1 - 10 Next
Clean Air Quality Law It is hereby ordered that all things that generate chemical releases simular in nature to tobacco smoke are hereby OUTLAWED. 1. Automobiles and gas or diesel engines or any other contrivance that emits chemcial releases. This savings equals to the public not being forced to inhale 100s of billions of cigarettes each day. 2. All plants are outlawed as they releases tons daily of the Carcinogen ISOPRENE. Equal in volumes of Millions of cigarettes each day. 3. Restaraunts will be outlawed from preparing any cooked foods as these release 100s of millions of equal cigarettes each day. 4. In home cooking is also outlawed as it produces upwards of 10s of thousands of equal cigarettes inside and outside the home. 5. Outdoor cookouts and fireworks are outlawed as they releases 100s of millions of equivalent cigarettes a day or on weekends in the yards and parks of our city. 6. Humans are hereby outlawed from existence insode the city limits as their own human breath contains hundreds of the same chemicals as found in tobacco smoke! 7. Nature itself is outlawed as it generates Billions of chemcial releases naturally into the atmosphere a day hense posing a threat to human life. 8. This Clean air law becomes effective Immediately. 9. Your preference of suicide is a personal choise,Police will write tickets and lock up any survivors after this law becomes effective. A grace period of 30 days will be in place to educate the public on its existence. Signed into law by the GHOSTOWN ADMINISTRATION
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
You got more specific sob stories than most fanatical smokefree activists. You sure you aren't locked away in some mental health institutue for the Insane. COPD is caused by ADENO VIRUSES not smoking. asbestos is another thing never proven to cause cancer. Viruses have almost been end point connected to cancer outcomes but just not quite. The only other thing proven to cause cancer ie cell disruption is HIGH DOSE RADIATION! Radiation from smoking The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are: Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid Average Annual Total 361 mrem/year Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem) Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh! or Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem) 18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking! http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/f...
This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoking women tend to eat more causing the baby to be larger and more difficult to deliver. This can also cause other problems. Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company. You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used. I was told that the medical insurance business is highly regulated by the government. The company was not allowed to tell the truth about these results even though it was better for the insurance company and for the patients. I do not think these results suggest that women should start smoking when they get pregnant. I do think it indicates that it is very poor practice to try to get smoking mothers to stop smoking when they get pregnant. About me I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and have worked in both research and teaching. I am a health nut and do not endorse smoking or care to be around people smoking. I was shocked by these results. My bias if any is certainly against these results. However I think it is horrible to withhold information form people and intentionally give them bad advice to advance a political agenda.
The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful Anonymous Sott.net Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:51 CDT Print Google+FB Share In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. They were running a campaign to get pregnant women to stop smoking and they expected to find interesting data to support their case. I used to teach college courses covering the topic. The text books said that smoking causes underweight premature babies. Because of this babies of smoking mothers are more likely to have birth defects. With alcohol, two drinks a day was considered safe, but with tobacco, there was no safe threshold. I thought this was rather strange. You smoke one cigarette while pregnant and you are more likely to have birth defects? Even for a hard core health fanatic that is difficult to believe. Here is what was found in the data. Babies of smoking mothers average weight was 3232 grams (7.1 lbs.). Babies of non-smoking mothers averaged 3398 grams (7.5 lbs.). That is about a half pound difference and it is statistically significant. Seven pounds is a good healthy birth weight that does not set off any alarms. Babies are considered underweight if they are less than 2270 grams (5 lbs.). 4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant. There is no indication here of a health risk from smoking based on weight. The other risk factor is length of term. Normal gestation is 253 days. 4% of smoking mothers did not go to term and 7.8% of non-smoking mothers did not go to term. Smoking mothers did better than non-smoking mothers but the difference was not significant. There was obviously no risk from reduced term for smoking mothers. Because the non-smoking mothers had heavier babies one would expect more C-Sections from the non-smoking mothers. There were about 20% more. This is significant at the .05 level but not the .01 level so you could argue the significance either way depending on your bias. The data here is limited because only 5% of pregnant women smoked but the trend for smoking mothers was toward less babies retained in the hospital, less C-Sections, insignificantly fewer pre-term deliveries and an insignificant increase in clinically underweight babies. This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoki
In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients. The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ” http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/a...
Your nutz! and a FANATIC..................Your smokefree Utopia is about to totally collapse around your house of JUNK SCIENCE CLAIMS! You can then go out and take fresh air breaks again..................or stay at home like 60 million smokers in America have been doing for the last 7 years or longer. Its gonna be a a financial bonanza for hospitality businesses when they all get repealed! Your property taxes might even drop.
Not enough evidence to link smoking and lung cancer Dec 7, 2011—A court in Korea has rejected a civil lawsuit filed by the family of a lung cancer victim against the government and KT&G, according to a story by Lee Hyo-sik for the Korea Times. The Seoul Central District Court dismissed the claim by the family of a former police officer who died of lung cancer that the cigarette manufacturer was to blame for the disease. It cited a lack of evidence that the disease was directly caused by smoking. And it said there wasn’t enough evidence that the cigarette manufacturer intentionally withheld from smokers information about tobacco’s adverse effects on human health. ‘There isn’t enough evidence proving that serious defects exist in the design and manufacturing of cigarette products,’ the court said. http://tobaccoreporter.com/home.php...
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004. http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409 "5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease." In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does. The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
Judge doesnt 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’ (aka ‘decision’): http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/ (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). 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. Although 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 nonsmoker, 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]).
1 - 10 Next