They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’ World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview. What do the studies on passive smoking tell us? PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the...

The new Tobacco Prohibition I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled. This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts. We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters. Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition. Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to...

Since everyone over 30 has been raised around SHS/ETS,and SHS/ETS IS SUPPOSED TO BE SO DEADLY, why are they the longest living of all generations? Why, since smoking has dropped from 54% to 20%, are all the diseases supposedly caused by smoking, on the rise every year? California has the oldest smoking ban and their Asthma rate is 16% and Kentucky has only a 6% rate of Asthma with the highest rate of Smoking? Why do Anti's still say SHS/ETS KILLS, when the EPA Report they base their statements on was found to be a FRAUD by Federal Judge Osteen and two Congressional Committees? Why, did the longest/largest studies by the ACS and the WHO find SHS/ETS had no connection to Cancer or Heart Disease? Why are there more than 250 other studies...

been there done that........gulf war one veteran

And then there’s that whole annoying fact that the half life of polonium is only 138 days, so we’d just have to ignore the laws of physics as well in justifying the Times’ comparison.

Even if someone wanted to quibble with these estimates, changing 1% to 10%, or 10 square feet to 100, or 10 cigarettes to 100 cigarettes per day… or even ALL THREE in attacking this argument… we’d STILL be talking three billion years of exposure along with a suspension of the basic laws of biology and physics.

Other elements in “third-hand smoke” might be somewhat more concentrated, but still nothing that wouldn’t demand hundred, thousands, or millions of years of assiduous tongue-licking and total constipation. Dr. Kabat’s central point,...

It would take that nonsmoker a trillion days to absorb the dose that killed the Russian.

Of course that’s secondhand smoke. What about our children and this “third-hand smoke”? A reasonable estimate for the amount remaining stuck to the 10,000 square feet of walls, ceilings, furniture, floors, and draperies in a reasonably ventilated 2,000+ square foot home would almost certainly be less than 1%, but let’s assume that 1% actually does remain and spreads out over that 10,000 square feet of surface. With ten cigarettes having been smoked while the child was at school and the house then thoroughly aired out, we’d then have 1% of a half picocurie (i.e. 5 femtocuries) spread over that surface.

Let us suppose that your child...

Let me take one particularly important and egregious example: the January 2nd New York Times article on this research. The article reserves the spotlight closing paragraph of the article to provide the obligatory listing of nasty things found in standard cigarette smoke along with descriptive phraseology (e.g. “hydrogen cyanide, found in chemical weapons; butane, which is used in lighter fluid”). It finishes with one element particularly designed to terrorize parents in today’s world, “polonium-210 (Po210), the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006.”

After reading such an article, what decent parent would allow smoking in their home, even if their children were...

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a...

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "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 Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean. To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." The National Cancer Institute states "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that...