3 thoughts on “Is this anti-smoking project just burning money?

  1. Yes, it is money down the drain. Tobacco consumers have had enough of the bullying (aka “encouragement”) in an attempt to force us (aka “help” us) to quit from the public health industry.

    We love our tabs (cigarettes for the metropolitan snobs) and we are NOT quitting. Not now. Not ever. Leave us alone.

    For those who choose not to quit, #Octabber http://
    octabberresistance.blogspot.co.uk, a place for informed adults content with their lifestyle, will also be up and running again this year.

  2. Judge doesn’t accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation:

    It was McTear v Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s opinion (decision):

    http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/

    (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL [ITL Imperial Tobacco]). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the health committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases.

    Though this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to “withhold judgement” as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.

    [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a non-smoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
    paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).

    [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to [7.181]).

  3. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (3rd edition) http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13163 sorta says it all.

    The limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable “safe levels”.

    Osha safe levels

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in one hour.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smouldering cigarettes.”

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine: more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, ‘only’ 1,250 cigarettes. For arsenic, 2,500,000 smokers at atime.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so-called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same results.

    OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets:

    “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing permissible exposure levels (PELS.) as referenced in the air contaminant standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” – letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Secy, OSHA.

    Why are there any smoking bans? The stated reasons have no validity to the courts or to science.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *