Please Doc..........
You are doing here exactly what you are accusing others of doing in that you are distorting the evidence to get your way.
A slight elevatio of relative risk is not the same as CAUSING anything........yet you say both things in this article.
Witchita DOES NOT need a smoker ban in bars, restaurants or ANYWHERE. What Witchita needs, as does every other locality in this nation, is a ban on anti-smokers and their propaganda.
For the umpteen ninth time....Richard Carmona is the FORMER Surgeon General and now works for Canyon Ranch Health Spas.
Dr. Siegel:
I repeat my challenge: please identify a single death which can be verified by autopsy to be caused by secondhand smoke. Unless you or some other public health specialist can do this, claims that thousands are dying from such exposure are without scientific merit.
You don't blame the newspapers? You are kidding no your not! Main Stream Media has jumped on the ban wagon. Almost all papers editorials are pro banner slants. They need only read the SGs report but then again most newspapers boards also have members or person close to a member that belongs to local hospital boards, ACS, ALA, AHA or one of the numerous others. Most of these groups are also PC and have long been indoctrinted into big brother philosphy of the USAs higher education system. They know exactly what they are doing because they know whats best for the sheepl. Doc, you have to have your deprograming curriculum revised.
I posted this on one of the threads last week and I thank you Doctor for addressing this article.
.
The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.
1. The Surgeon General's report concluded (correctly, in my opinion) that chronic exposure to secondhand smoke produces a small elevation in risk (relative risk of approximately 1.3 for spouses of smokers) for heart disease and lung cancer among nonsmokers.
And yet you are STILL claiming to be all for bans. IF it’s that small for a non-smoker living with a smoker (that’s more than 40 hours per week by the way); but the risk is smaller for anyone working in a bar or restaurant and you insist that total bans in ALL bars and restaurants are necessary? Every single bar and restaurant does NOT need to be smoke free for such a small risk.
2. The Surgeon General completely misrepresented the conclusions of his own report in disseminating his public relations materials surrounding the release of the report. While his report documented an increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer associated with chronic secondhand smoke exposure, it provided no evidence of an increased risk of the development of heart disease or lung cancer associated with brief exposure to secondhand smoke. Yet the Surgeon General clearly claimed that brief exposure does cause such an increased risk of both heart disease and lung cancer.
And I call this a deliberate act. I consider this to be an abuse of office and position. I consider this to be FRAUD.
The rest of the story, then, is that the Surgeon General's misrepresentation of the scientific evidence regarding secondhand smoke in his own report has led to a gross distortion of the science to the public.
I hate to tell you this Doc, BUT, the man deliberately lied to the public. His words have not led to anything, HE PROMOTED THEM HIMSELF.
In many ways, I don't blame newspapers for this. When the Surgeon General makes a statement, it seems reasonable (or used to at least) to believe that what he says is reasonably accurate.
I DO blame the newspapers. They should be vetting everything they print. What you say here is the very reason I say the former SG LIED AND SHOULD BE PROSECUTED. People expect to trust that those in public offices making policies, are honest and truthful. Unfortunately they usually aren’t so the shame is on us for just accepting their word.
I can’t tell you how tempted I get to drive on down to Tucson (only 2 hours from me) find him and slap the crap out his smug self. The man deliberately lied to push his own personal belief. He abused his position. Had he been some poor schlep on the street, they would have charged him and jailed him. All he got was a little slap on the wrist.
Holy crap.
"The Surgeon General's report concluded (correctly, in my opinion) that chronic exposure to secondhand smoke produces a small elevation in risk..."
Uh, now it's a "small elevation in risk"?
Go back thorugh yor postings and your comments and see if you characterized it as a "small elevation" in the past. I seem to recall countless references to "causes heart disease," and a "severe health risk." It was so severe, in fact, that anyone who questioned it was deemed "callous."
Heck, I recall one flap over the claim that "220 bartenders WILL die..." Emphasis added.
"... will die..."
Seems the good folks in Wichita are not the only ones who play fast and loose with the language.
So tell me again why it is so incredibly hard to offer a sufficient warning about a "small elevation in risk"?
Remember that poll, in which 44 percent of Americans reported that they did not see SHS as a severe health risk? You said that was PROOF they they had not been sufficiently warned.
But now essentially, you are saying they are correct. Unless you can somehow explain how a "small elevation" of an already pretty low risk amounts to a severe health hazard.
Oh boy, someone slipped and fell in it today.
Release the hounds.
Dr. Siegel, from July 27, 2008:
"With regards to secondhand smoke, almost half of the public (44%) does not believe that secondhand smoke is very harmful. So how can we say that workers are adequately informed about the risks if nearly half of them don't think it represents a serious harm?"
Erm... maybe we can say it because SHS, in truth, only amounts to a "small elevation in risk."
Just saying.
Lord Wakeham
"The foremost authority in this area - Sir Richard Peto, professor of medical statistics at Oxford - told the Committee that the risks from passive smoking are small and difficult to measure.
"Given the miniscule level of risk, the blanket ban on smoking in public places is a case of using the proverbial sledgehammer to obliterate, rather than crack, a rather small and insignificant nut.
Lord Wakeham is unconvinced
"As the risks from passive smoking are tiny, the direct impact on public health is likely to be so small as to be immeasurable"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionn...?
thread=4435988
Its had some very serious side effects though, hasn't it?
Hookah! Hookah!
Something else for the anti-smoking busybodies to worry their tiny little brains about:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....fe/
5324617.html
.
The aim of politicians is to keep the public alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing them with endless series of hobgoblins all of them imaginary.
H.L. Mencken
It is unscientific to say that because many Americans do not believe SHS is a serious health risk it "proves" they are poorly informed. From a scientific perspective, it proves nothing. It is merely a possible explanation for the public's disbelief. A more likely explanation is that the public is skeptical of medical pronouncements because so many health officials, researchers, and advocates, contradict themselves and each other so often.
"The Surgeon General's report concluded (correctly, in my opinion) that chronic exposure to secondhand smoke produces a small elevation in risk (relative risk of approximately 1.3 for spouses of smokers) for heart disease and lung cancer among nonsmokers."
Echoing Sam (who beat me to it): That 'small elevation in risk' nevertheless translates into 220 dead Massachusetts bodies (assuming bartenders work at the job for 30-40 years). Or are you using a different yardstick for spouses of smokers?
.
Spouses know how to open windows in my experience
As for "properly informed?" This Doctor; a specialist in the field, says although most are definitely "properly informed" it has no bearing on the actions they will pursue;
Decisions are connected to individual personalities which will always vary significantly. Another proof of bigotry by those who don't like the smell of smoke, denouncing those who do.
http://www.thedoctorwillseeyouno.../changingbeh_2/
A pretty good read actually.
" In the end, it is you, and you alone, who must move away from unhealthy behaviors."
BTW my comments to the Wichita article;
In response to the authors penchant in parroting ad agency spin; stating that "there is no safe level of tobacco smoke" I would like to point out scientifically or theoretically;
The surgeon General's report contained no such information. Perhaps the author should rely on the facts, actually read the report, and not rhetoric before signing on to the targeted personal hate campaign so popular of late. "Smoking bans" real "smoking bans" would involve the product not the individuals who smoke.
The anti smoker lobby represent their own interests and not the interests of communities as a whole. Interests which are depreciated in adapting denormalization principles which find primary success in our primary loss of unity.
Neighbors turned on each other, children against their parents. All aimed at destroying the legitimate message which has served us so well and so long in reducing smoking prevalence. That being a message of moderation; the poison is in the dose. The promotion of no safe level indicating non linear association, depreciates a smokers urgency to quit or any benefit at all.
Looking before leaping has always served us well. When the media gets back to considering the source and following the money, we will all be much better served. Hatred serves no one. Unless you are in the business of selling smoking patches and chewing gum marketed now in exciting new flavors to suit the most discerning of children's preferences.
The former Surgeon General embodies everything that Dr Siegel has criticised the tobacco control movement for.
He has publicly urged people to 'stay awake from smokers', has publicly stated his wish to see total prohibition, has misrepresented the findings of his own report, and failed to include Enstrom / Kabat (2003) in his report. Carmona's failure to include Enstrom / Kabat is more of a political statement than anything else, because Enstrom / Kabat concluded with an relative risk of 1.25, and if included in Carmona's metanalysis would have had only a small effect, if any, on the overall RR.
"While I certainly hope that Wichita will enact a strong workplace smoking ban that includes all restaurants and bars,..."
Regardless of the ongoing distortions of truth, you still don't get it do you?
Why should every single bar and restaurant be smoke free, without exception?
You can't be a patron in every one of them at the same time, and why would you seek employment in one that allowed smoking!? (Except of course, to whine about it!)
Why force a business owner to cater to only a portion of the available customer base?
Why force a business owner to give up control of the ambience and setting they desire to make available, and paid for without any Public Monies?
(Which you are still free to decline entry into)
Smoking bans are a clear and obvious violation of property rights. Business owners have the right to set smoking policies for their property, and owners, patrons, and employees have the right to contract and associate freely.
Your position remains completely unjustified despite your "concern" for smokers and their current persecution.
There is no justification for an "All or Nothing" approach, Hell,..
it's not even All or Nothing, it's simply TAKE IT ALL.
Your totalitarian approach rules out any comprimise whatsoever.
Shouldn't this be a bit more representative of what the nation was founded upon, or at least what we currently purport ourselves to represent? In case you've forgotten,(and I'm sure you have) that would be *FREEDOM*
The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint
Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
The power to determine action without restraint. (for all types, creeds, and persuasions)
If 25% of the population smokes, shouldn't there be 25% of Bars, Restaurants and bowling Alley's that allow smoking? BY THE PREFERENCE OF THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY!!
You can be reasonably sure that these places would be completely staffed and more importantly, patronized exclusively by people that smoke, and those that simply DON'T CARE!, regardless of how detailed an explanation of the alledged dangers, or how sufficient you personally think a warning may be.
What part of NO OBLIGATION to enter/work there do you not understand?
Non-smokers exposure to ETS has always been voluntary when entering a hospitality venue that clearly allowed smoking on the premises, the CHOICE was always theirs to make. Whether as a patron, or as an employee, the CHOICE to be there has always been sufficient safeguard to any danger posed, whether that perceived danger was either real or imagined and no force of law was required to make that choice. Attempting to legislate morality is not the role of state government.
Attempting to legislate a guaranteed availability of an environment to meet the PERSONAL PREFERENCE of a majority while further penalizing the minority in order to achieve that goal is not the role of state government either. That would be socialism.
By virtue of ownership; declaration of a facility as “Smoking Permitted” would establish through the segregation of like-minded individuals, the comfort and safety of all concerned regardless of their belief, or lack thereof in the questionable “science” behind the alleged dangers of ETS, or in their individual proclivity to smoke.
Most importantly it would restore and preserve the constitutionally noted sacred rights apportioned to private property ownership, and allow the continued balance of unrestricted commerce vs. unwarranted government regulation as is necessary in maintaining a robust Free Market economy. The market should, and would continue to decide the availability of Smoking Permitted environments, specifically in the hospitality and entertainment industries.
YOU GUYS SERIOUSLY MAKE ME ILL.
The NAZI comparrisons are deadly accurate, no matter how distasteful you may find them to be. TC is in nearly every single way, an absolute mirror image of the NAZI's and their rise to power.
You people are so incredibly selfish, egocentric, paranoid, and biggoted it makes my blood boil.
The only Freedom TC is interested in, is Freedom from smokers, and they clearly don't care what the cost may be for attaining it.
LightningBoy;
If smoking bans serve the public and protect employees, the public who are not at risk would not be targets of the scare campaigns. The bartenders would be. To date I haven't seen a lot of evidence bartenders are being targeted with information predicting their immanent demise. What I see are commercials with children's teddy bears, exposed to missiles of smoke creeping in through keyholes, being depicted as a significant risk to children.
Employees who ,if they are not being forced to quit, would be respected and allowed to smoke in a workplace which does not worry others, when no others who would be affected actually work or drink there.
This leveling of "the playing field" they keep stressing, has benefits and deficits according to the decisions made. If a non smoking environment is preferred smokers have a right not to participate and go were their business is valued. With such a low smoker prevalence a non smoking environment will not miss their patronage. Neither will a smoking allowed business miss the smoke terrified clientčle.
So where is the problem with a sign to allow decisions by the paying customer?
The only argument relies on intrusion and mob rule. "Do as your told or be punished"
Doctor, I'm surprised you're suprised that SG's have commented on reports published during their tenure in office that they never read.
As far as SG's go Jocelyn Elders was the funniest, Carmona was the dumbest, and Everett Koop; well Koopie is selling medic alert clapper device thingies to old people who don't know that a cell phone could be handy.
The SG's have all been hacks. The agenda is set for them before they arrive. Just what magical impact does the SG's imprimateur have on a report they didn't write or even read.
"The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship..." This one liner was designed by Richard Doll and has been used in every SG report on Tobacco since the first one in 1964.
I could show the world enough "evidence sufficient to infer a causal relationship between "ham sandwiches" and "male pattern baldness". A lot, but not all bald men like ham sandwiches. A lot of people who like ham sandwiches don't go bald. The effect of ham sandwiches on women is less pronounced. More studies need to be produced. We'll find more bald men who like ham for our follow up study.
Why would I go to the trouble? Because the Peanut Butter Charitable Trust provided me with a $100,000 grant to study ham and it's affect on hair. The trust doesn't like ham and thinks that people should eat more peanut butter.
I've also been contacted by the American Cheese Coalition to punch holes in the recently published Swiss Cheese Report.
I'm weighing my options. Umm, ham and swiss on rye or whole wheat?
E=MC^2
Maybe it is time that the former surgeon general speaks up and tells Whicita that his words were twisted and that is not what he said. Maybe they will give him 5 minutes to speak and he can conclude that he didn't do abit of work on any study and this report was all compiled by Glantz, ASH, ACS,ALA,AHA and all the rest of the anti's. The paycheck was good though which kept him from laughing, but he made up for it on his way to the bank. Crooks, all of them and the media laps it up.
EinsteinSmoked;
Did you consider the ramifications if a pickle were added, in the confounding assessment?
Or if the sandwich were included in Tuesday's lunch special with fries and gravy and Bromo Seltzer was administered on Wednesday, would the effects allow the consumption of Thursdays pepper steak, without the required Bromo prescription prior to spaghetti Fridays?? Or should we just stock up in any event?
LighteningBoy,
Maybe it is time to just let your smoking customers into a back room and let them smoke. I know of several restaurants that do in upstate New York. I actually smoked in them when I was there earlier this year. Either customers in the front couldn't smell it or didn't know as there was not one singe complaint. Start in the back room and gradually step towards the front. That is YOUR place of business, do with it what you want. Even post a sign that smoking occurs in the store room. Don't hide. Oh yeah, when I have to go to a school so to pick up someones child because mommy won't be back from shopping in time to meet the bus, I always light a cig, whether I want one or not. I figure that seeing that a school is considered public and I am a member of that public and I pay taxes so to keep that school in business, I as a taxpayer also owns part of it. What part I own depends on where I am at the time I light up! Be defiant!
Kevin, - "Did you consider the ramifications if a pickle were added, in the confounding assessment?"
If you belong to the Peanut butter coalition, then there is ample evidence compiled in the backroom that Ham sandwiches cause cancer. The presence of any condements is unlikely to change the risk factors involved.
As long as the Ham is consumed, it's deadly, therefore the stratgey of Denormalizing Ham sandwich lovers is preferable to driving all the hog farmers out of business because crispy Bacon cures cancer while baked sliced Ham clearly causes it.
There is no safe level of swine,...
unless it's bacon 
Personally , I'm not sure about the media, something peculiar is going on, I have a lot of smoking story links and more and more are coming up 404, a month or two after a vaguely sympathetic story has been written. Someone seems to be removing all traces.
Its fairly certain though that they have to be pro ban, until a short while ago they would have been the first speaking out.Strange days.
"The lights are going out all over Britain. We shall not see them lit again in our lifetime. Or possibly ever. To paraphrase the British foreign secretary on the eve of the first world war might seem over the top, but we are facing a threat to the British way of life"
This is a piece about the demise of the British pub, but no mention of the smoking ban in the whole piece!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2935513.ece
But the pubs were fine until July 1st.
"What the report concludes is that chronic exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers."
That's what the report wants us to believe, but it is based on weak RRs and stretched epidemiology.
We have done an analysis of the most prominent ETS studies on lung cancer. Unfortunately our paper is in German, but we are planning to publish a summary in English.
http://www.netzwerk-rauchen.de/
d...se_Luft_fin.pdf
One of the results can be found here: http://
mitchell.falls.googlepage...hotairtrend.pdf
Explanation:
We selected the 10 studies (vertical bars 1-10) with he highest number of cases and plotted them against their RRs and CIs.
Conclusions:
The higher the number,
- the narrower the CIs (vertical lines extending from the black squares), indicating higher quality of the data and
- the more the risk (RR: black squares) tends towards 1.0
The statistical analysis shows:
- a defintite trend towards the null hypothesis with higher quality of the study
- a definite bias towards RRs > 1 with the lower quality of the studies. Small numbers of cases can more easily lead to a deviation from the null hypothesis due to misclassification and bias.
- narrower CIs (trends as dotted lines) - i.e. better quality - with higher case counts
We found similar trends looking at studies from individual countries, studies with children, and workplace studies.
By the way, of you think the only damage Carmona did was in Wichita, check out the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. (I might add that not too long ago, Mr. Godshall claimed to be "directing" or "placing" or "generating" some of this work, so perhaps it should come as no surprise. He would not expand on his claim when I asked him to. The Post-Gazette would not respond, either.)
Post-Gazette editorial, June 17, 2007: "Dr. Carmona's report blamed 50,000 deaths each year on secondhand fumes and said there was no safe exposure level and that children of smokers are at special risk."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0.../794551-
192.stm
A local doctor's op-ed in the Post-Gazette, Sept. 25, 2006: "Based on hundreds of scientific studies, Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona said, ... there is NO risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure, with even brief exposure adversely affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory system. ... Only smoke-free environments effectively protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure in indoor spaces.' The surgeon general essentially ended the debate."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0.../724715-
109.stm
Post-Gazette editorial, August 21, 2006: "[Carmona's] declaration demolished the central claim of the special interests that oppose a smoking ban: that secondhand smoke is not hazardous to those forced to breathe it, whether as patrons or workers in public places."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0.../715057-
192.stm
Post-Gazette news story, June 26, 2007: "Including so many loopholes angered Sen. Stewart Greenleaf, R-Montgomery, the prime sponsor of the smoking ban. He was so upset that he wasn't sure if he'll even vote for the amended bill when it comes up for a final vote today. 'I am torn because of all these exceptions, which will expose thousands of people to secondhand smoke,' he said. 'No one challenged the medical or scientific evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke is dangerous. There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke.'"
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...7/797200-
85.stm
Post-Gazette editorial, June 29, 2006: "... the evidence [in Carmona's report] is indisputable that the fumes are a major health threat and kill about 50,000 people each year who are involuntarily exposed. ... Cleaning the smoke-poisoned air with filters doesn't protect nonsmokers either. Even brief exposures can place nonsmokers at risk."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0.../701947-
192.stm
The idea that Tobacco Control or Public Health has any credibilty is spurious. Public Health aka Peoples Health aka Volksgesundheit has no place in any society. It should be purged completely.
Dr. Siegel: Can you explain the term "pooled evidence".
How can you "pool" studies and get a common RR, if there are no commonalities between the studies, RRs and CIs are widely and wildly disparate, and there are no standards for handling confounders such as ethnicity, socio-economic backgrounds, income, sex, number of cases/controls, geographics, age.
Why are the Bradford-Hill criteria abandoned for all these studies? Is their new evidence in epidemiology that any level of RR is good enough to prove causation?
... oh and I forgot: None of the studies measured neither exposure levels nor exposure duration.
Public Health is now more appropriately re-named Political Health,Tobacco Control remains as previously suggested Total Control.Dr Siegel's slight elevation in risk due to exposure to SHS,is probably about the most accurate statement he has made when compared with the myriad of studies which suggest a small increase,though are way below the existing threshold whereby chance and confounders that can influence findings are more equally leveled out.The fluctuation though in his terminology is most unsettling and seem determinant on the point of view he wishes to express.This surely is most unscientific.The "consensus of opinion " trumps all known earthbound science,it is sacrilege to suggest otherwise.
OT, but does anyone have a list of the constituents of pure tobacco? Not the additives, I want to check out the scary sounding chemicals and see what they really do, from sources other than tobacco companies or TC. The science seems to have started off corrupted and got worse.
I need to start from scratch.
Would Doctor Siegel support a ban on all indoor combustion in "public places", a true smoke ban, such as the one almost passed by voters in Kirkwood, Missouri?
http://www.ci.kirkwood.mo.us/
Ele...dinance1106.pdf
Via Sam M, Dr. Siegel, from July 27, 2008: "With regards to secondhand smoke, almost half of the public (44%) does not believe that secondhand smoke is very harmful. So how can we say that workers are adequately informed about the risks if nearly half of them don't think it represents a serious harm?"
This pretty much sums up the attitude of health experts. They see themselves as "informing" otherwise ignorant people about health risks. If many of them persist in not seeing danger, it can only be because thay haven't been "adequately informed".
What's actually happening is that, in assessing risk, most people are not ignorant, but are relying on their own experience and common sense, and the accumulated experience of everyone they know. This is what people have always done. They also assess the merits of authoritative claims by health experts in exactly the same way. And the common sense view of secondhand tobacco smoke is that it's harmless.
Experts of every variety always act to belittle and subvert common sense. If nothing else, they have to do this if they are to be recognized as experts. But Siegel can't even recognize that there is such a thing as common sense. Or that it's anything worthy of consideration. In his view, there are simply the recognized experts in the field (of which he is one), and the stupid dumb people who need to be "informed" of the current state of that expert opinion.
But common sense is not as trivial and unimportant as he thinks. It remains the principal way in which human beings form opinions. Common sense may be very slow, and frequently inaccurate - but because it pools and weighs and continually sifts beliefs, it usually gets things pretty much right in the end. The rise of democracy might be regarded as the having been the gradual triumph of common sense over the expert opinion of kings.
Michael Siegel may belong to a select little group of tobacco control experts. But everyone else mostly just uses common sense. And that is by far the best thing they could ever use.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/
video...dhand.smoke.cnn
30 minutes causes heart attacks and a county in Indiana as far as this MRI stuff 15 people just does not seem like a large enough study. I thought that He-3 and nitrogen testing required multiple testing over time to show legit results and has the study been published? Look who funded it NIH and the money the airline workers never got through H & B institute. What about CNNs Dr E Cohen? come on Dr Mike ask for equal time to correct her.
Can someone please translate "infer a causal association" from epidemiological speak into plain English?
Kevin,
ETS is deadly?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
britai...2179753,00.html
GreatScot
For those interested in the PACT/Repace Pennsylvania casino air quality study fiasco, I have just dealt with it a bit on my new blog. I am wondering why Dr. Siegel has so far ignored this attempt to use shaky ETS science to strongarm public health policy.
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/
I wonder why we only discuss "workplace" bans as they refer to bars and restaurants. What about workers with building wide and -- worse-- "campus"-wide bans? Why is there no place they can smoke indoors, not only for their comfort but their vaunted "productivity."?
A guy I know--a highly-prized major exec-- took a very early retirement because of the ban. He simply said, "I'm too old and too rich to put up with s---, and I'm damned if I'm going to huddle in a doorway." Most people just aren't rich enough to quit and have to put up with far too much totally unnecessary s---.
Lewis Lapham, owner/editor of Harper's Magazine sold it and moved out when he could no longer smoke in his private inner office no matter that he'd given it special ventilation.
For example.
:
It seems to me that all these 30 minute claims and massive drops in heart attacks are the flash powder and sleight of hand of a fairground conjuror. After all, no magician simply walks onto a stage and announces he is one and expects you to believe.
As with any miracle worker, they have to produce miracles, and as smokers will insist on being healthy , the miracles have to get more extreme.
Dr Doll we know, learned the link in Germany, but it seems the more we know , the original science was to prove a point, rather than for understanding. The nicotine propaganda, now its being tested on millions of people is proving to be a lie.How far does the deception go, is anything about it true?
Rose "Dr Doll we know, learned the link in Germany..."
In this link Rose, we can see how an effectively manageed crisis can help a company recover from damages. But J & J (home of the RWJF--you know the one funding many of the smoking bans) learned so much more. They, in fact, learned what panic would do to drive the public. They have successfully created this 'panic' all in the quest to market their NRT.
~snip~
' Therein lays the value of the Tylenol example: It confirms that the first step to effectively managing a crisis is to ask "What is the public thinking? What will their reaction to this news be?"
http://www.dna13.com/dynamic/art...hits-3-
392.html
I think they learned very well how to 'manage' a crisis. Especially when you are creating that crisis.
.
.
I'm sorry, but for the last week or two I keep coming across this latest "finding":
Smoking Increases Risk of Rectal Cancer
And I can't contain myself in terms of remarking. It's the one study I might believe has some truth to it...
Caused by anti-smokers shoving their noses up our butts.
*
OMG JTF
How funny is that??!!!! I will not comment further.
That is a complete reversal of the previous studies, even I know that!
Btw, I have a question for Dr Siegel, I wonder if he would answer it.
I read somewhere that under the regulations a pig shed must be 95% enclosed, whereas a smoking shelter by law, must be at least 50% exposed to the elements.
Is the Doctor in a full agreement with this as their would be no nonsmoking bar staff in there?
Sunz
Ostrich plumes in 19 colours
http://www.randallribbons.co.uk/
...athermounts.htm
Sunz;
The J&J example has been used by business strategy workshops and presenters for many years as an example of corporate leadership. I attended such a workshop 15 years back and was told the story almost verbatum of the article you found.
The real story at the link is the page itself. I came across DNA13 a few years back when they launched. This is a tool to control what is being said in the media, to make any lobby campaign more targeted and effective. The authors touted it as a way to define "what the public is allowed to hear" on any given subject.
The idea is to continually monitor all the major and many minor news venues to find out what journalists are saying; to "focus attention on those journalists" and "to make any required changes" to smooth out any public challenge to your targeted media campaign.
The software is very much connected to the smoking ban strategy here in Ontario.
The Ontario Premier told the public the province had invested millions in software to improve the health care system. What he didn't tell us was the software was a network investment created by the same software group in Ottawa, to cut travel expenses of the then forming, health care network of lobby group propagandists, based in Waterloo Ontario.
A networking conferencing and information data base for use by his little army of manipulators. The DNA13 software was very likely part of the package.
Recently I was asked to join a letter writing campaign to oppose such an adjustment. The local variety stores have an association which sponsors in part a magazine to relay information to their members. When the editor allowed an op-ed article which challenged the smoking ban recently the editor was threatened either censure the author and stop challenging the ban, or loose the advertising revenues of the association. This by the way is an association under siege by the current government with kids deliberately dressed up to look older purchasing cigarettes to allow the owners to be charged the hiding of displays is well underway in addition to the huge taxes making robberies skyrocket, with cigarettes a primary target of thieves, The increase in murders and assaults is being largely ignored and hidden from the press.
While behind the scenes an author who speaks for the members is being silenced without any knowledge of the members who pay the bill.
Thats how you make adjustments in Public Health. By silencing all dissenters.
The author was Luc Marshall who wrote an excellent piece which in a free society, should be allowed. If a discussion is an exchange of opposing views. In tobacco Control this is about fore drawn conclusions and silencing all opposition.
I can forward the email which includes the article to anyone who is interested.
The magazine editor apparently doesn't like to be undermined by the threats, however her hands may be tied.
Nemo,
Thanks for the link to the CNN report. At least we know that these reporters are not researching or else they would know the falsehoods of the 30 minute dangers. Anyone can read off a teleprompter and report what someone else wants them to say. But they also site that 70% number again. I love that one. On the otherhand, those people in the bars sure looked like they were having a good time, didn't they? That is what it is all about though, isn't it? Pleasure in any form must be eliminated! Hope none of these reporters enjoys a dash of salt on their food either. Tonight on ABC world news, Charlie Gibson will be reporting and asking if Government should beable to dictate how much salt we can have per day. Personnally, I am more concerned about that Surgeon in Rhode Island who operated on the wrong side of a brain. These Public Health people can't even tell the difference between left and right! This is the 4th surgical mistake at the same hospital in one month, yet they know who much salt I can eat? Or even how many minutes of secondhand smoke is safe?
Diane---'...yet they know who much salt I can eat? Or even how many minutes of secondhand smoke is safe?
Yep Diane, it is MUCH easier to mind someone elses business than to mind your own. Especially when your own business is a MESS. I guess you didn't get the memo.
Oooh look!
I have been wondering why they banned herbal cigarettes for ages.
"The TUC is concerned that the proposed definition will allow the smoking of herbal cigarettes. This could lead to people mixing tobacco with herbal mixtures to disguise the fact they are smoking tobacco. In addition the smoke from many herbal mixtures is just as likely to trigger asthma attacks. While the evidence of harm relates only to tobacco at present, this is because no or little research has been done on the effects of herbal mixtures and we are surprised that the D of H is not taking a precautionary approach. We would prefer the definition to cover tobacco and other herbal products."
So they have banned herbal cigarettes with no scientific evidence of harm whatsoever.
That leads us into very dangerous ground.
http://smokefree.ash.positive-
de...submission.html
1.3% increased risk to non-smokers and the Cleveland Clinic is NOT hiring smokers PERIOD along with 6000 other businesses, if that number can be believed. When did we cross THIS misguided bridge.
You people won't even believe this but most employees I work with at the Cleveland Clinic are not even aware of the new hiring policy, even the pulmonary specialist. They really snuck it in under the radar Sept 1. Tho if you go to apply for a job it will state that you will be tested for nicotine (tomorrow it will be BMI, cholesterol, sugar...)
Just amazing how unaware or uncaring the public is when their liberties are chipped away at...by totalitarian do-gooders such as Toby Cosgrove CEO whose goal is to have "the healthiest workforce in the world".
God help us.
I am doing all I can to WAKE UP my fellow employees. Doc, please focus some of your efforts on THIS angle.
I need help. Thank you.
Toby Cosgroves goal of having 'the healthiest workforce in the world' is easy to achieve. Simply find the single individual that best matches 'healthy'. Then fire everybody else. Result: "The healthiest workforce in the world".
Rose, - "Btw, I have a question for Dr Siegel, I wonder if he would answer it."
Good luck Rose, the Doc doesn't answer questions that simply don't interest him, or that in any way challenge the "science" if those questions are based on common sense and real world application.
EXAMPLE:
A question for you Doctor Siegel;
In all of the "research" you have conducted or had a hand in, are the terms Liberty, Freedom, Self Determination, or Personal Risk Assesment ever considered before, during or after such "consensus of Opinion" are arrived at?
Do you care what impact your "authoritative" personal opinion has on these intangibles, or are these things, like the risk you so often claim as deadly (40 years from now) statistically insignificant as well?
A little loss of liberty is acceptable to you?
A little less freedom is a good thing for everybody NOT affected by it?
People are too stupid to decide for themselves?
Personal risk assesment is over-rated and should be left to the "experts"?
Are statistically insignificant risk factors enough to cause the polarization of a nations population and force the rescision of civil liberties, erosion of Private property rights, and further diminish EVERYONES freedom even though common sense, practical experience, and real world application clearly dictate that answer to be a resounding NO?
(At what point are YOU adequately warned of this outcome if you persist in proceeding along this course?)
What can the readers here do to persuade you of the damage done, and if we do, would you continue along this course even after being adequately informed of the damage?
OR, would you continue anyway, just as I continue to smoke?
At what point do you give up in warning people?
Even if you were able to recite to me the entire volume of knowledge accumulated from your 20 plus years of "TC" fantasy (word for word), ...I would still keep smoking, and further I would still scoff at your delusional notion that YOU get to decide whats best for ME.
AM I still uninformed after this?
Simply because I don't buy any of it?
At what point do you accept the fact that you tried your best, ...and failed? (at least as far as persons like myself are concerned)
Unfortunately for you and your colleagues, I fall into the category so often used in "Public Health" in the most derogatory manner: HARD CORE SMOKER (you bet'cha!)
Unless you can demonstrate a one to one link between cancer and smoking, or definitively PROVE (not infer, imply, or casually associate) that SHS has killed anyone directly, and specifically with SHS as THE cause, as
the ONLY cause, you have no case as far as I am concerned, and so far you're woefully lacking in evidence. But hey, that's just me.
My interest lies not in your fairytale studies, or quasi scientific statistical information, but in the direct, harmful, quantifiable damage done to this country as a result of your misguided self-important perception of "TC" being required to save us from ourselves.
While you continue to differentiate yourself from the more bizarre elements of TC, (this is a good thing) you still believe the incredibly low risk percentages that are routinely discounted in every other scientific field of study as insignificant,are still high enough that you must devote yourself to "helping" us to see the light and conform to the wishes of, and in the interest of public health.
You couldn't be more wrong.
I can prove the damage to the fabric of the country.
You can't prove that SHS kills.
In Michigan, only 3% of the population do not have any of the risk factors (smoking, obesity, lack of exercise, high blood pressure/cholesterol)for heart disease. So a whole lot of firing would have to go on for the few jobs we have left.
The NY Times today had an article on the increase of COPD in the "Virginia Slims" generation of women. That's old news. Wait till someone comes up with second hand smoke caused COPD.
Count me in with LightningBoy as a Hard Core Smoker.
To be honest, even IF all your claims could be proven to be absolute truths, I doubt I would quit smoking. I enjoy it, and I'd rather go out enjoying than live and die miserably missing.
Doc has already said no one has paid a high enough price to revisit the reason for bans. Apparently one dead woman shot for smoking does not, in the slightest way, outweigh the lack of a single SHS death. The people that have not died far outweigh the one or two that have due to the hate campaign. That's ok though, obviously nonsmokers are much more important to society than a couple of dead smokers.
While I'm not trying to appeal to emotionalism, quite frankly that is exactly how it appears. Not one dead person due to SHS, however people have been beaten, shot, ran over, and apparently choked to death thanks to the scare, and that's not a high enough payment. And my mother wonders why I'm cynical and hate people...
Jales,
It has been my experience that control freaks, never, never will accept the responsibility for the havoc the create.
.
Which is a shame, because they are the ones that cause the most damage.
We also can't forget the elderly in Ontario that have broken hips, or died out in the cold. Right now there is a vet residence that is trying to get the "provincially approved CSR" built; and it has only been in the potential works for a year. It is now only one of the 20 facilities that will allow smoking to the 75,000 potential clients across Ontario.
Delay fires up smokers -ON http://www.canada.com/ottawaciti...94-
3790078e0fff
See more of the elderly home situation
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=4100
Lynda F, - "To be honest, even IF all your claims could be proven to be absolute truths, I doubt I would quit smoking. I enjoy it, and I'd rather go out enjoying than live and die miserably missing."
This is what makes us HARDCORE Lynda.
The fact that we will think, and make a choice for OURSELVES that the "experts" disagree with.
I'm not asking for approval from anyone.
Petty people just irritate the hell outt'a me.
Petty people just irritate the hell outt'a me.
LB, I agree totally. Add to the are the ones with such weak immune systems that every time the wind changes direction they are ill.........and those thin skinned ones who dish it out and can't take it.
Actually, come to think of it, I'm with Jalestra.............I just hate people these days.............hehehehehe
I'm not hardcore, I smoked ordinary herbal cigarettes just as happily for a fortnight until my family begged me to go back to tobacco because it was less pungent.I may well do the same again, just to deprive ASH of some funding.
But I will NOT give up smoking, simply because I enjoy it.
Having read the benefits of tiny amounts of carbon monoxide,I am beginning to understand why.
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/
pres...ideresearch.htm
Utopia
Here's some hope. Seems as tho a smokers' class action suit may be in the works about employment discrimination.
Excerpt from Smokers' Club newsletter:
If you are a current or former employee of a company with such a policy and fall into one of the following categories, please contact one of the persons listed at the bottom of this page:
1. A smoker currently employed at a company which imposes higher healthcare premiums on smokers than non-smokers;
2. A smoker currently employed at a company which terminates persons who smoke; or;
3. A smoker terminated by a company as a result of a no-smoking policy.
For more information, contact:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq. jbarton@cmht.com
Abby Scott ascott@cmht.com
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600
:
To Both Rose & Walt
Thanks for the posts.
Very informative.
.
Sorry
Walt~Thanx I WILL pass that info along.
Soren~I guess I would be the only one left working for the Cleveland Clinic. I am a very healthy speciment~or was until the stress of all this madness got to me, not to mention 30 years of nursing..never mind.
(They'd be doing me a favor, can't wait to get out of "health" care.)
why is there no spell check on these blogs? oh well i can live with that...
thanx you people for understanding and being there...it helps a LOT
Sunz
I wasn't to interested in science at school but this is fun.
"Solanesol extract for instance is used in both cardiac and cancer drugs, nicotine sulphate is used as a pesticide, and leaf protein and oil are the edible extracts.
"You can get 350 grams of edible oil from 1,000 grams of tobacco seed," says Dr BN Patel, research scientist at BTRS. The station has already extracted the oil which it claims can compete with any other oil in the market.
"The polyunsaturated fatty acid (Pufa) level of tobacco oil is as good as sunflower oil," Patel adds. "We have the know-how and the procedure if any businessman is interested."
AKA nicotine stains
sorry forgot the link
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...0,prtpage-
1.cms
Thanks so much Rose. Much appreciated.
.
Sunz
Are you any any good at chemistry? I keep coming up with benzene from petroleum products, benzoin as a fragrant resin and benzoic acid in fruit.
But the EPA says benzene as in coal derivative is in tobacco, but not as an additive.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthe...ef/
benzene.html
"Benzene is found in emissions from burning coal and oil, motor vehicle exhaust, and evaporation from gasoline service stations and in industrial solvents. These sources contribute to elevated levels of benzene in the ambient air, which may subsequently be breathed by the public. (1)
Tobacco smoke contains benzene and accounts for nearly half the national exposure to benzene. (1)
Individuals may also be exposed to benzene by consuming contaminated water"
Thats the second EPA profile I've found involving plastic , coal, oil and .... tobacco
Tobacco smoke contains benzene and accounts for nearly half the national exposure to benzene.
I, for one, would like to know how that is even possible. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Gabz
Strange isn't it?
Formaldehyde is in apples!
http://www.formaldehyde-
europe.o...ral_Product.pdf
EPA
"The major sources appear to be power plants, manufacturing facilities, incinerators, and automobile exhaust emissions. (7)
Smoking is another important source of formaldehyde."
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthe...f/
formalde.html
"Very small amounts of formaldehyde are found naturally in the human body."
wonder in what levels compared to Tobacco smoke?
http://www.idph.state.il.us/
envh...ormaldehyde.htm
.
Opps forgot this link
http://www.formaldehyde-
europe.o...ral_Product.pdf
Sunz
Incidentally, I have not had a cigarette made with tobacco for 5 hours, I went out and bought some herbal ready mades, which are not very nice but thats beside the point.
No withdrawal,no cravings, but not as sharp as I usually am.
Side effects - husband is complaining that the house smells like a bonfire
Mean Daily Exposure Estimate Based on Living with a Smoker, μg/day*
Confirmed Exposures of Teenagers in Urban Environments from Non-Smoking Homes, μg/day**
Formaldehyde 66* 230**
Acetaldehyde 126* 260**
Benzene 14* 94**
* Estimate based on 16 Cities exposures to nicotine and Baek/Jenkins chamber study, Atm. Env, 38, 6583 (2004)
** Estimate based on Kinney et al, Env. Hlth. Persp. 110/S4, 539 (2002)
Human Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Is What You See What You Get?? Roger A. Jenkins, Ph.D.
http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
ets_exposure_jenkins.pdf
As you can see the dogma of exposure is alive and well; yet we don't have any people scientifically daying its wrong (anonymously)! Boy finding a link that proves a fellow advocate wrong, really must be hard to do.
BTW you will also find benzene exposure coming form drinking colas, orange pop. The FDA recently had a release about the high amounts in many pops recently.
Here is the Candian information on the issue "The average benzene levels in cherry flavoured Kool-Aid Jammers "10" drinks (old formulation) from Lot 1 were 15 µg/L and from Lot 2, 19 µg/L. The average benzene levels in tropical punch flavoured Kool-Aid Jammers "10" drinks (old formulation) from Lot 1 were 18 µg/L and from Lot 2, 23 µg/L." PS the allowable level is 5ug/L
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/
sur..._enquete_e.html
Distribution of Constituents in Fresh, Undiluted Mainstream Smoke (MS) and Diluted Sidestream Smoke (SS) from Nonfiltered Cigarettes
Constituents Amount in MS per Cigarette /SS/MS Ratio
Benz[a]anthracene 20 - 70 ng /2 - 4
Benzo[a]pyrene 20 - 40 ng /2.5 - 3.5
*nanogram= One-billionth of a gram (10-6 g)or (1/1,000,000of a gram)
From: PROPOSED IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE AS A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT
State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD APPENDIX III PART A – EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT -page III-4,5
Bill you really should look at the science a bit better. It's sad when a layman (me) can discount your dogma so quickly. Now let me get this straight
15000000 ug/l in pop is not more exposure then 200ug (40ug times 3.5) is more dangerous then what the maximum is for all the SHS in one cigarette?? Although they still allow 5mg/l (5000 ug) in "clean" water that your drinking from your tap. (BTW 1 quart =.946 litre)
** corrected version:
Mean Daily Exposure Estimate Based on Living with a Smoker, μg/day*
Confirmed Exposures of Teenagers in Urban Environments from Non-Smoking Homes, μg/day**
Formaldehyde 66* 230**
Acetaldehyde 126* 260**
Benzene 14* 94**
* Estimate based on 16 Cities exposures to nicotine and Baek/Jenkins chamber study, Atm. Env, 38, 6583 (2004)
** Estimate based on Kinney et al, Env. Hlth. Persp. 110/S4, 539 (2002)
Human Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Is What You See What You Get?? Roger A. Jenkins, Ph.D.
http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/ ets_exposure_jenkins.pdf
As you can see the dogma of exposure is alive and well; yet we don't have any people scientifically daying its wrong (anonymously)! Boy finding a link that proves a fellow advocate wrong, really must be hard to do.
BTW you will also find benzene exposure coming form drinking colas, orange pop. The FDA recently had a release about the high amounts in many pops recently.
Here is the Candian information on the issue "The average benzene levels in cherry flavoured Kool-Aid Jammers "10" drinks (old formulation) from Lot 1 were 15 µg/L and from Lot 2, 19 µg/L. The average benzene levels in tropical punch flavoured Kool-Aid Jammers "10" drinks (old formulation) from Lot 1 were 18 µg/L and from Lot 2, 23 µg/L." PS the allowable level is 5ug/L
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/ sur..._enquete_e.html
Distribution of Constituents in Fresh, Undiluted Mainstream Smoke (MS) and Diluted Sidestream Smoke (SS) from Nonfiltered Cigarettes
Constituents Amount in MS per Cigarette /SS/MS Ratio
Benz[a]anthracene 20 - 70 ng /2 - 4
Benzo[a]pyrene 20 - 40 ng /2.5 - 3.5
* 1 nanogram= One-billionth of a gram (10-9 g)or (1/1,000,000,000 of a gram)
1 µg= one Millionth of a gram (10-6) or (1/1,000,000 of a gram)
From: PROPOSED IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE AS A TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT
State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD APPENDIX III PART A – EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT -page III-4,5
Bill you really should look at the science a bit better. It's sad when a layman (me) can discount your dogma so quickly. Now let me get this straight
15 ug/l in pop is not more exposure then 200ng or .200ug (40ng times 3.5)is more dangerous then what the maximum is for all the SHS in one cigarette?? Although they still allow 5,000 ng/l (5 ug) in "clean" water that your drinking from your tap. (BTW 1 quart =.946 litre)
Santayana: Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim. (Life of Reason 1905)
Rose wrote:
"Sunz
Are you any any good at chemistry? I keep coming up with benzene from petroleum products, benzoin as a fragrant resin and benzoic acid in fruit."
I've never studied why you find benzene in tobacco smoke, but seeing how you find it in various food sources, beef, poultry, nuts and fruits (I believe), it could be its absorbed from fall out from air pollution.
Either that or it's formed in the burning process.
Somebody brought up formaldehyde, which I once researched. I quote my own results:
The OSHA standards for the safe daily workplace exposure to formaldeyde is 0.75 parts per million (ppm) per hour per 8 hour day. (1)
>Yet according EPA, "If you live in an unpopulated area, you may be exposed to about 0.2 parts per billion (ppb) of formaldehyde in the air outdoors. In suburban areas, you may be exposed to about 2-6 ppb of formaldehyde [10 to 30 times as much, and way over OSHA's PEL] . If you live in a heavily populated area or near some industries, you may be exposed to 10-20 ppb. You may also be exposed to higher levels of formaldehyde during rush hour commutes in highly populated areas because it is formed in automobile and truck exhaust." (2)
>Fifteen cigarettes smoked in a small room have been shown to yield 0.19 ppm (or about what you'd inhale while polishing your nails since it's also in nail polish) and even 30 cigarettes experimentally smoked in a small and entirely unventilated chamber yielded in a range of from 0.21 to 0.45ppm. And these are under conditions not encountered in real life. Further, 2 hours after the smokers had left, the airborne formaldehyde was down to 0.08 ppm. (3)
>For further comparison, according to EPA, interiors with significant amounts of pressed wood could expose you to levels of 0.3 ppm (and if the wood is in your home, the daily exposure could be all day and night. (4). That's just for openers. Formaldehyde is also off-gassed by home or office carpets, by fabrics and drapes, by everyday cleaning products and paints, by fireplaces, stoves, and other items below.
>Nor has exposure to even high levels been proven to cause cancer. While some studies of industrial workers exposed to formaldehyde have indicated a higher relative risk of developing cancer, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, "other studies did not confirm this finding." ( 5)
>Then too there's this: Formaldehyde in the air is quickly broken down into two other substances: carbon dioxide and formic acid. Using OSHA standards, two studies have shown that in order to reach the maximum permissible (safe) exposure to formic acid, one would have to assume that nearly 1800 people were simultaneously lighting up in a sealed and completely unventilated room of 100 cubic meters (or 20 x 20 feet.) (6) And to repeat, at that level the exposure would still be "safe."
>Finally, here's a partial list of other activities and everyday objects that produce formaldehyde and put it into the air:
automobile exhaust,
gas stoves,
wood burning fireplaces,
latex paint,
permanent press fabrics,
dishwashing liquids,
fabric softeners,
wet-strength paper towels,
everyday cleaning products,
glues and adhesives,
shoe polish,
nail polish,
nail hardeners,
shampoos,
toothpaste,
lipsticks,
antiseptics,
disinfectants,
fiberglass,
foam insulation,
particleboard
plywood.
(1) http:// www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/725.html
(2) http://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/fo...s/
formald.shtml
(3) "Formaldehyde determination in tobacco smoke-- studies under experimental and actual conditions," Schaller et al, Zentralbl Hyg, 1989
(4) http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html
(5) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gove/tfacts111.html
(6) Gori & Mantel (title TK); also Littlewood & Fennell
http://www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html
:
Thanks for the post Walt, thats the formaldehyde I'd imagined but then I found this.
"Formaldehyde Also a Natural Product.
Formaldyhyde is natural.It exists in the human body as it does in parts of nature, in low,but measurable concentrations.Formaldehyde is a normal product needed for cell metabolism in mammals and humans.It is quickly decomposed during the human metabolism process.This is why formaldehyde neither accumulates in the human body nor in the environment.It is not stored in the body because it is always rapidly oxidised or biodegraded".
So are they trying to portray it as big and scary in our cigarettes?
http://www.formaldehyde-
europe.o...ral_Product.pdf
sorry that last line should have -why- in it.
Got em talking in Witchita
http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/...sastm&
tid=15939
.
And more from Kansas:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/200...nsive/
#comments
.
Cigarette sales down, tobacco taxes up only $57 million
"TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) -- Since Arizona voters approved a big tobacco tax increase and a ban on smoking in bars a year ago, sales of cigarettes around the state have fallen by millions of packs"
"The Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System dipped into the general fund to make up for declining tax dollars, but the state's dark economic outlook and expected budget tightening could limit or eliminate that option."
http://www.fox11az.com/news/
tops...n.53b409da.html
Looks like they killed the golden goose
More volunteer work from Mr. Godshall
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...6/838493-
85.stm
~snip~
'Legislators are caught in a crossfire from anti-smoking advocates such as Mr. Godshall and his allies, such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society, and from opposite groups, who don't want to be overregulated by the state.'
'Mr. Godshall, the antismoking advocate, said preserving a locality's right to enact its own clean air law is the most important issue to him.'
You know in days gone by such a busy volunteer would be call a busybody and shunned.
This new crop are called 'advocates'. They are given free reign.
.
.
From Rose's Arizona link:
"So other state funds and programs that get tobacco tax revenue, including the state's health care program for the poor, got about $17 million less in 2006-07 than they got in 2005-06."
If smoking bans create such a downturn in heart attack admissions, and you'd also think cancer rates, asthma attacks and other respiratory disorders, they should be swimming in money.
Hi, guys.
Just thought I'd throw in a few samples of real causal factors of increasing disease rates from behind the smokescreen.
http://www.chem-tox.com/
pesticid...tm#applications
Despite chemical industry claims of DDT banning supposedly being responsible for malaria increases, DDT was apparently reserved for essential use in malaria-prone areas, as chronic use of insecticide chemicals over time produces resistant pest strains, as had already occurred in this case with nearly all previously useful pesticides. (Have info and URLs [I think previously posted] somewhere, will dig up and [re]post at some point.)
DDT is, however, a vastly damaging endocrine disruptor not to be used lightly.
Yet surprising levels have been found in the bodies and breast milk of various North American and other people tested, with typically smaller amounts in children.
But even chemicals supposedly unused for agriculture in the U.S. are apparently kept stockpiled and replenished regularly, maintaining chemical company profit; the health effects of such exposures are typically attributed to smoking/ETS and other human choice.
Please take the time to run down the list on this site, and see how many 'ETS' and 'smoking-related' diseases are caused by common chemicals of types which representative sampling tests have found in human bodies.
A few examples follow.
Pesticide Inhalation Associated with Brain and Lung Cancer
SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 71(1), July 1983'
A study of 3,827 Florida pesticide applicators employed for 20 or more years found they had nearly 3 times the risk for developing lung cancer. The same study also showed the pesticide applicators had twice the risk for brain cancer. There was not any increased cancer risk when applicators were studied for only 5 years implying it takes over 5 years to accumulate enough damage to the genetic structure to develop the cancers.
The Pesticide Chlordane Contaminates Most U.S. Homes
SOURCE: Teratogenesis, Carcinogenesis, and Mutagenesis 7:527-540, 1987
There is approximately a 75% chance you are breathing the pesticide chlordane every minute you are inside your home if your home was built before March of 1988. Other studies have shown there is a 6-7% chance you are breathing dangerously high levels of the pesticide which are above the guidelines set by the National Academy of Sciences. This problem is occurring because over 30 million homes were treated with the chemical prior to its being banned by the EPA in March of 1988. The air chlordane studies were conducted by the U.S. Air Force and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Regulation. Over 1000 homes and apartments were tested in different parts of the nation. The researchers stated they expect the figures to remain the same throughout the country because of standardized application practices by the pest control companies. If you would like more detailed information on the chlordane problem and the health effects suspected for the millions of Americans living in chlordane treated homes - visit the chlordane web site by clicking this link.
Samuel S. Epstein and David Ozonoff
Chief Environmental Health Section
Boston University School of Public Health, Boston Massachuset
link above to http://www.chem-tox.com/chlordan...rdane/
index.htm
The Chlordane Pesticide Problem
Information on how the now banned pesticide chlordane is still harming the health of millions of people in the United States and other countries today.
Doctors and scientists who are knowledgeable on the chlordane problem state millions of adults and children are becoming sick by living in homes built before April, 1988 (the period when chlordane, originally developed by Monsanto, was allowed to be used). Chlordane contaminates the air of over 30 million U.S. homes by diffusion through concrete flooring - ceiling drywall - or outgassing from previously treated indoor areas. Documented health problems can include child cancers, neuroblastoma, leukemia, chronic infections, bronchitis, asthma, sinusitis, infertility, neurological disorders, aggression and depression.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of obvious odor or easily administered test, most occupants are unaware this pesticide is in the indoor air they are breathing hour after hour.
Chlordane Causes Neurological Disorders and A.D.D. Symptoms
SOURCE: Environmental Health Perspectives, 103:690-694, 1995
In 1987, over 250 adults and children were exposed to the pesticide chlordane when the wooden building surfaces and soil around their apartment complex was sprayed. Their exposure came from the vapors that entered into their home for the years after the chemical's application. Levels inside the homes were reported above 0.5 mg/m3.
In June-September 1994, 216 adult occupants or former residents of the apartment complex were examined by researchers at the University of Southern California School of Medicine in Los Angeles. The 109 women and 97 men were given a battery of neurological tests to determine if the low levels of chlordane in their apartments was causing any harmful effects. The tests given are considered sensitive indicators of neurotoxicity. To determine if chlordane was in fact causing neurological problems, the test scores of the chlordane exposed adults were compared to the test scores of 94 women and 68 men from Houston, known not to have been exposed to chlordane.
Results of the testing showed many negative effects upon mental function from the low levels of air chlordane. Not only were test scores lower for reaction time, balance, and memory, but also worse scores were observed in the test checking for attention deficits (digit symbol) and all tests of mood scores including tension, depression, anger, vigor and fatigue.
Going beyond the neurological testing, both groups were also investigated for many common symptoms and illnesses. Those which were significantly more common in the chlordane exposed group included asthma, allergies, production of phlegm, chronic bronchitis by Medical Research Council criteria, and wheezing with and without shortness of breath. Headaches and indigestion were also more common among the chlordane exposed individuals.
In summary Dr. Kilburn and Thornton summarized their findings by stating,
"The exposure of our study group appears to be from indoor air, due to the outgassing of chlordane from the wooden surfaces of the apartment complex... Examination of subjects exposed in their homes to chlordane as compared to referent subjects showed significant, and we suggest important, impairment of both the neurophysiological and psychological functions including mood states. Accompanying these changes were significant differences in symptom frequency and in respiratory rheumatic and cardiovascular disease symptoms. The most notable changes were slowing of reaction time, balance dysfunction as revealed by increased sway speed, reduction in cognitive function, perceptual motor speed, and immediate and delayed verbal recall... The neurobehavioral impairments measured in this environmental epidemiological study were similar to those noted in patients exposed to chlordane at home. These impairments include probably irreversible dysfunction of the brain. Possible effects on trigeminal nerve-pons-facial nerve function were suggested for the first time. Confirmatory studies, including follow-up after removal from exposure, are urgently needed. Meanwhile, chlordane use should be prohibited worldwide."
This study should generate heightened concern because of the large number of neurological and health effects seen at chlordane air levels of above 0.5m g/m3 (typical levels for most U.S. homes) and statements by researchers that developing children are harmed more by chemicals than adults. For more information on the chlordane problem and the health effects of living in a chlordane treated home - visit the chlordane web site by clicking this link.
Dr. Kaye H. Kilburn and John C. Thornton
Environmental Sciences Laboratory
University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles
Pet Bladder Cancer Linked to Home Pesticide Use
SOURCE: Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health; 28 (4). 1989. 407-414
A case-control study of household dogs was conducted to determine if exposure to sidestream cigarette smoke and chemicals in the home, use of topical insecticides, and obesity are associated with the occurrence of bladder cancer. Information was obtained by interview from owners of 59 dogs with transitional-cell carcinoma of the bladder and 71 age- and breed size-matched control dogs with other chronic diseases or neoplasms. Bladder cancer risk was unrelated to sidestream cigarette smoke and household chemical exposures. Risk was significantly increased by topical insecticide use. When dogs were given 1-2 topical pesticide applications per year, there was a 60% increased risk of bladder cancer. When animals were given more than 2 pesticide applications per year there was a 3.5 times increased risk for the animal developing bladder cancer (chitrend; p = .00. This risk was enhanced in overweight or obese dogs. Further studies of this canine model may facilitate identification of specific carcinogens present in insecticides commonly used on pet animals and in the environment.
Department of Pathobiology
Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
(TBC)
(Con't)
Pesticides Blamed for Higher Cancer Rates
SOURCE: Winnipeg CBC News - June 7, 2004
WINNIPEG - Doctors at a weekend conference in Winnipeg say there is a disturbing trend when it comes to the rising rate of certain cancers. They say pesticides are to blame for the increase – especially in childhood cancers. Steve Rauh chairs the environment committee for the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg. He says 70 per cent of the toxins we are exposed to come from the foods we eat. He wants to see policy changes that would encourage organic farming. "Our department of agriculture does not provide the kind of support to organic farming that it ought to be providing," he says. The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has taken a strong position against municipalities using pesticides. It has also written papers on climate change.
(Their recommendations were also ignored by Wpg. officials, and Malathion not only continued to be sprayed over medical and public protest but not even cleaned from children's playground equipment, except by volunteers.
Children, unless useful as adult control devices, are highly expendable.
The following is more a progressively common problem among the general population, although maternal smoking/ETS exposure during pregnancy has been recently claimed to harm the foetal brain - doubtless explaining the problems exhibited by antis?)
Brain Damage Linked to Lawn Pesticides
SOURCE: 3 references listed below
The pesticide MCPA, used as an ingredient is some lawn pesticides, has been found to damage a part of the brain known as the blood brain barrier (1). The blood brain barrier is the brain's primary defense system which works to keep toxic substances out of the brain cells and is literally protecting all of us from developing immediate neurological illness. The blood brain barrier has been found to be defective more often in patients with Alzheimers and some psychiatric disorders (2). In fact, the lack of functioning of the blood brain barrier in the human infant has been reported on many occasions as being the reason why an infant is being found to develop brain damage after exposure to common chemicals while an adult with a mature blood brain barrier does not. Unfortunately, EPA neurotoxicologist Dr. Bill Sette stated EPA does not yet require chemical companies to test any of their pesticides for causing blood brain barrier damage. Another study of 56 men exposed to organophosphate pesticides detected memory problems and difficulty in maintaining alertness and focusing attention (3). Each of these studies will be listed here in greater detail shortly as our web site completes development. As the understanding of blood brain barrier function is of critical importance to understanding why one individual can receive more damage to his/her nervous system than someone else, we will also include a blood brain barrier site with the address www.chem-tox.com/bbb.
1. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 65:23, 1982
2. British Journal of Psychiatry, 141:273, 1982
3. Annual Reviews in Public Health, 7:461, 1986
..................................
But with every published study and indication showing toxic industry products/pollution to be the root of our ills, industry PR-generated accusation of human choice - most commonly smoking - supposedly causing these instead floods the media, with democracy essentially blamed as the source of all evil and humans claimed incompetent and requiring global industry to make their personal choices and determine their lives, deaths, purchases and other decisions.
Not only is the PR-created mantra of personal choices of smoking, diet and exercise or magically defective genes constantly invoked in redirecting blame for toxic illnesses to the victims, but society is to be divided into separate groups, each intent only on criticizing and attacking the others; divided we fall, tripping each other all the way, unnoticing of the inciters picking our pockets all the way down - to ultimately drown in a polluted gutter likely soon devoid of life.
Our natural allies should be the environmentalists, but we each have been convinced by toxic industry whispers that we are anathema to each other; together we'd represent a force to combat these hazards - isolated and disdained, we are left voiceless and ignored on even the most basic human level.
Regarding this and the recent DDT claims presented on this blog, do yourself a favour and check out
http://www.cbgnetwork.org/351.html
I don't see why we, as citizens who traditionally smoke a natural herb, should have to pay the fiscal health costs and bear the stigma of transferred liability for diseases caused by giant industries, as well as the personal health burden of about a hundred thousand artificial chemicals globally present.
And then to have their producers - our attackers - appeal through 'independent' media plants and organizations, PR and the duped in comparing themselves and their deadly if lucrative products to us, as though they were as wrongly accused as we've been through their strategies...
Not only are the sort of tactics used against us described here, but the propaganda suggested, as seen below, has been fed to and by posters on this site.
'The memo says Nichols-Dezenhall would also "create an independent PP watchdog group to act as an information clearinghouse and criticize the PP in public and media forums... The group could be structured as a tax-exempt organization." '
'Creating phony front groups is "patently deceptive in its effort to use third parties to carry the message because, understandably, the ACC lacks credibility and trust in any discussion of the safety of its members' products," said the letter from Bill Walker, EWG's vice president for the West Coast. "However, the third tactic, "selective intelligence gathering," pushes the ethical envelope toward dirty tricks, given Nichols-Dezenhall's reputation for such techniques." '
From the memo:
'In order to help California industry build awareness and respond to legislative and regulatory attacks on an as-needed basis, the American Chemistry Council is supporting and recommends an aggressive awareness campaign as outlined in the following strategies and tactics. We also believe that in order for such a campaign to succeed, it must be deployed in close coordination with - and with an aim to complement and enhance - the business community's current and future legislative advocacy efforts.
'Strategies
'1. Define the issues on our terms to stigmatize the PP, win control of the message war and build awareness of the negative consequences associated with its implementation.
'2. Generate support for our position by identifying, recruiting and mobilizing non-traditional allies in the scientific, academic and activist communities to call into action when needed to fight, or preempt unwelcome initiatives.
'3. Selectively challenge our adversaries and position their demands and political agenda as contrary to the best interests of Californians.
'Tactics
'1. Establish a computerized issue monitoring system to track all media, political, policy and regulatory information flow in California with regard to the PP. ID and catalogue the negative effects of the application/ implementation of PP and create a database for use by the coalition and allies for targeted response to initiatives.
'2. Conduct and publicize an economic-impact study to dramatize the potentially devastating impacts to industry and consumers should California broadly adapt PP-based legislation and regulation. The study could specify threats to both innovation and technology-development, as well as provide region-specific breakouts (e.g., LA, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, Imperial Valley) so as to create multiple media-pitch opportunities and to generate support among target audiences.
'3. Use satire and humor to demonstrate how, taken to its logical extreme, application of the PP would set Californians back to the stone ages. Tactics, through third-parties, would include websites, posters, bill boards, radio placements and internet communications.
'4. Harmonize messages through materials by developing an "information and response package", including a fact sheet with substantive arguments and media-friendly sound-bites for use by the coalition and third party allies.
'5. Media outreach - Provide a steady stream of information: studies, reports and other media products to advance the message and agenda of the coalition. Approach and educate conservative columnists and talk radio hosts on the issue to stimulate debate.
'6. Recruit and energize the business community by creating and publicizing a coalition-sponsored business roundtable or lecture series and/or conferences to educate potential allies about the PP and the consequences of its implementation. These could be held in Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and San Diego and done in conjunction with other business associations and/or California based think tanks.
'7. Conduct selective intelligence gathering about the plans, motivations and allies of opposition activists on an as needed basis. Focus on the PP "movement leadership" in the U.S., and in particular, California.
(TBC)
(Con't)
'8. Recruit and energize non-conventional third party critics. Mobilize existing critics of the PP while identifying, recruiting and arming new highly credible third party allies in from appropriate communities (e.g., the minority community, consumer activists, regulatory watchdogs, think tanks) to deliver messages critical of the PP concept that highlight the negative consequences of PP implementation. Encourage the formation of a second, non-business led coalition that can be used to provide testimony, demonstrations, press conferences and other defensive and pro-active situations.
'9. Create an independent PP watchdog group to act as an information clearinghouse and criticize the PP in public and media forums. For too long the "common sense" appeal of the PP has gone unopposed. This group would serve as a rallying point for industry and third-party voices in the debate and seek out opportunities to reactively and proactively raise the profile of the negative consequences of the PP. It is possible that the group could be structured as a 501(c) (3) or 501(c) (4) tax-exempt organization.
'10. Mount protests timed with debate/discussion/votes on PP-related legislative proposals. Mobilize recruited allies and PP watchdog group to vocally and visibly air arguments against the adoption of the PP in public forums, e.g., outside the capitol and/or local government hearing room.
'11. Draft and sponsor ordinances/resolutions rooted in risk management and sound science. Just as activists convinced the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to adopt an ordinance requiring the PP to factor into their decision-making, industry and its third-party allies could propose ordinances/resolutions that call on municipalities and the state government requiring "sound science" to factor into theirs.
'12. Fund a documentary and associated media blitz that examines "shocking" negative past consequences of the PP, in the context of present-day CA situations if possible. Possible topics include: the Peruvian outbreak of cholera; African nations' battle with malaria without DDT, vis-ŕ-vis the possible spread of West Nile virus.
'PROPOSED FIRST YEAR BUDGET
'Based on their previous experience executing similar tactics for other clients, Nichols-Dezenhall estimates ...'
What would anybody care to bet that the similar and too-familiar tactics described refer to anti tactics - especially since the only chemicals of hazard are typically stated to be natural, vegetative and found in tobacco?
This specific PR group may not be involved, but boy does this type of campaign sound familiar.
Another link: http://www.citybelt.org/
citybelt..._nj_more_i.html
and http://www.trwnews.net/junkscie.htm
http://www.trwnews.net/
Documents...epamonsanto.htm
'Rather than investigating all the allegations regarding Monsanto, the EPA actually spent two years investigating Cate Jenkins, the whistleblower whose memo, Sanjour says, precipitated EPA's criminal probe of Monsanto.
After OCI investigators interviewed Jenkins she wrote them a memo on November 15, 1990 (and another on Jan. 24, 1991), describing ways that agencies of the US government-including EPA and the Veterans Administration (VA)-had relied on the Monsanto studies in setting regulations and policies. (Sanjour points out that OCI had to ignore Jenkins's lengthy, detailed memos in closing the investigation on the grounds OCI stated.) Jenkins said the VA used the Monsanto studies to deny benefits to thousands of Vietnam veterans who claimed their wartime exposure to dioxin and Agent Orange had caused cancer and other diseases.
'When Jenkins released her Nov. 15 memo to the press, it was the first the world had heard of EPA's criminal investigation of Monsanto and it made headlines. According to Sanjour's memo, Vietnam veterans grabbed hold of the new information in Jenkins's memos and successfully pressured Congress to give benefits to Vietnam vets who had been denied them before. For her work, veterans organizations awarded Jenkins a plaque for exemplary service.
'EPA punished Jenkins for her whistleblowing by giving her no assignments during almost two years; in April 1992 she was finally given work to do, but it was clerical. She holds a Ph.D. in chemistry. Jenkins filed a complaint with the Department of Labor. The Labor Department found in her favor, that she was being illegally harassed. But EPA appealed that decision to an administrative law judge, thus continuing the harassment. The judge ruled in Jenkins's favor, but EPA-now with Carol Browner at the helm-appealed AGAIN, this time to the Secretary of Labor. He eventually found in Jenkins's favor, thus ending the long period of harassment. Jenkins was reinstated and her attorneys fees were paid.
'Sanjour summarizes, "When Jenkins made her allegations, and when the veterans groups made known the full implication of those allegations, a government with a decent respect for the welfare of its armed forces would have publicly ordered a full and impartial investigation with all the resources and support necessary and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, our top government officials were silent or even worse, they let it be known that they despised the messenger and had nothing but friendly feelings for the accused. The United States government gave no support or encouragement to a scientific, civil, or criminal investigation of Monsanto." '
http://www.sanjour.us/
'Dear Editor,
'I don't understand the logic of your editorial of October 22 implying the use of sewage sludge from heavily industrialized cities such as Milwaukee may be safe for use as a fertilizer in farming and gardening. Half of the input to such sewer systems is the wastes from industrial sources such as chemical plants and metal plating shops. The resultant sewage sludge from Milwaukee and other industrial cities is laced with poisonous chemicals, including cadmium and PCBs. In short, the municipal sewage plants in industrial. cities are essentially one big industrial waste water treatment plant.
'As a result of Federal clean water laws, those industries have taken more and more to dumping their waste in the sewer, rather than directly in the streams, thereby transferring the problem to the municipalities. The municipalities have encouraged this practice because it defrays the cost of the municipal treatment plants. I'm sure the Washington Post would never dream of running an editorial advocating the use of toxic industrial and chemical wastes as fertilizer, yet passing these wastes through a. municipal sewage treatment plant (largely paid for by industry) and stamping the resultant waste as "Milorganite" or "Nu-Earth" somehow makes it alright.
' The simple question which some "environmentalists"seem unwilling to face head-on is that if those wastes are so dangerous that they cannot be dumped in the oceans or the rivers for fear of the effects on the life in those environments, how come they are advocating injecting them directly. into our food?
'Sincerely yours,
/s/
'William Sanjo'
http://www.trwnews.net/Documents.../
criticsued.htm
'With Science, Scientific American, JAMA, and the Wall Street Journal on board, it's no wonder an entire religion has been based on the alleged safety of dioxin.++'
http://www.trwnews.net/
Documents...ndofscience.htm
'Commentary: Bush's Dark Age: The End of Science'
'Intervention Magazine 03/04/04 www.interventionmag.com
'The Bush Administration's dangerous misuse and suppression of government supported science is threatening the security of the nation.'
(Con't)
Please also note that the asbestos/chemical industry has been attributing the more common asbestos-related lung diseases to smoking blame since the 1930s, with a more recent expansion into 2nd-hand smoke blame to cover discrepencies more noticeable with dropping smoking rates, and a recent explosion of claims of smoking being an all-cause disease producer; this is why we're lumped in with toxic producers, and why smoking/ETS is automatically and unthinkingly accepted as a hazard despite all evidence, this often bizarrely based on the influence of PR-expressed kindergarden spite and an inculcated feeling of superiority (a la Nazi) among those outside the initial target groups.
And regarding the discrimination encouraged now against the increasing number of overweight people, with obesity expected to become an epidemic despite admonitions and scolds from the public's supposed superiors (?!) in public health - toxins may be stored in fat, created if necessary, when the body is too overloaded to deal with them; many industry chemicals in any event accumulate in fatty tissue; many chemicals/artificial hormones within the food supply interfere with metabolic and other processes, resulting in fat accumulation.
http://www.chem-tox.com/
chlordan...tm#introduction
Overweight - a Symptom of Chlordane Exposure
JOURNAL: Toxicology & Applied Pharmacology, 126:326-337 (1994)
One unexpected symptom of chlordane exposure is an increase in body weight. In fact, in an experiment of over 20 test animals receiving a chlordane exposure equal to that sometimes found among the U.S. population (100 ng/g - nanograms of chlordane per gram of body fat) there was an average 8% increase in body weight among the animals. Animals receiving 500 ng/g chlordane exposure were showing an average 11% increase in body weight. Chlordane exposure has been shown to reduce by-half the levels of some hormones in female test animals, however, scientists are unsure if this is the actual reason for the weight gain being observed or if it is due to another reason such as changes in the areas of the brain which control body weight. This raises the question of whether the same symptom may be occurring among residents living in chlordane homes built before March of 1988.
Richard A. Cassidy, Ph.D., Charles V. Vorhees, Daniel J. Minnema, Lloyd Hastings
U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam, Houston, Texas
Division of Basic Science Research, Children's Hospital Research Foundation
Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
This result of adipose tissue formation is hardly restricted to this single chemical - and the mechanisms which disrupt the body's processes do far more than add fat, but affect multiple systems, creating numerous potential problems, which are then said to be associated with overweight, rather than with the causal toxicity producing both.
The fact that the very problems created by industry greed are used to control and repress us do more than add insult to injury.
Those not aware are too easily and often duped into supporting tactics and agendas against their own interest, arguing against public protection from destructive industry through government involvement.
But if adequate public protection and oversight had been in place previously, industry would not now illegally control the electoral selection so that industry interests determine the pool of available governmental choice, and now fill the bulk of decision-making positions in even the most protective agencies devised.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
