SECOND HAND SMOKE FRAUDS
Secondhand Smoke Studies which find no risk
American Cancer Society catches the Surgeon General in an outright lie...
July
1, 2006
The Surgeon General showed up very regal looking to provide a
press release rehashing the tired old argument that
secondhand smoke is deadly and must be banned. And with his next statement:
Separate
"no smoking" sections DO NOT protect you from secondhand smoke. Neither does
filtering the air or opening a window.
It seemed a feable attempt to pre-empt
any action short of a total smoking ban.....as if to confirm that
pro-smoking ban activists' credibility in the public is
failing miserably.
Well I am sorry to report that the American Cancer Society
conducted air quality testing at several smoking venues which prove the Sugeon General
flat out wrong.
Take
a look at the above table, do you see the 20 reading? It represents a restaurant with an
enclosed (separate) smoking area. And the 20 is actually 20 nanograms, a nanogram is 10
(-9).
So......let me put a number to that nanogram for you: 0.000000020 of a
gram/cubic meter was the secondhand smoke concentration for the restaurant with the
enclosed smoking area. Which is
25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for the
secondhand smoke measured airborne component. Thus the American Cancer Society destroys
the Surgeon General's and
RWJF (Nicoderm) funded James Repace argument that
seperation and ventilation don't work.
The Surgeon General can stomp his feet,
and scream at the top of his lungs...like a little Napoleon "....because I said
so....." all he wants. But it doesn't change the facts........and the facts show he
is telling a bold faced lie to the American public.
Read
RESEARCHERS BLAST CALIFORNIA EPA REPORT: SECONDHAND SMOKE FINDINGS BIASED, FLAWED
01/30/2006-The American Cancer Society stated unequivocally, in a written comment, that it did not agree with Cal-EPA's conclusion that secondhand smoke was a cause of breast cancer, and that published evidence did not support the requisite criteria for causation.
The World Health Organization actually did a study on secondhand smoke which showed that it doesn't even make people sick, much less kill them. Now, it makes people uncomfortable. They don't like it. I don't like secondhand cigarette smoke myself -- it reeks -- but it doesn't kill. It doesn't.
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 01/4/06
Articles, editorials, op-eds and published letters in the pages of many of New Jersey's newspapers have been heavily lopsided in support of the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Each article or commentary seemingly has been designed to leave the reader with the perception that the supportive evidence presented is undeniable or that no contrary findings or opinion even exist.Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker � patron or employee � has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.
Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.
But more importantly, polling the public to determine a private establishment owner's fate is indecent. No customer or employee � each free to be there or not � should be able to dictate the house's rules. And for the "my way or the highway" anti-smokers who don't get it, we mean smokers shouldn't either. Only one person's vote counts � the owner's.
The case that workers shouldn't have to leave an environment they don't like or hours that fit their personal needs is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Slavery ended a long time ago. No one is forced to do anything they don't like.
For the lawmakers who believe economics is the determining factor, New York City's sales tax revenue for bars and restaurants did not rise 8.7 percent, as claimed by agencies Bloomberg dispatched on the one-year anniversary (March 2004) of the city's ban. Not only were the figures distorted by including places like McDonald's and Starbucks as restaurants, but smoking was banned in 95 percent of restaurants since the 1995 smoking ban law. What pre- to post-ban restaurant tax revenue comparison was there to make? In all cases (notably bars), it's a no-brainer that sales tax revenue was artificially low immediately following 9/11. To compare the post-ban year to those figures is dishonest.
In April, the New York State Department of Taxation released a much more official review of sales tax revenue. When one compares the pre-ban year to the post-ban year, bars in New York City lost more than 3.5 percent. Statewide, as confirmed by a report in the New York Post May 2, sales tax revenue "dropped or remained relatively flat since the smoking ban went into effect July 2003."
Junk science, tyranny and cooked books is pitting neighbor against neighbor and has ruined or will ruin individual livelihoods. Unbelievable. Don't do it, New Jersey.
A note of disclosure: Our organization has no ties to the tobacco industry nor do we speak on the behalf of the hospitality industry.
Audrey Silk
FOUNDER
NYC
CITIZENS LOBBYING
AGAINST SMOKER HARASSMENT
BROOKLYN
"The Fraud Examined in the BMJ"
There was a study done in Great Britain on ETS (environmental tobacco smoke). This study
was done very slowly, methodically, and slowly. It took FORTY YEARS to finish. It finally
finished last year, and was published in the reknowned British medical Journal. It
concluded there was no great risk being exposed to ETS, and the Dr. that had headed the
study even bemoaned the fact that he hated smoking-and wished it were otherwise-BUT-he
reported the facts as the study showed, and their findings were true. Proving the outcry
over the last 15 years to be false & misleading. What's that you say?? You never heard
of this study?? Why...that's because the media in this country (and most others, I would
imagine) REFUSED TO REPORT IT!! Yet the media will forever parrot the anti-smoker
Taliban's garbage & hate-filled propaganda as gospel, because they hate smokers, too.
posted by
Foolkiller at 05:30 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 21, 2005
#
Second Hand Smoke is NOT The Killer The Anti's Want You To Believe. Check out all the studies that have been and are being done on this issue:
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
cantiloper . tripod . com
Second-hand Smoke is Harmful to Science
9-16-03
- Looking for a surer method of being ripped apart than entering a lion's den covered with
catnip? Conduct the most exhaustive, longest-running study on second-hand smoke and death.
Find no connection. Then rather than being PC and hiding your data in a vast warehouse
next to the Ark of the Covenant, publish it in one of the world's most respected medical
journals.
article here
The Big Lie of secondhand smoke
By Sidney Zion - 29 November 2002
So it's time to talk turkey about this secondhand smoke craze to my once-upon-a-time second city, and let you know just how bonkers you are and just how you began the greatest brainwashing of the 20th century.
Dr
Proctor said passive smoking could cause problems for asthmatics and there were people who
did not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke but there was no scientific basis for a ban
in public.
click here
Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.
Second Hand Smoke: The Evidence
Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects
Project Title: Environmental Tobacco Smoke Study
Project Leader: Roger Jenkins, Chemical and Analytical Sciences Division
ORNL Project Support: R. W. Counts
(I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"I'd like to see what any anti would say in response to that question. )
Smokers� rights cloud ASHRAE IAQ debate
Dozens of bar owners and representatives from casinos, restaurant industry trade groups and tobacco companies spoke during the two-hour open forum. Many of the speakers came to the forum from Canada, where several cities have passed or are considering totally banning smoking in restaurants, bars and bingo parlors. Most of the restaurant owners said they have lost or will lose up to 25% of their business if a smoking ban in enacted in their communities.
Revisiting the Association between Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk
III.
Adjustment for the Biasing Effect of Misclassification of Smoking Habits
Peter N. Lee,
Barbara Forey, John S. Fry
P.N. Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd., Sutton, Surrey, UK
click here
Interesting
Sources of Indoor Air Contaminants/unhealthy living
we link to NYC Clash click here
Source: OSHA
A survey by NOP found at least 40% of office workers have symptoms which have been linked to sick building syndrome, such as sore eyes and throats, headaches and tiredness.
You don't smoke? Guess your safe? Think again. Then stop worrying.
Health Alerts
NYC Clash click here
"S Secondhand smoke stinks - but is it killing people? There was a study of the wives of the smokers - they have crummy health habits. They eat terrible diets of meat and fat, they don't get any exercise, but when they show up with worse health statistics, it's blamed on secondhand smoke, not on all the other factors.
Funny Stats Used By Anti-smoking Crusaders
McFadden asserted that only about three million Americans die each year from all causes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
National Report on Human Exposure to
Environmental Chemicals
New
CDC Chemical
Exposure Report Begins to Fill Critical Information Gaps in Environmental Health for the
U.S. Population
Data Show Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke Down Dramatically and Levels of Blood Lead Continuing to Decline
Essays on the Anti-Smoking Movement
The argument that this is being done "for smokers' own good" is demeaning: our bodies are not government property. The argument that smokers cost society money is specious: about one third of us considerately die before cashing in on social security. The argument that smoke is harmful to others is nothing but a subterfuge: the risk of second-hand smoke exposure has been so outrageously distorted that it amounts to an outright lie.
In 1998 the link made by the EPA Report in 1993 between secondary smoke and cancer was thrown out in a Federal Court because the statistics were bent to support a predetermined conclusion and normal scientific guidelines were ignored.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Nonsmoking Section of a Restaurant: A Case Study
December 2001
The ETS levels in the nonsmoking area were compared with those in other similar restaurants/pubs where indoor smoking is altogether prohibited. The results indicate that ETS component concentrations in the nonsmoking section of the facility in question were not statistically different (P<0.05)
Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, Department of Energy study finds
PASSIVE SMOKE
Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Secondhand Smoke
The Facts About Second Hand Smoke
(Finally)
It may be politically correct to attack secondhand smoke, but it is not scientifically correct nor, in the Court�s opinion, legally correct.
Federal Court Ruling on the Tobacco Industry's EPA Lawsuit: Summary and Practical Implications
In 1998 the link made by the EPA Report in 1993 between secondary smoke and cancer was thrown out in a federal court because the statistics were bent to support a predetermined conclusion and normal scientific guidelines were ignored.
Practical Implications
- While it is unlikely that there will be a rush to overturn smoking bans and restrictions currently in place, this ruling raises serious questions about whether there is a legitimate basis for severe and overly restrictive smoking regulations.
- Any legislative body currently considering smoking regulations cannot rely on EPA�s now invalid claim that secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen.
- This ruling should create a new environment to foster the development of practical and reasonable solutions that accommodate the preferences of smokers and nonsmokers alike.
- Since the ruling goes to the very heart of the science concerning secondhand smoke, it supports the industry�s contention that litigation concerning diseases allegedly resulting from secondhand smoke exposure has no scientific basis or merit.
One outraged Lady's Letter:
USA Federal Court Judge Osteen's Decision. The EPA ETS Fraud. (1998)
is a synopsis of that decision. This judge vacated all the EPA scientific findings on ETS as fraud and lies and states that passive smoking is not a carcinogen. Vacated means that the science involved no longer exists. The antis are still using this unavailable struck down bullshit against the smoker and the media lets them. WHY???The decision accuses politicians, health Nazis, certain doctors, and whoever else has engaged in the persecution of smokers of being corrupt. In other words this learned and respected judge is informing you dumbass reporters that anti-smokers lie their bloody pants off, but is this newsworthy, hell no, your lot just keeps taking the crap off the antis with no investigation into its being factual and print it. Are you a bunch of spineless jellyfish? Why are you frightened to go against the health Nazis? If I as a factory worker can see through the crap why cant you??