The Butter/Margarine paradox
Much like the perils of SHS i believe,http://forces.org/News_Portal/
news_viewer.php?id=965
http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...ewer.php?
id=965
"This is insanity. I can't think of any other way to describe it."
Now tell us that prohibiting smoking on outdoor patios is not also insanity, since it can't possibly be justified for reasons of a health risk to staff. Go ahead -- tell us. And if you can't say it's insanity, then be open for once and tell us how exactly you DO characterize it. Not insane but just vilely meddlesome and stupid, perhaps?
"The insanity of the current tobacco control movement is more than they [the tobacco companies] could ever hope for."
See the above. I guess, instead of the current tobacco control movement, you prefer the OLD tobacco control movement, which,as we all know, was an exemplar of truth and probity, like, for example, the 1993 FDA report. Which, to remind you, you signed off on.
.
Sorry, make that the 1993 EPA report. There may even be a difference.
.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"I have to confess that I no longer can claim to understand what is going on in tobacco control these days. I always thought that it was a science-based movement. But now I find that it is making recommendations that are not based on any science. And it admits that!"
This movement runs on funding, not science. Even if you can make the case it used to run on science, its only running now because of funding.
As long as there's funding, or to continue to get funded, they have to keep coming up with new stuff.
Btw, my state imposed a 55 mph nighttime speed limit on snowmobile trails this past season. There was one fewer fatality than the year before. They credited the speed limit "in part" for the one less death.
The season before this one also saw one fewer death, but without the aid of a speed limit. They offered no explanation as to what saved that one life.
Health advocacy is the same everywhere; Do something, and whether or not it does anything, say it does and continue onward.
Mike is correct that the study group's proposal won't reduce the health risks of cigarettes (just as mandatory reductions in nicotine won't make cigarettes safer), but could dupe hundreds of millions of smokers into believing that it will make cigarettes safer.
But once again, Mike is wrong to blame the entire tobacco control movement for the actions of a few naive and misguided folks.
I hope that Mike follows up by expressing his concerns to the authors of this proposal (as I plan to do).
Well, I am glad to know that it isn't just my mind that is boggled! Seems to me they are basically saying there was never any scientific evidence and now there is less, but we will make up something new that will make it more confusing!
Bill, please post the address as I think I should write them too. The only thing I got from it is that everyone is truly over the edge! Could it be just panic due to the latest study saying smoking/cancer is caused by genes, as several of us have pointed out many times for free? They do need their paychecks you know!
OT: $800 Billion class action thrown out....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/
20080...obacco_class_dc
I agree with James, that most within tobacco control seems more beholden to funding sources than science. I guess someone has to work for the funder.
Are they bad organizations? No! Are they bad workers or consultants born bad to the bone? No. But something amazing happens when those with poor solutions or ineffective products start putting dinner on the table. Something more than loyalty.
Are they bad organizations? Was THE SCHULTZSTAFFEL all bad ?
Bill Godshall, Dr. Siegel and all posters agree on this one, this poster included.
Couldn't help but offer an opinion on Dr. Siegel's 9th point (where he is quoting the study),"Existing science does not allow a definitive conclusion that reduction of nitrosamines, or any other individual toxicants in cigarette smoke, will reduce cancer incidence, or the rate of any other tobacco related disease, in smokers who use cigarettes with lower levels of these toxicants...".
If this is true the converse is also true. Existing science doesn't allow us to conclude that the trace compounds in smoke pose any health hazard, in the amounts that they are found to be present, in tobacco smoke. In other words, if the researchers are not sure that taking the compounds out make it safer then they are also not very sure that the compounds are the cause of a problem.
It is interesting to note that these trace elements vary in concentrations in different tobacco growing environments across the world. The rain can only wash out the trace compounds present in the atmosphere that it falls through. (Tobacco leaves are mostly water, by weight, before they are dried, cured, and aged. The compounds remain even after the water component is reduced to 9% to 14% in the tobacco.)
Is this an attempt by WHO, and others, to beat the FDA and other regulatory authorities to the punch? Are they trying to pre-define the methods and objectives that should be used in regulating tobacco constituents? I think that TC wants to control the governmental controllers.
This may only be the first of many attempts to establish a stronger TC influence on institutions that it hasn't concentrated much effort on before... the FDA for example.
E=MC^2
Breeze Detector & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
I didn't see a single poster comment on what the most obvious direction of this attempt is. It obviously is intended to be used to try to make the TASTE less pleasant in order to make it easier for them to coerce more smokers into quitting.
Simple works best y'know.
TC business as usual.
Make it up as we go.
At least the TC psychosis is consistently visible. This is a good thing. It's easier to detect those most afflicted.
CB Jerry, all the more reason to start growing your own.
So Michael and Bill are branding the following research as meaningless and crude.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
site...l=pubmed_docsum
I fail to see either of their arguments if in fact the well being of others [that would of course include those; being helped to quit]is all that they are genuinely interested in.
The research to date is consistent the NNK, NAK and NNN constituents can be controlled by the manufacturers when required. And they do but only if it is required because the safer products are more expensive to purchase. The process sought, is to simply use tobacco with low pre-existing measures of those elements, which are among the most likely suspects in the link between smoking and Lung cancers. In addition the use of flue curing lowers the overall levels of Histamines in both cases the reductions are extreme beyond the 90-95% range,
The only opposition I could see possible here, is someone who deliberately wishes to increase the cancer risk to maintain the marketability of the fear factor, by deliberately maintaining higher than necessary dosages of the most likely toxins to cause cancers, like rat painting human test subjects.
Or someone trying to keep the manufacturers costs low, in maintaining the no safe cigarette jargon which eliminated all forms of regulation because as you stated there is no proof.
Granted there is no proof alternately it certainly couldn't hurt. Common sense leaves most of us in the camp that believes; if you can sustain a belief which you have always promoted in the public forums, the nitrates and histamines are dangerous, increased exposure to them increases health risk the credence of smoking bans without prohibition, [4000 deadly ingredients I believe they have been saying]lowered exposures to carcinogens and mutagens has to decrease physical risk.
Your statistical risks on the other hand are simply projected artifacts which examine only a single instant in time, without the ability to predict the effects of changes or any lack of knowledge at the time you took that measurement.
The strata you hope you have defined properly all boiled down to a linear measure of 220 bartenders in worst case perspectives is now irrelevant, if you are now changing your position and supporting a non linearity in the overall risk.
Either you support the cause and effect measurement of epidemiological research to date, or you are back in the land of non linear association which discredits all the comparative research, based in exposure levels of tobacco smoke compared to those not exposed.
Linear effects of second hand smoke would have to correlate directly to reductions of primary smoking risk, in overall stratification, because smokers are also expossed to ETS and the effect you hope to demonstrate in the risk of ETS, would have to understandably decrease the risk and effects of smoking from what was once believed.
All apparently with no confounding of those who might have been exposed to pellet fireplace smoke.
The regulation proposal makes a lot more sense than anything you or Bill are putting out there for the tabloids to exploit. The irresponsible TC rhetoric so far rides on the backs of the smokers who have to live in an increasingly less tolerant and more violent society.
Is the objection here a little biased because it shifts responsibility back to the industry, meaning a smoker's health will be considered important for a change?
Two things: part of the actual article professing to have found a genetic link states this: "We identified a locus in chromosome region 15q25 that was strongly associated with lung cancer (P = 9 10-10). This locus was replicated in five separate lung cancer studies comprising an additional 2,513 lung cancer cases and 4,752 controls (P = 5 10-20 overall), and it was found to account for 14% (attributable risk) of lung cancer cases. Statistically similar risks were observed irrespective of smoking status or propensity to smoke tobacco." Undoubtedly I'm missing something, but I don't see how they can claim they've "found" a link (once and for all).
Also, TC should contact whomever wrote the radio ad that I'm hearing in Minneapolis, in part it states: (referring to no-smoking in barsrestaurants and the staff) "...a recent study has shown less of a lung cancer causing agent..." so apparently "they" know what causes lung cancer. Just ask them what it is and we can ban that.
this is way OT but i came across it and thought it was interesting enough to share. we can only hope obama is still smoking. btw, i wish the news media would get real.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politic...mment-
109357074
Anonymous,
Why would you "hope obama is still smoking"?
I may be a little naive, but anyone who denies who they are, slavishly conforms to fashion and capitulates to pressure from single issue fanatics and spin doctors just might not have the strength of character and resolve required to be elected the most powerful man on earth.
I would have a lot more respect for him if he stood up and said something along the lines of "yes, I smoke, so what? deal with it, you have the problem not me, I have far more important issues to worry about" followed by something of substance about the job.
GreatScot
His wife "made" him quit as part of her deal to "let" him run for president. That, to me, says a lot about who he is. Besides, in a debate, he came out in favor of a national smoking ban in all (misguidedly labeled) "public places."
:
Wait a minute guys, wasn't it once told that Bill Clinton lit a cigar in celebration of the MSA? I am more concerned as to who can do the job and keep our country safe, rather than wondering if anyone smoked a cigarette before signing a legal document. I have yet to meet a Politician or public speaker of any kind who doesn't speak to the crowd he is surrounded by. Everyone of them will deny being a smoker or even a liar,if that is what he thinks they want to hear. I would rather hear, "My wife won't let me smoke," then "I remember landing in Bosnia." Anyone with a half a brain should know that no aircraft carrying civilians would land in the hostile environment Hillary claimed to have landed in, unless of course, the pilot was a Republican! Stories are stories, some lies are worse than others though. If Obama wants to smoke, so what? As long as he pays the taxes on them as we do and proves that they came from his personnal checkbook and not petty cash from the White House!
How about sticking to one color for the prose?
Anonymous wrote:
"So Michael and Bill are branding the following research as meaningless and crude.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ site...l=pubmed_docsum "
In fact, that research and the research articles cited in the "Related Links" are consistent with, and substantiate, the very points that Mike and I have made.
After 50 years of massive research and technological changes in cigarette design (e.g. filters, low-tar, lights, ultralights) in an attempt to make a reduced risk cigarette, there is still no evidence to support the hypothesis (but overwhelming evidence to dispel the hypethesis) that a safer cigarette exists (or can be made).
Besides, no cigarette smoking machine testing method resembles the smoke inhalation patterns of a human smokers. As such, all machine test results are inaccurate and unreliable.
The only less hazardous nicotine delivery device alternative to cigarettes are noncombustible tobacco/nicotine producs.
This WHO study group is basically proposing to perpetuate the safer cigarette myth/fraud worldwide for many decades to come.
Ironically, many of the same folks who endorse these absurd cigarette smoke standards have also criticized cigarette industry for fraudulantly marketing light and ultralight cigarettes as lower risk cigarettes.
Go figure.
Mr. Godshall: But once again, Mike is wrong to blame the entire tobacco control movement for the actions of a few naive and misguided folks.
Naive? Misguided? A few? You've got to be kidding, either that or I want some of whatever it is you're drinking or smoking.
Dr. Siegel is perfectly correct in blaming the entire cult, and you are included in the cult.
Do you consider yourself naive and/or misguided when you call smokers child abusers or liken them to murderers? Or do you consider yourself the ill-informed boor that you come across as to the rest of us. Or just a mindless parrot that spouts anything his handlers tell him to squawk?
Come on, tell us how you see yourself when you toss out insults like a 3rd grade bully..........
Bill, when Mike blames the entire tobacco control movement for the actions of a few naive and misguided folks, is he actually talking, lumping you into that group?
News headline today is another 80,000 American's lost their jobs in the month of March. Were any of them in tobacco control, public health or were they all restaurant/bar owners, bartenders and wait staff? Are those 220 bartenders now completely safe?
“Ironically, many of the same folks who endorse these absurd cigarette smoke standards have also criticized cigarette industry for fraudulantly marketing light and ultralight cigarettes as lower risk cigarettes.”
Bill,
I am not sure that I have ever seen a cigarette box with the words “lower risk cigarettes” written across them. I have, however, seen a cigarette box (sanctioned , I assume, by HMG) with the words “Smoking Causes Cancer”. I don't know if that is fraud but it is very misleading because it does not explain why more and more people are developing carcinoma of the lung as cigarette sales do not go up.
I do have a little sympathy for what you are saying – BUT,BUT,BUT
What is more misleading on a cigarette box ; “light”, “ultra light” or “Smoking Causes Cancer”.
Bill, do you see what I mean?
Bill, how many more people are going to die with all this time wasting?
Bill, why do you spend all your time in those pointless meetings with people you don't really want to talk to when you could just forget about the money and change your mind?
Lazy Fredrik.
"How about sticking to one color for the prose?
PSP | 04.04.08 - 9:45 am | # "
I agree, as someone with severe visual impairment (To the extent that I am now a "ward" of the state due to being "legally" blind), I also find the use of the different colors in your writings to be very difficult to read, I usually end up copying and pasting the text into notepad so i can read it in black text, this invariably screws up the breaks you put into the aricles, and makes them difficult to follow as well. I realize colors may seem to make a page pop, but as an ex programmer, I can tell you the first rule we were taught about building web content was to ensure the readability of the webpage.
Please consider keeping your posts to either darker fonts only on light backgrounds, or use a dark background when you want to use the rainbow to "highlight" your reference points.
Thank you.
Bill;
"After 50 years of massive research and technological changes in cigarette design (e.g. filters, low-tar, lights, ultralights) in an attempt to make a reduced risk cigarette, there is still no evidence to support the hypothesis (but overwhelming evidence to dispel the hypethesis) that a safer cigarette exists (or can be made)."
So what your saying in a nutshell is because there is no safer cigarette after all the effort, the proof they were ever dangerous is in fact limited? Or questionable?
If you stopped for five seconds and considered the theory you and your partners are destroying is the message of moderation, which if considered accurate, supports the science and wisdom; if you smoke less you are lowering your risk. That would entail quiting as the holy grail as the largest prize, although cutting down proportionately has a benefit as well.
By quantifying you start to realize; with reductions in overall carcinogen and toxic content, those who choose to draw deeper or smoke more numerically will be at the greatest risk, by their own hand, regardless of your machine adjustments. If the risk is associated to the content as you say the 5000 deadly ingredients, consuming less will reduce risk and more consumption is more risk, as linear measures of cause and effect will [and have] consistently demonstrate.
If this is not the case we are left with only two alternatives.
First a non linear association exists which precludes any wisdom in restrictions for anyone who has already been exposed, because risk levels will not change by imposing smoking bans or forcing people to quit; if you know what it smells like, your risk has already reached the maximum possible level.
The other possibility would be smoking is harmless and all this commotion was for nothing.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia;
"For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."
Bill;
Have you ever considered the idea; the flaw in observational results, may reside in the methods and not the inconsistencies or perceived stubbornness of the subject matter to follow the rules you have defined.
Population perspectives limit your abilities, because many stratified layers exist within your subject population.
Some countries have more risk associated to smoking and some less. The level when taken in a single measure of total risk is limited, and the true risk will never be understood because the confounding is similarly restricted when applied universally.
The levels of toxic content are not indicative of observational risk, because again your confounding estimate is the universal design tied to biased perspectives.
If a country has a higher smoking incidence rate and lower than expected risk effect, no one takes the time to investigate a reality, rather denials rule, when you may by further investigation be glossing over the one way you might discover a method of producing safer cigarettes or curing any true effect.
Is there a confounding adjustment in any of epi research which eliminates subconscious Pavlovian pre-conditioning? A personal bias either intentional or subconscious, which is applied and reinforced throughout all of a medical observer's career and training.
Like a dog being house broken when you put his nose next to his excrement and say "bad dog" he is conditioned to take it outdoors or hide it.
Similarly the smell of smoke is associated to the negative for many who dislike the smell, this negativity resounds in the non smoking population were were once conditioned by referencing the smell, to not smoke, now are programmed further to associate the smell with exaggerated danger.
The perceived danger is not without a lot of determined coaxing mind you, because it was not that long ago, few in the medical community could have been convinced second hand smoke constituted any danger.
It was not until political pressure was applied vigorously, by their own medical associations, they could be convinced to not smoke in their offices or in the Hospital waiting rooms.
Now that many of them have been forced to quit, they report it was reasonable to force lifestyle changes upon them.
The alternative of course would be to admit, they really are not as scholarly or wise in a societal view as a "Doctor" reputation demands.
How can a Doctor's advice have any judgment value when they have so little control over the choices made in their own personal lives.
Could a server at a fast food restaurant who is trained in procedures be considered a doctor as well?
Personal denials are the largest motivators of Doctors demanding everyone else be forced, as they were, to do as they are told.
The rest of society has a significant proportion who smoke, as an indicator of freedom to choose, barely remaining within that society.
Doctors live in a much more controlled environment reflecting now their adherence to their masters demands. The view a Doctor is any different from a server at Mac Ds resides in their ability to maintain credibility, in their personal wisdom and expertise.
That perspective of expertise or independent judgment in a smoking ban crazed world is now entirely controversial and highly suspect.
To end the high incidence of medical mistakes, why don't we just trust programmed robots and computers to take over for doctors, just like the auto makers, and replace them all with cheaper and more easily replaced supply chain servers?
The Doctors could legitimately fulfill their oath to "do no harm" and follow their true calling as politicians and drive through window servers.
Thanks for the feedback on the excessive use of colors. I will get it out of my system with my Tournament posts this weekend, and then discontinue it starting next week.
my point with the obama post was to point out how ridiculous the media is over whether obama has quit smoking or not. who gives a crap if he smokes? this shouldn't be an issue or even a point of discussion. is this a new litmus test to be president? i know it burns bill g. and his ilk that the presumptive democratic candidate for president is probably still smoking.
Tobacco Control Gone Crazy: Study Group Calls For Regulating Smoke Constituents Without Knowing Whether It Will Help, Hurt, or Not Affect Health
My suspicions are confirmed, they haven't a clue what they are talking about, a quick foray into plant chemicals confirms that.
Solanine in potatoes is called tomatine in tomatoes is called nicotine in tobacco is called alpha-solanine in aubergines or soladine in chillies and peppers.
So making a big fuss about the dread drug nicotine is hardly persuasive in the first place, regulating ingredients without any firm knowledge of the consequences even less so.
Practice on tomatoes first, I will be fascinated to see the results.
Hi, guys.
What I really find telling is that among all the toxicity/labelling hoo-ha, the chemicals added to the 'not-to-be-called-fire-safe-because-they-aren't' enforced-by-global-law-and-pressure RIP cigarette are not only not listed on any label but unmentioned.
In fact, Health Canada claimed on its website that an unidentified 'starch-like substance' (I do hope not asbestos) in the papers was the extent of the chemical addition which was to prevent cigarettes from burning continuously for more than (was it?) 5 minutes?
But such evidence as the varying chemical tastes, smells, burning sensations in mouth/throat/lungs, the massive clots of tar forming within the cigarette in burning in the earlier versions, (leaving black, tarry smears as well when extinguished) and statements made in official discussion all made it evident that potentially toxic chemicals were introduced into the tobacco of the RIP cigarette in Canada, and - forming as indeed does this 'not-to-be-called-fire-safe' RIP, part of a co-ordinated global agenda to be followed by smoking bans - no doubt intended everywhere else.
And in Canada, when the Big Pharma/Bio-Industry-tied government cut Market Board payments for tobacco below survival level, driving farmers not only out of business but often out of their homes and land (further opening the fields for giant factory farm Agribusiness at the expense of family farms, yet again) specifically GM seed was said to have been sent offshore - to countries where standards, oversight and protections do not obtain.
Of the many purposes making tobacco a hot object of monopoly-seeking giant industry, tobacco was one of the earliest and most useful plants used in GM experiments.
If seed from GM tobacco altered to produce pharma drugs, chemicals, viruses, rubber, etc, and/or to suck up and retain pollutants from contaminated soil (and I suspect a mix, going by results) is sent for cigarette tobacco production, only specific testing - not likely to be ordered by governments insisting that additional toxicity doesn't matter in a product already labelled toxic - would show this, if such tests even exist...
More likely, results would be used to 'show' the 'inherent toxicity' of the tobacco plant, and how it causes all industrial and other disease.
In the heart of Virginia tobacco growing country, field testing was conducted on a GM virus intended to infect natural tobacco plants, causing them to produce chemicals AFTER harvest - in the instance given, rubber.
Not that such a virus would necessarily confine itself to spreading through only the tobacco plants and seed retained for planting...
Articles about such GM alterations have been presented on this site, so I won't dig for them right now.
But anyone who's smoked the RIP cigarettes knows something's definitely wrong.
Perhaps someone has information stockpiled and handy on this?
I'm kinda hoping Rose the mind-boggling researcher will notice this, as her work and conclusions couldn't be more impressive.
Is this virtually the only TC chappy honestly concerned about health, being virtually the only one to even mention this?
And what happened to him?
Excommunicated or just... silenced?
http://www.blogalink.com/item/795
FACT DISCOVERED: “Fire Safe Cigarettes,” or the “Reduced Ignition Propensity,” acronymed as “R.I.P” have a higher toxicity level. The Haward Study as well as the old tobacco industry documents including the report by RJ Reynolds conducted in 1993 has found there is increase in toxicity of such cigarettes. SO does this mean that promoting RIP Cigarette is actually promoting higher toxicity in cigarettes? Are we working in TC actually supporting this? This required further research.' ... 'FACT DISCOVERED: There has been no significant decline in fire fatalities after the introduction of RIP Cigarettes in New York. In 2004 (the year preceding the introduction of RIP) a total of 82 people died in fire related incidents in NY and in 2006 85 people lost their lives (third lowest). The decline in fire fatalities is continuing since 1990. The credit for actual reduction in this progressive marginal reduction in fire fatalities goes to greater care gone into the aspects of fire fighting and fire prevention (especially after 9/11). The budget for fire fighting has also increased and so has the involvement of the NY Mayor, Mr. Bloomberg; who donated and got thousands of fire-alarm batteries, etc. distributed in NY. Another point; cause of most of the fatal fires often remain unknown. 'SO if RIP cigarettes had the potential to end the fire fatalities; the fatalities in NY would have drastically reduced. This did not happen. Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta has attributed the marginal decline over 2005 to the increased efforts of NY fires safety unit to educate the people. 'FACT DISCOVERED: The NEW YORK LEGISLATION AND FIRE SAFETY STANDARD FOR CIGARETTES LAWS OF NEW YORK, 2000 specifically states as under; 'CHAPTER 284 (2.) (b.) In promulgating fire safety standards for cigarettes pursuant to this section, the office of fire prevention and control, in consultation with the department of health, shall consider whether cigarettes manufactured in accordance with such standards may reasonably result in increased health risks to consumers. 'But to best of my abilities I am unable to trace any such consultation report or any independent and reliable study to assess this. I could not trace any health department report too. 'SO this means that RIP cigarettes have made to the New York market without any reliable and independent study and assessment to consider whether cigarettes manufactured in accordance with such standards may reasonably result in increased health risks to consumers over a period of time?'
But it's OK to enforce RIP cigarettes by law on a global basis?
Out of 'health concerns'?
Commenting by HaloScan
