Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/15/2009, C5 - FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1537 (2009 SERIES) AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.16 TO BAN SMOK I council 17 j acenaa uepont 1®N..b. CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Brigitte Elke, Principal Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: FINAL ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1537 (2009 SERIES) AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.16 TO BAN SMOKING AND ALL FORMS OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS FROM CITY-OWNED OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Ordinance No. 1537 (2009 Series). DISCUSSION At its December 1, 2009 meeting, the City Council considered amending Municipal Code Chapter 8.16 entitled "Smoking prohibited in certain areas" as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Council also gave direction to staff to return with recommendations for further amendments to the City's smoking regulations. After staff presentation, public comments, and Council discussion, the Council voted unanimously to introduce the recommended amendments which will ban smoking and all forms of tobacco products from city-owned outdoor recreation areas including Mission Plaza and the adjacent creekwalk. Ordinance 1537 (2009 Series) is now ready for adoption. Staff has made a minor clerical correction clarifying the regulations apply to all forms of tobacco products. This language was inadvertently omitted in the draft ordinance presented on December 1, 2009. However, at the December 1, 2009 meeting staff stated that its recommendation was for the regulations to apply to all forms of tobacco products and that staff was recommending introduction of the ordinance with that minor revision. ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. 1537 (2009 Series) ATTACHMENT; ORDINANCE NO. 1537 (2009 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING CHAPTER 8.16 (SMOIQNG PROHIBITED IN CERTAIN AREAS) OF TITLE XIII (HEALTH AND SAFETY) OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE TO BAN SMOIONG AND ALL FORMS OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS. WHEREAS, in 1985 the City council of the City of San Luis Obispo adopted regulations prohibiting smoking in certain areas; and WHEREAS, the 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's Report stated scientific evidence shows that there is no "safe" level of exposure to secondhand smoke; and WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection agency (EPA) has found secondhand smoke to be a risk to public health, and has classified secondhand smoke as a group A carcinogen, the most dangerous class of carcinogens; and WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board has put secondhand smoke in the same category as the most toxic automotive and industrial air pollutants by categorizing it as a toxic air contaminant2; and WHEREAS, exposure to secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in this country, killing over 52,000 non-smokers each year 3, and as many as 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis 4,in children. WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is subject to regulations issued by the Stormwater Management Program mandated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to reduce the environmental impact from stormwater run-off and human activities in the local creek systems; and WHEREAS, cigarette filters and plastic wraps from cigarette packages are not biodegradable and cigarette related waste discarded in parks, along sidewalks, and in street gutters make their way through storm drains into creeks and rivers leaking dangerous chemicals into our watershed 5. WHEREAS, the City is subject to regulation under the California Endangered Species Act and the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as two federally protected species under the Federal Act, Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and California Red-legged frogs (Rana 1 Cal.Air Resources BD.,Resolution 0-01,at 5 (January 26,2006) 2 U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Clean Indoor Air Regulations Fact Sheet(2001) 3 S.A.Glantz&W.Parmley,Passive smoking and heart Disease: Epidemiology,Physiology,and Biochemistry, 83*1)Circulation I (199 1)and California Environmental Protection Agency,office of Envtl.Health Hazard management,health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Final Report(1997) 4 U.S.Dept. of Health and Human Services,Center for Disease Control and Prention,Targeting Tobacco Use: the Nation's Leading Cause of Death 2002,2(2002)available at www.cdc.gov/tobacco 5 Cigarette Butt Litter—www.surfrider.org i 1 ATTACHMENT Ordinance No. 1537 (2009 Series) Page 2 aurora),have both been found within the City of San Luis Obispo city limits;and WHEREAS, cigarette filters have been found in the stomachs of fish, birds, and other animals that mistake them for food, thus swallowing harmful plastic and toxic chemicals 6. WHEREAS, there is a cost to taxpayers for cleaning up tobacco related debris in parks, open space, and the City's storm water system; and. WHEREAS, the disposal of cigarettes can cause severe fire hazards in open space areas, especially during drought years; and WHEREAS, in light of the above the City Council desires to amend its regulations prohibiting smoking and all forms of tobacco products in certain areas to address these hazards. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Section 8.16.020 (Definitions) of Chapter 8.16 (Smoking Prohibited in Certain Areas) of Title XIII (Health and Safety) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of subsection I (Outdoor Recreation Areas) to read as follows: I. "Outdoor Recreation Area" means any City park, public plazas, open space, trails, skate parks, sports facilities, dog parks, aquatic centers, and golf courses. SECTION 2. Section 8.16.035 (Prohibition in all public outdoor recreation areas) of Chapter 8.16 (Smoking Prohibited in Certain Areas) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 8.16.035 Prohibition in all public outdoor recreation areas. Smoking and all forms of tobacco products shall be prohibited in the following places: A. In any City park and all its amenities, parking areas, trails, and walkways, including contiguous sidewalks. B. In all City Open Spaces and Ecological Areas and all appurtenant trail systems, parking areas, and other amenities. C. In all City sports facilities, including: 1. the municipal golf course 2. the San Luis Obispo Swim Center 6 Clean Virginia Waterways(2007)"Cigarette Litter Impacts" C,5-3 AT�ACHMEN� Ordinance No. 1537 (2009 Series) Page 3 3. skate park 4. roller hockey rink 5. all sports fields D. In all City dog parks. E. In all public transportation facilities including all bus shelters and bus stops. F. In Mission Plaza and the adjacent creek walk from Mission Plaza to Nipomo Street. SECTION 3. Existing section 8.16.050 (Posting of signs) of Chapter 8.16 (Smoking Prohibited in Certain Areas) of Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby repealed and new section 8.16.050 (Posting of signs) is added to read as follows: 8.16.050 Posting of signs Signs which designate smoking or nonsmoking areas established by this chapter shall be conspicuously posted in every room, building or other place so covered by this chapter. The manner of such posting shall be at the discretion of the owner, operator, manager or other person having control of such room, building, outdoor recreation areas, and other places and areas so long as clarity, sufficiency and conspicuousness are apparent in communicating the intent of this chapter. Notwithstanding this provision, the presence or absence of signs shall not be a defense to the violation of any other provision of this chapter. INTRODUCED on the I' day of December, 2009 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 15'h-day of December 2009 on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Elaina Cano, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jona an P. Lowell, City Attorney C5-,q Page 1 of 1 Chippendale, Sue From: Chippendale, Sue Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 11:30 AM To: Council ALL; Hampian, Ken; Lichtig, Katie; Elke, Brigitte Subject: ,Additional Conesponderice Attachments: add itionalcorrespondence.pdf Attached please find a scanned copy of the reading material on smoking (Item C5)that was handed in by Jody Frey at the December 15 Council meeting. Thanks, Sue 12/16/2009 What its the real advantage of criminalizing smoking? Dare I say that it is more revenue for the city if it is passed? It certainly is not regarding air pollution but personal choice. Per OSHA, World Health Organization, EPA .. second-hand smoke is very minute.. almost untraceable according to their reports. In 1992, the original EPA report was taken to court because they lied and used statistics were not accurate and, so far, everyone has been hanging onto that original report. ** The Federal and State governments have now imposed additional tax on a pack of smokes, yet the alcohol users and abusers are not over-taxed. No matter what anyone does.. smokers are here to stay,just as the alcohol drinkers are. vendetta against smokers When we make laws to dictate personal preference and choice.. we are big trouble. The last time a ban on smoking outside.. it was instituted by Hitler during his reign during WWII. I had no problem honoring the not smoking in buildings and restaurants.. but to deny me the right to smoke outside is going way too far. ** Setting into law personal preference should not be done as it infringes on the freedom of choice.. ** According to reliable sources.... the second-hand smoke that everyone is complaining about is insignificant compared to the air pollution generated by automobiles, trucks, buses, trains and airplanes. I have sat long and hard.. trying to figure out where these people are coming from.They are against smoking.. yet accept the fad that they are breathing in all Labout s of vehicle pollution and seem okay with the fact that the emissions from gas and diesel is very acceptable and are fine with that. Yet they use "For the Sake of the Children" for r excuse to fulfill their agenda, which I find offensive and full of bs. If they were so worried their"children".. then it would seem to reason that they would be complaining about vehicle pollution which is far more dangerous that a cigarette. Notes for City Council Meeting pertaining to the Ban on Smoking w i - originally done 01-02-09 Our police department has far more Important duties to the community than to police smoking of individuals in public.. outside.. here. If I had to chose between them policing those who break the law. those who endanger my safety.. over citing those who are smoking.. guess what.. a smoking ban would not even come close to anything Important. ** the government has created a hysteria about second-hand smoke for fear and control purposes.. kind of like them claiming that obesity is a disease.. like you can catch it if 4is 4Ltp you are not careful. Unfortunately.. the general public buys into the Gap they are being fed and therefore make demands based on no reliable research and such. Do most of you want to hear any of this.. the answer., in my estimation would be definitely not. Why? Because you might have to ask questions or think for yourself instead of being led around by the main ram of a herd of sheep. My fond label for that is sheeple. the Ram being the government or special Interest groups and the herd being the population of this country. Last I knew was, that I lived In a free country, but everyday our rights are being taken away and the population seems fine with that.. as long as it is not one that you hold dear to you. So I strongly suggest that you be careful what you ask for as there will come a day when you will protest a law that affects you and your desires and you will be up in arms saying that you should have that freedom and doesn't want that law made. Do I get laughed at or mocked.. yep.. I do.. but you know what.. I can at least think for myself and weigh what is really being asked for, research it from unbiased sources, and then make a decision from there. At least I can question how valid it is. And I don't' feel that it is right to make laws because of someone's personal preference. It is goes Into the category of the government trying to convince people that obesity is a disease and that it is catching somehow. And people buy into all of this stuff. What is the matter with you that you can't think for yourselves and look at things in a much more logical way. I call it brainwashing and unfortunately it works. The general population doesn't seem to question things anymore. What is wrong with you? Notes for City Council Meeting pertaining to the Ban on Smoking — 2 —originally done 01-02-09 �* The federal government subsidized tobacco growers until about 3 years ago so 1 guess that smoking wasn't so bad until then. And they have been campaigning for how long to quit smoking? But they have promoted smoking as a bad thing for many years. *" First off.. no one gets out of this alive. Second.. there are no studies that can verify that cancer is totally caused by smoking or second-hand smoke. Actually there are no studies that can verify what actually does cause cancer in people, so it seems like It is mostly guess work in the first place. �* vendetta against smokers I have not heard anyone, getting behind the wheel and driving, while "under the influence" of a cigarette and killing someone. But it is acceptable for someone who is drinking to do that and there is no out-cry about that. And many of those who complain about cigarettes are drinking as much alcohol as they can consume. And that is much more offensive to me. ** .. the commercial showing a filed egg that said "here's your brain" and then the next commercial says "this Bud's for you hummm.. the war on drugs is a farce then isn't. but alcohol is an acceptable form of a drug and Is legal as well as cigarettes are also legal.. and both of these items are taxed. When people walk by me and make that coughing sound, I have to think that they might have a major problem and maybe should go to a doctor for they cough worse than I do and I smoke. "* just so you know.. ourgovernment subsidizes the tobacco growers.. and in the beginning of our country.. tobacco export was very important to us as revenue and a means of trade. thorse If you want to do something constructive "for the sake of the children".. then why n't you focusing on a better educational system, health care for all of them, especially the or, and making sure they all have food to eat As I see it, claiming to have smoking bans for sake of the children is useless unless ail of you are willing to walk, ride a bicycle or have a and buggy for transportation Instead of your gas and diesel vehicles that spew more Notes for City Council Meeting pertaining to the Ban on Smoking — 3 —originally done 01-02-09 pollution in the air than a cigarette ever could. Of course, that pollution is taken in stride because you are not willing to be inconvenienced that way. So you just accept that and try to control others what they should have a right to do. If you don't want to smoke, don't ** And, why do you believe that second-hand smoke is bad for you?You have been bombarded with the idea that it is bad and that is that. I call it brainwashed. That is when they, the establishment and government, constantly repeats misinformation until the public buys into it Another word for that is propaganda. They rule by fear and it is bought. **There is no conclusive evidence that second-hand smoke will cause cancer in a non- smoker. There are people who have lived to a very old age that have smoked all of their lives and never got cancer or any other associated disease. And there are non-smokers who have gotten cancer and not been around second-hand smoke..just the OTHER main polluters.. like cars, trucks, trains, airplaces, factories, wild land fires or any other means of polluting the air with particles that float In the air. ** You want a ban on smoking, yet you continually add more bars downtown. Police and the fire department are quite busy dealing with those who can't seem to control their behavior on any given day. But it is not only about alcohol as there are many other crimes being committed for which they are required to respond.Right now, the state is cutting the funds for more police officers or firefighters/EMTs, which we need here, so why are you even considering burdening them with something as petty as smokers? ' Solution for cigarette butts: place containers around the city for their disposal like the garbage cans are. I rarely leave a butt on the ground.. and dispose of it properly and safely, being that also seems like an issue. SLO was first to ban smoldng In restaurants and buildings in`(* San Luis Obispo, August 2, 1990, became the first city in the world to ban smoking in all public buildings.)_ I was okay with that after I got used to it. No smoking on airplanes okay with that .. semi-okay with no smoking on as I don't fly if I don't have to.. and there are smoking areas at airports unless they took them too. Notes for City Council Meeting pertaining to ft Ban on Smoking - 4— originally done 01-02-09 The repercussion of the ban on smoking outside will be much worse for EVERYONE as it opens the door for more restrictions of our rights as an American citizen and more violence. People do NOT seem to have a clue of what is in store for our country. The sheeple are in charge which will have devastating consequences, beyond the imagination. When meetings like this one and our freedom of speech is gone.. what will you do then? Everyone always wants more laws to take freedoms from us but don't seem to know what that actually means In the long run. One by One they are disappearing, and people just don't seem to either see it or tries to Ignore it as though it is not happening and it will go away. It won't. It will only get worse. Am 1 an alarmist? No, I am not But I have done my homework for over the last several years.. and it is terrifying. BOTTOM LINE: 1 want my country back at every level !I!!!lIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!! THIS IS ABOUT "WE THE PEOPLE" —~ NOT CONTROL THE MASSES TO A PLEASE A FEW IN POWER. * Cloned food does not have to be marked as such. Is it dangerous for human consumption? Guess it will depend on who is making the assessment. Scary.. think that is not safe. * Chemicals that are added to your food, Dangerous?Yes they are. * Generically engineered food... will not regrown from seeds when produced generically Result: devastation and hunger will happen in the whole world because of this. And only one or two companies will have power over the total food supply. originally written 01-02-09 Notes for City council Meeting pertaining to the Ban on Smoking — 6- originally done 01-02-09 Tobacco Subsidies in the US Fa 08-D; -4nson Colle... httN/wild.dc" son ed iAndex.php?title=Tobacco ... Tobacco Subsidies in the US Fa 08 From Dickinson College Wild Contents ■ 1 What is a subsidy? ` ■ 2 How were tobacco crops subsidized? ■ 3 Why was the Tobacco Subsidy system changed? ■ 4 The irony of the subsidy / ■ 5 The change from rice support g p program to buyout ,L ■ 6 Consequences of the buyout ■ 7 Should tobacco farmers have received aid in both the support and buyout programs? ■ 8 References What is a subsidy? A subsidy is a type of financial assistance typically paid by the government to a business. Businesses receive subsidies in order to remain competitive with international markets and perhaps pay for more expensive upgrades that they otherwise would be unable to afford. It is important to understand the concepts behind subsidies because once in place, they tend to have long-lasting effects on the economy, the environment, and nearly all aspects of society (Steenblik). It is easy to see why farmers would benefit from subsidies since the growing seasons are never the same and they have nothing to fall back on if their crops fail. Also they provide food for millions of people and providing them with money in times of need is important for everyone. However there is at least one subsidy whose benefits to society are questionable and that is the subsidy Provided to tobacco farmers. of 6 03/16/2009 02:53 AM Tolaacco Subsidies in the US Fa 08-D' '-inson Colle... http://wild.dic' son edu/index.php?title=Tobacco ... Commodity US Dollars(to Mons) Percentage of Total Feed brains 2,841 35.4 Upland and f,Cotton 1,420 17.7 Wheat 1,173 14.6 Rice 1,130 14.1 So and products 610 7.6 Dairy 295 3.7 bffl-uts 259 32 SUM 61 0.8 Minor OiLseeds 29 0.4 a 18 0.2 Wool and Mohair 12 0.1 Ve etas products 11 0.1 H 3 0.0 othercrops 160 2.0 Total 8,022 100 How were tobacco crops subsidized? Although they are not technically called subsidies, tobacco farmers did receive a form of "price support program" until 2004 (McCuen 2000). The program started after the Great Depression in order to protect farmers if their harvest did not meet a set price at the auction (McCuen 2000). This program was very helpful in keeping the farmers afloat in hard times. The Price support program had two functions: it raised the price of tobacco by limiting the amount each farmer can sell and it guaranteed the farmers a certain price per pound through nonrecourse loans. (Womach, 2004) Farmers are limited to a national marketing quota that is based on the land they own and the quota limit is set so that the aggregate US supply is enough to meet domestic and export demand. In order to grow tobacco, a farmer must purchase or rent land that has a quota. (Womach, 2004) The Crop Insurance Program was started in the 1930s in response to the events of the Depression and the Dust Bowl (RMA, 2008). This program protected farmers from crop loss due to natural disasters or loss in revenue due to declining cost of commodities (RMA, 2008). Although still government regulated, private insurance companies are able to sell insurance deals to farmers (RMA, 2008). The No-Net-Cost Tobacco Program was passed by Congress in 1982 in response to criticism of taxpayers for the government subsidizing the tobacco industry, which was also responsible for many health problems (Womach, 1998). This act requires that all tobacco programs must pay for themselves and take no taxpayer money. This is done through collecting interest in the loan program and also in a 1% tax on every pound of leaf marketed (Womach, 1998). This program generates more money than it uses and the extra money goes into the country's general deficit reduction (Womach, 1998). 2 of 6 03/16/2009 02:53 AM Tohwco Subsides in the US Fa 08-Di`inson Colle... http.-//wild.chcl-'-sonedjfmdex.php7utle=Tobacco-... Why was the Tobacco Subsidy system changed? Under the post Great Depression system, tobacco growth had declined 42% from 1.941 billion pounds to 1.121 billion pounds in 2001. The Tobacco subsidy system was changed because it did not promote competitive prices and instead protected the local national tobacco crops from international price pressures. So, local growers were not encouraged to achieve economies of scale or focus on more efficient crop raising practices. Thus in 2002, foreign tobacco was 40% of the cost of US tobacco. (Womach, 2003) The irony of the subsidy While the government was giving money to tobacco farmers, in 1998 they also passed a law forcing cigarette manufacturers to pay billions to help cover expenses for tobacco- related illnesses (McCuen 2000). The settlement requires tobacco companies to pay $246 billion over the next 25 years (Lauterstein 2008). Instead of providing funding to help these farmers transition to a crop that is less harmful to human health, the government is both helping and penalizing farmers for their production of tobacco (McCuen 2000). Interestingly, 50 percent of the settlement was allocated to tobacco farmers. Only 10 percent was set aside for anti-smoking efforts and the remaining 40 percent was distributed for roads_, education, and other undetermined initiatives (Lauterstein 2008). WJ1140fe l�k�IthCa►C TOExccO �Silbs�dY' ? s�as,dy ? ®i y �5! }n � ©Origi` n�aIArrtist Reproduction rights obtainable from www.C a aoonStdck.corn0 The change from price support program to buyout In 2004, President Bush signed the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act that ended the price support program for tobacco farmers and established the Tobacco Transition Payment Program (Farm Service Agency, 2008). The payments from the program began in 2005 and will continue through 2014 and will go out to eligible tobacco quota holder 3 of 6 03/16/2009 02:53 AM Tobacco Subsides in the US Fa 08-D; ' inson Colle... http://wild.dc' son.edu/uidex.php?title=Tobacco ... and producers (Farm Service Agency 2008). The funds set aside for this program are equivalent to 25 years' worth of future payments that will equal approximately $18.6 billion a year (Stokes 2007). Aside from this money, the start of the 2005 harvest of tobacco marked the beginning of no planting restrictions, no marketing cards, and no price-support loans (Lauterstein 2008). Consequences of the buyout Under the original price support program, tobacco farmers were restricted to plots of land that were seldom larger than 10 acres (Etter 2007). Once the buyout occurred in 2004, many of the older farmers simply took the money and completely stopped growing the crop (Etter 2007). A number of them turned to crops that required less time and effort such as strawberries (Etter 2007). Within a year, total acreage of tobacco lots being farmed dropped 27% and the prices dropped from $1.98 to $1.64 per pound (Etter 2007). While these numbers originally worried the cigarette companies, dedicated tobacco farmers were able to pick up the slack. Since there was no longer a restriction on lot space, those who wanted to continue farming tobacco were able to expand, many up to twice the size of their original lot. Also, even though the price of tobacco was down, the farmers were making more money because they did not have to pay to rent a quota (Etter 2007). However, the larger fields require more work and many farmers are forced to hire foreign help which causes much controversy in many of the small farming towns (Etter 2007). One of the ideas behind the buyout payments is that the money will serve to compensate the farmers for the unavoidable decrease in land value (Stokes 2007). The value is determined not only be what is grown on it, but also by the amount of government payments it receives (Stokes 2007). Without the subsidies the value of the land will decrease dramatically (Stokes 2007). Now, growers will have to sell their tobacco to individual companies instead of the government. As a result, in the post-buyout economy, growers will need to more carefully heed production and management practices such as chemicals and fertilizer application, disease control and market preparation to meet their customer company's standards (Snell, 2007). Should tobacco farmers have received aid in both the support and buyout programs? The change from a free market to the subsidy program for the tobacco industry brought about a lot of implications for the market itself The tobacco industries were no longer affected from international price pressures and were reduced to producing only the amount that was available in their quota. Tobacco farmers did need protection against cyclical farming problems and natural disasters, however the support program that was implemented did not encourage innovation since the government guaranteed a price minium regardless of the harvest. One argument against government supported tobacco subsidy is that it contradicts the concern of the government for tobacco related health problems. The NO-Net-Cost Act addressed this issue to tax payers, but in 2004 the government initiated the new buy Iof6 03/16/2009 02:53 AM Tobacco Subsides in the US Fa 08-D` anon Colle... http://wiki.dr' ""son edwlndex.php?title=Tobacco_.. out program that would do away with the subsidies completely by 2014. The buyout was necessary in order for the farmers to be able to switch to a competitive market. This switch has caused many of the tobacco farmers who held quotas to sell them to other tobacco farmers enabling the remaining tobacco farmers to produce enough to be competitive in the new market. Some of the original tobacco farmers have now sold their quotas and switched their crops to farm things other than tobacco. The buyout has served as the initial test to see how well farmers can survive without guaranteed money. Thus far the buyout program has been a success because those who are remaining tobacco farmers have maintained a profit. However, the buyout will take a long time and be very expensive. This example demonstrates how costly it can be to change or get rid of an established subsidy program to switch to a self-sustaining agricultural system without governmental support. Only once the money from the buyout program runs out will we be able to tell if harvesting alone is enough to support the tobacco farmers. References Etter, Lauren. 2007. Nicotine buzz: U.S. farmers rediscover the allure of tobacco, end of subsidy system bring higher profits; lessons for Mr. Barbre. The Wall Street Journal. http://envoy.dickinson.edu:2075/pqdweb?vinst=PROD&fmt=3&startpage=-1& clien tid=4534&vn ame=PQD&RQT=309&did=1337291711&scalin g=FULL&vtype=PQD& rqt=309&cfc=1&TS=1227714760&clientld=4534 Joossens, Luk and Raw, Martin. Education and debate: Are tobacco subsidies a misuse of public funds? 1996. BMJ 1996;312:832-835 http://www.bmj.com/cgVcontent/full/312 /7034/832 MCCuen, B. 2000. Is it time to end tobacco subsidies? http://www.speakout.com/activism /issue-briefs/1245b-1.htmI Steenblik, R.P. A Subside Primer. Global Subsidies Initiative. http://www.globalsubsidies.org/subsidy-primer/ASubsidyPrimer.php Stokes, B. 2007. Ending farm subsidies. National Journal. 39, 8: pp 41-42. United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency. 2008. Tobacco Transition Payment Program. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home& subject=toba&topic=landing Womach, Jasper. 2004. Tobacco Price Support: An overview of the program CRS Report for Congress. http://cineonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/04Jun/95.129.pdf iof6 03/16/2009 02:53 AM Tollacco Subsidies in the US Fa 08-P` Nnson Colle... http://wiki.dir' ison edwlndex.php?uUe=Tobacco_... stuffs (http://www.google.com) Retrieved from "http://wiki.dickinson.edu -- /index.php?title=Tobacco Subsidies in the US Fa 08" - r ■ This page was last modified 04:42, 5 December k 2008. OP YOUi On S}Op. vV Description 5 of 6 03/16/2009 02:53 AM Encyclopedia Page: Ban Damage: http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/4.html Smoking Bans: Ban Damage: Deaths, Injuries, Rape, and morel How many people have to die or be hurt before the Antis realize that smoking bans are a bad idea, and dangerous to people? There are thousands of other victims with. Injuries from smoking bans that never reach the media. What is the exact "body count" the Antis are waiting for? Would they please apologize to these people, and the grieving families for putting their lives and their loved ones Into harms way? Would you like to explain to a child whose Mommy or Daddy will not be coming home that you don't like the smell of smoke? Tell someone that their spouse or child is dead because you didn't want people to do something legal In a place you never go to anyway? If the Antis don't like to be around smoke, they should use their freedom of choice to not enter a building where the owner has decided to allow it. They should not be allowed to push their will on others at the expense of human life. ... Direct Hate Crimes Against.Smokers ... Harm From Hate Against Smokers ... Harm Resulting From Antismoking Laws, Taxes, and Bans New Yorke A bouncer at a Manhattan nightclub died after he was stabbed in a brawl that police. said began when he tried to enforce the city's new ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Dana Blake, 32, died about 11 hours after the late-night fight in an East Village nightclub. New York: Cody Knox, 17, died with a trail of his blood, after the knife found his throat. Beyond hope when the ambulance arrived, the medics could do no more than cover the corpse, wait for the cops to finish and haul the young man's remains away. New York: Sherwin Henry, 23, who was re-selling cigarettes bought in bulk from a Long Island Indian reservation, was fatally shot in the head on the rooftop of an East New York, Brooklyn, apartment building on Nov. 19. Florida: Boy, Shane Michael Farrell, 13, dies in beating on street. The 15-year-old boy was being held at the Department of Juvenile Justice in Daytona Beach on a second-degree murder charge. Authorities could not say if he would be tried as an adult. Utah: A teenager was murdered for smoking in downtown Salt Lake City. Hard-core members of Straight Edge have a terroristic bent that make them potentially more lethal than traditional street gangs, police say. Africa;_Baby sister killed in brothers' anti smoking crossfire. 3 Year Old Girl Dies In Smoking Ban War.The girl was shot in the head while her brothers argued about.smokers rights. Colorado: Courtney Chinn, 25, of Colorado Springs was shot and killed in an area near the Anchor Lounge where smokers congregate on September 20, 2003. The crime remains unsolved. Calantino said he believes the problem of crime outside of bars where smokers gather will persist. Ohio: Man Beaten To Death For Not Giving Up Cigarette. Ricardo Leon, 23, died after being beaten outside Partners Pub on Dennison Avenue on Cleveland's west side. Smoking Bans:Ban Damage:Deaths,Injuries,rape and more! — 1 — J Canada:The Tragedy of Kenny Kim. Kenny Kim was killed.Ten days ago, as he was closing the shop on a Friday night, an attacher stabbed him several times in the stomach and left him on the floor,where he died in a pool of blood. °A cigarette is like a piece of gold." Canada: Stabbed bartender dies. Forty-nine:year--old Jayantha Peiris died at Sunnybrook Hospital of stab wounds after a dispute with three young patrons. Africa: Man Gunned Down.A drinker has taken offence to a fellow drinker lighting up a cigarette in a pub and went to extreme measures to stop him - he shot the smoker in the head, killing him, UK: 'Devil' man killed wife and two sons over her smoking.John Jarvis, 42, stabbed his wife Patricia in the heart and then murdered their sons,John, 11, and Stuart. eight, so they could join her. More. Massachusetts: Smoking Student IGlled. A 20-year-old Mattapoisett man died from head and internal injuries after falling from a balcony at a party in Mission Hill. UK: A female backpacker fell 100 feet to her death from the roof of a hostel early yesterday. The 20-year-old Canadian plunged six storeys into a lane at around 3am. One theory is that she climbed on to the flat roof of the no-smoking Edinburgh Backpackers hostel for a cigarette.The girl was taken to Edinburgh Royal Infirmary with head and body injuries and declared dead on arrival. (6/8/04) UK: Boy smoker hanged himself. A 12-year-old boy hanged himself with his school tie rather than admit to his parents that he had been caught smoking, an inquest heard yesterday. David Arnett received a °severe ticking off'from his form tutor at Cavendish School in Eastbourne, East Sussex, who smelled smoke and found a packet of cigarettes. She gave him 24 hours in which to tell his parents,Jane and Robert, after which she said she would tell them. Davis told a friend his parents would be ashamed, and hours later hanged himself from his bedroom door handle as his father prepared dinner. Wisconsin: Girl kills herself after being caught with a cigarette. May 19, 1999, was the day seventh-grader Timijane Martin was suspended for having a cigarette in her locker in Shawano Community Middle School in Shawano, Wis. It was also the day Timijane committed suicide. Louisiana: Pregnant woman shot over cigarette. 18-year-old refused to stop smoking. One local man took matters into his own hands early Friday when, according to police, he shot an expectant mother who refused to put out her cigarette. New York: A 25-year-old Bronx man, whose name was withheld, was shot at 1304 Miriam Ave. in another turf war. New York: Desmond Jordan, 34, was shot twice allegedly by William Giddens, 45, last May 17 in front of 24 Humboldt St in yet another battle. Colorado: Bar Owner Blames Smoking Ban For Rape. A Pueblo bar owner says the smoking ban that forced his female employee outside is directly responsible for her rape. NJ: Smokers Raped.Reward posted in rape. cases. Two Camden businesses are offering $25,000 for convictions in recent attacks. A woman working at a shop near Sixth and Cooper Streets was robbed and raped Thursday morning by a man who followed her into the store after she had taken a cigarette break. Smoking Bans:Ban Damage:Deaths,Injuries,rape and more! —2 — s Texas: Date Rape Pill Put in Drink, While Going Outside for Cigarette,Maria says she and two other friends stepped outside to smoke a cigarette. She says it was during that time that someone spiked her drink. Texas:Smoker Violence.Two Everman police officers who asked a man and woman who were smoking to leave a high school football game Friday night ended up in a violent melee as dozens of young people converged on the scene. Ireland: Three men had jaws broken as they smoked outside pubs in Sligo, IGlkenny and Dublin. UK: Teen gang beat man atter he refused to give them a cigarette. Police say the victim, believed to be in his 40's, was left with a suspected fractured eye socket and cuts and bruises all over his body. Ireland: Hotel worker assaulted after stopping smoker. Gardaf have begun an investigation into an alleged disturbance at a Limerick hotel, resulting from the smoking ban. A worker at the hotel is believed to have been assaulted when he asked a member of the public to stop smoking at closing time. Gardaf were called but the culprit had fled. Canada: On July 28,2004, a 57-year-old Mac's Milk clerk in the Davisville area was stabbed several times in the chest—for cash and cigarettes. On Tuesday, at another Mac's Milk in Don Mills, a cleric was pistol-whipped and locked in a freezer, again for cash and cigarettes. Massachusetts: Melissa Pierce and Angela Aiello, after leaving the bar to smoke, were struck in the heads with a metal pipe. Richard Jervah of Lynn was pushed through a plate glass window. Arthur Brestovitsky was stabbed in the chest,face, and arm. Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh. A clerk in the Giant Eagle on Route 30 was assaulted Thursday by robbers who tried to make off with two cartons of cigarettes. Maine: Smoking privileges have become a volatile issue at Augusta Mental Health Institute, where violence flared up recently after patients demanded more opportunities to smoke. Four AMHI employees went to a hospital after being injured May 4 in a scuffle that they said was triggered by a forensic patient's demand to smoke more and be left alone while smoking. UK: A hospital is to relax its strict ban on smoking after patients and relatives flouted the rules, causing 11 fires last year. Australia: An 11-year-old boy was burned, attackers stubbing a cigarette on his stomach for commenting on the dangers of smoking. Canada: An inmate was stabbed during a prison riot over smoking bans in a jail at Renous, New Brunswick. Florida: Father Stabs Son Over Cigarette. Family members, including Anderson's mother and other children, were in the vehicle at the time. Alabama: Smoker Attached. He was standing in a parking lot, smoking a cigarette when he was attacked. Canada: Man dies in smoking area. The day after at PCVS: Shock and questions. New Zealand: Woman Assaulted Upholding Ban. Three were charged with disorderly behaviour and a fourth with assaulting police and resisting arrest Smoking Bans:Ban Damage: Deaths,Injuries,rape and more! —3 — i Ohio: Man killed over missing pack of cigarettes.Two Men Face Charges In Beating Death Of Homeless Man. Prosecutor: Death Was A Hate Crime. Canada: Man Shot In Smoking Argument. A 39-year-old man asked his neighbour not to smoke in the hallway. He was shot in the leg below the knee. Florida: Smoker Attacked &Raped.The attacker dragged the victim upstairs and threatened to kill her if she called police. Massachusetts: Smoking Teen Shot. He was shot at least five times while smoking a cigarette in front of 113 Green St. New Hampshire: Cleric Attacked Over Cigar. A customer, irate at the cost of a cigar, hit a 7- Eleven store cleric in the face with a metal display rack Monday night, seriously injuring him, police said. °His face is totally destroyed," she said.Thapa said both his upper and lower lips were split, requiring stitches, and two front teeth were knocked out in the.assault. New Zealand: Abduction And Rape Of Smoking Woman.The incident proved people would be more vulnerable if they had to go outside and smoke, something Prime Minister Helen Clark had not thought of, he said. More Ban Damage: New York. Officer accused of hitting smoking teen. California. Two police cadets forced to eat tobacco. Tennessee. Couple sue over police assault from cigarette incident. Virginia. Series of tobacco product tampering resulting in bum injuries. New York. 60 year old man beaten unconscious for smoking. Illinois. Assault and battery of a woman who was eight months pregnant. California. Woman tortured her daughter over cigarettes. Violence against persons who smoke is a direct result of federal and state actions to aggressively promote intolerance against a 'target group" In order to achieve government tax and mandate policy objectives. India: Three passengers threw a 24-year-old man out of a running train on December 26, 2004, after he protested against their smoking in the compartment Pennsylvania: Woman brutally assaulted when boyfriend caught her lying about smoking cigarettes. He later killed himself. Italy: Restaurant owner dies over ban. A pizzeria owner in Turin died of a heart attack after a brawl with three inebriated clients who refused to stub out cigarettes. Tennessee: School Bus Driver Shot. A 14-year-old boy was charged with shooting a school bus driver to death as she drove her morning route yesterday. A relative of the driver said she had reported the boy a day earlier for using smokeless tobacco on the bus. Illinois: Smoker Falls To Death. Ian Honeycutt, 28, of Glenview, tumbled from a ninth-floor apartment, blown off a window sill by a gust of wind while smoking. His aunt asked him not to smoke inside, police sources said. California Smoker Gunned Down. A gunman fatally shot a man outside a sports bar in unincorporated Hayward as the man took a cigarette break, authorities said Friday. Smoking Bans:Ban Damage:Deaths,Injuries,rape and more! —4 — Callfbmia smoker beaten to death. He refused to hand over a cigarette. Australia: Man Assaults Daughter Over Smoking. Throwing her against a wall and repeatedly licking her after an argument about her smoking. Kansas: A request for a cigarette apparently led to the shooting death of a former high school track athlete in Wichita. Rhode Island: A 79-year-old man faces a misdemeanor assault charge for allegedly slapping his 84-year-old wife when he discovered she had been smoking. A neighbor reported that it sounded like "he was slapping the hell out of her.° Toms: Robber beats up store owner over cigarettes. 'The[robber] used his fists and other objects to hit her in the face and head," Roberts said. United Kingdom: Child attacked for smoking. An 11-YEAR-OLD boy was attacked outside a youth cafe by a man aged 36 -for smoking. Wales: Girl Dies Trying to Hide Smell of Smoke. She died in hospital a week later, reportedly after suffering a haemorrhage in her throat. ON: Man beaten to death. A 50-year-old South Toledo man who lived in a vegetative state in a Fostoria nursing home for nearly two years after he was brutally beaten for a pack of cigarettes died yesterday. W. Cig Seller Feud Ends In Death.A dispute between two cigarette sellers led to a slap and a Macing, then escalated to a stabbing that left one of the vendors, a father of a newborn, dead. MA Police said two of the three men were charged with assault with intent tD murder. Canada. Beaten by butt bummer. While Hogg lay on the ground, his assailant kicked him twice in the back before fleeing. Canada. Slain man linked to smuggling. More Canadian Damage. FL Wheelchair bandit, 2 pals steal $4,700 in cigarettes from Broward store. KS Cigarette Violence. Wichita Convenience Stores Targeted By Cigarette Robbers. Toronto. 30 smash and grab robbery incidents in the area since January. Winnipeg. Cops are seeking a man who robbed a service station at knifepoint. Massachusetts. Smoke, coffee seen as weapons. A man smoking a cigarette reported that a woman threw a cup of hot coffee on him, claiming that he was "assaulting" her with his secondhand smoke. Canada. A savage hammer attack that nearly killed a Hawke's Bay tobacconist may have gone unnoticed because of smoking laws that restrict shop facades. NY. The victim sustained cuts and bruises to his head, arms and hands in robbery. Canada.The clerk was stabbed in the left arm and shoulder in robbery. Canada. Police stun gun smoker at Tim Hortons. Smoking Bans:Ban Damage: Deaths,Injuries,rape and more! —5 — Canada: A 65 year old smoker dies out In the cold. UK: Father beats his 12 year old child for smoking a cigarette. MN: Bar patron shot 3 times when bouncer not there due to ban loss budget cuts. W. Bouncer kills a smoker with a pool cue. New Zealand: A 40 year old woman bit and assaulted a woman for smoking a cigarette. IN: Prisoners stage a 2 hour riot, two staff members were injured and fires were set. More Ban Damage In the news. Businesses Handed by Smordng Bans:http://riww.smokersctub.com/banloss3.htm Anti-smoking organtmbons Insist that bans are somehow good for people In hospitality businesses.This chart shows otherwise.These businesses have lost a significant portion of their business as a direct result of smoking bans. Many are closed.Many that are stili open have told us they doubt thWII survive much longer.Other sources report Loss of Business. Place City Name Business Closed? Bus. Last Tips Lost/Jobs Last CA San Luis Obispo Laurel Bowl Bowling Alley Closed 10096 10096 Smoking Bans:Ban Damage:Deaths,Injuries,rape and more! —7 — F Smoidng: The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke & Smoking http://www.smokersdubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=518 Posted on Monday, November 01 @ 08:19:41 MST by Samantha The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke& Smoking: By Robert Hayes Halfpenny THE LIE: Cigarette smoke and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) or Second Hand Smoke (SHS) Causes cancer. THE Thith: Simply stated there is no known cause for any type of cancer. With all the testing that has been done with every type of chemical, gas, inert matter, and substances that have been altered through exposure to heat or chemical reaction, nothing has been proven to cause cancer. NOTHING! In some instances specific substances, in massive quantities, have been administered to laboratory rats. In these cases many of the animals might have developed a cancer. These sorts of tests may be considered junk Science in that they have no relationship to a real life scenario. The World Health Organization ran one of the most exhaustive tests on SHS ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showed no measurable relationship of SHS to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke.The W.H. O attempted to hid these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public. THE LIE: The desire for smoking bans Is a grass roots movement. THE TRUTH: Smoking bans have almost exclusively been started by organizations such as The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,A.S.H.,the Heart, Cancer, and Lung Organizations and major pharmaceutical corporations. Over one billion dollars, from the Master Tobacco Settlement has funded the activities of many of these organizations for the past 5 years. Promoting smoking bans is big business for these organizations, especially the drug companies who are reaping huge profits on their almost worthless smoking cessation products. When all sources of money are added together, nearly $1,500,000,000.00 have been squandered in bring about smoking bans in about 155 municipalities across the nation.The average money spent on each of these municipalities equates W about$9,615,000.00 per location. In simpler terns it will take Jerry Lewis's Muscular Dystrophy Telethon 30 years to collect the same sum of money at the rate of$50,000,000.00 per Telethon. When a properly informed public is given the opportunity to vote on a smoking ban issue, they invariably will vote the ban down. This has already happened on numerous occasions and it is expected to occur in New York City by 2005. THE LIE: Second Hand Smoke is a public health Issue. THE TRUTH: It is impossible for SHS to be a public health issue for the simple reason there is NO proof that SHS has hurt anyone. In fact, according the W.H.O. (see above),SHS may have some beneficial effect on children. The smoke haters like to point out that the Health Departments have a right to control smoking issues for the same reason they have the right to check on health conditions in restaurants and bars. This is a specious argument primarily because true health issues in food service establishments relate primarily to microbes and organisms that have an absolute direct effect on heath and sanitation. It is the Health Departments- sole responsibilitytosee to it that health standards are maintained. If individuals are concerned about SHS a simple notice stating that smoking is allowed is all that is needed for the public to make a decision about patronizing and establishment This concept is called, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! Smoking:The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke&Smoking— 1— THE LIE: Smoking bans are good for business. THE TRUTH_: Of all the nonsense put forth by the smoke haters this concept is nearly the most ridiculous.There was no basis in fact for this idea when originally stated. Now that the financial results of the bans are being felt in many different cities it is becoming painfully obvious that many businesses are being irreparably harmed. Many of the smoke haters who not only are experts on SHS would also have you believe they are experts in the field of accounting.They will site tax. records and other data to prove the business of bars and restaurants are up since the bans were imposed.Their numbers however are egregiously manipulated and include figures from establishments that normally wouldn't.be part of such a survey. The fact of the matter is the anecdotal evidence is far more realistic.There is a hardly a restaurant or bar that hasn't been adversely affected by these bans. Business has dropped off from between 20%and 50%. Many businesses have been forced to dose.jobs have been lost, a life time of work in building a business has been lost, and city tax revenues have been adversely affected. THE LIE: Restaurants and bars are public businesses. THE TRUTH: All restaurants, bars, and any other businesses that have been set up by an individual or group of individuals are PRIVATE ENTERPRISES! There is no getting around this fact. It is carved in granite. Our Constitution mandates the rights of private property as one of the most important rights we have)The fad:that anyone should think they have the right to abrogate the very tenets of our Constitution demonstrates a colossal arrogance that we cannot afford to have in this country. When a small group of people attempt to force their own jaundiced views on the citizenry it is called an Oligarchy. Our elected officials are our SERVANTS! They are in office for only one purpose and that is to see to the needs of all the people Henry David Thoreau said in the 19th century, "the government that governs best, governs least". He was right then--he is right todayi THE LIE: Technology does not work THE TRUTH: Dr.James Repace, the self appointed expert on second hand smoke, once stated to the effect that a 300 mile per hour hurricane couldn't clear out the danger of SHS in an enclosed space. In Atlanta,Georgia there is an organization that deals with some of the most dangerous infectious germs and bacteria in the World. Out of very obvious necessity, the filtration system they use must be 100%effective, 100%of the time. The system they use(which does contain several built in redundancies) is not out of"Buck Rogers" but one that is very similar to the type of commercial systems most restaurants or bars use. Several St Louis Park food service establishments had their air tested by an independent organization.The results of these tests showed favorable results and the overall effectiveness of properly maintained filtrations systems. If Atlanta, Georgia can have an organization that deals With Anthrax, Small Pox, Bubonic Plague and other organisms that could kill people by the 100's of thousands with no fear of exposure, common sense dictates that similar filtrations systems should work on the relatively benign particulates of SHS. THE LIE: 3000 lives a year are lost due to SHS. THE TRUTH: Originally the number that was first generated by the E.P.A. was 53,000 deaths per year. They published this number before even running their"test".The "test" is in fact not a test; but rather what is called a META survey. This survey took 31 different reports and compiled all the data to come up with a figure of only 3,000 deaths that were attributed other undefined causes. The first number E.P.A. published was a piece of hypothetical misinformation.The second number of 3,000 they put forth was a deliberate lie. A Federal judge by the name of Osteen ruled the 3,000 deaths attributed to SHS by the E.P.A. was a deliberate lie foisted on an unsuspecting public.Judge Smoldng:The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke&Smoking—2— f Osteen determined the number of 3,000 deaths was not attributable to SHS and that the E.P.A. told this lie in the expectation to harm the legitimate business pursuits of the tobacco industry. judge Osteen completely vacated the findings of the E.P.A. So that there is no misunderstanding as W this decision, it should be noted that another court partially overturned judge's Osteen decision for purely judicial reasons.THEY DID NOT, in any way, repudiate judge Osteen's basic premise concerning his comments about the E.PA. or their motives. THE LIE: Most people approve and support smoking bans. THE TRUTH: most people who do not smoke really don't care one way or the other about the smoking issue. It is only a very small but well funded group of smoke haters who want to see these ban invoked. When these bans are ultimately passed and the true effect of them is fully realized, then people start to speak out against them. In New York a poll was taken to see how the people felt about the ban. 86%of those polled stated the ban went way too far. At this point in time there is reason to expect the New York may be rescinded in part or in full sometime in 2005. Canada, one of the most strident nations in attempting to enforce a smoking ban nationwide, is currently facing wide spread rebellion against their Draconian measures.The reports of businesses being financially ruined run rampant. Politicians who supported the bans are being voted out of office. Cigarettes, which are now literally worth their weight in sterling silver, are being stolen with increasing regularity and then sold on the black market.These very same actions will and indeed are occurring in the United States as well. If the bans were truly supported would such occurrences happen? THE UE: Smokers and smoking Impose a heavy cost on society. THE TRUTH: Of all the lies told by the anti smoke haters this one has to be the most ludicrous. For example, if smoking kills people well before their time, the saving of Social Security and Medicare benefits would be significant The extra medical costs to the °State" are more than exceeded by the outrageous taxes currently paid by smokers. Contrary to reports that smokers miss more work time than non-smokers is a completely unsubstantiated number. Indeed,there are so many variables as to why people miss work, it would be impossible to determine whether smoking was a significant cause or not Furthermore, it has been a policy of long standing that insurance companies assess smokers a higher rate for insurance premiums.This has been done in spite of a lack of any definitive proof that smokers, because of smoking, contribute to higher medical costa. It is astounding that an otherwise healthy person who watches his weight, exercises, eats a healthy diet, and drinks only in moderation if at all, has to pay a higher insurance premium than an obese person who eats and drinks to excess and doesn't know the meaning of the word exercise, but does not smoke. THE LIE: Smoking statistics do not lie. THE TRUTH: In this World there are lies, damn ties, and statistics. Never has an argument been won based on statistic alone.They can serve only as a point of departure. In a free and open society people must be allowed to operate as free agents without the fetters of the doomsayers. Life is a risk, but it is that risk which gives it zest. When we allow ourselves to sacrifice our freedoms for the sake of safety, we deserve neither safety nor freedom. Accepting statistics at face value will lead us down that garden path. There are many statistics that can be cited that make the danger of smoking seem mild by comparison. For example, the use of cell phones, hair dryers, and electric blankets have higher risks that SHS. About half of the smoking population has quit over the past 30 years, yet there has been no comparable increase in life expectancy. The smoke haters will quickly tell you this is because of the effects of second hand smoke.The fallacy of their argument is that if there has been smoking Smoking:The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke 6 Smoking—3— there has also been second hand smoke. In spite of the decline of smoking, childhood illnesses such as asthma, ear infections and A.D. are rapidly increasing. Cigarettes and/or smoke have about 4,000 identifiable chemicals.Your daily diet has about 10,000 such chemicals.Arsenic which is considered a leading cause of lung cancer is found in significantly larger quantities in a glass of water than in a cigarette. (c)Copyright 2005 The Smokers Club,Inc.Please repost with link back to this original article. Related Lbdm: •More about The world •News by Samantha Most read story about The world: The IR-2n Biggest Ues about Smoke&Smoking Sorry,Comments are not available for this article. .Ail logos and trademarks In this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters,all the rest O 2008 by The Smoker's Club. You can syndicate our news using the file badmnd.php or uitramode.tzt Theme Designed By Disipal Site:: Powered by mid.gr:. Smoking:The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke&Smoking—4— FORCES- Evidence by topic- Back to: Proving the lies of the anti-tobacco cartel:The Evidence ANTISMOIONG CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY http,.//www.foft6s.6rg/evidencelevid/nazi.htm ONE MORE REVIEW OF THE PROCTOR BOOK-A BREATHTAIDNG STUDY OF THE REAL ANTISMOIDNG NAZIS-While the parallelism between the present health cartel and the Nazi Party cannot be overstated, here is another review of Robert Proctor's book: °The Nazi War on Cancer° by Peter Fitzsche. While political correctness has forced Proctor to take safety distance from the advocates of free choice, his work, inescapably, blatantly demonstrates that totalitarianism and the use of health policy to control behaviour are one and the same. This review is illustrated with several images of the time. One of them is modem, and the politically correct caption says: °In a 1995 advertisement, Philip Morris equates smokers with Jews for its purposes.° If the purposes are freedom to smoke and to choose, then they are noble even if they have a commercial background.The commercial background is the same as the one of the pharmaceutical industry financing the anti-tobacco cartel's false information in order to sell ineffective smoking cessation devices. I... Robert Proctor Biography. Robert N. Proctor is a professor of the history of science at Pennsylvania State University and the author... RobertProctor. Biography: www.americanscientist.org/authors/detaii/mbert-proctor Robert N. Proctor is a professor of the history of science at Pennsylvania State University and the author of, most recently,The Nazi War on Cancer, to be published this spring by Princeton University Press. He has written on environmental policy, bioethics, anthropolgy, racial theory and the "social construction of ignorance." He is working on two books, one on theories of human origins, the other on agates. Book Review Hindsight: wwwamericansitientist.org/bookshelf/pub/hindsight Dawkins's Rainbow Reduces Science to Truth, Beauty—and Fantasy} ANTI TOBACCO = NAZISM: Do you still think we are crazy? - Robert N. Proctor, in his new book PThe Nazi War on Cancer° published by Princeton University Press turns a scholarly eye toward the question of science and public health in a fascist context. At a moment in history where we have entered a phase of health hysteria, it is timely for scholars to be doing this sort of examination. The Original British Medical lour iaPs Study On Nazi Germany's AntiTobacco Campaign - Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking. Many North American leaders are vocal opponents of smoking. Hitler was the most adamant against smoking, and so is Bill Clinton.The astonishing similarity of Nazi Germany's anti-tobacco campaign with the US/Canadian one should make us think very hard on where we are going. For lack of moral and polidcai values and scarcity of uncorrupted science, nations tend to perceive social health as physical health. The same lies.The same rethorics.The same reasons. The same rationale.The same extorsions. Are we becoming the same? Smoking And Health Promotion In Nazi Gerina ft -At FORCES, we have been accused many times to be out of place when comparing the antismoking propaganda with fascism and nazism. Many people believe that we are exaggerating, and one cannot compare smoking restrictions to the Nazi environment Perhaps these people should check their history. ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -1- BOOK REVIEW: A Breathtaking Study of the Real Antlsmoldng Nazis http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/a-breathtaidng4tudy-of-the-real-antismoldng-nazis Peter Frit ache The Nazi War on Cancer. Robert N. Proctor. 365 pp. Princeton University Press, 1999. $29.95. Image: Vice by association:The government wanted the citizen's body for the state. "You don't smoke it—it.smokes you. Signed,The Chain Smoker." From The Nazi War on Cancer. In this fascinating, substantial study of cancer and lifestyle in Nazi Germany, Robert N. Proctor makes the startling discovery that the link between smoking and lung cancer was not first established by Anglo-American researchers in the 1950s but by German scientists working in the Nazi period.That Franz H. Mullets 1939 epidemiological study, which Proctor considers to be "an exquisite piece of scholarship,"or the "astonishingly sophisticated" 1943 analysis by Eberhard Sdmairer and Erich Sch6ninger, have been almost completely forgotten (indeed Moller and Schoninger have disappeared from the historical record) is not completely surprising given postwar suspicions of the value of German science pursued during the Nazi years.This shorthand leads Proctor to make the useful and distressing point that knowledge about Nazi affiliations does not make it easier to distinguish good from bad science. The fact is that Nazi doctors were 'involved in work that we, today, might regard as 'progressive' or even socially responsible." But Proctor is primarily interested in understanding why the link between smoking and cancer was demonstrated, and the first 20th-century war against cancer was waged, under Nazi auspices in the first place.The answers he comes up with amount to a major reconsideration of the modem politics of public health and their primacy in German fascism. Both cancer and the war on cancer were distinctively modem creatures.Although Proctor does not emphasize the theme of modernity, he argues that Germany had at the beginning of the 20th century one of the highest cancer rates in the world.This was so because Germans enjoyed better medical care and thus lived longer and because so many pursued an urban lifestyle that included lots of cigarettes and plenty of beer and schnapps. Occupational hazards made sectors of Germany's industrialized workforcesusceptible to cancers as well. At the same time, the recognition that"lifestyle degradations were behind the increase" in cancer rates led to the conviction that "lifestyle changes could reverse the trend."To envision a population as a site for therapeutic intervention was distinctively modem. Although the Nazis were hardly the first or the only group to counsel preventive measures, their conception of the German Volksk5rper, or people's body, and their obsession with its long-term health, made them particularly eager to manage public health even if it meant making unprecedented public excursions into private spheres. Image: Vice byassociation: Nazi propaganda equated smoking and drinking with stereotypes. From The Nazi War on Cancer.. Indeed, by thinking in biological terms, the Nazis recast politics in an exceptionally vivid and active way. In their view, the German population was mortally threatened in the absence of emergency measures. By the same token, radical surgery and sustained biological cleansing would ensure that Germany would survive and flourish in the fierce international struggles in which World War I had been only the first installment. Biology, in other words, appeared to provide Germany, a loser in the war, with highly useful technologies of mobility. The war on cancer also fit well with the Nazi notion that national health "could be restored by avoiding exposure to rare but powerful agents corroding the German Volkskorper."The Nazis regarded Jews and the cancer to which they were often and perniciously compared as dangerous but basically exogenous perils that could be managed and even eradicated if there was sufficient political will.The Weimar Republic was a monstrous historical failure in the fascist perspective Precisely because its fractured democratic system could not mobilize the political authority to combat the mortal threats facing Germany in the 20th century. Like so many other perils that the ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -2- Nazis identified, cancer appeared to be "a political disease, requiring political solutions.° Image: Motherhood, apple dder and Volkswagen:Virtues of abstinence include healthy infants and savings, enough for Germans to buy two million VWs. From The Nazi War on Cancer. The focus on cancer gives Proctor a broad view of the body politics at the heart of Nazism.The battle metaphors and cleansing, detoxifying aims of the war on cancer, of course, complemented the single-minded effort to rid Germany of Jews and finally to get rid of the Jews altogether.They also corresponded to elaborate policies to sterilize Germans with purported genetic disabilities. But purification also meant improving the lifestyle of productive non-Jewish Germans.The Nazis waged prominent campaigns against alcohol and smoking and urged Germans to eat more whole-grain bread and foods high in vitamins and fiber. Nonetheless, as Proctor insightfully points out, what at first glance looked like a familiar campaign to educate time public was in fact the mobilization of private bodies to public ends. °Enlightenment in the Nazi era was not something you yourself strived to attain,° Proctor writes, °but rather something you did to other people or other people did to you." In order to ensure the long-term health,of its genes, Nazi °Germany becomes the most X- rayed nation in the world, a nation obsessed with tracking, diagnosing, registering, grading, and selecting.... At the Nuremberg party congress of September 1938,for example, assembled dignitaries and the public all lined up to have themselves X-rayed."A year later, °the entire adult population of Mecklenburg and Pomerania—everyone aged sixteen and over, roughly 650,000 people—received a chest X-ray ...thanks to the efforts of the 'SS X-ray battalion' (R6ntgenreihenbildnertruppeder SS).' Image: Ban: (left) Smoking was barred in many public places, (right) in a 1995 advertisement, Philip Morris equates smokers with Jews for its purposes. From The Nazi War on Cancer. 'The Nazi campaign against tobacco and the 'whole-grain bread operation,'" Proctor concludes, "are, in some sense, as fascist as time yellow stars and the death camps."They highlight the degree to which the Nazis sought to create a °secure and sanitary utopia" and as a result enjoyed broad support By making this compelling argument, Proctor demonstrates that fascism was a much more subtle and seductive phenomenon than we commonly imagine. At each point, however, Proctor is extremely careful to indicate that the Nazi administration of German health was but one element in a murderous racialized view of the world.The Nazis fought the war on cancer not least because their politics was premised on the possibility of segregating and eradicating what was racially and genetically alien. Moreover, the stress was always on the. collective rather than the individual so that general health often obscured particular indifference. Declining disability pensions in the face of an expanding workforce,for example, revealed that °Nazi leaders wanted a healthy workforce, but they were not always willing to help an injured worker.° For Germans m become sick or injured invited the scrutiny of state authorities and could become a death sentence if there were any doubts about their"racial fitness." In Proctor's skillful hands, the war on cancer provides a fascinating view of the biological basis of Nazi public policy and the applied bias of Nazi science. Proctor's examples are vivid and his analysis incisive; precisely because of the congenial mix of the specific and the abstract,The Nazi War on Cancer stands out as a major contribution to the study of fascism and Will undoubtedly— and deservedly—become a standard item on reading lists in 20th-century history. It is unfortunate, therefore, that Proctor does not spend a little more time reflecting on the implications of his story. He rightly stresses the different fates that awaited non-Jewish Germans and Jewish Germans, but at time same time indicates that healthy Germans were not necessarily happy Germans. If, in the Nazi's ideal world,as Proctor notes, 'workers would work long and hand and then die—saving for the Volksgemeinschaft the financial burden of the elderly and 'unproductive' infirm,' would "racially pure' Germans become time subjects of exterminatory wars on illness and old age? If so, what does this say about the centrality of racial categories in the way we think about Nazism? Moreover, Proctor juxtaposes the Nazi war on cancer with our own contemporary anxieties about the disease and expectations for a more robust federal role in combating it, but does not offer satisfying comparisons and contrasts. He flirts with the reader when he observes that anti- ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -3- antitobacco campaigns "play the Nazi card°; the substance of his analysis and the judiciousness of his judgment leave readers expecting more. Nonetheless, what they have received in this remarkable book is ample and outstanding. You can find this onrme at http:/Avww afnerkansdentisLarg/bookshelf/oubla-breathtaking-study-of-the-real-antLsmoking- nazk o sigma Xi,The scientific Research society YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY MYYYYYYYYYYY MYYYYYYYI..YYYY MYYYYMYY ANTI TOBACCO = NAZISM: DO YOU STILL THINK WE ARE CRAZY? httpztAvww.forces.org/evidenceffiles/naz.htm For a long time FORCES has maintained that the anti-tobacco agenda bears some resemblances to the Nazi philosophy of national health,and that those who support the repression of smoking through force and law and false science are,afterall, Nazis somewhere at heart. For this we have been attacked, and often called °lunatics° —norwitstanding the clear evidence from hisdDry We are no longer alone in this observation, that goes beyond our colorful, aggressive rhetoric.The Nazi phylosophy of Prrbft Heafth UbwA??eA and the junk science behind it is a tangible, everyday reality. Nazis are among us. They are the ministers of health, the public health officers,the doctors and medical association who pump the health issue out of proportion, and produce junk science to justify repression. They are the hosaftes who fine the terminally ill outside the hospices doors to have a smoke. They are the health systems that refuse five-savino operations to smokers murdering them in the name of health. The sick concept of"HEALTHY AmeRIcAN' is spreading across the world as much as the chant of the healthy, efficient Nazi state lured sympathizers in all nations. Do you still think we are crazy? Look at the image on the right,and put a medical sign instead of the swastika. Does it look familiar? Robert N. Proctor, in his new book"The Nazi War on Cancer" published by Princeton University Press tums a scholarly eye.toward the question of science and public health in a fascist context At a moment in history where we have entered a phase of health hysteria, it is timely for scholars to be doing this sort of examination. "Robert Proctor is an outstanding historian of science and an outstanding historian of the Third Reich. By establishing Nazism's pioneering contributions in the areas of preventive medicine, environmentalism, and public health, he takes us right to the heart of the most difficult questions in the analysis of fascism. His treatment of smoking and cancer will be a revelation.This book troubles the politics and ethics of historical interpretation in the very best ways."—Geoff Eley, author of Reshaping the German Right Radical Nationalism and Political Change after Bismarck. 'Racily and wittily written, ProctDr's interesting book is a brilliant demonstration of how marginal the Nazi past has become to contemporary health issues.'—Michael Burleigh, author of Ethics and Extermination: Reflections on Nazi Genocide. Think about this —think long and hard. Whether you smoke or not, each time you support anti- tobacco, its philosophy and mentality,what it stands for,the prohibition to smoke; when you feel 'safe' and 'relieved' because smokers are persecuted and kicked out of their rightful places,you support the return of a cancer that took an uncountable number of lives to uproot—and it will AN71sMOI(ING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -a- not stop with tobacco. Do you think that it is worth it,just because you don't like the nice smell of a cigarette? YYYY N MYY NYYYYYYYYYY NYNYYYYYYYY NY NYYY NYYNY N NYY NY N N N NYN NN NY NY BMJ No 7070 Volume 313: http://www.data-yard-nettriazi/7070nd2.htm The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health In Germany, 193345 Robert N Proctor Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,encorn Ing bans on smoking In public spaces, bans on advertising,restrtctions on tobacco rations for women, and the world's most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The antl4 obacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily puHty, which also motivated many other public health effiorts of the era. Medical historians in recent years have done a great deal to enlarge our understanding of medicine and public health in Nazi Germany. We know that about half of all doctors joined the Nazi party and that doctors played a major part in designing and administering the Nazi programmes of forcible sterilisation, °euthanasia,° and the industrial scale murder of Jews and gypsies.(1) (2) Much of our present day concern for the abuse of humans used in experiments stems from the extreme brutality many German doctors showed towards concentration camp prisoners exploited to advance the cause of German military medicine.(3) Tobacco In the Relch One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. (4-6) Germany had the world's strongest anti smoldng movement in the 1930s and early 1940ssupported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.(1) (4)Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking.Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe-Hiller, Mussolini, and Franco-were all non-smokers.(7) Mier was the most adamant,characterising tobacco as °the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor•At one point the Fuhrer even suggested that Nazism might never have triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking.(8) German smoldng rates rose dramatically in the first six years of Nazi rule, suggesting that the propaganda campaign launched during those early years was largely ineffective.(4) (5) German smoking rates rose faster even than those of France, which had a much weaker anti-tobacco campaign. German per capita tobacco use between 1932 and 1939 rose from 570 to 900 cigarettes a year, whereas French tobacco consumption grew from 570 to only 630 cigarettes over the same period.(9) Smith et al suggested that smoking may have functioned as a kind of cultural resistance,(4) though it is also important to realise that German tobacco companies exercised a great deal of economic and political power, as they do today. German anti-tobacco activists frequently complained that their efforts were no match for the "American style° advertising campaigns waged by the tobacco 1ndustry.(10) German cigarette manufacturers neutralised early criticism-for example,from the SA(Sturm-Abteilung; stormtroops), which manufactured its own°Sturmzigaretten°-by portraying themselves as early and eager supporters of the regime.(11) The tobacco industry also launched several new journals aimed at countering anti-tobacco propaganda. In a pattern that would become familiar in the United States and elsewhere after the ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGN IN NAZJ GERMANY -5- second world war, several of these journals tried to dismiss the anti4obacco movement as °fanatieand °unscientific.° One such journal featured the German word for science twice in its title (Der Tabak Wissenschaftliche Zeitscivift der International en Tabakwissenschaftiichen Gesellschaft,founded in 1940). We should also realise that tobacco provided an important source of revenue for the national treasury. In 1937-8 German national income from tobacco taxes and tariffs exceeded 1 billion Reichsmarks.(12) By 1941,as a result of new taxes and the annexation of Austria and Bohemia, Germans were paying nearly twice.that According to Germany's national accounting office, by 1941 tobacco taxes constituted about one twelfth of the govemment's entire income.(13)Two hundred thousand Germans were said to owe their livelihood to tobacco-an argument that was reversed by those who pointed to Germany's need for additional men in its labour force, men who could presumably be supplied from the tobacco industry(14) IMAGE: Tobacco capital' raining down to spoil the people's health. Culmination of the campaign: 1939,41 German anti4obacco policies accelerated towards the end of the 1930s,and by the early war years tobacco use had begun to decline.The Luftwaffe banned smoking in 1938 and the post office did likaewise.Smokdng was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals,and rest homes. The NSDAP(National soziafistische Deutsche Arbeiterparteij announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939, at which time SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty.(15)The Journal of the American Medical Association that year reported Hermann Goering's decree barring soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches, and on brief off duty periods.(16) Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941.(17)Smoking was banned in air raid shelters4hough some shelters reserved separate rooms for smokers.(18) During the war years tobacco rationing coupons were denied to pregnant women (and to all women below the age of 25) while restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to female customers.(19) From July 1943 it was illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public.(20) Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944, the initiative coming from Hitler himselfwho was worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smokae.(21) Nazi policies were heralded as marling°the beginning of the end°of tobacco use in Germany.(14) IMAGE: Cover page from Reine Luft, the main journal of the German anti-tobacco movement Gemran tobacco epidemiology by this time was the most advanced in the world. Franz H Muller in 1939 and Eberhard Schairer and Erich Schoniger in 1943 were the first to use case-contmi epidemiological methods to document the lung cancer hazard from Cigarettes.(22) (23) Muller concluded that the "extraordinary rise in tobacco use'was "the single most important cause of the rising incidence of lung cancer."(22) Heart disease was another focus and was not infrequently said to be the most serious illness brought on by smokdng.(24) Late in the war nicotine was suspected as a cause of the coronary heart failure suffered by a surprising number of soldiers on the eastern front A 1944 report by an army field pathologist found that all 32 young soldiers whom he had examined after death from heart attack on the front had been "enthusiastic smokers.°The author cited the Freiburg pathologist Franz Buchner's view that cigarettes should be considered °a coronary poison of the first order.°(25) IMAGE: 'Our Fuhrer Adolf Hitler drinks no alcohol and does not smoke...His performance at work is incredible...(from Auf der Wacht, 1937) On 20 June 1940 Hitler ordered tobacco rations to be distributed to the military min a manner that would dissuade" soldiers from smoldng.(24) Cigarette rations were limited to six per man per day, with alternative rations available for non-smokers(for example, chocolate or extra food). Extra Cigarettes were sometimes available for purchase, but these were generally limited to 50 per man ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -6 per month and were often unavailable-as during times of rapid advance or retreat Tobacco rations were denied to women accompanying the Wehrmacht An ordinance on 3 November 1941 raised tobacco taxes to a higher level than they had ever been (80-95% of the retail price).Tobacco taxes would not rise that high again for more than a quarter of a century after Hitler's defeat(26) Impact of the war and postwar poverty The net effect of these and other measures (for instance, medical lectures to discourage soldiers from smoking) was to!ower tobacco consumption by the military during the war years.A 1944 survey of 1000 servicemen found that whereas the proportion of soldiers smoking had increased (only 12.7%were non-smokers), the total consumption of tobacco had decreased-by just over 1496. More men were smoking (101 of those surveyed had taken up the habit during the war, whereas only seven had given it up) but the average soldier was smoking about a quarter(23.4%) less tobacco than in the immediate prewar period.The number of very heavy smokers (30 or more cigarettes daily) was down dramatically-from 4.49ii to only 0.3%-and similar declines were recorded for moderately heavy smokers.(24) IMAGE: German cigarette consumption in 1940-1. Germans smoked 75 billion cigarettes, or enough to form a cylindrical block 436 metres high with a base of 1000 square metres. (From Reine Luft) Postwar poverty further cut consumption. According to official statistics German tobacco use did not reach prewar levels again until the mid-1950s.The collapse was dramatic: German per capita consumption dropped by more than half from 1940 to 1950, whereas American consumption nearly doubled during that period.(6) (9) French consumption also rose, though during the four years of German occupation cigarette consumption declined by even more than in Germany(9)- suggesting that military conquest had a larger effect than Nazi propaganda. After the war Germany lost its position as home to the worid's most aggressive anti-tobacco science. Hitler was dead but also many of his anti-tobacco underlings either had lost their jobs or were otherwise silenced. Kar!Aster, head of Jena's institute for Tobacco Hazards Research (and rector of the University of Jena and an officer in the SS), committed suicide in his office on the night of 3-4 April 1945.Reich Health Fuhrer Leonardo Conti, another anti-tobacco activist,committed suicide on 6 October 1945 in an allied prison while awaiting prosecution for his role in the euthanasia programme. Hans Reiter, the Reich Health Office president who once characterised nicotine as 'the greatest enemy of ttie people's health°and "the number one drag on the German economy"(27) was interned in an American prison camp for two years,after which he worked as a physician in a clinic in Kassel, never again retuming to public service. Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, the guiding light behind Thuringia's antismoking campaign and the man who drafted the grant application for Astel's anti-tobacco institute, was executed on 1 October 1946 for crimes against humanity. It is hardly surprising that much of the wind was taken out of the sails of Germany's anti-tobacco movement IMAGE: The chain smoker. 'You don't smoke it-it smokes you!" (from Reine Luft, 1941) The flip side of Fascism Smith et at were correct to emphasise the strength of the Nazi anti smoking effort and the sophistication of Nazi era tobacco science.(4)The anti smoking science and policies of the era have not attracted much attention, possibly because the impulse behind the movement was closely attached to the larger Nazi movementThat does not mean, however,that anti smoking movements are inherentlyfascist(28); it means simply that scientific memories are often clouded by the celebrations of victors and that the political history of science is occasionally less pleasant than we would wish. Funding: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,Washington, DC; Hamburger Institut fur Sozialfofschung in Hamburg. ANTISMOIQNG CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -7- Conflict of Interest: None. Department of History, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States Robert N Procter, professor of the history of science 1 Proctor R N. Racial hyglerm medicine under the Nazis.Camb ldge,Massachusetts:Harvard University Press,1988. 2 Kater M H.Doctors under Hider.Chapel Hill:University of North Carolina Press,1989. 3 Annas G.Grodin M.The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code.New Yotic Oxford University Press, 1992. 4 Smftth G D.Strobele 5 A.Egger M.Smoking and death.BMJ1995:310:396.. 5 Borgers O.Smoking and death BMJ 1995:310:1536. 6 Proctor R N.Nazi cancer research and policy.J Epidemlol Community Health(in press). 7 Bauer D.So lebt der Duce.Auf der Waciht 1937:19-20. 8 PWker H.Hitters Tschgesprache tm Fuhrerhauptquarder.Beam:Athenaum Verlag,1951. 9 lee PN,ed.Tobacco consumption In various countries 4th ed.London:Tbbacce Research Council,197S. 10 Reid G.Weltanschauung,Haltung,Genussgifte.Genussgtf 1939:35:64. 11 Kasmos.BIW-Dokumente unsener ZeitDresden:Kosmos.1933. 12 Reckert FK.Tabalavarenkunde:Der Tabak,sero Anbau undselne Verarbeitung:Betlin-Schonberg:Max Schwabe.1942. 13 Frkenmung and Bekampfung der Tabalhx3efahren.DtxhArzteb11941.71:183-5. 14 Warner W.Wrn Rauchen:Eine Suc ht and 1hre Bekampfung.Nuremberg:Rudolf Kem,1940. 15 Rauchverbat fur die Polizel auf Strassen and in Dienstraumen.Die Genussglfbe1940:36:59. 16 Bertin:alcohol,tobacco and coffee.JAMA 1939;113:1144-5. 17 Kleine Mitten uhgen.Vertrauensarzt 1941,9196. 18 Mitteilungen.Off Gesundheitsdtenst 1941:7,488. 19 Charman T.The German home front 1939-1945. London:Barrie&Jenkins,1989. 20 Fromme W Offentlicher Gesundhettsdienst In:Rodenwaldt E.ed.Hygiene.Part I.General hygiene.Wiesbaden: Oletrich'sche Vedagsbuchhandlung,194836. 211thformaflonsdienst des Hauptamtes fur Votksgesundhettder NSDAPP, 1944:April-June:60-1. 22 Muller F H.Tabakmissbrauch and Lungencarclnom.Z Krebsforsch1939;49:57-85. 23 Schaper E.Schaniger E.Lungenkrebs and Tabakverbrauch.Z Krebsforsch1943:54:261-9. 24 KtMel W Hygiene des Rauchens.In:Handloser S.Hofi4nann W.eds.Wehrhygiene.Beribu Springer-l/erlag,.1944. 25 Goedel A. Krfegspatthologische Beftrage.In:Zimmer A.ed.Kdegschirurgle.Vol 1.Vienna:Franz DeuMm, 1944. 26 A tzkolelt K Auf elner Woge von Gold:Der Triumph der WlrtschaftVierma:Verlag Kurt Desch,1961. 27 Werberat der deutschen Wirtschaft.Voftgesundheit and Werbung.Berlin:art Heymanns,1939. 28 Pebo R.Smoking and death.BMJ 1995;310:396. (Accred 6 November 1996) Full text on B1oMedNet:no access was available ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -s- j. Popular health magazines... contain warnings against the dangers of smolang. The scientific research into the health effects ofsmoling goes hand in hand wihh extensive health promotion activities aimed at reducing the prevalence of the habit. Transportation, workplaces, and public buildings become targets for smoking reduction campaigns Smolong is prohibited in many individual workplaces and public buildings, including government bureaus, hospitals, and rest homes Tobacco manufacturers cannot represent the use of tobacco as a sign of manliness Excerpts from Contemporary News?... No. Nazi Germany, 1937 - 1944 At FORCES, we have been accused many times to be out of place when comparing the antismoking propaganda with fascism and nazism. Sometimes, outraged readers have written to us comments like this: 'Anyone that would equate Nazsrn with smoking bans has a screw loose! Go shoot yourselfin a bunker!'Many people believe that we are exaggerating, and one cannot compare smoking restrictions to the Nazi environment. Perhaps these people should check their history. People who know us, also know that we do not have the tendency to exaggerate.To the contrary, we try to stay as factual as possible. It is not our fault if the whole antismoking affair has become a mister emulation of the Nazi regime. So we have decided to prove our case. Here are excerpts from "Smoking and health promotion in Nazi Germany', published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health(1994;48:220-223), authored by George Davey Smith (Dept. of Public Health,University of Glasgow), Sabine A Sirubele(Institute of Medical Sociology, University of Hamburg), and Matthias Egger(Dept. of Social and Preventive Medicine, Univ. of Berne). This commentary depicts with great precision and accurate bibliographical references the astonishing similarity of the nazi propaganda against smoking with the current propaganda of the antismoking industry. Had we removed the refereces to the Nazis, the reader would think that this is contemporary material. We hope that what follows is an eye-opener for people of good conscience about what is going on in these bleak times.The resurgence of fascism under the guise of health is not new,and we better learn the lesson of history once and for all, or the price to pay for our ignorance will be dear indeed. To quote US senator Jesse Helms: 'One definition of stupidity is trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result: IMAGE: Yesterday as it is today: contempt of the right to smoke. IMAGE: Yesterday as it is today.false statistics on the social cost of smoking. [MAGE: Yesterday as itis today:the demonization of tobacco and smokers. ANTISMOKING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -9- IMAGE: Yesterday as it is today.targeting the youth for brainwashing, fanaticism and false. information: that is essential to perpetuate the moral inversion of healthism. IMAGE: "You don't smoke it... it smokes you!": Yesterday as it is today. since science cannot prove the real dangers, °public health° acts on fears, hysteria and superstition to obtain a change of behaviour. IMAGE: Yesterday as it is today. after attacking tobacco, the Nazis sought total social control expanding to food and alcohol; but today's Nazis hide in white coats. The statistical junk science methodology was invented by the Naas. Differently than the junk science statistics on tobacco, however, the reality that today's "health movement° (and its contempt for liberty and self-determination) is of Nazi origins cannot be dismissed. IMAGE: Yesterday as it is today. exaggerating the power of the tobacco industry to create a popular emotional response against it, and distract the public from scientific frauds, taxation, and social control agendas. SMOKING AND HEALTH PROMOTION IN NAZI GERMANY From the journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1994; 48:220-223) PREFACE In his recent paper in this journal "A birth cohort analysis of the smoking epidemic in West Germany", Brenner presents data showing that smoking rates increased dramatically from the late 1920s onwards and that the reductions now being seen are limited to men with higher education. His conclusions are that intensified education programmes are required among teenagers, together with restrictive smoking policies at the workplaces and on transportation systems. Brenner believes that the relatively limited progress made.against smoking in Germany is due to the slow adoption of antismoking campaigns compared with other countries such as the USA. In this commentary we show that, contrary to these assertions, energetic antismoking campaigns were adopted in Germany at a very early stage. Indeed all of the activities Brenner now commends were vigorously implemented during the Nazi period in Germany, with, as he clearly demonstrates, little effect on stemming the growing tide. SMOKING AND HEALTH:THE GERMAN CONTRIBUTION IMAGE: Yesterday as it is today: contempt of the right to smoke. While accusations about the health damaging effects of tobacco stretch back over the centuries, a particularly strong tradition of scientific investigation emerged in Weimar Germany and was developed during the Nazi period.Take,for example, the case of smoking and lung cancer. From the late 1920s on, Fritz tickint published a series of detailed reviews of smoking and lung cancer trends, of ecological associations, autopsy series, experimental annual studies, and clinical reports which, he already considered in 1929, left no doubt that tobacco smoke was a major cause of lung cancer. In 1939, Franz Muller,from Cologne, performed what is generally recognised as the earliest controlled study, in which the smoking histories of 80 male lung cancer cases were compared with those of 86 ill defined control subjects. A markedly higher proportion of the former were found to be heavy smokers. This activity occurred against a backdrop of official concern regarding the health damaging effects of smoking. Conti, the Reich Health Fuhrer, established the "Bureau Against time Dangers of Alcohol and Tobacco° in 1939. In 1942 an °Institute for the Struggle against the dangers of Tobacco° was established at the University of Jena, under the directorship of Professor Karl Aster. AN'nSMOIGNG CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -10- Originating from this institute in 1943 was the first formal case-control study of smoking and lung cancer,a convincing investigation in which Schairer and Schuniger showed a sophisticated understanding of the potential biases which could distort the findings. They included both population and clinical control series and examined whether changes in smoking pattern consequent upon illness could lead to artifictious results. It can now be calculated that the dose- response association between smoking and lung cancer risk in their study is significant at the p<= 0.0000001 level. IMAM: Yesterday as it is today. false statistics on the social cost of smoking. The institute from which this study came was supported by 100,000 Reichmarks of Adolf Hitler's personal finances. The investigation of the health effect of smoking was not restricted to lung cancer. The 1938 annual report of the Public Health Service (Offentliche Gesundheltsdiesnt) considered that"the nervous disorders of every sort which are being reported in increasing numbers from nearly every part of Germany are for the larger part due to excessive indulgence in tobacco and alcohol" In 1939, Licldnt`s monumental 800 page study"Tabak and Organlsmus" was published by Hyppolrates Verlag,the editorship of which the censorious Kurt 10are had taken over from Erwin Liek, a doyen of Nazi medicine from the early years.This reviewed a huge body of work on the. association between smoking and hill health, much of it carried out or published in Germany. In the same year, research into the effect of smoking on chromosomes was commissioned by the Reich Health Office. Tobacco had long been considered a potential "genetic poison" by the.Racial Hygiene movement in Germany, dearly the high level of concern regarding the health effects of smoking was strongly connected to the goal of general improvement of the Arian "race". G .1 In March 1939 there was an attendance of 15,000 at a conference on the effects of tobacco and alcohol consumption. At this meeting Hans Reiter, president of the Reich Health Office,charged all the medical societies of Germany with the responsibility for determining scientifically the degree to which tobacco caused disease.At the official opening of the Institute.for the Struggle Against the Dangers of Tobacco, Reiter outlined a research agenda which should guide its work: statistical inquires, clinical research into the effects of tobacco in humans, and experimental animal research. HEALTH PROMOTION UNDER THE NAZIS IMAGE: Yesterday as it is today the demonization of tobacco and smokers. The scientific research into the health effects of smoking went hand in hand with extensive health Promotion activities aimed at reducing the prevalence of the habit. Popular health magazines such as Gesundes Volk(Healthy people:journal for the Health and Entertainment of the Workforce), Volksgesundheit(People's Health), and Gesundes Leben (Healthy Life) contained warnings against the dangers of smoking.There was also a journal Die Volksgifte (The Popular Poison) devoted to the campaign against alcohol and tobacco. General interest magazines and newspapers also drove home the message, which clearly meshed well the goals of racial hygiene: the improvement of national-biological resource of the health of the population. IMAGE: Yesterday as it is today targeting the youth for brainwashing,fanaticism and false information: that is essential to perpetuate the moral inversion of healthism. Propaganda against smoking was also disseminated by the Hitler Youth and the League of ANmSMOIGNG CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -II Germany Girls. In 1939, Goring issued a decree forbidding the military to smoke on the streets, on marches, and on brief off duty periods and in the summer of 1942 the Federation of German Women launched a campaign against tobacco and alcohol abuse. Self restraint was supplemented through restaurants and cafes being forbidden to sell cigarettes to women customers. Smoking was banned -for pupils and teachers alike-in many schools. Teachers were also expected to set an example to pupils outside of schools by not smoking. In July 1943,a law was passed forbidding tobacco use in public places by anyone under 18 years of age. Transportation, workplaces,and public buildings became targets for smoking reduction campaigns. Thus it was considered criminal negligence if drivers were involved in accidents while smoking, and in 1944 smoking was banned on trains and buses. Aside from work-related antismoking propaganda, smoking was prohibited in many individual workplaces and public buildings, including government bureaus, hospitals, and rest homes. The advertising of tobacco products also came under strict control. Advertisement could not give the impression that smoking had any :hygienic values". Furthermore,tobacco manufacturers could not*represent the use of tobacco as a sign of manliness, nor ridicule opponents of tobacco. IMAGE: °You don't smoke it.. it smokes you Ia: Yesterday as it is today. since science cannot prove the real danger;, °public health° acts on fears, hysteria and superstition to obtain a change of behaviour. They may not make advertising appeal to women and those interested in sports, nor picture smokers at the wheel of automobiles. In accord with much current health proclamation theory,there was considerable endorsement of the goal of smoking cessation from role models.Thus, Robert Ley,the leader of the German Labour Front, attested personally the benefits of non smoking. While many other influential figures joined this roster, the state performer in antismoking propaganda was Adolf Hitler.As one magazine put it: 'brother national socialist do you know that our Fuhrer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for alf his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?" HEALTH PROMOTION AND THE KING CANUTE PRINCIPLE Brenner shows that despite the intense health promotion activity smoking continued to increase. This was recognized at the time, and it was perhaps with some glee that the Berlin correspondent from the journal of the American Medical Association —a regular if somewhat cynical reporter of the crusade against tobacco — noted that cigarette consumption increased in 1938 from 609 per head to 676 per head.The processes acting in such a case have a more general form within health promotion, which can be termed time IGng Canute principle. In popular imagination (if not in mythology or fact), IGng Canute sat on the beach and, in order to demonstrate the enormity of his power,told the tide to stop coming up. His supposed failure in this enterprise is his lasting contribution to British folklore. Health promotion, on the other hand, has learned from Canute's experiences, choosing instead to sit on the beach while the tide is going out and applauding. In this situation, it is then possible to claim that the ebbing tide is a direct outcome of the applause. IMAGE: Yesterday as it is today. after attacking tobacco, the Nazis sought total social control expanding to food and alcohol; but today's Nazis hide in white coats. The statistical junk science methodology was invented by the Nazis. Differently than the junk science statistics on tobacco, however, the reality that today's °health movement° (and its contempt for liberty and self-determination) is of Nazi origins cannot be dismissed. Take,for example, the celebrated North Katelia heart disease prevention programme. Initiative efforts were made to modify the coronary risk factor profile in north karelia in Finland from the AKMSMOI NG CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -12- � % A early 1970s, and the success of the program was announced. As the figure shows, the declines in ischemic heart disease mortality in North Carelia were no greater than elsewhere in Finland --it was simply that, unlike with IGng Canute, the proclamation that heart disease would be prevented was made just as the tide of ischemic heart disease was beginning to ebb. RESISTANCE TO HEALTH PROMOTION In Nazi Germany,then,the efforts to prevent smoking occurred during a period when right across the western world cigarette smoking was increasing dramatically.The failure of the intensive efforts to reduce smoking are not surprising in these circumstances. Furthermore, there may have been some element of deliberate resistance to health promotion activities which were being so intensively supported by the state.This could partly reflect opposition to an authoritarian government. IMAGE: yesterday as it is today: exaggerating the power of the tobacco industry to create a popular emotional response against it, and distract the public from scientific frauds,taxation, and social control agendas. [• •] The emigrk Jewish physician and energetic campaigner against the.Nazi regime, Martin Gumpert, [..] discussed °the Fuhrer's distaste for injurious smoking and drinking habits" which it might be thought,would "produce beneficial results for the national economy and the national health". He considered that the large increase in alcohol consumption and drunkness in Germany reflected "7he abstnent Hitler, who from conviction never talo a drop of alcohol, and whose movement first emerged hom the beer halls of MUnich, now drives the people at whose head he stands into fatal alcoholism." CONCLUSIONS The failure of smoking rates to fall in Germany in the way they have fallen in several other countries is attributed by Brenner to the relative lack of public health initiatives aimed at preventing smoking in Germany. One of the reasons for the lack of such initiatives may be that the association of authoritarian antismoking efforts at workplaces, on public transport, and in school with the Nazi regime remained for a long period in popular memory. The history of smoking and health in Germany,which cannot be taken to start in the post war world with a population free of restrictions on smoking,shows the inadequacy of simple diffusion models. [. .] retrieved 01-20-09 ANTISMOICING CAMPAIGN IN NAZI GERMANY -13- The Thdh: h /)v�vww:davehitt.com/racts/truth.html The Truth.The phrase sounds noble, solid and immutable. Once.you arrive at Truth your search is over. None can argue with The Truth. Our courts claim it is their objective. Our journalists say the�i dig for it. Our religious leaders teach that it will set us free. But people on/both sides of everyargument insist that they are telling The Truth.. Politicians and other criminals swear to tell The Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but The Truth just before giving outrageously dishonest testimony. News programs blow up trucks with model rocket engines, then proudly display the journalism awards they've won for bringing us The Truth. Modem day snake-oil salesmen promise their high-priced, useless cures will restore our health. Thousands of backwater Bible thumpers assure their congregations they alone know The Truth, and that all their fellow thumpers,who also claim to know The Truth, are truly dupes of the devil. Perhaps The.Truth isn't as absolute as we assume it is. Its always colored by our perceptions. If I tell you my wife is beautiful, that's the truth. If you disagree with me, does that make you a liar? And if Truth is not absolute, what can we rely on? The web site thetruth.com claims to offer The Truth about tobacco. They're really offering a smattering of facts mixed in with a great deal of propaganda and quite a few outright lies. We offer the antidote for their°truth.° No, not our version of The Truth; that would make us as suspect as they are. We offer something that no imitation truth can stand up to. We offer The Facts. Facts are stubborn things. Facts are verifible. Facts don't change with the political mood. Once you know The Facts,The Truth becomes obvious. Fact:This site is designed as an aid for those who wish to fight the growing nanny movement in the US and elsewhere. Although we retain the copyright to these pages, we encourage people to copy them and spread them around. You're free to use them, in whole or in part. We'd appreicate if if you credit the source, with a link to these pages, but it is not required. Fact: We've put a great deal of effort into making sure everything labeled "Fact° is as accurate as possible.The data and information has been checked and rechecked by people with expertise in several different fields. But we're human, so some mistakes may have slipped through. If you find any of our facts in error please let us know immediately, and we'll correct them. When pointing out errors, please provide a reference that shows us our mistake, preferably an online reference from a reliable source. Beware of those claiming to have The Truth, all neatly packaged for your convenience. They are usually selling you a pack of lies. Instead of searching for The Truth, learn The Facts. Once you know the facts, it's easy to figure out the truth yourself. O 2000-2008 Dave Hitt Permission Is granted to use this Information.In whole or In part,however you like. Attribution and Unks are appreciated but not required. The Facts About Second Hand Smoke (Finally): http.//www.davehitLcom/facts/index.htmi (Note: Recently the mass media has been full of stories about Third Hand Smoke. If this nonsense persists we may add a page about it. In the meantime, you can see a breakdown of what the study really said in this article on the Quick Hitts blog.) This site contains detailed examinations of the 1,993 EPA study on secondhand smoke, the first World Health Organization study on SHS. and the Helena study that claimed smoking bans result in an immediate drop in heart attacks. It also contains, in blog format excerpts from hundreds of articles about the financial damage caused by smoking bans. Second-hand SmokeReportsfrom Dave Hitt web site — 1 — The American anti-smoking crusade has been very successful.There are now more ex-smokers in America as there are smokers. But even after thirty years of constant urging to kick the habit, about a quarter of the population still chooses to smoke. America was built on a live and let live attitude. Before the current crop of busybodies, do- gooders and nannies gained political power; we let people do what they like-even if they were hurting themselves -as long as didn't hurt anyone else. We'd only step in if an unwilling bystander was being harmed.That left the door open for the.Second Hand Smoke (SHS) attack on smokers. If SHS really is as dangerous as the government, political organizations and charities claim, efforts to prevent it and contain it might be justified. But is it dangerous?We're bombarded by endless proclamations of its horrors, claims that get more fantastic with each passing year.These claims are usually accompanied by impressive sounding numbers. Are smokers really hurting every stranger in the vicinity?The answer to that question is obvious once you know the facts. We're not going to rely on hype or hysteria. We won't tell you we have The Truth. We'll just present the hard cold facts and let you figure out The Truth for yourself. Every effort has been made to verify everything on this site, to make sure it as accurate and factual as possible. This site will not only make you an expert on the subject of SHS, but also leave you well equipped to deal with anyone using numbers to support health claims. The Statistics 101 page will give you a good overall understanding of the science used to generate the numbers we hear so often.Statistics 162 explains common errors in epidemiological studies, and how to spot them.These sections may be a little difficult, but you'll find it's worth the effort to understand them. Once you do,you'll be able to understand the numbers and studies from all sources and on all subjects, not just SHS.. Well take a detailed look at three SHS studies. The first, the EPA 1993 report, is the basis for most of the SHS legislation and restrictions in the US. Once you see exactly what they did, and how they did it, you may never trust the EPA again.The second study, carefully conducted by the World Health Organization, had some very surprising results. We've recently added two pages on the Helena study, including a look at the authors own chart. It provides a good example of the dishonesty and outright fraud practiced by the anti-smoker movement. We make no attempt to cover every study of SHS, but to give you examples of a good study, two bad ones, and the politics that surrounded them. Combine that with the knowledge of how statistics work, and you'll be able to spot bogus studies with ease. We also have excerpts from and links to hundreds of news articles about how smoking bans effect businesses. Nannies claim bans are good for business.These stories prove they're lying. You'll read about hundreds of bars, taverns, bingo halls, pool halls, private clubs and restaurants that are suffering, many to the point of closing, because of smoking bans. Site Layout Fact: This is a fact. Anything headed off by the word 'Fact: " is a solid, proven, verifiable fact, presented as accurately as possible. Comments on these facts appear above or below the indented text. They may contain opinions, interpretations, or explanations of the facts. if you're in a hurry, or uninterested in our comments, you can skip them.entirely and just read the facts. second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 2 — Terminology Some of the phrases and abbreviations we use may be unfamiliar, especially to people outside the United States, so here's a brief explanation of them. SHS, ETS -Common abbreviations for Second Hand Smoke and Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Both terms mean the same thing and are interchangeable.The term ETS is preferred in most scientific journals and studies, while SHS is more common everywhere else. EPA-The Environmental Protection Agency, a US government agency. CDC - The Center for Disease Control, a US government agency. WHO -The World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations IARC-The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization. CRS -The Congressional Research Service.The CRS is a research service provided to members of congress. Epidemiology -A crude science used, and often misused, to gather information on health trends. Statistics -The collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. You'll need to know the basics of this science before you can determine the validity of most medical studies. Fortunately, we've provided a couple of lessons that will let you debunk(or confirm) studies like an expert. Note: The terms "Statistics" and Epidemiology" are often used interchangeably, including in a few places on this site.This is technically incorrect. as they are two different things, but such usage is common. Nannies - Busybody activists_. On this site it will usually refer to anti-tobacco activists, but it describes anyone who thinks they should be able to tell other adults how to live. It includes the militantly anti-booze and anti-meat and anti-fat and anti-SUVs and anti-anything-else- they-see-someone-else-enjoying. Misc. This site is designed as a starting point for your research, not an ending point. If you spend some time here you'll understand statistics well enough to do your own research and draw your own conclusions. If you use the opportunity, not just on smoking issues but on any statistical claims,you'll be absolutely amazed at how much bogus information is being fled to the public. Although I retain copyright to these pages, anyone may use the text here, in whole or In part, however they like, with just one restriction: It can't be sold. Anyone who stands up to the nicotine nanny's propaganda is automatically branded, by them, as a front for big tobacco. It is one of their favorite and most common lies.This site has never had any affiliation with big tobacco, whom I despise. I've never received any money from any tobacco company for anything. However, many years ago, I sent in a bunch of Marlboro UPCs and they sent me a T-shirt. It had a picture of a cowboy on it. O 2000-2008 Dave Hitt Permission Is granted to use this Information,In whole or In part,however you like. Attribution and links are appreciated but not required. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 3 The EPA Report: http://www.davehittcom/facts/epa.html In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke.The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen. Note: Although the official date of this report is December, 1992, it is commonly referred to as the EPA '93 study, probably because it became widely available in '93. This was, and remains, a powerful weapon in the and-smokers arsenal. If a smoker is only hurting himself, he can argue that it's no one else's business. But if he is hurting everyone around him,all kinds of restrictive legislation can be justified. Did this study show SHS is deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully. Fact In 1992 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year. Fact ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS).The two terms are interchangeable. After reading each of the following facts,ask yourself"Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible? Fact The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished. Fact The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies. Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably. The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word "study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report. Fact The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies.The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates. Fact The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30. Fact On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day." Fact Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.) Fact In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report. The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and conclusions. Fact According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 4 — control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies.° Questionnaires can be notoriously inaccurate, as discussed in Statistics 102, but in this case some of them were not even filled out by the people being studied, but by"surrogates." in other words,some of the information was unverified hearsay. Fact On page 23 of the study, paragraph 3, the CRS noted that out of 30 studies, only five found a statistically significant risk at the 95% confidence level, and one showed a statistically significant negative risk(a protective effect).The remaining 24 studies showed no statistically significant increase or decrease in risk Fact Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study.The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat Fact The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk.The CRS report referred to it as °a positive risk that was barely statistically significant° (p. 25) Fact The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed "no risk at all.° (p.25) Fact The °scientists°who conducted the.Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years.They were finally forted to when Philip Monis won a lawsuit to gain access to it Most researchers routinely make their raw data available atter studies have been published. Does Fontham's refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible? Fact The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies.The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level. Fact Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they changed the Cl to 90%, which, in effect, doubled their margin of error. Fact Worth Repeating: Instead of using the 95% confidence interval, the statistical standard that has been used for decades,the.EPA doubled their margin of error to achieve their pre- announced results. Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion? Fact After juggling the numbers,The ERA came up with an RR(Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means: • Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%. • Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119. Fact A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an unimportant result An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Statistics 101 for more details.) This rule Is routinely ignored when the subject Is second hand smoke. Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data.The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 5 — Fact:Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification. Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study-declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long. Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked' its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta-analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines." Fact Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA's methodology. In his judgment he stated: °The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it dear that using standard methodology. EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95%confidence level included relative risks_ of i. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%.This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First,with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer.° Fact:The following is another direct quote from judge Osteen's decision: °In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines;failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. ERA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative recons. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then daimed the weight of the Agencys research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen." Most of the media Ignored the judge's decision. When confronted with this decision, many anti-tobacco activists and organizations harp on the fact that judge Osteen lives in South Carolina.The obvious implication is that he's influenced by the tobacco industry in his state. It may also be an appeal to the °stupid southerner° stereotype. Fact judge Osteen has a history of siding with the government on tobacco cases. Fact. In 1997 Judge Osteen ruled the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco. So much for his alleged bias. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 6 — Fact:Although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate. Fact Anyone referring to EPA classifying ETS as a Gass A carcinogen is referring to this study. Opinion: You should seriously question the credibility of anyone who refers to this study, or any of the conclusions that it reached, as if they were facts.That includes everyone who refers to the EPA's ruling that ETS is a Class A Carcinogen. Once they do,every subsequent statement they make should be considered highly suspicious until it is thoroughly verified. Fact Most of the information on this page was gleaned from Judge Osteen's 92 page decision, the CRS report, and the EPA's study. Fact The EPA fought to have Osteen's decision overturned on technical grounds.They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities.The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen's court did not. have jurisdiction. Fact In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism on the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by judge Osteen. Not one. You are strongly encouraged to read these documents yourself. You can find the judge's entire decision here.The CRS report is available here.The EPA report over six hundred pages long, and we recommend you order a hard copy. It is available to US citizens at no charge. Call (800) 438-4318 and ask for document EPA/600/6-90/006F The title of the report is °Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.° It is also available as online as a Of file. Note: this is a four megabyte file. Fact Carol Browner,the former head of the EPA, still insists that this study is valid! More Information: The Smokers Club Inc. has complied a wealth of articles about this study and other shenanigans by the EPA. Enough facts,already. Now for some opinions: Sidney Zion, in the New York Daily News The LA Times on the EPA's agenda O 2000-2008 Dave Hitt Perrnlsslon Is granted to use this Information,In whole or In part,however you like. Attribution and Links are appreciated but not required. Home I contact us The Who Study: http://www.davehitt.comffacts/who.htmi The World Health Organization's first study on SHS is a textbook example of the right way to conduct an epidemiological study. Unfortunately for them, it yielded unexpected results.They responded by doing a second one, a meta-analysis, that allowed them to extract the results they wanted.This is an analysis of their first study. Fact The World Health Organization conducted a study of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) and lung cancer in Europe. Fact ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable. Fact This was a case control study using a large sample size. Second-hand smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 7 — Fact The purpose of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of risk, to discover any differences between different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different types of lung cancer. Fact The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years. Fact: The participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects. Patients with smoking related diseases were excluded from the control group. None of the subjects in either group had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. Fact Three of the study centers interviewed family members of the participants to confirm the subjects were not smokers. Fact The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers. Fact The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers. Fact:The study found a Relative Risk(RR)for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CO of.93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means • Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%. • Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116. -But- Because the Confidence Interval includes 1.0,The Relative Risk of 1.16 number is not statistically significant. Fact The real RR can be any number within the Cl.The Cl includes 1.0, meaning that the real number could be no increase at all. It also includes numbers below 1.0, which would indicate a protective effect. This means that the RR of 1.16 is not statistically significant Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually not considered important and, most likely to be due to error or bias.An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Statistics 101 for more details.) This rule of thumb is routinely ignored by the anti-smoker activists. Fact The study found no Dose/Response relationship for spousal ETS exposure.. See Statistics 102 for more information. Fact:The RR for workplace ETS was 1.17 with a Cl of.94 - 1.45,well below the preferred 2.0 - 3.0, and with another Cl that straddled 1.0. Fact: The RR for exposure from both a smoking spouse and a smoky workplace was 1.14,with a CI of.88 - 1.47. Fact:The RR for exposure during childhood was 0.78, with a Cl of.64- .96.This indicates a protective effect! Children exposed to ETS in the home during childhood are 22% less likely to get lung cancer, according to this study. Note that this was the only result in the study that did not include 1.0 in the Cl. The WHO quickly buried the report.The British press got wind of it and hounded them for weeks. Second-hand Smoke Reports horn Dave Hitt web site — a — Fact On March 8, 1998, the British newspaper The.Telegraph reported "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect." Rnally,the WHO issued a press release. Although their study showed no statistically significant risk from ETS, their press release had the misleading headline "Passive Smoking Does Cause lung Cancer- Do Not Let Them Fool You." (I say "misleading" because it would be impolite to call it an outright lie.) F®ct In paragraph four they admitted the facts: "The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among nonsmoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant." (Emphasis added.) Fact The press release doesn't mention the one statistically significant result from the study, that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely tD get lung cancer. Fact The WHO tried to blame the results on a small sample size. However, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, where the results were published, the researchers clearly state: "An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its size, which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical precision:..° It should also be noted that the most likely effect of a larger sample size wouldn't be a large change to the RR, but a narrowed Cl. More Information: An abstract of the study is available here.The entire study can be found here. (.pdf file) The WHO's press release is located here. This article,from the British Wall Street journal,discusses this study and the EPA study. FORCES has lots of links to articles and editorials on this subject O 2000-2006 Dave Hitt Permission is granted to use this Information,in whole or In part,however you like. Attribution and Unks are appreciated but not required. .............. —..... — Smoking Out Bad Science: httpa/www.junksdence.com/news/euwsiets.htm By Lorraine Mooney Copyright 1998 Dow Jones&Co., Inc. Wall Street Joumal-European Edition(March 12, 1998) For the past 15 years the anti-smoking lobby has pushed the view that cigarette smoking is a public health hazard.This was a shrewd tactic. For having failed to persuade committed smokers to save themselves, finding proof that passive smoking harmed non-smoking wives, children or workmates meant smoking could be criminalized. Last week the science fell off the campaign wagon when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. But don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. smoking, like fox hunting, is something that certain factions want to ban simply because they don't like it It has slipped from a health crusade tD a moral one.Today, National No smoking Day in Britain will be marked by demagoguery from the Department of Health, which has already set its agenda to ban smoking.The U.K. Scientific Committee on Tobacco or Health (SCOTH) report on passive smoking, due out Thursday, is headed by a known anti-tobacco crusader, Professor Nicholas Wald of the Royal London School of Medicine. Secondhand smoke Reports from Dave Hkt web site — 9 However, it is now obvious that the health hazard of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been knowingly overstated.The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer(IARC). It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries.The results were expressed as °risk ratios,°where the normal risk for a non-smoker of contracting lung cancer is set at one. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16 and to smoke in the workplace to 1.17.This supposedly represents a 16% or 17%increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide-0.93 to 1.44—that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit. This is what anyone with common sense might have expected. After all, the dose makes the poison. But in 1988, IARC decreed mainstream tobacco smoke as a carcinogen,fully expecting that the second-hand product would have a similar, lower effect which would be capable of measurement by linear extrapolation. In anticipation of confirmation of this belief many countries have been adopting anti-smoking policies in the name of public health.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confidently stated that 3,000 Americans die annually from inhaling environmental tobacco smoke,and the state of California leads the pack with a total smoking ban in all public places enacted on Jan. 1, 1998.Although Iran did enact such a ban in 1996, this was overturned as unconstitutional.The Indian city of Delhi has a smoking ban and Britain is working toward one. Before the IARC study, no other reliable study on ETS was available. For the effect of the modestly increased risk of ETS to be detected,the number of cases in the study must be very high in order to distinguish the effect from other background noise. Acting in the most unscientific manner, the U.S. EPA decided to pool results of 11 studies, 10 of which were individually non- significant, to arrive at a risk ratio of 1.19. As is always a problem with this kind of meta-analysis, the studies were all different from each other in various ways so that they were not measuring the same thing. Last October, the British Medical Journal ran the results of a similarly flawed study by SCOTH's Mr. Wald claiming an increased risk of lung cancer from ETS of 26%. It was supported by an editorial and timed to coincide with noise from the anti-smoking lobby and a Department of Health press release, talking of"shocking" figures and alluding to innocent victims.The Wald report has been dismissed as a "statistical trick" by Robert Nilsson, a senior toxicologist at the Swedish National Chemicals Inspectorate and a professor of toxicology at Stockholm University. He says that there are so many unacknowledged biases in Mr. Wald's analysis that the alleged risk figure is meaningless. For example. Mr. Wald relies on data from the memories of spouses as to how much their dead partner used to smoke. Survey bias is often considerable, potentially far higher than the 26%estimate of increased risk, but this is not even mentioned by the authors. Mr. Nilsson also explains that Mr. Wald's meta-analysis has pooled data from non-comparable studies. His most stinging criticism is aimed at the BMJ editorial board, who he considers must be "innocent of epidemiology"to have allowed publication of the Wald paper in its existing form. Nevertheless the U.K. SCOTH inquiry into ETS due to report on Thursday, with Mr. Wald at the helm, will probably ignore the flaws of the Wald study and brand ETS a killer. New Labour has done a U-turn on fox hunting. Will it do one on Thursday when SCOTH reports? Or will it ignore the best evidence and press on with public smoking bans? My guess is that two climbdowns in a month is one too many. It will remind us all this week that smoking is bad for you and eventually ban it in public-. Ms.Mooney Is medical demographer for the Cambridge-based European Science and Environment Forum. Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author. Copyright O 1998 Steven J.Milloy.All rights nerved. Site developed and hosted by Westlake Solutions,Inc. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt website — 10 — FORCES- Evidence by topic - Back to: Proving the lies of the anti-tobacco cartel:The Evidence Related Tbplcs: THE EPA ETS FRAUD THE PASSIVE SMOKE WHOPPER MORE EVIDENCE ON SECOND HAND SMOKE THE U.S.-CONTROLLED WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION HAS WITHHELD THE TRUTH FROM THE WORLD TO FURTHER ITS LUCRATIVE AGENDA -ANTISMOKING CARTEL FRANTIC "PASSIVE SMOKING DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER- OFFICIAL" http./Avww.forres.org/artidestfilestpassivel.htm Finally, some truth is coming out on the secondhand smoke scam. An article in the Telegraph from the UX published on Sunday, March 8 breaks the news: "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect" UPDATE MAY 8, 1998: WHO'S "NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT"THEN This article published in the March-April issue of Free Choice,the bi-monthly publication of FOREST, the British pro-choice on smoking organization,describes the data manipulation and the political "memory losses"of the World Health Organization when their own major study on passive smoke failed to find any statistically significant link with lung cancer. It is amusing as well as painful to see that this Organization,onceresponsible for many benefits to humanity, has now become the marionette of the US-driven antismoking mafia. But we keep hoping that one day the antismoking gangsters will be made to pay dearly for the corruption they have brought to the scientific world as well. STUDY FINALLY AVAILABLE ON UNEI: CLICK HERE! ETS: THE DEFINITIVE WORD Lord Hams of High Cross comments on the findings (or should we say °non-findings?") of the WHO study. "In short, 'passive smoking' is a hoax inspired by anti-smoking pressure groups (ASH, etc), obligingly invented by militant medicos, and unwittingly spread by passive thinking! It is driven by familiar political imperatives and orchestrated by media scare stories. For all the effort to prove their point, the anti-smokers' ETS claims vanish in a puff of smoke." UPDATE APRIL 10, 1998: THE ANSWER OF FORCES TO THE MISLEADING ASH BRIEFING ON THE WHO STUDY In its effort m minimize the blow of the WHO study on passive smoking,ASH has published an °explanation" on their site which, in pure antismoking doctrine, is a distortion of facts. The irresponsible alteration of reality to pursue a political agenda is an earrnark of this organization, which through the decades has elevated misrepresentation to a fine art.The issue here is only one: THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT RISK IN THE INHALATION OF PASSIVE SMOKE. PERIOD. Because of that, legislation againstsmoking in public places is unjustified, contrary to the rights of citizens, and must be repealed. Moreover, the EPA and the enablers of public smoking prohibition must be investigated and convicted upon presentation of evidence of wrong doing and data falsification. Second-Nand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 11 -- Here we publish our answer. UPDATE APRIL 9, 1998: THE DATA THAT WENT UP IN SMOKE °After all, the WHO study casts doubt on the Environmental Protection Agency's "meta-analysis" that called passive smoke a carcinogen and led to personal injury lawsuits. In effect, WHO found that nonsmokers breathing in a smoke-filled room are at no greater risk of developing lung cancer than they are breathing in a clear room.° -We link with Steven Milloy's junk Science UPDATE MARCH 24, 1998: BAN ANTI-TOBACCO ACTMSTS 'When it comes to riding the coattails of junk science ... the anti-tobacco industry knows few peers,' notes Globe and Mail Report on Business columnist Terence Corcoran in his commentary on the World Health Organization IARC second-hand smoke study. And anti-tobacco has one of the oldest reasons in the world to keep on riding: "For governments collecting new taxes,for activists mounting campaigns,for agencies receiving state funding, for the US. lawyers collecting billions in contingency fees,tobacco has tamed into a river of gold paid for by taxes on smokers." UPDATE MARDI 19, 1998: PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER ATTEMPTS TO DENY WITHHOLDING FINDINGS, AND SPIN-DOCTORS THE CONCLUSIONS Desperation is the watchword as the health poobahs try to minimize the devastating impact of the latest ETS study. Witness this Spin Physician's attempt to bend the facts: °No increased risk was found for lung cancer in adults who were exposed to passive smoking during childhood but other studies have shown that passive smoking by children worsens asthma and may cause several disease conditions, including bronchitis and pneumonia," says Dr. Nicolas Gaudin, Public Relations Officer. And note that the 16-17% increase in risk claimed by Dr. Gaudin, even if true, is a ridiculously small increase in statistical risk. ... Sony guys, your lies still do not fly. Read the entire press release inside, and a short commentary by Carol Thompson. SMOKING OUT BAD SCIENCE The medical demographer for the Cambridge-based European Science and Environment Forum speaks out on the secondhand smoke study outrage °... it is now obvious that the health hazard of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been knowingly overstated.The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer(IARC). It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries.The results were expressed as °risk ratios,°where the normal risk for a non-smoker of contracting lung cancer is set at one. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16 and to smoke in the workplace to 1.17.This supposedly represents a 16%or 17%increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide—0.93 to 1.44—that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second- hand smoke a health benefit° We link to the junkscience website. UPDATE MARCH 17, 1998: ARTICLE FROM THE ECONOMIST: SMOKESCREENS Is the body that wiped out smallpox and has done so much to promote mass vaccination losing its way? In recent weeks the reputation of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has suffered a number of blows, as critics have accused it of bowing to political pressures rather than publishing unpalatable research findings.°These are the words of The Economist. Polite to put it mildly. But in the straight language of clarity, we may add that when an international organization is controlled by a nation, it has to sing the tune of the guy who issues the payroll. For a long time, the WHO has been a vehicle to propagate the US politics around the world.And we all know what the agenda of the White House is,and it cannot be farther from the truth when it comes to smoking.As far as The Economist stating that °smoking is the fastest growing killer after AIDS."the journalists of that paper need to be informed on how SAMMEC works, and then they would have another nice.scandal to talk about (Link to Steven Milloy's junk Science page) Secondfiand Smoke Reports from Dave Hili web site — 12 — ARTICLE FROM THE TELEGRAPH: NO 'SIGNIFICANT' RISK IN PASSIVE SMOKING °Leading cancer experts have conceded that the World Health Organisation's study of the link between passive smoking and lung cancer failed to find any statistically significant extra risk, as exclusively revealed by The Telegraph last week.The experts include Prof. Sir Richard Doll,the world's leading authority on the link between direct smoking and cancer,who said that the rejection was on the grounds that the results were simply yet more evidence of the kind produced by dozens of earlier studies, which have also usually failed to give conclusive results.° UPDATE MARCH 11, 1998: ANTISMOKING CARTEL SPEWS OUTRIGHT LIES IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO BALANCE THE BLOW The Ottawa Citizen publishes a rebuttal, the introduction of which is: "Activists, scientists united in opposition to controversial report- Experts have blasted a study purportedly from the World Health Association that suggests second-hand smoke does not cause lung cancer.°WHAT SCIENT15TS and EXPERTS, Ottawa Citizen?Are we talking about Mr. Sweanor, lawyer of the Nonsmokers Rights Association,the Canadian antismokers hate group?Or Mr. Repace, producer of junk science extraordinaire, who makes a living on mass-production of reshuffled studies? Come on! Is this science, or religion?Or is this ideology? Can we publish something honest about this issue, for a change? And by the way,the statement about the EPA: °...But of 30.st udies that had been done by 1992, 24 did [find a link with cancer]" is A PLAIN, OUTRIGHT LIE -(click here for reference). UPDATE MARCH 11, 1998: UN DEFENDS DANGERS OF PASSIVE SMOKE RED ALERTI An uncorrupted study has leaked out of the information control system! Quick, perform damage control I "Passive smoking does cause cancer. Do not let them fool you," the WHO says with grave paternalism. But even in the most tight criminal organization information eventually leaks out, or somebody turns stool pigeon. It is interesting to see how the media in general still try to keep this information from the public. Even though slowly, public opinion is starting to tum on this issue,and the dam erected to contain the lies is beginning to overflow. THE FORCES CANADA PRESS RELEASE "We have said for the longest time that the dangers of secondhand smoke are a hoax designed for political purposes. Now,finally some of the evidence about this mountain of exaggerations and unfounded allegations about ETS is making it through to the press." Agendas: http://www davehitLcom/facts/agendas.html Everyone has an agenda. You must know the agenda of the person conducting a study and the organization that financed it to assess the value of the information they're presenting. Most people instinctively distrust anything from the tobacco industry. This makes sense, considering that Big Tobacco not only has an agenda of protecting themselves and promoting its product, but also a long history of presenting misleading information and outright lies. But these same people are often quite willing to blindly accept any numbers presented by government agencies or charity organizations, shrugging off their built in agendas or even denying that they exist Most government agencies have a published agenda, a purpose that is stated up front But they also have another agenda -the desire to increase their funding and their influence. More influence brings in more money, more money brings in a bigger staff, nicer offices, and the ability to pass more rules and regulations,which increases their influence and justifies more funding, and on and on until a huge bureaucracy is created, then expanded. (Have you ever seen any government agency release a report that would reduce an agency's size or power?) The goal of increasing funding and power has led many government agencies to commit fraud on levels that would land the officers of private companies in jail, or at least in the unemployment office. We provide a concrete example of that on this site. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 13 — Charities also have agendas beyond their stated causes.They need to bring in increasing contributions to prosper, and are in direct competition with every other charity trying to do the same thing. Fear brings in the bucks better than anything else.The odds of a woman getting breast cancer in any given year is greater than one in a thousand, but you'll never hear that from a charity cartel, because it would generate yawns. Instead they announce that breast cancer will strike one out of every nine women,which generates massive contributions. Never mind that the number is based on a study of elderly women, and is completely inaccurate when applied to the general population-the important thing is to raise awareness and, of course, money. Facts aren't nearly as important, especially inconvenient facts. Sometimes it takes a bit of digging to discover agendas. For instance, I once had a long, detailed e-mail conversation with a medical student about a study of the effects of SHS on children. He sent me a copy of the entire study, which I proceeded to pick apart without too much trouble. It was a meta study,and deeply flawed, but I didn't pay much attention to either the doctor who conducted it or the organization that financed it 1 visited the web site of the financing organization,the Robert Wood Johnson foundation, and saw that they have an anti-tobacco agenda, but they weren't very specific about it and it didn't appear to be too extreme. But a few days later; while researching a related subject I learned that they had donated ten million dollars to eighteen states to lobby for higher tobacco taxes in 1995, the year before the study was published. I then discovered they've spent over 100 million dollars on anti-tobacco programs and studies.The source of their funds is five billion (yes billion) dollars worth of Johnson and Johnson stock. Every time someone buys one of J&Js patches, inhalers, nicotine gum, etc., it literally puts money in their pocket Suddenly, their position of as the sole financier of the report took on a much greater significance. A bit more digging revealed that Dr. DiFranza, the author of the report, had been an anti-smoking activist for at least six years before he wrote this study. He advocates taking custody away from smoking parents. Is it likely that a report created by a crusading anti-smoking activist and funded by an ardent anti-smoking organization might be just a little bit predisposed to finding that SHS was a horrible, deadly, evil thing? As you will learn on this site, second hand smoke is nota health issue. It never has been.The real agenda is to force smokers to quit by making it impossible for them to smoke anywhere. Read any article on smoking bans and they'll usually admit that somewhere toward the end.They'll say they're trying to °encourage° smokers to quit: but in reality they are trying to force them to by making it illegal for them to smoke anywhere. Consider this quote by one of the leaders of the anti-smoker movement:: "The next two obvious steps, already in progress, are restricting smoking on beaches, parks, lines, doorways...and then restricting it in homes, particularly where there are sensitive children.° -John Banzhaf, CBS Good Morning,April 22, 2001 Nannies take agenda hunting of their opponents to the extreme while completely ignoring the agendas of their supporters. ASH, Banzhafs group, is one of the.nastiest and most hateful anti. smoker groups out there. He advises his supporters to avoid arguing science and instead resort to personal attacks against those who dare to question their dogma, concentrating on their connections to supposedly untrustworthy organizations. No line is too tenuous when looking to discredit the opposition. An author who gets paid for an article in a magazine that takes tobacco ads is tainted.Anyone writing for a group that once took a contribution from a company that produces, among other things,tobacco, is an evil dupe of the tobacco industry and nothing they say can ever be believed. ASH conveniently ignores their own advice; considering their history of outright lies and falsifying of data. Nothing they say has any credibility. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 14 A presenters agenda doesn't necessarily mean the study is is worthless. (If that were the case, all studies would be worthless.) It simply means their bias should be considered when examining their presentation of the facts. Articles from Reason magazine,for instance, come with the built in bias that individuals should be free,and government should be as limited as possible. Americans for Non-smokers Rights will never publish information that contradicts their agenda. ASH seems to be devoted to harassing smokers for sport.They have refused to correct known errors on their site, and intentionally misrepresented the people involved in studies. My Agendas My bias and agendas should be obvious, but for the record let me state them up front I think adults should be able to make their own decisions, including decisions to do things that are risky or even downright stupid.They should also be allowed to choose pleasure over longevity without interference! I believe smoking!especially cigarettes, is risky behavior, although the risks have been wildly overstated. I believe there is no evidence of SHS harming bystanders, and created this site to back up that belief with cold, hard facts. It seems obvious to me that business owners should be allowed to make their own decisions about how to run their businesses with a minimum of government interference. This includes allowing behavior that others may not approve or may find offensive. On the issue of smoking,the maximum legal interference allowed should be a requirement that business post their policy dearly at their entrance, allowing all of their potential customers decide if they want to patronize them or not I've been fascinatled with science-since I was a little kid. A while ago I spent a couple of years working at one of the world's largest research and development centers.This gave me the opportunity to work with many of the most talented scientists in the world, and it only increased my respect for them and my fascination with science. My passion for real science makes my attacks against against junk science rather rabid. I find the continuing attacks on smokers and smoking a prefect microcosm of just about everything wrong with the United States: I • People unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions or decisions • Demands that stupidity be profitable • Insistence that life be risk free • People who willingly take a well known risk, then demand compensation if they get hurt • The deep dishonesty of spewing junk science to support an agenda • The eagerness of the government and charity organizations to create that junk science • The scientificilliteracy of the masses, which makes it easy for them to accept junk science • The endless greed of the US government • The endless greed of many US citizens • The unfathomable greed of lawyers • The incessant yammering of the sanctimonious nannies, who insist that they know what's best for everyone else Secand-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — IS — The worst of the bunch are the nannies. Their self-esteem depends on looking down on others and meddling in their lives. In the past such people resorted to racism and homophobia. Now that such attitudes are socially unacceptable they have chosen smokers (among others) to hate. I'll make no attempt to hide my contempt for them. I believe that truth, like beauty, is subjective and greatly tainted by personal viewpoints. When I tell you my wife is beautiful, that is the truth. If you disagree that doesn't make you a liar. Therefore, I don't claim that this site offers the truth, or The Truth. Instead, it offers facts; solid, verifiable facts. If you find any factual errors here please notify me immediately, and I'll correct them as soon as possible. Once you know the facts you can figure out the truth (or The Truth)for yourself. I have smoked cigarettes off and on for most of my adult life. I'd smoke a few years, quit for a few years,smoke for a few more, quit for a few more, etc. 1 didn't keep returning to the habit because of addiction, (all traces of physical need for nicotine are gone in a week or less) but because I really, really enjoy smoking.These days I smoke cigars and pipes. Neither are inhaled, fico they're not as risky as cigarettes, although, like every pleasure in life,they are not entirely risk I despise the major cigarette companies and have never worked for them in any manner.They have behaved irresponsibly for decades,first by lying to the public,then, more importantly, by refusing m stand up for their customers in the recent attacks against them. I encourage cigarette smokers to show their displeasure by rolling their own or buying generic brands from Indian Reservations. (This has the unfortunate side effect of reducing the cost of smoking by as much as 80%. but most smokers are willing to put up with that inconvenience.) No tobacco money is involved, in any way, with the production and maintenance of this site. It is funded solely by personal funds. (Web sites are cheap.) My agenda for creating this site is to help those who are fighting off the continued attack on smokers. Anyone who finds this information helpful is encouraged to use it Although.I retain the. copyright to everything here, you are free to use any and all text, charts, articles, and information however you wish, as long as you don't modify it in any way that would change the meaning. Crediting this site is appreciated, but not required. O 2000-2008 Dave Hitt Permission Is granted to use this Information.In whole or In part,however you like. Attribution and Unks are appreciated but not required. Studies on the Economic Effects of Bans: http-.//www.davehitLcom/facts/banstudies.htmir Anti-smoker activists claim smoking bans are good for business.They claim their studies prove it This page examines how they concoct their numbers. We won't be dissecting any one study, instead we'll give you the tools to pick apart any study funded by anti-smokers. Fact: All Bans are Not Created Equal. Nannies often point to California's ban to °prove° bans are good for business. According to state tax revenues, California's hospitably industry experienced a 5% increase in revenue the year after the ban was passed. Nannies ignore the fact the ban was imposed at.the peak of the most successful economic period in our country's history, when most other states were reporting 10-15% increases in the same venues. California's ban was quite different from most recently passed restrictions. The CA ban exempted owner-operated bars. (Some places made all their employees part owners to take advantage of this exemption. Some small taverns fired all their employees so they could qualify for the exemption) But the biggest difference between CA and other places where bans have killed Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 16 — business is the climate.The near perpetual summer of CA, combined with few restrictions on outdoor smoking, made it fairly easy for most taverns to provide an outdoor smoking area. In contrast, W state winters feature subzero wind-chills, and the NY law limits outdoor smoking to 25%of outdoor seating. It even makes it illegal to provide any kind of awning, umbrella, or cover for smokers. (How mean-spirited is that?) In areas where the bans are not strictly enforced, compliance with the law may be as low as 50%. Obviously,establishments that are not complying are not suffering because of the ban.They may even increase their business, as smokers will patronize their business instead of places that enforce the ban.The issue of compliance is ignored in these studies. Fact Bans affect some business much more than others. Obviously, a business that already prohibits smoking isn't going to be affected at all by a ban. These include delicatessens, bakeries,fastfood chains, and take out places.Take out places usually benefit from ban, because they are patronized by smokers who decide to stay home.Anti- smokers usually include these unaffected businesses in their studies. Smoking is less common among the wealthy, so bars and restaurants catering to an upscale crowd aren't nearly as affected as places with a working-class clientele. (Some taverns report 80-90%of their patrons are smokers.) Small town diners, where people like to hang around and chat atter a meal, are also hurt by bans. The economic differences between upscale and working class palaces gives the nanny's studies a particular advantage. If a small diner loses $200 dollars a day, it may represent a 50% loss for their business,while an upscale restaurant can make up that difference with a single meal. Facie Studies funded by anti-smoker groups usually include places that are not at all affected by bars, as well as those where the effect is minimal. The most important part of any hospitality business is location, location, location. When the smoking ban was issued in New York, bars near the borders of smoker-friendly states saw their smoking customers, along with the smokers non-smoking friends, make the short trip to New Jersey or Pennsylvania so they could enjoy themselves without being harassed. Border bars in those states are reporting record profits, while many NY taverns near the border dosed down for lack of customers. Bingo Halls usually report losses of 50% or more due to bans. Many have dosed. Bingo is a very social game. Poeople go there to hang out with their friends as much as they do to play the game. Many patrons simply don't go if they can't smoke. As a result, charities depending on bingo profits have to cut back on services, and sometimes eliminate them completely. Referring to the effect of smoking bans, Dan Plonka of Bingo Caller Magazine said, "Some organizations have completely lost every single penny of profit—their losses have been over 100 percent Other organizations are down about 10 to 15 percent; most are down about 50 percent of the profits.° Don't look for bingo halls in the anti-smoker studies -you won't find them. Bowling alleys are also ignored in most of these studies.They have a unique problem -shoes. A smoker can't just step outside for a smoke while wearing bowling shoes.They'd have to change their shoes twice each time they wanted a cigarette. Most of them won't bother. Laurel Bowl, in San Luis Obispo, CA, had been successful for thirty-four years before California's statewide ban. Three Hundred and Eighty-five league bowlers quit because of the ban, which cost the business $200,000 in annual revenues. The place struggled along for another year, then closed it's doors. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 17 — Distributors, those who supply been and liquor to bars and restaurants,often report severe losses.They, too, are ignored in studies. Pool Halls don't usually serve much food or alcohol.They're left out of most studies as well, even though their losses are usually severe. Business that sell and service air cleaning units are affected. If there are no smokers, there's no reason to buy an air cleaner. If the bar has already purchased one,there's no need to tum it on, or to have the filter changed. Business that market and maintain vending machines in taverns are.also affected. Pool tables, dart machines,juke boxes and video games, and,of course, cigarette machines, experience a decrease in business in direct proportion to the decrease in the establishment's customers. Fact: I've examined many studies by funded by anti-smoker groups. Every one completely ignored bowling alleys, pool halls, bingo parlors,and other businesses that are heavily impacted by bans. Virtually all of the studies on economic impact have been.conducted by anti-smoker groups, or govemments justifying their laws. But in 2004 The Empire State Restaurant and Tavem Association funded a study that was conducted by Ridgewood Economic Associates. It concentrated on small, independent tavems.They found that bars and taverns in the state have lost about 2,000 jobs, $28.5 million in salary payments and $37 million In gross state product. The response of the anti-smoker groups was predictable: they claimed that The Empire State Restaurant and Tavem Association was a front for the tobacco industry. This is a blatant lie. Fact: Studies funded by anti-smoker groups achieve their numbers by * Including many business which are not affected by bans * Under-representing business that are the most impacted by bans. * Excluding many of the business that are most devastated by the bans (Bingo Halls, Pool Rooms, Bowling Alleys, Distributors, etc.) * Ignoring the issue of compliance. Recently the anti's began touting a study conducted by Tobacco Control. It is a meta-analysis, (the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate,) studying studies about the economic impact of bans. They conclude only studies funded by tobacco companies show harm to business.The_flip side, of course, is that only studies funded by anti-smoker organizations show bans are good for business.To put it more succinctly,the results of studies of the economic effects of bans reflect the agendas of those funding the studies. Surprise, surprise. In dosing,we offer a question to anyone supporting bans.The bar and restaurant business is fiercely competitive, and the people running venues are smart enough to do everything they can to increase their bottom line. If banning smoking really were good for their business, wouldn't they have discovered it by now, and wouldn't that make laws mandating bans unnecessary? Additional Information: Economic Losses Due to Smoking Bans in California and Other States. An honest look at the real numbers. O 2000-2008 Dave Hitt Permission Is granted to use this information,In whole or In part,however you like. Attribution and Links are appreciated but not required. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web she — 18 — ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES http:/Avww.smokefsdubinc.com/economic.hbrni By David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden Background: Many studies have been published purporting to prove smoking bans in bars and restaurants are either good or neutral for business, and conflicting studies have also been published purporting to prove bans are bad for business. Scollo, Lal, Hyland and Glantz recently summarized many of these studies, concluding those which find no economic impact are published in the peer- reviewed scientific literature and funded by "objective" antitobacco interests, while those that do find bans hurt business are funded almost universally by Big Tobacco or its allies.Tobacco Control, 2003;12:13-20. However, the objeetivlty of those who publish studies finding smoking bans don't hurt business Is also questioned because they are funded by groups with clear and open objectives of promoting smoking bans. One common problem with many studies of smoking bans is that the time-span studied before and after a ban goes into effect is too small to accurately measure the ultimate impact of such bans. For example, long before state bans go into effect, many local governments have passed bans that affect business, and long before local governments pass bans many restaurants voluntarily ban smoking. For example, we obtained a copy of Califomia Smoke Free Cities Bulletin, October, 1993 which was developed with the support of the California Department of Health Services. The"Fact Sheet' summarizes that by the publication date, 8,668,235 Californians, or 27% of the population lived in an area whose local government had a 100% ban on smoking in restaurants. Further, 62 cities and nine counties had ordinances requiring 100% smoke-free restaurants, and 295 cities had ordinances restricting smoking. In addition, many more restaurants had voluntarily banned smoking in areas not covered by an ordinance. Long before the state restaurant smoking ban took effect; in 1995, many Californians did not have the option of dining in a smoking environment. Therefore, in this example, we would expect til California bar and restaurant revenue to decline years before the state ban took effect,and studies which typically only measured data collected one year before that state ban would not have measured the entire economic impact of the loss of smoking accommodations in California's restaurants. After a ban goes into effect, some establishments violate bans, others find ways to skirt bans, and some establishments are granted exemptions. Sometimes, bans are not immediately enforced by public officials. Some establishments raise prices to offset lost business which can temporarily mask the revenue effects of bans, and some smokers continue to patronize affected establishments until they adopt other socializing habits that don't involve patronizing the affected establishments. For these reasons, measurements of the economic impact of smoking bans must also consider that some smoking accommodations can remain available after smoking bans take effect, and data must be collected longer than the one year after a ban takes effect in order bD accurately measure the effect of a ban. We further question why studies on both sides of the issue most often utilize data related to sales tax revenues collected from bars and restaurants, or employment data of those workers who work in bars and restaurants. We agree such data would be useful if the studies were exploring the relationship between smoking bans and tax revenues collected by various taxing authorities, or if they were exploring the relationship between smoking bans and employment in bars and restaurants. Very few studies actually utilize data of gross sales received by bars and restaurants In business before and after bans take place, which would r naturally, be of most concern to those who own bars and restaurants. One recent claim even capitalized on the 9-11 disaster in New Nbrk City to "prove" bans don't hurt business. It claimed the city's March 2003 ban was good for business because the city's "bars and restaurants paid the city 12% more tax revenues in the first six months after the smoke-free Second4mnd Smokes Reports from Dave HIM web site — 19 — law took effect than during the same period in 2002." Flyer. SMOKE-FREE LAWS DO NOT HARM BUSINESS ATRES7AURANTSAND BARS, Campaign for Tobacco-Free IGds 14001 St. Suite 1200, Washington DC.The same period they refer to in 2002 was from March 2002 to September 2002, when many Wall Street businesses were operating in New Jersey due to the disruptive clean-up of the World Trade center site, and tourists were avoiding NYC, many fearing another possible attack. Mayor Guiliani appeared on television and asked nonessential personnel to avoid the area. Estimates were publicized in the media that the 9-11 disaster cost NYC in excess of$50 billion in business, in late 2001 and 2002; much, certainly was lost by bar and restaurant businesses situated near the attack site. In 2003,Wall Street businesses, residents,and tourists returned to NYC and comparing 2002 to 2003, ban or no ban, cannot be valid without controlling for the effects of the attack. Those who conduct these studies should rely on long term total bar and restaurant revenue data because they are a direct measurement of how much money was spent by customers in bars and restaurants,and such data are readily available from the U.S. Dept of Commerce. Comparing these revenues to total retail trade data controls for the spending power of the public, as evidenced by the data from the other retail sectors. For example, if a recession occurs at the same time as a ban takes effect a researcher can adjust retail bar and restaurant revenue data for the effects of the recession using total retail sales numbers. During the period from 1990 to 1998,The U.S. Dept. of Commerce published such data through the Census Bureau's annual periodical Statistical Abstracts of the United States. These editions are available in the reference sections of better libraries, because these references are considered to contain the best data available.These data we will utilize are also available on the web, at www.census.gov. During this period,the Dept. of Commerce reported data using the Standard Industrial Classification code to define bars and restaurants. After 1998, the Dept of Commerce adopted the North American Industry Classification System and cautions comparisons witty the SIC system may not be valid .This is why we limit our analysis to the period 1990 to 1998.. States' Bar and Restaurant (Revenue Losses With Smoking Bans In 2000,the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research published a report classifying states as either smoker-friendly or smoker-unfriendly in terms of bar and restaurant smoking restrictions. A state was classified as smoker-unfriendly if bans had been imposed at the state level or if many local governments had severely restricted or eliminated smoking in bars and restaurants, even if the state had not www.caa.ct-gov/2000-fttfolr/htm/2000-rL-0890.htm These states are tabulated below, along with the United States, overall, as reported by the U.S. Dept of Commerce.All data are in billions of dollars and not inflation adjusted.The 1987 data are also included to demonstrate growth was occurring in all these states prior to 1990, before smoking bans were common. Atter 1990, local smoking bans began to take effect in California, and smoking restrictions began to take effect in the other states, so this is the period we have chosen for study. Table I Bar&Rest Bar&Rest Bar&Rest %growth Total Retail Total Retail %growth retai11987 retai11990 retaill998 1990-98 1990 1998 1990-98 CA 20.7 26.3 28.0 6.5 225 291 29 NY 10.8 13.1 13.8 5.3 124 148 19 MA 4.8 6.1 5.9 -3.3 50.7 62.6 23 VT 0.37 0.46 0.44 -4.3 4.5 6.0 33 UT** 0.78 0.94 2.1 123 10.6 19.3 82 USA 153 182 260 43 1807 2695 49 *USA- 116 135 210 56 1392 2168 1 56 Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 20 — *USA-is the USA data minus the data from CA, NY,MA,VT, and UT; or the total of the 45 smoker friendly states and D.C. **Utah had a 14%smoking rate in 1998, so the presence of a ban there would not affect business as much as states with higher smoking rates,which typically range from 22%to 29%. The USA experienced bar and restaurant revenue growth of 19%between 1987 and 1990 and USA-experienced growth of 16% in the same period indicating the not-yet smoker-unfriendly states contributed the extra +3%difference. Taken as combined data, bar and restaurant revenue growth in California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Utah exceeded the national trend. The USA experienced bar and restaurant revenue growth of 43% between 1990 and 1998 and USA-experienced growth of 56% in the same period indicating the now smoker unfriendly states contributed the loss of -13% difference.Taken as combined data, bar and restaurant revenue growth in California, New York, Massachusetts,Vermont, and Utah lagged the national trend from 1990 to 1998. Except for Utah,all the smoker unfriendly states' bar and restaurant revenue growth was substantially lower than total revenue growth. Since Utah had a 14% smoking rate in 1998, demand for smoking accommodations was too weak for a ban to have much of an effect. Utah also hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics, and by 1996, the economic impact of the preparations was already contributing to the local economy, and the workers would have dined out frequently since they were temporary residents. (www.olympic.utah.gov) In the other smoker unfriendly stages, bar and restaurant revenue growth under-performed total revenue growth on average about 25%, which is close to the average adult smoking rate of 21.7% in these states in 1998. We examined the complete US. Dept of Commerce data set referenced in the "background" section of this article and confirmed most of the individual states not considered smoker-unfriendly by the Connecticut research report fit the pattern of business growth similar to the USA-from 1990 W 1998. If California's bar and restaurant retail growth had kept up with the smoker-friendly states ( USA-) between 1990 and 1998, California's bar and restaurant revenue would have grown from $26.3 billion in 1990 to $41 billion in 1998. (26.3 X 1.56)This is a bar and restaurant revenue loss of$15 billion for 1998 alone. However,this trend had been going on for eight years, and interpolating a linear trend on the data,we find total revenue loss for the eight-year period is $60 billion dollars. (1/2 the base X the height) Bar and Restaurant Revenue Growth In Smoker-hiendly States The U.S. Center for Disease Control publishes MMWR,a weekly update of health-related reports throughout the United States. In the June 25, 1999, edition, they published a report summarizing smoke-free indoor air laws, and as of December 31,1998, 46 states and the District of Columbia restricted smoking to some extent, but Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina had no restrictions on smoking in any category including bars and restaurants. www.cdc-govftobacco/research-datEOegal_policy/ss48O3.pdf ; starts on page 24 In the same manner above, utilizing the same data resources, we have tabulated the most smoker-friendly states: all data in billions of dollars. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hit web site — 21 — Table 11 Bar& Rest Bar&Rest %growth Total Retail 1990 Total Retail 1998 %growth retail 1900 retail 1998 AL 2.2 33 50 26.4 39.9 51 KY 2.2 3.5 59 23.9 36.8 54 MS 1.1 1.6 45 13.8 20.8 51. NC 4.5 8.0 78 45.7 81.1 77 Ave 58 58 USA 182 260 43 1807 2695 49 USA- 135 210 56 .1392 2168 56 USA- 1 172 244 1 42 1 1697 2516 48% USA-is USA minus the smoker-unfriendly states from Table 1,for comparison. USA- is USA minus the.smoker-friendly states. The most smoker-friendly states' average growth in bar and restaurant revenues matched their average total retail revenue growth of 58%. The USA which do not contain data from the smoker- unfriendly states from Table I, also matched their bar and restaurant revenue growth with their total retail growth of 56%. However, USA, and USA- in Table II under-perform the smoker-friendly states because they contain the data from the smoker-unfriendly states.Thus far, the only states whose bar and restaurant revenue did not grow as fast as their total retail revenue are the states which were smoker unfriendly( except Utah), or total USA data and USA-which are terms which both included the smoker-unfriendly states. Most importantly,if claims were true that smoking bans are good for bar and restaurant business,then the lack of smoking bans should be bad for those businesses. However, we have found the lack of any smoking restriction or ban law does not adversely Influence bar and restaurant revenue growth when compared to the states with reasonable smoking restrictions. Considering the smoker-friendly states' bar and restaurant revenue growth data, we conclude that nonsmokers do not patronize bars and restaurants less often when state or local governments don't severely restrict or ban smoking. More than 70%of adults in these smoker friendly states do not smoke, but seem as willing as nonsmokers in states with moderate smoking restrictions to patronize bars and restaurants.The four most smoker-friendly states do not prohibit any individual bar or restaurant from banning smoking, if it is what the owner determines is best for business. It Is obvious our free-market economic system, without any smoking laws at all, and leaving the smoking policy decisions In control of the owner, works to satisfy all customers. Bar and Restaurant Revenue Growth In the Border States California is bordered by Arizona, Oregon and Nevada. All U.S. Dept of Commerce data are in billions of dollars. Table III Bar and Rest All retail except Bar and Rest B&R% All Retail except % growth retail 1990 Bar&Res, 1990 retail1998 growth Bar&Wes, 1998 CA 26.3 198.7 28.0 6.5 262.9 32.3 AZ 2.6 23.5 6.1 135 42.9 82.6 OR 2.4 20 3.1 29.2 34.6 73.0 NV 1.0 8.6 2.7 170 19.2 123 Second-hand Smoke.Reports from Dave Hitt web site - 22 - Smoker-friendly Arizona's bar and restaurant revenue growth exceeded its other retail growth by a margin of 135 : 83,Oregon's lagged 29 : 73, and Nevada's exceeded by 170 : 123. Averaging these margins, the combined three states' bar and restaurant revenue growth exceeded all other retail by a margin of 111 : 93. Califomia's other retail grew 32.3%from 1990 to 1998, and based on the smoker-friendly border states' average margin, California's bar and restaurant revenue growth should have been (111 divided by 93 times 32.3 =) 38.6% Since the actual growth was 6.5%, we attribute the difference of 32.1%to local and state smoking bans. If California's bar and restaurant margin-adjusted revenue growth had kept pace with its border states, Its bar and restaurant revenue for 1998 would have been $36.5 billion, or$8.5 billion more than it actually took in. Over the time span of 1990 to 1998, Califomia lost$34 billion based on (1/2 base X the height) calculations.This disagrees with our earlier estimate of$60 billion because these calculations take into account a slightly weaker overall economy in California than its border states. While directly comparable govemment tabulated figures do not exist for the years of 1999 to 2004, it would not be unreasonable to assume that these trends have continued and that California's smoking ban has cost the state's economy on the order of $75 to $100 billion since 1990. However,this calculation may underestimate California's bar and restaurant losses because they are calculated by comparing to Califomia's all retail except bar and restaurant growth which also would have been higher without smoking bans.This would happen if Cafifomia's bar and restaurant employees and owners also lost wage growth corresponding to the 25.8%difference between all retail except bar and restaurant revenue growth and bar and restaurant revenue growth.Therefore,those owners and employees would be 25.8% less able to contribute to all retail except bar and restaurant revenue growth than they otherwise would have been, and may have adversely affected total retail growth in addition to the $8.5 billion loss in 1998 directly attributable to the ban. In summary, Callfornia's smoking ban probably contributed to its overall economic problems since the late 1990s; beyond the direct Impact of the contribution of lower bar and restaurant total revenues. One should note earlier we found Califomia and other smoker unfriendly states lagged the national trend of bar and restaurant revenue growth between 1990 and 1998. As the combined data from Arizona,Oregon and Nevada deafly show, the aggregate of these other western states did not lag the national trend. Most of California's population lives too far from the borders for Califomia smokers to commute easily for the purposes of patronizing smoker-friendly establishments in those states. Therefore we do not believe these states benefited from Califomia's smoking ban. Lastly, the combination of lack of opportunity for California smokers to commute and the finding of California's under-performance in bar and restaurant revenue growth prove that when a "level playing field" environment is imposed, all bars and restaurants still lose business even in a state as large as California. It Is not possible to strap" smokers in a ban environment and expect them to patronize establishments subject to bans as much as they did before the bans were Imposed. The "playing field of a large scale smoking ban may be level but It Is far more of a level basin than a level plateau. Conclusions: Total bar and restaurant revenue growth in Califomia and other smoker-unfriendly states did not keep pace with those states' other retail businesses or our nation's overall bar and restaurant retail growth 80%of the time. The overall order of magnitude of the bar and restaurant retail growth losses in all smoker unfriendly states, except Utah, was about 25%. Bar and restaurant revenue growth in states with no smoking restrictions did as well as states with reasonable smoking restrictions. Claims the public demands smoking restrictions or eliminations, if true,would have caused states with no restrictions to lose bar and restaurant revenue growth relative to other retail revenue growth. Second-hand Smoke Reports from Dave Hitt web site — 23 — J There were no regional business conditions that could have explained the bar and restaurant revenue losses California experienced from 1990 to 1998. Although California's border states had overall retail revenue growth in excess of California's even after adjusting for the overall retail growth data.California's bar and restaurant businesses still lost growth than cannot be explained without considering the smoking bans. claims studies can only find smoking bans are bad for business when funded by Big Tobacco or its affiliates, or use anecdotal data are not true. We have shown smoidng bans hurt bar and restaurant businesses 80%of the time using data from the U.S. Dept of Commerce. Further, most studies which find bans don't hurt business are at odds with our conclusions because they use tax revenue and employment data to determine ban effiects; and fail to measure for a sufficient length of time before bans take effect and a sufficient length of time after bans take effect DISCLOSURES: The authors, used their own time and funds to research and prepare this article. Neither has any competing financial interest in this research or the outcome of this research. Dave Kuneman,who smokes,worked for 6 years in the 1980s as a research chemist for Seven-Up and still draws a small pension from that work. At the time of his employment Seven-Up was owned by Philip Moms. His current work and concern in this area has no connection to that employment Michael J. McFadden does not have any financial connections or obligations to Big Tobacco,Big Hospitality, Big Pharma,or other major players in this fight. He is a smoker,a member of several Free-Choice groups, and the author of Dissecting Antismokers'Brains and Stopping A Smoking Ban. March 2005 O Copyright 2005 The Smoker's dub,Inc.Please repost with link back to this original article. ............................. ..._ . ..._.-. . �.....�.. Second-hand Smoke Reports ftom Dave Hitt web site - 24 X COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE: SMOKING AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION, COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES http://www.forces.org/evidencelevid/compar.htm Return to FORCES International main page Double Standards: Diesel Vs. Secondhand Smoke- From the junkscience.com web site, more evidence of cognitive dissonance on air quality issues: How would Mr. Rogers put it? 'Can you say 'double-standard'?° http:/Avww.junkscience.com/news/diesel.htm Assessment of Volatile Hydrocarbons from Tbbac co Smoke and from Vehicle Emissions -A DIRECT MEASUREMENT study (no statistics)from Sweden.This one demonstrates that a person driving a car downtown is exposed to the same amounts of pollutants as being in a smoky cafe'... but kids are not forbidden from riding in cars! http:/twww.fbrces.org/evidence/files/suede.htm FORCES Evidence by topic-Back to: Proving the lies of the anti-tobacco cartel:The Evidence Introduction While the anti-smoking frenzy continues to oppress the liberties of citizens, more and more hard evidence surfaces to demonstrate the falsity of this movement As stated so many times in these pages, it is clear that the antismokers want us to believe that if we eliminate primary and second hand smoking, we will have removed a tremendous source of pollution and will have much cleaner air, thus an enormous reduction in respiratory disease. This is a lie, as we've repeatedly pointed out. Here is another piece of evidence which we would like to draw to our readers' attention. It is yet another testimony to the dishonesty and the stupidity of the antismokers' claims. The evidence in question is another study (what would contemporary life be without one every day?).This one is from Sweden, and it examines in detail emissions in a smoky bar versus emissions inside a car driving through traffic. If there is any bias in this study, it is not in the direction of any °smoking lobby° —the authors indulge in a little extra-scientific editorializing at the end and let out that they would support the prohibition of smoking in hospitals and in public places. Nevertheless, the study should raise serious questions in the minds of those who have been brainwashed into thinking that"smoking is killing° nonsmokers. The study reports direct measurement read-out from Instrnuments, as opposed to the usual interpolation of statistical data, (the latter which offers ample opportunity for free interpretation and manipulation). Unless one is able to prove that the methodology (or the instrumentation) is flawed, there is very little room for argument Such flaws do not appear to exist here, anyway. In what follows,we quote from the study and make our own comments on it(our comments are in italics). For those who want to look up the original study, here's the citation and the abstract journal of Chromatography, 643 (1993) 71-76 Elsevier Science Publisher B.V. Amsterdam CHROMSY MP. 2715 COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOICNG AS A.SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES-1 - r...r.►w.r..r�...rw..rr...rwrrw.n.......r.r w.�.......r.�......w.r.... ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT VOLATILE HYDROCARBONS FROM TOBACCO SMOKE AND FROM VEHICLE EMISSIONS Gunnar Barreford and Goran Petersson* Department of Chemical Environmental Science, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg (Sweden) ABSTRACT °Quantitative proportions of C2-C8 alkenes, alkynes, alkanes and arenes were determined for indoor smoky air and for air inside a private car. Samples were taken on adsorbent cartridges and analyzed by gas chromatography on an aluminum oxide column.The proportions of more than twenty reported alkenes, alkadienes and alkynes were demonstrated to be very similar in a smoky mom and in sidestream cigarette smoke. Isoprene, ethene and propene are major components. Urban air polluted by petrol-fuelled vehicles differs mainly by having much lower proportions of isoprene and much higher proportions of petrol alkanes and alkylbenzenes. The total concentration of C2-C8 hydrocarbons was found to be similar in a smoky room and in a car In urban traffic." Ouch!Is this ever a tight scientific language:.. It simply means that the pollutants emitted by argaiettes are basically the same to the ones emitted by motor vehides,just the proportions between the pollutant,change with thetype of emissions(smoke or car exhaust). Here are further excerpts from the sampling methodology: L• •I "Esperlmental samples of environmental tobacco smoke were taken on different occasions in Junggrens Cafe,located along the Parade Avenue in Gothenburg,and well known for its delicious sandwiches.The volume of the room is ca. 150 m3 and about ten smoking and ten non-smoking customers were present during sampling.The absence of prominent contributions from room-specific sources in the cafe was ascertained by comparisons with samples from other smoky indoor places and with background samples taken before the opening of the cafe." "Sidestream cigarette smoke was obtained by dropping a lit cigarette into a 100-mL glass vessel. Samples of gas were taken after 2 min.The volume of the glass vessel was not critical with respect to the resulting hydrocarbon composition.The commercial brands studied were Blend Ultima(Swedish)and Marlboro [ I "Samples were taken on two occasions during urban driving in Gothenburg from Chalmers University of Technology to the Central Railway Station and back again.The driving time of 20 mins.included 10-20 stops at traffic lights and intersections.The engine was warm from the start,the windows were closed„and the fan was set to intermediate speed.the ambient temperature was 10-20 C and the air was moderately turbulent " and: "Samples were taken on tKIPW-layer cartridges (glass, 150 mm.X 4 mm I.D.)with Tens TA(0.6 mL, 60/80 mesh,Chrompack)Carbotrmp (0.4 ml,40 mesh, Chrompack)and Carbosieve S-III(0.4 mi, 60/80 mesh„ Chrompack)as adsorbents.The sampling volumes were ca. 1 ml for sidestream smoke and— 500 ml for amblent ait The analytical separations were performed on a 50 in X.32 mm.LD.fused-silica PLOT column (Chrompack)with aluminum onde-5%potassium chloride as the stationary phase"[...I "Mass-spectra,total ion cbromatograms and sm9le•fon chromatograms were obtained from a Varian Saturn II ion trap mass COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIGNG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES—2— spectrometer, coupled to an aluminum oxide column in the GC unit. Gas samples of sidestream cigarette smoke were injected directly onto the GC-MS system without absorbent sampling.° Theirs great.. but what about the results in English? Here Is what the authors discovered: [•••l °The elevated concentration of isoprene in the car is likely to be explained by isoprene in exhaled air from the two persons in the car..The isoprene content in exhaled air may approach 1,000 micrograms/cubic meter[141. Differences in net human uptake between the hydrocarbons may also give rise to minor differences in concentrations.Thus benzene Is known to be excreted through breath to a greater extent than alkylbenzenes [15).9 Careful, now: this is a very dangerous statement. It is on the basis of statements like this that some B.C. or Califomian city council may decide to forbid breathing while driving If there are children in the car! Now, this Is really Interesting: 9n Table 11, exposure levels for selected hazardous hydrocarbons are compared.The recorded concentrations are of the same order of magnitude in the smoky room as in the private car during urban driving.The alkene levels tend to be highest for cigarette smoke and the arene levels tend to be highest for traffic pollution.The cafe' is regarded as being smokier than average cafes, but less smoky than many pubs. The lower in-vehicle level corresponds to moderate wind and traffic, whereas the upper level corresponds to weak wind and peak traffic.The upper in-vehicle concentrations were similar to those observed for volatile arenes in a recent study of hydrocarbons in commuter cars [16). The road tunnel concentrations correspond to peak traffic and are 5-10 times higher than the in-vehide levels.This is explained mainly by the limited dilution of the traffic emissions in the tunnel.° TABLE If -CONCENTRATION Wg/m3) OF HAZARDOUS HYDROCARBONS IN A SMOKY ROOM AS COMPARED WITH A PRIVATE CAR Cafe Cafe Car Car Tunnel April 15, 1992 May 12, 1992 Sept. 23, Sept. 24, Feb. 19, 1992 13:25 - 13:55 10:30 - 11:00 1992 1992 08:10 - 08:40 08:20 -08:40 07:50 -08:10 C2 C8 640 570 390 630 3600 ETHENE 56 42 18 30 280 PROPENE 73 . 37 9 15 100 BENZENE .30 38 37 55 330 METHYLBENZENE 53 40 62 110 630 PLEASE NOTE:Table I is not shown because it shows the long, itemized list of each single chemical component constituting the totals in Table 11. The itemized list of components is available upon request Comments From this study we can extrapolate a couple of important points: COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE SMOIaNG AS A SOURCE OF POLUmON,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES—3— FIGURE 1 CASE 1: ROOM WITH SINGLE MAIN AIR INTAKE 41-41 �--� - CASE 2: ROOM WITH MULTIPLE AIR INTAKES 1)There is basically.no difference between the air quality of a smoky cafe' or restaurant, and the air quality inside a car driving in any town, providing that you keep your windows closed, (otherwise it's worse[), and providing that the car does no go through a tunnel (in this case we have up to 10 times more emissions) 2)Since most restaurants are located in urban areas, and because of(1), the air artificially Circulated inside the restaurant ends up being of the same quality regardless of the smoking policy, given that there is appropriately designed ventilation. To demonstrate (2), consider Figure 1. It represents a downtown restaurant room with appropriate air circulation, let's say 1 cubic foot/minute per 5 cubic feet of room volume. Case 1 represents single main air intake, while Case 2 represents multiple air intakes[Le: fan(s),window(s), other door(s), etc.]The room is nonsmoking, and located in a downtown area. If the room is, say, 20,000 cubic feet, it will circulate about 4,000 cubic feet of polluted outside air per minute. While there is basically no difference between a car moving though polluted air, and a stationary room moving polluted air through it, it must be said, at this point, that even though the concentration of pollutants taken in by the restaurant is usually inferior to the concentration of pollutants in the car, the restaurant's ventilation system takes in a much larger volume of air. COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIONG AS A SOURCE OF POLUJTION.COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES-4- Moreover, the location of the restaurant is a determining factor in the concentration of air pollutants: a restaurant located at the regulated crossing of two main streets will be subject to much more pollution due to idling engines than a restaurant located on a secondary street Since Table 11 of the study indicates no substantial difference between a smoky cafe and a car in traffic. the logical conclusion is that you are inhaling the same amount of pollutants as if you were in the smoky cafe% Does that mean that if we smoke in the room we are adding pollution to the already polluted air? Not.really. Consider figure i again. It represents the same room, but here smoking is allowed in the smoking section.The smoking section is appropriately located downstream to the non-smoking section. If you observe the air circulation vectors, you see that the air stream carries the smoke away from the smoking area, without affecting the nonsmokers except—perhaps—in the border area. Only if the room is not appropriately ventilated there can be a transfer of smoky air from the smoking to the nonsmoking section. Case rested. More than any other consideration,this Study points out one undisputable realit)remissions are inescapable. If we want the benefits and comforts of modem civilizations, we have to pay the price.The schizophrenia comes in when we want one without the other, when we boast about liberty, and we deny the freedom of choice; when we twist facts and perceptions to the point that the offended becomes the offender, when we are talking about protecting children from 0.1 grams a day of second hand smoke, and we are exposing them to two pound a day of industrial and automotive pollution. At the end of it all, one comforting thought comes to mind: no matter how stupid and vitriolic the antismokers are; regardless of the lies, politics, corruption and manipulations of the antismoking campaign, one reality exists: We are all smokers, whether we like it, or not. REFERENCES 1 T6mquixt and L Ehrenberg IARC Scl.PubL,104(1990).277. 2 J.E. Huff. R.L. Melntdc,HA.Solleveld,J.K.Huseman,M.Powers and R.A.Miller,Science,227 (198S)548. 3 A Yardley-Jones,D..Anderson and D.V. Parke,Br.J.Ind.Med.,48(1991),437. 4 G.L6*od%R.M.Burton,L Forehand,S.K.Hammond,R.L.Sella,R.B.zwejdinger and J.Lewtas, Environ.Scl.Technical,23(1989),610. 5 G.Wrath,Muatlon Res.,222(1989)73. 6 C.C.Chan,H.Obcaynak,J.D.Spengler and L Sheldon,Environ.SCI.Technol.,25(1991)964. 7 G.Banrefors and G.Petersson,Chemosphere,25(1992)691. 8 L 1.09ren and G.Petersson,Chemosphere,24.(1992)135. 9 L L6fgren,P.M.Berglund,R.Nordlinder,G. Petersson and O. Rampas,Int.J. Envlron.Anal.chem.,45(1991)39. 10 D.L Heavner,M.W.Ogden and P.Nelson,Envinon.Scl.Technol.,26(1992) 1737. 11 D.J. Eatough, LD.Hansen and EA. Lewis, Environ.Technol.,11(1990)1071. 12 H.Elmenhorst and C.H. Schultz,Deltr.Tobuksfarsch,4(1968)90. 13 M.R.Guerin,C.E.Higgins and R.A Jenkins.Atmos. Environ.,21 (1987)291. 14 G. 1.6froth,Excerpts Med.htt Congr.Ser.,860(1989)147. COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOKING AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED wITH OTHER SOURCES—5— i 15 LA.Wallace,E.D. Pelliaarl,T.D. Hartwell,C.M.Sparaclno,LS.Sheldon and Zelon,Atmos. Environ.,19(1985)1651. 16 L Lftre I,rL Pin,A.M.StMmvall and G.Petersson,Sci.Total Envlron.,108(1991)225. 17 M. Mattson and G.Petersson,Int J.Environ,Anal,Chem.,11(1982)211. The B.C. AlrCare Report-DIRECT MEASUREMENT read-outs from BC AirCare laboratories Indicate that vehicular emissions 1995 in the Vancouver's Lower Mainland amount to 324,500 tons, or 2 pounds per person per day How does that compare with 0.5 millionth of a gram per cubic foot of Environmental Tobacco Smoke in a normally ventilated room? httir./Avww.fbrces-org/evidenceffiles/aircare.htm Forces International: Back to The evidence: (DOWNLOAD THE DOCUMENT IN PDF FORMAT) THE SC AIRCARE REPORT REFLECTIONS ON THE SCALE OF THE AUTO EMISSIONS PROBLEM (compared wtth clgarette pollution...) Preface The posting attached to this text file contains a study done by the Province of British Columbia entitled Technical Review of the AirCare Program: Program Year Three —September 1994 to August 1995. This is an interesting document containing what may be the first weighted emissions figures from °live° cars—that is,vehicles in daily use by members of the driving public—in the world. For those who are interested in the subject of emissions, I'd like to offer a few remarks of my own on the subject. My intent is to give readers who are not experts in this field a sense of the dimensions of the air pollution problem as it relates to internal combustion engines. I should emphasize at the outset that I had nothing to do with the creation of the AirCare study, and that although I refer to the study in the following remarks, my remarks and conclusions are strictly my own, and not those of the study or its authors. I am solely responsible for any errors in figures or calculations derived from information published in the AirCare study. I would urge you to -download a copy of the study and come to your own conclusions. A few qualifiers 10 The AirCare study- like any other emission study at this point in time -is not to be considered absolute or conclusive. The figures are indeed quite optimistic, if one considers that they are pertinent only to cars/light trucks, and do not take into account heavy trucks/buses, industrial pollution, stationary engines, airplanes, and many other contributors. It is quite conceivable that actual air pollution exceeds the study's figures by a factor of five or more. 2)The emissions reported in the AirCare study are pertinent only to engines that are already at full operating temperature, since the vehicles have to be driven to the inspection stations. Engines pollute much more during the cold phase. Please note that even the emission ratings of laboratories such as C.A.R.B. are not representative of°real world° operating conditions for vehicles.The universally accepted FTP75 test considers "cold" an engine at 23CI A large area of the North American continent has negative temperatures for 4-5 months a year, thus keeping engines in the cold phase for a much longer time, more often,than "accepted"tests reflect 3) Since the motorists in B.C.'s Lower Mainland are aware that they have to pass the yearly AirCare inspection in order to get insurance, they tend to tune up their vehicles before such COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIONG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES—6 — inspection. In all other areas where AirCare is not present, motorists tend to tune up their vehicles only when a tangible driveability problem occurs. Since emissions begin to increase long before any driveability symptom is evident, we can safely assume that in "non AirCare"areas (the rest of the continent), the emissions per vehicle are significantly higher. Please keep in mind that°slight" malfunctions of an ignition or fuel system increase emissions exponentially. One car with a fouled spark plug can pollute as much as 10-20 properly tuned cars. 4) So far,the only emissions measured by any laboratory are: Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrocarbons, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide—the last two being non-poisonous gases. Although present in much smaller quantities, more than one hundred additional substances are also combustion by-products of internal combustion engines. Some of these substances, like Benzene and Formaldehyde,are quite deadly. Analysis Let us now start our journey into the emission world... Let's jump into our(properly tuned up) smoking car, and brake at the first information pit-stop. At the AirCare Laboratory computers, we find that in the last year they sampled slightly over one million cars, to be exact, 1,002,566. Since we don't want to bust our brains with complex fractionary calculations, we will consider the amount to be a nice, round 1,000,000 vehicles. Let's not forget,folks, that these are real emissions, not theoretical, up-in-the-air estimatesl Metric Tonnes of pollutants per year per million vehicles Carbon Monoxide 280,000 Total Hydrocarbons (exhaust + evaporative)_27,500 Nitrogen Oxides 17,000 Total Weight of measured poisonous pollutants 324,500 metric tonnes per year WOWI1,.. STOP HEREI This means: * 889 metric tonnes per day, or *the payload of 17,078 dirt-filled dump trucks per year(one dump truck = 19 metric tons), or *in the Vancouver Area (about 2,000,000 people) 162 IGlograms per person each year (1 kilogram = 2.2 lb.). NOW CONSIDER... These figures are indeed quite optimistic. Consider that they are pertinent only to cars/light trucks, and do not take into account heavy trucks/buses, industrial pollution, stationary engines, airplanes, and many other contributors. It is quite conceivable that actual air pollution exceeds the study's figures by a factor of five or more. The emissions reported in the AirCare study are pertinent only to engines that are already at full operating temperature, since the vehicles have to be driven to the inspection stations. Engines pollute much more during the cold phase. Since the motorists in B.C.'s Lower Mainland are aware that they have to pass the yearly AirCare inspection in order to get insurance, they tend to tune up their vehicles before such inspection. in all other areas where AirCare is not present, motorists tend to tune up their vehicles only when a tangible driveability problem occurs. Keep in mind that"slight" malfunctions of an ignition or fuel system increase emissions exponentially. One car with a fouled spark plug can pollute as much as 10-20 properly tuned cars. COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE.,SMOKING AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED Wmi OTHER SOURCES-7- So far, the only emissions measured by any laboratory are: Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrocarbons, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide —the last two being non-poisonous gases, and not considered here. Although present in much smaller quantities, more than one hundred additional substances are also combustion by-products of internal combustion engines. Some of these. substances, like Benzene and Formaldehyde, are quite deadly. HOW BAD IS IT THEN? Much worse. If you want to light up,do so now, you might need one. Since we don't want to be too pessimistic, we will consider that reality is only 2.5 times the AirCare emissions.This means: *2,222 metric tonnes per day,or *the payload of 42,695 dirtfilled dump truck per year, or *405 Kilograms per person each year(Vancouver area) These figures assume more dramatic proportions when brought to a national scale. In the.United States,for example,there are about 180,000,000 vehicles. If we multiply the above figures (1,000,000 vehicles) times 180, we have: * 145,800,000 metric tonnes of pollutants per year, or *the payload of 7,673,682 dirt-filled dump trucks, or *399,450 tonnes per day, *560 Kilograms per person each year * 1,532 grams per person each day ...WOW AGAIN, BUT WHAT DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH MY SMOKES? Not much, really. It has to do with the air you breathe, and with the fact that everybody in the anti-smoking industry screams bloody murder at the smokers, instigating against them, while making money tD buy more cars,and smoking their way home! Why don't we see TV commercials brainwashing us on industrial pollution and Detroit's emissions? Let us express the above emissions in "cigarette pollution equivalent", or the amount of cigarettes it takes to equal the figures above. Come on guys, let's aerate our lungs, we have overtime work to do! The average cigarette contains about 12 mg of carbon monoxide and an equal amount of tar (hydrocarbon-like substance). It also contains about-1.2 mg of nicotine. Nicotine is not a component of internal combustion engine emissions, therefore it is difficult to properly locate in this comparison. However, since it is part ofcigarette emissions° we will be fair,and shall add it tD the total,which mounts now to 25.2 mg. This is the equivalent of- * f*5.78571428515 [to the 15th power] (57,500 billions) cigarettes each year * 7,358,400 cigarettes each U.S. square mile every year(including Alaska & Hawaii) *22 millions Cigarettes per person each year *20,160 cigarettes each U.S. square mile every day (including Alaska & Hawaii) * 157.5 billions cigarettes each day *60,875 cigarettes per person each day * 2,540 cigarettes per person each hour COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIGNG AS A SOURCE OF'PO11UT1ON,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES—a— C � *42.5 cigarettes per person each minute Gee guys, aren't you dead, yet? Don't die, because these are just national averages. We assume here that the pollution is equally distributed through the territory,that is, Uncle Joe's farm in Montana gets the same amount of pollution than LA.. Well, we all {mow that this is not true. In harmony with our optimistic nature, we will assume that the concentration of air pollutants in New Nbrk, Chicago,Toronto, or LA. is only 1.5 times the national average. OK you city dwelling, militant non-smokers, here is what your cars put in the air in your towns! Feel guilty, and think of it every time you gasp air to condemn us smokers! *33 millions cigarettes per person each year *91,300 cigarettes per person each day *3,810 cigarettes per person each hour. * 64 cigarettes per person each minute 'Ah!ff—the anti-smoker preacher says during retreat— °But.the emissions of cars are diluted in the air,whereas you filthy smokers make me breathe your emissions concentrated in a restaurantl° Wrong again, pal. While is true that Airfare measures car emissions with the probe stuck into the tailpipe of the car, it is also true that EPA measures secondhand smoke emissions with the probe stuck on the tip of the cigarette. In fact, with a bit of sensible ventilation, secondhand smoke ceases to be significantly measurable under real-life conditions. Apple to apple. The Aircraft Emission Study: Technical Data on Reducing Emissions for Commercial Aviation -The equivalent of the smoke of over 24,300,000 cigarettes is left behind each hour on the runway of the Vancouver airport by airplanes.The non-smoking Vancouver airport is ventilated with outside air. A reality that City Councils and antismoking physicians and crusaders simply prefer to ignore. http:1 www.fnrces.orgleviden...... airplane.htm Forces International: Back to The evidence: 747airjpg (10759 bytes) {DOWNLOAD THE STUDY IN PDF FORMAT} THE GREAT POLLUTERS We are willing to live with their pollution, but we can't smoke inside Airplanes are wonderful machines. Masterpieces of advanced engineering, airplanes are the realization of the greatest human dream: to fly. The immortal Leonardo Da Vinci dedicated a considerable part of his life to make this dream come true. His attempts failed mainly because he did not have a device capable of generating enough power to propel his machines:the engine. Thanks to airplanes, today our large planet has become a small place,for in a few hours we can accomplish journeys that would have taken months just a century ago. As in everything, however, there is a price to pay. In this case, pollution. It is ironic that there is so COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOKING AS A SOURCE OF POUAMON.COMPARED wrrH OTHER SOURCES-9- much emphasis on smoking inside airplanes and airports,while airlines conveniently forget to mention the airplane's contribution to environmental pollution. Most people are unaware of the level of pollution created by airplanes. Most likely, if they were, they still would be willing to pay the environmental price in exchange for the advantages of air travel. The point here is that airlines are unwilling to accommodate smokers,while dumping hundreds of millions of tons in the air that everybody breathes. No position could be more schizophrenic. Except that of governments, that is. NNNNYN NN NNYYYYYYY NYYYYYYYY NNNN NYNYYYNNNNNN Emission data from: TECHNICAL DATA TO SUPPORT FAA'S ADVISORY CIRCULAR ON REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL AVIATION Prepared for. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCIF MOTOR VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY Ann Arbor, Michigan in cooperation with: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. Prepared by. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC. Also enclosed: APPENDIX 1 • U.S. Commercial Service Airport Database. *Geographic Information -Aircraft Activity Data INTRODUCTION Before proceeding with the document, let us become familiar with the terminology used in the study, and put forward a few qualifiers. We have applied the figures of the study to Vancouver International Airport traffic statistics. Even though these statistics provide a breakdown of airplane categories (heavy, light, piston, etc.), the specific breakdown of aircraft model is not provided.Therefore, assumptions have to be made. We will be very conservative in our estimates. For example, there is a huge difference between the emissions of an older Boeing 747-200, and the emissions of a more modem 747-400.The 747-400 is cleaner than its predecessors by orders of magnitude.The same applies for lighter carriers-for example the McDonnell Douglas DC9-80. Nevertheless, we will assume that 50% of all the larger carriers of the heavy class are as clean as the 747-400, and the other 50% —the smaller carriers of the same class-are as dean as a DC9-80! Also, it has to be remembered that—as in automobiles —the aircraft emissions vary from unit to unit, depending on many factors such as age, payload, maintenance, etc. differently than antitobacco propaganda, we want to err on the side of caution- not exaggeration -when considering factors such as those mentioned above. Thus, this analysis is not meant to be precise but merely intends to point out the magnitude of airplane emissions with some meaningful figures for the layperson. The entire study from which these figures have been extrapolated is available for download above. What is an LTO? LTO is an acronym for Landing Take Off cycle. It represents the cycle an airplane goes through during landing and take off. Specifically- COMPARATIVE pecificallyCOMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIGNG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED Wmi OTHER SOURCES-10- *Taxi and idle-out *Takeoff *Taxi and idle-in *Climb-out *Approach Of those, the first three activities (taxi and idle-out, takeoff, and idle4n) are considered to be ground activities. The last two activities (climb-out and approach) are considered to be aloft activities up to 910 meters of altitude.To simplify the inventory process, a commonly accepted split of 50%-50% has been assumed between the ground-based emissions and aloft emissions. ANALYSIS The number of heavy passenger LTOs at the Vancouver International Airport in 1990 was 101,434. We report in the table below the complete list of LTOs divided by aircraft category. AIRPORT HEAVY I COMMER TURBOPROP GENERAL HELICOPTER GLIDER COMMER. TOTAL JET PISTON I I PISTON Vancouver Int 101434 2756 618 29805 336 1 0 1 23784 158733 As it can be seen, the total number of LTOs for all categories is much higher than the number of heavy passenger LTOs. For simplicity we leave to thereader the option of downloading the study to calculate the total emissions for himself, while we focus on the most popular category of airplanes. So, let us consider the LTO emissions of a Boeing 747-400 (engines: PW4056), and the emissions of a McDonnel Douglas DC9-80 (engines:JT80-217C) Manufacturer Aircraft Engine Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxide Hydrocarbons TOTAL (CO) (NOx) (HC) Boeing 747-400 PW4056 31.55 lbs 115.02 lbs 2.54 lbs 149.11 lbs McDonnell DC9-80 Jf80-217C 14.261bs 26.39 lbs 4.13 lbs 44.78 lbs Douglas AVERAGE LTO HEAVY CARRIER EMISSIONS: CARBON MONOXIDE (CO): 22.90 ibs-NITROGEN OXIDE (NOx): 70.70 lbs- HYDROCARBONS(HC): 3.34 lbs TOTAL MEASURED EMISSIONS: 96.94 lbs Since we want to concern ourselves mainly with the emissions of an airplane while it is on the ground (where the heaviest concentration of pollutants sit), it is necessary to further reduce these figures by 50% (see above), thus the totai measured ground emissions are about 48.5 lbs. This does not seem much, if we consider the size and the power of these carriers. However, let us now consider the daily number of LTOs at the Vancouver airport 101,434 : 365 = 278 daily LTOs Then let us multiply the daily LTOs by the emission weight: 278 x 48.5 = 13.883 Ibs per day ground emissions. Now it is time for some important consideration: *The airplanes considered above employ new, environmentally friendly technology. New airplanes are only a fraction of any fleet. *An older airplane emits over 2 times the amount of a new one (example: a 747-400 emits 149.11 lbs/LTO; a 747-200: 325.27 lbs) *Only ground emissions have been considered. A large part of the heavy end of the aloft emissions eventually fall on the airport grounds, and part of it gets into the buildings. COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:.SMOIGNG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED wrnl OTHER SOURCES— 11— * No other aircraft categories have been considered in the above simple calculation. *All the emission generated by ground support&service vehicles have not been considered. * Evaporative emissions of the raw fuel have not been considered. * Emissions from electric power production have not been considered. It is therefore quite reasonable to double the amount of these emissions and still end up being on the conservative side when considering the exposure to pollutants at this airport. This brings the total amount to about 9,8S5,000 LBS (49,275 TOMBS) PER YEAR. 27,000 19S (13.5 TONS) EACH DAY. 1,125 LBS PER HOUR Isn't it ironic that the °smoke-free°, "clean air" of the Vancouver Airport facilities is pumped in from this kind of outside environment? let us see now how many cigarettes per hour the figure above equates to: 241321,430 (This is based upon the assumption that all the 21 milligrams constituting the average emission of a cigarette are released in the atmosphere as opposed to being partially retained by the body, which is the case in real life.) Except for nicotine,the byproducts of after-combustion aircraft fuel and cigarettes are the same. The difference is one of scale -tons versus milligrams. We have often been asked: 'how many cigarettes equal the take off of an airplane? Let us say that the brand new, absolutely-smoke-free 747-400 leaves behind the equivalent of 3,224,000 cigarettes. The Exhaust Emissions Study- Read this analysis on the devastating amount of unregulated carcinogens and mutagens we breathe every day from motor vehicle exhaust No matter how much you know, you will be amazed. Unregulated motor vehicle exhaust may well be the determining cause of lung cancer, and other disease. But the health authorities prefer to mislead to us, and blame smoking,for it is easier to blame Philip Moms than General Motors... at least today. Tomorrow GM could be the next target http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/north-sLhtm --------forces International: Back to The evidence THE EXHAUST EMISSION STUDY Lung cancer? Child protection? If you're interested in air quality in connection with these issues, here is a study that will blow your socks off. For a long time now, FORCES has stated its belief that the antismoking industry is mainly a cover-up for bigger problems, and we have promised evidence. Once again, here it is. If what you read here scares,that's good. It should. The study we present today is an extract from: 'Exhaust Emissions" Study, published in January 1996, and from: Report from Mobile Sources Emissions Division of Environment Canada. These studies were not meant to make any point on the issue of smoking.This makes them perfect.for our purposes, since the possibility of bias in the direction of any agenda is not even remote. The first study was meant to compare the emissions of three different hydrocarbon based fuels, among them, gasoline. To achieve the comparison, it was necessary to describe the toxicity level COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIaNG AS A SOURCE OF POLLLMON,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES— 12— l v of gasoline, on its way into the engine, and on its way out.The second study, from Environment Canada, shows the abundant presence of very dangerous airborne carcinogens in gasoline, gasoline:fumes, and its after-combustion exhausts. We have taken these studies and performed a simple extrapolation of data (methodology explained) in order to offer a "taste"of the environmental disaster we are facing. Please note that in what follows not all substances present in these hydrocarbon fuels are reported: only those which the three fuels share in common have been considered. If we compare the emissions described below with the grand total of 100 milligrams a day per person from second hand smoke recently claimed by the Canadian Cancer Society in a piece of newspaper advertising propaganda,we can see.that their per capita emission figures are many thousands of times smaller than the ones reported here.They are moving on very thin ice in attempting to describe cigarette smoke as an environmental concern. When the health officers bark in front of city councils about"protecting children"from second hand smoke in restaurants,why don't they mention the children's' exposure to high concentrations of alrborne mutagenic carcinogens from the restaurants' incoming alr? Is this bad faith, misplaced priorities or plain Incompetence? We ask the Canadian Cancer Society and the other various "organ" societies, the medical and political establishments, the Federal and Provincial Ministries of Health, and the rest of the antismoking racket north and south of the border, ff they fleet any shame at aft In persecuting and scapegoating smokers and business operators while being SILENT on the mala cause of cancer and respiratory disease when this kind of reality exists. it is quite obvious that tackling the real problem does not bring any money or political glory from the gravy train,and it would make too many heads roll in the political arena. This behaviour of spreading lies, exaggeration and hysteria among the population is contrary to any morality, and any sense of responsibility and priority. When government and the "non- profit° health organizations sell themselves to this extent, both faith and trust of the citizens have been betrayed.. Exhaust Emission Study Health Effects and Emissions Comparison The following text excerpts are taken from the study: "On Hydrocarbon-based fuels]... there are many components which are hamrtul to humans, depending upon the duration and intensity of exposure. (...]" "Many vehicle emissions have already been identified as being anything from general health hazards, and Irritants, to being carcinogenic (able to induce cancer development), mutagenic (able to induce genetic mutation) and even terstrogenic (able to induce reproductive impairment) to humans." "It has been estimated by the E.P.d. that 5O%of the total cancer incidence from air toxins In Los Angeles, Phoenix, Baton Rouge, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, from 1980-1995, would be attributable to emissions of benzene and 1,3 butadiene from motor vehicles." [12] "Only a small number of the emissions which have the potential to adversely affect our heaith are mentioned In this paper.To understand why, it is important to note again that the objective of this report is to relate the comparative emissions aspects of the three fuels being evaluated. If the emissions cannot be compared for all three fuels they are not included in the COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIGNG AS A SOURCE OF POWMON.COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES- 13- body of this report The following tables summarize the results of the study: WHAT GOES IN THE ENGINE AS THIS... benzene (Click on the Benzene.molecule to interpret the tables, and to understand the toxicity of these chemicals) M=MMXMMMMMM Dow The EXHAUST EMISSION STUDY- Explanatory Page http://www.fbrces-org/evidence/files/nor-expl.htm Question: Why are certain components of gasoline being shown many times over? Answer: Some chemicals have many different forms or"isomers° [*]. These isomers have the same basic structure but may have bonds in different places and other unique features, which make them different from one another but not enough to knock them out of being in the same chemical °family°.There are many isomers of hexene. Without doing extensive testing to determine the exact speciation of the individual hexene type in the gasoline sample, the machine used to analyze the sample can only determine that a °hexene° came out but of what type, we're not sure. (*] Isomer: any of two or more compounds that have the same molecular formula and thus the same chemical composition but that differ in properties due to different arrangements of the atoms in their molecules. (Macmillan Dictionary) Question: What do the assorted n.0°. 0.1)", "Ag mean? Answer. .P = PARAFFINS .O = OLEFINS .N = NAPHTENES .A = AROMATICS .X = OXYGENATES TOXICITY ALDEHEYDES Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, and Acrolein are the more prevalent aldehydes in vehicle exhaust. These three all act as eye, nose, throat and sidin (irritants, can produce nausea, Iddney damage, chronic respiratory disease, Inhibit the immune system,and have been shown to be mutagenic or carcinogenic or both. [15, 16, 17, 18] Aldehydes are typically not a component of gasoline itself.These emissions are a byproduct of inefficient combustion and the °mixing" of the combustion emission products. The addition of oxygenated compounds, such as ethanol, ethanol and MTBE to gasoline has been shown to somewhat Increase the emissions of formaldehyde. (22] AROMATICS Benzene, styrene, toluene, and the "o °, °m °, and 'p" xylenes are known to irritate the eyes, nose and throat, and cause drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, vomiting, nausea, fatigue, abdominal pain, confusion, Insomnia, and euphoria. Benzene is a carcinogen and styrene is COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIONG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES- 14- mutagen [26, 271. These few compounds belong to the family of aromatics which constitute a major component of gasoline (typically around 30%). As a result, aromatic emissions are.a significant part of the combustion of gasoline. In addition, aromatics are released by evaporation from the gasoline mix during storage, refuelling and from idle vehicles. OLEFINS (Alkenes) 1,3 Butadiene, one compound in the family of alkenes, has been found to present a more potent cancer risk than benzene and formaldehyde. [49] Otherwise, 1,3 Butadiene is a mild irritant to the eyes, nose and throat, causes drowsiness, and light headedness. Butadiene is formed as a result of a reaction of exhaust emissions on the catalyst. [53, 541 The total of the olefins in raw gasoline is about 1.8% of its composition CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) CO2 is a simple asphyxiant, but can also cause headaches, dizziness, dyspnea (laboured respiration), inconsistent heart rate, coma, convulsions, and asphyxia._[35] It is also recognized as a greenhouse gas (a gas which is recognized as contributing toward climate change around the world). [36] CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) CO can cause headaches, nausea, weakness, dizziness, hallucinations, cyanosis (blood oxygen deficiency), angina, syncope (restriction of blood to brain), and asphyxiation. It's classified as being capable of chemical anoxia (generating hypoxia [oxygen deficiency] to the degree of permanent damage). [38] CO also indirectly adds to the greenhouse effect by interfering with the natural breakdown of methane, a greenhouse gas. [39] OXIDES OF NRROGEN (NOx) Exposure to nitrogen dioxide results in cumulative lung damage; it is a moderate irritant to the eyes and nose,and can cause coughing, frothy sputurn, dyspnea (shortness of breath), chest pain, pulmonary edema, cyanosis, tachypnea, tachycardia (relatively rapid heart action), and eye irritation. Exposure to nitrous oxide (N20) -a byproduct of reactive gasses in the atmosphere and nitrogen dioxide(NO2) -causes reproductive impairment in males and females. [46] The United States are the heaviest Nitrogen Oxides polluter in the world, while Canada ranks second. COUNTRY NITROGEN OXIDES NITROGEN OXIDES TOTAL NITROGEN POLLUTION POLLUTION OXIDES POLLUTION Kaftad/yr Pounds/head/day Metric lbnnes/year CANADA 69.1 0.41 1,796,600 U.SA 73.4 0.44 18,155,490 JAPAN 10.5 0.06 1 1,297,905 (source for table:The Economist-World in figures, 1997 edition) COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIONG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION.COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES— 15— METHANE Methane is an asphyxiant if the displaced 02 level is 18% or less by volume. [41] OZONE This is a powerful and irritating pollutant that harms human health, agricultural crops, and structural materials. Hospital admissions of acute respiratory diseases including asthma, go up when the concentration of ozone rises above 80 parts per billion. Researchers believe that ozone is one of the greatest causes of lung disease, together with fine particulate emissions such as vehicle exhausts,wood buming, and smoking. PROPANE Propane causes dizziness,disorientation and frostbite. [57] SULPHUR DIOXIDE (SO2) This is an eye, nose, throat and skin irritant, causes bronchoconstriction, coughing, choking, rhinorrfiea, is a mutagen, and is suspect of reproductive effects. [60] SO2 and NO2 Evidence suggests that the presence of the combination of NO2 (Nitrogen) and SO2 may increase the discomfort of people with asthma or bronchitis. [61] Canada Is the heaviest Sulphur Dioxide polluter In the work!, while the United States rank second. COUNTRY SULPHUR DIOXIDE SULPHUR DIOXIDE TOTAL SULPHUR POLLUTION POLLUTION DIOXIDE POLLUTION Kg/head/yr Pounds/head/day Metric Tonnestyear CANADA 118.7 0.71 .3,086,200 U.SA. 81.2 0.49 20,084,820 JAPAN 7.0 0.042 865,270 (source for table:The Economist-Worid in figures, 1997 edition) COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIGNG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES- 16 - L LIST OF 500 CHEMICALS DETECTED IN GASOLINE: (go to website for chart) COMES OUT OF THE TAILPIPE AS THIS... AVERAGE EXHAUST HYDROCARBON COMPOSITION FROM GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLES ETHANE ETHYLENE ACETYLENE PROPANE 1-BUTENE i-BUTENE trans-2-BUTENE cis-2-BUTENE .trans-2-PENTENE cis-2-PENTENE i-BUTANE 1-PENTENE n-BUTAANE CYCLOPENTANE 2-ME11HYLPENTANE 3-METHYLPENTANE METHYLACETYLENE i-PENTANE n-HEXANE METHYLCYCLOPENTANE< C6 OLEFINS BENZENE n-HEPTANE 2-METHYLHEXANE 2,4-DIMETHYLPENTANE METHYLCYCLOHEXANE Other C7 TOWENE CYCLOALKANES 2,2,4- Other C8 ALKANES ETHYLBENZENE m,p XYLENES TRIMETHYLPENTANE n-NONANE Other C9 ALKANES n-PROPYLBENZENE i-PROPYLBENZENE 1,3,5- m,p-ETHYLTOWENES o-ETHYLTOWENE n-DECANE TRIMETHYLBENZENE n-PENTANE 2-METHYL-2-BUTENE 2.2-DIMETHYLBUTANE CYCLOHYEXANE 3-METHYLHEXANE n-OCTANE o XYLENE 1.2.4- TRIMErHYLBENZENE PROPYLENE Other C10 ALKANES Other C11 and C12 and AROMATICS ALKANES and AROMATICS ...AND THIS ... Formaldehyde-Acetaldehyde -Acetone-Acrolein - Propionaldehyde - Crotonaldehyde - Butyraldehyde-Butanone - Benzaldehyde- Pentanaldehyde-Tolualdehyde Hexanaldehyde UNREGULATED CARCINOGENIC EMISSIONS We would like to note: In other studies featured by FORCES Canada we have already shown the enormous amount of regulated pollutants (Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrocarbons), with North American figures of 58 million tons yearly, or over two pounds per person per day.This should already give us a good comparison with second hand cigarette smoke. What we have not yet examined are the non-regulated pollutants, specifically the heavily carcinogenic ones. By weight, the presence of these non-regulated pollutants does not.seem as impressive as the regulated ones,but it takes immensely less quantity for these compounds to kill, or to promote the development of lung cancer. Some of the names are familiar—like formaldehyde, others are more exotic. But all are deadly substances. COMPIARAME EVIDENCE:SMOIGNG AS A SOURCE OF POULMON.COMPARED WmH OTHER SOURCES 17- Vehicular emission tests of unregulated pollutants have demonstrated the presence of tremendous amounts of deadly carcinogens, all airborne, thus absorbed through the respiratory tract: Here is an example of a real test on a common pick-up truck. ALDEHYDE and KETONES POLLUTANT Weighted Emissions milligrams/mile FORMALDEHYDE 15.32 ACETALDEHYDE 6.43 ACROLEIN 0.82 ACETONE 5.3 PROPIONALDEHYDE 0.88 CROTONALDEHYDE 0.17 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.86 BENZALDEHYDE 0.86 BENZENE 13.26 (Source: Mobile Sources Emissions Division- Environment Canada Report-July 1991) Using simple arithmetic, we can extrapolate the following table: Total Canadian Total US Daily amount Dally amount POLLUTANT emissions per emissions per capita (3) - per capita (4) - year(1) per year (2) Canada US metric tons metric tons milligrams milligrams FORMALDEHYDE 1,838.4 25,576.0 180 269.5 ACETALDEHYDE 771.0 11,574.0 75.5 121.9 ACROLEIN 98.4 1,476.0 9.3 15.5 ACETONE 636.0 9,540.0 62.2 100.5 PROPIONALDEHYDE 105.6 11584:0 10.3 16.7 CROTONALDEHYDE 20.4 306.0 1.99 3.2 METHYL ETHYL 103.2 1,548 10.0 16.3 KEPONE BENZALDEHYDE 103.2 1,548 10.0 16.3 BENZENE 1,591.2 23,868.0 155.7 251.5 (1) milligrams/mile times 15,000 miles (average yearly driving) times 8,000,000 vehicles (2) milligrams/mile times 15,000 miles (average yearly driving) times 120,000,000 vehicles (3) total Canadian emissions divided 28,000,000 people divided 365 days (4) total US emissions divided 260,000,000 people divided 365 days Therefore: The Canadian daily per capita amount of these powerful carcinogens is: 515 milligrams, to which we add about 900 GRAINS (2 pounds) of HC, CO, and NOx. The US daily per capita amount is: 811 milligrams, plus about 900 GRAMS (2 pounds) of HC, CO, and NOx. COMIPARAnVE EVIDENCE:SMOIGNG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION.COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES- 18- The above, of course, assumes properly tuned vehicles (did you tune up your car, recentiy7), and it does not keep Into account factories, power plants and airplane emissions, to say nothing of big diesel trucks and buses. Moreover, this is a population average In urban areas,these figures increase dramatically. Moreover, the vehicle population base for both Canada and U.S.A. has been kept at a very conservative level.The actual vehicle population — if we include industrial vehicles—approaches 12,000,000 vehicles in Canada, and 1130,000,000 in the United States. Still feet that the world will be a safer place if we ban smoking in restaurants, workplaces, pubs and even outdoor patios...? COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIaNG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES- 19- REFERENCES 1-Toxicological Profile for Automotive Gasoline(Draft for Public Comment),US Department of Health& Human Services, Public Hearth Services,29 November,1993. 2-Ice Skating Arenas:The Cold Air Pool, Henry P. Garcia,Environmental Health Review, Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors,Vol. 30, No.i, Spring,1986. 3- Emission Exposure, Risk Identification and Risk Quantification,Volume 102,Supplement 4, October 1994, National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (U of A)-The Relationship Between Gasoline Composition and Vehicle Hydrocarbon Emissions:A Review of Current Studies and Future Research Needs,Dennis Schuetzle,Walter 0. Seigl,Trescott E.Jensen, Mark A. Dearth, E.William Kaiser, Robert Gorse,Walter Kreucher,Edward Kulik. 4-The Role of Methane in Tropospheric Chemistry,Dan S. Golomb and James A. Fay, Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,March,1989. 5-Toxicological Profile for Automotive Gasoline(Draft for Public Comment),U.S.Department of Health& Human Services, Public Health Services, 29 November,1993. 6-Discussion Alberta Research Council representative,14 December,1995. 7-CHEMINFO-Gasoline-Canadian Centre of Occupational Health and Safety, Issue: 95-3 (August,1995). 8-Fuels Bulletin,Gasoline, Diesel and STEX, Petro Canada,June,1993. 9-Toxicological Profile for Automotive Gasoline(Draft for Public Comment),U.S.Department of Health& Human Services,Public Health Services, 29 November,1993. 10-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings,of a U.S. EPA/A and WMA International Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburg,Pennsylvania- The Impact of Methanol and CNG Fuels on Motor Vehicle Toxic Emissions; Frank Black and Peter Gabele, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,1992. 11- Emission Exposure, Risk Identification and Risk Quantification,Volume 102,Supplement 4, October,1994. National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences(U of A)-The Relationship Between Gasoline Composition and Vehicle Hydrocarbon Emissions:A Review of Current Studies and Future Research Needs. 12-Air Toxics from Mobile Sources&the Requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments(Keynote -- —Address), Phil Lorang,Emission Planning-&Strategies Division, Office of Air&Radiation, U.S. E.PJL.-Ann Arbor Michigan,RA 577 A9T755,1992.. 13-New federal toxics policy places onus on industry, Canadian Environmental Regulation&Compliance News,Vol.6,No.6,June,1995. 14-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a US. EPA/A and WMA International Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association,Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 1992:Update on U.S. EPA Activities in the Assessment of Mobile Source Air Toxics. 15-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a U.S. EPA/A and WMA International Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - Cument Information on the Evaluation of the Health Effects of Senzene,1,3 Butadiene and Formaldehyde: Sharon A Segal,Clement International Corporation, 9300 Lee Highway, Farfax,VA22031, 1992. 16-Emission Exposure, Risk Identification and Risk Quantification,Volume 102,Supplement 4,October,1994. National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences(U of A)-Mutations Induced in the Hypoxanthine Phosphoribosyl Transferase Gene by Three Urban Air Pollutants:Acetaldehyde, Benzo(a)pyrene Diolepoxide,and Ethylene Oxide(135-138). 17-The Environmental Effects of Wansportation Fuels, final Report,September,1993. COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOKING AS A SOURCE OF POLUUMON,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES-20 - 18-Chemical Information Manual, U.S. Department of Labor(sic),Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support Government Institutes,Inc., October,1988. 19-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a U.S. EPA/A and WMA International Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania- Emissions from Gaseous Fuel Vehicles,P. Mulawa and S. Cadle, Environmental Science Department, D. Hilden, Fuels and Lubricants Department General Motors Research Laboratories,1992. 20-Vehicle Emissions, Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June, 1995 (Clean Fleet). 21-Emissions Evaluation of Bi-Fuelled Vehicles,Project NGV 200-4.14,August 1993,Canadian Gas Association, Natural Gas for Vehicles Research and Development Fund. 22-The Environmental Effects of Transportation Fuels, Final Report,September,1993. 23-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a U.S. EPA/A and WMA International Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - Emissions from Gaseous Fuels Vehicles, P. Mulawa and S. Cadle, Environmental Science Department, D. Hilden, Fuels and Lubricants Department General Motors Research Laboratories,1992. 24-biehicie Emissions,Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 25-Vehicle Emissions,Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 26-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a U.S.. EPAIA and WMA Intemational Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania- Current Information on the Evaluation of the Health Effects of Benzene,1,3 Butadiene and Formaldehyde: Sharon A Segal,Clement International Corporation,9300 Lee Highway, Farfax,VA 22031, 1992. 27-Chemical Information Manual, U.S. Department of Labor(sic}, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support Government Institutes,Inc.,October,1988. 28-The Environmental Effects of Transportation Fuels, Final Report,September,1993. 29-Regulatory Compliance Data Sheets,Series No.l:Chemicals of Concern File#1.0-BETX 01/09/95. 30-The Environmental Effects of Transportation Fuels, Final Report,September,1993. 31-Toxic Air Pollutant Vehicle Exhaust Emissions with Reformulated Gasolines; Roberta A. Garse,Jr.,Jack D. Benon,Vaughn R. Bums,et.al.;Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions&Health effects, Proceedings of U.S.A. E.P.A/W.M.A. International Specialty Conference,1992. 32-Vehicle Emissions, Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 33-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources:Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a U.S. EPA/A and WMA International Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania- Emissions from Gaseous Fuel Vehicles, P. Mulawa and S. Cadle, Environmental Science Department, D. Hilden, Fuels and Lubricants Department General Motors Research Laboratories,1992. 34-Vehicle Emissions,Statistical Analysis Report.No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 35-Chemical Information Manual, U.S. Department of Labour(sic},Occupational Safety and Health Administration,Directorate of Technical Support Government Institutes, Inc., October,1988. 36-Clean Vehicles and Fuels for British Columbia,A Policy Paper, Province of British Columbia,Ministry of Environment,Lands and Paris,April,1995. 37-Vehicle Emissions,Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 38-Chemical information Manual, U.S. Department of Labour(sic}, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support Government Institutes,Inc.,October,1988. 39-Clean Vehicles and Fuels for British Columbia,A Policy Paper, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIaNG AS A SOURCE OF POLWTION,COMPARED WrT1 OTHER SOURCES—21 — r Environment,Lands and Parks,April,1995. 40-Vehicle Emissions,Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 41-Chemical Information Manual, U.S._Department of Labour[sicL Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support,Govemment Institutes, Inc., May,1988. 42-V@hide Emissions,Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 43-Whide Emissions, Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet) p.17. 44-The Role of Methane 1n Tropospheric Chemistry, Dan S. Golomb and James A. Fay, Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,March,1989. 45-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a U.S. EPA/A and WMA International Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania- Emissiors from Gaseous Fuel Vehicles,P.Mulawa and S. Cadle, Environmental Science Department, D. Hilden, Fuels and Lubricants Department General Motors Research Laboratories,1992. 46-Chemical Information Manual, U.S. Department of Labour[sicL Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support,Government Institutes,Inc., May,1988. 47-Vehicle Emissions,Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 48-College Chemistry by Bruce H. Mahan, Department of Chemistry,University of California, Berkeley, Addison-Weley Publishing Company,Inc.,1966. 49-The Environmental Effects of Transportation Fuels, Final Report,September,1993. 50-Chemical Information Manual, U.S. Department of labour[sic],Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support,Government Institutes, Inc., May,1988. 51-The Environmental Effects of Transportation Fuels, Final Report,September,1993. 52-Toxic Air Pollutant Vehicle Exhaust Emissions with Reformulated Gasolines; Roberta A Garse,Jr.,Jack D. Benon,Vaughn R. Bums,et.al.;Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions&Health Effects, Proceedings of U.S.A. E.P.A./W.M.A. International Specialty Conference,1992. 53-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a U.S. EPA/A and WMA Intemationai Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania- - --Emissions from Gaseous-Fuel Vehicles, P. Mulawa and 5 Cadle„ Enviionmental Sciennce Departmenf, D: Hilden, Fuels and Lubricants Department General Motors Research Laboratories,1992. 54-Vehicle Emissions,Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 55-Clean Vehicles and Fuels for British Columbia,A Policy Paper, Province of British Columbia,Ministry of Environment,Lands and Parks,April,1995. 56-Vehicle Emissions, Statistical Analysis Report No. 6,June,1995 (Clean Fleet). 57-Chemical Information Manual, U.S. Department of Labour[sic],Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support,Government Institutes, Inc., May,1988. 58-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a U.S. EPA/A and WMA international Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - The Hydrocarbon Composition of Exhaust Emitted From Gasoline Fuelled Vehicles, P.F. Nelson and S.M. Quigley,Atmospheric Science Section, CSIRO Division of Fossil Fuels,Australia,August,1983. 59-Toxic Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources: Emissions and Health Effects, Proceedings of a U.S. EPA/A and WMA International Specialty Conference-Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania- Emissions from Gaseous Fuel Vlehides, P. Mulawa and S. Cadle, Environmental Science Department, D. Hilden, Fuels and Lubricants Department General Motors Research Laboratories,1992. COMPARAnVE EVIDENCE:SMOKING AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES- 22- 60-Chemical Information Manual, U.S. Department of Labour[sic],Occupational Safely and Health Administration, Directorate of Technical Support,Government Institutes,Inc.; May,1988. 61-Emission Exposure, Risk Identification and Risk Quantification,Volume 102, Supplement 4, October,1994. National Institutes of Health National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (LT of A)-The Air Quality In Danish Urban Areas; Finn Palgren Jensen and Jes Fenger, National Environmental Research Institute Department of Emissions and Air Pollution, Roslalde,Denmark. 62-Exhaust Emissions From Dual-Fuel Vehicles Using Compressed Natural Gas and Gasoline,Steven H. Cadle, Patricia A. Mulawa,David L. Hilden, Robert Halsall,GM Research Laboratories,Warren, Michigan,Air and Waste Management Association,Presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting &Exhibition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,June,1990. 63-Management Plan for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)and Volatile Organic Compounds(VOCs),Phase 1 November,1990,Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE:SMOIONG AS A SOURCE OF POLLUTION,COMPARED WITH OTHER SOURCES— 23—