So, what are you going to do about it, Dr. Siegel? You may post on this blog, but much more aggressive interventions are needed right now. What will TC do when perverts are given the ok as foster parents because there is such a shortage of prospects to choose from? Come to think of it, TC itself is a group of sanctioned perverts who I would never consider as proper parental substitutes for any child, especially those already scarred from life with troubled families.
Since it has become incontrovertible that I am considered unfit to be part of society I hereby tender my resignation from society, effective immediately.
Only 2 and a bit years ago I confronted about 15 young adults who were beating the crap out of an Englishman who had the misfortune to attract their attention. The Police officers who eventually turned up (long after the ambulance I also called) stated that I saved him from severe or even fatal injuries. Sorry bud, from know on you are on your own.
With the exception of family, the rest of the world can take a hike.
Granny being mugged? So what.
Young girl raped? Take karate lessons
.
Kids being abused by a neighbour? None of my concern.
Give blood? Sorry it's mine.
Organ Donor? Over my dead body.
Give to charity? Call me scrooge.
Go the extra mile at work? Whats in it for me.
Hey, that feels good. Thanks Doc looks like I am now cured of that pesky caring for individuals burden I have been carrying about.
GreatScot
One thing I don't like about the slippery slope argument is that it implies if you keep it just to smoking than its o.k.
"The policy applies to all smokers, even if they agree to refrain from smoking in the presence of their children."
Why, doctor, do you persist in pandering to these people with wishy-washy statements such as that? You've already stated that, "there is no convincing evidence that even chronic childhood exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer," so why compromise that statement? You should simply and forthrightly have stated that these do-gooders are full of crap, and that no smoking restriction to foster parentage care should apply because no true health issue applies -- the same as no smoking restrictions apply to natural parentage. And since you're responsible for this excess of do-goodism, it's your responsibility to speak out and reject it forthrightly and in the strongest and loudest terms. But we seem never to get that from you. Why is that, doctor?
.
Mike's posting failed to reveal that Forest has been given lots of cigarette industry funding to oppose smokefree policies (not just those that protect foster children).
Perhaps Mike can explain why he believes that government child protection agencies should pay people to repeatedly expose foster children to tobacco smoke pollution.
Prisoners in jails (who like foster children, are also wards of the state) have a right to not be harmed by tobacco smoke pollution (at least here in the US).
So why should government agencies allow children under their legal guardianship be forceably exposed to tobacco smoke pollution?
I agree and this is probably the most deplorable garbage I have ever heard or seen and believe me, I have heard and seen quite a bit.
My favorite line though is, "It is unfortunate that the policy is being justified based on false scientific claims. It is untue that "those that breathe in secondhand smoke are at the same risk as those who smokes themselves". So I will now once again ask, why are smoking bans in bars/restaurants and any workplace necessary or justified? You just blatantly stated that it is untrue!
Time to light up on the patio and step back inside folks!
I guess that they will require a urine test for those applying to become foster parents in Redbridge. If cotinin is found in their urine their application will be denied.
Not only cigarette "puffers" but all Snu "suckers" will be denied their chance to become foster parents. Nicotine is nicotine and you can't endanger a child just on the word of a Snu "sucker" who might really be a "puffer" posing as a "sucker".
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
Wee Willie trolls again!
Godshill (for smokeless tobacco)just loves to try and push peoples buttons.
Not to worry Bully Boy, I will never foster again (to be fair I haven't for quite a few years due to being away from home or having to work extraordinary long hours, not fair when the kids need a lot of attention).
BTW how many kids have you fostered? Can we expect you to step into the breach?
Mind now, if you do volunteer the authorities have to assess your mental state and dig deep into the dark recess's of your closets looking for skeletons. You may not want that.
Bill,
Take a logic class; guilt by association is a fallacy.
You know, I am beginning to like Bill. And I don't think we give him enough credit. As a matter of fact, I suggest we send him on a victory tour for all of his many accomplishments. One element of this tour would of course be several trips to prisons, at which time he would be identified as the man who pushed through the legislation that established the prisoners' "right to not be harmed by tobacco smoke pollution."
I suspect they will give him a warm welcome.
Maybe even a warmer welcome than he would receive at watering holes throughout the country.
Anyone willing to contribute, so Bill can be sure to hear exactly what the hardened criminals think of the help he has offered?
From the RCP (Royal College of Psychopaths)
Ending tobacco
smoking in Britain
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/
...5bf06597623.pdf
Here's hoping Pol Pot is reincarnated and is successful in his goal to eradicate Doctors next time.
Anonymous, I am in, let me know where to send the check. I have a cousin who is the Sheriff in Fulton County in New York. I can help set up the first vacation/trip. It is only about a 9 hour drive from Pittsburgh so I would require Bill to drive his own Prius to the jail. Airfare can come later for farther destinations. Per diem will be paid by the NYS taxpayers when they allow him to occupy a cell during his stay. I hear lunch is pretty good there and they have a great exercise room with something for all prisoners to take part in. It is fondly called "Club 29" by the natives as it is housed on State Highway 29.
I am glad you have made a comment on this story Dr Siegel, I would just like to say for many people who have suffered real abuse, it will enrage many people. This is one reaction that has been put on our site, it is gut-wrenching and we all know this still goes on. The whole story need to be read, to understand where smoking comes into play - http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ews1.php?
id=821
This is Michaels story....
Mike was born in the early fifties to a single mum. He joined an older sister called Sally, who was 15 months old when Mike came into the world. His first seventeen years on the planet were not happy ones. It began, for Mike, his mum, and his sister in London’s last workhouse, a throwback from the last century. They hadn’t been there very long when his mum decided she could no longer cope and so she left little Mike and little Sally at Euston station and walked away into the busy crowds. Later that day they were taken into the care of London City Council and Mike and Sally were sent from one orphanage to another for several years. Back in the fifties there was almost zero selection criteria for adoptive or foster parents and usually, married middle-class families were sought as they could afford to take in an additional child or two. So the target family were likely to be doctors, teachers, clergy, or middle management. In Mike’s case, he struck “lucky”. His new foster parents were both teachers and automatically, pillars of society who demanded and deserved unquestioning respect.
It did not take long for this frightened little lad to learn that the word “love” is very subjective, and that some people will use the word to get what they want, whether it makes you feel “loved” or not is neither here nor there to them.
The rest of the story is within the link provided
This guy seriously needs jail time.
Halloween: Biggest Risk for Kids is Surprising // Tobacco Smoke More Dangerous Than Auto Accidents or Adulterated Treats
2008-10-28 15:38:57 - This Halloween millions of parents, and many grandparents, friends, and neighbors will all warn children about the dangers of motor vehicle accidents or eating candy which hasn't been inspected, but most will fail to warn about the biggest risk - one which may kill more children this Halloween than all of the others combined.
On average, only a handful of children are killed in auto accidents every Halloween in the United States. Although this reportedly is higher than other nights, the number still pales in comparison to the death toll from secondhand tobacco smoke.
According to the Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, secondhand tobacco smoke kills more than one thousand children every year from diseases
including respiratory syncytial bronchiolitis, asthmatic attacks, and other respiratory complications. This doesn't even include the larger number of deaths each year from SIDS [Sudden Infant Death syndrome] apparently triggered by tobacco smoke.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that each year, even at the levels found in a home where only one parent smokes, smoke causes in infants: 150,000-300,000 lower respiratory infections like pneumonia and bronchitis; 7,500-15,000 hospitalizations; 200,000-1,000,000 asthma attacks; 8,000-26,000 new cases of asthma, and - as noted - a large increase in deaths from SIDS.
Thus, suggests Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), adults should warn their children this Halloween, and also on other days, against visiting, going to parties, or playing in homes where adults smoke, especially in their presence.
They should also stay away from a parent, grandparent or other adult while they are smoking, and avoid being seated in the smoking sections of restaurants - and in cars when adults are smoking - where exposure is far higher.
The National Confectioners Association claims that the idea the Halloween candy may be tainted with razor blades or poison is largely an urban myth. So perhaps parents, grandparents, and other adults should give more attention to warning kids about more clearly established dangers, suggests ASH.
PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // ash.org
This is where Banzhaf the 3rd got the information his article is based on.
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
hea...ltheffects.html
Thanks Sheri.
Let me know when you not using your chutzpah Mr. Banzhaf. I may want to borrow it again.
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
EPA scientists complain about political pressure
"Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists say they have been pressured by superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by an advocacy group"
"But Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program, said the survey results revealed "an agency in crisis" and "under siege from political pressures" especially among scientists involved in risk assessment and crafting regulations"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar.../
w081924D13.DTL
Scientists may well have been pressured and be under seige from political pressures, but that didn't stop them from going along with it and damaging their reputations in the first place.
Unless they can get the media to print their complaints and admit that the secondhand smoke con was just that a con, it's not going to make a blind bit of difference, the crusaders will keep repeating their lies and coming up with even more outrageous ones to maintain their income.
Michael Seigal, might be slagging off the crusdaers now, but we shouldn't let him forget that he was instrumental in bringing about this smoking ban experiment. A man of his intellect should have known that ever more restrictions from the crusaders was inevitable.
HOW CAN SO FEW DO SO MUCH DAMAGE TO THE MANY.
HOW CAN SO FEW DO SO MUCH DAMAGE TO THE MANY. ~enraged
By the very same token, WE FEW CAN ACCOMPLISH MUCH HEALING FOR THE MANY.
I am continuously amazed at how few people I question believe anything coming from the government and the public health industries. Cheer up. We're at the turning point. It may be a lengthy turning point, but we are there.
Trust me. I'm a nurse 
http://www.blogger.com/profile/
0...031813339167454 Can anyone explain the mentality that appears to suggest that being associated with blogs that promote the customary bollocks from TC yet allows this blog to highlight the excesses, is perfectly acceptable and offers no conflicts of interest ?.Public Health fascism has lost all sense of balance .Dr Siegel seems to do a remarkable job in copying Neville Chamberlain and his dealings with Hitler.For every one statement berating TC he offers two in appeasement.Does anyone EVER read these comments,since Dr Siegel avoids answering questions like the plague.What value would his blog have if everyone refrained from commenting ? Would it make the slightest difference ? Removing a mild tongue in cheek comment i made a few days ago is one thing,but removing a link to an article in a UK national paper really surprised me,and somewhat shows a predisposition to censorship,your Behavioral Science position speaking i would surmise. It also afforded more credibility to the comments a certain person made,where none were due.It would be interesting to note the level of interference aka tidying up and censoring you actually make Dr Siegel,suggestions that you annotate removal of comments etc have obviously been declined.
I was going to comment on Bill G's post, but the words fail me. Disgusting.
Some will never learn or they just don't care:
Canada, addressing one of the darkest chapters in its history, formally apologised for forcing 150,000 aboriginal children into grim residential schools, where many say they were sexually and physically abused.
http://www.win-hec.org/?q=node/218
---
Even when this was not the intention, laws authorising state intervention into children's lives always run the risk of applying to children of minority groups the standards and assumptions of the majority, or at least of the social group to which the interveners (police, child welfare officers [edited: non-smokers!]) belong. In the result, many Aboriginal children - we don't know how many - have been removed from their parents, their communities, and often from their Aboriginal identity ...
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/jou...LB/1988/
20.html
Bill; I repeat,
The one conclusion which stays with me, through all the research and opinions I have seen. Only one consensus survives.
If the tobacco industry is able through Investments and influence to corrupt the science. That fact stands as decisive proof the "science" is not beyond corruption and peer review is not an effective safeguard.
TC empowers itself on the accelerated pace and promoted credibility, of their own partnered stakeholders who hold much more influence and wealth than their Tobacco Industry partner could ever muster alone, cultivating far more dominant forms of corruption.
Public health sells "paternalist protections"; For the children who can't think for themselves?
This posting of the Doc's is perfect in its timing!
Today, 3 of my co-workers and myself spent the morning doing a community service project. I'm fortunate that the company I work for encourages this and pays us for our time on such projects. OK, there is a limit per year on this but still its more than most companies do.
Last year, we went to a food bank to help put food boxes together for families in need.
Today, we chose to help out an organization that reaches out to, offers services and support to, homeless and at-risk youth between the ages of 18 and 21. In our introduction overview of their program this morning, I learned that the majority of the youth they help are the kids that have "aged out" of foster care. Yep, that's right, the same agencies that won't let smokers foster or adopt kids, the same agencies that scream "for the children" all the time, are the same damned agencies that literally AND physically throw these same kids out on the streets with no skills, no money, no support system the day they turn 18.
I've decided this is the only group I will donate anything to now. I like their goals and vision.
They told us that if we would like to tag along one day or night when they take their van out to where the majority of these youth end up they would be happy to allow it. They don't mind letting others see what they do. Their van is loaded with sleeping bags, blankets (the winter nights here in Phoenix ARE cold), water, sandwiches, clean socks, first aid, etc. They are partnered with the Phoenix Children's Hospital here and also have a medical/dental mobile unit that helps also.
This program we were at was their transitional living facility that once the kids commit to improving their lives they can go live while finishing school or finding work. They are counseled 1:1 about life skills, job hunting, work dress and manners, and independent living, along with money management.
The program also offers shower facilities and laundry facilities to the kids not in their transitional living program. Anything they can do to help these kids feel better about themselves they do.
So much for the "for the children" agenda. Just like the Pro-lifers who only care about forcing women to stay pregnant and then they don't give a damn what happens to the baby after; the anti-everythings don't give a shit about them once they turn 18. So what that already damaged and traumatized kids are 18, just throw them out on the street with nothing.
And then you wonder why I have no respect for you people.
"So why should government agencies allow children under their legal guardianship be forceably exposed to tobacco smoke pollution?"
The answer to this would appear to be obvious: because those same government agencies are KILLING THEMSELVES to find sane, suitable people to volunteer to take foster children. And eliminating smokers... um... well, Bill... it reduces the potential pool by 25 percent. Which makes it harder to find families in which to place the kids.
I know: If they really care about the kids they will simply step outside. Right? Maybe. Or... get this... maybe they will view this as a ridiculous intrusion and say to hell with it.
So in many case, the choice for foster kids is not between living with Mr Smith who smokes inside versus living with Mr Smith who smokes outside. The choice is between living with a smoker... or not having a place to live.
Thanks for making that decision for people. I am sure they appreciate your efforts to about the same extent the prisoners do.
Similarly, the Pennsylvania Constitution you keep mentioning mentions the right to "clean air." So why just limit this to tobacco pollution? Why not ban foster care in homes that have an attached garage? That makes for unclean air, to be sure. So does pet dander. Living close to an oil refinery. Etc. So I guess there are going to be a lot of places these kids can't live.
Here is my question for Bill... and this is almost certainly something that will come up unless he is careful:
Let's say there is a kid who has been living with a committed foster family for a few years. Loves it there. Adoption papers are in the works, etc. But such things are slow.
And let's say this ban passes: Would you forcible remove this kid from the house?
I bet not, Bill. Because you know as well as I do that the TV cameras will be there and you will have yourself an Elian Smoke-galez moment. Not so good for TC.
No. what I expect you to do would be to ignore it. Or grandfather in current families. Even though you know that the kids in those houses would be getting "poisoned." Because the politics are what matter.
Or maybe I am wrong.
But in the meantime, Bill, take a step back. I guess it's one thing to have some back and forth here and to debate what people ought to be allowed to do in bars.
But you are starting to meddle in some seriously creepy stuff.
And doc... doesn't look like he cares. Still proud of the movement? To bad someone didn't warn you of this slippery slope.
Oh wait. We did. You just weren't listening because you were too busy calculating how many nonexistent bartenders in Massachusetts would die, but not really.
Time to listen. Time to cut these people loose. And time to compromise. Maybe you are sick of being warned in this regard. But it has been decades now, and you have been wrong every time. Every single time. Every time someone says it is going to get worse, that you can't enact these half measures without getting all the rest, that you can'thave bans in bars without bans in foster homes, you cry foul. Yes, we can go part way!
No, we can't. So are you part of the solution or...
""So why should government agencies allow children under their legal guardianship be forceably exposed to tobacco smoke pollution?""
It was not that long ago a story in the New York Times revealed a lot of children in the care of the state were being provided for medical experimentation. With no other guardian to protect them they have no rights to refuse.
It appears Public Health likes the new loophole. Is this how they intend to purchase their new breed of test animals?
PITA wont be complaining.
and especially if they are willing to minimize their children's smoke exposure by, for example, smoking outside.
Everything Harry said (bravo, Harry) plus:
How can you maintain that the state should not interfere in the home life of natural parents (and force them to "step outside") but demand this of foster parents-- and to the provable detriment of the orphaned children who are therefore denied a home? Why do foster parents lose the right to "autonomy" where natural parents don't? And why do orphaned children lose the right to a normal home that other children are granted? How do you justify this two-tiered society-- and this selective denial of rights?
As for Mr. Bill, as far as he's concerned, the whole world should be a prison. With the likes of him as Warden. Order! Ve must haf order!
:
And just btw I believe those stats on the number of childhood illnesses "caused" by ETS were extracted from a study done by 2 Univ of WI economists:
"Tobacco and Children: an economic evaluation of the medical effects of parental smoking." Aligne et al, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 1997
Using "computerized bibliographic databases for 1980- 1996," the authors' method was to "search for key words" such as asthma, otitis media, burns, etc, scanning the articles for references to costs, and combining this estimated cost data with "results of previously published 'best estimates' " ( presumably of the frequency of symptoms? ) So this was a data dredge of favorable (to their thesis) "estimates" of illnesses combined with other "estimates" of costs as extracted from a broad, tho selective, sweep of the net.
And they chose to define "children" as "up to the age of 18."
They appear to come up with numbers similar to those cited-- tho now cited as Facts, and to attach $ figures to the cost of treatment. Their dredge, however, directly led the way to the first outpourings about smoking around children being "child abuse."
"Cornell Child Abuse Expert Says It's Time to Recognize Smoking as Child Abuse," The "expert" was a guy named Garbarino, who called for a law against smoking near kids.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/
rele....abuse.ssl.html
And this now becomes the firm "scientific" basis on which parents and children around the world are made miserable by ignorant ...Holes.
;
Allow me to translate the ASH message above.
Now remember kids, stay away from smokers, not just at Halloween but ever.
Parents, grandparents or friends, there is no save level of ETS, these people will kill you to be sure, to be sure.
While out trick or treating, make your voice heard. Trick every smokers house, make sure you have enough bricks and spray paint. Loud and proud kids, ensure those filthy smokers hear you.
Stay healthy,stay pure.
Prof JOHN F BANZHAF
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // ash.org
In a previous thread Bill complained the scientific community is ganging up and destroying his claim that smokeless tobacco would reduce smoking related mortality as efficiently as quitting. 99% is as good as 100%.
He contends by reducing the risk to 1% by switching, 450,000 lives will be saved annually.
Funny he also noted this 1% number was created prior to a move to reduce specific toxins in chewing tobacco and the risk today is likely 1000 times higher by smoking. Indicating his belief the volume of toxic constituents being reduced, offered a substantial benefit and if we reduced the Nitrates and PAH content for instance by say 99% smoking would be the same as something harmless, like chew for instance?
From Bill’s study we find from Hecht et al, as one of his citations;
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/
abst...jf00066a039.pdf
“Currently, the only well established groups of carcinogens in chewing tobaccos are the volatile, nonvolatile, and tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines. It is likely, though, that processed tobacco also contains traces of carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and polonium-210 (Hoffmann and Hecht, 1985; IARC, 1985). In addition to the dependence on concentrations of the alkaloids and nitrate in tobacco, the yields of the nitrosamines are greatly influenced by the processes
involved in the manufacture of the smokeless tobaccos. These processes most likely affect the reduction of nitrate to N-nitrosating species (Anderson et al., 1982; Brunnemann et al., 1983). The highest yields of nitrosamines occur in fire-cured tobacco and/or highly fermented snuffs
(Brunnemann et al., 1983; Hoffmann and Hecht, 1985). It was the goal of this study to compare some chewing tobaccos from different countries on the basis of their nitrosamine yield, their nitrate and nicotine content, and their pH levels. The pH of tobacco is important in that it influences formation of nicotine-derived nitrosamines (Hecht et al., 197
.”
Hmmm, I just know I have seen similar language? Like right here for instance;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubm...Pubmed_RVDocSum
And;
http://
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...bmedid=12037262
Now Bill has to tell us, when you take a jump from 99% safer to 1000 times safer by reducing specifically these specific toxins, why would there be no benefit seen by reducing the same toxins in cigarettes? In fact if you chew tobacco as opposed to smoking it how do you contend the same toxins are being administered in lower quantities?
Mind you Michael has already stated this can not be proven, without many years of unethical human experimentation. Like the orphans in New York for instance.
So Bill;
If you believe your product is so much safer by the reduction of the same toxins. When you ingest perhaps millions of times the volume by chewing, how is your product 1000 times safer?
Congratulations Bill;
You might have just stumbled onto the cure for 90% of lung cancers, or not.
You say you have been trying to tell them for 20 years, exactly what Hecht has been saying for 40 years and they won't listen to him either.
The really strange thing in all this; Just at the time we should be seeing proof tobacco could be made much safer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubm...Pubmed_RVDocSum
The Canadian Government forcefully shut down almost all the Tobacco farms in Ontario. At the time, the Province was already hurting due to job losses in manufacturing and with a smoking ban recently passed, the non existent hospitality trade losses were causing an uproar as well, they deliberately killed off thousands of farm related jobs destroying whole communities.
Farms producing what was likely the safest tobacco on the planet.
The Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman is quoted as saying "There is absolutely no scientific evidence, tobacco in Ontario is safer than tobacco produced anywhere else on the planet. There is no safe tobacco and no safe level of tobacco smoke."
I wonder now, if Bill would agree with the no safe Tobacco claims?
"Prisoners in jails (who like foster children, are also wards of the state) have a right to not be harmed by tobacco smoke pollution (at least here in the US)." YEP,especially when the State will murder them in retribution if they happen to be on death row.Was it Texas that refused that last cigarette on the grounds of it being unhealthy,minutes before execution ?Probably makes as much sense as the majority of crap expended by Total Crap TC.
Doctor Siegel, is this study another "for the children" or did TC really think hospitality workers were at great risk? and if not, why did they wait until now for the children?
Secondhand Smoke Worse for Children
http://www.healthyontario.com/
ne...ewsitem_id=1342
2008/10/21
Health Day News
Based on original reporting by HealthDay News
(HealthDay News) - Children exposed to secondhand smoke often have levels of carbon monoxide in their blood that are similar to those of adult smokers, and frequently higher levels than adults exposed to secondhand smoke, a new study found.
The study, to be presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meeting that concludes Oct. 22 in Orlando, Fla., said the younger the child, the greater the potential for exposure.
"The physiology of children - especially the youngest - is different from that of adults," Dr. Branden E. Yee, of the anesthesiology department at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, said in a news release issued by the society. "Children breathe in a greater amount of air per body weight compared to adults."
The study measured levels of carboxyhemoglobin, which is formed when carbon monoxide binds to the blood, in 200 children between the ages of 1 and 12. The exact ramifications of high levels of carboxyhemoglobin are not entirely known, but long-term, low-level exposure includes changes in heart and lung tissue as it hampers delivery of oxygen to body tissue.
Ann If you look carefully at the way the news ready article is written you quickly understand it was written for drama class and says very little.
Children are in the majority much more active than adults, which means despite much smaller lungs they can inhale more oxygen per body mass which includes second hand smoke, although the largest quantities of what they inhale is in the PM10 range which includes a large portion of particulate too large to include cigarette smoke in the .1 to 1 Micron range.
Further it states can be and may all too often to not understand the effect stated is not universal or the rule of fact. Adult Joggers would also find levels even higher than the amounts found in children. The study did not differentiate for economic standing and as a result where those children lived or how close to highways they spent the majority of their day.
Pure fear mongering and irresponsible use of position to sell a human rights abuse.
The reality of what I saw immediately, was the implication that second hand smoke [might, may, could] cause heart deficits, although what we have seen by much higher levels than are even possible today, in addition to exposures of many other currently controlled environmental hazards of much more severe risk, there is no evidence in examining the current adult population that it ever did.
Since it has become incontrovertible that I am considered unfit to be part of society I hereby tender my resignation from society, effective immediately. - GreatScot
What need is there to resign from society when one has already been expelled?
Apart from that quibble, everything you say follows inevitably. But I'd go further.
Why should anyone who has been expelled from society, turned into a second or third class citizen, be asked or expected to pay taxes, or to obey laws?
Furthermore, why should they be called upon to fight for a country which is no longer theirs, fight for freedom they no longer enjoy, or fight for a democracy that they no longer have?
Is there not an utter absurdity in sending young men and women to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight for freedom and democracy, while at the same time restricting and undermining the freedom and democracy of the same young people back home, in their schools and universities and clubs and bars? What must any soldier who has fought (and no doubt smoked, because soldiers usually do) in Afghanistan think when they return home to find that life in Afghanistan was more free than life back home? Must they not wonder what the hell was the point of the war? I know I would.
Antismokers don't seem to realise - or care - that, in advancing their agenda by any means possible, fair or foul, they are destroying the foundations of civil society.
Gee Doc, a little sensitive with the editing are we not? I am sure Banzhaf can stand up for himself.
"Antismokers don't seem to realise - or care - that, in advancing their agenda by any means possible, fair or foul, they are destroying the foundations of civil society."
By way of example, I was talking to a Chinese national who was visiting Canada and the United States for business purposes.
She asked me quite seriously "how do people live under such oppressive regimes"? And "why don't they stand up for themselves"? She thought it was insulting to be asked to smoke outside and to be treated like animals just because you choose to smoke.
Our behavior is constantly being modified GreatScot,it must come with the Behavioral Science agenda.
Idlex -"What need is there to resign from society when one has already been expelled?"
Idlex, I would have more respect for them if they explicitly stated I was not welcome in society, however they will not / can not be that honest.
Smoking bans in pubs do not ban smokers, just don't smoke inside.
Refusing to allow smokers to foster does not mean you can not foster, just not before you quit.
Similar with employment and housing and medical care and........
They are not stating I can not choose to smoke (yet)just that there is a price to pay for my choice and they are ratcheting up that price by the day.
So I am not expelled explicitly from society I am just not accepted or welcome unless I conform to their ideals.
As with all bullies the only answer is to fight back, they can stick their version of society where the sun don't shine, I don't want to be part of that particular herd, and since there is always a consequence or reaction, when their society needs or wants something from me and it is within my power to deny them, guess what? It will be a cold day in hell before I will help them.
I would even have to think long and hard before deciding whether to piss on a tobacco control industry freak if he was on fire or light a cigarette from the flames and watch him burn.
Hope that explains me a bit better.
GreatScot
Removing a mild tongue in cheek comment i made a few days ago is one thing,but removing a link to an article in a UK national paper really surprised me,and somewhat shows a predisposition to censorship - SuperCallousSi
Care to post up the link again? Must be interesting.
The whole debate on childhood exposure to tobacco smoke makes no sense. Adults exposed to tobacco chronically have an elevated risk of contracting lung cancer and heart disease of around 25%, or so we are told. Children's elevated risk is approximately 0%.
How many other supposed health risks are MORE harmful to adults than they are children? The only one I can think of is mumps, which, as a disease in itself, rather than a external trigger, does not count. So, tobacco smoke kills adults, but does not kill children.
Conclusion: tobacco smoke must be magic, because no other health risk which isn't a disease in itself can boast this.
How can you maintain that the state should not interfere in the home life of natural parents (and force them to "step outside") but demand this of foster parents--
Because once they've achieved this natural parents will be on their hit list. They'll be threatened with having their children taken away if they refuse to give up smoking.
The anti-crusaders have no concept of where to draw the line.
Glanzt, started the anti-smoking garbage to pay his mortgage, now he's probably got a couple of mortgage
free houses all down to liesm what we've paid for. The anti-crusadesrs can't give up yet, this will be kept going on a drip, drip basis for years to ensure their employment. They're not only dangerous people but some are downright evil.
Passive Smoking & Global Warming will go down as the two biggest money making scams of the 21st century.
She asked me quite seriously "how do people live under such oppressive regimes"? And "why don't they stand up for themselves"? She thought it was insulting to be asked to smoke outside and to be treated like animals just because you choose to smoke. - Kevin
Telling, isn't it, what foreigners say? She was quite right, of course. And it is insulting to be asked to smoke outside. Indeed it is intended to be an insult. All part of the 'denormalisation' process.
Idlex, I would have more respect for them if they explicitly stated I was not welcome in society, however they will not / can not be that honest. - GreatScot
Perhaps it's that while you're unwelcome in society as a smoker, you're more than welcome as a taxpayer or a soldier. In fact, this is expected of you.
You may not have any rights, but you still have duties.
Idlex,i would be quite happy to do so since it came from the Daily Telegraph of all places,hardly appeared to be an article to censure but Dr Siegel chose to do so,so.......US politics no less.The vagaries of Behavior......
enraged-Because once they've achieved this natural parents will be on their hit list. They'll be threatened with having their children taken away if they refuse to give up smoking.
and then the extended family, aunts, uncles, grandparents, older siblings. Then friends and friends of family until we will have to decide between the warning signs on the door "DANGER smoking household- NO CHILDREN ALLOWED" and ever having a child inside your house.
Then non-smoking adults will be afforded the same and where does that lead us? 100% Smoking and non smoking homes with zero cross over allowed then we need to "protect" non-smoking neighbours leading to smoking, blocks? streets? towns? lets simplify it and call them ghettos.
What will happen to mixed marriages and relationships and households, state mandated divorce with all costs to the smoker of course?
Far fetched? fantasy? will never go that far?
"all we want is no-smoking flights less than 2 hours" "is it too much to ask to watch a movie without smoke" "just a no smoking area in a restaurant" need I go on?
It goes without saying that with people like Siegel continually pointing out inconsistencies as opposed to expressing outrage the acceleration and escalation will continue until breaking point is reached.
Keep up the good work Doc but don't rely on this blog protecting you from the inevitable backlash.
GreatScot
I posted a comment on the Mail article pointing out the lack of evidence re childhood cancers. It was not put up. I am going to email Daniel Martin, the reporter, and Robert West of CRUK. He has a history of this. I emailed him a few months ago re smoking causing car accidents. He wrote a nice reply and said he had been wrongly quoted. I suggest as many people as possible email him this time.
Cheap shot of the week:
Godshall informs us that FOREST "has been given lots of cigarette industry funding."
Well, if true, that obviously removes anything that FOREST might have to say from any gentlemanly discussion!
But what we all continue to wonder, is how Godshall is able to put bread on the table. Since he's been awfully coy on the whole subject of his income, we have to suspect that he's not living on love and kisses, and that perhaps tainted money is not only feeding the family but is dictating his whole position and attitude. In other words ... but I don't want this posting to be deleted.
Something new? Liquid smoking:
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/20...tine-addiction/
.
enraged makes an excellent point. If it is acceptable for the government to intervene to remove parental autonomy for foster parents, is it not acceptable for the government to also remove autonomy for all parents?
It was interesting to note that the obese children who were taken away from their parents do not appear to have been foster children.
Maybe some readers in the UK can provide more information on this new policy of removing obese children from their parents. Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been more outrage about this proposal in the media.
"Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been more outrage about this proposal in the media."
Frankly, I am surprised you are surprised.
I mean, it's not as if someone were going around talking about piles of dead barternders in an effort to gin up support for smoking bans.
Oh wait... It is like that.
What do you expect them to think?
Off topic again, but does anyone have any suggestions as to why Bill hasn't been on to tell us about the 1 year delay in the smoking ban at Atlantic City's casinos? He certainly gloats when one is put in place, but when one is revoked it is silence?
This delay is purely hypocritical LighteningBoy can not protect his earnings but the casinos and the State can protect theirs? How much does the State receive from the slot machines? This delay also shouts out the lies and frauds behind the entire movement. If I were a business owner, I would be running to my representitives demand equal treatment.
It's probably because Dr Siegel,people see how smokers have been shit on and herded into the denormalised zone.They realise that Parliament is full of moronic tossers filled to the brim of empowerment by Public Health Nazis who are being backhanded thousands by the drug companies.They feel somewhat overwhelmed that the UK has suddenly become the cesspit of democracy.Has this sunk in Dr Siegel ? Behavior specialist in subversion for the REAL TC,not those overzealous morons who cause sane people to realise how they have been duped.
Enraged wrote: “Because once they've achieved this, natural parents will be on their hit list. They'll be threatened with having their children taken away if they refuse to give up smoking.
Good point. That’s definitely the intent.
Preventing smokers from adopting or fostering children is simply laying the groundwork for the next step in the de-normalization process. Once the anti-smoker crusaders establish that smokers are unfit parents, they will be free to attack smoking parents in their own home.
If the alleged dangers of secondhand smoke are serious enough to deny smokers the privilege of adopting or fostering children, then the anti-smokers can claim that children also need protection from the smoking habits of their natural parents. And, politicians can’t resist the demands of the fanatics without repudiating the corrupt science and statistics they used to justify existing discriminatory bans.
Even the implied threat that children could be removed from the home, or parents penalized should they refuse to kiss the collective ass of the hate-mongers and quit smoking, could have severe consequences.
The anti-smoker brigade is pushing the envelope. They’re only a step away from crossing the line.
Dr. Siegel: "Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been more outrage about this proposal in the media."
Are you kidding me? The media has become the official cheerleading section for the health nuts.
Hmm. Yes. When communicating the dangers of SHS, I will come up with my numbers assuming that every single chair in every single bar and restaurant is filled 100 percent of the time by a smoker who never stops smoking. Furthermore, I will assume that every single worker is exposed to this level of risk every single hour of every single working day. I will also assume that every single worker never switches jobs, and that every one of them works a full 40 year career.
Despite knowing that none of these things is true.
But come on. Can you BELIEVE the people in the media are FALLING for these exaggerated claims regarding foster homes? I mean, where is the perspective and honest dealing I have come to expect of my dealings in TC?
Good thing it's Halloween. The doctor is scaring me.
Isn't this our bud, Bill?
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/...b/
s_488856.html
"Off topic again, but does anyone have any suggestions as to why Bill hasn't been on to tell us about the 1 year delay in the smoking ban at Atlantic City's casinos? He certainly gloats when one is put in place, but when one is revoked it is silence?"
He is likely pouting. He might have received a small taste of the other side of denormalization yesterday, [He pulled out the shill thing, which indicated he was getting upset]and he discovered being on the receiving end, isn't nearly as much fun as what he has been doing to 10s of millions of complete strangers for the past 20 years.
In an effort to fight off billions in state deficit, the PA health department proposed a $300,000 cut in smoking ban enforcement, about a 15 percent cut. Bills likely digging for his drawers.
Following a combined 18 years in the foster care system, two unrelated teenagers have found their way to my smoky welcoming doorstep after the most recent "mother," a rabid anti smoker, made a punching bag out of the boy's face. The horrors these kids have experienced since babyhood defies human comprehension and most have been at the hands of so called do-gooders. Have I been "willing to minimize their children's smoke exposure by, for example, smoking outside?" HELL NO...Have they thrived under my care...improved their grades...made social baby steps...and made giant strides in their mental and physical health? Damn straight. With all the hideous abuses they have suffered in their short lives I vow, upon their majority if they so choose, to offer up a light and share my ashtray. They may find, as I have, that smoking is among the few true simple pleasures left in this totally messed up world. As an aside, I'd like to brag that my biological daughter...raised in a haze of smoke and love will graduate from college this spring Summa Cum Laude.
jan k.
"Isn't this our bud, Bill?"
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/...b/ s_488856.html
Sheri | 10.31.08 - 5:10 pm | #
godsHELL I am quite surprised that there are only 30 tobacco lobbyists in PA. I definitely will be writing to the BT to request that they quadruple the amount of lobbyists in PA. It is well know that BT is still making money hand over fist, so they could well afford to honor my request.
It is also really nice that at least 75% of the bars in my area of PA are NOT smoke free.
One sugesstion though, exempt bars must post a notice that no one under 18 is allowed inside. That is unacceptable. Since the drinking age is 21, It should be mandatory that no one under the age of 21 should be admitted to ANY venue that serves alcohol. Drinking in front of children sets a really bad example, and as parents we must set a good example, isn't that correct?
Any speaking of bad examples, shouldn't those foster parents that imbibe also be eliminated from the acceptable list? Of course, that should be expanded upon by legislating the drinking behavior of natural parents. Don't you agree?
Next up: SALT:
http://www.economist.com/
science...ory_id=12536485
Excerpt:
“Interestingly, New York City—which was among the first to ban smoking in restaurants and bars, and the first to pass laws targeting unhealthy eating habits—isn’t waiting for a new administration in Washington, DC to place salt on some national hit list.
“By all accounts, New York is preparing to add permissible sodium levels to its recent ban on artificial trans-fats and its requirement for calorie counts to be listed on the menus in restaurant chains. Absent some national initiative, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle won’t be far behind.”
.
Harry,
this year one of the local authorities in England, after pressure from the anti salt loons,went round all the cafes and greasy spoons in their area replacing the 12 / 16 / 18 hole salt shakers with 4 hole shakers. All at the tax payers expense of course.
Now how do you get the same amount of salt out of a shaker with less holes?
Shake longer?
Take the bottom of the shaker off?
Too much trouble? carry your own.
I wonder if the LA thought this through before spending the tax dollars?
Oddly enough, though I have no opinions on anyone elses use of salt, I had to stop eating potato crisps/chips years ago,because they were becoming unbearably salty.
I don't use salt in cooking, for no very good reason, and suffer cramps from salt deficiency every summer until I remember to take a pinch of salt.
I am fairly certain that this accidental salt deficiency, really isn't good for me, moderation in all things.
Whenever I hear these new scary stories about salt, I think about my grandmother. My dad use to yell at her all the time for the amount that she would use. This lady would pour salt into the palm of her hand and actually eat it. She was overweight, but I think you would be too if you had given birth to 16 kids. I know I retained to much from having only 2 kids. Each one of her children gave her some kind of problem during her lifetime. She raised a few of these kids during the great depression, toiling in the garden for food to feed them with. During prohibition, my grandfather ran a still and she would help run the moonshine for him. They had no electricity or running water. Bathroom facilities was an outhouse and they had to go out to the well and pump their water.
I think you can get the drift that her life was not an easy life. What she was capable of doing would raise the blood pressure of all the lazy do gooders of the world today. So, she liked salt? Big deal. She never took nor had to take one pill due to high blood pressure and she lived to the ripe old age of 88. Yep, she died of old age!
I can't even imagine the pleasure of eating a palm full of salt, but I do sprinkle some on my food if I feel it needs some spicing up and when I do, I think of and get some more fond memories of my grandmother.
Public health alone authorize themselves as authorities. The claims and demands they make are only as real as people allow them to be. No one elects them they can't be fired and take no responsibility for their actions. Thus they only present a downside cost in all perspectives.
They create drama and anguish out of any minor inconvenience and people let them do it. The media sells them franchises to spread their gloom simply put; because people keep buying it.
Advertising is always purchased to make a profit and their are no saints behind the ads, giving anything away for free. It all has a cost and if it requires convincing with TV commercials to get you to buy it, it is always over valued.
Only when people start to question and denounce public health authority and opinions, will the problem right itself. You will see that happen when comedians become more popular in poking fun at health scare and its self appointed authority, placing the proper perspective on these people.
A bad joke or seriously damaged, they certainly are not the people who should be defining what is normal.
I can't even imagine the pleasure of eating a palm full of salt-diane
Try a pinch of salt in the palm of your hand on a hot day and it tastes delicious, try a second and it tastes revolting.
Salt only seems to be a problem when its disguised.
My young son came home from school once, traumatised, and said we must never eat salt or we would die!
I gently explained that if we didn't eat a little salt that was guaranteed.
Salt Deficiency: the cause of many serious diseases
"An eight-year study of a New York City hypertensive population stratified for sodium intake levels found those on low-salt diets had more than four times as many heart attacks as those on normal-sodium diets – the exact opposite of what the “salt hypothesis” would have predicted. (1995).
"In recent years there has been much publicity about the need to reduce salt consumption in societies where salt is added to many processed foods (Denton 1984, 584-7). It has tended to be forgotten that some salt intake is absolutely necessary; that people need salt, sodium chloride, to survive: The chemical requirements of the human body demand that the salt concentration in the blood be kept constant. If the body does not get enough salt, a hormonal mechanism compensates by reducing the excretion of salt in the urine and sweat. But it cannot reduce this output to zero. On a completely salt-free diet the body steadily loses small amounts of salt via the kidneys and sweat glands. It then attempts to adjust this by accelerating its secretion of water, so that the blood’s salt concentration can be maintained at the vital level. The result is a gradual desiccation of the body and finally death."
http://www.shirleys-wellness-caf...fe.com/
salt.htm
I will continue to ask until I receive a respectful explanation from the "Experts" Please explain TC's rendition of the facts presented herein;
According to Anthony J. Alberg, PhD, MPH and Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS et al,
Lung Cancer mortality in 1960 was close to 38 per hundred thousand, or roughly 38,000 in a 100 million population.
If 90% of those were in fact caused by smoking as the research indicates; we arrive with 34,200 smoking caused cancers. The 90% figure is controversial as we know from the bulk of Public Health media statements and published research papers; the figure resides in a range between 70% and 85%, however, in establishing a worst case scenario, and as we must, in erring on the side of caution we will calculate the mortality risk with the larger figure.
Carrying forward with the same number of smokers [B. Godshall et al] fifty years down the road, we should understandably expect, [all things remaining the same] that the lung cancer mortalities figure would not change.
Today we can conclude the same 34,200 mortalities believed to be caused by smoking in 1960 still remain, among the 220,000 lung cancer mortalities which occur today, although the 90% associated figure has declined significantly, along with smoker prevalence within the general population, as we would naturally expect would be the case. Logic and common sense tells us; if 90% was applied to the current figures, the percentage of cigarette related Cancers in 1960 by comparison would be five times the number of those we know actually occurred.
One can only conclude from the evidence; five out of six Lung cancers are not caused by smoking; but are in fact, caused [or invented] by the Tobacco Control [TC] lobby groups. Figures they cite in respect to heart disease or any other so called smoking related disease, can be proven to be similar.
Making TC and Public Health [who all rely heavily on the American Cancer Society for the figures cited] the planet's leading source of "preventable mortality".
You can quote me on that, any time you like. The facts speak for themselves.
Citations;
Anthony J. Alberg, PhD, MPH and Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS et al;
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/...123/1_suppl/
21S
Lung Cancers proportional to the population total have doubled since 1960. In actual numbers they have risen sixfold while the true number of smokers remained consistent throughout, for over 50 years. Lung Cancers can be developed in a laboratory in a matter of days. There has never been a reliable explanation of why it would take cigarettes 30 or more years to culture the same cancers. The reliance on Clara cells and their benefit in protecting the lungs of smokers for so many years, diminishes the claims made in respect to the more immediate effects of second hand smoke.
“Figure 1.. Lung cancer mortality rates for the United States from 1930 to 1998, age-standardized to the 1970 US population. Adapted from Gordon et al,19 and Mckay et al,20 and Ries et al.21” ;
http://www.chestjournal.org/
cont...01t1881001.jpeg
W. Godshall et al;
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...i?
artid=1779270
"But declining prevalence overshadows the fact that, with population growth, the absolute number of smokers in the U.S. remained relatively constant at 45 to 50 million over the entire period."
Sheldon Ungar Et Al;
http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/conte...abstract/14/1/
5
“The results suggest that the public consensus about the negative effects of passive smoke is so strong that it has become part of a regime of truth that cannot be intelligibly questioned. ”
James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor Et Al;
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/
a...pe2=tf_ipsecsha
“The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”
While we romanced the idea that smoking causes everything, what have we neglected? and how many died as a circumstance, of embracing high drama and calling it science?
IOW; A criminal act of depraved indifference.
Interesting study
SALT AND BLOOD PRESSURE:CONVENTIONAL WISDOM RECONSIDERED
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~ce...~census/
573.pdf
The UK gets creepier by the day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...ast/
7702856.stm
Pub-goers to be tested for drugs
Pub-goers in Aberdeen are facing a drugs test before entering bars as part of a crackdown by Grampian Police.
The test is voluntary, but customers will be refused entry if they do not take part. They could be searched and even arrested if traces are found.
I wonder if public health will recognise the potential?
Test for tobacco traces- no entry anywhere.
Blood alcohol tests before serving drink in pubs.
Cholesterol test before you get that slice of cheesecake.
I don't do drugs but as a matter of principle they can shove their test. It will be interesting to see the affect on the pub trading figures.
GreatScot
BTW people need to investigate the production of the P450 enzime which protects smokers from cancers, however acording to the American EPA does not afford similar protections for non smokers.
Imagine that, when you picked up your first cigarette you changed your anatomy by choice alone. The only other explanation possible would be of course; that you are simply self medicating by instinctive need.
Proving what they have been saying all along; is that cigarettes protect you from cancers which would have happened much sooner had you never smoked.
I find that hard to believe, but the public and the experts rely on the consensus so it must be true if you wish to be seen as normal.
From Great Scot, The UK gets creepier by the day. Wow, yes it does
"people had a greater confidence that they could enjoy a night out without fear of encountering drugs".
So, they are worried that if I SEE a drug, then I will immediately want to take it? LOL I was in college in the late 60's and early 70's, and I can say that I "encountered" drugs nearly every day. I had my choice of some tasty LSD, a bit of Angel Dust, massive quantities of cocaine, marijuana in various mixtures, and just about anything else popular at the time. I turned away from all of them because I simply was not interested. I really did not mind that others around me were taking them, but for me, they were not a temptation. I did, however, smoke in college, but that was the extent of it. Are today's citizens so weak-willed that they simply cannot turn down substances if they happen to SEE them? What a bunch of idiotic, wusses we have spawned!
"The Itemiser is already being used in pubs in England where concerns have been raised about the possibility of customers getting a positive reading simply by touching a surface where there are traces of drugs"
Is that like the people who believe that they can contact STD's from a toilet seat? My God, these people will be dead by 50 from stress-induced heart attacks and other killer diseases. PATHETIC bunch of spineless losers
From GreatScot’s link: "people had a greater confidence that they could enjoy a night out without fear of encountering drugs".
Fear of encountering drugs? In a pub? Do British drug dealers usually do business in a crowded pub?
This is just further encroachment on personal autonomy. It doesn’t really matter that some pub patrons may be drug users or even drug dealers (dealers seldom use the product they push and would likely gain entry quite readily). It is a gross violation of basic civil liberties and a blatant invasion of privacy.
The questions unanswered by the BBC article are why and how this came about. Who mandated this screening procedure? Has appropriate legislation been passed? How can police dictate who may, or may not, enter a pub? Will they be able to demand that people take a “voluntary” drug test before being permitted to enter theatres, libraries or a public bus?
This latest intrusion on civil liberties is not just creepy; it’s bloody insane.
"Will they be able to demand that people take a “voluntary” drug test before being permitted to enter theatres, libraries or a public bus?"
It gets worse. In Ontario Canada they are just putting the final touches on legislation to create computer generated profiles for facial identification. A data base of photos will be created from the driver's license photos already collected, in addition to a new mandatory ID card with the same imprinted profile. The card will be needed to borrow a book from a library, for applying for welfare or just to get medical treatments.
When your bank card is combined with new scanners blanketing the cities you will have few secrets from anyone given access to the cameras or from anyone focused on tracking your movements.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." ~Thomas Jefferson
Who the heck to vote for? They all look like fascists these days. Of the candidates who have come to my door, I have asked where they stand on smoking issues - pro choice & let the market decide. What kind of government do we have? "Constitutional republic."
But I don't think they've read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. They can't seem to see the big picture and how little encroachments are opening the floodgates to socialism.
Anonymous wrote: One element of this tour would of course be several trips to prisons, at which time he would be identified as the man who pushed through the legislation that established the prisoners' "right to not be harmed by tobacco smoke pollution."
I suspect they will give him a warm welcome.
This had me roaring! If that's not a cold bucket of water in Bill's "but they love me for it" face. ROFLMAO
I'm tempted to strike up an electronic conversation with an inmate just so I could ask him to conduct a poll among the prison population he lives with, asking what they'd do if they were to meet a man who helped bring about smoking bans in prison. I'll even tell him to make sure to add to the choices "I want to thank him."
In the meantime, any guesses as to how much tobacco smuggling goes on and what a cigarette will buy someone there these days? My guesses: Lots and way more than it used to.
Here's my anecdotal story.
Walking up the street to my house I see one of the neighbor kids (about 8 or 9 years old) just standing in front of his door. It's winter and it's freezing out. I wave and ask if he's locked out. He says yes, forgot his key and mom won't be home for about another hour. Couldn't leave him out there so I invited him to sit in my house until mom got home. Good kid that he is -- and even though knowing me very well (as does his mom) for a few years -- he still calls mom on his cellphone to ask if it's all right if he went to my house to wait. Of course it was. He got hot chocolate and I smoked while he sipped and we talked until his mom came to get him.
Bill would have preferred this kid froze out there than to sit with someone who smoked. No Bill, the option here was NOT not smoking. You're forced to decide freezing over smoking. Which is it? (rhetorical)
From the CDC fear factory. Here is the basis for creating irresponsible and short sighted promotions of trial by media. The same numbers many research papers base their conclusions deliberately creating mortalities to drive lobbies and legislation.
The actual numbers we can observe from mortality and morbidity observations become sidelined, in favor of the numbers created by poll results. When we consider 220 bartenders for instance, we are not informed in the public dissertations whether the numbers used were actuals or found with loaded questions and short sighted evaluations.
http://findarticles.com/p/articl.../is_/
ai_9136469
“”Definitions of Risk Factors
Overweight was defined as a body mass index (BMI=weight[kg]/height[[m.sup.2]] [is greater than or equal to] 27.8 for men and [is greater than or equal to] 27.3 for women. These values represent the sex-specific 85th percentile of BMI for U.S. 20- to 29-year-olds, estimated from the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Sedentary life-style was defined as less than three 20-minute sessions of leisure-time physical activity per week.
Persons who had smoked at least 100 cigarettes were defined as "ever smokers." Current smokers were defined as persons who had smoked at least 100 cigarettes and who currently smoked. The quit ratio was defined as the percentage of ever smokers who did not smoke at the time of the interview.
Binge drinking was defined as having consumed five or more alcoholic beverages on a single occasion at least once during the past month. Heavier drinking was defined as having consumed 60 or more drinks in the past month. Drinking and driving was defined as having driven after drinking too much at least once in the last month.
Seatbelt nonusers were defined as persons who reported that they sometimes, seldom, or never wore seatbelts.””
From this article which cites the CDC 1988 report, we see the risk of sedentary lifestyles is stated as double that of smoking. If that is true smoking doesn’t sound high risk at all.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...279&
pageindex=1
From above we see that sedentary risk would be judged by whether or not you participated in 3 physical leisure events [sports] in the past month. If someone asked you on the phone to name 3 physical leisure activities you participated in, over the past month. How many would consider golf as a qualifier? What would be the range between participation in June and in January? Tiger Woods could potentially fail the test. Or on the other side; how many would side with Sportsnet and consider poker or beer and darts as a sport, right along side soccer?
If I participate in no sports and I work in a physically demanding trade 6 days a week as opposed to someone who sits at a computer terminal 10 hours a day and plays darts on the weekend in the bar and both of us smoke and drink equal proportions of beer.
I would be considered much higher risk because of a sedentary lifestyle?
The majority of North Americans are not as sedentary as we are being led to believe apparently.
Now how many of those 450,000 smoking related mortalities are real and how many are figurative, when considering double their numbers are killed every year due to sedentary lifestyle risks?
Where do the SG, Michael and Mr. Bill get their numbers? Sounds like the lead in to a stand-up comedy routine, they continue to claim “always from only the most trusted sources” such as the CDC? Which is the real joke.
How do the media agencies they hire to create press releases get their slant on the facts at hand? Not from profound logic or the facts we can see, but from past promotional success, such as the German anti smoking campaign or from people described here, most obviously demonstrated by Cathy Bell and the many other shills to big public health;
http://books.google.ca/books?
id=...result#PPA52,M1
CDC reliability?
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....g-from-
cdc.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.as...cle.asp?
ID=4002
http://www.bigfatblog.com/node/1277
http://aspe.hhs.gov/infoQuality/...ponse/
33a.shtml
Identical logic used in a similar way which allows prophesy to replace reality
With no abortion laws will we be extinct in 200 years?
http://www.jillstanek.com/
archiv..._column_ar.html
The CDC contends there is no way to contain cigarette smoke yet?
http://www.dstl.gov.uk/
conferenc...oceedings55.pdf
The stench of familiarity?
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575...ter/
disband.cdc
Selling serum by calculating expected population numbers, for use in the promotions. Numbers that work, even with no evidence of disease. [See section 6]
http://aim.path.org/en/vaccines/...urden/
model.pdf
http://aim.path.org/en/vaccines/...urden/
model.pdf
“Tutorial: Using the CDC Hepatitis B Disease Burden and Vaccination
Model
In the next few pages, you will find a tutorial on the use of the CDC Hepatitis B Disease Burden Model. As you read through this tutorial, use the model following the instructions
to better understand the power of this tool. Please note that the data used in this tutorial have been fabricated for the purposes of this example. They are, however, representative of a country with high hepatitis B infection prevalence.
For an example of how the CDC Hepatitis B Disease Burden Model can be used as a tool for advocacy, please read the case study in the section titled "Assess vaccine."
Tutorial: Setting the scene
Imagine you are the national EPI manager for your country, AIM Land. AIM Land is considered a country of high HBV prevalence, although you are not familiar with the hepatitis prevalence data. As in many countries, hepatitis B mortality data are not available.
You decide to use the CDC Hepatitis B Disease Burden Model to estimate the number of HBV-related deaths that would be expected annually in your country without a hepatitis B immunization, and to estimate the reduction in HBV-related deaths with various hepatitis B immunization strategies.”
AKA the science of predetermined conclusions. Allowing the numbers to be placed into government processes internationally, for advocacy.
In place of observations or science.
The source of the estimates is more often than not supplied verbatim from the partnered stakeholder manufacturers, to the CDC tax funded lobby corporation.
Conflicted funds? Shills?
Kevin quoted, "For an example of how the CDC Hepatitis B Disease Burden Model can be used as a tool for advocacy, please read the case study in the section titled "Assess vaccine."
The link to this "case study" is broken.
http://aim-e-learning.stanford.e...cacy/
index.html
Maybe the Stanford School of Medicine moved it or just took it down. Maybe they didn't agree with the "advocacy tactics" described in the "case study".
There is only one reference in the reference section of this page and it is a little outside of the norm.
References
1. Goldstein ST, Zhou FJ, Hadler SC, Bell BP, Mast EE, Margolis HS. A
Mathematical Model to Estimate Global Hepatitis B Disease Burden and The
Impact of Vaccination, unpublished data, 2004.
Unpublished data? No peer review? No conflict disclosures? Did a vaccine manufacturer help them with the math?
It looks like some help came from GAVI, The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization. There is nothing unusual on their web page.
http://www.gavialliance.org/
But Wikipedia isn't as charitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Glo...nd_Immunization
"However there are growing global concerns that GAVI platform is used by pharmaceutical companies to mint huge profits by forecefully selling their drugs to least developing countries. Especially in case of Merck Corp. where Bill gates holds majority of the shares and then uses GAVI to market its vaccines to under developed countries."
I have no idea if this is true.
We may be a little too preoccupied with tobacco on this blog but, hey, this is a tobacco blog. The medical profession, in general, is suffering the same loss of public trust that the anti-smoker cartel is suffering.
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
Big Government, socialism and the unhealthy influence of Single Issue Fanatics is a frightening combination.
Good old UK leading the way. Don't worry about all these new law, they are to protect you.
Half of councils use anti-terror laws to watch people putting rubbish out on the wrong day
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...-wrong-
day.html
Tory communities spokesman Eric Pickles said: 'Under Labour, the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens are being eroded through plans for ID cards, sinister microchip spies in bins and abuse of anti-terror laws by councils.
Curiouser and curiouser
Commentary: Possible role of salt intake in the development of essential hypertension
"Salt is one of the cornerstones on which the mammalian biochemical structure is built. Total exclusion of salt from the diet leads to disaster, namely death."
"Still, salt is considered by some authorities, to be toxic on a level comparable with alcohol and tobacco"
"The modern salt saga started in 1904 with a paper by Ambard and Brochard3 who showed an association between salt intake and blood pressure in six patients. On the basis of these observations they created a salt–blood pressure hypothesis.
Subsequently in 1907 the results were opposed by Lôwenstein,4 and from then on the salt–blood pressure hypothesis has been the basis for a dispute between supporters of the hypothesis and sceptics.
What we can learn from this is that the salt–blood pressure hypothesis and the controversy dates back to the first decade of the previous century, initially based on a few case histories"
"In the following years Allan's positive results were both confirmed and disproved by several authors, but during the late 1930s the use of salt restriction faded."
"In the introduction of his 1960 paper Dahl defines his position, namely that salt is deleterious. Salt is compared with fall-out, carcinogens and atherogenic factors, and later in the paper with tobacco, alcohol, and fat"
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cg...t/full/34/5/
972
Looks like another one dredged up from the vault.
Manufacturers should certainly go lightly with the salt, but as well as being a flavouring it is also essential.
"In the British Isles, prehistoric man will have made his salt from sea water or from the few places where inland brine springs had been discovered. Traces of these activities are difficult to identify but archaeological evidence is now reaching back into the Bronze Age.
Cheshire was on a Neolithic trade route which crossed the salt fields where Iron-Age Britons probably traded Westmoreland stone axe-heads for salt."
http://www.saltsense.co.uk/about...salt-
hist02.htm
Not a new thing then ...
ES;
""However there are growing global concerns that GAVI platform is used by pharmaceutical companies to mint huge profits by forecefully selling their drugs to least developing countries. Especially in case of Merck Corp. where Bill gates holds majority of the shares and then uses GAVI to market its vaccines to under developed countries.""
There are a lot of stories surrounding the use of Polio inoculations. Since the original inoculations which were said to be connected with the origins of AIDS by medical experimentation in Africa [ Rolling Stone Magazine and Hooper et al] as well as the SV40 [Simeon virus number 40; There were over 50 identified]found in a growing number of cancers including now, SV40 found in Lung tumors of patients too young to have received the original injections.
Lately the talk is surrounding a distribution of Polio inoculations funded by Bill Gates which resulted in accelerated death by AIDS, more polio and in some cases Polio where none existed before. As a result of using a French manufactured oral version of the Polio vaccine which was clearly marked [although in French and no one could read it]; "not to be given to AIDS patients" The cheaper virus was live and giving it to Immune deficient patients had a predictable effect killing thousands.
You could say; If the shills to big public health and their bag men in the media, valued life more than power;
Real science, tells us; cigarettes and second hand smoke could absolutely be much safer They forcefully shut down 26,000 tobacco farms in Ontario producing the safest Tobacco on the planet, just short of the time we could have proved it.
With relatively simple regulations, utilizing low phosphorous soil and fertilizers, eliminating roots and stems and specifying flue curing processes. Simple steps which could reduce or eliminate the more suspect toxins in the smoke by more than 95% affecting smokers and non smokers alike, as demonstrated by the numbers the protection racketeers are scaring everyone with, for just money.
"No safe level of second hand smoke" tells us nothing, although the obvious protections it affords to the Tobacco Industry, go without saying. Today smokers have no idea where their tobacco is grown or what it may contain.
They call it callous indifference, extortion, hatred and divisions of peaceful communities. "Disease management" is now promoted almost exclusively among the very groups we have been told for decades we can trust. They seek to protect a few hundred bartenders who will be affected theoretically by the most extreme exposure to second hand smoke a calculator can imagine, versus the millions of smokers who will be effected almost exclusively in old age. Who is protecting smokers, from our tax funded hate campaign?
Persons who had smoked at least 100 cigarettes were defined as "ever smokers." Current smokers were defined as persons who had smoked at least 100 cigarettes and who currently smoked. The quit ratio was defined as the percentage of ever smokers who did not smoke at the time of the interview. - Kevin
It's crazy really. It's not even possible to say who is and who isn't a smoker. It all depends how you tweak the definition. Set it at 100 cigarettes in a lifetime, and you get one bunch of figures. Set it at at 1000, and you get another smaller number. Set it at 10, and you get yet another far larger number.
It's just totally sick that there's anything that even pretends to be any sort of science which deals in such infinitely redefinable quantities.
It's like having measures of length - feet and inches - which are measured with elastic rulers, that can be stretched one day to show that a foot is as long as a yard one day, and contracted to show it as short as an inch the next.
Ultimately, TC can't even say who is and who isn't a smoker. The decision is arbitrary. Just like it was an arbitrary Nazi decision as to who was and who wasn't Jewish. Cast the net too wide, and there were hardly any Jews. Cast it too narrow, and pretty much everybody was a Jew, including half the Nazi party.
So my question is: just how many cigarettes has Michael Siegel smoked in his lifetime? And can he remember? It could be pretty crucial when he standing on the ramp at Auschwitz again.
Non-Smokers’ Rights Association
Smoking and Health Action Foundation
February 2007
Second-hand Smoke in Homes and Cars
http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/
file...FinalUpdate.pdf
Many Canadians smokers have opened a window (65%), turned on a fan (44%), smoked behind a closed door (33%) or used an air purifier (28%), mistakenly thinking that this will substantially reduce the amount of SHS in their homes.8 While increased ventilation can mask the presence of SHS,studies have shown that in order to reduce the toxins in SHS to harmless levels, one would need air exchange rates equivalent to tornado-force winds. Indeed, considering the toxicity of substances found in SHS, experts in air quality estimate that an air flow of about 50,000 litres per second per occupant would be needed to reduce the risks of exposure to an acceptable level.13
13 Repace JL, et al, 1998. Air nicotine and saliva cotinine as indicators of workplace passive smoking exposure risk. Risk Analysis
1998; 18: 71–83.
Households contaminated by environmental tobacco smoke: sources of infant exposures
Tobacco Control 2004;13:29-37
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cg...bstract/13/1/
29
Objectives: To examine (1) whether dust and surfaces in households of smokers are contaminated with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS); (2) whether smoking parents can protect their infants by smoking outside and away from the infant; and (3) whether contaminated dust, surfaces, and air contribute to ETS exposure in infants.
Results: ETS contamination and ETS exposure were 5–7 times higher in households of smokers trying to protect their infants by smoking outdoors than in households of non-smokers. ETS contamination and exposure were 3–8 times higher in households of smokers who exposed their infants to ETS by smoking indoors than in households of smokers trying to protect their children by smoking outdoors.
Conclusions: Dust and surfaces in homes of smokers are contaminated with ETS. Infants of smokers are at risk of ETS exposure in their homes through dust, surfaces, and air. Smoking outside the home and away from the infant reduces but does not completely protect a smoker’s home from ETS contamination and a smoker’s infant from ETS exposure.
"Objectives: To examine (1) whether dust and surfaces in households of smokers are contaminated with environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)"
Would this be a scientific opinion which claims smoke remains smoke when solidified and attached to dust particles? Are all the components which define it as tobacco smoke still present in the solid form?
No on both counts. So who is being protected from what and why mention children at all?
Tobacco smoke leaves residue how surprising is that? Is the residue toxic to children or anyone else aside from the dust composition which might set off respiratory reactions, regardless if the tobacco smoke residue exists or not? Are these researchers attempting to protect against tobacco smoke, or against the existence of dust in the home?
I have yet to hear of any credible science to confirm it would increase any health risk if tobacco smoke residue is or is not present.
Therefore we are dealing with irresponsible claims divined specifically to inflame rather than to inform personal opinions.
Protecting no one except those who demand a right to promote their private form of bigotry and divisions. Specifically prophesied to interfere with the rights of autonomy and parental autonomy directly, to serve their own selfish needs regardless of the law.
Criminals.
and if you don't have children then maybe you have pets......
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pub...-effets-
eng.php
Second-hand smoke and your pets
* Some studies have shown that second-hand smoke can cause leukemia (a type of cancer) in cats23 and that dogs in smoking households have a greater risk of cancer.24, 25 And your furry friends don't just inhale smoke; the smoke particles are also trapped in their fur and ingested when they groom themselves with their tongues.23
# Bertone, E.R., Snyder, L.A., & Moore, A.S. (2002). Environmental tobacco smoke and risk of malignant lymphoma in pet cats. American Journal
of Epidemiology, 156, 268-273.
# Reif, J.S., Bruns, C., & Lower, K.S. (199. Cancer of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
in pet dogs. American Journal of Epidemiology, 147, 488-492.
# Reif, J.S., Dunn, K., Ogilvie, G.K., Harris, C.K. (1992). Passive smoking and canine lung cancer risk. American Journal of Epidemiology,
135, 3.
In the 60s we set out to eliminate coal in our furnaces because of the risks associated with; not just the carbon but mercury, lead, asbestos and a long list of contaminants commonly found in the home, which would put tobacco smoke to shame handily.
To go back to those homes today and measure for much of the same dust in addition to outdoor contaminants added over the years and claim a toxin still exists in older homes tells us nothing. To claim tobacco smoke or it's sediment will change the situation for the worse is ludicrous.
We know it is all still there today and will remain for years to come. Attaching a little water soluble cigarette tar to it, does not change its core structure or its toxicity.
The same sales pitch used by air cleaner sales campaigns, is being re-used to scare people and to take away their children.
Recently a propane explosion shook up a number of older homes in central Toronto. The residents were evacuated fearing more explosions. After the danger passed many home owners were still not allowed to return to the homes they had lived in for years, because the Hazmat people discovered they were contaminated with high levels of asbestos.
How many children were protected over the decades from tobacco smoke and how many died of "smoking related" diseases?
The experts have all been chalking up the damage to second hand smoke and smoking for decades, so no one felt an a need or even an urge to investigate further.
According to the disease management proponents; There are no accidents people are all responsible for their own misfortunes.
If you smoke and die of a respiratory condition, it is always your own fault. If you are overweight and die of a heart ailment or diabetes you did it to yourself. Let them all die and eliminate all the diseases with them? We have only eliminated a need or any urgency to find real cures.
How civilized and how progressive, why bother to try, when any little excuse will do? "No safe level" solves it all.
BTW;
For the insurance companies and the industries producing toxins this is great news.
Most of the now homeless people involved, are reporting their insurance companies are denying coverage to the owners of the homes in Toronto affected by the propane explosions.
There is no structural damage to their homes. The insurers claim Pre-existing and new Environmental developments are not their responsibility or obligation.
Kevin,
Ever hear of third-hand smoke? It's the latest and greatest weapon in the smoker-nazi arsenal.
http://www.google.com/search?q=t...lient=firefox-
a
http://www.usatoday.com/news/hea...moke-
usat_x.htm
as any parent knows, crawling babies explore the world by touching — and tasting — anything they can get their wet little hands on.
If their parents use tobacco, that curiosity may expose babies to what some doctors are calling "thirdhand" smoke — particles and gases given off by cigarettes that cling to walls, clothes and even hair and skin. Up to 90% of the nicotine in cigarette smoke sticks to nearby surfaces, says Georg Matt, a professor at San Diego State University.
Happy reading!
Georg Matt is more than welcome to come and scrub my house if he is so worried about my kids! I will supply the bucket and cleaning products, he can supply the elbow grease. Bet once he passes my white glove inspection he won't care what is in my dust after that!
O.T.
I was hunting around for an explanation of why I'd started smoking in my early 20s, and up popped the thought that it was simply another adult pleasure, along with a preference for beer rather than fruit juice, and for the company of girls rather than boys. It was just something that happened at that age. Up until my teens, I simply couldn't see why adults enjoyed beer and cigarettes, or what was so interesting about girls, who were all a bunch of complete sissies in my considered 10-year-old opinion. At that age I never had any real interest in food either, except to bolt it down as rapidly as possible.
If smoking is simply one adult pleasure among many adult pleasures, then those sorts of antismokers who can never figure out why anyone smokes are maybe just children who never grew up. Not in that sense, at least.
Maybe it goes further than this, and antismokers are a part of a class of puritans who essentially object to all adult pleasures - tobacco, alcohol, sex, food -, and for whom childhood represents a truth and innocence that later becomes unfortunately adulterated in adulthood. Perhaps what these puritans really hate is adulthood, and they want to keep people from becoming corrupt and depraved adults.
And it might explain why children are so important to antismokers. It would be because they continue to identify more with children than with adults.
Anyway, just a thought.
Speaking of Bill Gates:
Forced vaccine delivery?
"'Flying syringe' mosquitos get Bill Gates funding"
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/70140
"thirdhand" smoke — particles and gases given off by cigarettes that cling to walls, clothes and even hair and skin. Up to 90% of the nicotine in cigarette smoke sticks to nearby surfaces, says Georg Matt, a professor at San Diego State University."
I guess almost any idiot can be a professor at San Diego State University.
Ragingly Callous Lynda F and Sheri,
third hand smoke is "old" news, we are now on "fourth hand smoke", which of course is seeing someone smoke or just the product....
Ann, I know, I just didn't want to shock them all at once........hehehehehe
Thanks Lynda, LOL!
Gotta love third hand smoke.
I guess this means that smoking bans are bunk since it doesn't seem that it actually "protects" people.
Well,
It looks like the good Councillors of Redbridge "voted unanimously for the ban at a cabinet meeting last night, to protect children from the dangers of passive smoking."
Shame on them.
Commenting by HaloScan
