it's just a theoretical risk," Schwarcz says. "You can live a very fulfilling life without eating lime green jello coloured with a synthetic dye."
"But that's a different story from using plastics in our daily life," he says. "This idea of eliminating plastics is just nonsense. These things are so pervasive in our lives and, by and large, so beneficial. Try to go through one day without using any sort of plastic. You can't. And neither is there any need for that. Maybe there is some slight risk but look at what it does for our lives."
Schwarcz's latest book is An Apple A Day. Buy it, read it, absorb it -- before the next chemical panic hits the headlines."
http://www.canada.com/topics/bod...22-
0f54b9a65f80
Article from Prof.Shields
Unleashing the power of personal freedom
http://www.willows-journal.com/
a...s_criminal.html
There are only two threats to freedom, criminals and governments. When a criminal denies our right to life it’s called murder, our right to liberty it’s called kidnapping and our right to property it’s called theft. When government uses its powers to secure these rights against criminals it acts nobly, but when it uses its power to diminish these rights it becomes the criminal.
GreatScot.
I am off to Holland today for 4 day Contract negotiations (oh joy). This is my first visit since their comprehensive smoking ban, tobacco that is, not weed which is ok. Go figure. Here's hoping that the Dutch free spirit is still strong.
The essence of fascism is the shotgun collaboration of industry and government. The fascism, however, doesn't start with the (supposedly right wing) industry it starts with the (supposedly progressive) government which extends to industry an offer it can't refuse: submit to regulation and we'll allow you to survive (as our more or less surrogate) or else we'll grind you under or else take you over. (As Maxine Waters just threatened Big Oil.) Industry collaborates in order to survive and --added bonus-- put its weaker competitors at a permanent disadvantage. Thus, the MSA. Thus, the FDA. All of it's fascism
In this case, the government collaborates with industry since it desperately needs to keep the industry alive-- first, for the money and second, because the alternative (50 million Americans ready to kill for a cigarette) presents too much of a headache. And socializing the industry becomes, for the government, a moral predicament. Government itself as The Merchant of Death? No, no, that would never do. Keep the vending machine alive and keep furiously kicking it-- while the coins fall out.
Siegel says: Yes, I do think that smokers should be consulted for their opinions in the development of this legislation.
Thanks but no thanks. Why would I want to tell them how best to erode my freedom or deprive me of pleasure, which is, as Enzi's noted, the purpose of this bill? Why would I want to join this fascistic circle-- this seance where we all join hands around the table and invoke Mussolini's ghost?
Doc-- tell us again how the bill as it stands (as opposed to were it "strengthened") "sells out the public health." You just agreed that it did; so please tell us how. Tho of course if I ask you how YOU'D design bill to make it much more "protective," you'd totally cop out by saying that you wouldn't support the bill to begin with. Your position on this issue can drive sane people nuts.
Say there's a bill to ban .45 cal and 9 mm handguns. If (as I do) I support the Second Amendment, and believe that a loaded handgun is a great deterrent to crime, and in any case believe such a ban would be useless-- why would I agree that this bill, by allowing .22's and .32's, is a sellout of public health? Why would I be demanding (or siding with those who do) that the ban should be all- inclusive? And why would I also rail that it's all a dirty sellout to vultures at Smith & Wesson?
The only reason I'd want to have a seat at that table would be to say Just forget it. Either that, or Stick-em-up.
:
OK, I'm lost in the hydrogen cyanides
Cyanogenic glycosides
"In this case, the aglycone contains a cyanide group, and the glycoside can release the poisonous hydrogen cyanide if acted upon by some enzyme. An example of these is amygdalin from almonds. Cyanogenic glycosides can be found in the fruits (and wilting leaves) of the rose family (including cherries, apples, plums, almonds, peaches, apricots, raspberries, and crabapples)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycoside
I just bought a jar of blackberry jam.
Or is it a different kind of hydrogen cyanide,
"At least 1,000 species of plants and micro-organisms from 90 families have been shown to contain one or more of nearly twenty compounds capable of producing cyanide (Seigler, 1976). About 800 species of higher plants from 70 to 80 families, including agriculturally important species such as the cassava, flax, sorghum, alfalfa, bamboo, peach, pear, cherry, plum, corn, potato, cotton, almond, and beans are cyanogenic (Eyjolfsson, 1970). Cyanide poisoning of livestock by forage sorghums and other cyanogenic plants is well documented (Mudder 1997).
Fungi and bacteria are prevalent producers of cyanide. In addition to plants and micro-organisms, insects have been shown to produce cyanide. Species of centipedes, millipedes, beetles, moths and butterflies synthesise and excrete cyanide for defensive purposes (Duffey, 1981).
Airborne sources of cyanide arise from fires and cigarette smoke. Coffee and table salt also contain cyanide. Laetrile (an anti-cancer preparation made from apricot kernels) and sodium nitroprusside (a drug used to reduce high blood pressure), release cyanide upon metabolism (ATSDR, 1995).
http://www.marthamine.co.nz/cyanide.html
According to the Ecologist hydrogen cyanide is also used as a pesticide.
Some of the other pesticides that can legally contaminate non-organic chocolate include:
Methyl Bromide linked with prostate cancer, kidney and liver effects, neurological effects
Pyrethrins carcinogenic and a cause of reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity
Hydrogen Cyanide acutely toxic, causes thyroid damage and nerve degeneration
Naled a central nervous system disruptor, causes headaches, nausea and diarrhoea
Glyphosate carcinogenic, damages digestive system tissue, causes genetic damage and reproductive effects
http://www.theecologist.org/page...?
content_id=551
So is the hydrogen cyanide in the smoke as a result of being part of the plant itself like potato or blackberry, composed of various other substances being burnt simultaneously, or as a pesticide residue?
Walt, You're right. If I did have a seat at the table, I'd be telling them to forget the whole idea of regulating the safety of tobacco products. I wouldn't be arguing for a more comprehensive law that doesn't have loopholes in it.
In trying to support the German WHO Collaboration Center in its claims about the toxicity of SHS, the State of Bavaria mandated a study about airborne substances in hospitality venues.
The result is rather sobering. They where able to measure only one class A carcinogenic agent (benzene). Even in a smoky disco benzene reached only a max of 1.5% of the workplace PEL. They apparently didn't even consider the parking lot (car exhausts) in the back of the disco as a confounding source.
BaP, a marker substance for PAH, was measured at less than 0.46% of the PEL.
Amminobiphenyle and naphtylamine, two other class A carcinogens, were below the sensitivity limits (presumably 10 ng/m3) of their instruments.
Forces Germany has compiled a summary of the findings of the study: http://sites.google.com/site/xda...?
attredirects=0
I agree with M that the PM/CTFK negotiated FDA tobacco bill is unlikely to be enacted this session (and would likely be vetoed even if the Senate and House were to approve the same version of the bill), but chances are significant next session that >90% of S 625 or HR 1108 are enacted and signed into law (especially if Obama wins).
If/when the legislation is signed into law, there almost certainly would be at least a several year delay before many provisions are implemented, partly due to the creation of a new agency within FDA and partly due to legal challenges (especially on 1st amendment grounds) that are likely to strike down significant provisions from the legislation.
Hi, Anonymous,
usually love your posts but - guess what the chemical industry blames the health effects of their produce/pollution on?
And is therefore involved in panicing the population about long-standing individual choices, human activities such as smoking and diet choice, while claiming their products - such as the toxic fire retardant chemicals added by anti-demanded global law to cigarettes - are 'safe'?
It was the asbestos/chemical industry, if you recall, who virtually invented smoking/victim blame way back in the 1930s or even earlier, and who hired Doll, among myriad others, to promote the idea that it was the fact that all, or nearly all, of their workers smoked, rather than occupational exposures, which caused the high rates of lung cancer and disease appearing due to industrial/product exposures.
The degree of propaganda produced by such industries is legion and influences not only the media but popular thinking - even ours, if we aren't careful to analyze and verify facts.
While in most cases the poison is, indeed, in the dose, endocrine disruptors act at minute levels similar to those naturally triggering cellular signalling for natural processes, with which these artificial chemicals interfere.
The following is older, non-technical information, but makes some of the major points.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/
effec...c.asp#disruptor
. What is the endocrine system?
The endocrine system is a complex network of glands and hormones that regulates many of the body's functions, including growth, development and maturation, as well as the way various organs operate. The endocrine glands -- including the pituitary, thyroid, adrenal, thymus, pancreas, ovaries, and testes --release carefully-measured amounts of hormones into the bloodstream that act as natural chemical messengers, traveling to different parts of the body in order to control and adjust many life functions.
2. What is an endocrine disruptor?
An endocrine disruptor is a synthetic chemical that when absorbed into the body either mimics or blocks hormones and disrupts the body's normal functions. This disruption can happen through altering normal hormone levels, halting or stimulating the production of hormones, or changing the way hormones travel through the body, thus affecting the functions that these hormones control. Chemicals that are known human endocrine disruptors include diethylstilbesterol (the drug DES), dioxin, PCBs, DDT, and some other pesticides. Many chemicals, particularly pesticides and plasticizers, are suspected endocrine disruptors based on limited animal studies.
3. What are some likely routes of exposure to endocrine disruptors?
Exposure to endocrine disruptors can occur through direct contact with pesticides and other chemicals or through ingestion of contaminated water, food, or air. Chemicals suspected of acting as endocrine disruptors are found in insecticides, herbicides, fumigants and fungicides that are used in agriculture as well as in the home. Industrial workers can be exposed to chemicals such as detergents, resins, and plasticizers with endocrine disrupting properties. Endocrine disruptors enter the air or water as a byproduct of many chemical and manufacturing processes and when plastics and other materials are burned. Further, studies have found that endocrine disruptors can leach out of plastics, including the type of plastic used to make hospital intravenous bags. Many endocrine disruptors are persistent in the environment and accumulate in fat, so the greatest exposures come from eating fatty foods and fish from contaminated water.
4. How do we know that endocrine disruptors are dangerous?
Many plant and animal species are showing signs of ill health due to exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. For example, fish in the Great Lakes, which are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other man-made chemicals, have numerous reproductive problems as
well as abnormal swelling of the thyroid glands. Fish-eating birds in the Great Lakes area, such as eagles, terns, and gulls, have shown similar dysfunctions.
Scientists have also pointed to endocrine disruptors as the cause of a declining alligator population in
Lake Apopka, Florida. The alligators in this area have diminished reproductive organs that prevent successful reproduction. These problem
s were connected to a large pesticide spill several years earlier, and the alligators were found to have endocrine disrupting chemicals in their bodies and eggs.
5. Should humans be concerned for their health based on evidence that fish, birds and alligators have been affected?
Yes. All vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans) are fundamentally similar during early embryonic development. Scientists can therefore use the evidence acquired on other species to make predictions about endocrine disrupting effects on humans.
6. Is there direct evidence that humans are susceptible to endocrine disruption?
Yes. In the 1950s and 1960s pregnant women were prescribed diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen, to prevent miscarriages. Not only did DES fail to prevent miscarriages, but it also caused health problems for many of these women's children. In 1971, doctors began reporting high rates of unusual vaginal cancers in teenage girls. Investigations of the girls' environmental exposures traced the problem to their mothers' use of DES. The girls also suffered birth defects of the uterus and ovaries, and immune system suppression.
7. Are children at greater risk from endocrine disruptor exposure?
Yes. Because endocrine disruptors affect the development of the body's vital organs and hormonal systems, infants, children and developing fetuses are more vulnerable to exposure. And as was the case with DES, parents' exposure to certain chemicals may produce unexpected -- and tragic -- effects in their children, even decades later.
8. These days don't chemicals have to be safe to be allowed on the market?
No. The majority of the more than 2,000 chemicals that come onto the market every year do not go through even the simplest tests to determine toxicity. Even when some tests are carried out, they do not assess whether or not a chemical has endocrine interfering properties.
9. What can I do to reduce my risk of exposure?
Educate yourself about endocrine disruptors, and educate your family and friends.
Buy organic food whenever possible.
Avoid using pesticides in your home or yard, or on your pet -- use baits or traps instead, keepin your home especially clean to prevent ant or roach infestations.
Find out if pesticides are used in your child's school or day care center and campaign for non-toxic alternatives.
Avoid fatty foods such as cheese and meat whenever possible.
If you eat fish from lakes, rivers, or bays, check with your state to see if they are contaminated.
Avoid heating food in plastic containers, or storing fatty foods in plastic containers or plastic wrap.
Do not give young children soft plastic teethers or toys, since these leach potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Support efforts to get strong government regulation of and increased research on endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Last revised 11.25.98
My comment - more recent studies showing heritable effects among a wide range of diseases and disfunction - including cancers - was - surprise widely publicized as 'if your grandmother smoked you could be affected' when
'An endocrine disruptor is a synthetic chemical ...'
Know thine enemy...
Hi, Anonymous,
usually love your posts but - guess what the chemical industry blames the health effects of their produce/pollution on?
And is therefore involved in panicing the population about long-standing individual choices, human activities such as smoking and diet choice, while claiming their products - such as the toxic fire retardant chemicals added by anti-demanded global law to cigarettes - are 'safe'?
It was the asbestos/chemical industry, if you recall, who virtually invented smoking/victim blame way back in the 1930s or even earlier, and who hired Doll, among myriad others, to promote the idea that it was the fact that all, or nearly all, of their workers smoked, rather than occupational exposures, which caused the high rates of lung cancer and disease appearing due to industrial/product exposures.
The degree of propaganda produced by such industries is legion and influences not only the media but popular thinking - even ours, if we aren't careful to analyze and verify facts.
While in most cases the poison is, indeed, in the dose, endocrine disruptors act at minute levels similar to those naturally triggering cellular signalling for natural processes, with which these artificial chemicals interfere.
The following is older, non-technical information, but makes some of the major points.
http://www.nrdc.org/health/
effec...c.asp#disruptor
. What is the endocrine system?
The endocrine system is a complex network of glands and hormones that regulates many of the body's functions, including growth, development and maturation, as well as the way various organs operate. The endocrine glands -- including the pituitary, thyroid, adrenal, thymus, pancreas, ovaries, and testes --release carefully-measured amounts of hormones into the bloodstream that act as natural chemical messengers, traveling to different parts of the body in order to control and adjust many life functions.
2. What is an endocrine disruptor?
An endocrine disruptor is a synthetic chemical that when absorbed into the body either mimics or blocks hormones and disrupts the body's normal functions. This disruption can happen through altering normal hormone levels, halting or stimulating the production of hormones, or changing the way hormones travel through the body, thus affecting the functions that these hormones control. Chemicals that are known human endocrine disruptors include diethylstilbesterol (the drug DES), dioxin, PCBs, DDT, and some other pesticides. Many chemicals, particularly pesticides and plasticizers, are suspected endocrine disruptors based on limited animal studies.
3. What are some likely routes of exposure to endocrine disruptors?
Exposure to endocrine disruptors can occur through direct contact with pesticides and other chemicals or through ingestion of contaminated water, food, or air. Chemicals suspected of acting as endocrine disruptors are found in insecticides, herbicides, fumigants and fungicides that are used in agriculture as well as in the home. Industrial workers can be exposed to chemicals such as detergents, resins, and plasticizers with endocrine disrupting properties. Endocrine disruptors enter the air or water as a byproduct of many chemical and manufacturing processes and when plastics and other materials are burned. Further, studies have found that endocrine disruptors can leach out of plastics, including the type of plastic used to make hospital intravenous bags. Many endocrine disruptors are persistent in the environment and accumulate in fat, so the greatest exposures come from eating fatty foods and fish from contaminated water.
4. How do we know that endocrine disruptors are dangerous?
Many plant and animal species are showing signs of ill health due to exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. For example, fish in the Great Lakes, which are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other man-made chemicals, have numerous reproductive problems as
well as abnormal swelling of the thyroid glands. Fish-eating birds in the Great Lakes area, such as eagles, terns, and gulls, have shown similar dysfunctions.
Scientists have also pointed to endocrine disruptors as the cause of a declining alligator population in
Lake Apopka, Florida. The alligators in this area have diminished reproductive organs that prevent successful reproduction. These problem
s were connected to a large pesticide spill several years earlier, and the alligators were found to have endocrine disrupting chemicals in their bodies and eggs.
5. Should humans be concerned for their health based on evidence that fish, birds and alligators have been affected?
Yes. All vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, including humans) are fundamentally similar during early embryonic development. Scientists can therefore use the evidence acquired on other species to make predictions about endocrine disrupting effects on humans.
6. Is there direct evidence that humans are susceptible to endocrine disruption?
Yes. In the 1950s and 1960s pregnant women were prescribed diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic estrogen, to prevent miscarriages. Not only did DES fail to prevent miscarriages, but it also caused health problems for many of these women's children. In 1971, doctors began reporting high rates of unusual vaginal cancers in teenage girls. Investigations of the girls' environmental exposures traced the problem to their mothers' use of DES. The girls also suffered birth defects of the uterus and ovaries, and immune system suppression.
7. Are children at greater risk from endocrine disruptor exposure?
Yes. Because endocrine disruptors affect the development of the body's vital organs and hormonal systems, infants, children and developing fetuses are more vulnerable to exposure. And as was the case with DES, parents' exposure to certain chemicals may produce unexpected -- and tragic -- effects in their children, even decades later.
8. These days don't chemicals have to be safe to be allowed on the market?
No. The majority of the more than 2,000 chemicals that come onto the market every year do not go through even the simplest tests to determine toxicity. Even when some tests are carried out, they do not assess whether or not a chemical has endocrine interfering properties.
9. What can I do to reduce my risk of exposure?
Educate yourself about endocrine disruptors, and educate your family and friends.
Buy organic food whenever possible.
Avoid using pesticides in your home or yard, or on your pet -- use baits or traps instead, keepin your home especially clean to prevent ant or roach infestations.
Find out if pesticides are used in your child's school or day care center and campaign for non-toxic alternatives.
Avoid fatty foods such as cheese and meat whenever possible.
If you eat fish from lakes, rivers, or bays, check with your state to see if they are contaminated.
Avoid heating food in plastic containers, or storing fatty foods in plastic containers or plastic wrap.
Do not give young children soft plastic teethers or toys, since these leach potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Support efforts to get strong government regulation of and increased research on endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Last revised 11.25.98
My comment - more recent studies showing heritable effects among a wide range of diseases and disfunction - including cancers - was - surprise widely publicized as 'if your grandmother smoked you could be affected' when
'An endocrine disruptor is a synthetic chemical ...'
Know thine enemy...
What's with Haloscan, or it it the 'puter I'm using?
Keeps telling me when I post can't show website, I go back, and find 2 successful posts?
Anybody else having this problem?
Some notes:
"An endocrine disruptor is a synthetic chemical .."
What is a synthetic chemical? A chemical is a chemical.
"Avoid using pesticides in your ... yard"
Pesticides are naturally produced by many plants to ensure their survival. Nature invented pesticides, not man.
Ellen--
I'd take the endocrine disrupter stuff with the same salt you'd take everything else. Research both sides of the issue thoroughly before you make up your mind or just decide you can't decide because everyone's got an angle--the industrial Industry and the Alarmist Industry. Over at www.junkscience.com, Milloy has a long detailed paper on DDT--part of the permanent archives. Take a look. Stay skeptical.
:
Matt wrote: The article also claims that SHS contains hydrogen cyanide “in proportions that are 160 times higher than what is considered dangerous”.
Matt I found another interesting "fact" about the hydrogen cyanide from the CCOSH (Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety) site:
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/
p...ets_health.html
Briefly, what would some "exposure equivalents" be?
Various studies suggest that passive exposure to ETS over an eight-hour day is comparable to directly smoking one to three cigarettes.
Such estimates depend greatly on the particular tobacco smoke contaminant chosen for the active/passive smoking comparisons. For example, it is thought that someone exposed to ETS will breathe in the same amount of the following contaminants as if they actively smoked one cigarette:
* same amount of carbon monoxide in one or two hours,
* same number of smoke particles in eleven hours,
* same amount of acrolein in seven hours, and
* same amounts of nicotine and hydrogen cyanide in fifty hours.
Can exposure to ETS be measured?
It is hard to measure the exposure of a passive smoker to environmental tobacco smoke. The exposure varies according to the type and number of cigarettes or other tobacco products burned, the number of smokers present, the rate and manner of smoking, the room volume, the room ventilation rate, and the percentage of fresh (or makeup) air supplied.
oh my, there's that nasty "ventilation rate" thing again.......I guess someone forgot to tell them there is no safe level of exposure......
and waht?
Is Pfizer better, beeing itself in the FDA and lying about the deadly CHANTIX?
TRUTH is a front for Philip Morris. Campaigh for Tobacco-Free Kids is a front for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) which itself is a Rockefeller front organization in support of GMO foods and routinely smears anti-soy advocates - including opponents of GMO soy - as shills for the meat and dairy industries, even though the Rockefellers control the GMO soy industry through Monsanto which funds the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is a front for the fast food, alcohol, tobacco, and GMO industries.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
