Revealed: damning evidence that Big Tobacco tried to hide

Surprise, surpr--well, not really.

Other articles linked at TOPIX led me to believe the Ontario suit involved several tobacco companies.

BAT seems to have eluded earlier efforts to procure industry documentation. I wonder how that worked? What if it were found to be a violation of the Master Agreement here in the states? Would that open them up to renewed litigation? Come to that, do the convictions for RICO violations constitute violations of that agreement and put the offenders in the potential cross-hairs again for US suits?

Oops. Got that crossed. I guess it was Imperial, not BAT. Skip the part specific to BAT. The rest of the post stands as is, though

Mazed wrote:

Oops. Got that crossed. I guess it was Imperial, not BAT. Skip the part specific to BAT. The rest of the post stands as is, though

Whoah, I slept some, and it turns out I was right the first time. Imperial is just a subsidiary of BAT.

I still recall something about a defunct Canadian subsidiary of RJR being focal in an Ontario lawsuit.

I dont believe it for a second.......sounds more like another round of lies perpetrated by the tobacco control movement........there have been to many studies done by everybody around the world that show second hand smoke doesnt harm anyone especially when you see that the toxicologist still say it cant be proven........

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.

http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobac...

"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke.(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms!(Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01).-(Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)

Tobacco Toadys like Confederate boy will say anything to protect their addiction.

Confederate1989 wrote:

I dont believe it for a second.......sounds more like another round of lies perpetrated by the tobacco control movement
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

THis BS again? What's the matter with you? Can you REALLY not understand the difference between saying "We can't figure out exactly how to stop it from causing the results we KNOW it causes" and saying "We don't know if it causes anything"?

How is it remotely relevant to the topic at hand in the first place? Nice, cogent, thoughtful refutation there, guy. NOT

Confederate1989 wrote:

(Excerpted from "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" with permission of the author.)

More ravings from your idol, huh? Well, actually, the SAME ravings from your idol.

Has he cleared up your total incomprehension of the concept of a "confounder" in terms of epidemiology yet?

If you ask me, you are both FAR too concerned about the effect of sunlight on your hair color.

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
More ravings from your idol, huh? Well, actually, the SAME ravings from your idol.
Has he cleared up your total incomprehension of the concept of a "confounder" in terms of epidemiology yet?
If you ask me, you are both FAR too concerned about the effect of sunlight on your hair color.

Gen they have never proven anything that tobacco casues thru toxicology plain and simple........assuming and proving are two very diferent things..........the use of meta analysis isnt science at all. Its simply trying to comapare a probability that something may happen.........thats all any of you have is the probability.......yet never ever proven...the laugh is truly on you guys.........shs is 94% water vapor and it actually totally disolves into the air....the readings you jokers claim were done at the coal end of a cig right at the source and within nano seconds its converted to vapor/water........its so hard to collect a specimen for getting a chemical analysis before it disapears they have to assume rather than actually know.........more assumptions.....but osha did test it for years and years at all levels and found it to be a class 3 irritant only.......you can claim all the cancer causing crap you want but the levels that the anti-tobacco boys claim cant even be confirmed....because it just disapears to fast to even be there........femtograms....... ..jesus what idiot believes that can do anything..definatly not the toxicologist or even the epidemiologists........unless they are on the take of anti-tobacco.

Confederate1989 wrote:

<quoted text> Gen they have never proven anything

Back around again. Science does NOT deal in PROOF. It deals in hypotheses that best explain all observed phenomena. Today, and for at least the last ONE decade, that hypothesis is that SHS causes cancer, as well as a wide variety of other health issues.

The capacity to trigger fatal asthma attacks is documented.

Science is unlikey to overcome a refusal to accept, so I don't look for anything like your stepping into the new millenium any time soon, unless you somehow find yourself unable to access tobacco for a long enough time that you get over your addiction and consequent need for denial.

By the way, you're still as much in error as you were the first time you assumed you knew who I was. It is telling that you assume anyone who points out fundamental flaws in your rants must have millions of dollars at his/her beck and call and have devoted years to researching the truth of the issues.

Mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
Back around again. Science does NOT deal in PROOF.

That is the goal however.

Your side claims there is "no safe level" of tobacco smoke which ridicules the first rule of toxicolgy.

What other forms of smoke qualify for such a special label?

There are forms of smoke that can make a healthy person sick in seconds.

Perhaps we can put this to the test?

Using science as your guide...what form of "legal" smoke is most dangerous?

Idiocy wrote:

<quoted text>
That is the goal however.

No, it is not. The goal is to find an explanation for all observed facts. From that best explanation, it should then be possible to make valid predictions.

A cause/effect relationship between SHS and a variety of health problems IS the best hypothesis to date, and it tests out in the majority of cases. This makes it the current "theory". THis theory was arrived at by a German scientist in the mid to late 1920s. Contrary to your hype, he was NOT a member of the Nazi party.

Confederate1989 wrote:

<quoted text>but osha did test it for years and years at all levels and found it to be a class 3 irritant only

"Although these data were not gathered in an occupational setting, ETS meets the criteria of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for classifying substances as potential occupational carcinogens [Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1990]. NIOSH therefore recommends that ETS be regarded as a potential occupational carcinogen in conformance with teh OSHA carcinogen policy, and that exposures to ETS be reduced to the lowest feasible concentration. Employers should minimize occupational exposure to ETS by using all available preventive measures."

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/91108_54.html#Abstra...

Confederate1989 wrote:

<quoted text>but osha did test it for years and years at all levels and found it to be a class 3 irritant only

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_...

Just one small item from this OSHA page:

"The results of lung cancer studies that examined the variation in tumor cell type induced by ETS exposure indicate that mostly adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas are produced by ETS exposure. Some studies have reported an excess of adenocarcinomas, while others have reported excesses in squamous cell and small-cell carcinomas. From this information, it is apparent that similar tumor cell types are induced by ETS exposure as are induced by active smoking."

and:

"8. Conclusions

"The epidemiological and clinical studies, taken in aggregate, indicate that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke may produce mucous membrane irritation, pulmonary, cardiovascular, reproductive, and carcinogenic effects in nonsmokers. Exposure to ETS may aggravate existing pulmonary or cardiovascular disease in nonsmokers. In addition, animal studies show that both mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke produce similar adverse effects."

Confederate1989 wrote:

<quoted text>but osha did test it for years and years at all levels and found it to be a class 3 irritant only

More from the same page:

"The burning of tobacco in enclosed workplaces releases an aerosol containing a large variety of solid, liquid, and gas phase chemical compounds. Generation of tobacco smoke is governed by the source emission characteristics of smokers and their tobacco products, whereas removal is primarily determined by the rate of replacement of building air by outside air, with re-emission of surface-sorbed compounds playing a minor role. Natural and mechanical ventilation systems are designed primarily to limit the accumulation of the products of human respiratory metabolism, and secondarily to limit odor; not to control the byproducts of biomass combustion. THUS, SMOKING INDOORS CREATES AIR POLLUTION WHICH IS NOT ADEQUATELY ABATED BY CUSTOMARY VENTILATION SYSTEMS."

[EMPHASIS MINE]

Please stop spamming us.

You chose the osha hearing for solicitation of comments on ets.......osha was simply taking all those supposed studys given to them by the anti-tobacco crowd and others for opinions and using those against what they found in accordinace to their directives and rules making........ Most of that stuff is from the epa study.....which was ruled as junk by judge osteen.....the confidence levels were dropped to 90 to try and show harm...the other studys were cherry picked....not including other studys that showed no harm....ultimatly epa had to rewrite their epa report in the later 90s.......especially after osteens daming verdict on it.......then there were congressional hearings on the shs fiasco.....thats when the epa letter appeared...
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978
and if you read further down the letter you will see that osha makes it clear that if the smell bothers you to open a window.....shs is a joke....
It Is. It's EPA and OSHA Category Is Class III Irritant
It's on both of their websites.(Takes some digging.)
It's also listed in the NIOSH regulations.
That being said, the linkage described in the article to the various cancers is simply false. There is no statistical correlation between exposure to 2nd hand smoke and cancer. It's an irritant and is particularly bad for someone who already has a chronic respiratory illness.(Asthma, sinusitis, emphysema, et al)
I was on the peer review board for the CDC study that came out in 1994 and was revised in 1997. There is definitely no link to cancer or any other IDLH ailments. But, it is indeed, classified as a pollutant by EPA and an irritant by OSHA.
The Professor
It depends upon the heat of the pyrolysis. If the cigarette burns at a high enough temperature, the benzene undergoes combustion just like the rest of the organic matter and becomes H2O and either carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide.(The latter, obviously, is bad as well, just not a mutagen or carcinogen like benzene.)
I did lots of work on this back in the mid-90's. I still have a hard copy of the pre-release of the CDC study in my desk at home.
The Professor
First, it's highly volatile. That means it burns extremely readily as it has a very high vapor pressure and a low, but broad range of flammability.
Secondly, it absorbs extremely easily into the body through the lungs. So, the benzene inhaled stays in there. It's one of the most dangerous chemicals in any type of smoke based upon the burning of complex organics.
The smoke coming from the smoldering tip, however, is not passing through any cool zone, such as you described. That is the hottest part of the cigarette and the closest to the oxygen source.(The air around it!) So, the organics tend to burn very efficiently. Here's a thought experiment for you.(It's been done in real terms as well.) Weigh a cigarette. Burn it completely. Including using a flue to capture the particulate (the smoke itself).
Weigh all the ash and everything that's left.(Cut the filter off since that's not part of the combustion products.) You'll find there is VERY little weight remaining. That's because the vast majority of the combustion goes completely to water, CO2 and carbon monoxide. The residual is a very small amount.
The Professor

Just a little bit more about the N'-nitrosonornicotine found in SHS/ETS.
"Thus, non-smokers can be exposed to highly carcinogenic TSNA."
However, the dose makes the poison!!
This stuff is NOT present in quantities known to be hazardous!!!
The concentration of N'-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) ranged from not detected to 23 pg/l, that of N'-nitrosoanata-bine ranged from not detected to 9 pg/l, while 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyr idyl)-1-butanone (NNK) was detected in concentrations ranging from 1 to 29 pg/l.
Thus, non-smokers can be exposed to highly carcinogenic TSNA.
NNN = 0 to 23 picograms per liter
NNK = 0 to 29 picograms per liter
1 cubic meter = 1,000 liters
1 nanogram(NG)= 1,000 picograms
Thus, NNN of 0 to 23 picograms per liter is the same as 0 to 23 nanograms(ng) per cubic meter
NNK of 0 to 29 picograms per liter is the same as 0 to 29 nanograms(ng) per cubic meter.
The question is whether or not 0 to 29 nanograms(ng) per cubic meter of a carcinogenic substance is a dangerous level?
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has concluded that inorganic arsenic is known to be a human carcinogen.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) cites sufficient evidence of a relationship between exposure to arsenic and human cancer. The IARC classification of arsenic is Group 1.
The EPA has determined that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen by the inhalation and oral routes, and has assigned it the cancer classification, Group A.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprof...iles/tp2 - c6.pdf
6.4.1 Air
Mean arsenic levels in ambient air in the United States have been reported to range from 20 to 30 ng/m3 in urban areas (Davidson et al. 1985; EPA 1982c; IARC 1980; NAS 1977a).
NOTE: 20 to 30 ng/m3 is NOT stated to be a hazardous level of exposure to this known human carcinogen.

Mean arsenic levels in ambient air in the United States have been reported to range from 20 to 30 ng/m3 in urban areas (Davidson et al. 1985; EPA 1982c; IARC 1980; NAS 1977a).
NOTE: 20 to 30 ng/m3 is NOT stated to be a hazardous level of exposure to this known human carcinogen..........

In other words the atmosphere outside or inside even with smoking contains basically the same amounts.........the propaganda of the anti-smoking cartel is beyond laughable.........

heres what is suppose to be hazardous in a daily dose to arsenic FOR HUMANS according to the cdc page on toxicology .005 milligrams or .005000000 = 5 million nanograms and they are reading 0 to 29 nanograms........can we call this INSANE........

Confederate1989 wrote:

heres what is suppose to be hazardous in a daily dose to arsenic FOR HUMANS according to the cdc page on toxicology .005 milligrams or .005000000 = 5 million nanograms and they are reading 0 to 29 nanograms........can we call this INSANE........

------Warning ----You have entered Tobacco Toady zone!!!!!!!!