3 Responses to “Quitting or Stopping Smoking with Zyban” »»

1. fxr
   Comment by fxr | 01/24/06 at 4:33 am

   Warning; Those easily insulted by non-politically correct views; please save your immortal soul, protect your offspring avoid other global calamities ending in the destruction of the universe and read no further.
   Lets get radical for a bit. I’m saying way out there in left field among the kooks and deranged individuals. Away from government sensibilities decreeing the product needs no scrutiny, it is the victim that needs to be blamed. Taking the product off the shelf, until it could be proven safe for consumption solved tainted tuna. Dealing with the product missed a huge opportunity in taxing the hospital patients for costs to health care. How do we in our wisdom, define a cigarette? Medicinal benefits would define it as a drug requiring a drug classification. Environmental issues would require monitoring by the ministry of the environment. Cigarettes are believed to be, by the federal Government and the World Health Organization, best suited as a political issue now regulated by the political consensus driven Ministry Of Health in an apparent vacuum well insulated from the knowledge of other departments.. A ministry whose head scientist is limited by lack of training it appears his background has been dedicated to political study. He is not well equipped to handle the issues of public safety at hand outside of the political implications, which promote through slander and segregation special taxation in direct contravention of the Canada health act. Ad agency spin in “Social Marketing” describes through the ministry website directives; attempts to direct what Canadians think as opposed to understanding what we actually do think. Gomery touched on that line of thinking and the dangers to integrity of Government process through political party branding. The 47,000 preventable deaths of smokers are currently, and we believe wisely, being cured by protecting non-smokers from inhaling less than 1/100,000 the concentration inhaled by smokers. This would indicate the powers that be find those smokers deaths inevitable and acceptable. Further to use those deaths as an abstract for political expediency is also an acceptable act. Deaths of 1/2 of the current 6 million smokers are actually seen to be inconsequential The fact the figure describes smoker deaths not non-smokers deaths can also easily be dismissed in kind, as long as the product produces profit, taxation levels will be maintained, which serves quite well the majority of community. The arguments of science and common sensibilities would have us actually punishing the manufacturers. Contrary to public belief that has not yet happened. In fact tobacco settlements removing manufacturers from further future liability in the United States were marked up and passed on to consumers, as were all the special billing for universal health care in Canada known as tobacco taxes. Stated to be cost to healthcare yet amounts are consistent with WHO recommendations price increases as “5% above the inflation rate for the next 5 years” Elimination of advertising and sponsoring of public events goes straight to the manufacturers bottom line. Not much wonder the Federal government was investing pension funds in big tobacco; profits have never been higher and cost of production never lower. Allowing unrestricted cheaper imported products to flow into Canada to compete with domestic regulated products again increased the share equity position.
   Soon similar taxation of the Pan Canadian strategy will expand the plan into the grocery stores. Hardly an attempt to hold manufacturers responsible, if indeed they are creating a health risk, efforts are aimed at passing liability again to the victims. The proposed 75% taxation of hamburger and 300% rebates to healthy food advertisers will suit a public need for increased taxation and party branding among media groups profiting from the promotion. It can be assumed the damage to the cattle industry will be temporary as were the detrimental effects to the hospitality industry through the imposition of smoking bans.
   If truth were known the only one, of all the 5000 ingredients in Tobacco smoke all with safe levels measured in milligrams per cubic meter of air is of course dioxin. Dioxin requires 3 ingredients Ammonia, Organic material and a low temperature flame. Recent research in Japan showed no Dioxin in the paper or the Tobacco however Dioxin did exist in the smoke. At the world trade center Dioxin levels monitored at levels below .16 Nana grams per cubic meter of air were considered safe. Co-incidentally the same safe level referred to by James Repace as his known safe level in air water and food he states according to the US government. It could be suspected the no safe level is actually predicated on this level of harm as are predictions of 42% of the public will get cancer at some point. This percentage is very close to the known risk of persons with maximum accumulated state levels of Dioxin stored in their body fat. Even without smoking we will all likely reach the maximum saturation or state level due to other sources.
   Fat really is the new tobacco.
   This would say the medical charities and the health departments have been a little short of entire honesty in what they know is likely the most predominant cancer risk in smoking. This would allow us a new radical thought lets say a government 40 years ago banned the use of chlorine in cigarettes how many of the 47,000 preventable deaths would have actually been prevented. By rough calculation 2/3 the same level smoking has been reduced in that time frame. In the same period smoking related diseases increased by the same 2/3 level. A simple examination of dioxin poisoning and medical outcomes in fact will show clearly a Dioxin parallel to everything they say about smoking and the related diseases. If in fact you take their numbers as gospel you will by examining the side of a cigarette package and a few calculations quickly see; The levels of dioxin produced by a single package are in excess of 2 milligrams 1 milligram of Dioxin inhaled by a smoker every day will ultimately lead to the punishment the Ontario health department spoke of in “quit or be punished”. We shut down an incinerator in Toronto with dioxin levels a million times lower. Yet the government in efforts of protecting 6 million smokers fails to announce the full harm or do anything to reduce it. One can only conclude the death penalty is alive and well and living in Ontario. Industry health and safety controls are in fact a fictional political euphemism.
   Note; the diesel trucks hauling the Toronto garbage are producing Dioxins thousands of times higher than the original incinerator. Simply increasing the temperature of burning by as little as 300 degrees could, have eliminated the dioxin in the original incinerator. But hey that’s just the radical view. Your doctor does know best. Huge sums being paid in the trucking deals are simply a matter of public demand among a public who were largely unaware a problem existed, prior to ad agency media campaigns of yet unknown origin.

   Risk and health
   “3.17 Potential effects. Some industrial chemicals and pesticides in the environment have been linked to lung diseases, reproductive problems and birth defects, developmental disorders, allergic reactions, lowered resistance to disease in humans and cancer. In wildlife, eggshell thinning, deformities, reproductive dysfunction, tumors, embryo and adult mortality have been linked to toxic substances.
   3.18 Toxicity and risk. Generally, toxicity refers to the capability of a substance to injure humans and ecosystems. In this sense, all substances – both natural and synthetic – are potentially toxic. But it is the dose that makes the poison: even highly toxic substances will not cause harm unless people or wildlife are exposed to them in air, water, soil or food.
   3.19 The concept of risk is central to federal decision-making on toxic substances and, by extension, was central to this audit. In simple terms, risk refers to the probability of experiencing harm combined with the extent of that harm. It is a function of the hazard presented by a substance and of our exposure to it. Estimating risk is not simple, and risk assessment is almost a scientific discipline unto itself. In theory, scientific calculations of the risk posed by some industrial chemicals and pesticides can be compared with levels considered to be acceptable and with the risk posed by other activities or conditions. The relative priority of the substances can then be established, and the environmental, social and economic costs and benefits of reducing the associated risk can be evaluated.
   3.20 We live in a world full of risk. Driving a car, taking medication, smoking, and sunbathing are all activities that have a risk associated with them. Some risks result from personal choices; others are imposed on us. The extent to which toxic substances in the environment pose significant risks to human health and ecosystems is not a matter of scientific consensus. Some believe that the risks posed are insignificant – or at least acceptable – especially compared with other risks encountered and tolerated every day. Others disagree.
   3.21 We are often faced with choices involving trade-offs between risks and benefits. Modern chemicals provide important economic, health and social benefits. Therefore, actions to reduce risks by eliminating exposure can have significant economic and social implications. For this reason, stakeholders often debate whether the costs of reducing the risks, including lost uses of the substance, are worth the benefits.
   3.22 The use of chlorine to disinfect drinking water is an example of the complexity of risk as it pertains to toxic substances. The use of chlorine has been heralded as one of the most successful public health initiatives ever and is believed to prevent thousands of potentially fatal infections each year. Recently, however, chlorination by-products in drinking water have been linked to cases of bladder cancer, illustrating that there are benefits and risks associated with the same activity.”
   References
   http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c903ce.html#0.2.2Z141Z1.NBS3AG.68WQBF.V
   http://www.acosh.org/art/critical_evaluation.pdf
   http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health25a.htm
   http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=54886
   http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=23969
   http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Dioxins-Cigarette-Smoke.htm
   http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=87726
   http://www.epa.gov/wtc/dioxin/index.html
   http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/part1and2.cfm?ActType=default
   http://www.swedish.org/16653.cfm
   http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/coc/tetrachl.htm
   http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;90/19/1440
   http://www.webspawner.com/users/radioactivethreat/
   British Columbia Provincial Ministry of Health
   ”Radon is a naturally occurring, radioactive gas, which is given off by traces of uranium in soil and rock. It is found at varying levels all over the world…. The Ministry of Health estimates that about 100 people a year die of radon induced lung cancer in the Province of British Columbia. Radon likely causes more lung cancers than second hand tobacco smoke.”
   ETS lung Cancer risk is shown here to be below 100 in 30 million population or 3.3 per million at levels averaging 163 NG/M3 air PPAH or 205 MG/m3 air RSP. 2/3 of Lung cancer patients are stated to be smokers. The risk is understandably much higher among smokers. The smoke from the product can be banned for health reasons yet the product is protected and still on the shelf.

   Calculations
   Proportions of what is inhaled actually remaining within the body and increasing health risk can be demonstrated visually in observing a smoker and the majority amount of smoke exhaled during the use of the product. This would indicate a much-elevated risk exists far beyond the mere existence of the PPAH content measured in air testing. The proportions of PPAH assumed to be equal or more dangerous than dioxins risk can be calculated by ratio et al Repace submissions
   [Brook v. Burswood Casino (1999); Badillo v. American Tobacco et al. (1998); Avallone v. American Tobacco et al. (1998); Mullen et al. v. Treasure Chest (1999); Dunn v. Napoleon’s Casino (2003)]
   The existence of 163 Nanograms per cubic meter of air would exceed the known safe level in air water and food by 10,000 times this would establish the known safe level at or below 16.3 Pico grams per cubic meter of air. 1/10 the safe level of Dioxins established as safe et al The WTC monitoring. 160NG/M3 air quality was allowed flexibility in acceptable air standards as exposures would be as stated be one year in duration. Dioxin risk drops with cessation of exposure. We can therefore equate the risk of PPAH to the risk of Dioxins as shown to be Repaces intent. The Parroting of his assessments at the WHO and many Health departments around the planet confirms the consensus view is in total agreement with his submissions. No safe level exists and Designated smoking rooms can afford no protection. The existence of 4 NG/M3 of air as found in non-smoking environments should indicate a need to evacuate those buildings until a safe level can be established.

   An average of RSP 205 MG/M3 contains PPAH 163 NG/M3 By calculation .08%
   A single package of 25 cigarettes each producing 100 Mg RSP can produce 2500 MG total RSPs This would indicate by .08% calculation each package produces 2500 x .0008 = 2 milligrams PPAH with a risk to human health greater or equal to Dioxin with a known safe level not exceeding .16 NG/M3 determined from monitoring of the World Trade Center monitoring program in New York. The level of acceptable risk inhaling smoke produced by a single package of cigarettes; in PPAH exposure is shown to be exceeded by 123 million times 2x 10-3 vs. .0163 x 10-12

   Conclusions
   Assuming a smoker inhales 1/3 to 1/2 of total 2 Milligrams Dioxin like toxins produced this would establish an extreme health risk exists in the use of this product, which should prove fatal for all users. Regardless of the fact this has not been seen to be the case the established risk of second hand smoke, as the basis for smoking bans should remain consistent where a much larger harm is seen to exist Neil Coleslaw in his book exhibits a willingness to participate in efforts to in effect kill more smokers as the Industry is nationalized while destroying the industry from within. This of course would allow a new opportunity in new startup companies and illegal black market trade, which will grow market share as the national brands decline. Others in Anti ETS advocacy claim there is no proof Canadian Tobacco is any safer than other tobacco. We always had good reason to believe the control of additives Flue curing and regulated growing conditions would result in a safer product. Michael Hurley publicly stated recently there is absolutely no evidence to prove Canadian tobacco is any safer than products produced elsewhere. Good science is dismissed as are smokeless tobacco products known to reduce respiratory health risks enormously. Nicotine delivery products much more expensive in smoking patches are allowed advertising are promoted by government ministries despite potentially harmful side effects making them not an option for many. The product is protected and the victims are attacked decided by consensus view as best practices, pleasing all stakeholders, in, for all intents and purposes; a gold rush mentality constructing a huge health regime. Cigarettes should be immediately banned from use until such time as harmful ingredients can be removed in the interest of public safety. Monetary concerns have to remain secondary when public safety and the imminent deaths of millions of Canadian citizens hang in the balance. To err on the side of safety should be the dominant principle in a caring and just society. Not just a term recited when convenient for highroad positioning.

   As we already know from multiple research findings of DSR technologies and if those findings are valid, it is indisputable “no safe level exists”. If in fact Dioxin is the predominant risk, as research would indicate. The banning of chlorine in cigarettes is a minimal action which could reduce the risk and eliminate virtually all substantial risk in second hand smoke {ETS} this of course would lower greatly the perceived necessity to impose smoking bans or smoking restrictions when scientific product safety evaluations could allay all fears in the public. This strategy of course would necessitate a re-evaluation of healthcare costs and smoker’s ultimate liability for those costs. Government; which through failure to remain consistent with environmental process and other lapses in good judgment, would have to shoulder a great deal of the blame and misdirected expense liability. Tobacco taxes collected should be returned to those who paid them unnecessarily in contravention of the Canada health act as special fees for health care.

   Tobacco companies although largely responsible for distributing an unsafe product, did act to within a tightly monitored regulatory environment and were not directed to change operational standards in the absence of restrictions of the ingredients of their products. The Government and stakeholders in anti environmental tobacco smoke advocacy by ignoring the larger harm which is shown here to exist, are potential defendants in future class actions or as individual actions seeking damages will no doubt show; The presentations have consistently stated ETS is potentially more dangerous than primary smoke this is totally without merit. They knew of a higher risk to smokers yet took no action in the public interest to regulate ingredients or to remove the products from the shelf as has been the case in other products seen to be much less dangerous. Public trust in the largest charity and government organizations were deliberately franchised in false and misleading promotions decrying smoking directly as safer than the smoke produced. Prohibiting the sale and distribution of smokeless tobacco products has compounded the problem, this would give a false sense of security to the users believing anti side stream smoke campaigns to be purely political in nature benefiting those who do not like the smell. Convenient lack of knowledge of the stakeholders would be little defense considering the impact of those decisions. Perhaps in an effort to maintain credibility and expenditures of public money in exchange for best value a more balanced approach in assessing the validity of industry lobbies and media spin should be considered prior to future international embarrassments and poor managerial decisions. If excess funds are available within the charity organizations to finance the huge media promotions we have seen in Canada perhaps it is time to scrutinize those organizations and direct where goodwill donations actually go in organizations accepting funds stating funds will be used to find cures. If an organization promotes political mood it should be law they advertise purpose prior to accepting funds obviously intended to go elsewhere.

Leave a Reply »»