May 24, 2006

Re: Second-hand Smoke and Cancer Studies, May 17. It is surprising that Dr. Allen Heimann, medical officer of health, does not know that a 16-per-cent and 17-per-cent estimated increase in risk equates to a 1.16 and 1.17 risk factor which is so low that epidemiologists themselves would normally consider it insignificant because of all the bias and error factor that an epidemiological study presents.

Coming from him, however, it is not surprising that he did not mention that this same study showed a protective effect to children subjected to second-hand smoke. Reliable science? Probably as reliable as a "smoker's tumour" diagnosis on a lung cancer patient, when no such medical term exists, nor can science differentiate from a "non-smoker's tumour."

It's also no surprise that Health Canada declined to test ventilation standards, since they're not at all interested in anything but harassing people who smoke. Their contention that "no ventilation system will protect everybody," along with the World Health Organization and its spinning of statistically insignificant 1.16 risk factors, show how readily the anti-smoking crusaders misrepresent the truth.

After all, we can adequately ventilate underground parking lots against the infinitely more dangerous car fumes present there, as well as everything from mine shafts to factories.

Nor is Dr. Heimann apparently aware of the Ontario government's own study that predicts a $500-million loss at Casino Windsor alone. But if it suits the anti-smoking agenda, why hesitate to ignore real science and true collateral damages?

After all, it's only thousands of jobs and millions in revenue that are at stake in Windsor, and the doctor gets to keep his job.

Iro Zannetides
Citizens Against Government Encroachment
Blainville, Que.
Read

Secondary smoke may not be harmful if controlled
April 20, 2006
Michael Perley's April 13 letter contained at least two important inaccuracies. It is true that there was no "new" study by the WHO declaring "no cancer risk" from secondary smoke.
However, Mr. Perley left out the fact that the largest study ever done by the WHO on secondary smoke quite clearly found no statistically significant indication of any increased risk.
On the contrary, somewhat perversely, it found a significant decreased risk of 22 per cent among children of smokers as compared to matched children of non-smokers.
When these facts were revealed in an article in the British newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph, anti-smoking lobbyists were quick to put out a press release with the headline: "Don't let them fool you! Passive smoke does cause lung cancer."
But, even a quick reading of the study's abstract shows that the claim is untrue.
Mr. Perley also stated that "there is conclusive evidence that engineering approaches do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke."
Again, this is partly true but very misleading. It's like saying "sunscreen and umbrellas do not protect against skin cancer from sunshine."
In both cases the absolute statement taken to extremes could be said to be true: no matter how powerful a sunscreen is used, no matter how large the umbrella one shelters under, some sunlight will hit your skin and, just as with tobacco smoke, no level of exposure has ever been shown to be "safe."
But, just as with sunshine and sunscreens, proper ventilation in a bar or restaurant provides quite sufficient protection from secondary smoke, and no scientific study has ever been done which shows that the smoke in any decently ventilated establishment has ever harmed the long-term health of anyone.
MICHAEL McFADDEN
Philadelphia, Pa.
Read

Dear Editor,

As a visitor to your 'fastest and progressive city in Alberta, I visited a couple of bars and Casinos.

I visited the Sports Bar,"Peanuts", and noticed the smoking area there.
I thought I was in the no-smoking section of the bar until I saw some people smoking. The air in that part of the bar was cleaner and fresher than the air outside!
Incidentally the smoking area was jam-packed with people.(150 people+)
The non-smoking area contained about 30 people.

In your Casinos, I walked from one end to another and I did not know if I was in the smoking or non-smoking area until I saw some ashtrays beside some of the machines.
The barrier between the two sections was 15 feet high and 60 feet wide(no doors or glass partitions between the two areas) but the air in the smoking area was cleaner and fresher than the air outside.

Calgary is living proof that VENTILATION works.
It is sad that other cities don't follow your example..VENTILATION does work.

Calgary should be the captial of Alberta.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
April. 12/06

August 08, 2005

Re: Data Supports Ban, July 30. What I find interesting is that the Canadian Cancer Society only references epidemiological studies as their proof that second-hand smoke is a health hazard.

Epidemiology can only show the relative strength of possible relationships. In order to show the cause of a disease, it is required that there be toxicology studies.

Using a simple survey given out to cancer patients asking them to recall exposure to a substance as they are being diagnosed isn't realistic science. This isn't proof, it is conjecture -- at best a biased guess, not proof of cause.

The statistics-based theory that second-hand smoke is a cause of cancer ignores the real science called toxicology.

Dose relationships recognizes safe levels of exposure to potentially hazardous substances. This well-established science allows uranium to be mined, cars to be painted and toll booth workers to survive high levels of exhaust thanks to adequate ventilation, monitoring and compliance to established limits of exposure.

There are only five unique chemicals released in tobacco smoke. All of the other substances in second-hand smoke cited as being of concern occur in far greater quantities and concentrations in everyday life. Sources like candles, cooking fumes, vehicle exhaust, welding fumes and most domestic and industrial processes cause the release into the air of formaldehyde, benzene, Benzo-a-pyrene and thousands of other chemicals in amounts measured in tons as compared to the micrograms released by burning tobacco.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says "in normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS."

The anti-tobacco campaign is all about fear-mongering, has no real scientific basis, and is just plain wrong. The real data and real science does not support the ban.

It should be the business owners' decision to allow smoking in his business, not a decision made by extremist tobacco control groups. It's better to be safe then sorry, but please, base regulations on real science.

The economy shouldn't suffer when there's no proof of danger.

Lynda Duguay
Allenford, Ont
http://www.canada.com/windsor/windsorstar/news/letters/story.html?id=6c3de67f-a3c4-498e-8dc7-b4d36df8c98d

References:
As an example of the overstated risks and how they create false phobias, a list of chemicals in tobacco smoke is listed below and how many cigarettes burning at the same time it would take to reach the lower threshold of danger in a room 20x20 with 9 foot ceilings at standard temperature and air pressure with no ventilation.

2-Toluidine................229,000
Benzene.......................1290
Acetone...................118,700
Benzo {a} Pyrene......222,000
Cadmium......................1430
Formic acid...................1790
Methylchloride.............11170
Phenol..........................7600

As you can see from this example, thousands to hundreds of thousands of cigarettes would have to be smoked at once to create a hazard, even in a un-ventilated room! This list was compiled by the Public and Health Policy Research group Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Texas in 1999 for OSHA.

02/24/2003 - Reiteration of Existing OSHA Policy on Indoor Air Quality: Office Temperature/Humidity and Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602

Full text of Judge Osteen’s Order and Memorandum Opinion
http://www.forces.org/

August 25, 2005

Everyday there are manufacturers and employees right here in the Twin Cities, throughout Minnesota and around the country who are exposed to potentially hazardous levels of airborne carcinogens like nickel and cadmium which are given off during stainless steel & aluminum welding processes. The airborne OSHA permissible exposure limit (pel) for cadmium is 1.0 milligrams / cu. M., the pel for nickel is the same 1.0 milligrams / cu. M. Our company is called on to provide air filtration solutions to countless manufacturing companies whose airborne levels of cadmium and nickel meet or exceed (fail) the OSHA permissible exposure limit (pel) due to welding smoke…..Where is the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, Non-smokers Rights Organization, American Heart Association, and other non-profit outcries for these tens of thousands of employees whose health is at greater risk because of welding smoke?……..Nowhere to be found….and do you know why…because there is no profit in it.

Now conversely, let's look at a recent Minnesota health department test result regarding secondhand smoke and its comparison to OSHA permissible exposure limits (pel). In 2003 – 2004 in an effort to prove how hazardous secondhand smoke is in our bars & restaurants the city of St. Louis Park, Minnesota's Environmental Health Department tested the air quality in all its bars & restaurants for secondhand smoke concentrations. They initially tested at concentrations in milligrams / cu. M because the OSHA pel for nicotine secondhand smoke is 0.5 milligrams / cu. M, all their readings came back at 0 milligrams / cu. M. This didn't look good if you were trying to prove secondhand smoke was a hazard. So St. Louis Park and expert laboratory officials retested at micrograms / cu. M, a concentration level 1000 times smaller than previous tests. This time they received actual numbers ranging from 1 – 32 micrograms / cu. M, the median reading was 3.3 micrograms /cu. M at an Applebees restaurant which has 2 Smokeeter air cleaners sold & installed by our company. The 3.3 micrograms /cu. M is 150 times lower (safer than) the OSHA pel for secondhand smoke requires.

To put this in context, manufacturing workers are exposed daily to airborne hazardous levels of carcinogens such as cadmium and nickel which are equal to or exceed (fail) the OSHA permissible exposure limits (pel); while secondhand smoke concentrations in our bars & restaurants is 150 times lower (safer than) the OSHA pel requires. Why then, aren't the non-profits and anti-smoking activists pushing our politicians for government bans on stainless steel and aluminum welding, or plasma cutting operations?.…..Yet, they are willing to spend millions of dollars, to testify about estimated claims or questionable studies, in an effort to convince local politicians that secondhand smoke requires a government ban.

To answer the question why, you need to realize where the anti-smoking activists and non-profits' funding comes from. Since 1996 the non-profits and anti-smoking activists have received nearly $200,000,000.00 in grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Minnesota's own University of Minnesota received over $400,000.00 in one year alone from RWJF…is it any wonder then what U of M test results are going to indicate about secondhand smoke?

Who is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and why would they fund the non-profits and anti-smoking activist groups to lobby for smoking ban legislation? RWJF was setup from funding by the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical company. To this day nearly all RWJF board members are former Johnson & Johnson board members and / or employees. In addition, according to 2004 documents, RWJF is the single largest shareholder in Johnson & Johnson Company with nearly $5.4 billion worth of stock holdings. One of Johnson & Johnson's products, manufactured by their wholly owned subsidiary ALZA Corporation, is D-Trans, which is the base material for all nicotine patches on the market today. ALZA's website claims Nicoderm CQ and Clear Nicoderm CQ among its chief products.

So in conclusion, we now know the reason activists and non-profits such as American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, Non-smokers Rights Organization, American Heart Association, American Medical Association and other non-profits are lobbying for smoking ban legislation…..it's money and a desire to keep those lucrative pharmaceutical grants rolling in. As for Johnson & Johnson and their counterpart RWJF, they know smoking bans produce future customers of their proprietary products and in turn, big profits. We feel it is time our politicians and the public know the truth. We also want to highlight one of the only relevant studies ever conducted in our bars & restaurants regarding secondhand smoke, and the government results prove secondhand smoke concentrations are 150 times safer than the foremost employee health safety advocate –OSHA- requires.

Mark Wernimont
Smokeeter company
http://www.clean-air-quality.com/