Thursday, November 30, 2006

Atlantic City NJ city council is now pushing for a smoking ban in the casinos

........Even though they originally claimed they would exempt casinos from the smoking ban.

From
this article the pro-smoking ban activists claim "...Casino employees bitterly complained that the state law sacrificed their health in the interest of gambling profits......"

A claim that is pure exaggerated hype, as even American Cancer Society testing proved that secondhand smoke levels are up to
25,000 times SAFER than OSHA permissible exposure limits for secondhand smoke.

If a smoking ban passes, Atlantic City casino employees will be complaining about job losses and personal financial harm just as they have in
Washington State where tens of millions of dollars in losses occurred after just 9 months of their smoking ban, or in Minnesota where $14.1 million dollars in gambling revenue losses were recorded in just two counties after just 6 months of a local smoking ban.

The only ones who profit from a proposed smoking ban are the
pharmaceutical nicotine interests like (RWJF) which fund the non-profit groups who demand such a ban from lawmakers. We'll see if lawmakers have the backbone to stand up against the special interests.......if not, then the least lawmakers can do is to ensure that the pro-smoking ban groups put up a $50 -$100 million bond to compensate the employees and business owners who WILL suffer financially.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Mall of America needs taxpayer financing for expansion, but after losing all their 4th floor tenants due to the smoking ban, it's the least we can do

Mall of America owners want to expand their facility by an additional 5.6 million square feet, even though the entire 4th floor sits empty after hospitality businesses closed their doors due to business losses from Bloomington's smoking ban.

Perhaps the loss of tenants explains the need for taxpayer funding. But Clearing the Air would like to suggest that the non-profits and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation take responsibility for their anti-business smoking bans and subsidize the construction costs themselves.

State funded anti-tobacco group proves that smoking bans eliminate business....will lawmakers heed the lesson

Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) now ClearWay MN, proved that smoking bans eliminate on average nearly 40% of a private businesses' customers; with the most dramatic decrease in business of nearly 90%.

click to enlarge
"customers before" was count before smoking ban
"customers after" was count after smoking ban

Clearing the Air covered this story a few months back, but as more cities, counties, and states cave in to extortion-like tactics by the non-profit special interest smoking ban groups; it is important to remember the lessons that even the activists can't deny.

What's even more incredible is that air quality testing of secondhand smoke proves the "heath hazard" claim is a bold faced lie, and international hoax. Couple that with the new revelation by Dr. Siegel, that epidemiological studies which smoking ban activists' based their very existence upon were manipulated and/or fixed to support a pre-determined agenda, and you've got very sound reasoning why lawmakers should send the smoking ban charlatans not only packing, but making reparations to all the individuals and businesses harmed.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

The media finally gets it right, tobacco control activist's involvement in a scam that's criminal.

From the Calgary Sun comes this story about a tobacco control activist's criminal activity and his involvement with the Alberta Lung Association.

It sounds like business as usual in the tobacco control movement to me.

Thanks to Robin Gaison for the tip.

Friday, November 24, 2006

KGB agent's death being used to demonize tobacco in the media, ...talk about pushing an unrelated agenda

Recent events, specifically the former Russian KGB agent who allegedly was assassinated by exposure to a massive dose of polonium 210, have brought polonium 210 to the forefront of news headlines worldwide. One reporter, E.D. Hill from Fox News Friday 11/24/06 AM spoke of the KGB agent's death from radioactive polonium 210 and stated in the same breath that it's "...also found in the bloodstream of smoker's......" Another media attempt to demonize tobacco in an unrelated and out of context manner.

Tobacco control activists love to use the "4000" chemicals scam as proof that evil tobacco companies "add" all sorts of dangerous chemicals to their product. However, the fact of the matter is that polonium 210 and all of the other alleged "4000" chemicals are found not only in tobacco plants, but also lettuce, carrots, potatoes etc. etc......anything grown from the soil......or any animal or human which ingests the plants grown from the soil, because polonium 210 is found naturally along with arsenic, formaldehyde.....etc....etc. From this website you can get all the basic facts about polonium 210.

Polonium-210 is naturally present in all environmental media at very low concentrations. In soils, the concentration is similar to that of uranium, averaging about 1 pCi/g (or one trillionth curie per gram). Because polonium-210 is produced from the decay of radon-222 gas, it can be found in the atmosphere from which it is deposited on the earth’s surface. Average annual air concentrations range from 0.005 to 0.04 pCi/m3. Polonium-210 is also emitted to the atmosphere during the calcining of phosphate rock as part of the production of elemental phosphorous. Although direct root uptake by plants is generally small, polonium-210 can be deposited on broad-leaved vegetables. ...........It is estimated that the average Western diet includes from 1 to 10 pCi of polonium-210 per day. Polonium-210 can be significantly elevated in residents of northern lands who subsist on reindeer that consume lichens, which absorb trace elements from the atmosphere.

Polonium can be taken into the body by eating food, drinking water, or breathing air. Between 50% and 90% of the polonium taken in by ingestion will promptly leave the body in feces. The fraction remaining in the body enters the bloodstream. In general, the spleen and kidneys concentrate polonium more than other tissues except for temporary deposition in the lung after inhalation of an insoluble form. It is estimated that approximately 45% of ingested polonium will be deposited in the spleen, kidneys, and liver, with 10% deposited in bone marrow and the remainder distributed throughout the body. The amount of polonium in the body will decrease with a half-time of 50 days.

-Armed with this new information it sounds to me as though lawmakers should ban food, air, and water........afterall what did surgeon general Carmona say? "....there is no safe level...."

Tobacco control activists' demonization, lies and half truths about tobacco don't necessarily surprise me any longer.......what surprises me is that the media, especially FOX News, is now leading the charge.......and as Dr. Siegel has pointed out.......tobacco control activists' lies are beginning to erode their credibility.......so too will it erode the medias' credibility.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Dr. Siegel demonstrates that epidemiological studies showing a very minor risk from SHS were cherry picked to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion

Here Dr. Siegel re-examines a 1997 Study on Secondhand Smoke and Heart Disease. And finds that data which did not support the pro-smoking ban agenda was omitted so as not to taint the findings to what scientists wanted the studies to reveal. In other words the data was manipulated or fixed to arrive at a pre-determined agenda.

Now combine that manipulation with the fact that most of these pro-smoking ban researchers and groups received funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) which has direct ties to the Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson Company, and you have an indictable offense worthy of an international investigation.

By the way, you probably noticed I used the words "very minor risk" in the title, here's the 1997 study's relative risk ratio and my question to Dr. Siegel:

"....a pooled relative risk of 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.3"

Dr. I have heard from several experts that a relative risk ratio of less than 2.0 is typically not published in a medical journal such as BMJ or the JAMA. In fact what I've heard is that unless a relative risk ratio is 3.0 or higher it is not deemed a credible finding worthy of publishing in either medical journal. Could you comment on any other issue, besides tobacco, which was given "credible finding" status even though the risk ratio was less than 2.0?

Any of you in the pro-smoking ban movement are free to answer the question above.......if you can.

Update: GreatScot, a regular contributor to Dr. Siegel's website, provides some additional information:

Risk Ratio's less than 2. Interesting reading.

http://www.amlibpub.com/

Excerpt:

A 30 percent increase means a relative risk (also known as risk ratio, or RR) of 1.3. (On the risk scale, zero risk is set at 1.0, not 0.0.) Actually, the American Heart Association website lists the following RRs: 1.25 for cardiovascular heart disease, 1.18 for ischemic heart disease, and 1.13 for arrhythmic heart failure or coronary arrest mortality. The RRs for cell phones, computers, hair dryers, and electric blankets are all between 3.0 and 4.0. The risk of getting cancer from drinking municipal tap water that tens of millions of Americans drink every day is 2.0 to 4.0. So why be concerned about a relative risk of 1.3 to the heart from ETS? It so happens that 1.3 is the exact RR for shortening your life by drinking three cups of coffee per WEEK. That will give you some perspective on the severity of the alleged heart “danger.”

Both the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society have clearly stated that RRs below 2.0 are too low to be relied upon. And a report by the independent health consulting firm Littlewood and Fennell characterized RRs less than 2.0 as “dancing on the tiny pinhead of statistical insignificance.” Compare this to the claim of “rapid and large” harmful effects from an RR of 1.3. A wealth of published literature dismisses relative risks less than 2.0 (100%) as being insignificant. And Dr. Eugenia Calle, Director of Analytic Epidemiology at the American Cancer Society, has stated the RRs below 1.3 are too low even to be realistically identified, much less be dangerous.

Why aren’t RRs less than 2.0 significant when they can represent impressive sounding percentage increases? The main reason is confounding variables. There are at least 20 of these that have been identified for ETS and heart disease, including: heredity, consumption of fat, consumption of fruits and vegetables, exercise and physical activity, type of employment, ethnic background, cholesterol, socio-economic class, etc. Any one of these could account for an impressive percentage increase in disease, yet no study of ETS has ever come close to controlling for even a large share of these variables. And there could be others that haven’t yet been identified.

It is no wonder, therefore, that Dr. Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the world’s leading medical journals, says, “As a general rule, we are looking for a relative risk of 3.0 or more.” Dr. Robt. Temple, director of drug evaluation for the FDA, says, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” And the EPA declined to regulate high-voltage power lines because it said the RRs seldom exceeded 3.0.

Hmm... one can only conclude that smoking bans, financed by some very powerful special interest groups, wouldn't even be considered if it weren't for the money.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

It has been alleged by a Mayo doctor whom I debated recently that ALZA does not manufacture Nicoderm or Nicoderm CQ....

A GlaxoSmith Kline representative sets the record straight in this email to Clearing the Air.

Dear Mr. Wernimont,

We have received your e-mail message regarding NicoDerm® CQ® stop smoking aid.

This is GlaxoSmithKline’s product but it is manufactured by ALZA Corporation.

We appreciate your taking the time to contact us.

Respectfully,

Gimena
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare

Case # 2471856

And as regular readers know
ALZA is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson Company. And J & J Company's political wing, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) provides the funding for smoking bans nationwide.........to increase marketshare of their nicotine replacement products.

Thus doctor, the message being provided to lawmakers regarding secondhand smoke comes from a very dubious source which seriously lacks any scientific or policymaking credibility, their only motive appears to be profit. (RWJF owns 80,000,000 shares of Johnson & Johnson stock, a $5.4 billion stake)

Monday, November 20, 2006

When deceitful tactics become the modus operandi of the pro-smoking ban movement

Defn: modus operandi used to describe fraud investigation when talking of behavior patterns that indicate specific types of fraud.

The story below claims that by measuring all the airborne dust "particulate" in the bars and restaurants you can determine the health hazards from secondhand smoke.

http://www.sj-r.com/sections/news/stories/100919.asp

Of course it's a fraud. So Clearing the Air has a simple solution for all these air quality "experts". If you want to determine the actual concentration of secondhand smoke in the air; why not measure secondhand smoke concentrations?......What a novel idea!

Three separate organizations conducted such air quality testing and proved that secondhand smoke levels are 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations for secondhand smoke. See link:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-secondhand-smoke-health-hazard.html

The reason the pro-smoking ban activists now use the misleading RSP (respirable suspended particulate) test results, is because actual scientific air quality testing does not support their agenda. And they're hoping that you, John Q. Public, are too stupid to understand the facts.

Update: Correct AQ testing method for secondhand smoke.
http://www.astm.org/Standards/D5075.htm

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Will Johnson & Johnson / ALZA Company, the manufacturers of Nicoderm CQ, be the new targets of nicotine lawsuits?

The irony, if true, is that Johnson & Johnson, which owns ALZA......will have brought this potential new liabilty upon itself, while attempting to eliminate its competitor.....Big Tobacco. The manner in which Johnson & Johnson Co. hastened their potential liability was to fund smoking ban efforts through its political wing the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).....efforts which were designed to increase sales of their potentially hazardous NRT's -Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ.

Kevin provides this comment on Dr. Siegel's website.

The heart risk of Nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] is much higher than the risk of ETS even in the most extreme of exaggerations. The heart risk the risk to those with breathing disorders as well as Cancer risk of ETS is predicated primarily on those with substantial pre-existing risk already known. NRT causes heart and Internal organ damage in many with no pre-existing condition.

We have to wonder where advocates get the confidence in suggesting NRT is a viable alternative to smoking. Knowing the sales of these products are only justified in the companies own research which is known to be controlled and manipulated. Consistent studies show the products are largely ineffective in the purpose they claim to be designed for. As many as 40% of nicorette current users, are addicted to the cure. What would common sense tell you the most effective use of NRT actually is.

We hear about the primary fear of smoking based in statistical timeline effect, 30 years down the road, yet no one knows what the effects of NRT will be 30 years from today.

Where is the proof we are not replacing smoking with something much more deadly having genetic repercussions producing much larger issues? In the mean time popularity of “legal nicotine” use is on the upswing.

As it stands children have not been able to purchase cigarettes over the counter legally since the 60s yet any 10 year old child can buy Nicorette gum in exciting new flavors over the counter. Without complaint, in many cases with praise from adults who have no idea if that child is making that purchase to satisfying an addiction apparently or do they care.

What NRT represents is a moral choice, in deciding what addictive products are within social norms. Many with similar Carl like mentalities support such folly to the point they realize their own children started smoking to satisfy a need for nicotine created by their own advocacy. The Carl mentality is what smokers view as a typical TC campaign member, despite the fact there are much more dangerous characters leeching off the TC crusade as well
.

I couldn't have said it better myself.......thank you Kevin.

Johnson & Johnson as well as RWJF deserve all the financial harm they've imposed on the rest of us.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Is secondhand smoke a health hazard? Three separate air quality test results prove the answer is NO

Three pro-smoking ban advocate groups tested bar and restaurant air quality across the country to determine secondhand smoke concentrations. They all measured for the trace chemical nicotine, which in turn indicates the concentration level of secondhand smoke present in the air.

Why measure for nicotine?

* (As per air quality researchers nationwide) Nicotine is the only unique or "trace" chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air. And then our comparison to OSHA guidelines is the logical manner in which to determine if secondhand smoke levels pose a health hazard, as you can see, according to OSHA, the authority on workplace safety, they do not. If you wanted you could measure every airborne chemical in secondhand smoke and then compare them to OSHA guidelines for each specific chemical, the results would be the same, if not more dramatic.



Test results and comparison to OSHA Standards CFR 29 (see OSHA table link above). The OSHA permissible exposure limit (pel) for nicotine is 0.5 mg (milligrams) / cubic meter.




1) Analysis of St. Louis Park, MN. air quality testing (above) to OSHA table of the nicotine permissible exposure limit (pel). (PEL)'s are the OSHA safe acceptable level of exposure to humans for an 8 hour day, 40 hour per week time period.

1 mg (milligram) / cubic meter = 1000 ug (microgram) / cubic meter. So 0.5 mg / cu. M = 500 ug / cu. M.

OSHA (pel) 500 ug / cu.M. divided by Cafe Europa AQ results 1 ug / cu.M = Cafe Europa seconhand smoke concentrations are 500 times SAFER than OSHA standards.

OSHA (pel) 500 ug / cu.M.divided by Applebees AQ results 3.3 ug / cu.M = Applebees seconhand smoke concentrations are 152 times SAFER than OSHA standards.

OSHA (pel) 500 ug / cu.M.divided by Al's Liquor AQ results 32.5 ug / cu.M = Al's Liquor seconhand smoke concentrations are 15.4 times SAFER than OSHA standards.




2) Analysis of American Cancer Society air quality testing (link above shows ACS test results) against OSHA table of the nicotine permissible exposure limit (pel). (PEL)'s are the OSHA safe acceptable level of exposure to humans for an 8 hour day, 40 hour per week time period.

1 mg (milligram) / cubic meter = 1,000,000 (nanograms) / cubic meter. So 0.5 mg / cu. M = 500,000 nanograms / cu. M.

OSHA (pel) 500,000 nanograms / cu.M. divided by Restaurant with enclosed smoking area AQ results 20 nangrams / cu.M = Restaurant with enclosed smoking area seconhand smoke concentrations are 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA standards.

OSHA (pel) 500,000 nanograms / cu.M.divided by Bowling Alleys AQ results 110 nanograms / cu.M = Bowling Alleys seconhand smoke concentrations are 4,545 times SAFER than OSHA standards.

OSHA (pel) 500,000 nanograms / cu.M.divided by Bingo Halls AQ results 940 nanograms / cu.M = Bingo Halls seconhand smoke concentrations are 532 times SAFER than OSHA standards.

3) MN Group Tests Air Quality in Nonsmoking Sections of Restaurants [12/22-03]

The Pioneer Press Watchdog tested the air in the nonsmoking sections of 20 east-metro St. Paul, MN. restaurants to see how much secondhand smoke diners could expect. The level of nicotine in nonsmoking sections of the 20 east-metro restaurants tested ranged widely, from less-than-1 to 25 ug (micrograms) per cubic meter.

OSHA (pel) 500 ug / cu.M. divided by lowest reading of St. Paul restaurants AQ results 1 ug / cu.M = seconhand smoke concentrations are 500 times SAFER than OSHA standards.

OSHA (pel) 500 ug / cu.M.divided by highest reading of St. Paul restaurants AQ results 25 ug / cu.M = seconhand smoke concentrations are 20 times SAFER than OSHA standards.

The three air quality test results replicated by three separate credible organizations prove that secondhand smoke concentrations when compared to OSHA permissible exposure limits (pel) for secondhand smoke, range between 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations; in other words NOT A HEALTH HAZARD. (PEL)'s are the OSHA safe acceptable level of exposure to humans for an 8 hour day, 40 hour per week time period.

Clearing the Air strongly suggests that those groups who wish to challenge the validity of smoking bans in court use the above data, which discredits the very core justification for smoking bans.......health hazard.

Also see:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html

Friday, November 10, 2006

Springfield IL hospitality businesses are losing money since implementation of their smoking ban

Champaign Urbana PUFF People United For Freedom Smoking Ban:

"SNAPSHOT OF SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON BARS & BOWLING CENTERS IN SPRINGFIELD AND UNINCORPORATED SANGAMON COUNTY:

D.H. Browns'business down more than 50%
- The last time Brown's had a Monday as low as the first Monday of the
ban was 8 years ago during a snowstorm.

- Brown's will likely have to lay off their doormen on top of the lost
employment, this will increase the chances of underage drinkers
violating the law.

- Two (2) waitresses informed management that they will have to give
their notice and try to get a job in one of the neighboring communities
that permit smoking because they are no longer making any money.

Track Shack business down 42%
- For the first time, the owner had to draw money out of his personal
funds to pay Track Shack's bills.

American Legion Post # 32 business down more than 50%

Floyd's business down, but not substantially

JW's Lounge business down over 40%

Stadium business down 40%
- 10 people in bar, 43 in Beer Garden on Wednesday night, numbers
similar on the other nights.

Cheers' business down more than 50%
- $400 to $500 previous average daily sales haven't had one night over
$200 since the ban went into effect.

Bernie & Betty's business down 40%

Knuckleheads'business down 40%

Mac's Lounge business down more than 25%
- Customers who were regulars prior to the ban have been calling Mac's
to tell them what a great time they were having at the Curve Inn in
Southern View where smoking is permitted.

Sammy's business down, but not substantially

VFW Northender business down, but percentage is unknown
- Waitress made a total of $14 in tips during her shift on Monday, and
$17 on Tuesday substantially lower than"

Thursday, November 09, 2006

For the lawmaker who is hellbent on voting yes for a smoking ban, no matter how many jobs or businesses it costs; I suggest the following

If, as a lawmaker, you feel strongly about voting yes for a smoking ban law then might I suggest that you write in a provision to safeguard the financial well being of employees and business owners in the hospitality industry.

The amendment would include a trust fund of $10+ million dollars in your local jurisdiction to be financed by the non-profits and pharmaceutical nicotine interests which funded the smoking ban efforts. This trust fund would be used to compensate employees and business owners who experience any financial harm due to smoking ban laws. If however, as the pro-smoking ban activists claim...."smoking bans increase business".... then the groups which testified in favor smoking bans have nothing to lose, and you have been prudent in your amendment which will put all fears to rest.

(Don't worry about the smoking ban advocates, they all have the financial backing of the Johnson & Johnson Company foundation the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and can easily afford the amendment safety net......those put out of work because of smoking bans cannot)

It's time for a new tactic when considering lawsuits to overturn smoking bans

Every group which files suit to block the smoking bans seem to use some form of constitionality argument......and they nearly always lose.

How about a new tactic folks......these bans all pass based on the argument / justification of "health hazard"....yet the 2 most comprehensive air quality studies I know of point out that secondhand smoke levels are 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke....in other words NO HEALTH HAZARD.

It's time to challange the smoking bans on the fundamental claim of being a health hazard......which is false...then we will start seeing a reversal of these bans:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-not-legislation.html

Afterall, we let OSHA decide when welding smoke is too hazardous in our factories......or should we let politicians decide that also?

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/10/secondhand-smoke-in-bars-restaurants.html

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Millionaires pan-handling

My good friends at American Non-Smoker's Rights sent me an email seeking donations so they could continue funding smoking bans:

We have great news!

Thanks to ANR members and advocates like you all across America, residents of three more states will soon be enjoying their right to breathe smokefree air. Voters approved smokefree ballot measures in Arizona, Nevada and Ohio.

In Arizona, Prop 201 passed by 54.2% making all workplaces and public places 100% smokefree.

In Ohio, Issue #5 passed by 58.3%, guaranteeing a strong statewide smokefree law in Ohio.
In Nevada, the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act (Question 5) passed by 53.9%, making most workplaces smokefree (excludes stand-alone bars and casinos). The Nevada law also restores local control to allow cities and towns to strengthen the state law at the local level.

The fight is not over. Please consider making a donation today, to help us fight back against Big Tobacco attacks, and defend your right to breathe smokefree air!

My reply:

Cynthia,

I received the
preceeding email from your group requesting donations so you could pass more smoking bans. However, since you already receive
millions of dollars from Nicoderm interests at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF is a division of the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical nicotine company) (hyperlink)). I question the need for donations from the general public whose property rights you seek to violate by passing additional smoking bans, simply to increase profits for the pharmaceutical nicotine interests who provided funding to you. Afterall, several professional organizations have conducted air quality testing which proves all secondhand smoke levels are 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations for secondhand smoke, thus ensuring that the protection of workers' health is already safeguarded even without smoking bans.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/repaces-new-study-uses-same-old-tricks.html

So, you can rest assured donations from me will not be forthcoming.

Good luck in your efforts to continue lying to lawmakers and the general public......while I, for my part, will continue to expose the marketing scam you and RWJF perpetuate in the name of public health.

Mark Wernimont
Minneapolis, MN.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

Those blindcopied in my reply included lawmakers around the country, media outlets, as well as numerous Attorney Generals' offices.

Feel free to send me additional correspondence ANR.....you provide such great fodder for the blog.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Do you think it's just a coincidence that the New Jersey Health Dept receives funding from Nicoderm......and then promotes smoking bans?

$160,000.00 from Nicoderm interests paid to the New Jersey Health Department.

New Jersey Health Department's promotion of smoking bans.

For proof of Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) ties to pharmaceutical nicotine interests (Johnson & Johnson Company) read more here:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/01/will-there-be-investigation-into-this.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-is-pharmaceutical-company-funding.html

RINO hunting season opens today

Hopefully, you've had the opportunity to research where the candidates stand on issues important to you so you can vote accordingly......I know I have......RINOS beware.

Monday, November 06, 2006

What's that you say?....Smoking bans are bad for business?....I've never heard that before....

At least not from mainstream media which has been playing by the rules conveyed to them by pharmaceutical nicotine pro-smoking ban interests.

And certainly not by the pro-smoking ban groups as they lobby lawmakers for special interest ordinances and laws.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

I told you this was coming

A new ban on alcohol brought to you by the same interests which funded smoking bans.

Thanks to Agitator for the tip.

If the general public doesn't stand up against smoking bans now......it will be too late to stop the ban on their interests later.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Repace’s new “study” uses the same old tricks and flawed test methods.

An article explaining James Repace's new "study" can be found here:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/524623/

“polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAHs), common carcinogenic byproducts of tobacco smoke, and respirable suspended particles (RSPs)”

Repace is measuring all the airborne particles (RSP’s) in a room and declaring that they are all caused by secondhand smoke …..which is a blatantly false testing criteria and he knows it. Years earlier in 2003 Mr. Repace was involved in measuring secondhand smoke in the proper manner found here:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/american-lung-association-of-mn-and.html

Excerpt below:

"MN Group Tests Air Quality in Nonsmoking Sections of Restaurants [12/22-3]"

"Prompted by the possibility of the next Minnesota Legislature considering a total smoking ban in restaurants and bars, the Pioneer Press Watchdog tested the air in the nonsmoking sections of 20 east-metro restaurants to see how much secondhand smoke diners could expect."

"During the past few weeks, ..(they)... tested "nonsmoking" air with equipment measuring the amount of nicotine, which in turn indicates the amount of secondhand smoke."

"In a few, we found air so smoky that James Repace, an international expert, called it very unhealthy for anyone."

"I'm not surprised at all by your findings," said Bob Moffitt of the American Lung Association of Minnesota. "We've been saying for years......

"The pretend air quality specialist Repace then tried to baffle us with his B.S., which apparently the media and Bob Moffitt (ALAMN) bought hook line and sinker.

"The level of nicotine in nonsmoking sections of the 20 east-metro restaurants tested ranged widely, from less-than-1 to 25 (ug) micrograms per cubic meter. A 1 is considered moderate, while a 3 would be unhealthy for some people, such as those with asthma or heart disease. A 5 would be unhealthy for most people, while a 15 would be very unhealthy. Above a 25, the air would be considered hazardous, said Repace, a biophysicist who does research at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. "

But what Repace and the other pseudo-scientists didn't tell you is that OSHA has a safe permissible exposure limit (pel) for the measured marker chemical nicotine. The OSHA safe level is 0.5 mg (milligram) / cu.M. same as 500 ug (micrograms) / cu. M. So at 1 - 25 ug (micrograms) / cu. M. the air quality testing proved secondhand smoke levels were 20 -500 times SAFER than OSHA regulations (OSHA permissible exposure levels (pel) are the acceptable safe exposure level for an 8 hour day, 40 hour per week time period). Of course Repace, Moffit, the American Lung Assoc. and others involved didn't provide those facts to the Pioneer Press, the media, or any of our lawmakers.

And, since Clearing the Air’s comparison of secondhand smoke air quality test results to OSHA permissible exposure levels (pel) Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR); Repace and the others will not make the same mistake again of using sound scientific air quality measurements (measuring the marker chemical nicotine), because it proves secondhand smoke is not a health hazard. By the way, here it must be noted that James Repace is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:

http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom/newsreleasesdetail.jsp?id=10211&gsa=1

(RWJF), is an offshoot of the Nicoderm manufacturer, the Johnson & Johnson Company. J & J manufactures Nicoderm and Nicoderm CQ thru its wholly owned subsidiary ALZA Corporation. The pharmaceutical nicotine industry's interest in promoting smoking bans seems intertwined with its desire to increase product sales.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/09/now-that-rwjf-has-put-smoking-bans-in.html

As for PPAH’s Mr Repace likes to use this “new” argument because he thinks it sounds more intriguing, dubious and hopefully deadly. But what are PPAHs you ask?

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of over 100 different chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances like tobacco or charbroiled meat. PAHs are usually found as a mixture containing two or more of these compounds, such as soot.

Some PAHs are manufactured. These pure PAHs usually exist as colorless, white, or pale yellow-green solids. PAHs are found in coal tar, crude oil, creosote, and roofing tar, but a few are used in medicines (I wonder if Nicoderm is one of them?) or to make dyes, plastics, and pesticides.

The above can be found here: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts69.html

Now, if Repace wants to be intellectually honest as any credible scientist would, in order to determine if PPAH levels were hazardous he would do what OSHA does……measure the air quality for the specific chemical of the “group of 100” to determine if any chemical component of PPAH exceeds OSHA permissible exposure limits (pel). I am quite certain we will find, as in the airborne nicotine tests that Repace commented on 12/22-03 above, the air quality measurements would be multiple times SAFER than OSHA (pel's) which again, are the safe level of exposure for an 8 hour per day / 40 hours per week time period.

And as the OSHA permissible exposure levels are the safe levels of exposure for all workplace potentially hazardous substances…….so too should they be the acceptable level for secondhand smoke which, falls far below (SAFER than) OSHA Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR).

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-not-legislation.html

Actual ventilation / air quality test results from more credible organizations using more credible testing methods can be found here:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-
test-results.html

On a similar note:

How does secondhand smoke in the workplace compare to welding smoke in the workplace?

Welding smoke is far more hazardous than secondhand smoke. Yet air quality testing shows that welding smoke is regulated to safety standards by OSHA, so lawmakers allow OSHA do do its job rather than ban it.

Secondhand smoke on the other hand, though proven to be 15 – 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality regulations, requires government intervention according to Nicoderm funded activists and some lawmakers…….This double standard however, and the air quality testing above prove that a special interest agenda might be the real motive behind the demand for smoking bans.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/02/smoking-bans-good-public-policy-or.html

Read more of my adventures with Mr. Repace here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/08/tuesdays-with-mr-repace.html

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Provide a copy of this letter to lawmakers in your local area if the smoking ban issue is up for debate

Subject line: There are numerous special interest groups willing to exaggerate the facts, to get you to pass needless laws.

Dear lawmaker,

Here is what you should know before considering a ban on smoking in private bars and restaurants:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/case-against-smoking-ban-laws.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

Thank you for taking the time to read over the facts. The livelihood of tens of thousands of people depend upon you making the right choice.

If however, as a lawmaker, you feel strongly about voting yes for a smoking ban law then may we suggest that you write in a provision to safeguard the financial well being of employees and business owners in the hospitality industry. The amendment would include a trust fund of $10+ million dollars in your local jurisdiction to be financed by the non-profits and pharmaceutical nicotine interests which funded the smoking ban efforts. This trust fund would be used to compensate employees and business owners who experience any financial harm due to smoking ban laws. If however, as the pro-smoking ban activists claim...."smoking bans increase business".... then the groups which testified in favor smoking bans have nothing to lose, and you have been prudent in your amendment which will put all fears to rest.

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