For Smoke-Haters and Smokers. A few info links.

by Watchdog Wed Sep 17, 2003 03:20

*** Partial list of non-tobacco cig ingredients from which manufacturers select their secret "recipes":
http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/additives/
The Nation mag, in 91, reported about dangerous additives to "lite" cigs but can't get a copy on line...yet.

*** Bill Drake's invaluable site: http://ktc.com/~bdrake

*** www.pmdocs.com (Philip Morris had to post this as part of "settlement")

***The Massachusetts Tobacco Ingredients and Nicotine Yield Act is at:
http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/94-307B.htm
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Decision is at:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2425.01A

***The revised "Ninth Report" that contains all addendum materials is available on the Internet from the National Toxicology Program's web page at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov

***Radiation contaminating tobacco...
http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/

*** www.chem.unep.ch/pops/ The 12 initial POPs include eight pesticides (aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, and toxaphene), two industrial chemicals (PCBs and hexachlorobenzene, which is also a pesticide), and two unwanted by-products of combustion and industrial processes (dioxins and furans). [ But Carbofurans are on lists of tobacco pesticides...so, I don't quite understand this.]

***** From Pesticicide Action Network, re/ 450 still registered tobacco pesticides http://www.panna.org/resources/documents/tobacco.dv.html :
Tobacco, Farmers and Pesticides: The Other Story
May 1998 By Ellen Hickey and Yenyen Chan

*** RJR's (biased) review of Judge Osteen's rejection of EPA "secondhand smoke" stuff.
http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/osteensummary.html

*** More on EPA/2nd hand smoke; All garbage that avoids all along anything about what's IN "secondhand smoke". Cigs not defined or analyzed...smoke not defined or analyzed. This is SCIENCE??
http://stic.neu.edu/osteen.htm

**** Re "ETS" Environmental Tobacco Smoke"...except that no one TESTED unadulterated tobacco smoke for ANYTHING. Both sides doing a dance.
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/appeal.htm

*** And I just re-found this troubling note:
"The best source for information on exemptions is the UNEP website,
http://irptc.unep.ch/pops/, under "Stockholm Convention on POPs." The
Convention text itself is informative, as is the revised list of requested
exemptions. ...." It indicates that "unintentional" dioxins, like in products (like in typical cigarettes?) may not be covered in the POPs Treaty. Does WHO know this?

**** Fantastic scandal...that never heated up: Health insurers links to Big Cig.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2000/march/insurers_are_major_i.php

*** Re/ "fire safe" cigs: http://www.ameriburn.org/advocacy/fireSafeCig.htm

*** No "link" to this at CDC but....here it is copied:

Dioxins in Cigarette Smoke

Copy of an abstract from US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Ga.

Authors: H. Muto, Y. Takazawa
Title: Dioxins in Cigarette Smoke
From: Archives of Environmental Health, Pg. 44 (3); 171-4
Date: May/June 1989

Abstract:

Dioxins in cigarettes, smoke, and ash were determined using gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry. The total concentration of
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) in cigarette smoke was
approximately 5.0 micrograms/m3 at the maximum level, whereas various
cogeners from tetra-octa-chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ( -CDD) were detected.
Particularly, the total concetration of hepta-CDD cogeners was the
highest among these cogeners. Mass fragmentograms of various PCDD
cogeners were similar to those in flue gas samples collected from a
municipal waste incinerator. The PCDD cogeners that were not present in the cigarettes were found in the smoke samples, the 2, 3, 7,8-TCDD toxic equivalent value---an index for effects on humans---for total PCDDs in smoke was 1.81nng/m3 using the toxic factor of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Daily intake of PCDDs by smoking 20
cigarettes was estimated to be approximately 4.3 pg. kg body/weight/day.
This value was close to that of the ADIs; 1-5 pg kg body/weight/day
reported in several countries. A heretofore unrecognized health risk was represented by the presence of PCDDs in cigarette smoke.

***US Gov't Accounting Office March 2003 report on lax gov't monitoring of tobacco pesticide residues. GAO fails to note dioxin from the chlorine chemicals, and fails to define what it means by "smoking", but...
http://www.gao.gov/atext/d03485.txt

*** The whole Muto/Takazawa piece on "Dioxins in Cigarette Smoke". Archives of Environmental Health, Pg. 44 (3) : 171-4 May/Jun89 (Compare to "Health Effects..." just below.)
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Dioxins-Cigarette-Smoke.htm

*** HEALTH EFFECTS OF DIOXINS ...w/ info re/ U.S. dioxin maximum limits etc. (Compare to Muto/Takazawa discoveries re/ dioxin in cig smoke): http://www.gascape.org/index%20/Health%20effects%20of%20Dioxins.html

***Methyl Bromide use on tobacco:
http://www.tobacco.org/articles.php?pattern=Pesticides

***Interesting. "Smokers" job performance better than non-smokers! Journal of Psychology. 2002 May;136(3):339-49 Related Articles, Links
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&lis t_uids=12206282&dopt=Abstract

***from the National Center on Food and Agricultural Policy, from
1997 use data. (Not all, just major tobacco pesticides); Number, I believe, is pounds used per anum. Will have to double check: http://www.ncfap.org
1,3-Dichloropropene13,279,285
ACEPHATE 871,899
ALDICARB 59,719
BENEFIN
BT
CARBARYL 2,057
CARBOFURAN
CHLOROPICRIN 6,761,644
CHLORPYRIFOS 406,822
CLOMAZONE 217,617
DIAZINON
DIMETHOMORPH 36,818
DIPHENAMID
DISULFOTON 13,495
ENDOSULFAN 172,766
ETHEPHON 102,130
ETHOPROP 182,321
FENAMIPHOS 379,841
FLUMETRALIN 352,742
FONOFOS 16
IMIDACLOPRID 67,896
ISOPROPALIN
MALATHION 15,437
MALEIC HYDRAZIDE 1,790,089
MANCOZEB 356,811
MEFENOXAM 139,199
METALAXYL 271,368
METHIDATHION
METHOMYL 29,773
METHYL BROMIDE 685,026
NAPROPAMIDE 92,622
PEBULATE 131,665
PENDIMETHALIN 473,718
SETHOXYDIM 9,579
SPINOSAD 2,815
SULFENTRAZONE 69,073
TRICHLORFON
TOBACCO Total 26,974,241

*** "Liggett Documents Show Pesticide Use For Tobacco," (...such as DDT, endrin, and malathion.) WALL STREET JOURNAL, April 9, 1997, p. B8. (sdb 4/9/97) [can't find computer link, yet.]

**** Title: How cigarette additives are used to mask environmental tobacco smoke.
Dr. Gregory N Connolly, Director, Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program, Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/283

by pal Wed Sep 17, 2003 17:51

its got nothing to do with health ,its all about control.There should be a mass disobediebce campaign organized for Jan 1 2004. Go to your local even if you dont smoke and light up a cigarette pipe cigar spliff whatever.Anarchists ,why the silence?

by Joe Wed Sep 17, 2003 18:00

I reckon the smoking ban is a good thing, particularly for those who have no choice but to work in a smoke filled room. I'd prefer if it had been introduced from below by the unions.

I also don't demand a 'right' to break red traffic lights or to drink and drive.

by Watchdog Thu Sep 25, 2003 00:51

This is NOT about what the cigarette gangsters call "right to smoke". That lingo is a perversion of progressive concepts. You may note that they also have stolen our language about "protecting all workers" and about, therefore, being "non-discriminatory". Sick stuff.

What this IS about is the question of...Do corporate entities have rights to add known toxins and carcinogens as well as many hundreds of untested substances to what they call "tobacco products"?
Do they have the right to fail to TELL anyone what's in the products?...especially if some of it is inevitably, inescapably deadly...such as the chlorine and radioactive elements? This is not just about whatever inherent risk there may be from plain tobacco. Not by miles. Worded another way...do they have the right to treat ANY consumer, even hated smokers, as Guinea Pigs?

Do they have the right to evade not only liabilities and penalties but even public SCRUTINY
of the non-tobacco cigarette components?

Do they have any right to dump burdens of law on unwitting, uninformed, unprotected and insufficiently-warned VICTIMS?...including Pub and restaurant owners etc who had NOTHING to do with manufacture of these industrial concoctions.

Do the media have the right to perpetrate the deceit by, themselves, calling the products "tobacco" (as if they are only some natural plant material) while failing to disclose or investigate the NON-tobacco constituents of products?

Do Medical doctors have the right to blame a disease on the unscientific, essentially meaningless term, "smoking" (of WHAT, exactly?) ...as they also fail to warn about the ADDED, maximized risks presented by industrial chemicals and other non-tobacco additives?

Do PATIENTS have a right to KNOW what's in consumer products, especially things that are known to be deadly...carcinogenic, immune suppressing, fetal damaging, pregnancy disrupting, and on and on? Do Patients have a right to be TESTED for, say, dioxins and low-level radiation (from certain tobacco fertilizers)
that may come from industrial cigarettes?
Patients cannot get compensation from Mother Nature for her tobacco...but they CAN get it from the cig makers and their ingredient suppliers, and their insurers and investors.

(That last line, in a nutshell, pretty much explains the entire "no-smoking" crusade. It is about MONEY. Health and "our safety", as ever, is just packaging.)

Does EVERYONE have a right to be free of laws that are patently unsound...such as the ones that refer to the untested Tobacco Smoke. Yeah...typical cigs have been tested, but the "scientists", working for various industrial interests, forgot to look at the industrial adulterants. Such a "scientist" would also blame a car, not a drunk driver, for running over a pedestrian.

We PAY for this "science" when it's done by government. Don't we have a RIGHT to HONEST science that works for PEOPLE instead of this industry?

Unless it's PROVEN that tobacco smoke(meaning TOBACCO smoke) causes a certain level of harm that rises to Public Interest levels...say, ABOVE that of cooking fires, campfires, candles, incense or flipping perfumes, not to mention auto exhaust and the rest...NO government entity has the right to BAN it.

People have a right to smoke TOBACCO...just as we have the right to sit on a public bench (thus depriving another of a seat) or walk down a public street (thus forcing others to alter their direction). Once we are BORN, we will always be in other's way or taking up space or using resources that others might use. One might ask...which is SAFER all around?...putting some TOBACCO smoke into the air, even indoors....OR having all the novel, synthetic corporate nicotine substitute drugs manufactured (using plenty of chlorine, no doubt) and inevitably contaminating the world's water and aquatic creatures with pharmaceutial residues? This IS an increasing global problem.

THEY (the corporatocracy) have NO RIGHT to put secret, untested, dangerous stuff INTO the tobacco and then to evade liabilities and prosecution by PRETENDING to be "concerned" about the health of those they, themselves, damaged and defrauded.
The "smoking bans" are, among other things, scams to cut public health funding...without bringing charges against those who CAUSED the health damages and expenses.

It is troubling that some people display more anger at a (unknowingly self-poisoned) smoker than they have for those in industry and gov't who are responsible for the diseases and deaths of millions.