More propaganda dressed up as science
Tuesday, February 9, 2010 "Nicotine in third-hand smoke, the residue from tobacco smoke that clings to virtually all surfaces long after a cigarette has been extinguished, reacts with the common indoor air pollutant nitrous acid to produce dangerous carcinogens" says a new study.
The BBC is reporting that researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a US Department of Energy laboratory in Berkeley, California, ran lab tests (my emphasis) and found "substantial levels" of toxins on smoke-exposed material.
Even though the threat, if any, to non-smokers including children is unclear (ie minimal), opponents of smoking have been predictably quick to call for the need to "protect children" and make "homes and cars smokefree".
Amanda Sandford of Action on Smoking and Health said: "The harmful effects of second-hand smoke are already well-established but this study adds a new dimension to the dangers associated with smoking and provides further evidence of the need to protect children, in particular, from exposure to tobacco smoke.
Ed Young of Cancer Research UK said: "This is an interesting piece of research that adds the possibility of an extra level of harm from tobacco smoke ... The most important step parents can take to protect their families from the dangers of cigarette smoke is to make their homes and cars smokefree."
To be fair, the BBC adds that:
Simon Clark, director of the smokers' lobby group Forest, remained sceptical. He said: "The dose makes the poison and there is no evidence that exposure to such minute levels is harmful. That doesn't seem to matter, though. The aim, it seems, is to generate alarm in the hope that people will be stopped from smoking or will give up.
"The real danger is not third-hand smoke but propaganda dressed up as science. Until the evidence of harm is irrefutable, scientists and campaigners should resist the urge to tell us how to live our lives."
Full story HERE.
For further comment about "third-hand smoke" (which I described as a "laughable term" when I was speaking to the BBC) I recommend articles by Michael Siegel HERE and Chris Snowdon HERE.
Reader Comments (58)
Jan -
Were your piece above presented in a tutorial at Oxford (or any other proper university), it would be torn to shreds.
A point-by-point refutation of your 'arguments' (when not merely bare assertions - unsupported by any facts) would be, well, pointless.
Especially in THIS forum.
I will venture to make just three, however:
First, to equate the fantastical 'dangers' of SHS with the genuinely awful risks inherent in exposure to asbestos (of the Blue or Brown variety, that is - the so-called 'white asbestos' being almost totally harmless) indicates (I'm sorry to say) either a wilful ignorance on your part of all the CREDIBLE scientific literature relevant to this issue, or just plain intellectual dishonesty.
Second, 'the staff' have as much 'right' (morally speaking) to expose themselves to the 'dangers' of SHS as a trawlerman does to the (less imaginary) dangers of an Atlantic squall.
There is no particular Scientific Magic in the Health And Safety At Work Act.
Scientific Truth, you see, cannot be made and then un-made at the stroke of a pen - according to the Fashionable Whims Of The Day, or the need to provide the Prodnoses of this world with remunerative employment, and the Neurotics of this world with Something Else To Fret About.
Third, those of us born between 1946 and 1955 - the Baby Boomer Generation - were probably more 'exposed' to SHS than almost any other generation in the history of Tobacco, when over 70% of the adult population around us smoked. Including Mummy and Daddy, and some of our Teachers, too (fetch the smelling salts, someone: the Lady's fainted).
Could THIS be the reason that we're the longest-lived and healthiest generation ever, and strangely NOT now keeling over in our millions from ASH-related diseases ?
And if you are genuinely concerned about the Welfare Of Our Children (aren't we all, Dear ?), then I suggest you direct your energies toward the REAL scourge of our age: a dumbed-down popular culture, an impoverished education system, and a brazenly-politicised Schoolgirl Science masquerading as the Real Thing.
Rotting our children's ability to THINK is a far more heinous crime in MY book than occasionally troubling their nostrils with a little tobacco smoke.
Though, of course, that's JUST the sort of thing a Mass-Murderer like me WOULD say.
PS:
'Suicide' is the DELIBERATE killing of onself. I know of no smoker who began his 'habit' with such an aim in mind. More to do with ENJOYMENT, I think. And there ARE more certain (and far less expensive) ways................
PPS:
A Smoker-Friendly Pub is NOT an Opium Den.
Tobacco smoke is NOT Phosgene Gas.
Bar-work is NOT compulsory.
Jan - I will smoke in any part of my property I wish too, but I'am too polite to smoke in front of as you call them "kids" whether mine or anyone elses,
If they wish to be in the same room as myself smoking. then thats their decision or the choice of their parents.
I cannot smoke indoors anyway anyhow, unless its my or other poeples private property, so you have won your smoke-free environment and I fail to see why you continue railing against us social paraihs.
Just a few suggestions for your cognitive reasoning abilities:
Stop labelling us a child killers, its a well known fact that many people who smoke have children, and obviously the capaicity to procreate, against all the preconcieved notions in your mind.
I pay the rent. council tax, road tax, incurance for my property.
You want to tell me what to do in my own property, YOU FUCKING PAY FOR IT, and I may do your bidding, bur may I smoke in the back garden aaay from all the poor little pink "kids" delicate lungs?
I might even consider paying you a small stipend for this freedom, seeing as you are paying the rent etc.
Well said, two above posters.
Especially the fact that the majority of our generation was brought up by smoking parents or parents that worked with or lived in houses with asbestos roofs, then when fibre glass was introduced as the miracle insulator that turned out to be detremental to health by causing lung desease, that we still turn out to be the healthiest and longest living of our time.
Proven by the fact that Gordy is so worried that we're all living so long, he wants to charge us a death tax of £20,000.
At least our generation worked at any job we were given and did not question whether it was beneficial to our health or not. We just got on with it and were grateful to have the dignity of working.
But nowadays the lilly livered like Jan want a guarantee that any job they or their precious skills takes on, not alone has to be 100% safe, but want a 100% guarantee that their coworkers do not contaminate them with second hand smoke.
Its a good job that Jan and her ilk are living in the 21st century with its Big Brother 'because I'm worth it' celebrity lifestyle.
Because you would have been laughed out of existence in the normal times of the good ole days, dear!
Cheers, Ann.
Interesting how Certain People In Power can APPARENTLY hold two ENTIRELY contradictory ideas in their heads, and then give voice to them in public - with NOBODY in the Media seemingly willing to challenge them, isn't it ?
"Please DON'T SMOKE - we WANT YOU TO LIVE LONGER"
"Please DIE YOUNGER - we CAN'T AFFORD OLD PEOPLE"
Speaking with Forked Tongue ?
Yes - if you take their 'messages' at face value.
No - if (as I suggested in an earlier post) you realise that the messages serve not ONE but TWO different agendas.
You might call it the Art of Doublespeak.
You might also call it the Art of Darkness..........
Very good Martin, you could call it the era of 'He who speaks with forked tongues'.
That would comfortably cover the entire shams in govt and the anti quangos.
They like to keep thier options open in case of a slide to the other side, especially if an election is in the offing so that they can change tack in case there's a chance of a slide to the other side.
Which side that is doesent ever matter, as the MAIN agenda is to keep themselves in power.
And the sooner the brainwashed stupid stunts electorate realise THIS, the better for us all.
Spot on, Ann !
And whenever I walk down the High Street I, too, resent the idea of MY freedoms being destroyed because of THEIR stupidity.
Correction: my COUNTRY'S freedoms.
But that's the price you pay - for being AHEAD of the Crowd.
Let's hope they catch up soon...............
I confess I was hiding away from this forum till now, as I thought maybe my last post was inflamatory or perhaps in some way offensive to Jan, and dreaded a roasting from her/him and acolytes.
Considering I was imbibing the last of my vodka and having a fag and trying to type at the same time it reads not too badly.
Anyhow Jan hasn't sent the cheque for the rent/mortgage, or the covenant to allow me smoking in the back garden so I take it he/she has no interest in my proposition.
Sorry, but she/he got my back right up that particular night, I'm fine now, apart from of course still smoking.
Joseph K -
You're too soft-hearted.
Don't think we'll be hearing from Jan again, somehow:
Such people tend to regard 'debate' as the art of waving placards with silly slogans in your face, shouting repeatedly, and then rabbit-punching you into some sort of conformity.
We should save up - and buy them all a nice uniform to wear.
They'd like that.......................
(And welcome back, by the way)