Friday, January 15, 2010

No safe level of secondhand smoke? The facts dispel this myth

In CTA's brief history we've written very little about this subject except as embedded response to tobacco control (Nicoderm funded) activists. In one posting the organization American Non-Smoker's Rights (ANR) wrote to us:

.....Because there is no safe level (of a harmful substance), ventilation systems cannot claim or give the impression that they will protect people......


"Because there is no safe level of a harmful substance".....I love this argument most of all because it proves how scientifically inept these smoking ban activists are......Do you really want to go there ANR? Because with that mentality you should stop breathing this instant........are you familiar with the harmful substance carbon dioxide? CO2 is fatal to humans at a concentration of 20%, yet with every breath you inhale a concentration of 0.038%......of a "harmful substance" do you really believe your own misinformation? Besides OSHA regulates indoor air quality not the EPA......and OSHA's entire existence is determining safe levels of "harmful substances" in thousands of airborne compounds.....man made and naturally occurring.

Consider these
air quality test results of secondhand smoke by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......proving that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-st-louis-aq-study-published-by.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html

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

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

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

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/03/british-medical-journal-who-conclude.html

All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace "health hazard".

Conversely, the effects of unnecessary, pharmaceutical nicotine funded, smoking ban laws have been profoundly detrimental:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009/03/worldwide-economic-meltdown-and.html

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
  • NRA.org

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

    SILVER BULLET GUN OIL CONTAINS 13% USDA LIQUEFIED PIG
FAT

    "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)