Sunday, December 10, 2006

Here is a research study which the pro-smoking ban movement kept silenced for obvious reasons, it did not support their agenda

Thanks to Kevin, a regular commentator from Dr. Siegel's website, who reminded me of this research study:

Toxic Toxicology

Placing Scientific Credibility at Risk

Littlewood & Fennell is an independent public and health policy research group, with no ties whatsoever to industry or any government agency. I am here today on my own time and at my own expense to address the clear possibility that the National Toxicology Program has actively undermined the process by which risk assessments should be conducted. NTP overlooked a substantial body of evidence showing uncertainty, vagueness, and lack of statistical support of what is and is not carcinogenic. In addition, NTP conducted its assessments in a manner reminiscent of a rubber stamp proceeding, which favored politics over science.

I have included a history of our involvement with the NTP carcinogen listing process as an addendum to this paper. Briefly, we became interested in the topic of environmental tobacco smoke (or ETS) during an ongoing study of increasing rates of asthma in the U.S. Because a review of the literature indicates a negative correlation between ETS and asthma, and because ETS is physically and chemically quite different from mainstream tobacco smoke, we were curious about NTP’s decision to list ETS as a carcinogen.

This research article calculated the number of cigarettes which would have to be simultaneously lit in order for secondhand smoke to be a health hazard. Oh, one other minor detail, these cigarettes would have to be smoked in an unventilated room 20' x 9' x 9' for secondhand smoke concentrations to approach hazardous levels:

(Click to enlarge)


For acetone levels from secondhand smoke to be a health hazard it would require 118,700 cigarettes being simultaneously smoked in our 20' x 9' x 9' unventilated room , an impossible feat to be sure.

Or for toluene levels to reach hazardous concentrations it would require 1,000,000 cigarettes being simultaneously smoked in our 20' x 9' x 9' unventilated room , an unlikely event even in a pro-smoking ban activist's wildest exaggeration.

No wonder pro-smoking ban activists are not interested in science or facts......neither supports their exaggerations and lies about secondhand smoke.

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


    "Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights"

    Shop for Aircleaners

    Combustion Engine Emissions Eliminator (CE3)