Cases and controls did not vary significantly in the total hours exposed to ETS during childhood or adulthood at home (data not shown). Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk (Table 2). In general, the effect estimates for ETS exposure were similar between the total population and only among never smokers.So that's another negative association to add to all the others.
If someone can point to any other area of 'science' where around 13% of results proving weakly positive is classed as 'overwhelming evidence', I'd love to see it.
Yet this is the scientific justification for the trampling of property rights and personal freedoms - promoted by those who are paid specifically to do so - on the flimsy basis that tobacco smoke is somehow akin to mustard gas.
The 'debate is over', you see, despite the debate clearly illustrating that the tobacco control loons are wrong. By a very long chalk.
A tiny proportion of studies point to a tiny relative risk (ie, not a real one) in long-term involuntary, unventilated exposure to heavy smoking ... and as a result, short term, voluntary ventilated exposure is prohibited by law under the threat of imprisonment.
All, of course, to save the lives of poor bar workers who have no choice but to be herded into public house gas chambers for slaughter.
Bollocks, isn't it?
Especially if you read the rest of this latest study.
In our examination of the effects of several occupational exposures among never smokers in the greater Toronto area we found several significant potential sources of increased risk including exposure to solvents, paints or thinners, welding equipment and smoke, soot or exhaust (from sources other than tobacco). This information is important as data concerning occupational exposures and lung cancer among never smokers are still lacking in the literature.So painters and decorators, taxi drivers, welders, foundry and shipyard workers, mechanics, and even candlestick makers** are far more at risk of cancer than any bar worker will ever be from passive smoking.
Our results support the concept that exposure to exhaust fumes and or soot/smoke (from non-tobacco sources) is a source of carcinogenic exposure.
All of which kinda rubbishes the desperate anti-smoker argument that destitute souls are forced by poverty to take on bar work which will kill them if not for the existence of comprehensive smoking bans.
When the same 'health' argument is used to 'save' apprentice welders and metal workers, decorator's mates, traineee mechanics, and newbie cabbies from feeling compelled to take low-paid - potentially life-threatening - work in the face of financial adversity, perhaps their daft hyperbole can be taken seriously.
Interestingly, Dutch bar owners are preparing a case for loss of earnings now their ban has been partly rescinded. The sum mooted is only around £2m. Imagine the huge claim British pub companies will one day sue for when this government-funded, anti-science fraud finally comes crashing down.
We're talking £billions here, all the pubcos need to do is grow themselves a spine. The evidence - and a barrowload of resultant compensatory cash - is staring them in the face. If I were a government official, I'd be rather worried about the straw floorboards I was standing on in the passive smoking debate.
** Not to mention solvent cleaned trumpet-players. Roy Castle, anyone?
13 comments:
Must have been funded by BigTobacco.....TAXI!!!
All the leftie cons are beginning to fall apart. Lovely isn't it?
My other half mentioned the imminent smoking ban last Friday in our local here in Andalucia. It's a rock bar so has a great mix of people. They reckon they're going to ignore it.
We'll see, I'll take photos.
Not to mention solvent cleaned trumpet-players. Roy Castle, anyone?
He was smothered in Fullers Earth (that contains alumina, silica, iron oxides, lime, magnesia) in his films and that is a cause of lung cancer.
Rather than PubCos growing themselves a spine I would like to think that politicians might have the balls to stand by the electorate rather than sterilising them for the sake of a political future (or using them solely for late night encounters in the park).
Our so-called leaders are not our superiors and a degree in whatever gives them no right to ignore the wishes of a large majority.
Roy Castle --- did I hear that he actually enjoyed the odd cigar -- (probably didn't inhale so that's all right)
ChrisB: As part of the Lords Taverners during their 1970s fund-raising dinners, I understand. Who of any note didn't in them days?
There are two overriding principles involved, and if we understand these principles, Tobacco Control collapses.
Principle one is that people who enjoy tobacco can do so, if they so wish. All the legal arguments about, “I did not know how harmful smoking was and the tobacco companies knew about the harm and did not tell me” are history. It is hardly possible for anyone to claim that they did not know about tobacco harm (if it is true). People can decide for themselves whether to smoke or not.
Principle two is that second hand smoke is harmless (in normal circumstances). But this idea is not just a theoretical idea – it is a matter of fact. I would defy any ASH person to find any harm either to those people with whom I have associated, over the years, as a result of the fact that I have smoked in their presence, or, indeed (and this is more pertinent), any harm to my children, in whose presence I have smoked day after day for the last forty years.
Thus we see that Tobacco Control is all bluster. It really is the most incomprehensible idea that the WHO’s Convention on Tobacco Control (or whatever it is called) did not call for the extermination of the tobacco plant. All their submissions regarding the harm of tobacco can only lead to that conclusion.
There is a massive organisation which is dedicated to eradicating the harm of tobacco, but not one of them advocates the extermination of the tobacco plant. There have been masses of studies about tobacco harm, but I have yet to see ONE which recommends the extermination of the tobacco plant.
This is not true of the poppy plant.
The Government has a serious problem. Tobacco Control has such a stranglehold on the Department of Health, and is so powerful, that the Government cannot do anything about it. Pity the poor politicians who have to make decisions about matters that they know little about when confronted with the demands of Tobacco Control.
And yet, there is an answer. And it is very simple.
The answer is to move Tobacco Control out of the Health Dept. As I understand it, that is what the Irish Government have decided to do (more or less). When one thinks about it, the proper place for Tobacco Control is in the Health and Safety Dept, but there are also Business repercussion.
Moving Tobacco Control out of the Health Dept will, in one stroke, do away with the stranglehold that Tobacco Control has on the Health Dept, and cut millions and millions of pounds of costs. Of course, it would be critically important to do away with all the non-jobs involved. Ash and co can get funds from wherever they want, but not from the public purse, and that includes CRUK and BHF.
It is simple.
Can the UK "un-ratify" the FCTC we signed? Can we now tell the WHO, the UN and the EU that we are breaking the contract to persecute smokers and eradicate tobacco smoking?
"Can the UK "un-ratify" the FCTC we signed"
No
on the protection of public health policies with respect to tobacco control from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry
http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf
This means that if you disagree with their policy in any way, you become an "interference" and they will not allow you to speak, whether you are a company, a farmer, a shop keeper,a customer or just someone who disagrees.
Because however remotely, you would be considered to be acting in the interests of tobacco, and have been effectively silenced.
Which I would assume also includes asking to leave.
Rose
re: Roy Castle
Many decades ago, I used to play a trombone. All the players I knew used a penetrating oil (PlusGas-B) to lubricate their slides. I imagine trumpet players also used it for lubricating valves. I could certainly taste the oil when playing (although that could be because my playing sucked of course).
In 1969(?) the HSE banned it because of the risk of lung cancer and players switched, initially to Pond's cold cream and later, to specialist products.
Not sure if your study would have covered this exposure unless as a 'thinner''.
Tony
"When the same 'health' argument is used to 'save' apprentice welders and metal workers, decorator's mates, traineee mechanics, and newbie cabbies from feeling compelled to take low-paid - potentially life-threatening - work in the face of financial adversity, perhaps their daft hyperbole can be taken seriously."
Don't tempt the healthists...
Can we 'un-ratify' the FCTC?
Well, the FCTC is a treaty which, presumably, is a contract and I can't believe that there's a contract in existence that doesn't have a get-out clause. If a contract is nothing more than the formal agreement of willing parties then there has to be room to break the contract if any party becomes unwilling.
Either the likes of Brian Binley and David Nuttall aren't aware that we're locked into The Only Contract In The World That Cannot Be Broken or they know that it just takes political will. I'm sure that political will could be strengthened in the face of the threat of billions in compensation for loss of earnings based on lies.
Jay
Greetings from the United States. if there's one thing American history teaches us, it's that treaties are made to be broken. Our government made hundreds of them with various Native groups and broke every single one. I'm not saying that was right, mind you; it was in fact dastardly, but since the WHO has no power to punish a country that opts out, it would be quite easy.
Post a Comment