More passive smoking propaganda from the anti-smoking cult

[mada85]

Found the following article on the UK Daily Mail this morning.

The anti-smoking cult is going completely nuts. If insanity can be defined as disconnection from reality to whatever degree, this article is a prime example. Notice that there is absolutely no mention of any other atmospheric pollutants. So I guess the anti-smoking cultists think it's perfectly healthy to breathe radioactive fallout from over 2000 nuclear explosions, car and diesel exhausts, waste gases from industrial production processes - the list is endless. But hey, if everyone stops smoking, everyone will be super-healthy, right? What will it take for the cultists to wake up?

Link: _http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2512157/Why-walking-30ft-lit-cigarette-health-risk.html

Why walking within 30ft of a lit cigarette puts you at risk of dangerous passive smoking

• Walking any closer to smokers means inhaling 100 times recommended limit
  
• Campaigners say indoor smoking ban has shifted passive smoking outdoors

By Mark Howarth

PUBLISHED: 23:59, 22 November 2013 | UPDATED: 00:00, 23 November 2013

Pedestrians passing pub and office doorways are being exposed to dangerous levels of passive smoking, say researchers.

A study showed that a single lit cigarette can pollute the air nearly 30ft away.

Passers-by walking any closer to where smokers are congregated can inhale 100 times more fumes than the limit recommended by experts in the US.

Campaigners say the smoking ban in enclosed workplaces has simply shifted the problem of passive smoking outdoors.

They want tougher laws to create fresh air exclusion zones. Parts of Australia, Canada and the US have already made it illegal for people to light up in the entrances to buildings.

Andrea Crossfield, of Tobacco Free Futures, said: ‘Everyone has a right to breathe clean air, whether you’re in a house, a car or walking down the street.

'This new evidence suggests that as well as extending legislation on enclosed spaces such as cars, we may also need to consider people’s health when entering or leaving buildings.

'Second-hand smoke can also drift back into buildings through open doors and windows.’

The study by Seoul National University, South Korea, published in the journal Nicotine And Tobacco Research, measured air quality at various distances from a lit cigarette on a rooftop.

Smoking was simulated by a machine which mimics the inhaling and exhaling of fumes.

Researchers measured the number of polluting fine particles per cubic metre of air.

Before the cigarette was lit, the background level was around 35, the threshold set by the US National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

But at 3ft from the lit cigarette, levels averaged 107.3 and peaked at 3,254.6 when the monitor was downwind. At 29ft 6in away (nine metres), the level still reached 99.1.

The researchers said people should stay at least 29ft 6in from a smoking source, adding: ‘No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists and breathing even small amounts can be harmful to human health.’

The Department of Health said it encourages firms to ‘have their own smoke-free policies, for example, around the entrance’.

 

[H-KQGE]

Found the following article on the UK Daily Mail this morning.

The anti-smoking cult is going completely nuts. If insanity can be defined as disconnection from reality to whatever degree, this article is a prime example. Notice that there is absolutely no mention of any other atmospheric pollutants. So I guess the anti-smoking cultists think it's perfectly healthy to breathe radioactive fallout from over 2000 nuclear explosions, car and diesel exhausts, waste gases from industrial production processes - the list is endless. But hey, if everyone stops smoking, everyone will be super-healthy, right? What will it take for the cultists to wake up?

Link: _http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2512157/Why-walking-30ft-lit-cigarette-health-risk.html

Why walking within 30ft of a lit cigarette puts you at risk of dangerous passive smoking

• Walking any closer to smokers means inhaling 100 times recommended limit
  
• Campaigners say indoor smoking ban has shifted passive smoking outdoors

By Mark Howarth

PUBLISHED: 23:59, 22 November 2013 | UPDATED: 00:00, 23 November 2013

Pedestrians passing pub and office doorways are being exposed to dangerous levels of passive smoking, say researchers.

A study showed that a single lit cigarette can pollute the air nearly 30ft away.

Passers-by walking any closer to where smokers are congregated can inhale 100 times more fumes than the limit recommended by experts in the US.

Campaigners say the smoking ban in enclosed workplaces has simply shifted the problem of passive smoking outdoors.

They want tougher laws to create fresh air exclusion zones. Parts of Australia, Canada and the US have already made it illegal for people to light up in the entrances to buildings.

Andrea Crossfield, of Tobacco Free Futures, said: ‘Everyone has a right to breathe clean air, whether you’re in a house, a car or walking down the street.

'This new evidence suggests that as well as extending legislation on enclosed spaces such as cars, we may also need to consider people’s health when entering or leaving buildings.

'Second-hand smoke can also drift back into buildings through open doors and windows.’

The study by Seoul National University, South Korea, published in the journal Nicotine And Tobacco Research, measured air quality at various distances from a lit cigarette on a rooftop.

Smoking was simulated by a machine which mimics the inhaling and exhaling of fumes.

Researchers measured the number of polluting fine particles per cubic metre of air.

Before the cigarette was lit, the background level was around 35, the threshold set by the US National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

But at 3ft from the lit cigarette, levels averaged 107.3 and peaked at 3,254.6 when the monitor was downwind. At 29ft 6in away (nine metres), the level still reached 99.1.

The researchers said people should stay at least 29ft 6in from a smoking source, adding: ‘No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists and breathing even small amounts can be harmful to human health.’

The Department of Health said it encourages firms to ‘have their own smoke-free policies, for example, around the entrance’.

Is there still fresh air around? What exactly would a "fresh air exclusion zone" look like? A massive dome around an area of land (with filtered air presumably) reminiscent of some 70's sci-fi flick perhaps? So what's going to happen with cars then, you can't smoke in your own car? Or is it that doing so with passengers will get you arrested? I'm not a driver so I don't know if something like that is already in place. The blowback through doors & windows seems like renewed zeal which surely can't get worse - other than a tobacco-free world.

The first chance I get, I'm going to restart smoking.

 

[SeekinTruth]

"No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists?" Really?!! If people believe this absolute BS, then they kinda deserve the world we live in - toxic in every way. Don't worry about the industrial pollution and bus and truck diesel exhaust you might be standing right next to. But if someone is smoking 25 feet away from you outdoors, run for your life!!!

 

[loreta]

That reminds me something I hear in a Spanish radio program where a doctor said this: "Hitler loved his countryman that's why he prohibited the German to smoke". I was so shocked. But nonsense is everywhere, propaganda is nonsense. People are nonsensical. Suffer from non common sense.

 

[sbeaudry]

"No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists?" Really?!! If people believe this absolute BS, then they kinda deserve the world we live in - toxic in every way. Don't worry about the industrial pollution and bus and truck diesel exhaust you might be standing right next to. But if someone is smoking 25 feet away from you outdoors, run for your life!!!

Kind of funny really... toxic pollution is everywhere but beware the evil smoker. The other day I was having a cigarette during a break in class and one of the students walked by (on the farthest possible side of probably an 8' walkway, I was sitting on a bench) and made a forced cough (kind of like in Zoolander) as if to show disapproval. I was thinking... Really??? But they'll coat themselves in hoorible smelling body sprays, go hang out in the parking lot next to running vehicles, and then sit and eat Doritos, Fritos and candy all class long and wash it down with soda... I went to a clinical at a local hospital yesterday and had already put my cigarette out (AZ statutes prohibit smoking within 20' of public entrances) but still got yelled at by some employees who said if I wanted to finish it I would have to walk down to the stop sign (it was raining). I politely told them I was done with it and tossed it in the trash and as I walked by them into the building they said 'oh and he's an EMT student too!' Really?!?! The antismoking culture is out of control. Americans love their clean air!!! LOL

I'm proud to be a smoker amidst all this vehement anti-smoking zealotry

 

[cerogers]

The researchers said people should stay at least 29ft 6in from a smoking source, adding: ‘No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists and breathing even small amounts can be harmful to human health.’

Hmmmm. Maybe this should be a warning for all of us. We should stay 29ft 6in from the crazies who call this research. After this "research" I'm planning on taking up smoking, just so these screwballs will stay 29ft 6in away from me!!!

 

[sbeaudry]

The researchers said people should stay at least 29ft 6in from a smoking source, adding: ‘No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists and breathing even small amounts can be harmful to human health.’

Hmmmm. Maybe this should be a warning for all of us. We should stay 29ft 6in from the crazies who call this research. After this "research" I'm planning on taking up smoking, just so these screwballs will stay 29ft 6in away from me!!!

LOL!!! Putting bad research to good use

 

[Voyageur]

The researchers said people should stay at least 29ft 6in from a smoking source, adding: ‘No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists and breathing even small amounts can be harmful to human health.’

29.6 ft - Then they are just too far away to receive the benefits of tobacco and may have a dangerous buildup of metal homeostasis in their brains.

Nicotine attenuates β-amyloid-induced neurotoxicity by regulating metal homeostasis _http://www.fasebj.org/content/20/8/1212.short

Nicotine reduces β-amyloidosis and has a beneficial effect against Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but the underlying mechanism is not clear. The abnormal interactions of β-amyloid (Aβ) with metal ions such as copper and zinc are implicated in the process of Aβ deposition in AD brains. In the present study, we investigated the effect of nicotine on metal homeostasis in the hippocampus and cortex of APPV717I (London mutant form of APP) transgenic mice. A significant reduction in the metal contents of copper and zinc in senile plaques and neuropil is observed after nicotine treatment. The densities of copper and zinc distributions in a subfield of the hippocampus CA1 region are also reduced after nicotine treatment. We further studied the mechanism of nicotine-mediated effect on metal homeostasis by using SH-SY5Y cells overexpressing the Swedish mutant form of human APP (APPsw). Nicotine treatment decreases the intracellular copper concentration and attenuates Aβ-mediated neurotoxicity facilitated by the addition of copper, and these effects are independent of the activation of nicotinic acetylcholine-receptor. These data suggest that the effect of nicotine on reducing β-amyloidosis is partly mediated by regulating metal homeostasis.—Zhang, J., Liu, Q., Chen, Q., Liu, N.-Q., Li, F.-L., Lu, Z.-B., Qin, C., Zhu, H., Huang, Y.-Y., He, W., and Zhao, B.-L. Nicotine attenuates β-amyloid-induced neurotoxicity by regulating metal homeostasis.

 

[Arwenn]

The researchers said people should stay at least 29ft 6in from a smoking source, adding: ‘No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists and breathing even small amounts can be harmful to human health.’

Hmmmm. Maybe this should be a warning for all of us. We should stay 29ft 6in from the crazies who call this research. After this "research" I'm planning on taking up smoking, just so these screwballs will stay 29ft 6in away from me!!!

cerogers, I laughed so hard when I read your post! Thanks-I needed a good belly laugh!

 

[SeekinTruth]

The researchers said people should stay at least 29ft 6in from a smoking source, adding: ‘No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists and breathing even small amounts can be harmful to human health.’

Hmmmm. Maybe this should be a warning for all of us. We should stay 29ft 6in from the crazies who call this research. After this "research" I'm planning on taking up smoking, just so these screwballs will stay 29ft 6in away from me!!!

cerogers, I laughed so hard when I read your post! Thanks-I needed a good belly laugh!

I think you've already been getting some benefits of "passive/second-hand" smoke, perhaps, for coming up with clever ideas and retaining your humor. It's only likely to increase the benefits if you get it "first-hand." :)

 

[H-KQGE]

Here's more of the same, this time in India. As the "research" from the article in Endymion' s post was from south Korea, it seems that they're cranking up the propaganda in Asia & the far east.

http://health.india.com/news/doctors-demand-stronger-laws-against-tobacco-use/

Doctors demand stronger laws against tobacco use

November 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM
The government should focus on enforcing laws that curb tobacco use in order to check the spread of cancer, a medical expert said. ‘There have been efforts to ban tobacco, but we need to understand that we are also fighting a large tobacco lobby,’ Sharmila Pimple, professor at Department of Preventive Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital said at a special session of the Indian Cancer Congress held at New Delhi.

According to India Brand Equity Foundation, the tobacco industry in India has exports of $923 million. Also, the exports have grown at a rate of 15.8 percent from $322.49 million in 2005-06 to a record $900.64 million in 2012-13. India ranks as the second largest consumer of tobacco products and the third largest producer globally, according to industry figures.

‘We do not have the funds for this fight, hence the focus should be on the vigorous implementation of the programmes,’Pimple said. ‘Cancer prevention can also begin with a healthy diet, exercise and leading a healthy lifestyle. Education about the disease is extremely important as well,’ she said.

Pimple said it was extremely important to provide local health solutions at the grassroot level. The cancer congress brought together experts from the field of surgery, medicine and radiation oncology, associated with the life-threatening disease.

The four-day event that commenced Thursday saw participation of radiologists, pathologists, scientists, and physicists. ‘It is for the first time that we have oncologists from across the globe, including 130 foreign delegates, to sit and discuss situations and research associated with cancer in India. We have always realised the need to talk among ourselves, and now its finally happening,’ Nitesh Rohatgi, consultant medical oncologist and palliative care, Max Super Speciality Hospital told IANS.

Source: IANS

130 foreign delegates to spread "the word" of the psychopaths to other authoritarian followers. Can't wait for 2014.

 

[mada85]

And more of the same insane nonsense, this time in San Rafael, California, that most 'progressive' of states. The anti-smoking cultists are coming out in support of this on FB.

Link: _http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/san-rafael-smoking-ban_n_4326768.html

San Rafael Smoking Ban, Strictest In The Nation, Goes Into Effect
By Robin Wilkey Posted: 11/23/2013 12:04 am EST | Updated: 11/23/2013 12:49 pm EST

The California city of San Rafael might be one of the more beautiful places in the country, but if you’re a smoker, it might not be the place for you.

Last week, the San Francisco suburb made active a smoking ban that officials say is the strictest in the country, prohibiting smoking cigarettes in your own home.

The ordinance specifically bans smoking in dwellings that share a wall with another unit, including apartments, duplexes and condominiums. The hope is to eliminate second-hand smoke from creeping through doors and windows, ventilation systems, floorboards and other susceptible openings. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report, secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 Americans per year, including 430 infants.

The San Rafael City Council unanimously approved the ban last year.

“I'm not aware of any ordinance that's stronger,” said Rebecca Woodbury, an analyst at the City Manager’s office, to ABC. "It doesn't matter if it's owner-occupied or renter-occupied. We didn't want to discriminate. The distinguishing feature is the shared wall."

While California outlawed smoking in bars, clubs and restaurants in 1995, the San Rafael ban is the first to move the restrictions inside the home -- a move that the American Lung Association called "groundbreaking."

"This legislation will improve the health of all Californians by reducing exposure to smoke that drifts into housing units from balconies, patios, and other units," said the association's president and CEO, Jane Warner.

But not everyone celebrated the move.

"This...smoking ban actually intends to punish people for what they do in their own homes," said San Rafael resident Thomas Ruppenthal to the council. "I really feel this is tyranny."

Some housing advocates also spoke out against the ban, claiming that it targeted low-income earners, The Sacramento Bee reported:

Brian Augusta, of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said that targeting multifamily units disproportionately affects low-income people who can't afford standalone homes. "If smoking is an addiction, and it clearly is, are we telling people that they have to quit smoking - without support - or leave their homes?" he said.

In the same article, Kimberly Amazeen of the American Lung Association offered a rebuttal.

"The real discrimination is against low-income families who can't escape exposure to deadly secondhand smoke," she said, "and they can't find another place to live because of their income or health."

 

[SMM]

And more of the same insane nonsense, this time in San Rafael, California, that most 'progressive' of states. The anti-smoking cultists are coming out in support of this on FB.

Link: _http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/san-rafael-smoking-ban_n_4326768.html

San Rafael Smoking Ban, Strictest In The Nation, Goes Into Effect
By Robin Wilkey Posted: 11/23/2013 12:04 am EST | Updated: 11/23/2013 12:49 pm EST

The California city of San Rafael might be one of the more beautiful places in the country, but if you’re a smoker, it might not be the place for you.

Last week, the San Francisco suburb made active a smoking ban that officials say is the strictest in the country, prohibiting smoking cigarettes in your own home.

The ordinance specifically bans smoking in dwellings that share a wall with another unit, including apartments, duplexes and condominiums. The hope is to eliminate second-hand smoke from creeping through doors and windows, ventilation systems, floorboards and other susceptible openings. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report, secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 Americans per year, including 430 infants.

The San Rafael City Council unanimously approved the ban last year.

“I'm not aware of any ordinance that's stronger,” said Rebecca Woodbury, an analyst at the City Manager’s office, to ABC. "It doesn't matter if it's owner-occupied or renter-occupied. We didn't want to discriminate. The distinguishing feature is the shared wall."

While California outlawed smoking in bars, clubs and restaurants in 1995, the San Rafael ban is the first to move the restrictions inside the home -- a move that the American Lung Association called "groundbreaking."

"This legislation will improve the health of all Californians by reducing exposure to smoke that drifts into housing units from balconies, patios, and other units," said the association's president and CEO, Jane Warner.

But not everyone celebrated the move.

"This...smoking ban actually intends to punish people for what they do in their own homes," said San Rafael resident Thomas Ruppenthal to the council. "I really feel this is tyranny."

Some housing advocates also spoke out against the ban, claiming that it targeted low-income earners, The Sacramento Bee reported:

Brian Augusta, of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said that targeting multifamily units disproportionately affects low-income people who can't afford standalone homes. "If smoking is an addiction, and it clearly is, are we telling people that they have to quit smoking - without support - or leave their homes?" he said.

In the same article, Kimberly Amazeen of the American Lung Association offered a rebuttal.

"The real discrimination is against low-income families who can't escape exposure to deadly secondhand smoke," she said, "and they can't find another place to live because of their income or health."

Prohibiting public smoking & in one's home sounds like an arbitrary distinction... so where would one be able to smoke? Designated smoking areas?

Quite a few UK public places ask smokers to move away from the door as smoke drifts inside & could pollute the air that non-smokers are entitled to. I guess the anti-smoking cultists want to make the tyranny official.

 

[SovereignDove]

And more of the same insane nonsense, this time in San Rafael, California, that most 'progressive' of states. The anti-smoking cultists are coming out in support of this on FB.

Link: _http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/23/san-rafael-smoking-ban_n_4326768.html

San Rafael Smoking Ban, Strictest In The Nation, Goes Into Effect
By Robin Wilkey Posted: 11/23/2013 12:04 am EST | Updated: 11/23/2013 12:49 pm EST

The California city of San Rafael might be one of the more beautiful places in the country, but if you’re a smoker, it might not be the place for you.

Last week, the San Francisco suburb made active a smoking ban that officials say is the strictest in the country, prohibiting smoking cigarettes in your own home.

The ordinance specifically bans smoking in dwellings that share a wall with another unit, including apartments, duplexes and condominiums. The hope is to eliminate second-hand smoke from creeping through doors and windows, ventilation systems, floorboards and other susceptible openings. According to a U.S. Surgeon General report, secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 Americans per year, including 430 infants.

The San Rafael City Council unanimously approved the ban last year.

“I'm not aware of any ordinance that's stronger,” said Rebecca Woodbury, an analyst at the City Manager’s office, to ABC. "It doesn't matter if it's owner-occupied or renter-occupied. We didn't want to discriminate. The distinguishing feature is the shared wall."

While California outlawed smoking in bars, clubs and restaurants in 1995, the San Rafael ban is the first to move the restrictions inside the home -- a move that the American Lung Association called "groundbreaking."

"This legislation will improve the health of all Californians by reducing exposure to smoke that drifts into housing units from balconies, patios, and other units," said the association's president and CEO, Jane Warner.

But not everyone celebrated the move.

"This...smoking ban actually intends to punish people for what they do in their own homes," said San Rafael resident Thomas Ruppenthal to the council. "I really feel this is tyranny."
Some housing advocates also spoke out against the ban, claiming that it targeted low-income earners, The Sacramento Bee reported:

Brian Augusta, of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, said that targeting multifamily units disproportionately affects low-income people who can't afford standalone homes. "If smoking is an addiction, and it clearly is, are we telling people that they have to quit smoking - without support - or leave their homes?" he said.

In the same article, Kimberly Amazeen of the American Lung Association offered a rebuttal.

"The real discrimination is against low-income families who can't escape exposure to deadly secondhand smoke," she said, "and they can't find another place to live because of their income or health."

The bolded section basically sums it up. My question is, how would they enforce this law? Will they need to rely on neighbor spying on neighbor?

 

[l apprenti de forgeron]

"No safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke exists?" Really?!! If people believe this absolute BS, then they kinda deserve the world we live in - toxic in every way. Don't worry about the industrial pollution and bus and truck diesel exhaust you might be standing right next to. But if someone is smoking 25 feet away from you outdoors, run for your life!!!

I concur. And most likely all that pollution has killed more millions people than smoking. Smoking kill any? Maybe the people who died were who believe in the propaganda that smoking was bad. If we knew once some actual numbers of the true causes of death (and for that we need real science) that astound us all.
And while people do not know more about this (and often should search in alternative sites), they still believe that it's for protecting their health and that's why they attacking smokers. Very annoying problem. They feel that a smoker is an attacker, put their lifes in danger, and therefore defend themselves. Perhaps soon activate worse laws against smoking because it could protect the body from pests?. The PTB must be very happy with this panorama.
And as for passive/second-hand contamination, I could never think of someone smoking nearby. But someone using a cell next to you or some portable electronic equipment, yes, of course!. Or a neighbor with wi-fi. Or an antenna of the building across the street. That affects all us "passively" until we take precautions.


Edit: Clarity and typo. Sorry :).