Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 9 of 30

Thread: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    OSHA itself has stated regarding secondhand smoke:

    "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 Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997


    In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

    Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

    The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

    CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

    "We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

    "We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

    "Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

    "Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

    "For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

    "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

    "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    "At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

    "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

    "Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

    "It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

    Chart -

    CALCULATED NUMBER OF CIGARETTES REQUIRED TO REACH A THRESHOLD LIMIT FROM ETS IN A SEALED, UNVENTILATED 100m3 ENCLOSURE AT STP (1)

    ETS Component CAS Number Molecular Weight ETS Output (mg/cigarette)(2) Threshold Limit (ppm) Threshold Limit (mg/m3) Cigarettes Required

    2-Toluidine (3 isomers) (3) 107.15 0.003 2 8.7 290,000
    Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 44.05 1.26 111 180 (4) 14,285
    Acetic acid 64-19-7 60.05 1.5 10 25 1,666
    Acetone 67-64-1 58.05 1 500 1187 118,700
    Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 0.24 1 3.1 (5) 1,290
    Benzo[a]Pyrene 50-32-8 252.30 0.00009 0.02 0.2 (6) 222,000
    Cadmium 7440-43-9 112.40 0.0007 0.002 0.01 1,430
    Catechol 120-80-9 110.11 0.14 5 22 15,700
    Dimethylamine 124-40-3 45.08 0.036 10 (7) 9.2 25,555
    Formic acid 64-18-6 46.02 0.525 5 (8) 9.4 1,790
    Hydrazine 302-01-2 32.05 0.00009 0.01 0.013 14,444
    Hydroquinone 123-31-9 110.11 0.16 0.4 2 1,250
    Methylamine 74-89-5 31.09 0.1 5 13 13,000
    Methylchloride 74-87-3 50.49 0.88 50 103.0 11,170
    Nickel 7440-02-0 58.71 0.0025 0.4 1 40,000
    Phenol 108-95-2 94.11 0.25 5 19 7,600
    Polonium 210 (9) 210 0.4pCi na 3pCi/liter (10) 750,000
    Pyridine 110-86-1 70.01 0.39 5 16 4,100
    Toluene 108-88-3 92.13 0.000035 50 375 1,000,000
    These calculations are not complex. They assume a 100m3 enclosed and unventilated space at Standard Temperature and Pressure. STP assumes 24.45 = molar volume of air in liters at STP conditions (25oC. and 760 torr). Conversion equations are as follow:

    (TLV in ppm)(gram mol wt of substance) (TLV in mg/m3)(24.45)
    TLV in mg/m3 = ______________________________ TLV in ppm = ___________________
    24.45 gram mol wt of substance


    link to chart - http://www.nycclash.com/smoke_chart.html
    If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

    ~Paul Wellstone~

  2. #2
    Olympic Champ RYou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    8,376

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    When OSHA and NIOSH assess health risk, they set the permissible exposure levels (PELs) and short term exposure leveles (STELs) at the 50 percentile mark. That means the maximum allowable exposure limits will not affect approximately 50% of the population. Each individual is affected differently at differently at different exposure levels. Yes, someone can be adversely affected at 5% of the OSHA allowable exposure level. Just because the exposure is below what OSHA allows under regulation doesn't mean it is a safe limit for everyone and that can include second hand smoke.

    Long term exposure at minimal exposure levels can have adverse health effects and has been well documented.
    Life's not the breaths you take, the breathing in and out that gets you through the day ain't what it's all about. It's the moments that take your breath away.

  3. #3
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by RYou View Post
    Long term exposure at minimal exposure levels can have adverse health effects and has been well documented.
    Dr. Siegel demonstrates that epidemiological studies showing a very minor risk from SHS were cherry picked to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion
    Here Dr. Siegel re-examines a 1997 Study on Secondhand Smoke and Heart Disease. And finds that data which did not support the pro-smoking ban agenda was omitted so as not to taint the findings to what scientists wanted the studies to reveal. In other words the data was manipulated or fixed to arrive at a pre-determined agenda.

    Now combine that manipulation with the fact that most of these pro-smoking ban researchers and groups received funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) which has direct ties to the Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson Company, and you have an indictable offense worthy of an international investigation.

    By the way, you probably noticed I used the words "very minor risk" in the title, here's the 1997 study's relative risk ratio and my question to Dr. Siegel:

    "....a pooled relative risk of 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.3"

    Dr. I have heard from several experts that a relative risk ratio of less than 2.0 is typically not published in a medical journal such as BMJ or the JAMA. In fact what I've heard is that unless a relative risk ratio is 3.0 or higher it is not deemed a credible finding worthy of publishing in either medical journal. Could you comment on any other issue, besides tobacco, which was given "credible finding" status even though the risk ratio was less than 2.0?

    Any of you in the pro-smoking ban movement are free to answer the question above.......if you can.

    Update: GreatScot, a regular contributor to Dr. Siegel's website, provides some additional information:

    Risk Ratio's less than 2. Interesting reading.

    http://www.amlibpub.com/

    Excerpt:

    A 30 percent increase means a relative risk (also known as risk ratio, or RR) of 1.3. (On the risk scale, zero risk is set at 1.0, not 0.0.) Actually, the American Heart Association website lists the following RRs: 1.25 for cardiovascular heart disease, 1.18 for ischemic heart disease, and 1.13 for arrhythmic heart failure or coronary arrest mortality. The RRs for cell phones, computers, hair dryers, and electric blankets are all between 3.0 and 4.0. The risk of getting cancer from drinking municipal tap water that tens of millions of Americans drink every day is 2.0 to 4.0. So why be concerned about a relative risk of 1.3 to the heart from ETS? It so happens that 1.3 is the exact RR for shortening your life by drinking three cups of coffee per WEEK. That will give you some perspective on the severity of the alleged heart “danger.”

    Both the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society have clearly stated that RRs below 2.0 are too low to be relied upon. And a report by the independent health consulting firm Littlewood and Fennell characterized RRs less than 2.0 as “dancing on the tiny pinhead of statistical insignificance.” Compare this to the claim of “rapid and large” harmful effects from an RR of 1.3. A wealth of published literature dismisses relative risks less than 2.0 (100%) as being insignificant. And Dr. Eugenia Calle, Director of Analytic Epidemiology at the American Cancer Society, has stated the RRs below 1.3 are too low even to be realistically identified, much less be dangerous.

    Why aren’t RRs less than 2.0 significant when they can represent impressive sounding percentage increases? The main reason is confounding variables. There are at least 20 of these that have been identified for ETS and heart disease, including: heredity, consumption of fat, consumption of fruits and vegetables, exercise and physical activity, type of employment, ethnic background, cholesterol, socio-economic class, etc. Any one of these could account for an impressive percentage increase in disease, yet no study of ETS has ever come close to controlling for even a large share of these variables. And there could be others that haven’t yet been identified.

    It is no wonder, therefore, that Dr. Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the world’s leading medical journals, says, “As a general rule, we are looking for a relative risk of 3.0 or more.” Dr. Robt. Temple, director of drug evaluation for the FDA, says, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” And the EPA declined to regulate high-voltage power lines because it said the RRs seldom exceeded 3.0.

    Hmm... one can only conclude that smoking bans, financed by some very powerful special interest groups, wouldn't even be considered if it weren't for the money.

    link - http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...ates-that.html

    As to the claim that secondhand smoke is a health hazard, air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...esting-of.html

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...t-results.html

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...t-results.html

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...econdhand.html

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...-conclude.html

    All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.

    Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
    Last edited by ccbig; 09-17-2008 at 07:49 AM.
    If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

    ~Paul Wellstone~

  4. #4

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Yeah, it must just be a big conspiracy.

    "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!?

  5. #5
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp View Post
    Yeah, it must just be a big conspiracy.

    ASH is a member organization of the Center for Tobacco-Free Kids which was funded by Nicoderm interests at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, $70,000,000.00 worth of funding to be exact.

    "....gee why would an alternative nicotine product manufacturer -J & J/RWJF want its competitor -the tobacco companies' products to be banned?...." Perhaps to continue selling $500,000,000.00 worth of smoking cessation products annually.

    They (RWJF/Johnson & Johnson Company) will fund any organization to spread lies to insure that the alternative nicotine product revenue stream continues.

    link- http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...th-ash-is.html

    Will there be an investigation into this nationwide government scandal?
    To the average non-smoker as I am, it might appear that the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Non-Smoker's Rights, the American Medical Association, countless research Universities around the country, etc. are lobbying our politicians for smoking bans for health reasons.

    However, upon some investigation it is clear that these NGO's are backed by $446,000,000.00 + from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) which has direct ties to the Johnson & Johnson Company, and J & J is the manufacturer of Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ via its wholly owned subsidiary ALZA. Recently, the buyout of Pfizer means J & J profits even more from the passage of smoking bans thru additional sales of Nicotrol and the new smoking cessation drug Chantix.

    The data supplied to these NGO's and subsequently our politicians should be viewed as highly dubious at best, since it comes from the largest manufacturer of pharmaceutical nicotine products which benefits by selling their alternative nicotine products like Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ, Nicotrol, etc. when tobacco nicotine use is prohibited via smoking bans.

    In fact according to this industry watchdog pharmaceutical nicotine product sales is a $500,000,000.00+ annual business almost exclusively owned by the Johnson & Johnson conglomerate, of which RWJF is an entity and single largest shareholder of J & J stock, with a $5.4 billion dollar holding.

    For whatever reason our local lawmakers seem to ignore the conflict of interest, if they know about it at all. I am curious if some of these local lawmakers receive campaign support from any or all of these special interests........Are local media outlets, or attorneys general interested in investigating? We'll see.

    link - http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...into-this.html
    If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

    ~Paul Wellstone~

  6. #6

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Citing posts from a blog is certainly more authoritative than studies by the Mayo Clinic or Centers for Disease Control. Obviously the blog has no agenda.

    Sort of like the conspiracy theories that have aliens causing 9/11 and the like.
    "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!?

  7. #7

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Are you going to be like Big now and start lots of threads on the same topic and always include exclamation points?

  8. #8
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by bluestater View Post
    Are you going to be like Big now and start lots of threads on the same topic and always include exclamation points?
    Are you always going to compare people to Big when you don't like what their opinions are on a given subject?
    If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

    ~Paul Wellstone~

  9. #9

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbig View Post
    Are you always going to compare people to Big when you don't like what their opinions are on a given subject?
    Maybe it's the "big" in your name

    I tend to be in favor of any anti-smoking legislation because smoking is such a harmful habit. Anything that makes it harder to breathe poison into one's lungs, and releasing this poison into the, air, is good by me. (Well maybe not anything, but you get the idea.)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •