The Black Informant

Is the “threat” of second hand smoke junk science?

The issue of second hand smoke has never been one that interest me simply because A. I do not smoke, and B. I do not hang with people that do smoke. But when I began to think more on this issue recently, I began to realize that this issue is directly related to the personal freedoms we enjoy in this country. “Freedom” and “Responsibility” are two things that will always go hand in hand. If someone chooses to engage in any type of risky behavior, that person, not society should bear the brunt of the responsibility if the choice turns out to be a bad one.

Another thing that sparked my attention to this issue is that here in California, a commercial has been playing on television that goes through the whole scenario as to what happens to the human body when it is exposed to second hand smoke (or SHS). Off the bat, I noticed that the commercial is very misleading because one would have to be doing the equivalent of sucking a tailpipe to have that kind of damaging experience illustrated on the commercial. In short, if I notice that someone is smoking, I move my black buns elsewhere.

A gentleman by the name of Dave Hitt has a website that kinda gives you the idea of how much misleading is going on in the anti-smoking crowd. I like his following observances on this issue:

• 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 scientific illiteracy 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

Like Hitt, I have no love for the tobacco industry on any level. I also do not have any love for a government that is obsessed with busting up any business that it pleases that THEY deem has become “too big”. Like I mentioned yesterday regarding the current gas situation, you will notice that politicians will not first suggest to limit or eradicate THEIR OWN taxes first. They do this because they (along with many activist groups)  know they can get more mileage (pardon the pun) and public sympathy out of making it “big business” issue only.

Hitt also asks a question that I would like to leave with you: “Name 3 people YOU know that have either become ill or died because of second hand smoke.”

===

Here’s another article that looks at the other side of this issue:

Just how harmful is environmental tobacco smoke?

Not as harmful as the Environmental Protection Agency or those anti-secondhand smoke commercials would have one believe, according to Roger A. Jenkins, Ph.D., consultant to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Chemical Sciences division.

Jenkins presented “Human Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Is What You See What You Get?” at ORNL this week.

“Some people wish I didn’t have the findings I have,” Jenkins said. “Others say, ‘Gee, if this is true, why does the EPA continue to talk about this?’ [The research] steps on people’s toes, and that’s exactly what I want it to do.”

Environmental tobacco smoke is a highly diluted mixture of sidestream (70 to 90 percent) and exhaled mainstream (10 to 30 percent) of tobacco smoke.

“‘Secondhand’ smoke is probably misleading, since most ETS is derived from smoke which is emitted by the smoldering firecone of a cigarette,” Jenkins said.

< ...>

“Sure, there are 43 carcinogens (cancer-causing agents) in ETS, but there are also probably about 40 carcinogens in diesel exhaust and wood smoke,” Jenkins said.
Indoor air pollution is also caused by many things other than non-tobacco sources, including cleaning, cooking, consumer products like Raid and wood burning.

“As (physician) Paracelsus said in the early 1500’s, ‘the poison is in the dose,’” Jenkins said. “We still continue to eat lettuce and take showers despite their carcinogens. Life is risky business.” (more…)

===

Zooming in on just one environmental culprit is very misleading. I will try to revist or add to this post later.