The Dangers Of Passive Water Vapour

I was going to let it pass but this is just too much California stupid to keep all to myself.

(Media-Newswire.com) - GAVILAN COLLEGE, CA - As of Fall Semester, 2011, Gavilan College is a smoke-and-tobacco-free learning environment. Smoking and use of tobacco products and non-FDA approved nicotine delivery systems ( such as "e-cigs" ) are prohibited on all areas of campus, except for designated smoking areas. FREE smoking-cessation counseling and FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapy can be obtained through the office of Student Health, through a partnership with Breathe California.

Is this really the standard of educators in California?

People who in one breath talk about how very bad smoking is and promoting alternatives, while in the next banning one which has been proven many times over to wean smokers away from tobacco. Hey, yanks! These morons are educating your kids, aren't you a bit perturbed about that?

It's enough that their gullible bandwagon-jumping has led them to ban the non-existent threat of secondhand smoke from the open air, but to enforce an outdoor ban on electronic cigarettes is fuckwittery of heroic proportion.

I mean, where on earth do they get such an idiotic idea from?

Incredibly, the answer is a more powerful - yet even more incredibly hysterical - body than them. The government.

Just as they may regulate the use of cigarettes and other tobacco products, state and local governments may pass their own laws to regulate where e-cigarettes can be used to protect the public from exposure to secondhand e-cigarette vapors.

No, you're not dreaming. The USA really is filled with that many levels of vacant irresponsibility.

The nation's foremost regulatory agency are seriously warning against the entirely fictional danger of "secondhand e-cigarette vapors", despite all available evidence - including their own study last month - finding no hazardous levels of anything in electronic cigarettes.

They may as well be issuing guidance on the health implications of breathing near a kettle, or the chances of contracting thrush by walking past a blonde pixie.

Altogether now ... it's not about health, you know.

And The Tobacco-Powered Electricity Plant Is ...

Regular readers may remember the saga of the mystical power station. To recap in the style of a production line glossy yank TV drama:

{deep, ominous voice} Previously, on Dick Puddlecote ...

A fellow jewel robber first asked what happened to tobacco confiscated by UKBA.

Tobacco products are shredded and the pulp is taken to a power station and used as an alternative fuel source for power generation.

We do not hold any information on the power station that burns this alternative fuel source or the measures the power station takes to prevent the exposure to people of “second hand smoke”.

A follow up request to find out the location of this power station was deemed too sensitive.

Disclosure of this information could put at risk the safety and welfare of the staff at the site where the tobacco is being shredded and transformed into an alternative fuel product. If this information was made public it could increase the risk of recovery by force of the tobacco product prior to it undergoing the necessary treatment processes.

Pfft!

This is clearly not in the public interest.

So, now for the latest instalment. Sadly for UKBA, the Information Commissioner disagreed.

My findings are set out in the attached report. My conclusion is that the original response should have been handled under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) rather than the Freedom of Information Act. There is a strong public interest in releasing the information. There are no exceptions under the EIR which apply to the requested information. The information is therefore deemed suitable for release and is enclosed at paragraph 14 in the following report.

It's not good news for Berkshire.

14.There are no exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations which would prevent release of the requested information. It is therefore deemed suitable for release and I can confirm that at the time of tendering for this work the contractor proposed to use the following power station:

Slough Heat & Power Ltd
Fibre Fuels Ltd
6 Edinburgh Avenue
Slough SL1 477

Good God! Kennedy Park is just up the road, and a University in the vicinity. Are they mad? Won't somebody think of the children! (click to enlarge)

Shall we paraphrase Betjeman?

Come friendly passive smoke and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for smokerphobes now,
There isn't clean air to ... (lost for a rhyme here - I'm no poet)
Swarm over, Death!

But wait! What's this?

16.Although not matters for this report, UKBA has provided the following answers to the new questions put forward by Mr [Jewel Robber] in his internal review request.

Are the seized tobacco products shredded with or without their packaging?

The tobacco is shredded with its packaging. The seized tobacco is shredded and made into a pulp with water before being transformed into fuel pellets. Once the tobacco has been pulped it becomes a waste product and is no longer capable of being smoked.

As it is against the Law to be in possession of a lit substance capable of being smoked in a substantially enclosed public place, is the burning process accomplished in the open air where the Law states that it is legal to do so?

The power station that the pulped product is taken to is a licensed facility which needs to comply with its statutory legal obligations. As mentioned above, the pulped tobacco is not capable of being smoked.

What a blessed relief, eh? Although the tobacco is being burned - and the smoke being emitted - it hasn't been enjoyed by a smoker beforehand ... because it's not capable of being smoked. Very important, that. All those 4000 chemicals - from millions of cigarettes being burned - are rendered entirely harmless if no benefit is being derived by smokers.

It's OK, anti-smokers of Slough, you can put your gas masks away and stop loading all your worldly possessions into your car now. Panic over.

Wake Up With Wogan

As you should all know by now, my body is a temple. Therefore I shall today be entirely dedicating myself to sport ... by lounging around watching live cricket with one of the little Ps (the boy, natch) and a packed coolbox.

In the meantime, you may wish to pop over to the Indy and observe Sir Terry of Wogan inflicting a knicker-twisting experience on some of their more self-righteous readers.

"[...] what is certain is that nobody, however qualified, has the right to tell anybody else what they should be eating. Or drinking. President Sarkozy of France, a great man for jumping on a bandwagon, is proposing a tax on fizzy drinks. What about human rights? The idea that tax should be levied on “wrong” food and drinks smacks too closely of dictatorship. It is the inalienable right of every man and woman in a free society to go to hell in their own handcart, as long as nobody else gets hurt."

Since your host has about four pints of Irish blood coursing around the old pipes, I feel more proud than most of our Tel for his good old Celtic common sense.

H/T TT

Link Tank 03/09

So many links, I feel like an ambassador with the Ferrero Rocher.

The debate over harm attributable to salt is far from over

New Zealand store offers Father's Day offer of a gun for $1 ... with predictable reaction

Zimbabwe churches in a dilemma about accepting donations from tobacco farmers

Macau takes on Vegas as the gambling capital of the world

A new health scare - study establishes the existence of passive airborne dog poo

Forget wine, there's an art to picking the perfect beer with your meal

Governments everywhere watch with interest as Pakistan bans private web browsing

Al Gore: Meat = Global Warming

The idiocy of suicide

Eating junk food is now an unhealthy 'habit', too

Trouble with your ballpoint pen? Ask a smoker for help

The presence of a father is linked to enhanced intellect and well-being amongst kids

Six animals that kill scary creatures for fun

Friday: Laugh At California Day

Since Friday isn't really a popular blog-reading day, I've noticed many in my blogroll tend to put up funny articles at the end of the week. I've never got into such a habit seeing as there is so much to laugh already if you look at the antics of politicians.

Take California, for example.

Under AB 889, household "employers" (aka "parents") who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck.

Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers - from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)

Just think about that for a moment if you have ever offered a tenner, some crisps, and a bowl of Celebrations to a nephew/niece, or next door neighbour's teen, to sit and watch the TV for a few hours while you pop out. Perhaps even on a night like tonight.

If, like Californians, we were similarly afflicted with ridiculously idealistic and astoundingly dozy lefties in charge, imagine the hassle this would cause.

- Firstly, no-one under 16 would be allowed (this would probably fall into both child labour laws and panic about anyone younger being unable to look after anyone, even themselves).

- You'd be required to ask for a P45 or else make them fill in a P46 which must be submitted on the first day of their employment.

- Assurances would have to be sought, in writing, that the person was eligible to work in the UK under illegal immigration laws.

- They would require an enhanced CRB clearance to work with kids before setting foot in your house.

- You'd be required to register with HMRC as an employer, complete with tax reference number.

- You'd be required to issue a contract of employment within 2 months of their starting to look after your sprogs.

- Say you were off to a party at around 7pm, and expected to return at midnight, you couldn't pay less than £18.20 for under 18s, or £24.60 for 18-20s. As the California law requires a stand-in for breaks every 2 hours, you'd either pay that twice, or make arrangements for someone else over 16 - who has been P46'd, CRB'd, immigration-cleared, and registered for tax - to mosey along a couple of times during the night ... at the same NMW rates.

- Employers' NI contribution would be required to be paid by you at 13.8% if either earn more than £136 in any one year.

- Don't forget the mandatory regular printed payslip showing all deductions.

- Any tax accrued by the babysitter(s) would have to be deducted by you and sent to HMRC by the 19th of each month.

- In April each year, you'd submit your babysitters' PAYE and NIC P11 stats and a P35 return.

- I'd advise you to take a note of the ACAS helpline number and/or take out employer's litigation insurance.

Or perhaps you just don't fancy going to parties anymore. Best stay in and tell the teen they've lost the chance of a bit of easy cash.

Those lefties are such a caring bunch, aren't they?

Vindication In One Day And An Indirect Endorsement In The Indy

Sometimes I feel truly charmed. The article I penned this morning on a cloaked leftist agenda amongst public health advocates has been spectacularly illustrated by The Independent today, with a front page broadside against tobacco companies.

Since, presumably, precious few here can be arsed to keep an eye out for the right-on rag's progressive wibblings (it's not just the content, their website is tediously slow and bug-ridden too), pictorial evidence is below courtesy of Joshua Lachkovic.

It would appear that their ire has been piqued by the outrageous behaviour - outrageous, so it is - of Philip Morris in asking for information to which they are perfectly entitled under the FOIA. In fact, not only do PMI believe they are legally entitled to it, so does the Information Commissioner.

DECISION

The Commissioner finds that the University of Stirling (the University) failed to comply with Part 1 (and in particular section 1(1)) of FOISA) in refusing to comply with Philip Morris International’s request for information under section 14(1) of FOISA.

The Commissioner also found that the University’s request for clarification under section 1(3) of FOISA was unnecessary and unreasonable and that, given this fact, the University breached section 10(1) of FOISA in responding to the request.

The Commissioner also found that the University did not fulfil its duty under section 15 of FOISA in relation to providing advice and assistance to Philip Morris International.

The Commissioner therefore requires the University of Stirling to respond to Philip Morris International’s request for information in terms of Part 1 of FOISA, other than in terms of section 14(1) by 5 September 2011.

Wow! Now, I'd say that looks pretty emphatic. Yet Stirling University seem to think that the law doesn't apply to them.

"Most fundamentally this information was given to us by young people in complete confidence," [Prof Gerard Hastings, of the university's Centre for Tobacco Control Research] said. "We assured them we would treat it with absolute confidence and that it would be restricted to the research."

You may remember Hastings, I've mentioned before how he is running around Scotland and Wales advising the anti-alcohol lobby how to demonise booze in the same way as his publicly-funded lot have done with tobacco.

'Publicly-funded' being the operative word(s) here, because Hastings seems to think that he is allowed to take our taxes for studies, but keep the results hidden from those who ask to see them.

His assurance that the information would definitely be kept solely for his team's eyes only is either 1) woefully naïve 2) irresponsibly misleading, or 3) jaw-droppingly dismissive of the law and its powers. Whichever option you choose, reality dictates that it wasn't his place to make such a promise, and that using his own inadequacy as an excuse for not satisfying the request is laughable and irrelevant.

There must be some right damning stuff in there to prompt such a dogged defence. I mean, there they were expecting to be given carte blanche to issue some of their usual dodgy science by press release direct to the Beeb, and next thing you know they're being asked to reveal their pre-determined methodology for proper scrutiny. It's just not fair, is it?

The Independent's Steve Connor was tasked with ramping up the threat of this innocuous request to the level of world-shattering alarm. Not that he would have taken much persuading considering his past record of pliant anti-tobacco advocacy. But even by his own standards - he has attracted the attention of Bad Science and others in the past for nonsense science reporting - his desperate padding out of a non-story with cherry-picked bullshit is quite hilarious.

Beginning with bang up-to-date documents from 1953, he takes us through more vitally relevant 1960s and 1970s writings from people probably long dead, before alighting on the 1992 EPA report which was rubbished in a US Court, and the 1998 SCOTH study compiled by a panel riddled with those with a vested interest in NRT. And all this under a headline hinting at dirty tricks and misinformation from the other side. Yet if a reciprocal article had been written quoting Enstrom & Kabat - the largest study of its kind - or the most comprehensive study to date on heart attacks and passive smoking, Connor would have no doubt cried foul and complained of cherry-picking himself.

And as for this ...

Their fight against these proposals is again based on undermining the scientific evidence that plain packaging can reduce the number of children and young adults who take up smoking.

... I'd love to know how someone who has been vocal in his condemnation of those accusing him of promoting junk science can possibly square such an assertion when there is simply no science available on the matter. How can there be when it hasn't been attempted yet?

The Indy carries on with a generic contribution from CRUK's Jean King - a co-funder of Stirling University's *cough* science - who is doubtless equally as pissed off as Hastings at having to comply with the law.

How dare those who pay taxes ask to see the results they have paid for, eh? Such insolence!

Finally, the whole sorry episode is topped off with a sob story from that shameless gobbler of tax funding pristine purveyor of truth, Linda Bauld, who may well have been referencing your old pal Dick here.

University researchers have been sent hate emails and some have even received anonymous phone calls, which usually come after a series of blogs posted on pro-smoking websites, including at least one which is linked to the tobacco industry.

Linda Bauld, professor of socio-management at Stirling University's Institute for Social Marketing, says she was unprepared for the scale of the personal attacks aimed at discrediting her work on smoking behaviour and anti-smoking legislation.

Listen, love. While I agree that threats are totally unacceptable, if you will insist on talking bollocks in pursuit of derogating the lives of others, what else did you expect? Cry your crocodile tears if you like, but console yourself by wiping your nose on the Department of Health cheques you are happy to cash. OK?

I don't know if Philip Morris people read here but, if they do, well done for putting the wind up these pompous, self-righteous arseholes. If the study is above board and run for the purposes of truth rather than propaganda, they have absolutely nothing to fear. There is no threat to privacy of kids - as hinted at by these charlatans - because it would have been identified by the ICO.

It's clear that the only possible threat is to the integrity of publicly-funded operations such as Stirling University if it is revealed more widely that they have been playing fast and loose with evidence to the detriment of people's lives.

Congrats, Philip Morris, you've highlighted the self-serving arrogance of anti-tobacco along with the lax standards of left-leaning media in one simple - but effective - Freedom of Information request.

No wonder Tony Blair spoke in his autobiography of his biggest mistake being the FOIA 2000. It's a right bugger for control freaks everywhere, ain't it?

UPDATE: Via Belinda, even the BMJ have come out in favour of Philip Morris and scoffed at the stance taken by Stirling University and The Independent.

Steve Connor is isolated as a science correspondent, and the University are not only wrong to resist, but also have no backing from those they might have relied upon. Glorious own goal, doncha think?

Politics Masquerading As Public Health

Rob Lyons at Spiked has put astutely into words something extremely important when it comes to debates about public health. It concerns this 'obesity pandemic' red herring about which you have all, no doubt, read much nonsense.

Lyons - as others have done before - accurately points out that the scare stories are exactly that. Nothing but self-serving hot air.

But he goes that one step further in highlighting a dark message behind the appallingly tortured statistics.

The figures, however, are then used to demand greater intervention in the name of tackling obesity. Here, as with the 2007 Foresight report on obesity produced by the UK government, there is less of an emphasis on changing individuals’ behaviour. Far from individuals being too morally weak to resist another mouthful of food, as might have been suggested in the past, the new paradigm is that we live in an ‘obesogenic’ environment where we are apparently surrounded with ever more opportunities to eat and endless attempts to persuade us to do so.

In that vein, a Lancet editorial says: ‘While business and industry, with their very different aim of making as much money as possible and with an enormous and expensive apparatus of clever advertising, are very effective at nudging people to buy and consume their products, non-regulatory measures to increase consumption of healthy food in isolation are unlikely to be effective.’ The chubbies of Britain are merely dim-witted schmucks, it seems, who are taken in by ‘clever advertising’. Thankfully, the health experts and campaigners are here, like knights in high-fibre armour, to demand that Big Food be regulated just like Big Tobacco has been.

Such campaigners are not the friends of the put-upon masses. Rather, having failed to convince many people of the wisdom of their policy prescriptions and the benefits of lifestyle changes, they’ve decided to go over our heads and appeal to politicians to bash big business instead.

So very true.

Because, d'you see the one thread that runs through all of these portents of doom? Yep, without exception, they all point to a destruction of big business with little valid reasoning for it.

We don't smoke because we enjoy it, it's all tobacco marketing; no-one just enjoys a drink, we're bullied into booze by clever adverts; we don't choose to eat at McDonald's, their marketing department forces us to.

Etc, etc, repeat to fade.

By way of illustration, via the inestimable Crampton, here are some highlights from a perfect working example of modern public health ideology taking place in New Zealand this week.

Creating Our Future - Now

• Junk food sugars resistant even to regular teeth brushing

Deepa Krishnan: New research into the effect of junk food sugar has found the damage it does to teeth is so severe that not even regular and frequent teeth brushing can completely counter it.

Only junk food sugar, note. Other sugar is presumably magic sugar.

• The harm to male-female relationships contained in beer advertising

Christy Parker: The potential for social harm, particularly the perpetuation of a climate of family violence, contained in beer advertising. New research indicates the advertisements, which aim to appeal to young men about the age they are forming their identities, operate as a “manual on masculinity” with excessive beer consumption, larrikin activities, negative attitudes towards women and avoidance of intimacy all constructed as markers of being a “real man”.

For 'negative attitudes towards women', read 'fancying the opposite sex'.

By daring to appeal to men - who tend to like to drink beer - the drinks industry are evil. They should, of course, instead be advising males to drink soft drinks water and embrace feminism.

• Casinos offering warm welcome to lonely refugees: the harm gambling does to the Asian community

Amritha Sobrun-Maharaj: New research finds Asian immigrants and refugees are finding a safe haven at casinos and there, developing gambling habits that contribute to the “huge harm” being done to Asian communities. Often finding it hard to integrate elsewhere, immigrants and refugees are given a warm welcome and are made to feel important at casinos.

Because casinos should be snarling at anyone who dares to exercise their own freedom of choice, instead of welcoming them. It's not the individual's fault, it's those nasty rich people.

• Diversity versus social justice – how inequities are created

Rhys Jones: The notion of diversity is often used in discussions related to health inequalities. However health inequities are about much more than just difference – they are driven by the unequal distribution of power and various forms of discrimination.

In short, the privileged are to blame, natch.

• Climate change and health – what public health practitioners can do to help mitigate the worst effects

Oh Lordy, you're gonna love this one!

Angela Culpin: Increasing proportions of the population are being diagnosed with mental disorders, even where social circumstances are improving. There are also many more stressors on mental health including the fear for our future. Society globally has recently been faced with many threats, including climate change and the drainage of natural resources.

Yes! After years of scare stories about global warming catastrophe, many are going mad with worry.

The Mental Health Foundation is committed to moving towards a new path where prosperity takes into account the mental wellbeing of people, as well as the needs of the planet.

So why not continue to embed that perception by emphasising Mother Earth one more time, eh?

Confusing, isn't it? Here we have a bunch of publicly-funded employees gathering to talk about health, but wandering off into any number of directions which just happen to all line up with lefty politics.

Any wonder, then, that we have this guy trying to reframe the debate.

David Sinclair: “Lifestyle” diseases such as diabetes, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease must result from people’s choices, so they surely can’t have anyone else to blame can they? Why should good taxpayers’ money be used to benefit those who are indolent and poor? Because they are clearly not “lifestyle diseases”, they are diseases associated with living conditions: social, economic and environmental poverty. Deprivation must be the focus, not “lifestyle”. This insidious term must be abandoned if public health’s relevance and legitimacy are not to be further undermined.

Sorry to break it to you, sunshine, but you've been collectively rumbled.

Your legitimacy is diminished because the public health industry is increasingly dedicated to pushing an agenda which wouldn't look out of place in the Morning Star - a desperate re-definition of language hides nothing.

It's beginning to appear as if public health is less about health nowadays, and more about plain old-fashioned political dogma.