THIS IS the third year of Stoptober, a huge campaign with the commendable aim of persuading Britain’s smokers to quit.
Hows it’s going?
Hackney councillor Jonathan McShane, who specialises in health matters, says of this year’s campaign: “The great thing about the 28-day Stoptober challenge is that everyone is in it together.”
He encourages smokers to sign up, “so we can have even more successful quitters this year”.
More successful? Last year, 2013, 900 people took part in Hackney. At least, they may have taken part. Of the 250,000 smokers who took the pledge , 65% quit for 28 days (according to participants). Just over 162,000 quit for a month, in a population of 53 million.
Before you say “And then?” the people behind the scheme claim that if a smoker can go 28 days without a drag, he/she is five times more likely never
again to have to stand furtively puffing in the sleet outside a warm building as colleagues point accusingly through the windows.
“More likely”… yes, Public Health England puts it no stronger than “more likely”. Statistics, eh?
This year comedians Al Murray, Paddy McGuinness, Simon Brodkin/Lee Nelson and Andi Osho, above (supplied picture), will swap “fags for gags” to help puffters to give up for 28 days.
The big chimney said to the little chimney: “You’re too young to smoke” is unlikely to be one of their jokes.
Is a scheme with such a small effect on Britain’s adult smokers, estimated to number 10 million, worth its £6 million cost?
Of course, the aim is excellent and a dramatic decline in the prevalence of smoking has had a noticeable effect on the longevity of Britons.
But the question has to be asked, is Stoptober value for money? Or just a costly joke?
Hamish Scott 090914
* Before it’s too late: Stoptober and NHS. Phone support: 0800 169 1943
* Emboldened underscored words in most cases indicate a hyperlink, a reader service rare among websites. If a link does not work, it is probably because the site to which the URL refers has not been maintained.
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.
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]).
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.